University of Florida s46

University of Florida Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Final Design Project EML 4304C – Thermal/Fluid Design and Lab

Prepared by: Frank Monzon Brandon Krick Keaton Davis Eunice Cavalcanti

Date: August 10th, 2006.

Abstract

The purpose of this project was to design and analyze three alternative piping layouts for a circulating system. The main objective was to determine which layout obtained the lowest life cycle cost. The project includes the design of different pipe layouts, determining pipe sizes, completing energy balance calculations, total head loss calculations, pump selection, and a cost estimate and determining life cycle costs. This was accomplished using principles learned throughout the semester. We recommend the 4 – 6 ft./100ft. head loss system based on the 20 year life cycle using the present worth value analysis. Introduction

Given the attached floor plan, sections, standard details, and table of data below, our team was to lay out a direct return hydronic piping system to connect the source device to the two pumps in parallel. The pumps then supply eight water source heat pumps with inlet water at 70 degrees and outlet water at 85 degrees Fahrenheit. We provided two circulating pumps in parallel. One of the pumps is redundant and serves as a back-up pump. The piping system runs from the equipment pad underground and enters the building at an area adjacent to where the pumps are located. The piping was routed through the ceiling and then was hung from joists. Take offs and drops were provided to connect each process device to the distribution piping. Table 1 shows the requirement of our Water Source Heat Pumps.

The piping was laid out and the flow rates determined for each section of pipe. Sizing of the pipe was done with schedule 40 steel pipes on three different distribution systems using the following design criteria: 0.2-1.0 ft/100ft, 1.0-4.0 ft/100 ft, and 4-6 ft/100 ft. From there an appropriate frame mounted circulating pump was selected for each application. Drawings, to scale, are provided to illustrate the systems.

The first cost, using detailed cost estimating procedures with the Means estimating guide, and annual operating cost for each of the systems above were determined. We assumed a constant flow system that operates 2000 hours per year. Electricity would cost $0.04/kWh for consumption and $4.50/kW per month for demand. Valves, fittings, piping, and an air separator are included in our first cost. Not included in the first cost are the source device and any of the process devices. For sake of simplicity, the cost of pipe insulation was not included. In reality this has the effect on total life cycle cost but will not affect our final conclusion as to which sizing criterion is most cost effective. The costs are included in the cost section.

It was assumed that the cost of money was 8% and that the escalation cost for electrical energy is 4%. For a project life of 20 years with no replacements, the present worth of owning and operating each of the three systems was estimated. A recommendation as to which system we recommend based on the analysis is given.

Table 1: Energy and Head Loss from given Water Source Heat Pumps.

Water Source Heat Pump (Btuh) Head Loss A 165000 5 B 172000 5 C 160000 5 D 180000 5 E 160000 5 F 160000 5 G 145000 5 H 180000 5 Approach and Results o Pipe Layout Figure 1 shows the two dimensional top view of the pipe and water source heat pump layout. The main pipes were labeled by numbers, while the pipes connecting the main to the Water Source Heat Pumps (WSHP) were labeled by letters. Figure 2 shows a three dimensional view of the piping system.

Figure 1: 2D view of the pipe layout design.

Figure 2: 3D view of pipe layout design.

o Determining from required Typically are given for water source heat pumps but in this situation we assumed the rejected heat ( ) was given. In order to determine the , we started with the rate of heat rejection for the 8 water source heat pumps and a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 2.5. Once and were known, we were then able to find the work of the compressor.

(eq. 1)

(eq. 2)

By combining equation 1 and equation 2 we can obtain as:

(eq. 3)

(eq. 4)

o Energy Balance (Flow Rate Calculations) The first step was to assume quality of 0 for the water. With that, we calculated the enthalpy of water at its inlet and outlet conditions of 70 and 85 degrees respectively. Next, the energy balance was calculated with the and the enthalpy difference of the water to calculate the flow rate for each pipe.

(eq. 5)

(eq. 6)

Table 2: Energy balance and flow rate calculations. Table 2 shows many properties of the process water for the various water source heat pumps. It shows the Qc and Wcomp as calculated by equation 3 and 4 respectively. It also shows the inlet and exit enthalpy of water used for the energy balance. In addition it shows the mass flow rate and Volumetric flow rate as calculated by equation 5 and 6 respectively.

Water Source Qc Qrej Wc (Btu/h) h1 h2 Mass flow Volumetric flow Heat Pump (Btu/h) (Btu/h) (Btu/lbm) (Btu/lbm) rate (lbm/hr) rate (gpm) A 117857.1 165000 47142.85714 53.07 38.09 11014.69 22.04269 B 122857.1 172000 49142.85714 53.07 38.09 11481.98 22.97783 C 114285.7 160000 45714.28571 53.07 38.09 10680.91 21.37473 D 128571.4 180000 51428.57143 53.07 38.09 12016.02 24.04657 E 114285.7 160000 45714.28571 53.07 38.09 10680.91 21.37473 F 114285.7 160000 45714.28571 53.07 38.09 10680.91 21.37473 G 103571.4 145000 41428.57143 53.07 38.09 9679.573 19.37085 H 128571.4 180000 51428.57143 53.07 38.09 12016.02 24.04657

o Sizing Pipes With the found flow rates, we used the Mcquay pipe sizing program to find the size of each section of pipe. Lastly, we recorded the actual head loss of that pipe. The sizes are shown in Table 2 for the given head losses.

Table 3: Flow rates and pipe sizes by section of pipe. This table shows the required flow rate for each section of the pipe to accommodate for the water requirements of each water source heat pumps. In addition it shows the size of each section of pipe for the three head loss requirements. Pipes 1-4 and a-h correspond to sections of pipe in Figure 1. 1 2 3 4 A b c d e f g h Flow Rate 176.61 133.19 88.84 48.09 22.04 22.98 21.38 24.05 21.38 21.38 19.37 24.05 gpm Pipe Size 5 4 4 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 (inches) for . 2-1 ft/100ft Headloss Pipe Size 3.5 3.5 3 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 (inches) for 1-4 ft/100ft Headloss Pipe Size 3 3 2.5 2 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.5 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.5 (inches) for 4-6 ft/100ft Headloss

o Head Loss Calculations For this calculation, we first found the total length of each size pipe. Next, we multiplied those lengths by 1.5 to account for the minor losses from fittings. Using this length and the previously calculated head loss, we found the total head loss for the longest run of the pipe. The longest run of the pipe can be seen in figure 3. We then added the head loss for the WSHP, the boiler, and the cooling tower. The total headloss for the longest run for each case can be shown in table 4.

Figure 3: Longest Run of Pipe. The longest run of the piping system is highlighted in blue and red.

Table 4: Longest Run Total Headloss. This table shows the total headloss for the longest run of the piping system including headloss in the pipe, minor fittings, the WSHP, the boiler, and the cooling tower. Piping System Head Loss (ft) .2-1 ft/100ft system 41.87194 1-4 ft/100ft system 51.546955 4-6 ft/100ft system 64.24654

o Pump Selection Using the Bell & Gosset pump selection software, we were able to size the pump required for the flow rate and head loss of our system. From that, we selected the most efficient and the cheapest pump that would work for our pipe system. The prices of the pumps were found on the Bell and Gossett in the form of a cost index. A cost index of a 100% pump is found in the Means estimating guide.

For the .2-1 ft/100ft head loss piping system only one pump was selected for additional analysis because the most efficient was also the cheapest. For the 1-4ft/100ft head loss piping system one pump with 100% cost index and 60.9% efficiency was compared to a pump with 120% cost index and 71.82% efficiency. For the 4-6ft/100ft head loss piping system one pump with 100% cost index and 64.61% efficiency was compared to a pump with 129% cost index and 72.09% efficiency. This gave us five different pumps, thus we have 5 different cases to analyze.

Case 1: Two 74.82 % efficient pumps in parallel, one as a backup. Both with a cost index of %100. This system serves the .2-1 ft/100ft headloss piping system.

Case 2: One 71.28% efficient pump in parallel with a 60.9% efficient pump. The 60.9% efficient pump serves as a backup. The cost indices of these pumps are 120% and 100% respectively. This system serves the 1-4 ft/100ft headloss piping system.

Case 3: Two 60.9% efficient pumps in parallel, one as a backup. Both with a cost index of 100%. This system serves the 1-4 ft/100ft headloss piping system.

Case 4: One 72.09% efficient pump in parallel with a 64.61% efficient pump. The 64.61% efficient pump serves as a backup. The cost indices of these pumps are 129% and 100% respectively. This system serves the 1-4 ft/100ft headloss piping system.

Case 5: Two 64.61% efficient pumps in parallel, one as a backup. Both with a cost index of 100%. This system serves the 4-6 ft/100ft headloss piping system.

o Cost Analysis The first step is to list and add the needed tees, elbows, and pipe sizes. Using the Means estimating guide, the material and labor costs were added. For the simplicity of this case, reducers were not factored in, and the pricing was based on the largest dimension of tees and elbows. Also, it was not necessary to take insulation into account. There were two scenarios for the pump selection. There is a cheaper, less efficient pump and there is a more expensive, more efficient pump. Scenario one has two identical pumps in parallel. Both are the cheaper, less efficient pumps. Scenario two has two different pumps in parallel. One of those pumps is the more expensive and efficient pump. The second pump in this system is cheaper and less expensive and serves as a backup. A breakdown of the cost analysis can be found in the appendix. For the annual energy consumption cost, we used the head loss and the flow rate for the longest running pipe, and the efficiency of the pump, the electrical efficiency, and the calculated electrical power needed. Using the $.04/kwh for consumption and $4.50/kw-month for demand we calculated consumption, demand, and the total annual cost. As for the Present Worth Cost Analysis, we used the escalation rate of 4% and the cost of money of 8% to calculate the present worth of our system. The first cost, the annual cost, and the present worth can be seen in table 5. It is shown that the System of the most value is Case 4.

Table 5: First cost, Annual Cost, and PWV for the systems. This table shows an annual cost analysis and 20 year present worth cost analysis for the various piping and pump sizes. The present worth factor was 13.77 as calculated from a cost of money was 8% and an escalation cost for electrical energy of 4%. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Pump .7482 .7128 .609 .7209 .6461 Efficiency Electric 2.07 2.67 3.13 3.30 3.68 Power Consumed (KWh) Consumption 165.57 213.94 250.41 263.65 294.18 Costs ($) Demand 11.76 144.41 169.02 177.97 198.57 Costs ($) Total Annual 277.32 358.35 419.43 441.62 492.75 Electric Cost ($) First Cost ($) 44683 31624 31319 28147 27671 Total Present 48501 36558.45 37094.49 34228.04 34456.06 Worth ($) Conclusions and Recommendations

A piping layout was designed using a direct return system for three different head loss criteria. Pipe sizing and pump selection were calculated for each head loss criteria based on the 8 WSHP’s and the energy they each consume.

 Even though the 1 - 4 ft./100 ft. is typically the most cost effective, the 4 - 6 ft./100 ft. proved to be the most cost effective in our case, over the twenty year life expectancy.  Electric power consumed and consumptions costs were greatest for the chosen piping system.  Using the PWV analysis, which includes first costs, the 4 – 6 ft./100ft. head loss system was proved to be the best choice. This is caused by the first costs being much lower than the others systems.  Prices for pumps were not available from the supplier. They used a cost index to price pumps relative to their cheapest pump.  After the twenty year life cycle cost was performed for each system, it was determined that for the 1 – 4 ft./100 ft. and 4 – 6 ft./100 ft. cases, the most cost effective and reliable option would include one of the more expensive and one of the more efficient pumps. The cheaper and less expensive pump would be used as backup.  We recommend a 1510 2-1/2 BB pump in parallel with a 1510 2 AC pump as a backup.  We recommend for this project using pipe sized for 4 - 6 ft./100 ft. head loss.  The total cost of materials and labor will be $28150.00 to the customer. Appendix: A. Detailed First Cost Analysis B. Pump Selection Details

Tables A1-A5: Detailed first cost analysis.

A1: 0.2 – 1 ft./100ft. Head Loss Description Qty. Unit Labor Unit Mat'l Total Total Labor Mat'l

1510 3" 5HP 225 GPM 2 $1,475.00 ea. $325.00 ea. $2,950 $650 Pump 5" Schl 40 90° elbow 10 $114.00 ea. $168.00 ea. $1,140 $1,680 3" Schl 40 90° elbow 2 $38.00 ea. $59.00 ea. $76 $118 4" Schl 40 T 8 $55.50 ea. $196.00 ea. $444 $1,568 3" Schl 40 T 2 $54.00 ea. $98.00 ea. $108 $196 5" Schl 40 T 4 $91.00 ea. $235.00 ea. $364 $940 2.5" Schl 40 90° elbow 28 $23.00 ea. $42.00 ea. $644 $1,176 2" Schl 40 90° elbow 4 $9.65 ea. $32.50 ea. $39 $130 5" Schl 40 Steel pipe 173 ft $21.00 per ft. $18.40 per $3,633 $3,183 ft. 4" Schl 40 Steel pipe 180 ft $12.00 per ft. $15.90 per $2,160 $2,862 ft. 3" Schl 40 pipe 90 ft $9.05 per ft. $13.70 per $815 $1,233 ft. 2.5" Schl 40 90° elbow 476 ft $7.00 per ft. $11.75 per $3,332 $5,593 ft. 2" Schl 40 90° elbow 68 ft $4.13 per ft. $9.20 per $281 $626 ft. $15,985 $19,955 JACKSONVILLE 0.83 LOCAL $13,315 16,622 MULT. 6 %TAX 997 34 % LAB BU RD. $4,527 20 % O&P $3,569 $3,524 Difficulty n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $21,411 $21,144 5 % $1,071 $1,057 CONTING. TOTAL $44,683 A2: 1 – 4 ft./100ft. Head Loss 100 % Cost Index & Less Efficient Pump (60.9%). Description Qty. Unit Labor Unit Mat'l Total Total Labor Mat'l

Pump 100% cost 2 EACH 196 ea. 1125 ea. 392 $2,250.00 index 3.5" Schl 40 Steel 263 ft $14.70 per ft. $11.95 per $3,866 $3,143 pipe ft. 3" Schl 40 Steel pipe 90 ft $13.70 per ft. $9.05 per $1,233 $815 ft. 2.5" Schl 40 Steel 90 ft $11.75 per ft. $7.00 per $1,058 $630 pipe ft. 2" Schl 40 Steel pipe 136 ft $7.35 per ft. $3.16 per $1,000 $430 ft. 1.5" Schl 40 Steel 408 ft $6.60 per ft. $2.75 per $2,693 $1,122 pipe ft. 1.5" 90° straight 24 EACH $29.50 ea. $6.15 ea. $708 $148 elbow 3.5" 90° straight 8 EACH $103.00 ea. $73.50 ea. $824 $588 elbow 2.5" 90° straight 2 EACH $42.00 ea. $23.00 ea. $84 $46 elbow 3" 90° straight elbow 10 EACH $84.00 ea. $15.35 ea. $840 $154 2.5" tee, straight 2 EACH $65.50 ea. $35.50 ea. $131 $71 2.5" tee, straight 4 EACH $65.50 ea. $35.50 ea. $262 $142 3.5" tee, straight 8 EACH $118.00 ea. $109.00 ea. $944 $872

$14,034 $10,409 JACKSONVILLE 0.83 LOCAL $11,690 8,671 MULT. 6 %TAX 520 34 % LAB BU RD. $3,975 20 % O&P $3,133 $1,838 Difficulty n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $18,798 $11,029 5 % $940 $551 CONTING. TOTAL $31,319 A2 Continued 120 % & 100% Cost Index for a 71.3% and 60.9% efficient pumps, respectively. Description Qty. Unit Labor Unit Mat'l Total Total Labor Mat'l

Pump 100% cost 1 EACH 196 ea. 1125 ea. 196 1125 index Pump 120% cost 1 EACH 235.2 ea. 1350 ea. 235.2 $1,350.00 index 3.5" Schl 40 Steel 263 ft $14.70 per ft. $11.95 per $3,866 $3,143 pipe ft. 3" Schl 40 Steel pipe 90 ft $13.70 per ft. $9.05 per $1,233 $815 ft. 2.5" Schl 40 Steel 90 ft $11.75 per ft. $7.00 per $1,058 $630 pipe ft. 2" Schl 40 Steel pipe 136 ft $7.35 per ft. $3.16 per $1,000 $430 ft. 1.5" Schl 40 Steel 408 ft $6.60 per ft. $2.75 per $2,693 $1,122 pipe ft. 1.5" 90° straight 24 EACH $29.50 ea. $6.15 ea. $708 $148 elbow 3.5" 90° straight 8 EACH $103.00 ea. $73.50 ea. $824 $588 elbow 2.5" 90° straight 2 EACH $42.00 ea. $23.00 ea. $84 $46 elbow 3" 90° straight elbow 10 EACH $84.00 ea. $15.35 ea. $840 $154 2.5" tee, straight 2 EACH $65.50 ea. $35.50 ea. $131 $71 2.5" tee, straight 4 EACH $65.50 ea. $35.50 ea. $262 $142 3.5" tee, straight 8 EACH $118.00 ea. $109.00 ea. $944 $872

$14,073 $10,634 JACKSONVILLE 0.83 LOCAL $11,723 8,858 MULT. 6 %TAX 531 34 % LAB BU RD. $3,986 20 % O&P $3,142 $1,878 Difficulty n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $18,851 $11,268 5 % $943 $563 CONTING. TOTAL $31,624 A3: 4 – 6 ft./100ft. Head Loss 100 % Cost Index & Less Efficient Pump (64.6%) Description Qty. Unit Labor Unit Mat'l Total Total Labor Mat'l

3" Schl 40 Steel pipe 263 ft $13.70 per ft. $9.05 per $3,603 $2,380 ft. 2.5" Schl 40 Steel 90 ft $11.75 per ft. $7.00 per $1,058 $630 pipe ft. 2" Schl 40 Steel pipe 90 ft $9.20 per ft. $4.13 per $828 $372 ft. 1.5" Schl 40 Steel 136 ft $7.35 per ft. $3.16 per $1,000 $430 pipe ft. 1.25" Schl 40 Steel 408 ft $6.60 per ft. $2.75 per $2,693 $1,122 pipe ft. 1.25" 90° straight 24 EACH $27.00 ea. $4.46 ea. $648 $107 elbow 1.5" 90° straight 8 EACH $29.50 ea. $6.15 ea. $236 $49 elbow 2" 90° straight elbow 2 EACH $32.50 ea. $9.65 ea. $65 $19 3" 90° straight elbow 10 EACH $59.00 ea. $38.00 ea. $590 $380 2" tee, straight 2 EACH $53.50 ea. $13.60 ea. $107 $27 2.5" tee, straight 4 EACH $65.50 ea. $35.50 ea. $262 $142 3" tee, straight 8 EACH $98.00 ea. $54.00 ea. $784 $432 3" 5HP 225gpm 100 2 EACH $325.00 ea. $1,475.00 ea. $650 $2,950 CI

$12,523 $9,040 JACKSONVILLE 0.83 LOCAL $10,432 7,531 MULT. 6 %TAX 452 34 % LAB BU RD. $3,547 20 % O&P $2,796 $1,596 Difficulty n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $16,774 $9,579 5 % $839 $479 CONTING. TOTAL $27,671 A3 Continued 129 % & 100% Cost Index for a 72% and 64.6% efficient pumps, respectively. Description Qty. Unit Labor Unit Mat'l Total Total Labor Mat'l

3" Schl 40 Steel 263 ft $13.70 per ft. $9.05 per $3,603 $2,380 pipe ft. 2.5" Schl 40 Steel 90 ft $11.75 per ft. $7.00 per $1,058 $630 pipe ft. 2" Schl 40 Steel 90 ft $9.20 per ft. $4.13 per $828 $372 pipe ft. 1.5" Schl 40 Steel 136 ft $7.35 per ft. $3.16 per $1,000 $430 pipe ft. 1.25" Schl 40 Steel 408 ft $6.60 per ft. $2.75 per $2,693 $1,122 pipe ft. 1.25" 90° straight 24 EACH $27.00 ea. $4.46 ea. $648 $107 elbow 1.5" 90° straight 8 EACH $29.50 ea. $6.15 ea. $236 $49 elbow 2" 90° straight 2 EACH $32.50 ea. $9.65 ea. $65 $19 elbow 3" 90° straight 10 EACH $59.00 ea. $38.00 ea. $590 $380 elbow 2" tee, straight 2 EACH $53.50 ea. $13.60 ea. $107 $27 2.5" tee, straight 4 EACH $65.50 ea. $35.50 ea. $262 $142 3" tee, straight 8 EACH $98.00 ea. $54.00 ea. $784 $432 3" 5HP 225gpm 100 1 EACH $325.00 ea. $1,475.00 ea. $325 $1,475 CI 3" 5HP 225gpm 129 1 EACH $325.00 ea. $1,902.75 ea. $325 $1,903 CI

$12,523 $9,468 JACKSONVILLE 0.83 LOCAL $10,432 7,887 MULT. 6 %TAX 473 34 % LAB BU RD. $3,547 20 % O&P $2,796 $1,672 Difficulty n/a n/a SUBTOTALS $16,774 $10,032 5 % $839 $502 CONTING. TOTAL $28,147 Appendix B

Tables B1-B5: Detailed Summary of Pumps’ Specifications.

B1: .2-1 ft/100ft Pump 1 DETAIL SUMMARY Pump Series: 1510 Pump Size: 2-1/2AB Flow Rate: (USGPM) 176.6 Total Head: (ft.) 42 Pump Speed (RPM) 1750 NPSH req (ft) 4.5 Weight: (lbs) 225 Cost Index: 100 Suction Size: (in) 3 Suction Velocity (fps) 7.7 Discharge Size: (in) 2.5 Discharge Velocity: 11.8 (fps) Impeller Diameter: (in) 6.875 Efficiency: (%) 74.82 Max Impeller Dia (in) 7. Max Flow (USGPM) 285 Duty Flow/Max Flow 0.62 (%) Flow @ BEP (USGPM) 201 Min. Rec. Flow: 40.1 (USGPM) Motor Power, HP: 5 Frame Size: 184T Pump Power (BHP) 2.53 Max Power (BHP) 3.01 Aprox Wt (lbs) B2: 1 - 4ft./100ft. Pump 1 DETAIL SUMMARY Pump Series: 1510 Pump Size: 2-1/2BB

Flow Rate: (USGPM) 176.6 Total Head: (ft.) 52 Pump Speed (RPM) 1750 NPSH req (ft) 6.3 Weight: (lbs) 265 Cost Index: 120 Suction Size: (in) 3 Suction Velocity (fps) 7.7 Discharge Size: (in) 2.5 Discharge Velocity: 11.8 (fps) Impeller Diameter: (in) 7.5 Efficiency: (%) 71.28 Max Impeller Dia (in) 9.5 Max Flow (USGPM) 360 Duty Flow/Max Flow 0.49 (%) Flow @ BEP (USGPM) 197 Min. Rec. Flow: 50 (USGPM) Motor Power, HP: 5 Frame Size: 184T Pump Power (BHP) 3.32 Max Power (BHP) 4.58 Aprox Wt (lbs) B3: 1 – 4ft./10ft. Pump 2 DETAIL SUMMARY Pump Series: 1510 Pump Size: 2AC

Flow Rate: (USGPM) 176.6 Total Head: (ft.) 52 Pump Speed (RPM) 3500 NPSH req (ft) 10.3 Weight: (lbs) 200 Cost Index: 100 Suction Size: (in) 2.5 Suction Velocity (fps) 11.8 Discharge Size: (in) 2 Discharge Velocity: 16.9 (fps) Impeller Diameter: (in) 4.5 Efficiency: (%) 60.9 Max Impeller Dia (in) 7. Max Flow (USGPM) 214 Duty Flow/Max Flow 0.83 (%) Flow @ BEP (USGPM) 141 Min. Rec. Flow: 45 (USGPM) Motor Power, HP: 5 Frame Size: 182T Pump Power (BHP) 3.90 Max Power (BHP) 4.13 Aprox Wt (lbs) B4: 4 – 6ft./100ft. Pump 1 DETAIL SUMMARY Pump Series: 1510 Pump Size: 2-1/2BB

Flow Rate: (USGPM) 176.6 Total Head: (ft.) 64 Pump Speed (RPM) 1750 NPSH req (ft) 6.3 Weight: (lbs) 350 Cost Index: 129 Suction Size: (in) 3 Suction Velocity (fps) 7.7 Discharge Size: (in) 2.5 Discharge Velocity: 11.8 (fps) Impeller Diameter: (in) 8.125 Efficiency: (%) 72.09 Max Impeller Dia (in) 9.5 Max Flow (USGPM) 387 Duty Flow/Max Flow 0.46 (%) Flow @ BEP (USGPM) 233 Min. Rec. Flow: 50 (USGPM) Motor Power, HP: 7.5 Frame Size: 213T Pump Power (BHP) 3.96 Max Power (BHP) 5.70 Aprox Wt (lbs) B5: 4 – 6ft./100ft. Pump 2 DETAIL SUMMARY Pump Series: 1510 Pump Size: 2AC

Flow Rate: (USGPM) 176.6 Total Head: (ft.) 64 Pump Speed (RPM) 3500 NPSH req (ft) 10.3 Weight: (lbs) 200 Cost Index: 100 Suction Size: (in) 2.5 Suction Velocity (fps) 11.8 Discharge Size: (in) 2 Discharge Velocity: 16.9 (fps) Impeller Diameter: (in) 4.75 Efficiency: (%) 64.61 Max Impeller Dia (in) 7. Max Flow (USGPM) 225 Duty Flow/Max Flow 0.79 (%) Flow @ BEP (USGPM) 149 Min. Rec. Flow: 45 (USGPM) Motor Power, HP: 5 Frame Size: 182T Pump Power (BHP) 4.52 Max Power (BHP) 4.89 Aprox Wt (lbs)