TECHNICAL NOTES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

ENGINEERING #20 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
March 2011

Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) for Irrigation Pumping

(A User’s Guide for Conducting Economic Comparisons)

BACKGROUND

An economic evaluation of a pumping plant is necessary to determine if a Variable

Frequency Drive, VFD, is cost effective. A comprehensive detailed National technical note
is available online which describes the fine points on how VFD’s work, specifications and
definitions. A link to that note is found in the reference section of this note. An economic
comparison spread sheet has been developed by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
to do complete VFD evaluations and to calculate the cost, savings and payback rate for a
planned or existing pump site.

The attached form was developed to assist with the inventory and data collection
necessary for conducting evaluations utilizing the BPA evaluation tool. In addition, case
studies are provided which are copied from the draft National Technical Note to show how
to quickly and easily input data into the economic comparison spread sheet and to explain
what it means.

BPA VFD ECONOMIC TOOL (Excel Spreadsheet)

There are four sections to the VFD economic comparison spread sheet. All of the following
information and data is required to conduct an evaluation utilizing the BPA economic tool:

1. System data – name, location, management inputs, motor data, costs

2. Pump curve data –RPM; flow in gpm vs. head in ft, efficiency – enter a minimum of
5 points
3. Operating points without the VFD – enter a minimum of 2 points
4. Operating points with the VFD - with amount of time (%) for each point.

A pumping plant inventory/data collection form has been prepared (attachment 2) to

facilitate the collection of all of the necessary information to run the BPA Evaluation Tool.
The BPA Evaluation tool is relatively easy to run as long as all of the required data has
been collected. The input sheet for the BPA evaluation tool is shown below for information.

WA ENG TN-20 Page 1 of 19

 BPA VFD ECONOMIC COMPARISON TOOL INPUT SHEET

Summary:
The economic comparison spread sheet may be used by others who are designing a VFD.
The purpose of this evaluation spread sheet is to determine the value of a VFD and
compare with the existing pump or possibly a new pump that fits the site better. A VFD
requires some energy to filter the power and cool the unit, so if there is not enough
flow or pressure variation, a VFD could require more energy than the current
situation.

Other benefits and associated values from using a VFD are much harder to determine. The
power savings are also very dependent on the type of pump that is being retrofitted or
selected. A steeper pump curve would generate more savings. The number of hours the
system is operated also directly affects the cost.

The economic comparison spread sheet has comments on certain cells to help explain
what to input. The accuracy of the results will only be as good as the accuracy of the input
information.

Links:
VFD Economic Comparison spread sheet – http://www.bpa.gov/Energy/N/agricultural_resources.cfm
Washington NRCS Construction Specification- http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ENG/specifications/
Fact Sheet and Detailed VFD draft technical note http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ENG/index.html

WA ENG TN-20 Page 2 of 19

 EXAMPLE CASE 1 - Center Pivot Sprinkler on a steeply sloped field

Background
Water is pumped from a well to supply a center-pivot sprinkler system. The pumping plant
consists of an electric motor and vertical turbine pump. Power costs are $0.07 per kWh.
The sprinkler irrigation system is a MESA (mid-elevation spray application) pivot system
with 20-psi pressure regulators and nozzles mounted at 6 feet. The sprinkler uniformity for
these types of nozzles is calculated at 85%. The estimated pivot flow rate is 877 gpm (1.95
cfs). The sprinklers irrigate 140 acres of corn with an estimated annual net water
requirement of 28 inches (Fig. 1).

The pumping lift is 100 ft. The pivot is irrigating a field that has a fairly uniform slope of 4%.
The pump design was based upon delivering the total flow with the pivot oriented uphill on
a 4% slope.

Figure 1. Case 1 Farm Layout

Well

1843 ft 10” PVC pipe

Due to the use of pressure regulators in the system, the flow rate is assumed to remain
essentially constant for all conditions. However, it is necessary to determine the total
dynamic head (TDH) for the pivot at different positions.

Because of the field slope, the pressure at the distal end of the pivot lateral is constantly
changing. The pressure regulators provide uniform pressure and uniformity to the nozzles
but the energy use changes when adjusting the pressure to match the conditions required
on the field. This analysis can range from simple to complicated. In most cases a
simplified analysis will provide good information on energy and cost savings. To make
evaluation easier, the field is divided into three major control sections:
1) pivot operating uphill
2) pivot operating on the level
3) pivot operating downhill

WA ENG TN-20 Page 3 of 19

The head requirements for the three selected conditions are summarized below, in Table 1.

Table 1 – Total Dynamic Head, TDH requirements

Condition TDH TDH TDH
Uphill Level Downhill
Condition Condition Condition
% of time in condition 25% 50% 25%
Pivot point pressure 40 psi 40 psi 25 psi*
Elevation gain +22.9 psi 0 psi 0 psi
Friction loss in mainline 3.16 psi 3.16 psi 3.16 psi
Miscellaneous losses 3 psi 3 psi 3 psi
Pump losses 1.5 psi 1.5 psi 1.5 psi
Pump column lift 43.3 psi 43.3 psi 43.3 psi
TDH 113.7 psi 90.8 psi 78 psi
= 262.6 ft = 209.8 ft = 175.5 ft

* When the pivot is in the downhill condition the minimum pressure of 20 psi plus 5 psi for
the pressure regulators still needs to be supplied. The slope which is steeper than the
friction slope will provide the rest of the necessary pressure.

System Data
The pivot applies 877 gal/min of water on 140 acres. The total operating hours needs to be
either calculated or entered. The operating hours can be entered directly into cell E11 or, if
the net irrigation and sprinkler uniformity are known, the hours can be calculated. For this
example, the sprinkler uniformity efficiency is 85% with a net application of 28”/ year, the
gross application would be 28”/0.85 = 32.9” in cell D11.

For the existing condition the pump provides 877 gpm and a TDH of 263 ft. all the time.

Pump Curve Data

Select a Gould 10DHHC with 8 stages operating at 1770 RPM. The pump curve is shown
in Figure 2. The points used in the case study are shown in Table 2.

Figure 2. Gould Pump Curve

●
● ●
● ●

WA ENG TN-20 Page 4 of 19

 Table 2 - Points from manufacturers pump curve

Q (gpm) Head (ft) Efficiency (%)

352 322 42
528 290 58
704 270 70
880 264 80
1056 241 82
1325 168 70

Operating points without a VFD

The flow is the same for this pivot under all conditions. Without a VFD, excess pressure is
dissipated through the pressure regulators along the pivot. When the pivot is operating on
both level and downhill positions, the pressure will increase in the system, only to be
reduced through the pressure regulators. The estimated power cost is $9,651 per season.

Operating points with a VFD

Again the flow will remain the same for the pivot in all positions. The pivot will operate
approximately 25% of the time in the uphill condition, 50% of the time in the level condition
and 25% of the time downhill condition. The VFD will adjust the speed of the motor to keep
the pressure constant at the pivot point.

Figure 3. Pump Curve with VFD

Case Study 1 60 HZ
for 55 HZ
various HZ settings 50 HZ
40 HZ
350 35 HZ
Ctrl pt 1
300 Ctrl pt 2
1 Ctrl pt 3
250 Ctrl pt 4
Head (ft)

Ctrl pt 5
200 2 Ctrl pt 6
3 Slider
150 58% eff
70% eff
100 80% eff
82% eff
50 70% eff
% eff
0 % eff
% eff
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 % eff
% eff
Flow rate (gpm)
The plot of the new pump curve with the VFD is shown in Figure 3. The plot shows
operating points, the system curve and the approximated efficiency curves. The 3 points

WA ENG TN-20 Page 5 of 19

shown are the operating points entered in the case study. The new efficiencies at the
various TDH values are:

Point 1 - TDH = 262 ft – efficiency = 79%

Point 2 - TDH = 210 ft – efficiency = 81%
Point 3 - TDH = 175 ft – efficiency = 82%

The VFD adds another loss in the form of efficiency. The default value for the VFD
efficiency is approximately 97%. The power requirements for the various operating points
are 80 hp, 62 hp, and 52 hp, respectively.

The actual energy cost with the VFD for this case study is estimated at $7,986 per season.
The savings in energy operating under these conditions would be $1,665 per season. The
complete input and output data from the economic comparison spread sheet is shown
below. With the initial cost at $9,000, the payback period on the VFD would be 5.4 years.

Figure 4. Case Study 1 - Economic Comparison

Variable Speed Drive - Economic comparison

Cooperators name Location

VFD User Guide Case Study 1

Management inputs Selected or Existing Pump

Pump
Manufacturer Type Model RPM
Gross Total Gould Turbine 10DHHC 1,770
System irrigation seasonal Base pump curve (60 Hz)
Field size flow rate requirement Operating Flow Efficiency
(ac) (gpm) (in/yr) Hours Point (gpm) Head (ft) (%)
140 877 32.9 2,380 1 352 322 42
2 528 290 58
3 704 270 70
Motor assumptions Costs 4 880 264 80
5 1056 241 82
Motor VFD Average Installed 6 1325 168 70
Efficiency Efficiency Cost per Cost VFD 7
(%) (%) kWh ($) ($) 8
94 97 $0.07 $9,000 9

Operating points/ system curve without VFD Operating points/System curve with VFD
Find
Pump Pump
Flow Efficiency Head VFD freq Efficiency
Point (gpm) Head (ft) (%) Flow (gpm) (ft) (Hz) (%)
1 877 262 79 877 263 60.1 79
2 877 262 79 877 210 54.5 82
3 877 262 79 877 176 50.8 82
4

WA ENG TN-20 Page 6 of 19

 Figure 5. VFD Economic Comparison, cont.

Operating points/ system curve without VFD Operating points/System curve with VFD
Input-
Point %Hrs Input-HP KWh VFD freq (Hz) HP %Hrs KWh
1 25% 78 34,463 60.1 80 25% 35681
2 50% 78 68,943 54.5 62 50% 55394
3 25% 78 34,471 50.8 52 25% 23012
4

Without VFD With VFD Power

Annual Annual savings Payback period (yrs)
Power use Cost/season Power use Cost/season
(KWH) ($) (KWH) ($) ($/yr) (yrs)
137,877 $9,651.41 114087 $7,986.12 $1,665.28 5.4

Base pump curve - 60 Hertz

350 90

80
300
70
250

Efficiency (%)
60
200
Head

50

150 40

30
100
20
50
10

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
60 HZ 1770 RPM Flow
50 HZ 1475 RPM
60 eff

WA ENG TN-20 Page 7 of 19

EXAMPLE CASE 2 - Center pivot sprinkler with a declining water table.

Background
Water is supplied to a Pivot from a single well located in the Odessa Aquifer. The pumping
lift from the well ranges from 50 ft at the beginning of the irrigation season to 185 ft at the
end of the season. The sprinkler system operates close to its design point at the end of the
season, but the producer must be careful to avoid air entrainment due to inadequate water
depth over the pump inlet.

System Data
The sprinkler irrigation system is a Low Elevation Spray Application (LESA) pivot system on
relatively level ground with the pivot point located 5 ft higher than the well. It is nozzled for
750 gpm (1.67 cfs) at 36 psi (ground level at Pivot) and the sprinkler package uniformity is
90%. Pressure regulators set at 15 psi are used on the system to control the flow rate
during the season. The sprinkler height is 4 ft above ground. The pivot irrigates 122 acres
of corn with a net irrigation requirement of 24 inches annually and the power costs are
$0.07 per Kw-hr (Fig 6).

Figure 6. Case Study 2, Farm Layout

Pump Curve Data

The pumping plant is an electric motor connected to a vertical turbine pump, a Flowserve
10EGH operating at 1770 rpm. The pump curve is found on Figure 7. The pump has 8
stages of 7.72 inch diameter impellers. Each stage boosts the pressure and maintains the
flow. This data from the pump curve is entered into the economic comparison spread sheet
below. The complete pump curve data is shown in Attachment 1.

WA ENG TN-20 Page 8 of 19

 Figure 7. Case Study 2 - Pump Curve

The TDH at the beginning and end of the season are summarized below.

Table 3 – Case Study 2 - TDH results

Season Start TDH End of Season TDH
Static Lift 25 ft 25 ft
Drawdown 25 ft 160 ft
Pivot Pressure 83.2 ft 83.2 ft
Column and Discharge 4.8 ft 4.8 ft
Friction losses
Elevation from well to pivot 5.0 ft 5.0 ft
Mainline Friction losses 17.7 ft 17.7 ft
Total 160.7 use 161 295.7 use 296

The pivot applies 26.7 gross inches of water to the field. (Net irrigation of 24”/90%
uniformity) The estimated seasonal hours of operation is 1963 hrs (T=DA/Q; 26.7inches x
122acres/1.67cfs).

Operating points without VFD

The maximum required TDH is 296 ft. Without a VFD the system would operate at this
head all season. Early in the season when the water is higher in the well the excess
pressure would be dissipated through valves or the pressure regulators. Annual operating
cost without the VFD is estimated at $7,573 for the season. .

WA ENG TN-20 Page 9 of 19

Operating points with VFD
With the VFD, the pressure would remain constant at the pivot throughout the entire
season. A pressure transducer would monitor and maintain a set pressure point. The new
pump curve is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Case Study 2 - New pump curve

60 HZ
Case Study 2 55 HZ
for 50 HZ
various HZ settings 40 HZ
35 HZ
400 Ctrl pt 1
350 Ctrl pt 2
Ctrl pt 3
300 1 Ctrl pt 4
Head (ft)

250 Ctrl pt 5
Ctrl pt 6
200 Slider
2 78% eff
150
80% eff
100 81% eff
80% eff
50
78% eff
0 75% eff
0 200 400 600 800 1000 70% eff
% eff
Flow rate (gpm) % eff
% eff

Enter all the data into the economic comparison spread sheet to evaluate the 2 conditions.

Condition 1 - TDH = 296 ft – efficiency = 80.5%

Condition 2 - TDH = 161 ft – efficiency = 75%

The VFD adds another loss in the form of efficiency. The default value for VFD’s is
approximately 97%. Horsepower and energy input for the two conditions are 76 hp and 45
hp, respectively.

The actual energy cost is based upon the percent of the total hours that the system is
operated. Assuming the time is split between the 2 operating conditions the energy
savings would be $1,361 per season.

The annual or seasonal savings is compared to the cost of the VFD to calculate the
payback period would be 7.4 years. The second case study economic comparison input
and output is shown below.

WA ENG TN-20 Page 10 of 19

 Figure 9. Case Study 2 - Economic Comparison

Variable Speed Drive - Economic comparison

Cooperators name Location

VFD User Guide Case Study 2

Management inputs Selected or Existing Pump

Pump
Manufacturer Type Model RPM
Gross Total Flowserve Turbine 10EGH 1,770
System irrigation seasonal Base pump curve (60 Hz)
Field size flow rate requirement Operating Flow Efficiency
(ac) (gpm) (in/yr) Hours Point (gpm) Head (ft) (%)
122 750 26.7 1,963 1 460 368 70
2 582 350 78
3 621 340 80
Motor assumptions Costs 4 700 320 81
5 781 280 80
Motor VFD Average Installed 6 830 256 78
Efficiency Efficiency Cost per Cost VFD 7 880 232 75
(%) (%) kWh ($) ($) 8 945 200 70
94 97 $0.07 $10,000 9
10
11

Operating points/ system curve without VFD Operating points/System curve with VFD
Find
Pump Pump
Flow Efficiency VFD freq Efficiency
Point (gpm) Head (ft) (%) Flow (gpm) Head (ft) (Hz) (%)
1 750 295 81 750 161 50.5 74
2 750 297 81 750 296 60.1 81
3
4
5
6

Operating points/ system curve without VFD Operating points/System curve with VFD
VFD freq Input-
Point %Hrs Input-HP KWh (Hz) HP %Hrs KWh
1 50% 74 53,900 50.5 45 50% 32927
2 50% 74 54,287 60.1 76 50% 55824
3
4
5
6

WA ENG TN-20 Page 11 of 19

 Figure 10. Case Study 2 - VFD Pump curve and Economic Analysis

Base pump curve - 60 Hertz

Potential VFD pump Curves
400 82

350 80

300
78

Efficiency (%)
250
76
Head

200
74
150
72
100

50 70

0 68
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
60 HZ 1770 RPM Flow
50 HZ 1475 RPM
60 eff

Without VFD With VFD Power Payback period

Annual savings (yrs)
Annual Power
Power use Cost/season use Cost/season
(KWH) ($) (KWH) ($) ($/yr) (yrs)
108,187 $7,573.08 88751 $6,212.56 $1,360.52 7.4

WA ENG TN-20 Page 12 of 19

 EXAMPLE CASE 3 - Multiple fields served by one pump

Background
This farm has 360 acres irrigated by three pivots, wheel lines and solid set sprinklers (Fig.
10). Two of the pivots have corner systems. All of the pivots have end guns. The pipe
sizes and pressure requirement are also shown on fig 11. The fields are all the same
elevation and are planted in a variety of crops: potatoes, alfalfa, small grains, sugar beets,
and corn. The water source for the fields is a single well. The power source is electricity at
$0.10 per kilowatt-hr. The average pumping season is 1700 hours. The pump is an older
vertical turbine operating at 1770 rpm, with 3 stages, each 10.3 inch diameter. The operator
would like to install a VFD to facilitate management, to save energy and to reduce costs.

Figure 11. Case Study 3, Farm Layout

WA ENG TN-20 Page 13 of 19

System Data
The operating scenarios evaluated are as follows:
(1) All 3 pivots with both corner arms fully extended with all 3 end guns operating
(2) All 3 pivots with both corner arms mostly extended with 1 or 2 end guns operating
(3) All 3 pivots with both corner arms fully retracted with all 3 end guns off
(4) North pivot corner arm mostly extended with end gun off and solid sets operating;
or south pivot corner arm fully extended with end gun operating and solid sets
operating
(5) Northeast pivot with end gun operating: or south pivot corner arm mostly retracted
with end gun off

There are other scenarios possible. These were chosen as the most common and the
percent of time for each is 5%, 25%, 50%, 15%, and 5%, respectively. The motor
efficiency is 95%. The VFD is 97% efficient.

Pump Curve Data

The pump curve information is taken from the manufacturer’s chart and shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Existing pump curve for Case 3

Pump curve for existing Johnson pump, 14ECII
Q (gpm) Pump TDH Pump Efficiency %
(ft)
560 286 29
700 278 35
1000 270 49
1200 264 56
1400 252 63
1770 228 73
2100 219 79
2350 216 82.5
2750 190 81.3

Operating points without VFD

Table 5 shows the pressure requirements for the different conditions using operating
pressures and friction loss equations. The pressure requirements are summarized in Table
6. Any excess head is burned off through pressure regulators and valves.

Table 5 - Head and flow summary without VFD

System operation table, no VFD
Scenario Q (gpm) Pump Efficiency Input Long-term Power costs
TDH (%) HP Operation @ $0.10/kw-
(ft) (hp) (%) hr
1 2750 192 81.5 172 5 $1094
2 2350 213 81.8 162 25 $5150
3 1770 232 73.3 149 50 $9444
4 1200 261 56.1 148 15 $2818
5 560 283 28.9 146 5 $926

The estimated seasonal operating cost without the VFD is $19,432.

WA ENG TN-20 Page 14 of 19
Operating points with VFD
There are two control scenarios for VFD. One would maintain a constant pressure and
vary the flow rate while the other would vary both flow rate and head. For this example a
VFD that can vary both flow rate and head is selected. Determine the flow and head
requirements for each control point. The economic comparison spread sheet is used to
estimate the new efficiencies and calculate the power requirements and calculate the cost
for each scenario. The inputs are summarized in Table 6. The “Input HP” column includes
both the motor and VFD efficiencies.

Table 6 – Head and flow summary with VFD

System operation table, with VFD
Scenario Q Pump Efficiency Input Long-term Power costs
(gpm) TDH (%) HP Operation @
(ft) (hp) (%) $0.10/kw-hr
1 2750 190 81 176 5 $1116
2 2350 180 82 141 25 $4464
3 1770 133 81 80 50 $5050
4 1200 157 66 78 15 $1483
5 560 121 42 44 5 $281

The total estimated annual power cost with the VFD is $12,394 with a resulting estimated
savings of $7,038 per season.

Figure 12. Case Study 3 - Pump Curve

60 HZ
Case Study 3 55 HZ
for
various HZ settings 50 HZ

350 40 HZ
35 HZ
300
Ctrl pt 1
250 Ctrl pt 2
Head (ft)

200 Ctrl pt 3
4 5
Ctrl pt 4
150 2
3 Ctrl pt 5
1
100 Ctrl pt 6

50 Slider
35% eff
0
49% eff
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
56% eff
Flow rate (gpm)

WA ENG TN-20 Page 15 of 19

This information can be used to calculate the payback period which is 3.7 years. Several
other factors need to be considered in the payback calculations including the escalating
cost of energy and system management. Being able to manage the system has always
proven to save both water and energy, which saves money.

A summary of the economic comparison of the inputs and outputs for Case 3 is shown
below.
Figure 13. Case Study 3 - Economic Comparison

Variable Speed Drive - Economic comparison

Cooperators name Location

VFD User Guide Case Study 3

Management inputs Selected or Existing Pump

Manufacturer Type Model Pump RPM
Gross Total old vertical Turbine 1,770
System irrigation seasonal Base pump curve (60 Hz)
Field size flow rate requirement Operating Flow Efficiency
(ac) (gpm) (in/yr) Hours Point (gpm) Head (ft) (%)
360 2750 28.7 1,700 1 560 286 29
2 700 278 35
3 1000 270 49
Motor assumptions Costs 4 1200 264 56
5 1400 252 63
Motor VFD Average Installed 6 1770 228 73
Efficiency Efficiency Cost per Cost VFD 7 2100 219 79
(%) (%) kWh ($) ($) 8 2350 216 83
95 97 $0.10 $24,000 9 2750 190 81
10
11

Operating points/ system curve without VFD Operating points/System curve with VFD
Find
Pump Pump
Flow Efficiency VFD freq Efficiency
Point (gpm) Head (ft) (%) Flow (gpm) Head (ft) (Hz) (%)
1 2,750 192 81 2750 190 59.7 81
2 2,350 213 82 2350 180 56.5 82
3 1,770 232 73 1770 133 47.3 81
4 1,200 261 56 1200 157 47.8 66
5 560 283 29 560 121 39.8 42
6

Operating points/ system curve without VFD Operating points/System curve with VFD
VFD freq
Point %Hrs Input-HP KWh (Hz) Input-HP %Hrs KWh
1 5% 172 10,938 59.7 176 5% 11159
2 25% 162 51,498 56.5 141 25% 44643
3 50% 149 94,444 47.3 80 50% 50497
4 15% 148 28,184 47.8 78 15% 14827
5 5% 146 9,255 39.8 44 5% 2814
WA ENG TN-20 Page 16 of 19
 Figure 14. Case Study 3 – VFD Pump curve and Economic Analysis

Base pump curve - 60 Hertz

350 90

80
300
70
250

Efficiency (%)
60

200
Head

50

150 40

Potential VFD pump Curves 30

100
20
50
10

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
60 HZ 1770 RPM Flow
50 HZ 1475 RPM
60 eff

Without VFD With VFD Power Payback period

Annual savings (yrs)
Annual Power
Power use Cost/season use Cost/season
(KWH) ($) (KWH) ($) ($/yr) (yrs)
194,320 $19,431.96 123940 $12,394.05 $7,037.91 3.4

WA ENG TN-20 Page 17 of 19

 Attachment 1 - Flowserve Pump Curve

WA ENG TN-20 Page 18 of 19

 Attachment 2

V
Vaarriiaabbllee FFrreeqquueennccyy D
Drriivvee M
Maarrcchh 22001111

Variable Frequency Drive

Economic Analysis Data Collection Form
Field Office: __________________________ Planner: ___________Job Class: _______
Landowner: __________________________________________ Date: _______________
Address: ________________________________________________________________
Location: T/R/S: __________________________ Block and Unit: ____________________
Field Name: _______________________________ Acres: _________________________

Pump Make: ______________________________ Model:__________________________

Age/condition of pump and motor, if known: _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Motor HP: ____________________ Make: ____________________________________
Volts AC: __________ Phase: __________ RPM: ___________ Hertz: _____________

Annual Power Use/Season (KWH):_____________ Cost/Season ($):_________________

Average Cost per KWH ($):___________ Estimated hours of use per year/season: ______

A VFD requires power to operate. In order for the VFD to provide a benefit by reducing
power consumption, variations in pressure and/or flows during the season are necessary.
Enter the estimated flow rates, pressures and time for each below in order to evaluate the
benefit of the VFD.

Flow (gpm or cfs) Pressure (psi) Time (hrs or %)

Average Cost per KWH ($):__________________________________

Estimated Installation Cost of VFD ($): _________________________
Estimated Payback period of VFD (years): ______________________
Power Savings/yr ($/year):___________________________________

WA ENG TN-20 Page 19 of 19