WA9302A-CS 950612 SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8333 Douglas Avenue,//820 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 361-7900
ROS$ L. JACOB3, P.E.
RoNALD v. CONWAY. P... ~
JOHN W. BIRKHOFF, P.E.
JOE R. CARTER, P.E.
GARY C. HENDRICK3, P.E.
June 12, 1995
C. L. SHIMEK, P.E.
I. C. FINKLEA, P.E.
JAMES E. LAUGHLIN, P.E.
Mr. Howard Pafford
Water Utilities Superintendent
City of Coppell
Post Office Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Village Parkway Pump Station Expansion
Pump Selection
Dear Mr. Pafford:
As you are aware, and as provided in our engineering services agreement for this project, the final selection of
the pumps for the Village Parkway Pump Station Expansion is the responsibility of the City of Coppell.
However, since we have converted your water system analysis database to the Cybernet format, we were
easily able to prepare system curves for your use and aid in the selection of the proper pumps for the
hydraulic condition and design parameters specified.
We are enclosing one copy each of system-head curves we developed for the Village Parkway Pump Station
Expansion project. The system curves were developed using the Cybernet Hydraulic model and the water
system data we converted from the recent Kimley-Horn water system report. These system curves were
developed on the basis that the pump station expansion is to serve as a system operational enhancement rather
than to add system pumping capacity. For that reason, when evaluating the system head curve, we assumed in
all alternatives and design years that the following conditions applied:
1) No other pumps in the system are running. This includes the 3-450 horsepower pumps at Village
Parkway Pump Station and the future Belt Line Road Pump Station scheduled to come on line in the year
2004. If the proposed pumps (pumps no. 5 & 6) are to provide operational flexibility and not system
capacity, then this seems to be a reasonable assumption. Basing the pump selection on this condition will
assure a pump that has the highest efficiency under the most probable operational situation. This is not to
say however, that the proposed pumps will not operate properly when the other pumps are running, just
that they won't likely be operating at their most efficient point.
2) That the proposed pumps would primarily be operated during off-peak times. This generally applies to
minimum hour demand periods during the summer time when the elevated storage is not being re-filled,
and during the wet months of late fail, winter and early spring. Using this assumption, a system-curve
was develop for each design year utilizing the minimum hourly demand period data set. This data set was
Mr. Howard Pafford
City of Coppell
June 12, 1995
Page No. 2
developed from the average day demand data contained in the Kimley-Horn Report and is roughly
equivalent to 80% of the average day demand. Another reason for using the minimum hourly demand
period as the basis of the system curve development is that during this period of the system operation the
highest system heads are normally experienced.
We have also made a preliminary pump selection based on the system curves we developed and on the
information we were able to derive from the City's water system analysis report. Reviewing the output data
from the hydraulic analysis of the distribution system, we found that for most operating conditions the
proposed pumps were delivering in the range of 2,600 to 3,000 gallons per minute. This delivery rate was
based on proposed pumps rated at 250 horsepower each. Using the delivery rate as a basis of pump selection,
we reviewed several Worthington horizontal split case pumps and found the model 8LR-20 with a 17-inch
impeller, or the model 10LR-14 with a 14.17-inch impeller, to be best suited for this application. Based on
the system curves we developed and the Worthington pumps identified above, we recommend the either one
(but not both) of the design requirements shown below be included in the pump specifications for this project:
Village Parkway Pump Station Expansion
Proposed Pumps No. 5 & 6
Operating Points Based on Design Year 1995
Worthington 8LR-20 Worthington 10LR-14
Minimum Rated I Maximum Minimum I Rated I Maximum
Duty Point Duty Point Duty Point Duty Point Duty Point Duty Point
Q (gpm) 3,100 3,500 3,700 2,000 2,700 4,200
Total Dynamic Head (ft) 217 200 184 220 210 185
Minimum Efficiency 80% 78% 76% 65% 78% 86%
Pump Speed: 1,770 rpm 1,770 rpm
Shutoff Head - Maximum 315 Ft. 260 Ft.
Shutoff Head - Minimum 290 Ft. 240 Ft.
Maximum BHP 250 Hp. 250 Hp.
We have plotted both the Worthington, model 8LR-20 and model 10LR-14 pump curves on the system curve
for each design year. The Worthington pumps were used as the basis for pump selection due to their existing
service in the Village Parkway Pump Station, however many other pump manufactures have pumps that offer
similar operating characteristics. We recommend the specifications for this project allow no less than three
pump manufactures of equal experience, quality and service capabilities.
Mr. Howard Pafford
City of Coppeli
June 12, 1995
Page No. 3
Please review the enclosed system-head curves and the operating points we have chosen as the basis of pump
selection for this project and notify us of your findings. We are available to discuss this project further at
your convenience.
cc: Kenne~ M. Griffin, P.E.
Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea
City of Coppell, Texas
Village Parkway Pump Station Additions
Table No. 1
System - Head Curve Data (Minimum Hour Demand)
Total Dynamic Head (FL)
1995 2004 2014
Q (gpm) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
0 177.70 220.20 177.72 220.22 176.98 219.48
500 178.74 221.24 178.24 220.74 177.52 220.02
1,000 179.52 222.02 178.68 221.18 178.00 220.50
1,500 180.06 222.56 179.07 221.57 178.43 220.93
2,000 180.52 223.02 179.42 221.92 178.83 221.33
2,500 181.22 223.72 179.74 222.24 179.19 221.69
3,000 182.10 224.60 180.04 222.54 179.53 222.03
3,500 183.24 225.74 180.32 222.82 179.84 222.34
4,000 184.66 227.16 180.61 223.11 180.12 222.62
4,500 186.35 228.85 180.94 223.44 180.40 222.90
5,000 188.30 230.80 181.32 223.82 180.70 223.20
5,500 190.51 233.01 181.77 224.27 181.02 223.52
6,000 192.98 235.48 182.30 224.80 181.38 223.88
6,500 195.70 238.20 182.89 225.39 181.80 224.30
7,000 198.66 241.16 183.54 226.04 182.28 224.78
7,500 201.87 244.37 184.27 226.77 182.81 225.31
8,000 205.32 247.82 185.07 227.57 183.41 225.91
8,500 209.00 251.50 185.94 228.44 184.06 226.56
9,000 212.92 255.42 186.87 229.37 184.77 227.72
10,000 221.44 263.94 188.95 231.45 186.37 228.87
11,000 230.88 273.38 191.30 233.80 188.20 230.70
12,000 241.20 283.70 193.92 236.42 190.25 232.75
13,000 252.41 294.91 196.81 239.91 192.52 235.02
14,000 264.48 306.98 199.95 242.45 195.00 237.50
15,000 277.41 319.91 203.35 245.85 197.70 240.21
16,000 291.18 333.68 206.99 249.49 200.62 243.12
No~:
D~a presented ~ this ruble was generated from K.Y. Pipe Computer Model provided by
Kimerly -Horn & Associ~es and presented in thek report on the Wmer Distribution System
Master Plan for the City of Coppell, Dated October, 1994.
Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea
City of Coppell, Texas
Village Parkway Pump Station Additions
Table No. 2
System - Head Curve Data (Maximum Hour Demand)
Total Dynamic Head (Ft.)
1995 2004 2014
Q (gpm) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
0 62.47 104.97 85.25 124.96 59.64 93.02
500 69.37 111.87 85.54 128.04 59.71 96.21
1,000 76.11 118.61 88.57 131.07 59.95 99.35
1,500 82.70 125.20 91.55 134.05 59.95 102.45
2,000 89.13 131.62 94.48 136.98 62.99 105.50
2,500 95.39 137.89 97.35 139.85 66.01 108.51
3,000 101.50 144.00 100.17 142.67 68.98 111.48
3,500 107.44 149.94 102.94 145.44 71.91 114.41
4,000 113.22 155.72 105.65 148.15 74.80 117.30
4,500 118.83 161.33 108.30 150.80 77.64 120.14
5,000 124.27 166.77 110.90 153.40 80.44 122.94
5,500 129.51 172.01 113.44 155.94 83.20 125.70
6,000 134.56 177.06 115.93 158.43 85.91 128.41
6,500 139.38 181.88 118.36 160.86 88.57 131.07
7,000 143.98 186.48 120.74 163.24 91.19 133.69
7,500 148.32 190.82 123.08 165.58 93.76 136.26
8,000 152.41 194.91 125.38 167.88 96.29 138.79
8,500 156.35 198.85 127.65 170.15 98.78 141.28
9,000 160.15 202.65 129.88 172.38 101.24 143.74
10,000 167.28 209.78 134.24 176.74 106.09 148.59
11,000 173.77 216.27 138.47 180.97 110.82 153.32
12,000 179.89 222.39 142.58 185.08 115.46 157.96
13,000 185.54 228.04 146.58 189.08 120.01 162.51
14,000 190.81 233.31 150.47 192.97 124.48 166.98
15,000 195.76 238.26 154.25 196.75 128.85 171.35
16,000 201.62 244.12 157.95 200.45 133.12 175.62
Note:
Data presented in this table was generated from K.Y. Pipe Computer Model provided by
Kimerly -Horn & Associates and presented in their report on the Water Distribution System
Master Plan for the City of Coppell, Dated October, 1994.
Shimek, Jacola & Finkin
City of Coppell, Texas
Village Parkway Pump Station Additions
Table No. 3 - Pump Curve Data
Proposed Pumps EXISTING PUMPS
Worthington Fairbanks Morse Worthingtom Worthington Worthinlton
8LR-20 Pump, 17" lmpeller 2824C- 6", 15.75" Impellee 6LR-18S Pump, 16" !mpdler 10LR-14 Pump, 14.75" !mlnil~ 10LR-18, 16" lmpdl~r
Operating at 1770 RPM Operating at 1785 RPM Operating at 1770 RPM Operating at 1770 RPM Operating at 1765 RPM
Total Dynamic Head (~) Total Dynamic Head (~) Total Dynamic Head (~) Total Dynamic Head (it) Total Dynamic Head
0 ([pm) one pump two Dumps one pump two pumps one pump two pump~ one pump two pump, one pump two
0 305 305 280 280 260 260 250 250 282 282
500 300 302.5 275 277.5 259 259.5 238 244 276 279
1,000 290 300 270 275 255 259 232 238 270 276
1,500 280 295 260 272.5 250 257 228 235 265 273
2,000 267.5 290 240 270 240 255 224 232 260 270
2,500 250 285 212 265 220 252.5 215 230 255 265.7
3,000 230 280 176 260 190 250 208 228 250 265
3,500 200 273.75 250 150 245 198 226 245 262.5
4,000 160 267.5 240 240 189 224 240 260
4,500 258.75 226 230 178 219.5 235 257.5
5,000 250 212 220 165 215 230 255
5,500 240 194 205 151 2 i 1.5 225 252.5
6,000 230 176 190 208 216.5 250
6,500 215 170 203 206.5 247.5
7,000 200 i 50 198 195 245
7,500 180 193.5 182.5 242.5
8,000 160 189 169 240
8,500 150 237.5
9,000 130 235
10,000 230
I 1,000 225
12,000 216.5
13,000 206.5
14,000 195
15,000 182.5
16.000 169
ShimeL Js~s & lrmidea
Village Parkway Pump Station: System - Pump Head Curves
Year 1995 - Minimum Hourly Demand Condition
320 ! Propond Pump No, 5+6 Maximum Syatom
300 ~ , / " Curve
-
~' / \
~,, ,,,."
280-~ ....\,,~ ,,/- ,,
26o .......~~· /,/
...~ ,,
240 ~ ....... · ~ /// ,,
... \
220 ""'.. %' , ' ' ' \
"" · ' ' '' ' ' \] Minimum System Curv~
200 k' ' '
'~~ [ ...... - .. -,.... ,,,~
... ---.
IS0 ........... ' ...... ~-..
.. Existing Pumps No. 1, 2 or 3
~60 N " ~ '~ (450 HP)
IProposed Pump N~ ~ or 6
140 (250 HP nd~)
120 ]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16
Q-gym
Shimek, Jac, obs & Finklea
Village Parkway Pump Station: System - Pump Head Curves
Year 2004 - Minimum Hourly Demand Condition
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Thousands
Q - gpm
Shimek, Jacob & Finklea .
Village Parkway Pump Station: System - Pump Head Curves
Year 2014 - Minimum Hourly Demand Condition
320
· Poposed Pump No. 5 + 6
250 '~'-.,,. · -,
....... ,,, \
260 .... "' ~ ·
,
""°"' % ..... _---
200
~ ................
..........................
..= .....
~ \ Existing Pumps No. 1;~ or3
Proposed Pump N~ 5 or 6 \ ' (450 HP)
140 i (250 HP
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16
Q -$pm