CFD Modeling Liquid Viscosity Effect on

Centrifugal Pump Performance

Wen-Guang LI

Department of Fluid Machinery, Lanzhou University of Technology

287 Langongping Road, 730050 Lanzhou, P R China

Corresponding author:

Dr Weng-Guang Li

Department of Fluid Machinery

Lanzhou University of Technology

287 Langongping Road

730050 Lanzhou, China

E-mail: liwg38@yahoo.com.cn

1
 ABSTRACT

The hydraulic performance of a centrifugal pump handling water and viscous oils was
investigated numerically by using a CFD code based on a steady or unsteady, three-dimensional,
incompressible turbulent flow, where the turbulence effect is involved with the standard k −ε
turbulence model combined with the non-equilibrium wall function in this work. The flow passages of
the pump are subject to a particular surface roughness. The effect of liquid viscosity on the impeller
and pump performance was indicated by examining the hydraulic parameters, such as theoretical
head, hydraulic efficiency, slip factor, hydraulic loss coefficient etc in terms of flow rate. The
unsteady flow, wall function and turbulence flow models effects on the performance are also
indicated. The computed pump performance has been compared with the experimental data. The
results showed that the influence of the relative position between volute tongue tip and impeller blade
trailing edge on the performance is less significant. The volute offers increasing influence on the flow
at the impeller exit at low flow rate, causing reduced impeller theoretical head at much low flow rate.
The “sudden-rising head effect” is confirmed to exist and high viscosity and particular large surface
roughness are responsible for this effect.

Key words: centrifugal pump impeller volute viscosity performance roughness CFD

2
1 Introduction
For recent years, CFD (computation fluid dynamics) has become one vital tool of solving
complicated flow problems in research and engineering communities. As a result, it has found
substantially increasing applications in fluid dynamics of rotor-dynamic pumps. The steady 3D
incompressible turbulent flows in isolated centrifugal impellers have been studied numerically in [1-
5]. The turbulent flows in centrifugal diffuser pumps in [6, 7] and those in centrifugal volute pumps in
[8-15] have been conducted by existing CFD codes, accordingly the performance curves against flow
rate were also established based on the CFD results. In some work, for example, in [10, 11, 13-15],
the computed performance curves have been compared with those measured. Nevertheless, these
contributions shed light on the understanding of fluid dynamics and the performance optimization of
rotor-dynamic pumps. It is very interesting to note that in these numerical investigations, water is
usually used as a working liquid and the roughness of wetted surface of flow passages is specified to
be zero. However, in the practical applications of pump, the liquids handled are in a wide range.
Further, the wetted surface roughness perhaps is rough enough sometimes. Therefore, the
computations of flow in centrifugal pumps, where liquids other than water and rough surface are
involved, should be targeted.
On one hand, for many years, significant contributions have been denoted to the investigation
into the performance and flow in centrifugal pumps handling viscous oils in [16-23]. In more recent
years, the hydraulic characteristics of the centrifugal pumps with respective two different impellers
having 20o and 44 o blade exit angles were measured when water and highly viscous oils were pumped
[24]. The time-averaged turbulent flows of water and viscous oils in the impellers and volute of a
centrifugal pump were investigated experimentally by using LDV in [25, 26].
On the other hand, a laminar steady flow caused from high-viscosity of fluid in an isolated
impeller was examined numerically in [27]. A time-averaged steady turbulent flow of viscous oil in a
centrifugal pump impeller was calculated by means of a CFD code-PHOENICS in [28], the computed
results were compared with those given by using LDV measurements. Unfortunately, because of the
limitation in both computer hardware and code itself, the calculated results were poor. The highly
viscous effect of fluid on pump affinity laws was addressed experimentally and numerically by a
small centrifugal blood pump in [29]. The numerical simulations indicated the Reynolds number is
necessary to insure accurate scaling in the small pump. It should be noticed that these numerical
investigations fail to examine detailed variations of hydraulic performance and internal flow field of
centrifugal pumps in terms of liquid viscosity, causing the relations of hydraulic loss in the impeller
and volute with liquid viscosity are unavailable. Moreover, an effective comparison of performance
between experiment and numerical outcomes isn’t made. So that the numerical computations of
viscous oil flow and corresponding hydraulic performance of centrifugal pumps need to be
investigated in detail. In this paper, we tend to estimate numerically the performance in a centrifugal
pump with an impeller blade exit angle of 20o and a volute when the pump transports water and

3
mechanical oils with various kinematical viscosities and densities by using a CFD code-FLUENT to
investigate effects of the viscosity on the performance on a theoretical basis.
For a centrifugal volute pump, an interaction between impeller blades and volute tongue exists.
Nevertheless, this interaction should be taken into account in the CFD computations. In FLUENT, the
interaction can be handled with both MRF (multiple reference frame) method and sliding-mesh
technique. Currently, two routines can be applied to deal with the interaction: one is steady MRF
method (frozen rotor method in other codes) by which steady flow computations are carried out at a
series of relative position between blade and volute tongue; one is unsteady MRF method by which
unsteady flow calculations are launched with the aid of the sliding-mesh technique. For the
unsteadiness of flow is ignored in the steady MRF method, it is less accurate. In the unsteady MRF
method, however, both the rotational effect of impeller and the steadiness of flow are involved, the
method is more accurate than the former. Further, as a reward, it is able to offer time-dependent flow
variables and pump performance. In general, the time consumed to get a periodical solution with the
unsteady MRF method is as long as about 50 times the steady one [11]. Consequently, the unsteady
MRF method perhaps is applicable in the flow and performance computation of a pump at just a few
operating points. If we are just interested in steady flow and steady performance of a pump, it should
be practical to make use of the steady MRF method in the corresponding computations.
In the paper, we mainly tend to have theoretical effects of liquid viscosity on the performance of
a centrifugal pump with volute in a steady manner. However, we also attempt to a little bit involve
some critical factors, such as flow steadiness, wall function and turbulence model effects to make sure
the viscosity effects have been identified correctly.

2 Computational Models
2.1 Flow Domains
An end-suction, single-stage, centrifugal pump was severed as the computational model, whose
both performance and flow field were investigated experimentally already in [24-26]. The pump
specifications at the design point are: flow rate Q =25m3/h, head H =8m, rotational speed n

=1450r/min, specific speed ns =1317 (USA) =93 (China1). The impeller geometrical parameters are

as follows: eye diameter De =62mm, discharge diameter D2 =180mm, number of blades Z =4,

blade discharge angle β2 b =20°, blade warp angle φ=140°, blade outlet width b2 =18mm. Outside
the impeller, a volute with 40mm wide rectangular cross-section and a discharge nozzle of 50mm
diameter is installed. The volute tongue tip is located at a circle of 190mm diameter (Fig. 1).
As mentioned above, the impeller-volute interaction can be dealt with by either unsteady or
steady MRF method. Since the steady rather than unsteady performance of centrifugal pump is
interesting for us at the fist phase of research, the steady MRF method is applied in this contribution.

1
the specific speed of a pump is defined to be n s = 3.65 nQ 0.5 H 0.75 ( rpm , m 3 /s, m)

4
Subsequently, the flow domain geometry of the pump has been built shown Fig. 1(a). The flow
domain consists of a suction pipe, impeller and volute. The domain is created just based on the
dimensions of the solid body presented in the design drawings of the pump, and the variations in
dimension and geometrical shape due to casting process were not taken into account. It should be
noticed that the two spaces between the pump casing and both walls of the impeller shroud and hub
were neglected in the domains.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Flow domain of the model pump (a) and the relative position between a blade and the
volute tongue (b)

In the steady MRF method, the pump performances corresponding to a series of the relative
position between impeller blade and volute tongue need to be investigated. Because of the symmetry
of the impeller, even the four blades 1 through 4 illustrated in Fig. 1(b) pass through the tongue
sequentially, it is enough to conduct numerical computations of flow at a series of relative position
between blade 1 and the tongue. The relative position is specified by the circumferential angle θ
measured from the tip of the tongue to the terminal edge of the pressure surface of blade 1. In the
computations, θ =90o, 75o, 60o, 45o, 30o and 15o, respectively.

2.2 Physical Properties of Liquids

Four liquids, namely tap water, oil 1, oil 2 and oil 3 have been used experimentally as the
working fluid respectively by the model pump. Their density and kinematical viscosity at 20℃ are
tabulated in Table 1. It was shown that these liquids are Newtonian according to the viscosity-shear
rate relations given by a rotational viscometer. In [24], experiments on the performance of handling
tap water, oil 1, oil 2 and oil 3 were made with the model pump. The 2D steady time-averaged flow

5
fields in the impeller and volute of the model pump have been investigated experimentally at both low
flow rate and the best efficiency points in [25, 26] by means of LDV when tap water and oil 2 were
handled by the pump. To compare the performances computed with those measured, these four liquids
were exactly applied in the numerical computations.
Table 1 Physical properties of liquids
Liquid Water Oil 1 Oil 2 Oil 3

Density, ρ , kg/m3 1000 839 851 858

Kinematical viscosity, ν , cSt(mm2/s) 1.0 24.47 48.48 60.7

2.3 Operating Conditions

The numerical computations were carried out at thirteen operating conditions ranging in a flow
rate of 1-11L/s to cover the entire operating range as close as possible. The corresponding inlet
velocity at the suction pipe was ranged between 0.383m/s-4.209m/s.

2.4 Flow Model

In this contribution, the fluid is assumed to be 3D, incompressible and turbulent inside the model
pump under any operating conditions, further, the time-averaged flow is steady. However, in the
unsteady MRF method, the time-averaged flow is assumed to be unsteady. The fluid in the impeller is
rotated anticlockwise with the impeller at a particular constant angular velocity ω (this rotation
direction is specified by a view looking from the suction pipe to the impeller eye), this means the fluid
in the impeller is rotational in the absolute reference frame. However, the fluid in both the suction
pipe and volute isn’t rotational in that reference frame. The fluid flow is governed by the time-
averaged continuity and Navier-Stokes equations. Although an attempt was made to investigate
effects of various turbulence models on the results, the well confirmed standard k - ε two equations
turbulence model is mainly applied to indicate the turbulence effects. The non-equilibrium wall
function is chosen to involve the boundary layer effects.

2.5 Computational Method and Mesh

CFD code FLUENT was chosen to compute the 3D, steady/unsteady and incompressible flow in
the model pump. The finite volume method, SIMPLE algorithm and the second-order upwind scheme
were applied to yield the descritization equations of the governing equations.
In the computations, three flow domains have been employed, namely the flow domain of the
suction pipe, the domain of the volute and the domain of the impeller. The first two are stationary,
whilst the last one is rotational. A plane through the mid-span of blade at the impeller outlet and
vertical the central line of the pump shaft is defined as the geometrical datum. An impeller-suction

6
pipe sliding mesh plane is generated at the impeller eye inlet, where is located at 35mm upstream the
datum plane. Likewise, an impeller-volute sliding mesh plane is specified as a cylindrical surface with
a diameter of 92.5mm.
The suction pipe fluid domain was descritized with hexahedron cell, but both the impeller and
volute flow domains were done with tetrahedron cell due to their complicated geometry. It was
confirmed that when the total number of cells is increased up to 910,000 (10,000cells in the suction
pipe, 210,000 cells in the impeller and 520,000 cells in the volute) the pump performance will be
independent on the cell-size. Unless otherwise stated, the computational results were under this
number of cells. The effect of cell size on the pump performance can be found out in the Appendix.
The under-relaxation factors of pressure, velocity, turbulence kinetic energy and its dissipation
rate are given to be 0.3, 0.5, 0.8 and 0.8 respectively. The convergent criterion for all residuals of
pressure, velocity, turbulence kinetic energy and its dissipation rate is chosen to be 1.5×10-4.
Consequently, the difference of mass flow rate between the pump inlet and outlet is reduced as small
as 8.02×10-5kg/s, so that the continuity equation is much fairly satisfied between flow domains.

2.6 Boundary Conditions

No-slip conditions are applied on wetted solid walls. At the entry of the suction pipe a uniform
inlet absolute velocity is specified, which just has an axial component determined by both known flow
rate and inner cross-sectional area of the suction pipe. The turbulence intensity of flow at the inlet of
the suction pipe (its hydraulic diameter is 62mm) is given to be 5%. A zero static pressure is held at
the volute nozzle exit. The turbulence intensity at its exit (its hydraulic diameter is 50mm) is also
assumed to be 5% for reverse flow. If no reverse flow takes place there, these intensity and diameter
parameters take no effect.

2.7 Wall Roughness Implementation

As a fluid flows over a solid boundary, a boundary layer, where dramatic velocity gradient exists,
is developed on the wall. For a smooth wall, four regions: sublayer, buffer zone, log-law region and
outer layer, can be divided from the wall to the edge of boundary layer. Usually the mesh-size close to
a wall in CFD just can be in the log-law region. Subsequently, the shear stress on the wall will be
estimated approximately by the following expression [30]

V 1  y τw ρ 
= ln  +B (1)
τw ρ κ  ν 

where κ is Von Karman constant, κ =0.41; B the constant determined by experiments, B =5.5;
y the normal distance between a node of cell adjacent to the wall and the wall; ν the kinematical

viscosity of fluid; ρ the density of fluid; τw the shear tress on the wall. Since the fluid velocity V

at the point of distance y from the wall has been available, the determination of τw is fairly

7
straightforward.
For a rough wall, the roughness Reynolds number k s+ （= k s τw ρ ν ） is defined to indicate
the effects of roughness on the velocity profile and in turn the shear stress on the wall. The roughness
k s is known as the equivalent sand roughness and is linked to the arithmetic average of absolute

values of the actual roughness of the wall with particular finish by k s =6 Ra , where Ra =12.5 μm

-50 μm for a cast wall. If Ra =50 μm , then k s =300 μm . This sand equivalent roughness
estimate is comparable to 250 μm , a sand equivalent roughness of natural surface of cast iron
recommended in [30].
Based on the data of hydraulic experiments made by Nikuradse in 1933 with straight circular
cross-section pipes lined inside with uniform sand grains, Ioselevich and Pilipenko (1974) clarified

that: if k s+ ≤ 2.25 , the flow in the boundary layer is in a hydraulic smooth regime and the velocity

profile and shear stress on the wall is unaffected by roughness but by viscosity ; If 2.25 < k s+ ≤ 90 ,
the flow is a transition regime and the profile and stress are impacted by both roughness and viscosity;

if k s+ > 90 , then the flow is in a hydraulic rough regime and the flow is influenced by roughness
only. The velocity profile involved roughness effects is written as [30]

V 1  y τw ρ 
= ln   + B − ∆B (2)
τw ρ κ  ν 

where ∆B is a function in terms of roughness. As a result of the curve fitting to Nikuradse’s data,
Ioselevich and Pilipenko got an analytical expression of ∆B as follows:

0
 k s+ ≤ 2.25

1  k s −2.25 
[ )]
+
∆B =  ln 
κ  87 .75 +k s+  +
sin 0.4285 ln k s −0.811 ( 2.25 < k s+ ≤ 90 (3)
  
1 k s+ > 90
 ln k s+
κ


In FLUENT, (3) is applied to involve the effect of surface roughness of a wall on the boundary

layer flow with an adoption by using a roughness coefficient C ks to indicate the uneven property of
rough elements of a practical surface finish and eventually is expressed with the following formula

0
 k s+ ≤ 2.25

1  k s −2.25 
[ )]
+
∆B =  ln 
κ  87 .75
+C ks k s+  +
(
sin 0.4285 ln k s −0.811 2.25 < k s+ ≤ 90 (4）
  
1 k s+ > 90
( +
 ln 1 +C ks k s )
κ


where C ks =0.5-1.0 is usual choice. Since the shape and distribution of rough elements of cast

8
surface more resembled to those of uniform sand grains in hydraulic experiments available, it was to

let C ks =0.75 in the paper. It has been shown that a large C ks results into a low pump head

computed. As C ks is increased from 0.5 to 0.75, the estimated head at the best efficiency point is

dropped as low as 2% only. Therefore, C ks seems to have minor influence on the computational
results.
Because the treatment of surface roughness effect on boundary layer flows was conducted in
FLUENT by using existing data gained under ideally experimental circumstances on a fundamental
basis of fluid mechanics but nothing new, if a difference of computational flow parameters from
experiment occurs for a flow over rough walls, we shouldn’t be surprised, but consider the case to be
normal as well.

3 Results
3.1 Effect of Relative Position between Blade and Tongue
13
To illustrate the effect of the relative position between
0.9
impeller blade and volute tongue on the
pump 12hydraulic performance, the numerical computations upper
of margin
flow have been carried out at six
upper margin 0.8
positions of blade 1 related to volute tongue, i.e. θ =90o, 75o, 60o, 45o, 30o and 15o. The working fluid
11 mean
mean 0.7
µm
is water and the surface roughness of both impeller and volute is Ra =50lower margin
. Fig. 2 indicates the

impeller theoretical head H i and hydraulic efficiency ηhi , pump head H and hydraulic efficiency
10 0.6
H (m)

ηhi

o o
data1
θ=90 data1
θ=90
i

ηh in9terms of theθ=75
flow
o
data2 lower Q at various θ . The impeller
ratemargin
0.5
theoretical head H
θ=75 is defined as the
data2
i
o
o
o
data3 θ=60 data3 θ=60
o
o
data4
θ=45 data4
θ=45
mass-averaged
8 total energy head rise of fluid from the impeller
o
data5
θ=30
0.4
inlet to outlet. The impeller hydraulic o
data5
θ=30
o
o
data6
θ=15 data6
θ=15
efficiency is defined
data7as the ratio of the impeller theoretical
0.3 head over an ideal
data7
ν=1cSt, theoretical head
Ra=50µm
7 ν=1cSt, Ra=50µm data8
data8
0.2 head rise H i . This ideal head is specified
corresponding to the consumed shaft-power for developing
data9 data9

6
by the following
0 2 expression
4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q(L/s) Q (L/s)
ηV M nω
H th = (5)
11 ρgQ
where ηV is the pump volumetric efficiency, ηV =0.865 is given by [24-26]; M n the total torque
0.8

10
upper margin
upper margin
applied to liquid pumped by the impeller blades and the0.7inside shroud and hub, which are calculated
9
based on CFD results; ω the impeller
mean
rotational angular
0.6
mean ω =πn 30
speed, ; Q the pump flow
rate; g8 the acceleration of gravity. The pump head H is defined as the total energy rise of fluid
lower margin
H(m)

ηh

0.5
from the entry ofθ=90
theo suction
data1 pipe to the volute nozzle exit. Likewise, the pumpθ=90
lower margin hydraulic
o
data1 efficiency
7 data2o data2o
θ=75 θ=75
ηh is the ratio of the pump head over the ideal theoretical
data3
θ=60
data4
o
o
0.4 head H
th .
data3
θ=60
o

θ=45 data4
θ=45
o
6 data5o data5o
θ=30 θ=30
data6o 0.3 data6
θ=15
o
θ=15
data7 data7
5 ν=1cSt, Ra=50µm ν=1cSt, Ra=50µm
data8 data8
data9 0.2 data9

4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q(L/s) Q (L/s)

Fig. 2 Impeller theoretical head and hydraulic efficiency,

9 pump head and hydraulic efficiency in
terms of flow rate for various angles between blade 1 and volute tongue
 In Fig. 2, it is clear that the relative position between blade and the volute tongue does affect the
pump performance. It not only induces the theoretical head and hydraulic efficiency curves’ down or
up displacement but also alters their shape. The theoretical impeller and pump heads are varied in a
range of their mean values ± 0.2m, whilst the impeller and pump hydraulic efficiencies are confined
in two (upper and lower) margins (mean values ± 0.02 and ± 0.03), respectively. At Q =6L/s, for
instance, the relative variations in the theoretical head and the hydraulic efficiency are just less than
2% and 3.5% respectively. As a result, it is apparent that the influence of the relative position between
blade and tongue is unremarkable. Further, it is obviously noted that the curves, which the mean
values of the theoretical head and hydraulic efficiency line up, are much fairly close to those of θ
=45o. Consequently, it is necessary to represent the pump performance curves by using those of θ
=45o. Unless otherwise stated, the performance data just at this angle will be presented in the

10
following sections.

3.2 Effect of Viscosity on Impeller Performance

Figure 3 demonstrates the impeller theoretical head H i , hydraulic efficiency ηhi , hydraulic

loss coefficient ξi and slip factor σ in terms of flow rate Q at the kinematical viscosities of 1cSt,

24cSt, 48ct and 60cSt and with wetted surface roughness of Ra =50 μm . As reference, the
theoretical heads of one-dimensional inviscid fluid flow derived from both Eulerian equation of
turbomachinery and the slip factors of Wiesner and Stodola are also plotted in that figure. Wiesner and
Stodola slip factors are depicted with the following formulae

π
 Z sin β 2b Stodola
σ = (6)
sin β 2b Wiesner

 Z 0.7
Accordingly the impeller theoretical head of one-dimensional inviscid fluid flow is written by
u2  Q 
H i1D = (1 − σ ) u 2 −  (7)
g  ηV A2ψ 2 tan β 2b 

where u 2 is the impeller tip speed, u 2 = ωD2 2 , D2 the impeller exit diameter; ηV the

volumetric efficiency, ηV =0.869 based on the experiments in [24, 25]; A2 the impeller exit area,

A2 = πD2 b2 , b2 the blade exit width; ψ2 the blade blockage coefficient at exit, ψ2 =1-

ZS u 2 πD2 , S u 2 the tangential thickness of blade at exit, S u 2 =10mm. The slip factor σ is
defined as the ratio of the slip velocity of fluid at the impeller exit ∆Vu 2 over the impeller tip speed

u 2 and is mathematically presented by

∆Vu 2
σ= (8)
u2
Even the slip factors can be estimated by comparing the velocity-triangles at the impeller outlet
constructed with CFD outcomes with those of assumed one-dimensional flow of inviscid fluids, these
factors don’t seem to be linked directly to the impeller theoretical head of viscous fluids because at

the impeller outlet the variable u 2Vu 2 g in Euler equation no longer represents the total energy of
viscous fluids. Instead, in the paper, the slip factors will be evaluated by using the impeller theoretical
head of viscous fluids obtained from CFD computations.
Substituting the theoretical head of viscous fluids H i given by CFD computations into (7), the
slip factors corresponding to these heads of viscous fluids are available via the following equation

 gH Q 
σ = 1 −  2 i + 
 (9)
 u2 ηV u 2 A2ψ 2 tan β 2b 

11
 The slip factors calculated just in this way are illustrated in Fig. 3. Note that the impeller

hydraulic loss coefficient ξi showed in that figure is defined as the ratio of the impeller hydraulic

loss ∆hi over the impeller velocity head based on the impeller tip speed u 2 , i.e. ξi = g∆hi u 22 .
It is clearly that tremendous difference of the impeller theoretical head between 3D viscous fluid
and 1D inviscid fluid emerges. The impeller theoretical head of viscous fluid no longer increases
continuously with decreasing flow rate, but a peak occurs at a flow rate of 4L/s (around 57% flow rate
of the best efficiency point) instead, causing stall operating conditions at less flow rate than 4L/s
which are frequently present in centrifugal compressors at part-load points. The 3D viscous flow
theoretical head no longer increased monotonously with decreasing flow rate agrees well with the
experiments in [31, 32].
The impeller theoretical head of 1D inviscid fluid based on Stodola slip factor is in good
agreement with those of viscous fluid by CFD, specially nearly at Q =6L/s. The head based on
Wiesner factor is substantially over-predicted. It is implied that Stodola slip factor is more suitable to
the impellers with less number of blades, small blade discharge angle, long and strongly back-curved
blade than Wiesner slip factor.
It should be noticed that since the impeller theoretical head of 3D viscous fluid flow significantly
deviates from the linear theoretical head of 1D inviscid fluid flow except at a flow rate around Q
=6L/s, the slip factors based on the theoretical heads of 3D viscous fluid no longer are a flow rate-
independent constant, instead are varied with flow rate, subsequently, at both high and low flow rates,
larger slip factors can be found.
Both the impeller theoretical head and slip factor of 3D viscous fluid flow are dependent on
liquid viscosity. Except at a viscosity of ν =24cSt, the theoretical head of viscous fluid is degraded
and the corresponding slip factors are arisen with increasing liquid viscosity. At ν =24cSt, however,
the situation is reverse. In this case, as a flow rate is more than 4L/s, the theoretical head of viscous
fluid is higher than that of water (ν =1cSt), accordingly the slip factor is less than that of water.
The impeller hydraulic efficiency ηhi has a peak between 75% and 90% at a flow rate of Q

=6L/s-7L/s, in turn the impeller hydraulic loss coefficient ξi has the lowest values at this flow rate
range. The hydraulic loss coefficient is increased rapidly towards low flow rate due to severely
reverse flow developed in the impeller. For example, the loss coefficient at Q =1L/s is as high as 64
times at Q =7L/s. Further, as the flow rate more than 7L/s, the hydraulic loss coefficient is increased
but grows slowly with flow rate because of the significant contribution of skin friction loss.
The impeller hydraulic efficiency and the hydraulic loss coefficient rely on liquid viscosity as
well. In general, the hydraulic efficiency is decreased but the loss coefficient is increased with
increasing liquid viscosity. However, the impeller performance is improved at ν =24cSt as the flow
rate more than 5L/s since the theoretical head and hydraulic efficiency of oil1 are higher than those of

12
water (ν =1cSt) and the loss coefficient is lower than that of water ( ν =1cSt).

0.5

data1
0.45 data2
data3
1cSt
24cSt
data4
48cSt
data5
0.4 60cSt
data6

16 0.35

σ
0.3
Stodola

0.25
Wiesner

15
0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q(L/s)

1
10
0.9

0.8 data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2
48Cst
data3
0.7 0
60cSt
10 data4

0.6

14
ηhi

ξi

0.5 data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2 -1
0.4 48cSt
data3 10
60cSt
data4

0.3

0.2
-2
10

13
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q (L/s) Q (L/s)

Fig. 3 Impeller theoretical head, slip factor, hydraulic efficiency and loss coefficient in terms of
flow rate at θ =45o and Ra =50 μm

1D, Stodola
12
3.3 Effect of Viscosity on Pump Performance

F igure 4 demonstrates the pump head H , pump efficiency η , hydraulic efficiency ηh ,

volute hydraulic loss coefficient ξV and pump total hydraulic loss coefficient ξV + ξi in terms of
(m)

11 13
i
 flow rate at various viscosities of 1cSt, 24cSt, 48cSt and 60cSt and with a surface roughness of 50
µm . The volute hydraulic loss coefficient ξV is defined as the ratio of the hydraulic loss ∆hV

inside the volute over the velocity head based on the impeller tip speed, i.e. ξV = g∆hV u 22 . The
computational
13 pump head isn’t completely consistent with the experimental performance, causing a
0.7
maximum
12 relative error of 11%, since the slope of the latter is sharper than the former. The
Exp
mechanism
11 behind this phenomenon perhaps is a disagreement
0.6
between practical model
CFD
and design
drawings
10 in the dimensions and/or shape of volute, especially
0.5 the area of the volute throat.
9 In addition, the pump volumetric and mechanical efficiencies were roughly estimated based on
1cSt data1 0.4
the 8experimental
data2data in [24, 25], then the pump efficiency was calculated by them and the pump
H(m)

24cSt

η
48cSt
data3 CFD
hydraulic
7
efficiency
60cSt
data4
given by CFD. Although the predicted
0.3 pump efficiency is very comparable to
data1
1cSt
data2 EXP
24cSt
at ν =1cSt, 48cSt and 60cSt, a significant deviation from the experiment
1cSt data5
those
6 measured
24cSt
data6
48cSt
data3
60cSt
is found at
0.2 data4
48cSt
ν =24cSt
5 where
data7
ν
1cSt
data8the experimental pump efficiency is less than that of water ( 24cSt
60cSt
data5
data6=1cSt). The reason
48cSt
data7
for 4this is perhaps that the less correct disk loss is involved
0.1
in the CFD estimate of pump efficiency.
60cSt
data8

The3 flow computations tending to include this loss should0 be worth being conducted in forthcoming
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
investigations. Q(L/s) Q (L/s)

The pump hydraulic efficiency is below 75% in all cases. It is the volute that makes the pump
hydraulic
0.8 efficiency be reduced by at least 15%. In addition, the higher the flow rate, the larger the
reduction. It is more likely that the volute affects the hydraulic
-1 losses more considerable than the
0.7
10
impeller does, specially at the high flow rate for this pump.
0.6 Unlike the impeller hydraulic loss coefficient, the volute hydraulic loss coefficient is raised with
increasing flow rate. For instance, as the flow rate is increased from 1L/s to 11L/s, the hydraulic loss
ξV
ηh

0.5
coefficient is increased by about 3.5 times. -2
10 data1
1cSt
0.4
The pump total hydraulic loss coefficient is minimum at around Q =6L/s. As
data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2
the flow rate
data2
24cSt
48cSt
data3 48cSt
data3
becomes
0.3
low, the total loss coefficient gets significantly large, whereas it rises moderately
60cSt
data4 60cSt
data4 with
increasing flow rate. Comparing the impeller hydraulic loss coefficient with that of the volute, it is
0.2
discovered that the impeller hydraulic loss coefficient is dominated
-3 at low flow rate, at high flow rate,
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
however, the volute loss coefficient is remarked.
Q (L/s) Q(L/s)

1
Fig. 4 Pump head and hydraulic efficiency, volute
10
hydraulic loss coefficient and pump total hydraulic
loss coefficient in terms of flow rate, the symbols
indicate the experimental head and efficiency of the
data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2
pump
48cSt
data3
0
10 60cSt
data4
ξ i +ξ V

-1
10

10
-2
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q (L/s)
 As shown in Fig. 4, even both the pump computed head and hydraulic efficiency are deteriorated
gradually as increasing liquid viscosity, at ν =24cSt (oil 1), they are improved compared with those
at ν =1cSt (water). The phenomenon, regarding that the pump performance is improved at a
particular high viscosity of liquid compared to pumping water, is named as “sudden-rising head

15
effect”. It has been observed that the pump head is improved at ν =24cSt-60cSt (oil1, oil 2 and oil3)
in the experiments of [24] and indicated the sudden-rising-effect-head is onset at this viscosity.
Obviously, this phenomenon is well predicted by the numerical computations. Therefore, this effect
has been confirmed to exist theoretically and experimentally. Since the effects of flow turbulence and
surface roughness on the boundary layer flows in the pump are estimated approximately, the sudden-
rising-head effect has to merge just at ν =24cSt in the numerical computations. Nevertheless, it is
hopeful that the analytical prediction may be improved with the development in both turbulence
model and boundary layer flow investigations.
For an absolutely smooth surface ( Ra =0 μm ), the computed pump head is decreased
continuously with increasing liquid viscosity, subsequently, the sudden-rising-head effect is excluded.
For a roughness of Ra =100 μm , however, the sudden-rising-head effect occurs once more (Fig.5).
It is believed that the surface roughness of flow channels plays a critical role in the occurrence of
sudden-rising-head effect.

11 11

10 10

9 9

8 8
H(m)
H(m)

7 data1
1cSt 7
24cSt
data2 data1
1cSt
48cSt
data3 24cSt
data2
6 60cSt
data4
6
48cSt
data3
60cSt
data4
5 5

4 4

3 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q(L/s) Q(L/s)

Fig. 5 Pump head in terms of flow rate at surface roughness of 0 μm and 100 μm

Figure 6 shows the averaged skin friction factors applied on the liquid pumped by the wetted

surfaces of the impeller and volute in terms of flow rate. The impeller mean skin friction factor C fi

is defined as the ratio of the averaged shear stress τ wi applied by the impeller wetted surfaces on the

liquid over the velocity head ρu 22 2 , that is C fi = 2τ wi ρu 22 . Likewise, the volute mean skin

friction factor C fV is the ratio of the averaged shear stress τ wV applied on the liquid by the volute

over the velocity head ρu 22 2 , C fV = 2τ wV ρu 22 . Both mane skin friction factors include the

16
effects of liquid viscosity and surface roughness on the skin friction loss in the flow passages of
impeller and volute. For the same passage, the larger the mean skin friction factor, the more the skin
friction loss.
In Fig. 6, even though the magnitudes of C fi and C fV are comparable, their relations with the

flow rate are quite different. For C fi , it has a minimum value at Q =4L/s, and then is increased

rapidly with increasing flow rate, C fV , however, grows slowly but continuously from low to high
flow rate. The flow velocity in the impeller channels may be increased by increasing blockage due to
the reserve flow onset at much low flow rate. It should be unsurprised to notice that an increasing
C fi can be seen at a flow rate less than 4L/s. Besides the vortex and shock losses, the increased

impeller skin friction loss is likely responsible for the huge hydraulic loss coefficient of impeller at
low flow rate shown in Fig. 3.

-3 -3
x 10 x 10
7 7

6 data1 6
1cSt data1
1cSt
data2
24cSt 24cSt
data2
48cSt
data3 48cSt
data3
5 60cSt
data4 5 60cSt
data4
C fV

4 4
fi
C

3 3

2 2

1 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q(L/s) Q(L/s)

Fig. 6 Mean skin friction factors of both impeller an volute in terms of flow rate at various liquid
viscosities and Ra =50 μm

The mean skin friction factors are raised with increasing liquid viscosity, at ν =24cSt, however,

both C fi and C fV start to be lower than those at ν =1cSt (water) respectively from Q =4.5L/s
and Q =6.5L/s. The lowered mean skin friction factors correspond to the decreased skin friction loss
in the pump, accordingly the pump performance shows a higher head developed and increased
hydraulic efficiency. It should be concluded that the deceased skin friction loss in both impeller and
volute is responsible for the sudden-rising-head effect.
Based on the experimental outcomes of turbulent flow of the boundary layer over flat rough
plates [30], in the hydraulic rough regime, the skin friction factor is related to the surface roughness

17
only. As the liquid viscosity increasing, the Reynolds number is decreased, causing the flow regime is
the hydraulic transition zone, where the skin friction factor not only depends on both Reynolds
number and surface roughness but also is decreased with decreasing Reynolds number. As Reynolds
number is decreased further, the flow regime is in the hydraulic smooth zone, in which the factor is
just dependent on Reynolds number but is raised as decreasing Reynolds number. It can be imagined
that the sudden-rising-head effect should take place in the transition zone rather than in the others.
Two critical parameters to decide the sudden-rising-head effect onset are the high enough surface
roughness and properly decreased Reynolds number. If the surface roughness is too small or the
Reynolds number is decreased too much, causing the flow regime is in the hydraulic smooth zone, the
sudden-rising-head effect will unlikely happen. Otherwise, if the surface roughness is too high and
Reynolds number is too large, the effect still won’t occur for the flow regime is in the hydraulic rough
zone.
In fact, the sudden-rising head effect was also found with experiments in [33]on the centrifugal
oil pump with a specific speed of 807 (USA) or 57 (China) and confirmed with the estimation of the
friction loss of water and viscous oils flow in the impeller and volute by using the routine boundary
layer theory. At the moment, this effect also exists in the experimental performance of the pump with
the specific speed of 93 and is confirmed with CFD results once again. Therefore, the sudden-rising
head effect may be an essential characteristic of a low specific speed centrifugal pump handling
highly viscous oils.
It should be noticed that even though the sudden-rising head effect occurs, the pump gross
efficiency still is gradually decreased due to the possible increased impeller disk friction loss by the
increasing liquid viscosity [24, 25]. The clear mechanism behind it obviously needs to be debuted
further experimentally and numerically.

3.4 Effect of Volute on Flow

Figure 7 illustrates the impeller static pressure head rises and velocity head versus flow rate at
various liquid viscosities and Ra =50 μm to clarify the reason why there is a peak onset in the
impeller theoretical head curve at a low flow rate shown in Fig. 3. Further, the results based on the
unsteady turbulent flow computations are also disclosed on the figure to make sure of fully
understanding of the effect of volute. It is observed that the unsteady results are pretty consistent with
those of steady flow. Moreover, the unsteady results show more remarked dependence upon the liquid
viscosity compared to the steady data. The maximum difference of performance between unsteady
and steady flows is less than 4%.
As be seen in Fig. 7, the impeller static pressure head H is is steadily increased with decreasing

flow rate. Contrarily, the velocity head H iV has a peak at around Q =4L/s, then a dramatic decrease

in H iV can be found at a flow rate less than 4L/s. Therefore, it is believed this too low velocity head
at a flow rate less than 4L/s should contribute the peak onset on the theoretical head curves.

18
 10 4
steady
9 3.5

8 3

H (m)
H is (m)

7 2.5
data1
1cSt data1

iV
1cSt
24cSt
data2 data2
24cSt
48cSt steady
data3 48cSt steady
data3
6 60cSt
data4 2 60cSt
data4
data5
1cSt data5
1cSt
24cSt unsteady
data6 data6
24cSt
48cSt
5 data7 1.5 48cSt unsteady
data7 unsteady
60cSt
data8 60cSt
data8

4 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q (L /s ) Q (L /s)
Fig. 7 Impeller static pressure head and velocity
0 .7 head rises as well as dimensionless tangential
component of absolute velocity of liquid at
impeller exit in terms of flow rate at various liquid
viscosities and Ra =50 μm
0 .6

steady
V u2 /u 2

0 .5
data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2
steady
48cSt
data3
60cSt
data4
0 .4 data5
1cSt
24cSt unsteady

3
data6

3
48cSt
data7
60cSt
data8

0 .3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q (L /s )

unsteady

Q =6L/s Q =3L/s
Fig. 8 Relative velocity vector and static pressure contour over the impeller blades and hub at a low
flow rate ( Q =3L/s) and the best efficiency point ( Q =6L/s) for water (ν =1cSt) in the steady and
unsteady cases
19
 To expose the reason for extreme low velocity head occurrence at a low flow rate, the computed

tangential components of absolute velocity of liquid at the impeller discharge have been illustrated in

Fig. 7 too. The tangential component of velocity has been made dimensionless with the impeller tip

20
speed u 2 . It is clearly that a dramatically decreased tangential velocity is caused. It should be noticed

that the LDV measurements also revealed that the decreased velocity happens at the impeller exit with

decreasing flow rate in [26]. The reduction of tangential velocity implies that a volute can apply much

strong impact on the flow in an impeller.

Figure 8 shows the liquid relative velocity vector and static pressure contour over the impeller
blades and hub at a low flow rate ( Q =3L/s) and the best efficiency point ( Q =6L/s) when the pump
handling water (ν =1cSt) based on both steady and unsteady turbulent flows respectively. The static
pressure is in terms of the liquid columns height, m. At the best efficiency point, the static pressure
and the relative velocity are uniform along the impeller periphery and the separated flow is
unavailable. At a low flow rate ( Q =3L/s), the static pressure at three passages (between blades 4-1,
2-1 and 2-3) is fairly higher than in the passage between blades 3-4. As a result of this, the relative
velocity in these three channels is very low and subject to server separation. For other high viscosities
near the same phenomenon can be observed.
It should be noticed that a very good agreement is achieved between steady and unsteady
turbulent flow fields, however, the unsteady flow models seem to present more uniform pressure
along the impeller periphery and less separated relative flow in the impeller.

3.5 Effect on Slip Factor

Except by the theoretical head developed in an impeller, the slip factor of the impeller also can be
calculated by using velocity triangles at the impeller discharge [34]. In addition, it was proposed that
the slip factor is estimated by using Euler equation with an actual relative flow angle at the impeller
exit given by CFD computations [35]. In that case, the slip factor is defined the ratio of the impeller
theoretical head over the head of the impeller with infinite number of blades. In this proposal the
radial flow velocity is kept to be unchanged between 3D viscous flow and 1D ideal flow. In fact, 3D
viscous fluid flow showed experimentally an increasing radial velocity at the impeller exit compared
to 1D uniform inviscid flow as indicated in Fig. 9 [36], this is also true for CFD computational results.
In section 3.2, the slip factors estimated by using the impeller theoretical head of 3D viscous fluid
have been illustrated. Here we tend to present those given just by the velocity triangles at the impeller
outlet. In doing so, we have to apply the velocity triangles in Fig. 9 to extract the slip factors.

1D
3D
W2
V2
v2 w2
Vr2 vr2
β2b

Vu2 u2

21
Fig. 9 Velocity triangle at impeller discharge for estimate slip factor
 For a uniform 1D ideal flow, the tangential component of the relative velocity wu 2 is given by
the following formula
vr 2 Q
wu 2 = = (10)
tan β 2b ηV A2ψ 2 tan β 2b

Based on CFD computational results, the velocity components Vu 2 and Vr 2 are available, the
tangential component of the relative velocity of 3D viscous fluid flow is
Wu 2 = u 2 −Vu 2 (11)
With the slip factor definition (8), the slip factor extracted from the velocity triangles is
expressed by
Vu 2 Q
σ =1 − − (12)
u 2 η V A2ψ 2 tan β 2b u 2
The computed slip factors based on both unsteady and steady flows have been shown in Fig. 10
for the impeller with volute at various viscosities and a surface roughness of Ra =50 μm . The slip
factors are reduced with increasing flow rate. The similar characteristics of slip factor versus flow rate
were revealed by experiments in [36, 37]. Moreover, the slip factors extracted from velocity triangles
considerable differs from those based on the impeller theoretical head by CFD computation (see Fig.
3).
As the flow rate is less than 5L/s, the slip factors are rapidly increased as high as 0.6. Otherwise,
the slip factors asymptotically approach the Wiesner’s slip factor. The slip factors due to the unsteady
flow model much more depend on the liquid viscosity than those due to the steady model. Except at
ν =24cSt, the slip factor are reduced with increasing liquid viscosity, causing an good agreement
with that was found experimentally in [38]. At ν =24cSt, although the slip factor is the largest, the
highest static pressure rise is developed across the impeller (Fig. 7). Since the static pressure rise is
0.65
dominated compared to the velocity head rise in the impeller, an increased slip factor doesn’t mean a
0.6
lowered total head developed by the impeller. data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2
steady
0.55 48cSt
data3
60cSt
data4
0.5 1cSt
data5
24cSt
data6
unsteady
0.45 48cSt
data7
60cSt
data8
0.4 data9
data10
0.35

0.3
Stodola
0.25
Wiesner
0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Fig. 10 Slip factor against

22 flow rate at various
viscosities and a surface roughness of Ra =50 μm
 ν =1cSt

3.6 Effect on Flow Field

ν =24c
In FLUENT, the fluid physical viscosity rather than the turbulence eddy viscosityStin the
Reynolds time-averaged N-S equations is switched off in fully turbulent flow region. Consequently,
the physical viscosity just applies its effect on the main flow through the wall function, for example,
(2) or (3). Fig. 11 shows the absolute velocity and static pressure contours in the plane through the
mid-span of blade at v =1cSt, 24cSt, 48cSt and 60cSt at the best efficiency point ( Q =6L/s) based
on the unsteady turbulent flow. It is very interesting to note that near the same pattern in the pictures
has been found at those viscosities. However, the color of the contours seems to become slightly light
with increasing viscosity, especially the pressure contour at ν
=60cSt to indicate the pump
ν =48c
performance degraded. It is believed that the viscosity effect on the main flow velocity profile rather
St
than the static pressure isn’t quite considerable. The decreased static pressure rise owing to the
increased skin friction loss in the pump should be responsible to the reduction of performance.

ν =60c
St

Fig. 11 Absolute velocity (left) and static pressure (right) contours in the plane through the impeller
23 at ν =1cSt , 24cSt, 48cSt and 60cSt, the
blade mid-span at the best efficiency point ( Q =6L/s)
velocity is colored by velocity magnitude (m/s), and the static pressure is colored by liquid column
height (m)
3.7 Effect of Surface Roughness
Figure 12 illustrates the pump head and hydraulic efficiency in terms of flow rate at various
viscosities and Ra=0 μm , 50 μm and 100 μm . For Ra=0 μm , the strongest surface roughness
effect can be found. Otherwise, as the liquid viscosity increasing, the roughness effect is suppressed

24
substantially. Moreover, once the surface roughness Ra > 50 μm , the effect on the performance
becomes less dominated. The experimental data in [39, 40] seem to show the similar effect.

11 0.9

10 0.8

9 0.7

8
0.6
H (m)

data1
1cSt
data2 1cSt
data1

ηh
24cSt 0.5
7 data3 Ra=0 µm 24cSt
data2
48cSt Ra=0 µm
60cSt
data4 48cSt
data3
data5 60cSt
1cSt data4
24cSt
data6 0.4
6 data5
1cSt
48cSt
data7 Ra=50 µm
data6
24cSt
60cSt
data8 Ra=50 µm
48cSt
data7
data9
1cSt 0.3 60cSt
data8
5 24cSt
data10
Ra=100 µm 1cSt
data9
48cSt
data11
60cSt
24cSt
data10
data12 Ra=100 µm
0.2 48cSt
data11
4 60cSt
data12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q(L/s)
Q (L/s)

Fig. 12 Pump head and hydraulic efficiency in terms of flow rate for surface roughness of 0 μm , 50 μm
and 100 μm and at various liquid viscosities

Table 2 Admissible roughness of impeller and volute

Mean velocity at Q Water Oil l Oil 2 Oil 3
=6L/s ν =1cSt ν =24cSt ν =48cSt ν =60cS
t
Impeller, W =3.9m/s 4.2 102.6 205.1 256.4

Volute, V =4.4m/s 3.8 90.9 181.8 227.3

Ra*= (100 / 6)ν W or (100 / 6)ν V

11 0.9

data1
1cSt data1
1cSt
24cSt
data2 24cSt
data2
48cSt
data3 48cSt
data3
60cSt
data4 0.8 60cSt
10 data4
H (m)

ηh

0.7
9

0.6

0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
R a (µm ) Ra (µm)
25
Fig. 13 Pump head and hydraulic efficiency in terms of roughness Ra at Q =6L for four viscosity
values
 Table 2 shows the admissible roughness Ra* of both impeller and volute in terms of Ra at the
best efficiency point Q =6L/s for various viscosities based on Schlichting formula [39]. Since the
mean relative velocity of flow in the impeller is close to that in the volute, the admissible roughness
Ra* of the impeller is comparable to the volute. The admissible roughness is increased with
increasing liquid viscosity. Fig. 13 illustrates the pump head and hydraulic efficiency in terms of
surface roughness Ra at Q =6L for four viscosities. At ν =1cSt, the performance is degraded until
Ra less than 40 μm . Beyond this roughness the performance is slightly affected. At ν =24cSt, the
performance is improved as Ra >25 μm . Based on Table2, the admissible roughness Ra* of both
impeller and volute is around 100 μm at ν =24cSt. Consequently, when Ra is between 25 μm and
100 μm , the flow regime of boundary layer in the impeller and volute should be in the transition
zone where less skin friction loss is expected. As the viscosity more than 48cSt, the performance is
basically unaffected by the surface roughness because the rough is much less than Ra* and the
corresponding flow regime of boundary layer in the impeller and volute should be in hydraulic
smooth zone.
If a pump is used to transport highly viscous liquids, it may be acceptable that the pump flow
channels maintain a relative large roughness. Otherwise, the surface roughness should be kept as
small as possible.

4 Discussions
4.1 Flow Regime in Section Pipe
In the computations, the Reynolds number at the suction pipe is varied in a range of 3.9 × 102-3.3
× 10 5
from water to oil 3 and from a high flow rate to a low one. The Reynolds number at around 14
operating points is less than 2300, and the flow in the suction piper should be laminar, subsequently,
the flow in the impeller would be either laminar or turbulent at these conditions. Due to lack of
information of flow transition in impellers, even the Reynolds number is so low, the flow in the pump

26
still is assumed to be turbulent in the paper.

4.2 Wall Function Effect

In the computations, the non-equilibrium wall function is applied to take into account the
pressure gradient along the normal of blade two surfaces. As a result, the computations employing the
standard wall function also were carried out to indicate the wall function effect on the pump
performance. A comparison of wall function effect between standard and non-equilibrium has been
presented in Table 3. At ν =1cSt, the consistent results have been achieved by both wall functions, at
ν =60cSt, however, the standard wall function causes an abnormal impeller hydraulic efficiency,
which is even higher than that at ν =1cSt. Therefore, the standard wall function seems to be
inapplicable in highly viscous fluid flow computations.

Table 3 Effect of wall function on performance

Viscosity and flow Wall function M n (N. H i (m H (m) ηhi ηh
rate m) )
ν =1cSt, Q =6L/s Standard 5.822 11.303 9.345 0.849 0.702

Non-equilibrium 5.779 11.415 9.406 0.863 0.711

ν =60cSt, Q Standard 5.091 11.172 8.482 0.823 0.625

=6L/s
Non-equilibrium 5.392 11.129 8.823 0.774 0.614

4.3 Turbulence Model Effect

The different turbulence models are expected to show strong effect on the pump performance.
Accordingly the turbulence models available in FLUENT, such as the standard k −ε , RNG k − ε ,
realizable k − ε and standard 4−
Table k ω models
Effect as wellmodel
of turbulence as Spalart-Allmaras
on performancemodels have been switched
H ( inηTable h ν =1cSt, the models
4.ηAt
Viscosity andWall
on respectively function results
corresponding M n (N. H i summarized
have been ( hi
Convergence
and flow m) m) m)
except Spalart-Allmaras
rate give much close performance parameters even the RNG k − ε model shows
ν =1cSt, Standard k −ε 5.779 11.415 9.406 0.863 0.711 good
poor convergence.
Q =6L/s
At ν =60cSt, the standard k −ε , RNG k − ε , realizable k −ε models show
RNG k − εbut the standard
fairly consistent performance, 5.778 k11.386
− ω and9.486 0.861 0.718
Spalart-Allmaras poor
models are unable to get
a reasonable impeller hydraulic efficiency.
Realizable 5.787 The11.445
Spalart-Allmaras model0.721
9.542 0.864 shows poorly
good predicting
k −ε
ability and should be excluded in the application of internal turbulent flow. Moreover, the standard
Standard k − ω 5.830 11.548 9.472 0.866 0.710 good
k − ω should be unsuitable to highly viscous fluid flows. It is apparent that the standard k −ε
Spalart-Allmaras 5.913 11.640 9.285 0.860 0.686 good
model is applicable to turbulent flows of liquid with either low or high viscosity and it is unnecessary
ν =60cSt
to apply other thanStandard k −toε simulate
this model 5.392 11.129 8.823 0.774 0.614
such flows. good
, Q
=6L/s RNG k − ε 5.376 11.060 8.705 0.771 0.607 good

Realizable 5.415 11.057 8.522 0.764 0.590 good

k −ε
Standard k − ω 5.269 11.412 8.893 0.812 0.633 poor
27
Spalart-Allmaras 5.190 11.695 8.944 0.845 0.646 poor
5 Conclusions
The hydraulic performance of a centrifugal pump handling water and viscous oils was
investigated numerically by means of a CFD code-FLUENT. The flow inside the pump is assumed to
be steady or unsteady, turbulent and incompressible. The turbulent effect on the flow is described with
the standard k − ε turbulence model and the flow is solved by using the steady and unsteady MRF
methods. Significant attention has been paid on the effect of liquid viscosity on the performance. The
flow channels of the pump are subject to rough surface. The wall function and turbulence model
effects on the performance have been clarified. The computed results have been compared with those
of experiments. It was indicated that the sudden-rising-head effect is present and a decreased impeller
theoretical head is found at much low flow rate. The impeller theoretical head of 3D viscous fluid
shows considerable difference from that of 1D inviscid fluid. The relative position between blade and
volute tongue does affect the pump hydraulic performance but the influence is slight. The sudden-
rising-head effect is revealed analytically and is consistent with the experimental evidence. The flow
regime transition from the rough zone to the hydraulic smooth one is responsible for this effect. An
increasing strong interaction between volute and impeller causes dramatically decreased velocity head
of liquid at the impeller exit, which contributes the peak onset in the impeller theoretical head curve.
The performance and flow field due to the unsteady flow model doesn’t seem to show noticed
difference from those due to the steady flow model. However, the unsteady flow model not only tends
to cause a uniform flow along he impeller periphery but also to indicate stronger dependence on the
liquid viscosity compared to the steady flow model. Although the time-averaged Navier-Stokes

28
equations with an aid of the standard turbulence k − ε model combined with the non-equilibrium
wall function is applicable to handle highly viscous liquid effect on the performance, more accurate
results are still expected to be present in future.

Reference
[1] Lee S C and Chen D, 1993, Off-design Performance prediction for radial-flow impellers,
International Journal of Turbo & Jet Engines, 10, 45-60
[2] Zhou W D, Zhao Z M, Lee T S and Winoto S H, 2003, Investigation of flow through centrifugal
pump impellers using computational fluid dynamics, International Journal of Rotating
Machinery, 9(1), 49-61
[3] Denus K and Osborne C, 2002, Hydraulic development of a centrifugal pump impeller using the
agile turbomachinery design system, Task Quarterly, 6(1), 79-100
[4] Byskov R K and Pederson N, 2003, Flow in a centrifugal pump impeller at design and off-design
conditions-Part II: large eddy simulations, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 125, 73-83
[5] Anagnostopoulos J S, 2006, Numerical calculation of the flow in a centrifugal pump impeller
using Cartesian grid, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied and
Theoretical Mechanics, 20-22 November 2006, Venice, Italy, 124-129
[6] Guleren K M and Pinarbasi A, 2004, Numerical simulation of the stalled flow within a vaned
centrifugal pump, Proc Instn Mech Engrs-Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science,
218, 425-435
[7] Huang S, Islam M F and Liu P F, 2006, Numerical simulation of 3d turbulent flow through an
entire stage in a multistage centrifugal pump, International Journal of Computational Fluid
Dynamics, 20(5), 309-314
[8] Majidi K and Siekmann H E, 2000, Numerical of secondary flow in pump volute and circular
casings using 3D viscous flow techniques, International Journal of Rotating Machinery, 6(4),
245-252
[9] Eduardo B M, Joaquim F F, Jorge L P G and Carlos S M, 2000, Numerical simulation of
centrifugal pumps, Proceedings of ASME 2000 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting,
June 11-15, 2000, Boston, USA, 1-5
[10] Tamm A, Ludwig G and Stoffel B, 2001, Numerical experimental and theoretical analysis of
efficiencies of the industrial a centrifugal pump, Proceedings of ASME 2001 Fluids Engineering
Division Summer Meeting, May 29-June 1, 2001, Louisiana, USA, 1-7
[11] Dick E, Vierendeels J, Serbrugyns A and Voorde J V, 2001, Performance prediction of centrifugal
pumps with CFD-tools, Task Quarterly, 5(4), 579-594
[12] Oh H W, Yoon E S, Park M R, Sun K and Hwang C M, 2005, Hydrodynamic design and
performance analysis of a centrifugal blood pump for cardiopulmonary circulation, Proc Instn
Mech Engrs-Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 219, 525-532

29
[13] Asuaje M, Bakir F, Kergourlay G, Noguera R and Rey R, 2006, Three-dimensional quasi-
unsteady flow simulation in a centrifugal pump: comparison with experimental results, Proc Instn
Mech Engrs-Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 220, 239-255
[14] Kergourlay G, Younsi M, Bakir F and Rey R, 2007, Influence of splitter blades on the flow field
of in a centrifugal pump: test-analysis comparison, International Journal of Rotating machinery,
Volume 2007, 1-13
[15] Cheah K W, Lee T S, Winoto S H and Zhao Z M, 2007, Numerical flow simulation in a
centrifugal pump at design and off-design conditions, International Journal of Rotating
machinery, Volume 2007, 1-8
[16] Ippen A T, 1946, The influence of viscosity on centrifugal-pump performance, Transaction of
ASME, 68, 823-848
[17] Kamimoto G, Matsuoka Y and Shirai H, 1959, On the flow in the impeller of centrifugal type
hydraulic machinery, Transaction of JSME, 25(153), 383-388
[18] Itaya S and Nishikawa T, 1960, Studies on the volute pump handling viscous fluids, Transaction
of JSME, 26(162), 202-209
[19] Acosta A J and Hollander A, 1965, Observations on the performance of centrifugal pumps at low
Reynolds numbers, Proceedings of the Symposium on Pump Design, Testing and Operation,
12th-14th 1965, Glasgow, UK, 379-393
[20] Tanaka K and Ohashi H, 1984, Performance of centrifugal pumps at low Reynolds number,
Transaction of JSME, Series B, 50(449), 279-285
[21] Aoki K, Yamamoto T, Ohta H and Nakayama Y, 1985, Study on centrifugal pump for high
viscosity liquids, Transaction of JSME, Series B, 51(468), 2753-2758
[22] Ohta H, Aoki K and Yamamoto T, 1985, Study on centrifugal pump for high viscosity liquids
(effect of clearance ratio), Transaction of JSME, Series B, 51(472), 4295-4300
[23] Ohta H and Aoki K, 1990, Study on centrifugal pump for high viscosity liquids (effect of
impeller blade number on the pump performance), Transaction of JSME, Series B, 56(526),
1702-1707
[24]Li W G and Hu Z M, 1996, Experiments on the performance of a centrifugal oil pump, Chinese
Fluid Machinery, 25(2), 3-8
[25] Li W G, 2000, Effects of viscosity on the performance of a centrifugal oil pump and the flow
pattern in the impeller, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 21(2)), 271-275
[26] Li W G, 2002, Flow of viscous oil in the volute of centrifugal pump, Journal of Thermal Science,
11(1), 10-15
[27] Steck E and Flelsch K O, 1989, Calculating 3d laminar flow through centrifugal pumps,
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Laminar and
Turbulent Flow, 11th-15th July, 1989, Swansea, UK, 1321-1331
[28] Li W G, 1997, Numerical computations of 3d turbulent flow in a centrifugal pump impeller,

30
 Chinese Pump Technology, (5), 20-29
[29] Day W, Lemire P P, Flack R D and McDaniel J C, 2003, Effect of Reynolds number on
performance of a small centrifugal pump, Proceedings of the 4th ASME-JSME Joint Fluids
Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, July 6-11, 2003
[30] Cebeci T and Bradshaw P, 1977, Momentum transfer in boundary layers, Washington:
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 179-191
[31] Peck J F, 1951, Investigation concerning flow conditions in a centrifugal pump and effect of
blade loading on head slip, Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 164, 1-30
[32] Bowerman R D and Acosta A J, 1957, Effect of the volute on performance of a centrifugal-pump
impeller, Transaction of ASME, 79, 1057-1069
[33] Li W G, 2000, The sudden-rising head effect in centrifugal oil pumps, World Pumps, (409), 34-
36
[34] Sakai T and Watanabe I, 1967, The slip factor of centrifugal and mixed-flow compressors,
Transaction of JSME, 33(249), 735-744
[35] Caridad J A and Kenyery F, 2005, Slip factor for centrifugal impellers under single and two-
phase flow conditions, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 127, 317-321
[36] Kasai T, 1935, On the exit velocity and slip coefficient at the outlet of centrifugal impeller with
some references to the characteristics of pump, Transaction of JSME, 1(3), 234-246
[37] Kasai T, 1934, On the flow conditions at the exit of centrifugal impeller, Journal of JSME,
37(202), 60-69
[38] Ohta H, 1999, Effect of Reynolds number on slip factor of centrifugal pump for high viscosity
liquids, Transaction of JSME, Series B, 65(639), 3697-3704
[39] Shirakura M, 1959, Effects of surface roughness of impeller channel on volute-pump
performance, Journal of JSME, 62(485), 890-899
[40] Ida T, 1965, The effects of impeller vane roughness and thickness on the characteristics of the
mixed-flow propeller pump, Bulletin of JSME, 8(32), 634-643

31
 Appendix Effect of Number of Cells on Performance

To check the effect of number of cells in flow domains on the numerical results, the meshes with
respective 540,000 cells, 910,000 cells and 1,290,000 cells have bee generated by using GAMBIT at a
relative position between impeller blade and volute tongue ( θ =90o), then the numerical
computations of water steady turbulent flow in the model pump were launched with the standard
k −ε turbulence model and the non-equilibrium wall function for each mesh. The wetted surfaces of
the pump is subject to a roughness Ra =50 µ m.
The pump performance curves as a function of flow rate have been illustrated in Fig. 14. The
pump head seems to be independent on all the mesh sizes, but the hydraulic efficiency starts to be
independent on the mesh size when the number of cells is increased up to 910,000. This mesh size is
used in all numerical computations in this paper.

0.8

0.7

0.6

11 0.5
η

0.4 data1
540000
910000
data2
1290000
data3
0.3

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Q (L/s)

Fig. 14 Pump head and hydraulic efficiency in terms of flow rate under three different numbers of cells
in the flow domains

10

9 32