CI D244 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 2015

TECHNICAL MEMO

Title of practical:

Centrifugal Pump Curves

Date of practical:

06/08/15

Name of student:

Tanner Wareham

Student number:

17662168

Signature of student:
Group number:
Group members:

D6
Meaghan Wood 17125677, Neil Viviers 18363628

OBJECTIVES:
1. To obtain the characteristic curve for a single centrifugal pump and
compare to the curve supplied by the manufacturer for said pump.

2. To determine if the curves obtained for pumps in series and in parallel can
be obtained from those of individual pumps

3. To demonstrate cavitation and investigate how flow rate and suction static
head or inlet pressure affect this.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Characteristic curve for a single centrifugal pump AB-1:
Pump AB-1 was isolated from pump AB-2 in order to obtain the pumps curve
experimentally. A copy of the manufacturers curve was provided and data points
were extrapolated onto excel in order to reproduce the curve and plot it together

with the experimental data points. The resulting comparison is as follows:

Comparison of manufacturer's curve to experimental curve

25

20

15
Manufacturer's curve

H(m)

Experimental data
10

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Q(l/hr)

Figure 1 Characteristic curve for pump AB-1

The experimental data follows the manufacturers curve quite accurately just
with slightly lower head values at each point. This is probably due to the setup of
the piping system which would incur additional friction losses the manufacturers
curve would not have taken into account which would reduce the overall head the
pump could produce. Wear and tear of the pump over time could also reduce the
pumps ability since its production.
Pumps in series:
Characteristic curves for both pumps were needed prior to the comparison with
the series curve and so the curve for pump AB-2 was produced first and plotted
with the data for AB-1 to investigate the assumption that both pumps are exactly
the same.

AB-1 vs AB-2
25
20
15

H(m)

AB-2
AB-1

10
5
0
500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Q(l/hr)

Figure 2 data points for AB-1 and AB-2

The pumps performed exactly the same up and till 2500 l/hr after which the head
became less for AB-2 again probably due to the difference in setup within the
piping system of the two pumps. This difference in performance may result in
deviations from theory in the rest of the investigations.
The curve for AB-1 and AB-2 setup in series was then generated experimentally
and plotted against the curve produced by summing the heads for the individual
pumps (theoretical).

Pumps in series theoretical vs experimental

400000
350000
300000
250000

H(m)

Theoretical

200000

experimental

150000
100000
50000
0
500

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Q(l/hr)

Figure 3 comparison of theoretical and experimental curves for pumps in series

The experimental data once again followed the theoretical curve quite accurately
the only deviations being a decrease in head at the higher flow rates. This
corresponds to the decrease in head between AB-1 and AB-2 at higher flow rates
which was predicted to deviate further results as was seen in figure 3.
Pumps in parallel:

The experimental data for the two pumps setup in parallel was then generated
and plotted against the theoretical curve produced by summing the flow rates of
the individual curves and compared.

Pumps in parallel theoretical vs experimental

250000

200000

150000
Experimental

H(m)

Theoretical

100000

50000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Q(l/hr)

Figure 4 theoretical and experimental data for pumps in parallel

The trend for both sets of data was not as smooth as previously observed but the
experimental data follows the theoretical curve accurately even at the higher
flow rates. Reliability in these results may be compromised due to there only
being 4 comparable data points. The summing of the flow rates prevented us in
this particular system to test the pumps at high enough flow rates for a better
range of experimental data but for the output of these pumps at the indicated
flow rates the data was reliable.
Cavitation:
AB-1 was again isolated and run at different flow rates and pressures by adjusting
the two flow control valves VR-1 and VR-2. Visual observations were noted and
the results are as follows.
Table 1 Visual observations of cavitation at different flow rates and pressures
Q(l/hr)
3560
3560
2000

P1(bar)
0.76
0.76
0.51

P2(bar)
-0.3
-0.3
-0.64

P(bar
)
1.06
1.06
1.15

2485

0.44

-0.7

1.14

3000
2850

0.56
0.75

-0.6
-0.68

1.16
1.43

Observation
Clear
Clear
Small bubbles
Vigorous
bubbles
Small
bubbles
Clear

The system was kept at steady state with a clear flow being observed. The flow
rate was then decreased which in turn decreased the inlet and discharge
pressure but increased the pressure drop and small bubbles also known as
incipient cavitation was observed. The flow was increased and the pressure was
decreased further by closing the flow control valve while the pressure drop
remained steady until vigorous bubbling was observed. The flow was then
increased and pressure drop kept quite constant by opening the valve until
incipient cavitation was once again present. The flow valve on the discharge side
of AB-1 was then closed to reach steady state with no bubbles present at a high
pressure drop and a slightly higher flow rate.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. Pump AB-1 gave accurate experimental results when compared to the
manufacturers curve flowing the curve closely. It did exhibit a constant minor
deviation in head at each point most likely due to increased friction losses due
to the experimental setup and wear and tear on the pump since manufacture.
2. When summing the heads of the individual pump curves and comparing to the
experimental curve obtained when the pumps were set up in series, a close
correlation was present. This suggested that the theoretical model was an
accurate fit. A decrease in head in the experimental data from the theoretical
curve was present at higher flow rates which was explained due to the
assumption of AB-1 and AB-2 being exactly the same. AB-2 showed a
decrease in head from AB-1 at higher flow rates again most likely being due to
the difference in set up between the two which brought the negative deviation
to the assumption hence the decrease in head in the experimental data.
3. When summing the flow rates of the individual pump curves and comparing to
the experimental curve obtained when the pumps were set up in parallel, a
close correlation was present. Both sets of data provided unsmooth trends
most likely due the difference in set up of the two pumps again but the
correlation still suggested the theoretical model to be a good fit. Deviations
were probably avoided due to the lack of comparable data points but for this
system the data was seen to be accurate but maybe not reliable.
4. Cavitation was observed as the formation of bubbles in the flow stream. The
correlation between flow rate pressure drop and the cavitation was quite
unclear and the only conclusion that would fit the observations is that
cavitation occurs when theres a decrease in flow with an increase in pressure
drop across the pump.

APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS

Table 2 experimental measurements for individual pumps

AB-1
experimen
tal

AB-2
experimen
tal
P1(bar)
1.95
1.82
1.65
1.47
1.25
0.95

Q(l/hr)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

P2(bar)
0.075
0.045
-0.045
-0.1
-0.15
-0.25

P1(bar)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12

Q(l/hr)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

P2(bar)
2
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

Table 3 experimental data for pumps in series and parallel

Pumps in
series
experimen
tal
Q(l/hr)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

Pumps in
parallel
experimen
tal
P1(bar)
1.95
1.8
1.65
1.475
1.21
0.9

P2(bar)
0.06
0.03
-0.04
-0.1
-0.18
-0.275

P3(bar)
3.8
3.5
3.22
2.85
2.4
1.75

Q(l/hr)
1000
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
5000

Table 4 Experimental data for the investigation into cavitation

Q(l/hr)
3560
3560
2000

P1(bar)
0.76
0.76
0.51

P2(bar)
-0.3
-0.3
-0.64

2485

0.44

-0.7

3000
2850

0.56
0.75

-0.6
-0.68

Observation
Clear
Clear
Small bubbles
Vigorous
bubbles
Small
bubbles
Clear

P1(bar)
2.1
2.01
1.95
1.9
1.84
1.75
1.55

P2(bar)
0.1
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.03
0
-0.07

P3(bar)
2.08
2
1.93
1.88
1.82
1.71
1.5

APPENDIX B: PROCESSED DATA

Table 5 processed data for individual pumps

AB-1
experimental
Q(l/hr P(bar
)
)
1000

1.875

1500

1.775

2000

1.695

2500

1.57

3000

1.4

3500

1.2

P(Pa)
18750
0
17750
0
16950
0
15700
0
14000
0
12000
0

H(m)
19.113
15
18.093
78
17.278
29
16.004
08
14.271
15
12.232
42

AB-2
experimental
Q(l/hr P(bar
)
)
1000

1.88

1500

1.78

2000

1.68

2500

1.48

3000

1.28

3500

1.08

P(Pa)
18800
0
17800
0
16800
0
14800
0
12800
0
10800
0

Table 6 processed data for pumps in series and in parallel

Pumps in
series
experimen
tal

Pumps in
parallel
experimen
tal

Q(l/hr)

P(bar
)

1000

3.74

1500

3.47

2000

3.26

2500

2.95

3000

2.58

3500

2.025

P(Pa)
37400
0
34700
0
32600
0
29500
0
25800
0
20250
0

Q(l/hr)

P(bar
)

1000

1.99

2000

1.915

2500

1.88

3000

1.84

3500

1.8

4000

1.73

5000

1.595

P(Pa)
19900
0
19150
0
18800
0
18400
0
18000
0
17300
0
15950
0

Table 7 theoretical processed data for pumps in series and in parallel

Pumps
theoretical
Q(l/hr)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

in

series

P(Pa)
375500
355500
337500
305000
268000
228000

Pumps
theoretical
Q(l/hr)
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000

in

parallel

P(Pa)
187750
177750
168750
152500
134000
114000

H(m)
19.164
12
18.144
75
17.125
38
15.086
65
13.047
91
11.009
17

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Pressure drop conversion:

100000
P ( Pa )= P

[1]

P ( Pa )=1.875 100000=187500 Pa
Head loss calculation:

H ( m) =

P(Pa)
kg
m
3 g ( 2 )
m
s

( )

[2]

is the fluid density, g is the gravitational acceleration

H ( m) =

187500( Pa)
=19.11 m
kg
m
1000 3 9.81( 2 )
m
s

( )

Pressure drop across AB-1:

[3]

Pressure drop across AB-2:

[4]

Pressure drop across pumps in series experimental:

[5]

Pressure drop across pumps in series theoretical:

[6]

P
Pressure drop across pumps in parallel experimental:

[7]

Flow rates for pumps in parallel theoretical

( hrl )=QAB 1( hrl )+QAB 2( hrl )

( hrl )=1000+ 1000= 2000l

hr

[8]