Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/274865308
CITATIONS READS
7 224
1 author:
Wenguang Li
University of Glasgow
78 PUBLICATIONS 535 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Wenguang Li on 09 October 2015.
8 pffiffiffiffi 3=4
< nS ¼ n Q=H
>
pffiffiffiffi
ðr=min; US gpm; ftÞðUSAÞ
nS ¼ 3:65n Q=H 3=4 ðr=min; m3 =s; mÞðChinaÞ (1)
>
: pffiffiffiffi 3
nS ¼ ðn=60Þ Q=ðgHÞ3=4 ðr=min; m =s; mÞðdimensionless type numberÞ
The fluid domain of the pump has been built in GAMBIT and angle h shown in Fig. 1(b). In the computations, ¼ 90 deg, 75 deg,
shown in Fig. 1(a). It consists of a suction pipe, impeller, and vo- 60 deg, 45 deg, 30 deg, and 15 deg were chosen, respectively.
lute. The domain was created based on the dimensions presented
in the design drawings of the pump. The two side chambers 2.2 Physical Properties of Liquids. Four Newtonian liquids,
between the pump casing and the impeller outside surfaces were namely, tap water, oil1, oil2, and oil3 were used as the working
not taken into account. fluids in experiments. Their density, kinematical viscosity at
In a centrifugal volute pump, the interaction between impeller 20 C and impeller Reynolds number are tabulated in Table 1. In
and volute tongue exists. In FLUENT, it can be handled by means of [11], experiments on the performance for handling tap water, oil1,
the MRF method or moving mesh technique. The MRF method is oil2, and oil3 were made with the model pump. These four liquids
the simplest way to cope with multiple zones in fluid domains. In were used in CFD computations here.
the method, the flow in the fluid domains is considered to be
steady even though the individual cell zones in the domains move
2.3 Operating Conditions. The CFD computations were per-
at different rotational or translational speeds. The flow in each
formed under 13 operating conditions, i.e., the flow rate is ranged
moving cell zone is solved using the moving reference frame
from 1.0 to 8.0 L/s to cover the entire operation range. Accord-
equations. If the zone is stationary, the stationary equations are
ingly, the axial velocity at the inlet to the suction pipe was in the
used. At the interfaces between cell zones, a local reference frame
range of 0.383–3.06 m/s.
transformation is launched to make sure that flow variables in one
zone to be used to estimate fluxes at the boundary of the adjacent
zone. 2.4 Flow Model. The fluid is incompressible, its flow is 3D
Note that the MRF method does not take the relative motion of and turbulent inside the pump under any operation conditions.
a moving zone with respect to adjacent zones into account; the The time-averaged flow of the fluid is steady. The fluid in the
mesh remains fixed for the computation. Thus, the method is impeller is rotated anticlockwise with the impeller at a constant
equivalent to the frozen rotor approach in CFX. The MRF method speed. However, the fluid in the suction pipe and volute is not
is often applied in turbomachinery to treat weaker rotor-stator rotational. The fluid flow is governed by the time-averaged conti-
interaction with a less time-consuming and fair accuracy. Since nuity and Navier–Stokes equations. The standard k e two equa-
the consumed time by the moving mesh method for establishing a tion turbulence model was selected to estimate the turbulence
periodical performance and flow pattern is around 50 times longer shear stresses. The nonequilibrium wall function was launched to
than that by the MRF technique in FLUENT [15,16], the MRF cope with the effects of the boundary layer over wet walls.
method has to be adopted in the paper.
In the MRF method of FLUENT, pump performances at a series 2.5 Computational Method and Mesh. 3D, steady, and
of relative positions between impeller blade and volute tongue incompressible flows in the model pump were computed by mak-
need to be clarified. Four blades (1–4) illustrated in Fig. 1(b) pass ing use of a CFD code-FLUENT. The finite volume method, SIM-
by the tongue sequentially, however, because of the axisymmetry PLE algorithm, and the second-order upwind scheme for the
of the impeller, it is enough to conduct numerical computations of convection terms in the governing equations were adopted.
flow at a series of relative positions between blade 1 and the Three fluid domains, namely, suction pipe, volute, and impeller,
tongue. The relative position is specified by the circumferential were employed. The first two are stationary, while the last one is
8
> 0 ksþ 2:25 in hydraulically smooth regime
>
>
>
>
< 1 ksþ 2:25
B ¼ 0:41 ln þ cksþ sin 0:4285 ln ksþ 0:811 2:25 <ksþ 90 in transition regime (4)
> 87:75
>
>
> 1
>
: ln 1 þ cksþ ksþ > 90 in hydraulically rough regime
0:41
Fig. 3 Pump head and efficiency curves at various viscosities, (a) head and (b) effi-
ciency, line, CFD results, symbols, and experimental data in [11]
3.2 Head Rise Curve. The pump head, H, is demonstrated in found at ¼ 48 and 60 cSt. For this reason the hydraulic effi-
Fig. 3 in terms of flow rate at the viscosities of 1, 24, 48, and 60 ciency predicted by CFD is 10%–13% lower than that estimated
cSt and 50 lm surface roughness. The pump efficiency was calcu- by the flow model in [14] at both viscosities.
lated based on the pump hydraulic efficiency given by CFD and
the volumetric and mechanical efficiencies estimated by using the 3.3 Hydraulic Efficiency and Loss Coefficients. The
flow model in pump side chambers in [14] and the experimental hydraulic efficiency, hydraulic loss coefficients of the impeller,
head-flow rate curves; see the Discussion for details. The com- and volute are shown in Fig. 4. The hydraulic loss coefficients of
puted head is basically consistent with the experimental observa- the impeller and volute are defined as the following:
tion. The maximum relative error is 11% only. Although the
predicted pump efficiencies are comparable with those measured ni ¼ ghi =u22 for impeller
(8)
at ¼ 1, 24 cSt, a slightly large deviation from the experiment is nV ¼ ghV =u22 for volute
Fig. 5 Pump head curves for two surface roughness at various viscosities, (a)
Ra 5 0 lm and (b) 100 lm
The pump hydraulic efficiency is below 75% in all the cases. pressure interpolation, i.e., the staggered mesh proposed by [19]
Significant variation in the hydraulic efficiency for different vis- was chosen. The standard k-x SST turbulence model replaced the
cosities is shown at a flow rate higher than 4.0 L/s. It is because standard k-e model to handle the low Reynolds effect near wet
the change in hydraulic loss coefficient of the impeller is quite solid boundaries. The rest of the setup remain unchanged.
larger than that of the volute at the high flow rate. For instance, as The head-flow rate curves are plotted in Fig. 6(b) for the stand-
the flow rate is increased from 1.0 to 8.0 L/s, the hydraulic loss ard k-e model, while the curves in Fig. 6(c) for the standard k-x
coefficient of the impeller is reduced to around 0.08–0.2 from 2. SST model. The heads at three flow rates, such as Q ¼ 3.36, 5.79,
Compared with the hydraulic loss coefficient of the volute, the and 8.0 L/s, which are shown in Fig. 6(b), are plotted as a function
loss coefficient of the impeller is always dominated at all the flow of impeller Reynolds number Re2 to illustrate the sudden-rising
rates, especially at a low flow rate. head effect in Fig. 6(d). It is seen that an even stronger sudden-
rising head effect has been exhibited, and the highest head occurs
3.4 Sudden-Rising Head Effect and its Mechanism. The at the viscosity of 24 cSt in the CFD computation, but at 48 cSt in
computed pump head shown in Fig. 3(a) and the hydraulic effi- experiment [11]. This suggests the flow model and
ciency illustrated in Fig. 4(a) at ¼ 24 cSt (oil1) are improved computational method adopted here are reasonable and the effect
compared with those at ¼ 1 cSt (water). The phenomenon, does exist.
regarding the pump head, is improved at a higher viscosity than Note that once the standard k e turbulence model is switched
water, is named as the “sudden-rising head effect” in [12]. It is to the standard k-x SST model, the sudden-rising head effect no
clear that the pump head is improved at ¼ 24–60 cSt (oil1, oil2 longer appears. To validate this further, the standard k-x SST was
and oil3) in the experimental data in Fig. 3(a), suggesting the attempted once again under a dense hex-core mesh (405,916 cells
sudden-rising head effect is onset at those viscosities. This in the impeller, 370,728 cells in the volute, 104,834 cells in the
phenomenon is captured by the CFD computation here. suction pipe). The obtained pump head curves are nearly the same
In Fig. 5(a), for an absolutely smooth surface (Ra ¼ 0 lm), the as Fig. 6(c), showing the k-x SST model unlikely can predict the
estimated pump head is decreased continuously with increasing sudden-rising head effect. Thus, the standard k-x SST model
liquid viscosity, so that there is no sudden-rising head effect at all. seems to be improper for the viscous oil flow problem in a centrif-
At the roughness of Ra ¼ 100 lm, however, the effect reappears, ugal pump with rough wet walls. In fact, the wall roughness effect
see Fig. 5(b). It is believed that the wet surface roughness of flow has been removed in the standard k-x SST turbulence model.
channels has played a key role in the occurrence of the effect. Therefore, the sudden-rising head effect involves liquid viscosity
To confirm this, the tetrahedral mesh was switched to the tetra- and wall roughness rather than viscosity alone.
hedral mesh with core hexahedral cells, see Fig. 6(a), where the The averaged skin friction factors applied to the liquid pumped
mesh on the mid-span plane is shown, and there are 630 k cells in by the wet surfaces of impeller and volute are shown in Fig. 7 in
the whole fluid domain. Meanwhile, the staggered scheme for terms of flow rate. Note that those averaged skin factors are
Fig. 7 Averaged skin friction factors versus flow rate at various viscosities, (a) in
impeller and (b) in volute
extracted from the same simulation results as Figs. 3 and 4 and averaged skin friction factor, the more the skin friction loss is
have nothing to with Figs. 6(b)–6(d). The averaged factors are experienced.
defined by the following formulas: In Fig. 7, even though the magnitudes of fi and fV are compara-
ble, their relations with flow rate are quite different. As a flow rate
fi ¼ 2sw =qu22 for impeller is higher than 4.0 L/s, fi keeps rising considerably and makes an
(9)
fV ¼ 2swV =qu22 for volute increasing contribution to flow resistance in the impeller flow
channels. Even though fi is also increased at a flow rate lower than
Both skin friction factors include influences of liquid viscosity 4.0 L/s, the increment is not significant. As a result of this, the per-
and surface roughness on the skin friction loss in the flow pas- formance presented in Figs. 3–5 and 6(b) starts to exhibit a notice-
sages of impeller and volute. In the same passage, the larger the able difference just from 4.0 L/s. fV gets large with increasing
Mean velocity at Q ¼ 6.0 L/s water ¼ 1 cSt oil1 ¼ 24 cSt oil2 ¼ 48 cSt oil3 ¼ 60 cSt
flow rate, however, it does not show a substantial difference at the where the admissible equivalent sand grain roughness ks is related
viscosities of 1 and 24 cSt. to the admissible arithmetic average of absolute values of the real
The skin friction factors rise with increasing liquid viscosity; at roughness of a wall by ks ¼ 6 Ra , which is the same as ks ¼ 6 Ra
¼ 24 cSt, however, fi and fV are lower than those at ¼ 1 cSt in [17].
(water) from Q ¼ 4.5 L/s and Q ¼ 6.5 L/s, respectively. The low- To clearly show the change of flow regime in the impeller and
ered skin friction factors decrease the skin friction loss in the volute, Table 2 illustrates the admissible roughness of the impeller
pump, accordingly the pump performance shows a higher head and volute at BEP (Q ¼ 6.0 L/s) at various viscosities. Since the
and a better hydraulic efficiency. Consequently, the deceased skin mean relative velocity of flow in the impeller is close to that in
friction loss in impeller and volute should be responsible for the the volute, the admissible roughness of the impeller is comparable
sudden-rising head effect. with volute. It is shown that the admissible roughness gets
Based on the experiments on turbulent flow of the boundary layer enlarged with increasing viscosity of liquid.
over a rough flat plate in [20], in the hydraulically rough regime, the The pump head and hydraulic efficiency are illustrated in Fig. 8
skin friction factor is related to the surface roughness only. As liquid in terms of surface roughness at Q ¼ 6.0 L/s for four viscosities.
viscosity increases, Reynolds number is decreased, causing the flow At ¼ 1 cSt, Ra is so small that the flow regime almost is the
regime moves to the hydraulic transition zone, where the skin fric- hydraulically rough zone, and the performance is degraded until
tion factor depends on both Reynolds number and surface rough- Ra ¼ 40 lm. At ¼ 24 cSt, however, the performance is improved
ness, and it is decreased with decreasing Reynolds number. As when Ra > 25 lm. Based on Table 2, the admissible roughness of
Reynolds number is reduced further, the flow regime is in the impeller and volute is around 100 lm at ¼ 24 cSt. Consequently,
hydraulically smooth zone, in which the factor is dependent on when Ra is in 25–100 lm range, the flow regime of the boundary
Reynolds number only, and increases with decreasing Reynolds layer in the impeller and volute should be in the transition zone,
number. It can be concluded that the sudden-rising head effect where a smaller skin friction loss is expected. As the viscosity is
should take place in the transition zone rather than in the others. more than 48 cSt, the performance is basically unaffected by the
Two key parameters, namely high enough surface roughness surface roughness because the roughness is much less than Ra*
and properly decreased Reynolds number determine the onset of and the flow regime of the boundary layer in the impeller and
the sudden-rising head effect. If surface roughness is too small or volute should be in a hydraulically smooth zone.
Reynolds number is decreased too much, then the flow regime It should be pointed out that the results presented in Table 2
will be in the hydraulically smooth zone, causing the sudden- and Fig. 8 are originated from the same mesh and solver set up as
rising head effect unlikely happens. If roughness is too high and those in Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 7 rather than in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c).
Reynolds number is too large, the effect cannot occur because the Since the admissible roughness becomes larger for a higher liq-
flow regime will be in the hydraulically rough zone. uid viscosity, if a pump is used to transport highly viscous liquids,
The admissible roughness can distinguish the hydraulically it may be acceptable that the pump flow passages maintain larger
rough regime. If the real roughness of a wet wall is larger than the roughness. Otherwise, for the liquid with a viscosity close to
admissible one, the flow regime of the boundary layer will be in water, the surface roughness should be kept as small as possible.
the hydraulically rough regime, otherwise it will be in the transi- In fact, the sudden-rising head effect was also found experi-
tion regime or hydraulically smooth zone. The following expres- mentally in the industrial centrifugal pump with a specific speed
sion, known as the Schlichting formula in [20], is applied to of 807 (USA) or 57 (China) or 0.04697 (dimensionless-type num-
determine the admissible roughness of impeller and volute ber) and confirmed by using a simple 2D theory of the boundary
8 layer along a flat plate in [12]. In the centrifugal pump with a
> 1 100 moderate specific speed of 93 (China) or 0.07663 (dimensionless-
1 < in impeller
Ra ¼ ks ¼ 6 W
(10) type number), this effect was observed by experiment in [11] too.
6 >
: 1 100 in volute The flow in this pump is investigated with the CFD method and
6 V the effect has been confirmed here. Therefore, the sudden-rising
Fig. 8 Pump head and hydraulic efficiency against roughness at Q 5 6.0 L/s and
various viscosities, (a) head and (b) hydraulic efficiency
head effect should be an essential characteristic of a centrifugal efficiency gm and the product gV gm decline with increasing vis-
pump with low or moderate specific speed and rough wet walls cosity. The hydraulic efficiency gh degrades slightly with increas-
when handling highly viscous oils. ing viscosity. The predicted pump efficiency by the flow model
Note that the sudden-rising head effect merged too at a slightly agrees well with the measurements. Unfortunately, the pump hy-
higher viscosity than water in the centrifugal pump with a semi- draulic efficiency given by CFD does not seem to be consistent
open impeller if the clearance between blade tip and casing wall with that from the flow model, especially at low Reynolds num-
was narrowed less than 4.65 mm in the experiments of [9,21], and bers (at 48 and 60 cSt viscosities). In other words, the pump hy-
the smaller the gap, the stronger the effect. This suggests the draulic efficiency estimated by the flow model shows less change
clearance is responsible for the onset of sudden-rising head effect to decreasing Reynolds number.
in a semiopen impeller. Nonetheless, the flow in semiopen impel- In Fig. 9(b), the dimensionless velocity profile kf in the two
lers is more complicated than in the closed one; thus further inves- side chambers along the radius becomes slow with increasing vis-
tigations are needed. cosity, and eventually approaches 0.5. In the hub side chamber,
there are no wear-rings and on leakage flow at all, so that the
kf ¼ 0.5 at all viscosities.
4 Discussion To identify the reason why there is a remarked difference in
In order to estimate overall pump efficiency based on the hy- pump hydraulic efficiency between the flow model and CFD com-
draulic efficiency at various operating points predicted by CFD putation, the theoretical heads of the impeller and the pump head
simulations, the flow model in [14] was adopted to calculate flows estimated by CFD are plotted in Fig. 10 against impeller Reynolds
in the two side chambers and estimate the volumetric and mechan- number at BEP. Since hydraulic efficiency is defined as the ratio
ical efficiencies by means of the experimental head-flow rate of pump head over a theoretical head of the impeller, for the same
curves in [11], and the results at BEP are presented in Fig. 9. pump head, a high theoretical head means a poor hydraulic
To predict the volumetric efficiency gV , the leakage flow rate efficiency.
through the wear-ring gap and the side chambers between the In the figure, HE is the Euler head without slip factor correction,
impeller and casing has to be figured out initially. Since this flow HES is the Euler head with the slip factor correction, He is a theo-
rate depends on the flow pattern in the side chamber, the flow retical head of the impeller calculated by making use of the torque
through in the gap and that in the side chamber must solve in a
coupling manner. Firstly, a leakage flow rate is assumed, and then
the moment equation of tangential velocity in the chamber was
solved numerically along the radius direction to get the velocity
profile and shear stress on the wet walls and the pressure drop
across the chamber. Secondly, the pressure drop across the wear-
ring gap is calculated from the experimental pressure drop
between the volute and the entrance of the impeller and the pres-
sure drop across the chamber. Thirdly, based on the just obtained
pressure drop across the gap, the flow rate is updated by using a
theoretical relation between pressure drop and leakage flow rate
for an annular gap with movable walls. This computational pro-
cess is carried out continuously until the leakage flow rate is no
longer changed.
After a volumetric efficiency gV is achieved, the shear stress on
the outside surfaces of the impeller is available already. Hence,
the disc friction loss consumed by the impeller can be obtained by
integrating the shear stress profile across the outside surfaces;
finally the mechanical efficiency gm can be predicted. The detailed Fig. 10 Comparison of head based on impeller torque in CFD,
flow model equations are presented in [14]. Euler head without slip factor correction, Euler head with slip
In Fig. 9(a), the volumetric efficiency gV rises with increasing factor correction, and pump head given by CFD at various
viscosity (decreasing impeller Reynolds number). The mechanical impeller Reynolds number at BEP
and
u2 Q
HES ¼ u2 ð1 rÞ (12)
g gV F2 tan b2
5 Conclusions
The hydraulic performance of a centrifugal pump when han-
dling water and viscous oils was investigated by means of a CFD
code FLUENT. The flow inside the pump was assumed to be
steadily, turbulent, and the fluid is incompressible. The turbulent
effect on the flow was described with the standard k e turbu-
lence model and nonequilibrium wall function. The flow was
solved by using the steady MRF method. The wetted flow chan-
nels in the pump were subject to a rough surface. The influence of
the turbulence model and mesh type on the performance was
examined. The computed results were compared with measure-
ments. The mechanism for onset of the sudden-rising head effect
Fig. 11 Comparison of head curves between CFD and experi- has been explored. It was confirmed that the sudden-rising head
ment at 1 and 48 cSt effect is present and flow regime transition from the hydraulically
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms