See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274865308

Mechanism for Onset of Sudden-Rising Head Effect in Centrifugal Pump

When Handling Viscous Oils

Article  in  Journal of Fluids Engineering · July 2014

DOI: 10.1115/1.4026882

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:

Scalable Solar Thermoelectrics and Photovaltaics (SUNTRAP) View project

SUNTRAP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wenguang Li on 09 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mechanism for Onset of Sudden-Rising
Head Effect in Centrifugal Pump When
Handling Viscous Oils
Wen-Guang Li
Department of Fluid Machinery,
Lanzhou University of Technology,
287 Langongping Road,
Lanzhou 730050, Gansu, China
e-mail: Liwg40@sina.com
The “sudden-rising head effect” may be prevalent in the head
curve when a centrifugal pump transports highly viscous liquids,
but it is not well understood presently. To clarify this effect the hy-
draulic performance of centrifugal pump when handling water
and viscous oils was evaluated numerically by using a CFD code.
The “sudden-rising head effect” is confirmed to exist at a higher
viscosity and a certain large surface roughness. The viscosity and
roughness, which make a transition of boundary layer flow pattern
in both the impeller and volute to the hydraulically smooth regime
from the fully rough one, are responsible for the effect.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4026882]
Keywords: centrifugal pump, impeller, volute, viscosity,
performance, roughness, CFD
1 Introduction
Centrifugal pumps have extensively been applied in the petro-
leum industry and crude oil refineries to transport viscous oils
with viscosity more than water. For viscous oils with a high vis-
cosity, a centrifugal pump has to operate under a reduced head
and a lowered efficiency. Thus, certain attention has been devoted
to investigate into the performance and flow in a centrifugal pump
when handling viscous oils so far, namely those in [1–7]. For
instance, the performance of centrifugal pumps was measured
under various viscosities in [1,2], and a series of curves of flow
rate, head, and efficiency correction factors were proposed to
obtain the performance curve for pumping viscous oils from the
known curve for handling water. The pressure on impeller blade
surfaces in an experimental pump were measured in [3] when
pumping water and various viscous oils. The water and viscous oil
flow patterns in the impeller of centrifugal pump were observed
with the tuft method in [4]. The effects of the blade exit angle on
the performance of a centrifugal pump were experimented under
various viscosities of liquid in [5–7] and it was identified that a
large exit angle was suitable for pumping liquids with high viscos-
ity. The effect of blade width at the impeller outlet on the per-
formance was tested in [7] too; it was shown that a wide blade
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
>
: pffiffiffiffi 3
nS ¼ ðn=60Þ Q=ðgHÞ3=4 ðr=min; m =s; mÞðdimensionless  type numberÞ
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 3, 2013; final manuscript
received February 15, 2014; published online May 6, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Satoshi
Watanabe.
Journal of Fluids Engineering Copyright V
C 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
was helpful to improve the performance of viscous oils. The per-
formance of the centrifugal pump with various numbers of blades
was measured when pumping viscous oils in [8] and it was identi-
fied that the less number of blades was necessary for achieving a
better performance. The performance of a centrifugal pump with a
semiopen impeller was tested when handling viscous oils in
[9,10], and the effects of the gap between casing and blade tip on
the performance were explored. It was clarified that a semiopen
impeller could exhibit a better performance than a closed impeller
at a higher viscosity; the optimal gap was dependent on viscosity.
Importantly, in [1,5], a phenomenon, in which the head rise of
viscous oil with slightly higher viscosity than water is higher than
the head of pumping water over a certain large flow rate range,
was observed for the centrifugal pumps with specific speed of
1163 (USA) or 82 (China) or 0.06757 (dimensionless type num-
ber) and 1515 (USA) or 107 (China) or 0.08817 (dimensionless
type number). However, the phenomenon was not highlighted by
those authors.
In [11], the performance of a centrifugal pump with two differ-
ent exit blade angles (20 deg and 44 deg) and having a specific
speed of 1317 (USA) or 93 (China) 0.07663 (dimensionless–type
number), was measured when transporting water and highly vis-
cous oils and the same phenomenon was observed. Recently, the
performance of a standard industrial centrifugal pump having a
specific speed of 807 (USA) or 57 (China) or 0.04697 (dimension-
less-type number) was tested with water and viscous oils at differ-
ent viscosities in [12], and the same effect was exhibited as well.
In that case, the phenomenon was named as the “sudden-rising
head effect.” Meanwhile the effect was analyzed simply by using
the boundary layer theory over a flat plate with inviscid core flow
model. In [13], a more advanced CFD method was used to study
the effects of the exit blade angle and liquid viscosity on flow and
performance of a centrifugal pump. There a finite roughness was
applied into the wet walls of a centrifugal pump in CFD simula-
tions. As a result, the sudden-rising head effect appeared. How-
ever, the effect was explained in a qualitative manner.
To remove this limitation, the performance of a centrifugal
pump with 20 deg blade exit angle was predicted by using a CFD
code-FLUENT when the pump delivers water and machine oils with
various viscosities to highlight the mechanism for onset of the
effect in this paper. It is very hopeful that the understanding about
the mechanism might be helpful to capture the characteristics of
low Reynolds fluid flow in a centrifugal pump.
2 Computational Models
2.1 Fluid Domain. An end-suction, single-stage, centrifugal
pump was used as the computational model here. Its performance
and flow field have been investigated experimentally in [11,14],
respectively. The pump specifications at the design point are
Q ¼ 6.94 L/s, H ¼ 8 m, n ¼ 1450 r/min, ns ¼ 1317 (USA) ¼ 93
(China) ¼ 0.07663 (dimensionless-type number), which are
defined by the following expressions:
(1)
The impeller geometrical parameters are as follows: De ¼ 62 mm,
D2 ¼ 180 mm, Z ¼ 4, b2 ¼ 20 deg, / ¼ 140 deg, and b2 ¼ 18 mm.
Outside the impeller, there is a volute that has a rectangular cross
section with 40 mm width and a discharge nozzle with 50 mm di-
ameter. The volute tongue tip is located at a base circle with
190 mm diameter, in Fig. 1(b).
JULY 2014, Vol. 136 / 074501-1
 Fig. 1 Fluid domain of centrifugal pump and definition of relative position between blade and
volute tongue (a) fluid domain and (b) definition of relative position
Table 1 Physical properties of liquidsa
Liquid water
Density, q, kg/m3 1000
Kinematical viscosity, , cSt (mm2/s) 1.0
Nominal viscosity (cSt) 1 24
Impeller Reynolds number, Re2 1,259,621.5
a
Reference [11].
The fluid domain of the pump has been built in GAMBIT and
shown in Fig. 1(a). It consists of a suction pipe, impeller, and vo-
lute. The domain was created based on the dimensions presented
in the design drawings of the pump. The two side chambers
between the pump casing and the impeller outside surfaces were
not taken into account.
In a centrifugal volute pump, the interaction between impeller
and volute tongue exists. In FLUENT, it can be handled by means of
the MRF method or moving mesh technique. The MRF method is
the simplest way to cope with multiple zones in fluid domains. In
the method, the flow in the fluid domains is considered to be
steady even though the individual cell zones in the domains move
at different rotational or translational speeds. The flow in each
moving cell zone is solved using the moving reference frame
equations. If the zone is stationary, the stationary equations are
used. At the interfaces between cell zones, a local reference frame
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.
Note that the MRF method does not take the relative motion of
a moving zone with respect to adjacent zones into account; the
mesh remains fixed for the computation. Thus, the method is
equivalent to the frozen rotor approach in CFX. The MRF method
is often applied in turbomachinery to treat weaker rotor-stator
interaction with a less time-consuming and fair accuracy. Since
the consumed time by the moving mesh method for establishing a
periodical performance and flow pattern is around 50 times longer
than that by the MRF technique in FLUENT [15,16], the MRF
method has to be adopted in the paper.
In the MRF method of FLUENT, pump performances at a series
of relative positions between impeller blade and volute tongue
need to be clarified. Four blades (1–4) illustrated in Fig. 1(b) pass
by the tongue sequentially, however, because of the axisymmetry
of the impeller, it is enough to conduct numerical computations of
flow at a series of relative positions between blade 1 and the
tongue. The relative position is specified by the circumferential
074501-2 / Vol. 136, JULY 2014
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
oil1 oil2 oil3
839 851 858
24.47 48.48 60.7
48 60
51,476.2 25,982.3 20,751.6
angle h shown in Fig. 1(b). In the computations, ¼ 90 deg, 75 deg,
60 deg, 45 deg, 30 deg, and 15 deg were chosen, respectively.
2.2 Physical Properties of Liquids. Four Newtonian liquids,
namely, tap water, oil1, oil2, and oil3 were used as the working
fluids in experiments. Their density, kinematical viscosity at
20  C and impeller Reynolds number are tabulated in Table 1. In
[11], experiments on the performance for handling tap water, oil1,
oil2, and oil3 were made with the model pump. These four liquids
were used in CFD computations here.
2.3 Operating Conditions. The CFD computations were per-
formed under 13 operating conditions, i.e., the flow rate is ranged
from 1.0 to 8.0 L/s to cover the entire operation range. Accord-
ingly, the axial velocity at the inlet to the suction pipe was in the
range of 0.383–3.06 m/s.
2.4 Flow Model. The fluid is incompressible, its flow is 3D
and turbulent inside the pump under any operation conditions.
The time-averaged flow of the fluid is steady. The fluid in the
impeller is rotated anticlockwise with the impeller at a constant
speed. However, the fluid in the suction pipe and volute is not
rotational. The fluid flow is governed by the time-averaged conti-
nuity and Navier–Stokes equations. The standard k  e two equa-
tion turbulence model was selected to estimate the turbulence
shear stresses. The nonequilibrium wall function was launched to
cope with the effects of the boundary layer over wet walls.
2.5 Computational Method and Mesh. 3D, steady, and
incompressible flows in the model pump were computed by mak-
ing use of a CFD code-FLUENT. The finite volume method, SIM-
PLE algorithm, and the second-order upwind scheme for the
convection terms in the governing equations were adopted.
Three fluid domains, namely, suction pipe, volute, and impeller,
were employed. The first two are stationary, while the last one is
Transactions of the ASME
 rotational. An impeller-suction pipe interface was generated at the
entrance of the impeller. Likewise, an impeller-volute interface
was specified on the cylindrical surface with 92.5 mm diameter
down the impeller outlet.
The fluid domain of suction pipe was discretized with hexahe-
dral cells, but those of the impeller and volute were meshed with
tetrahedral cells. It was found that when the total number of cells
is increased up to 910 k (10 k in the suction pipe, 380 k in the
impeller, and 520 k in the volute) the pump performance becomes
independent of mesh size. Thus, unless otherwise stated, the com-
putational results under that number of cells will be presented in
the following sections.
The under-relaxation factors for pressure, velocity, turbulence
kinetic energy, and its dissipation rate are set to 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, and
0.8, respectively. The residual tolerances of pressure, velocity,
turbulence kinetic energy, and its dissipation rate specified are
1.5  104.
2.6 Boundary Conditions. The no-slip velocity condition is
imposed on all the wet solid walls. At the entrance of the suction
pipe, a uniform absolute velocity is specified, the velocity has the
axial component only and determined by a prescribed known flow
rate and the inner cross-sectional area of the pipe. The turbulence
intensity of flow at the entrance of the suction pipe (its hydraulic
diameter is 62 mm) is set to 5%. A zero static pressure and 5% tur-
bulence intensity are held at the exit of the discharge nozzle (its
hydraulic diameter is 50 mm).
8
> 0
>
>  
>
>   
< 1 ksþ  2:25
B ¼ 0:41 ln þ cksþ sin 0:4285 ln ksþ  0:811
> 87:75
>
>
> 1
>  
: ln 1 þ cksþ
0:41
where c is the roughness coefficient to indicate the uneven prop-
erty of rough elements for a practical surface finish, usually
c ¼ 0.5–1.0. According to a series of flow simulations conducted
by the author, a larger c leads to a lower pump head. As c is
increased from 0.5 to 0.75, the estimated head at BEP is reduced
by 2% only, suggesting c likely has a minor influence on the com-
puted results. Since the shape and distribution of the rough ele-
ments of a cast surface resemble those of uniform sand grains,
c ¼ 0.75 is chosen in the paper.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Performance Presentation. Pump hydraulic perform-
ance depends on the relative position between impeller blades and
volute tongue in a CFD simulation. Thus, a series of numerical
computations of flow were conducted at six positions between
blade 1 and volute tongue, such as h ¼ 90 deg, 75 deg, 60 deg,
45 deg, 30 deg, and 15 deg. The working fluid is water and the sur-
face roughness of wet walls is Ra ¼ 50 lm. The theoretical head
and hydraulic efficiency of the impeller, head and hydraulic effi-
ciency of the pump are depicted in Fig. 2 in terms of flow rate at
various h positions. The reduction method for extracting perform-
ance data from CFD outcomes can be found in [13].
In those plots, the impeller theoretical head Hth is defined as the
mass-averaged total energy head rise of fluid from the impeller
inlet to outlet. The impeller hydraulic efficiency is defined as the
ratio of the impeller theoretical head over an ideal theoretical
head corresponding to the consumed shaft-power for developing
head rise Hth , that is
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
2.7 Implementation of Wall Roughness. Wetted solid walls
in a centrifugal pump are subject to a certain roughness ks . The
roughness Reynolds number ksþ , which indicates the effect of
roughness on the velocity profile and in turn the shear stress on a
wall, is defined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sw =q
ksþ ¼ ks (2)

The roughness ks is correlated to Ra by ks ¼ 6 Ra in [17]. For a
cast wall, Ra ¼ 12.5–50 lm. If Ra ¼ 50 lm, then ks ¼ 300 lm.
This sand equivalent roughness estimate is comparable to 250 lm,
and a sand equivalent roughness of the natural surface of cast iron
recommended in [18].
The universal velocity profile across a boundary layer over a
wetted wall surface is given as follows [18]:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
Vy 1 y sw =q
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ ln þ 5:5  B (3)
sw =q 0:41 
In a CFD simulation, the fluid velocity Vy at a node of a mesh
cell, which is away from the wall by a distance y, is always
known, such that sw can be determined easily with Eq. (3).
In FLUENT, Eq. (3) is used to involve the effect of wetted wall
roughness on the boundary layer flow, eventually the following
formula for B is given by
ksþ  2:25 in hydraulically smooth regime
2:25 <ksþ  90 in transition regime (4)
ksþ > 90 in hydraulically rough regime
ghi ¼ Hth =He (5)
This ideal head He is estimated by
gv Mx
He ¼ (6)
qgQ
The pump head H is defined as the total energy rise of fluid
from the entrance of the suction pipe to the volute nozzle exit.
Likewise, the pump hydraulic efficiency gh is the ratio of the
pump head over the ideal theoretical head, He , i.e.,
gh ¼ H=He (7)
The relative position between blade 1 and volute tongue does
affect the pump performance. The impeller theoretical head and
pump head show a 60.2 m variation, while the impeller and pump
hydraulic efficiencies exhibit 60.02 and 60.03 changes, respec-
tively. At Q ¼ 6.0 L/s, the relative changes in the theoretical head
and hydraulic efficiency of the impeller are less than 2% and
3.5%. As a result, it is apparent that the effect of the relative
position on performance is less substantial.
At the same flow rate, the averaged values of the pump head
and hydraulic efficiency are quite close to those under h ¼ 45 deg,
implying the performance under this angle can represent the
actual performance of the pump. Therefore, unless otherwise
stated, only the performance data under h ¼ 45 deg are illustrated
in the following sections.
JULY 2014, Vol. 136 / 074501-3
 Fig. 2 Centrifugal pump performance curves at various angles of h between blade 1
and tongue, (a) impeller theoretical head, (b) impeller hydraulic efficiency, (c) pump
head, and (d) pump hydraulic efficiency, line, mean value of hydraulic parameter,
symbols, and computed parameter

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
Fig. 3 in terms of flow rate at the viscosities of 1, 24, 48, and 60
cSt and 50 lm surface roughness. The pump efficiency was calcu-
lated based on the pump hydraulic efficiency given by CFD and
the volumetric and mechanical efficiencies estimated by using the
flow model in pump side chambers in [14] and the experimental
head-flow rate curves; see the Discussion for details. The com-
puted head is basically consistent with the experimental observa-
tion. The maximum relative error is 11% only. Although the
predicted pump efficiencies are comparable with those measured
at  ¼ 1, 24 cSt, a slightly large deviation from the experiment is
found at  ¼ 48 and 60 cSt. For this reason the hydraulic effi-
ciency predicted by CFD is 10%–13% lower than that estimated
by the flow model in [14] at both viscosities.
3.3 Hydraulic Efficiency and Loss Coefficients. The
hydraulic efficiency, hydraulic loss coefficients of the impeller,
and volute are shown in Fig. 4. The hydraulic loss coefficients of
the impeller and volute are defined as the following:
ni ¼ ghi =u22 for impeller
(8)
nV ¼ ghV =u22 for volute

074501-4 / Vol. 136, JULY 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 4 Pump hydraulic efficiency and hydraulic loss coefficients of impeller and volute against flow rate at various viscosities,
(a) hydraulic efficiency, (b) loss coefficient of impeller, and (c) loss coefficient of 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.
Significant variation in the hydraulic efficiency for different vis-
cosities is shown at a flow rate higher than 4.0 L/s. It is because
the change in hydraulic loss coefficient of the impeller is quite
larger than that of the volute at the high flow rate. For instance, as
the flow rate is increased from 1.0 to 8.0 L/s, the hydraulic loss
coefficient of the impeller is reduced to around 0.08–0.2 from 2.
Compared with the hydraulic loss coefficient of the volute, the
loss coefficient of the impeller is always dominated at all the flow
rates, especially at a low flow rate.
3.4 Sudden-Rising Head Effect and its Mechanism. The
computed pump head shown in Fig. 3(a) and the hydraulic effi-
ciency illustrated in Fig. 4(a) at  ¼ 24 cSt (oil1) are improved
compared with those at  ¼ 1 cSt (water). The phenomenon,
regarding the pump head, is improved at a higher viscosity than
water, is named as the “sudden-rising head effect” in [12]. It is
clear that the pump head is improved at  ¼ 24–60 cSt (oil1, oil2
and oil3) in the experimental data in Fig. 3(a), suggesting the
sudden-rising head effect is onset at those viscosities. This
phenomenon is captured by the CFD computation here.
In Fig. 5(a), for an absolutely smooth surface (Ra ¼ 0 lm), the
estimated pump head is decreased continuously with increasing
liquid viscosity, so that there is no sudden-rising head effect at all.
At the roughness of Ra ¼ 100 lm, however, the effect reappears,
see Fig. 5(b). It is believed that the wet surface roughness of flow
channels has played a key role in the occurrence of the effect.
To confirm this, the tetrahedral mesh was switched to the tetra-
hedral mesh with core hexahedral cells, see Fig. 6(a), where the
mesh on the mid-span plane is shown, and there are 630 k cells in
the whole fluid domain. Meanwhile, the staggered scheme for
pressure interpolation, i.e., the staggered mesh proposed by [19]
was chosen. The standard k-x SST turbulence model replaced the
standard k-e model to handle the low Reynolds effect near wet
solid boundaries. The rest of the setup remain unchanged.
The head-flow rate curves are plotted in Fig. 6(b) for the stand-
ard k-e model, while the curves in Fig. 6(c) for the standard k-x
SST model. The heads at three flow rates, such as Q ¼ 3.36, 5.79,
and 8.0 L/s, which are shown in Fig. 6(b), are plotted as a function
of impeller Reynolds number Re2 to illustrate the sudden-rising
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
at the viscosity of 24 cSt in the CFD computation, but at 48 cSt in
experiment [11]. This suggests the flow model and
computational method adopted here are reasonable and the effect
does exist.
Note that once the standard k  e turbulence model is switched
to the standard k-x SST model, the sudden-rising head effect no
longer appears. To validate this further, the standard k-x SST was
attempted once again under a dense hex-core mesh (405,916 cells
in the impeller, 370,728 cells in the volute, 104,834 cells in the
suction pipe). The obtained pump head curves are nearly the same
as Fig. 6(c), showing the k-x SST model unlikely can predict the
sudden-rising head effect. Thus, the standard k-x SST model
seems to be improper for the viscous oil flow problem in a centrif-
ugal pump with rough wet walls. In fact, the wall roughness effect
has been removed in the standard k-x SST turbulence model.
Therefore, the sudden-rising head effect involves liquid viscosity
and wall roughness rather than viscosity alone.
The averaged skin friction factors applied to the liquid pumped
by the wet surfaces of impeller and volute are shown in Fig. 7 in
terms of flow rate. Note that those averaged skin factors are

Journal of Fluids Engineering JULY 2014, Vol. 136 / 074501-5

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 6 Pump head curves at various viscosities for two turbulence models, (a) tet-
rahedral mesh with core hexahedral cells in blade mid-span plane, (b) head-flow
rate curve for standard k -e model, (c) head-flow rate curves for standard k -x SST
model, and (d) head-Reynolds number curves for standard k -e model, symbols,
and experimental data in [11]

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
have nothing to with Figs. 6(b)–6(d). The averaged factors are
defined by the following formulas:
fi ¼ 2sw =qu22 for impeller
(9)
fV ¼ 2swV =qu22 for volute
Both skin friction factors include influences of liquid viscosity
and surface roughness on the skin friction loss in the flow pas-
sages of impeller and volute. In the same passage, the larger the
averaged skin friction factor, the more the skin friction loss is
experienced.
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
is higher than 4.0 L/s, fi keeps rising considerably and makes an
increasing contribution to flow resistance in the impeller flow
channels. Even though fi is also increased at a flow rate lower than
4.0 L/s, the increment is not significant. As a result of this, the per-
formance presented in Figs. 3–5 and 6(b) starts to exhibit a notice-
able difference just from 4.0 L/s. fV gets large with increasing

074501-6 / Vol. 136, JULY 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 2 Admissible roughness of impeller and volute
Mean velocity at Q ¼ 6.0 L/s water  ¼ 1 cSt
Impeller, W ¼ 3.9 m/s 4.2
Volute, V ¼ 4.4 m/s 3.8
flow rate, however, it does not show a substantial difference at the
viscosities of 1 and 24 cSt.
The skin friction factors rise with increasing liquid viscosity; at
 ¼ 24 cSt, however, fi and fV are lower than those at  ¼ 1 cSt
(water) from Q ¼ 4.5 L/s and Q ¼ 6.5 L/s, respectively. The low-
ered skin friction factors decrease the skin friction loss in the
pump, accordingly the pump performance shows a higher head
and a better hydraulic efficiency. Consequently, the deceased skin
friction loss in impeller and volute should be responsible for the
sudden-rising head effect.
Based on the experiments on turbulent flow of the boundary layer
over a rough flat plate in [20], in the hydraulically rough regime, the
skin friction factor is related to the surface roughness only. As liquid
viscosity increases, Reynolds number is decreased, causing the flow
regime moves to the hydraulic transition zone, where the skin fric-
tion factor depends on both Reynolds number and surface rough-
ness, and it is decreased with decreasing Reynolds number. As
Reynolds number is reduced further, the flow regime is in the
hydraulically smooth zone, in which the factor is dependent on
Reynolds number only, and increases with decreasing Reynolds
number. It can be concluded that the sudden-rising head effect
should take place in the transition zone rather than in the others.
Two key parameters, namely high enough surface roughness
and properly decreased Reynolds number determine the onset of
the sudden-rising head effect. If surface roughness is too small or
Reynolds number is decreased too much, then the flow regime
will be in the hydraulically smooth zone, causing the sudden-
rising head effect unlikely happens. If roughness is too high and
Reynolds number is too large, the effect cannot occur because the
flow regime will be in the hydraulically rough zone.
The admissible roughness can distinguish the hydraulically
rough regime. If the real roughness of a wet wall is larger than the
admissible one, the flow regime of the boundary layer will be in
the hydraulically rough regime, otherwise it will be in the transi-
tion regime or hydraulically smooth zone. The following expres-
sion, known as the Schlichting formula in [20], is applied to
determine the admissible roughness of impeller and volute
8 layer along a flat plate in [12]. In the centrifugal pump with a
> 1 100
1 < in impeller
Ra ¼ ks ¼ 6 W
 
(10)
6 >
: 1 100 in volute
6 V
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
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
oil1  ¼ 24 cSt oil2  ¼ 48 cSt oil3  ¼ 60 cSt
102.6 205.1 256.4
90.9 181.8 227.3
where the admissible equivalent sand grain roughness ks is related
to the admissible arithmetic average of absolute values of the real
roughness of a wall by ks ¼ 6 Ra , which is the same as ks ¼ 6 Ra
in [17].
To clearly show the change of flow regime in the impeller and
volute, Table 2 illustrates the admissible roughness of the impeller
and volute at BEP (Q ¼ 6.0 L/s) at various viscosities. Since the
mean relative velocity of flow in the impeller is close to that in
the volute, the admissible roughness of the impeller is comparable
with volute. It is shown that the admissible roughness gets
enlarged with increasing viscosity of liquid.
The pump head and hydraulic efficiency are illustrated in Fig. 8
in terms of surface roughness at Q ¼ 6.0 L/s for four viscosities.
At  ¼ 1 cSt, Ra is so small that the flow regime almost is the
hydraulically rough zone, and the performance is degraded until
Ra ¼ 40 lm. At  ¼ 24 cSt, however, the performance is improved
when Ra > 25 lm. Based on Table 2, the admissible roughness of
impeller and volute is around 100 lm at  ¼ 24 cSt. Consequently,
when Ra is in 25–100 lm range, the flow regime of the boundary
layer in the impeller and volute should be in the transition zone,
where a smaller skin friction loss is expected. As the viscosity is
more than 48 cSt, the performance is basically unaffected by the
surface roughness because the roughness is much less than Ra*
and the flow regime of the boundary layer in the impeller and
volute should be in a hydraulically smooth zone.
It should be pointed out that the results presented in Table 2
and Fig. 8 are originated from the same mesh and solver set up as
those in Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 7 rather than in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c).
Since the admissible roughness becomes larger for a higher liq-
uid viscosity, if a pump is used to transport highly viscous liquids,
it may be acceptable that the pump flow passages maintain larger
roughness. Otherwise, for the liquid with a viscosity close to
water, the surface roughness should be kept as small as possible.
In fact, the sudden-rising head effect was also found experi-
mentally in the industrial centrifugal pump with a specific speed
of 807 (USA) or 57 (China) or 0.04697 (dimensionless-type num-
ber) and confirmed by using a simple 2D theory of the boundary
moderate specific speed of 93 (China) or 0.07663 (dimensionless-
type number), this effect was observed by experiment in [11] too.
The flow in this pump is investigated with the CFD method and
the effect has been confirmed here. Therefore, the sudden-rising
JULY 2014, Vol. 136 / 074501-7
 Fig. 9 Predicted hydraulic, volumetric, and mechanical efficiencies, as well as veloc-
ity profile in the side chambers at the BEP based on the experimental head-flow rate
curve in [11], (a) various efficiencies predicted and (b) kf profile along the radius, 䊊,
experimental pump efficiency, D, pump hydraulic efficiency predicted by CFD, lines,
and variables predicted by the flow model in two side chambers

head effect should be an essential characteristic of a centrifugal
pump with low or moderate specific speed and rough wet walls
when handling highly viscous oils.
Note that the sudden-rising head effect merged too at a slightly
higher viscosity than water in the centrifugal pump with a semi-
open impeller if the clearance between blade tip and casing wall
was narrowed less than 4.65 mm in the experiments of [9,21], and
the smaller the gap, the stronger the effect. This suggests the
clearance is responsible for the onset of sudden-rising head effect
in a semiopen impeller. Nonetheless, the flow in semiopen impel-
lers is more complicated than in the closed one; thus further inves-
tigations are needed.
4 Discussion
In order to estimate overall pump efficiency based on the hy-
draulic efficiency at various operating points predicted by CFD
simulations, the flow model in [14] was adopted to calculate flows
in the two side chambers and estimate the volumetric and mechan-
ical efficiencies by means of the experimental head-flow rate
curves in [11], and the results at BEP are presented in Fig. 9.
To predict the volumetric efficiency gV , the leakage flow rate
through the wear-ring gap and the side chambers between the
impeller and casing has to be figured out initially. Since this flow
rate depends on the flow pattern in the side chamber, the flow
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
flow model equations are presented in [14].
In Fig. 9(a), the volumetric efficiency gV rises with increasing
viscosity (decreasing impeller Reynolds number). The mechanical
efficiency gm and the product gV  gm decline with increasing vis-
cosity. The hydraulic efficiency gh degrades slightly with increas-
ing viscosity. The predicted pump efficiency by the flow model
agrees well with the measurements. Unfortunately, the pump hy-
draulic efficiency given by CFD does not seem to be consistent
with that from the flow model, especially at low Reynolds num-
bers (at 48 and 60 cSt viscosities). In other words, the pump hy-
draulic efficiency estimated by the flow model shows less change
to decreasing Reynolds number.
In Fig. 9(b), the dimensionless velocity profile kf in the two
side chambers along the radius becomes slow with increasing vis-
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.
To identify the reason why there is a remarked difference in
pump hydraulic efficiency between the flow model and CFD com-
putation, the theoretical heads of the impeller and the pump head
estimated by CFD are plotted in Fig. 10 against impeller Reynolds
number at BEP. Since hydraulic efficiency is defined as the ratio
of pump head over a theoretical head of the impeller, for the same
pump head, a high theoretical head means a poor hydraulic
efficiency.
In the figure, HE is the Euler head without slip factor correction,
HES is the Euler head with the slip factor correction, He is a theo-
retical head of the impeller calculated by making use of the torque
Fig. 10 Comparison of head based on impeller torque in CFD,
Euler head without slip factor correction, Euler head with slip
factor correction, and pump head given by CFD at various
impeller Reynolds number at BEP

074501-8 / Vol. 136, JULY 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 applied by the shroud, hub, and blades on the fluid in a CFD
simulation, see Eq. (6). The expressions for HE and HES are as the
following at BEP if the preswirling velocity at the impeller en-
trance is ignored:
 
u2 Q
HE ¼ u2  (11)
g gV F2 tan b2
and
u2 Q
HES ¼ u2 ð1  rÞ  (12)
g gV F2 tan b2
In the flow model in [14], in order to determine HES , r and the
overall hydraulic loss coefficient in pump f from the known H,
dH=dQ, and Q, two additional equations as follows are required at
BEP:
8 2
< HES ¼ H þ fQ
dH dHES u2 1 (13)
: þ 2fQ ¼ ¼
dQ dQ g gV F2 tan b2
Obviously, Eqs. (12) and (13) are in a closed-form for deciding
HES , r, and f simultaneously.
In the figure, the Euler head without slip correction HE is the
highest and slightly increases with decreasing Reynolds number.
The theoretical head from a torque He is the second highest one
and rises very sharply with decreasing Reynolds number. The
Euler head with slip correction HES is not only the lowest, but also
declines with reducing Reynolds number. Thus, the hydraulic effi-
ciency H=He in CFD is not only smaller than the hydraulic effi-
ciency H=HES in the flow model, but can also decrease quickly
with decreasing Reynolds number (increasing viscosity).
Since the flow model in the side chambers is valid at or near
BEP only, the product gV  gm has to be considered as constant
for all the operating points. Then, the product gV  gm is used to
multiply the pump hydraulic efficiency obtained by CFD to get
the pump overall efficiency. Eventually, the estimated pump effi-
ciency is shown in Fig. 3(b). The pump efficiencies at 48 and 60
cSt are underpredicted because the hydraulic efficiency from CFD
is lower than the experimental data.
The unsteady model can increase the slope of a head-flow rate
curve in CFD computation. The unsteady flow simulations in the
pump were conducted at 1 and 24 cSt viscosities by making use of
the moving mesh method in FLUENT at shut-off, low flow rate, and
BEP in [22]. The corresponding head-flow rate curves are illus-
trated in Fig. 11. Clearly, the unsteady flow model can result in a
good prediction in head at low flow rates. Since unsteady flow
simulations of CFD are too time consuming and have a tedious
Fig. 11 Comparison of head curves between CFD and experi-
ment at 1 and 48 cSt
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 12 Comparison of blade profiles on shroud and hub surfa-
ces that are designed and measured, lines, designed profiles,
symbols, and measured profiles
post process, it unlikely is applied across a large number of oper-
ating points and viscosities.
Besides, the geometry errors caused from the manufacturing
process may be responsible for different slopes in the experimen-
tal and predicted head-flow rate to some extent. The coordinates
of the blade pressure and suction surfaces on the shroud and hub
were measured by using a 3D coordinate probing device for two
blades in the impeller in the paper; a comparison of designed and
measured blade profiles is presented in Fig. 12. The impeller was
metallic and made by means of a sand casting technique. It can be
seen that the real profiles of the two blades are slightly different
from the designed ones, especially in the portion near the trailing
edge. Further, the two blades do not seem exactly 90 deg apart.
In the CFD computations, the designed blade profiles were
applied only. In the next plan, it is hopeful that the blade profiles
can be updated with the measured ones to identify how they affect
the performance of the pump for water and viscous oils.
In the experimental results shown in Fig. 3, even the pump
head raises at a certain viscosity, and the pump total efficiency
always steadily decreases with increasing viscosity. According to
Fig. 9(a), the hydraulic efficiency does not seem to change too
much and the volumetric efficiency even increases with increasing
viscosity, but the mechanical efficiency decreases very quickly
with increasing viscosity. This means that a little increase in the
hydraulic and volumetric efficiencies is unable to compensate for
the huge reduction in the mechanical efficiency. Eventually, the
pump overall efficiency always declines with increasing viscosity,
although the pump head raises at a certain viscosity.
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
has been explored. It was confirmed that the sudden-rising head
effect is present and flow regime transition from the hydraulically
JULY 2014, Vol. 136 / 074501-9
 rough zone to the hydraulically smooth one is responsible for the / ¼ blade warp angle (deg)
effect. x ¼ impeller rotational angular speed (rad/s)
xf ¼ angular velocity of fluid in a side chamber (rad/s)
Nomenclature
b2 ¼ blade outlet width (mm) Subscripts
B¼ velocity profile shift due to roughness i ¼ impeller
c¼ roughness coefficient V ¼ volute
D2 ¼ impeller discharge diameter (mm)
De ¼ impeller eye diameter (mm)
Abbreviations
dH=dQ ¼ slope of the experimental head-flow rate curve
(m.(L/s)1) BEP ¼ best efficiency point
dHES =dQ ¼ slope of the theoretical head curve HES (m.(L/s)1) MRF ¼ multiple reference frame
f¼ averaged skin friction factor
F2 ¼ net area of flow channels at the impeller outlet (m2)
g¼ acceleration of gravity (m/s2), g ¼ 9.81 m/s2
h¼ hydraulic loss (m) References
H¼ pump head (m) [1] Ippen, A. T., 1946, “The Influence of Viscosity on Centrifugal Pump Perform-
ance,”. Trans. ASME, 68, pp. 823–848.
He ¼ ideal head generated by impeller (m) [2] Itaya, S., and Nishikawa, T., 1960, “Studies on the Volute Pump Handling Vis-
HE ¼ Euler head without slip factor correction (m) cous Fluids,” Trans. JSME, 26, pp. 202–209.
HES ¼ Euler head with slip factor correction (m) [3] Kamimoto, G., Matsuoka, Y., and Shirai, H., 1959, “On the Flow in the Impel-
Hth ¼ impeller theoretical head (m) ler of Centrifugal Type Hydraulic Machinery,” Trans. JSME, 25, pp. 383–388.
[4] Acosta, A. J., and Hollander, A., 1965, “Observations on the Performance of
ks ¼ equivalent sand grain roughness (lm) Centrifugal Pumps at Low Reynolds Numbers,” Proceedings of the Symposium
ksþ ¼ roughness Reynolds number on Pump Design, Testing and Operation, 12th–14th, Glasgow, UK, pp.
kf ¼ dimensionless angular velocity of fluid in a side 379–393.
chamber, kf ¼ xf =x [5] Toykura, T., Kurokawa, J., and Kanemoto, T., 1979, “Improve the Performance
of a Centrifugal Pump Handling High Viscosity Liquids,” Turbomachinery, 7,
ks ¼ admissible equivalent sand grain roughness (lm) pp. 72–79.
M¼ total torque applied to liquid by impeller blades and [6] Aoki, K., Yamamoto, T., Ohta, H., and Nakayama, Y., 1985, “Study on Centrif-
inside surfaces in pump (kW) ugal Pump for high Viscosity Liquids,” Trans. JSME Ser. B, 51, pp.
n¼ impeller rotational speed (r/min) 2753–2758.
[7] Tanaka, K., and Ohashi, H., 1984, “Performance of Centrifugal Pumps at Low
nS ¼ pump specific speed in China Reynolds Number,” Trans. JSME Ser. B, 50, pp. 279–285.
Q¼ pump flow rate (L/s) [8] Ohta, H., and Aoki, K., 1990, “Study on Centrifugal Pump for High Viscosity
R¼ radial coordinate in a side chamber (m) Liquids (Effect of Impeller Blade Number on the Pump Performance),” Trans.
R2 ¼ impeller discharge radius (mm) JSME Ser. B, 56, pp. 1702–1707.
[9] Toykura, T., Kurokawa, J., Kanemoto, T., and Masuda, K., 1980, “Performance
Ra ¼ arithmetic average of absolute values of real of a Centrifugal Pump With Non-Clog Type of Impeller Using a High Viscosity
roughness of a wall with particular finish (lm) Liquid,” Turbomachinery, 8, pp. 100–104.
Ra* ¼ admissible roughness (lm) [10] Ohta, H., Aoki, K., and Yamamoto, T., 1985, “Study on Centrifugal Pump for
Re2 ¼ impeller Reynolds number, Re2 ¼ xR22 = High Viscosity Liquids (Effect of Clearance Ratio),” Trans. JSME Ser. B, 51,
pp. 4295–4300.
u2 ¼ impeller tip speed (m/s) [11] Li, W.-G., and Hu, Z.-M., 1996, “Experiments on the Performance of a Centrif-
V¼ mean velocity of liquid in volute (m/s) ugal Oil Pump,” Fluid Mach., 25, pp. 3–8.
Vy ¼ fluid velocity at the point of distance y from the wall [12] Li, W.-G., 2000, “The Sudden-rising Head Effect in Centrifugal Oil Pumps,”
(m/s) World Pumps, 409, pp. 34–36.
[13] Li, W.-G., 2011, “Effect of Exit Blade Angle, Viscosity and Roughness in
W¼ mean relative velocity of liquid in impeller (m/s) Centrifugal Pumps Investigated by CFD Computation,” TASK Quarterly, 5,
y¼ distance between a node of cells adjacent to the wall pp. 21–41.
(mm) [14] Li, W.-G., 2013, “Model of Flow in Side Chambers of Industrial Centrifu-
gal Pump for Delivering Viscous Oil,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 135(5),
p. 051201.
[15] Dick, E., Vierendeels, J., Serbrugyns, A., and Voorde, J. V., 2001,
“Performance Prediction of Centrifugal Pumps with CFD-Tools,” TASK Quar-
Greek Symbols terly, 5, pp. 579–594.
[16] Luo, J. Y., Issa, R. I., and Gosman, A. D., 1994, “Prediction of Impeller-
b2 ¼ blade discharge angle (deg) Induced Flows in Mixing Vessels Using Multiple Frames of Reference,” Pro-
f¼ overall hydraulic loss coefficient in pump (m.(L/s)2) ceeding of the 8th Europe Conference on Mixing, Cambridge, UK, pp.
Z¼ number of blades 549–556.
gh ¼ pump hydraulic efficiency [17] Acharya, M., Bornstein, J., and Escudier, M. P., 1986, “Turbulent Boundary
gm ¼ pump mechanical efficiency Layers on Rough Surfaces,” Exp. Fluids, 4, pp. 33–47.
[18] Patankar, S. V., and Spalding, D. B., 1972, “A Calculation Procedure for Heat
gV ¼ pump volumetric efficiency and Mass Transfer in Three Dimensional Parabolic Flows,” Int. J. Heat and
h¼ angle measured from tongue tip to trailing edge of Mass Transf., 15, pp. 1787–1806.
pressure side of blade 1 in Fig. 1(b) [19] Cebeci, T., and Bradshaw, P., 1977, Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers,
Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, DC.
¼ liquid kinematic viscosity (cSt or mm2/s) [20] Shirakura, M., 1959, “Effects of Surface Roughness of Impeller Channel on
n¼ hydraulic loss coefficient Volute-Pump Performance,” J. JSME, 62, pp. 890–899.
q¼ liquid density (kg/m3) [21] Masuda, K., 1979, “Influence of Clearance and Viscosity on Centrifugal Pump
r¼ slip factor Performance,” Technical Note of the Port and Harbour Research Institute Min-
sw ¼ local shear stress on wet wall (Pa) istry of Transort, Japan, No. 324.
[22] Li, W.-G., 2011, “Unsteady Flow in a Viscous Oil Transporting Centrifugal
sw ¼ averaged shear stress on wet surface (Pa) Pump,” Central Eur. J. Eng., 1, pp. 361–368.

074501-10 / Vol. 136, JULY 2014 Transactions of the ASME

DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://turbomachinery.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms