CFD analysis of performance change in accordance with inner surface roughness of a double-entry centrifugal pump
- 73 Downloads
In this study, the performance change of a double suction centrifugal pump (Q = 60 m3/min, H = 97 m) was analyzed using Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to investigate the effects of internal surface roughness of pump components. The calculated performance of the pump using CFD is in strong agreement with the experimental results, which used a smooth wall case. In terms of the predicted total pump efficiency with the surface roughness case, the CFD results indicate that the pump efficiency is reduced by approximately 3.0 %. CFD results reveal that the most significant roughness effect on the pump components is that of the impeller, whereas the smallest effect is that of the inlet casing. Furthermore, the CFD results demonstrate that the pump performance is strongly dependent on the outward shroud surface roughness of the impeller.
KeywordsCFD Pump coating Pump efficiency Surface roughness
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- A. J. Stepanoff, Flow Pumps, John Wiley & Sons Inc. (1957) 193–203.Google Scholar
- J.-E. Yun and J.-H. Kim, Effect of surface roughness on performance analysis of centrifugal pump for wastewater transport, Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B, 38 (2014).Google Scholar
- ANSYS CFX-Solver theory guide (2013) Release 12.1.Google Scholar
- J. Nikuradse, Law of flow in rough pipes, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NACA TM 1292 (1950).Google Scholar
- F. M. White, Four types of pipe flow problems, Fluid Mechanics, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York (2009) 376.Google Scholar
- S. E. Haaland, Simple and explicit formulas for friction factor in turbulent pipe flow, J. Fluids Eng., March (1983) 89–90.Google Scholar
- L. F. Moody, Friction factors for pipe flow, ASME Trans., 66 (1944) 671–684.Google Scholar
- F. M. White, Viscosity and other secondary properties, Fluid mechanics, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York (2009) 28–30.Google Scholar