Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
M. 50
" #!
% "$
., )*%-" ,
*+ " ) & '( % #$ " !
#$ 9"
/ (., ) 8*" #$ 227 5 (
6 34 3! 1
2
-% 0 / (
,
8 D C' 67 B
*2 " B2
?
! @ A , > ., =" 5 1 ;63 <(
1 :(0 ,2
0 / (., )*%- 5 '( G4*4 I" J" G H :(E F
# 0., =" <( 8 3
2,9" ,
"8 *+
P 5 #$" !
N O I2> LMK
05 2 9" ; J" GO L8 #$ <( ; J" 2
T 9" Q U , K2 Q>R8S0 1
ABSTRACT
This study presents the results of the theoretical model to predict the centrifugal pump performance when its
impeller is equipped with splitters. The proposed methodology accounts for the constructional differences of the
pump equipped with splitter blades as compared with the conventional pump. For flow through axial blade rings,
there is a distinct influence of the solidity on the outflow angle from the blades. This analogy is used for the
derivation of a slip factor for impellers with splitters. A loss analysis procedure has been presented to predict the
performance of centrifugal pumps. The result is compared with available experimental results. The predicted
values of head over the operating range of flow rate of the pump have been found to be in reasonable agreement
with the measurements.
impeller width
absolute velocity
velocity approaching volute throat
dissipation coefficient
friction coefficient
radial velocity
Cu
C
'
u
D3
Dh
f
g
h
H
Hm
kS
M. 51
L
M DF
N
Pe
PDF
Q
R
Re
s
t
U
W
Z
limit
Berge Djebedjian
length
frictional torque of disk
pump speed
input power
disk friction power
pump flow rate
impeller radius
Reynolds number
axial gap between disk and housing
blade thickness
impeller peripheral velocity
relative velocity
number of blades in the impeller
flow angle
blade angle
specific gravity of water
roughness height
limiting radius ratio
overall efficiency
kinematic viscosity of water
density of water
solidity
slip factor
impeller angular velocity
Subscripts
1
impeller eye
2
impeller tip
av average
b
blade
c
circulation
Disk disk
f
friction
i
incidence
l
leakage
s
splitter
th
theoretical
thn net theoretical
Vol volute
1. INTRODUCTION
Centrifugal pumps are used in water
distribution systems to overcome gravity
and friction losses in pipes to move water.
Low-specific-speed high-speed centrifugal
pumps are widely used in petrochemical,
aerospace and chemical industries to
M. 52
M. 53
Berge Djebedjian
2. SLIP FACTOR
Basically, there are two definitions of
slip factor [20]. Both are equal to one
minus the normalized slip velocity. In the
first definition, the slip velocity is
normalized by the impeller tangential
velocity s = 1 C s U 2 and in the second
the
ideal
whirl
velocity
s = 1 C s C u 2 . The first definition is
used in this study because of the
difficulties of the dependency of C u 2 on
the flow through the impeller.
In spite of its highly empirical origin,
Wiesners correlation, [19], has maintained
great acceptance among researchers aiming
to predict the performance of centrifugal
pumps, Glich [22]. It is given as, Wiesner
[19]:
s = 1
sin 2
Z
0.7
for
R1
limit
R2
(1)
and
s = 1
sin 2
Z 0.7
for
R1 R 2 limit
1 limit
R1
> limit
R2
(2)
limit = exp
8.16 sin 2
Z
M. 54
(4)
U 1 = D1 N 60
(5)
U 2 = D 2 N 60
(6)
Cu1 = U 1 C r1 cot 1
Q cot 1
= U1
(7)
D1 b1 Z t b1 / sin 1
Cu 2 = U 2 C r 2 cot 2
Q cot 2
= U2
.(8)
D2 b2 Z t b2 / sin 2
(3)
3. LOSS MODELS
The calculation of the performance of
centrifugal pumps is based on the loss
correlations. There are many empirical
models for prediction of the losses. In the
present study, the loss correlations for the
following internal losses are taken into
consideration: (a) Inlet incidence loss, (b)
Impeller frictional head loss, (c) Diffusion
loss, and (d) Volute head loss. Also, the
following parasitic losses are considered:
(a) Disc friction loss, (b) Inlet recirculation
losses, and (c) Leakage loss.
The study is based upon the blockage
created by putting the spoilers in the
impeller. The blade thickness decreases the
space available for passing the flow.
Consequently, an increase in local
velocities is the result which yields creation
M. 55
Berge Djebedjian
inlet and outlet of impeller.
Finally, the circulation head is given
as:
H c = U 22 (1 s 2 ) + U 12 (1 s1 )
H c = (1 s 2 ) U 22 g
= (U 2 C s 2 + U 1 C s1 ) g
(10)
The slip velocity at inlet, C s1 , is in the
Circulatory
flow
(11)
C s 2 = (1 s 2 )U 2 = C u 2 C u' 2
(12)
C = U 1 (2 s1 ) C r1 cot 1
(13)
C u' 2 = U 2 s 2 C r 2 cot 2
(14)
'
u1
C s1 = (1 s1 ) U 1 = C u' 1 C u1
(16)
= U 2 (C u 2 C u' 2 ) + U 1 (C u' 1 C u1 )
g
(15)
(9)
H c = H th H thn
B-passage
A-passage
Rs
1-s,s-2 2
H i = f inc
(U 1 C u1 )2
2g
(17)
Lb W
Dh 2 g
(18)
Dh =
2 (a 2 b2 + a 1 b1 )
a 1 + b1 + a 2 + b2
(19)
W av =
2Q
Z (a 2 b2 + a 1 b1 )
(20)
where,
a 1 = D1 sin 1 Z t
(21)
a 2 = D 2 sin 2 Z t
(22)
Re =
W av Lb
0.136
Cf =
log 0.2
Lb
12.5
Re
2.15
(24)
2
av
M. 56
(23)
H ft = H f 1 s + H fs 2
= 4 C d 1 s
Lb Ls Wav2 1 s
Dh1 s
2g
+ 4 C ds 2 d
2
Ls Wavs
2
Dhs 2 2 g
(26)
2 (a1 s bs + a1 b1 )
a1 + b1 + a1 s + bs
(27)
Dhs 2 =
2 (a 2 b2 + a s 2 bs )
a s 2 + bs + a 2 + b2
(28)
Wav1 s =
2Q
Z 1 (a1 s bs + a1 b1 )
(29)
Wavs 2 =
2Q
Z 2 (a 2 b2 + a s 2 bs )
(30)
M. 57
Berge Djebedjian
where,
a1 = D1 sin 1 Z 1 t
(31)
a1 s = Ds sin s Z 1 t
(32)
a s 2 = Ds sin s Z 2 t
(33)
a 2 = D2 sin 2 Z 2 t
(34)
C ds 2 = (C fs 2 + 0.0015)(1.1 + 4 b2 D2 )
(36)
where,
C f 1 s =
2.15
12.5
log 0.2
+
Lb Ls Re1 s
0.136
12.5
log 0.2 +
Ls Re s 2
2.15
(38)
with,
Re1 s =
Re s 2 =
Wav1 s (Lb Ls )
W avs 2 L s
W1
W2
H d = 0.25
W 22
2g
(41)
if W1 W2 > 1.4 .
C 32 CQ2 3
(42)
2g
0.136
(37)
C fs 2 =
(39)
(40)
CM
kS
=
0 .5 D 2
0.25
is
s
Re 0.2 (43)
0 .5 D 2
Re =
U 2 (0.5D2 )
(44)
(45)
PDF = M DF
(46)
3 (0.5D 2 )5
Q
(47)
2.5
(48)
Q L = 0.8 ( D1 bcl
H thn
U2
2
8g
H m = H th H C H i H f H d H Vol
(50)
(51)
3 D12
Q
= 0.005
1
Q
Qo
M. 58
2.5
(49)
is taken as
H thn
Hm
Q
+ H Disk + H Rec Q + Q L
(52)
4. MODIFICATIONS FOR
SPLITTER ANALYSIS
4.1 Theoretical and Net
Theoretical Heads for
Centrifugal Impellers
with Splitter Blades
The theoretical head delivered to the
fluid in centrifugal pumps (Euler
turbomachine equation), Eq. (4), decreases
very slightly with increasing the number of
blades, Fig. 3. The figure shows its
variation for number of blades Z = 3, 4, 5
and 6. Also, the theoretical head calculated
for an impeller with 3 blades and 3 splitters
is plotted, i.e. 3 blades at inlet section and 6
at outlet or simply written Z = 3,6. The
radial velocity at inlet is calculated for a
number of blades of 3, while a number of
blades of 6 is used for the calculation of the
radial velocity at outlet.
The net theoretical head for different
numbers of blades Z = 3-6 is illustrated in
Fig. 4. The Wiesner slip factor is used in
these predictions with 2 = 15 . The figure
also depicts the net theoretical head for an
impeller with splitters (Z = 3,6).
M. 59
Berge Djebedjian
30
25
25
20
20
Hthn (m)
Hth (m)
30
15
10
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
15
10
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Splitter, Z = 3,6
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Splitter, Z = 3,6
17.5
2.5
7.5
Q (L/s)
10
12.5
15
17.5
Q (L/s)
Lb
L Z
= b
2 R2 Z 2 R2
Z (Lb + Ls )
2 R2
(53)
(54)
s = 1
(55)
1+ F
s =1
1
1+ F
sin 2
Z 0.7
= 1
(56)
s = 1
Zv =
1
0.7
(57)
sin 2
1
(59)
1 + ( 1.0014 + 6.5818)
thus,
F =
M. 60
sin 2
1s
1 / 0.7
(60)
(58)
2.0
1.0
Z=5
Z=4
Z=3
1.6
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Ls/Lb
0.5
Z=5
Z=4
Z=3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Ls/Lb
M. 61
Berge Djebedjian
Table 1 Key parameters of the centrifugal
pump, Glc et al. [8-10]
1.0
6.0
s
Zv
0.9
5.0
Zv
0.8
0.7
4.0
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
3.0
Ls/Lb
5. CASE STUDY
Glc et al. [8-10] used a single-stage
centrifugal pump as a deep well pump.
Impellers having a different number of
blades (Z = 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) with and
without splitter blades (25, 35, 50, 60, and
80% of the main blade length) were tested
in a deep well pump. The effects of the
main blade number and lengths of splitter
blades on the pump performance were
2850
10
13
0.072
0.132
18
15
0.025
0.014
0.004
0.074
3, 4, 5, 6, 7
0.25, 0.35,
0.5, 0.6, 0.8
0.010
998
1.06 x 10-6
M. 62
M. 63
Berge Djebedjian
18
(a) Hm-Q
18
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
16
14
12
12
10
10
Hm (m)
Hm (m)
14
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
16
17.5
2.5
Q (L/s)
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
0
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
1.2
1.1
1.0
17.5
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
12.5
15
17.5
Q (L/s)
65
65
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
60
55
55
50
45
50
45
40
40
35
35
0
2.5
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
60
(%)
(%)
17.5
1.5
Q (L/s)
30
15
1.6
1.3
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
1.2
(c) -Q
12.5
1.4
1.3
1.0
10
Q (L/s)
P e (kW)
P e (kW)
(b) Pe-Q
7.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Q (L/s)
17.5
30
2.5
7.5
10
Q (L/s)
(B) Theoretical
Ideal
+ 10%
Predicted Hm (m)
14
12
- 16%
10
8
6
Z=3
Z=4
Z=5
Z=6
Z=7
4
2
0
10
12
14
16
18
Measured Hm (m)
M. 64
Berge Djebedjian
Hm (m)
(a) Hm-Q
18
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
Hm (m)
M. 65
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.60
Ls/Lb = 0.60
Ls/Lb = 0.50
Ls/Lb = 0.80
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
Ls/Lb = 0.50
Ls/Lb = 0.80
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
Pe (kW)
Pe (kW)
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.4
Ls/Lb = 0.50
1.1
Ls/Lb = 0.80
Ls/Lb = 0.60
2.5
7.5
10
60
12.5
15
Ls/Lb = 0.35
1.2
Ls/Lb = 0.50
1.1
Ls/Lb = 0.80
1.0
17.5
Ls/Lb = 0.60
2.5
60
Ls/Lb = 0.35
(%)
(%)
12.5
15
17.5
Ls/Lb = 0.80
45
40
40
35
35
17.5
Ls/Lb = 0.50
50
45
2.5
15
Ls/Lb = 0.60
Ls/Lb = 0.80
12.5
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.60
30
10
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
55
Ls/Lb = 0.50
50
7.5
Q (L/s)
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
55
17.5
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Q (L/s)
(c) -Q
15
1.5
1.3
Ls/Lb = 0.35
1.2
1.0
12.5
1.6
1.4
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
1.3
10
Q (L/s)
Q (L/s)
(b) Pe-Q
7.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Q (L/s)
17.5
30
2.5
7.5
10
Q (L/s)
(B) Theoretical
Predicted Hm (m)
14
Ideal
12
- 12%
10
8
6
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.50
Ls/Lb = 0.60
2
0
Ls/Lb = 0.80
10
12
14
16
18
Measured Hm (m)
M. 66
Berge Djebedjian
Hm (m)
(a) Hm-Q
18
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
Hm (m)
M. 67
8
6
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.60
Ls/Lb = 0.50
Ls/Lb = 0.80
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
8
6
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.60
17.5
Ls/Lb = 0.50
Ls/Lb = 0.80
2.5
7.5
Q (L/s)
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
1.3
1.2
1.1
Ls/Lb = 0.80
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Without Splitter
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Ls/Lb = 0.50
1.1
Ls/Lb = 0.80
1.0
17.5
Ls/Lb = 0.35
1.2
Ls/Lb = 0.60
2.5
7.5
Q (L/s)
60
60
55
55
50
50
45
40
35
L s/Lb = 0.60
12.5
15
17.5
L s/Lb = 0.50
L s/Lb = 0.60
L s/Lb = 0.80
2.5
17.5
L s/Lb = 0.35
L s/Lb = 0.50
15
Without Splitter
L s/Lb = 0.25
L s/Lb = 0.35
30
12.5
45
40
Without Splitter
L s/Lb = 0.25
35
10
Q (L/s)
(%)
(%)
(c) -Q
17.5
1.5
1.3
Ls/Lb = 0.60
15
1.6
1.4
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.50
1.0
12.5
Q (L/s)
Pe (kW)
Pe (kW)
(b) Pe-Q
10
L s/Lb = 0.80
7.5
10
12.5
15
Q (L/s)
17.5
30
2.5
7.5
10
Q (L/s)
(B) Theoretical
Predicted Hm (m)
+ 17%
14
Ideal
12
10
8
6
Ls/Lb = 0.25
Ls/Lb = 0.35
Ls/Lb = 0.50
Ls/Lb = 0.60
2
0
Ls/Lb = 0.80
10
12
14
16
18
Measured Hm (m)
7. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
A simple theoretical approach has
been identified to predict the performance
of centrifugal impeller equipped with
splitter blades. In particular, the present
study has focused on the theoretical
calculation of head. The slip factor for a
centrifugal pump impeller with splitter
blades was estimated by means of blade
solidity. A methodology is proposed in
order to achieve the prediction of
performance of centrifugal pumps. The
methodology was carried out for impellers
with and without splitters. Based on the
results, the main obtained conclusions are
summarized below:
(1) An appropriate empirical slip
relationship which depends on the
solidity is derived for impellers
with splitters, Eq. (59).
(2) The virtual number of blades, Z v ,
which substitutes Z in the Wiesner
slip factor in case of existence of
splitter blades is calculated by the
suggested approach, Eq. (60).
(3) The theoretical head is determined
using the slip factor and the virtual
number of blades. Consequently, all
M. 68
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
M. 69
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
Berge Djebedjian
16, No. 10, Oct. 1982, pp. 533-539.
Gui, L., Gu, C., and Chang, H.,
Influences of Splitter Blades on the
Centrifugal Fan Performances,
ASME Gas Turbine and Aeroengine
Congress and Exposition, Toronto,
4-8 June, 1989, Paper 89-GT-33.
Miyamoto, H., Nakashima, Y., and
Ohba, H., Effects of Splitter Blades
on the Flows and Characteristics in
Centrifugal Impellers, JSME Int. J.,
Ser. II, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1992,
pp. 238-246.
Yuan, S., Advances in Hydraulic
Design of Centrifugal Pumps,
ASME Fluids Engineering Division
Summer Meeting, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, June 22-26,
1997, pp. 1-15.
Glc, M., and Pancar, Y.,
Investigation
of
Performance
Characteristics in a Pump Impeller
with Low Blade Discharge Angle,
World Pumps, Issue 468, September
2005, pp. 32-40.
Glc, M., Pancar, Y., and Sekmen,
Y., Energy Saving in a Deep Well
Pump with Splitter Blade, Energy
Conversion
and
Management,
Vol. 47, 2006, pp. 638-651.
Glc, M., Usta, N., and Mancar, Y.,
Effects of Splitter Blades on Deep
Well Pump Performance, Journal
of Energy Resources Technology,
Vol. 129, Sep. 2007, pp. 169-176.
Kergourlay, G., Younsi, M., Bakir,
F., and Rey, R., Influence of
Splitter Blades on the Flow Field of
a Centrifugal Pump: Test-Analysis
Comparison, International Journal
of Rotating Machinery, Vol. 2007,
2007, Article ID 85024, 13 pages.
Ukhin, B.V., Effect of the Quantity
and Shape of Impeller Blades on
Dredge Pump Parameters, Power
Technology
and
Engineering,
Vol. 36, No. 3, 2002, pp. 168-172.
Tuzson, J., Centrifugal Pump
Design, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
New York, 2000.
M. 70
Symposium
on
Performance
Characteristics
of
Hydraulic
Turbines and Pumps, Winter Annual
Meeting, Boston, 1983, FED Vol. 6,
pp. 195-200.
[26] Karassik, I.J., Messina, J.P., Cooper,
P., and Heald, C.C., Pump
Handbook, Fourth Edition, McGrawHill Companies, Inc., 2008.