0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Performance Analysis of Cavitating Flow in Centrifugal Pumps Using Multiphase CFD

[+] Author and Article Information
Richard B. Medvitz, Robert F. Kunz, David A. Boger, Jules W. Lindau, Adam M. Yocum

Applied Research Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16804

Laura L. Pauley

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

J. Fluids Eng 124(2), 377-383 (May 28, 2002) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1457453 History: Received March 27, 2001; Revised October 16, 2001; Online May 28, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Hirschi,  R., Dupont,  Ph., Avellan,  F., Favre,  J.-N., Guelich,  J.-F., and Parkinson,  E., 1998, “Centrifugal Pump Performance Drop Due to Leading Edge Cavitation: Numerical Predictions Compared With Model Tests,” ASME J. Fluids Eng. 120, No. 4, pp. 705–711.
Ahuja, V., Hosangadi, A., Ungewitter, R. and Dash, S. M., 1999, “A Hybrid Unstructured Mesh Solver for Multi-Fluid Mixtures,” AIAA 99-3330, 14th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA, June.
Chen, Y., Heister, S.D., 1994, “Two-Phase Modeling of Cavitated Flows,” ASME FED-Vol. 190, pp.299–307.
Merkle, C. L., Feng, J. Z., and Buelow, P. E. O., 1998, “Computational Modeling of the Dynamics of Sheet Cavitation,” 3rd International Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France.
Song, C., He, J., 1998, “Numerical Simulation of Cavitating Flows by Single-phase Flow Approach,” 3rd International Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France.
Kunz, R. F., Boger, D. A., Stinebring, D. R., Chyczewski, T. S., Gibeling, H. J., and Govindan, T. R., 1999, “Multi-phase CFD Analysis of Natural and Ventilated Cavitation About Submerged Bodies,” ASME Paper FEDSM99-7364.
Kunz,  R. F., Boger,  D. A., Stinebring,  D. R., Chyczewski,  T. S., Lindau,  J. W., Gibeling,  H. J., Venkateswaran,  S., and Govindan,  T. R., 2000, “A Preconditioned Navier–Stokes Method for Two-Phase Flows with Application to Cavitation Predication,” Comput. Fluids 29, No. 8, pp. 849–875.
Kunz, R. F., Lindau, J. W., Billet, M. L., and Stinebring, D. R., 2001, “Multiphase CFD Modeling of Developed and Supercavitating Flows,” VKI Special Course on Supercavitating Flows, Feb.
Lindau, J. W., Kunz, R. F., and Gibeling, H. J., 2000, “Validation of High Reynolds Number, Unsteady Multi-Phase CFD Modeling for Naval Applications,” presented at the 23rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, France.
Taylor, L. K., Arabshahi, A., and Whitfield, D. L., 1995, “Unsteady Three- Dimensional Incompressible Navier-Stokes Computations for a Prolate Spheroid Undergoing Time-Dependent Maneuvers,” AIAA Paper 95-0313.
Jorgenson,  P. C. E., and Chima,  R. V., 1989, “Explicit Runge-Kutta Method for Unsteady Rotor-Stator Interaction,” AIAA J. 27, No. 6, pp. 743–749.
Nakamura, S., Ding, W., and Yano, K., 1998, “A 2.5D Single Passage CFD Model for Centrifugal Pumps,” ASME Paper FEDSM98-4858.
Gridgen User Manual, 1999, Version 13.3, Pointwise.
Meyer, R. S., and Yocum, A. M., 1993, “Pump Impeller Performance Evaluation Tests for a Parametric Variation of Geometric Variables,” ARL Technical Memorandum 93-125.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Photograph of 7-blade impeller during installation in the pump loop facility. Machine rotation is clockwise.
Grahic Jump Location
Video frames of 7-blade impeller during design flow coefficient operation at successively lower cavitation numbers. Approximate midspan cavity trailing edge location is indicated. Machine rotation is clockwise.
Grahic Jump Location
Efficiency versus physical timestep for transient analysis, ϕ/ϕdesign=1.0, σ=0.200, Δt/t=0.002, η̄=69.29
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of experimental and computational head coefficient and efficiency versus flow coefficient. Data plotted for both fine and coarse grids
Grahic Jump Location
Streamlines and contours of volume fraction for ϕ/ϕdesign=0.8. (a) σ=0.547, (b) σ=0.238, (c) σ=0.154. Re-entrant jet regions indicated with arrows. Machine rotation is clockwise.
Grahic Jump Location
Predicted efficiency versus flow coefficient for single-phase and multi-phase analyses
Grahic Jump Location
Predicted head coefficient versus flow coefficient for single-phase and multiphase analyses
Grahic Jump Location
Predicted head coefficient versus cavitation number for various nondimensional flow coefficients. Data plotted for both fine and coarse grids.
Grahic Jump Location
Numerical results versus experimental results of head coefficient versus cavitation number at design flow coefficient
Grahic Jump Location
Predicted instantaneous field variables for ϕ/ϕdesign=0.5, σ=0.110 and 0.099. (a) Volume fraction contours and streamlines, (b) pressure contours, (c) relative velocity magnitude contours. Re-entrant jet regions indicated with arrows. Machine rotation is clockwise.
Grahic Jump Location
Predicted cavitation inception and breakdown points versus flow coefficient
Grahic Jump Location
36,288 and 129,465 vertex meshes employed for grid refinement studies. Predicted cavitation bubbles represented as contours of liquid volume fraction for σ=0.82, ϕ=0.50.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In