Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Modeling Viscous Oil Cavitating Flow in a Centrifugal Pump

[+] Author and Article Information
Wen-Guang Li

Department of Fluid Machinery,
Lanzhou University of Technology,
287 Langongping Road,
Lanzhou, Gansu 730050, China
e-mail: liwg40@sina.com

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received August 16, 2014; final manuscript received May 6, 2015; published online August 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Olivier Coutier-Delgosha.

J. Fluids Eng 138(1), 011303 (Aug 20, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1454; doi: 10.1115/1.4031061 History: Received August 16, 2014

Properly modeling cavitating flow in a centrifugal pump is a very important issue for prediction of cavitation performance in pump hydraulic design optimization and application. As a first trial, the issue is explored by using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method plus the full cavitation model herein. To secure a smoothed head-net positive suction head available (NPSHa) curve, several critical techniques are adopted. The cavitation model is validated against the experimental data in literature. The predicted net positive suction head required (NPSHr) correction factor for viscosity oils is compared with the existing measured data and empirical correlation curve, and the factor is correlated to impeller Reynolds number quantitatively. A useful relation between the pump head coefficient and vapor plus noncondensable gas-to-liquid volume ratio in the impeller is obtained. Vapor and noncondensable gas concentration profiles are illustrated in the impeller, and a “pseudocavitation” effect is confirmed as NPSHa is reduced. The effects of exit blade angle on NPSHr are presented, and the contributions of liquid viscosity and noncondensable gas concentration to the increase of NPSHr at a higher viscosity are identified.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Fluid domain of the model pump (a), mesh structure in the midspan plane of volute (b), and mesh structure in horizontal plane through the shaft axis of pump (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Pump head coefficient–flow coefficient curve at five viscosities and head coefficient–impeller Reynolds number curve at the three flow coefficients, L, B, and H denote the low flow coefficient 0.220, BEP flow coefficient 0.379, and high flow coefficient 0.523 at which the cavitating flows in the pump were simulated: (a) head coefficient–flow coefficient curve and (b) head coefficient–Reynolds number curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pump head coefficient against cavitation number at three flow coefficients and five viscosities: (a) φ = 0.220, (b) φ = 0.379, and (c) φ = 0.523, cavitation numbers for NPSHr at various viscosities are listed in the legend

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Vapor and gas-to-liquid volume ratio in the impeller in terms of cavitation number at three flow coefficients and five viscosities: (a) φ = 0.220, (b) φ = 0.379, and (c) φ = 0.523

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Pump head coefficient against vapor and gas-to-liquid volume ration in the impeller at three flow coefficients and five viscosities: (a) φ = 0.220, (b) φ = 0.379, and (c) φ = 0.523

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cavitation number σr and NPSHr correction factor KNPSHr in terms of impeller Reynolds number Req and compared with the empirical correlation in Ref. [1] and the experimental data in Ref. [3], as well as vapor–liquid volume ratio in the impeller as a function of σr : (a) σr – Req, (b) KNPSHr at BEP, (c) KNPSHr at low and high flow coefficients, and (d) Vc/VL at BEP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fluid domain of the experimental pump in Refs. [36] and [37] (a), and predicted and measured head–NPSHa curves at three flow rates: Q  = 168, 210, and 226.8 m3/hr (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Blade cavitation coefficient in terms of impeller Reynolds number at three flow coefficients, the solid line is for the case that the NPSHr predicted by CFD is modified by multiplying 0.7907, the dashed line is the case that λ is altered by multiplying 0.7082

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Vapor and noncondensable gas volume fraction contours in the impeller at BEP under NPSHr condition for different viscosities: (a) 1 cS, (b) 24 cS, (c) 48 cS, (d) 60 cS, and (e)120 cS, the variable in legend is vapor and gas volume fraction, αv+αg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Correction factor in terms of impeller Reynolds number and compared with the empirical correlation in Ref. [1] for 15 ppm and 40 ppm noncondensable gas concentrations under φ = 0.379 condition for two impellers with 20 deg and 44 deg exit blade angles: (a) comparison of KNPSHr between 15 ppm and 40 ppm and (b) correlations of KNPSHr to Req for two impellers at 40 ppm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pressure coefficient profile on blade in midspan surface at five viscosities and BEP(φ = 0.379) for two impellers with 20 deg and 44 deg exit blade angles under 3% head drop condition: (a) β2  = 20 deg and (b) β2  = 44 deg




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