CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > CFX

NPSHr 3% in pump simulation

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   December 29, 2011, 05:59
Default NPSHr 3% in pump simulation
  #1
New Member
 
NA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 8
pump_passion is on a distinguished road
Hi guys,

I have made several test for estimation of pump head-capacity and NPSHr 3% curves running both steady state and transient simulations.

The results for the head-capacity curve are really satisfactory (with a maximum error of 4% between the tested and simulated results) for all the five cases analized (involving different pump types: 2 end-suction pumps and 3 between bearing pump with suction volute and prerotation).

The real problem is the estimation of NPSHr 3%, since the simulated results are too much optimistic if compared to the tested ones. In general, the simulated NPSHr 3% is in a range of 30% to 70% below the tested one (both running transient and steady state simulations).

I run all the simulations with the Rayleigh Plesset cavitation model setting a mean diameter of 2E-6 [m] and a saturation pressure of 3574 [Pa], typical value of water.

Does anyone have the same issues calculating NPSHr with a 3% head drop?

Has someone found/built a cavitation model that gives more reliable results?

Many thanks for your help.

Regards
pump_passion is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 3, 2012, 03:27
Default
  #2
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 57
Rep Power: 7
Graham81 is on a distinguished road
Dear pump_passion (great name by the way),

Instead of answering your question, Id like to ask you one...how great is that?
We use a different software package (Simerics Pumplinx) for all cavitation simulations (including 3% head drop) because I always seem to run into stability issues when running CFX cavitating simulations (especially the ones with a lot of it). Even if I induce cavitation very slowly by sequentially lowering the inlet pressure and run transient it is quite unstable. Before Glenn refers me to the stability FAQ (), could you give me one of your definition files so I can see where I go wrong maybe?

thanks in advance
Graham81 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 8, 2012, 20:29
Default
  #3
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,824
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Here is the stability FAQ at Graham's request

http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys...gence_criteria

The cavitation numbers (diameters, vapour pressure) can be heavily affected by any contaminants in the water. They are based on pure water. Are your experiments on pure water?
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 12, 2012, 13:12
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Victor Anicama
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lima - Perú
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
Creador28 is on a distinguished road
Las simulaciones con CFX dan muy buenos resultados digamos un 4% de error cerca al BEP cuanto mas a la izquierda o derecha te encuentres de ese punto tus resultados pierden presicion.
Creador28 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 7, 2014, 04:37
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Luke
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 4
aerospace84 is on a distinguished road
hello to all!! for my job i'm running simulations on cavitation..usually i get the right results, other time, simulations go wrong not going to convergence.
i use fluent to do them...i'm quite curios about pumplinx...does it works well?? also in the determination of Q-H?

thank you!
aerospace84 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 7, 2014, 06:29
Default
  #6
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,824
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
This is the CFX forum. I don't think you will find much about Fluent or pumplinx here.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 7, 2014, 08:33
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Luke
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 4
aerospace84 is on a distinguished road
probably yes!
howver yes i'm not in the wrong place working daily with fluent and cfx both for my work. and finding advise and good suggestion here!
i've just seen your quote with a hint about pumplinx...so i've thought it was worth to ask an opinion about it!
aerospace84 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Centrifugal Pump Simulation Problem! warex FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM 29 September 23, 2014 10:27
Positive displacement pump simulation jsm STAR-CCM+ 0 October 5, 2009 03:14
A pump paradox bearcat Main CFD Forum 7 July 14, 2009 20:02
How many prism layers should be added in a pump simulation? Jasmine CFX 3 June 17, 2009 16:05
3-D Contaminant Dispersal Simulation Apple L S Chan Main CFD Forum 1 December 23, 1998 11:06


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:44.