Selection criteria for suction impellers of centrifugal pumps

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


<ul><li><p>FEATURE " </p><p>Selection criteria for suction impellers of centrifugal pumps In the third and final part of this article, J.F. GUlich of Sulzer Pumps, discusses the prevention of cavitation damage and concludes by presenting hydraulic criteria that can be used for the selection of suction impellers. </p><p>6. P revent ion o f cav i ta t ion damage </p><p>The risk of cavitation damage must be minimised by the following means: </p><p>(1)An appropriate hydraulic design of the structures and components upstream of the impeller must provide a flow distribution as uniform as practical. This applies for the suction piping layout, the sump design for a wet pit installation, or the radial inlet bends of multi-stage and double-entry pumps. </p><p>(2)The hydraulic design of the impeller must optimise the pressure distribution on the blades in order to create as low cavity volumes as possible for any given NPSH and to minimise the driving pressure differential in the zone of bubble implosion (as discussed in section 3.1 "concept L" and illustrated by case histories 5.1 to 5.3). </p><p>(3)Selection of the right pump for the specified service: most pumps will operate at partload with a higher risk of cavitation damage than near BEP - be it due to higher incidence or to vortices created by suction recirculation. Over-sizing of the pump usually entails economic losses due to additional power consumption and frequently in terms of increased maintenance cOStS. </p><p>(4)Determination of the NPSH avail- able necessary to ensure operation without erosion and/or noise and vibrations caused by cavitation by appropriate margins or analysis of risk of cavitation damage. </p><p>(5)Selection of appropriate materials. </p><p>Whereas items (1) and (2) focus on the minimisation of the cavity volume at any given flow and inlet pressure, items </p><p>(4) and (5) attempt to exclude the risk of damage when operating with a limited amount of cavitation. This is precisely what most pumps do, since it is neither economical nor necessary in the majority of applications to suppress cavity formation at the pump inlet completely by providing plenty of NPSHA or choosing a sufficiently low pump speed. </p><p>The risk of cavitation damage can be assessed quantitatively - albeit with considerable scatter [12, 7]. The damage prediction correlations given in ref. 12 have been validated since by additional testing [25] and extended to procedures for cavitation diagnosis [26]. The damage prediction method has been used to calculate the cavity length allowable to obtain an impeller life of 40000 hours with stainless steel impellers, Fig. 10. The allowable cavity length has been plotted against the available NPSH; the reason is that the hydraulic cavitation intensity increases with the cavity volume (length) and the driving pressure differential in the implosion zone as quantified by the suction pressure (i.e. NPSHa). The calculation is based on a metal loss due to cavitation of 6 mm in 40000 hours with stainless steel tensile strength of R m = 800 N/mm 2. To estimate the cavity length allowable for other conditions read Lca v from the graph and transform to actual conditions by use of Eq. (8): </p><p>f R ~ 0.7/, I Ae ~ o.35 </p><p> (8) [ m,Flef J [ k Ref ) </p><p>Rm,Re f = 800 N/mm2; Ii.,Ref = 40000 hrs; AeRe f = 6 ram. As has been discussed extensively in [12] and [23] cavitation damage prediction is sub- ject to a very large scatter due to the </p><p>various parameters influencing cavi- tation erosion; Fig. 10 can therefore just show trends and give an order of magnitude. Cavity thickness and volume increase with cavity length. For LcaffTia &gt; 0.3 to 0.5 this effect represents a considerable uncertainty (refer also to case 5.1). </p><p>'When selecting the speed and size of a pump for a given NPSHA or when determining the NPSH A necessary for the safe operation of a given pump typical applications may be distinguished: </p><p>A: Service when pumping water below 200 *C </p><p>Pumps with an impeller eye tip speed u 1 &gt; 75 m/s must operate virtually above cavitation inception, since very small cavities can lead to erosion. For these pumps the impeller eye diameters are minimised in order to keep the tip speed u 1 and NPSH i as low as possible. This group of pumps include high-speed injection pumps and boiler feedpumps for very large nuclear or fossil power plants. </p><p>When selecting pumps with impeller eye tip speeds between 50 &lt; u 1 &lt; 75 m/s it must be ensured that the cavity length is known and that it is limited indeed in order to avoid excessive cavitation damage (usually a booster pump is required to create a sufficient NPSH A in such applications). Typical examples are injection pumps for oil fields and boiler feedpumps for medium size power stations. A rational choice can be made using the methods mentioned above, which allow a quantification of the expected impeller life when the cavity length is known from tests or can be estimated with a reasonable degree of confidence [12, 7]. </p><p>42 WORLD PUMPS April 2001 0262 1762/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved </p></li><li><p>FEATURE </p><p>For pumps with an impeller eye tip speed U 1 &lt; 50 m/s the cavity length may not be known. An adequate mar- gin or "safety factor" is to be applied on the NPSH3 to determine the NPSH A necessary to ensure trouble-free oper- ation (table 1 or other rationale). </p><p>In rare applications pumps are operated with cavitation control: the flow rate pumped is then determined by the extent of cavitation which causes that amount of head drop that the remain- ing head is able to overcome the head required by the system characteristic. With stainless steel impellers and u I &lt; 20 m/s cavitation erosion may stay within acceptable limits. </p><p>B: Service when pumping hydrocarbons </p><p>Hydrocarbon pumping applications present a much lower risk of cavitation erosion than water pumping systems. The NPSH available is determined by safety factors (table 1 or other rationale). For pumps with high tip speed ul &gt; 50 to 60 m/s the cavity volume must be limited too in order to avoid excessive noise and vibration (case history 5.2) or even erosion. </p><p>7. Conc lus ions </p><p>The hesitation of some pump users to accept pumps with suction specific speeds above a certain level (e.g. ns~ = 213) originates from investiga- tions on pumps designed 30 to 40 years ago [1, 3]. Extensive research and development of high energy pumps in the past 30 years have produced a better understanding of the flow in pumps and of the reasons for earlier failures. As a result a new design concept has emerged for suction impellers with low incidence and flat pressure distributions. Former high nss impellers combined a large eye with large incidence leading to extensive flow separation at partload (often even at BEP). To compensate the counter-productive effect of the large incidence the eye diameter had to be increased even more than with an optimum design to get the desired suction specific speed, refer to Eq. (5). Thus unnecessarily high impeller tip speeds u 1 have been combined </p><p>200 </p><p>E E .c 150 C~ ,. </p><p>~100 </p><p>.O </p><p>,~ 50 </p><p>Cold water gas cont snt 24 ppm or boiler feed water above 140 "C </p><p>Cold water gas content 0.05 </p><p>0 50 100 150 </p><p>NPSH A [m] </p><p>with inlet flow separation and recirculation to create noise, vib- rations and cavitation damage (e.g. test data in section 5.1). </p><p>By definition the suction specific speed is a relation between speed n, flow QBEP and NPSH3,BEp which is related to the stream-wise pressure distribution Ap = f(L) along the impeller blades. Ap = f(L) depends on the uniformity of the approach flow, leading edge profile and - most important - on the stagger angle of the blades or 131B. This experimental fact - expressed by Eq. (4) - has been ob- served on radial impellers as well as inducers, but is not documented in "classical pump theory" as given by Eq. (2). It demonstrates that the low pressure spike, in other words: "the quality of the flow", improves as the angle of approach flow decreases or the impeller eye increases. For this reason the NPSH decreases (in spite higher Ul) - and the suction specific speed increases - as approach and blade angles decrease. The lower the blade inlet angle 13 m, the lower the flow incidence at part load: roughly speak- ing an impeller with 1318 = 24 experi- ences at q* = 0.5 an incidence of i 1 = 12 , while an impeller with ~IB -- 100 operates at that flow with i I = 5 only. </p><p>While the stream-wise quality of the flow increases with lower angles 131a, this is not necessarily true for the span-wise pressure distribution, which has a dominating impact on impeller inlet recirculation. There is further an interest to keep the tip speed ul low, </p><p>since the cavitation effects and the always present hydraulic excitation forces increase exponentially with ul. Consequently an optimum impeller eye diameter must be found. For a given application with given NPSH^ the procedure described in section 3.2 and Fig. 4 can help to find that optimum. The procedure is based on a margin on NPSH 3 which increases with the tip speed ul, Eq. (TI.1) in table 1. Stream-wise and span-wise pressure distributions are not suff- iciently related to use nss as a criterion for intensity (and less important: onset) of inlet recirculation: neither does a low or moderate n,s guarantee low recirculation (refer to case 5.4) nor does a high nss imply excessive vibrations or recirculation, see also [8]. As has been shown by the experiments in section 5 and table 3 cavitation erosion, recirculation and vibrations are not correlated with the suction specific speed. </p><p>During part load flow recirculation the flow in the impeller is fully 3- dimensional and unsteady and depends on many parameters inclu- ding the shapes of the impeller section and the blades. Such flows can not be predicted by any simple means. Linking the occurrence and intensity of recirculation, excitation forces and risk of cavitation erosion to just one parameter, for example the suction specific speed or the blade angles, would be an over-simplification, which could preclude a large number of economical and entirely safe pump selections from application. </p><p>Figure 10. Allowable cavity length for </p><p>stainless steel impellers for an impeller life of </p><p>40 000 hrs. </p><p> WORLD PUMPS April 2001 </p></li><li><p>Since neither the onset of partload recirculation nor its intensity, and least of all the impact of recirculation on the mechanical behaviour of a pump, can be related to any single design or performance parameter, a formal application of limits of the suction specific speed can not be recommended as a criterion in pump selection. The procedure proposed in [2] to predict the onset of suction recirculation is not supported by data in [9] and [10] nor the data used in section 5. The procedure of [2] to predict outlet recirculation may be considered almost meaningless, since it ignores the influence of the flow deceleration downstream of the impeller, which is most instrumental in producing such recirculation [9]. </p><p>It would be possible to reduce the nss of any given impeller by cutting back the blade leading edge to such an extent that the blade loading at the inlet increases sufficiently to impair the suction capability. It is quite clear that such a procedure must not be followed since it would jeopardise the safe operation of the pump instead of improving it. Note that there is no contradiction to the practice some- times followed to cut back the leading edge in order to shift the NPSH-curve to larger flows; it can indeed be poss- ible to optimise NPSH by moderate cuts, but there is always an optimum blade loading beyond which perform- ance deteriorates again. The decisive factor is the pressure distribution hence blade shape, profile and inci- dence, not the impeller eye diameter nor the suction specific speed. </p><p>8. Hydraulic criteria for pump selection </p><p>The following is an attempt to summ- arise some hydraulic criteria for a rat- ional selection of pumps. These criteria focus on the needs of pumps with impeller eye tip speeds below 40 to 50 m/s (criteria become more stringent for high-speed pumps). Mechanical pump </p><p>design features and materials are beyond the scope of this contribution but are of course very important too. </p><p>An overall view on all aspects of the pump, the system it is to work in, all operational requirements as well as safety and environmental aspects is needed to make a proper choice and thus ensure an economical operation in terms of maintenance and energy costs. </p><p>Any specific figures given below are, of course, not to be understood as sharp limits but as showing trends only. Even though most of the following criteria are of a quantitative nature, their assessment and weighting for each individual application is subject to personal engineering judgement. </p><p>8.1. Rated flow according to AP1610: </p><p>0.8 _&lt; Qrated/QBEp &lt; 1.1 (API 610). With pumps with a power of PBEr &gt; 200 kW or a flow rate above QBEP &gt; 1000 m3/h the rated flow would be preferably in the range of 0.9 &lt; </p><p>Qrated/QBEP -&lt; 1.05. </p><p>8.2. Continuous operation within 0.6 -&lt; Qrated/QBEe -&lt; 1.2 for nq &lt; 50 </p><p>8.3. Oversizing: In order to avoid unnecessary partload operation and associated energy losses it is now generally accepted that pumps should not be oversized by excessive "safety margins" which in fact impair the safe and economic operation of the pump rather than improve it. </p><p>8.4. Efficiency: It may be useful to compare the offered efficiencies to statistical data. Such data are given for four different pump types in [7] in the form of graphs and equations, which can easily implemented into pump selection/evaluation programs; these data are supplemented by equations for the expected tolerance of the efficiency prediction and for an estimate of the theoretically achiev- able efficiencies. If the offered efficiency is appreciably below the </p><p>scatter band of the statistic it is worthwhile to investigate the reasons for this shortcoming: they may point to poor hydraulic design, e.g. excessive incidence, recirculation close to BEE excessively distorted velocity profiles and a potentially destructive intensity of recirculation (as in case 5.4). For small pumps with an appreciable portion of mechanical losses this criterion may be disregarded. </p><p>8.5. Approach flow: suction piping layout, sump arrangement or inlet bend of a multi-stage or double suction pump should ensure a reasonably uniform flow at the impeller inlet. </p><p>8.6. System characteristic: In order to select a pump properly the system characteristic should be known in order to determine maximum and minimum flow and to investigate the implications of parallel operation (if applicable). </p><p>8.7. NPSH margin: Provide adequate margins between NPSHA and NPSH 3 (for example according to table 1 and section 6). If the suction specific speed is too low for a given application and the NPSH A can not be increased, the margin becomes too low and the impeller operates with extensive cavitation; an optimisation according to section 3.2 and Fig. 4 is possi...</p></li></ul>


View more >