hydraulic re-rates. Here is one example:

An engineering firm was doing a feasibility study on using a radial flow , 20x20x22

(*) pump, in a flood control system. The pump was originally rated for 20,000

gallons per minute (GPM), and 400 feet head, at 1780 RPM. The proposed new

rated conditions are 40,000 GPM, 200 feet head, using some existing motors.

(*) 20" suction nozzle x 20" discharge nozzle x 22" maximum impeller diameter pump size.

The firm contacted the original vendor (A) to study the feasibility of the hydraulic

re-rate. Engineers from vendor A reviewed the operating conditions, pulled out

some drawings, reviewed some test curves, and after two days came back with

the conclusion that the re-rate is not feasible.

Not satisfied with that answer, the firm contacted pump vendor B and made the

same inquiry. Within 15 minutes of receiving the inquiry its engineer come back

with the same conclusion that the re-rate is not doable.

Questions:

1. Why was the hydraulic re-rate not feasible?

2. Why did it take two days for vendor A, but only 15 minutes for vendor B, to arrive

at that conclusion?

The simple answers: specific speed! And, apparently, the engineer of vendor B

knows how to use that concept to respond quickly to its customer inquiry.

Let us analyze the situation and, for simplicity, let us assume that the pump

should be operating close to its best efficiency point (BEP) at both original and

proposed re-rate conditions.

Based on its original rated conditions, the pump specific speed would have been:

This value of specific speed confirms that the pump is of radial flow design, even

if the actual NS deviates slightly from this value depending on the actual location

of its BEP.

To meet the re-rate conditions, the pump specific speed (Ns) should be:

location of its BEP, when re-rated, this Ns value indicates that it will require a

pump of mixed flow design to meet the re-rate conditions.

There is simply no way a radial flow pump can be modified to become one of a

mixed-flow design. The engineer from vendor A failed to realize this and wasted

valuable time to review and made some lay-outs on something whose result is

quite obvious to the engineer from vendor B.

It is, of course, very simplistic to turn down a potential business opportunity on

one factor alone so such conclusion should be validated in some other way. In

this situation, one way of validating it is to estimate the impeller diameter required

to meet both the original and the re-rate conditions.

The impeller diameter required to develop a certain head can be estimated

roughly from the equation:

Where:

D = required impeller diameter, in inches

H = developed head, in feet

N = pump speed, in RPM

The derivation of this equation is available on request from www.centrifugal-pump.org.

For the original rated condition, the impeller diameter required to develop 400 feet

head is approximately:

20.6/22=0.936)

For the re-rate condition, the impeller diameter required to develop 200 feet head

is approximately:

14.6/22=0.664)

The above figures indicate that, even assuming for the sake of discussion, the

pump could be converted from being a radial flow type into a mixed flow type, still

the impeller diameter required to meet the reduced head would fall below the

acceptable minimum diameter for the pump.

impeller diameter, as a percentage of maximum diameter, for various pump types

are:

radial flow = 80%

mixed flow = 85%

axial flow = 90%

Pump comparison based on NS

Application of NS in pump selection

Application of NS in hydraulic re-rates

Application of NS in new pump design

TECHNICAL Concepts Parts Auxiliaries Glossary Engineering data Library Bulletin board Go to our Sitemap for list of articles By accessing this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Legal Disclaimer Copyright notice Privacy policy |

Custom Search