Influence of Impeller Suction Specific

Speed on Vibration Performance (& LCC)

Simon Bradshaw

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 1
 Presenter
Simon Bradshaw His responsibilities include the design and development
of new products and processes. Prior to joining ITT
Director of API Goulds, he worked for both Sulzer Pumps and Weir
Product Development Pumps.
& Technology for ITT
Goulds Pumps, in He has accumulated 27 years in the pump industry. He
Seneca Falls NY attributes this to having never exhausted the fun
inherent in moving fluid between two improbable
locations.

Mr. Bradshaw has a BEng (Hons) degree (Mechanical

Engineering) from Heriot Watt University. He is a
registered Chartered Engineer in the UK, a member of
the Institute of Engineering Designers and a member of
TEES Pump Symposium Advisory Committee.

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 2
 Quiz
What are the red and blue lines ?
50 16000
45 Vehicle fuel
efficiency 14000
40
12000
35 Pump

Nss limit
Nss
Nss limit
Vehicle MPG / ton

30 10000

PumpPump
25 8000
20
6000
15
4000
10
5 2000

0 0
1982 1992 2002 2012
Year

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 3
 Suction-Specific Speed: What Is It?
A measure of a pumps suction
performance

RPM Q
Used since centrifugal pump theory
was first developed N SS = 0 .75
Originally helped pump designers to
NPSHR
predict & compare pump Calculate ONLY at maximum diameter and Best
performances Efficiency Point (BEP) flow
For double suction pumps, divide Q by 2

Now employed by contractors & end-

users

Commonly specified as a predictor of

API pump reliability

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 4 July 10, 2012 4
 Historic Context #1
Lower NPSHr is desirable to reduce 1st cost:
Smaller pipework
Lower tank elevations
Less excavation
But 1950-1980s hydraulic design was limited

D1
D1

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 5
 Historic Context #2
1981 Fraser
Demonstrated a method to predict suction recirculation
1982 Hallam
Showed that pump reliability was correlated with Nss
1
Failure frequency

0.5

0
< 8000 8-9000 9-10000 10-11000 11-12000 12-13000 13-14000 >14000

Suction specific speed ranges (US units)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 6
 Historic Context #3
1985 Lobanoff & Ross
Showed pump operating range (vibration) was strongly a
function of Nss 55
16

14
45
12

NPSHr (m)
35 10

NPSHr (ft)
Stable Operation
Window 8
25
6

4
15
2
20000 (387)
5 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pump Flow % of BEP

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 7
 Motivation
Evaluate the effect of improved hydraulic design and
pump construction standards - (follow the red line)

No modern large scale study on Nss vs. reliability

exists and none forthcoming

Validate the correctness companys tradeoff (SGsT)

curves for impeller design

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 8
 Advances in Impeller Design
Vane development
Low blade loadings near the impeller inlet
Small incidence angles and approach fluid angles
Tip geometry
2D and 3D computer Vane Leading Edge Profiles

simulations Ellipse

Blunt

Circular

Parabola

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 9
 Impeller Leading Edge Profiles 2011 Testing

Parabola Leading edge profile Cast Impeller with blunt Ellipse Leading edge profile
Leading edge

Ellipse

Blunt

Circular

Parabola
Circular Leading edge profile Blunt Leading edge profile

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 10
 Cavitation Development at BEP flow in the impeller with Parabola
profile as suction pressure is reduced 2011 Testing

== 0.17
0.18 (head
0.22 (3% head
(1% breakdown)
drop)

1.05

0.95
H/HBEP

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Cavitation Number

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 11
 Impeller Nss 2011 Testing
Impeller
NPSH 3% Nss (S)
Profile
ft (m)

Blunt 36.8 (11.2) 10386 (201)

Circular 33.4 (10.2) 11170 (216)
Ellipse 30 (9.1) 12104 (234)
Parabola 28.3 (8.6) 12644 (245)

Parabola has the best cavitation performance

Impeller life is doubled from Circular to Parabolic profile
A 15% improvement in NPSHr is achievable with no change in
allowable operating range (or vibration performance)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 12
 Pump construction standards #1 - 2015
Pump standards have changed significantly
Mandated smaller L3/d4 (API 610 11th edition)

1.0E+04 API 610 App. K acceptance line

Test Pump

1.0E+03 Older generation Pump

L3/d4 (in-1)

1.0E+02

1.0E+01

1.0E+00
1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
QH/N (USGPM x ft / RPM)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 13
 Pump construction standards #2 - 2015
Mandated smaller deflection under nozzle loads (API 610
7th edition)
Mandated no rear foot (API 610 9th edition)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 14
 Lobanoff & Ross 2015 version
Using the parabolic leading edge vane profile

Utilizing modern impeller design techniques that

achieve the required NPSHr while minimizing D1

Considering the improvements in pump construction

standards since 1982

How will the operating envelope with acceptable

vibration change ?

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 15
 Impeller Design 1
Pump Size: 4x6-11 (100x150-280) in a single stage
overhung configuration with centerline mount (OH2)
Design Criteria
Modern design of 4 impellers with identical flow and head
requirements
Vary the suction performance by adjusting:
inlet angles
Parameter Value
inlet diameter
Running Speed 3560 RPM
meridonal profile BEP Head 450 ft (137 m)
and vane tip BEP Flow 1670 USGPM (380m3/h)
BEP power @ 1.0 SG 232 HP (173 kW)
Specific Speed Ns (nq) 1489 (28.8)
Design Pressure 750 psig (51.7 barg)
Materials of Construction API 610 code S6
Shaft dia. @ mechanical seal 2.362 (60mm)

L3/d4 ratio 42 in-1 (1.65 mm-1)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 16
 Impeller Design 2
Design Criteria
Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4
8000 11,000 13,000 15,000
Nominal Nss (S) (155) (213) (252) (290)
D2 Impeller outlet
11 11 11 11
diameter (in)
B2 Impeller outlet width
1 0.9 0.85 0.95
(in)
2 Impeller vane angle @
24 26.3 29 27.5
outlet (deg)
1t Impeller vane angle
29 13.2 14.7 11.7
@ inlet (deg)

D1 Impeller inlet eye

4.9 5.3 5.5 5.8
diameter (in)

D1 / D2
Impeller inlet / impeller 0.44 0.48 0.5 0.53
outlet dia.

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 17
 Suction recirculation
Fraser vs. CFD

8000 (155) 11000 (213) 13000 (252)

@50% of BEP @55% of BEP @65% of BEP

15000 (290) Nominal Suction Fraser CFD

Specific Speed Suction Recirc. Suction Recirc.
@75% of BEP (% of BEP) (% of BEP)
8000 (155) 48% 48%
11,000 (213) 60% 63%
13,000 (252) 66% 63%
15,000 (290) 75% 74%

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 18
 Test Impellers
4 impellers manufactured by SLA for accuracy
8000 (155) 11000 (213)
Parabolic leading edges
Ns 1489 (nq 29)

13000 (252) 15000 (290)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 19
 Test Setup
OH2 4x6-11 (100x150-280) same size, speed and
power as used by Lobanoff & Ross

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 20
 NPSHr results
Nominal Suction Target NPSHr Tested NPSHr Tested Suction % decrease in NPSHr
Specific Speed @BEP ft (m) @ BEP ft (m) Specific Speed (tested vs. nominal)
8000 (155) 47.8 (14.6) 37.4 (11.4) 9568 (185) 22%
11,000 (213) 31.3 (9.5) 21.1 (6.4) 14,776 (286) 33%
13,000 (252) 25.0 (7.6) 17.6 (5.4) 17,066 (331) 30%
15,000 (290) 20.7 (6.3) 16.4 (5.0) 17,841 (346) 21%

Nss - 11000 CFD Nss - 8000 CFD Nss - 15000 CFD Nss - 13000 CFD
Nss - 11000 Test Nss - 8000 Test Nss - 15000 Test Nss - 13000 Test
50 25
45
40
20
35
NPSH3 (ft)

NPSH3 (ft)
30
15
25
20
15 10
10
5 5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Flow rate relative to BEP Flow rate relative to BEP

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 21
 Vibration results
13000 (17066 actual) exceeds limit at 76% of BEP
15000 (17841 actual) exceeds limit at 86% of BEP

Allowable vibration 15000 Nss vibration

13000 Nss vibration 11000 Nss vibration
8000 Nss vibration

Unfiltered vibration Vane pass vibration

0.2 5 0.2 5

4 4
0.15 0.15
Velocity (in/s RMS)

Velocity (in/s RMS)

3 3
0.1 0.1
2 2
0.05 0.05
1 1

0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Flow rate relative to BEP Flow rate relative to BEP

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 22
 Conclusions
Stable operating window greatly increased
Nss limits far above 11000 level
55
55
Stable Operation
Window
45
45

35
35

NPSHr (ft)
25
25

15
15

20000 (387)

55
00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pump Flow % of BEP

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 23
 Conclusions Now What ?
Testing provides some validation of SGsT curve
Realizable Nss far above current industry norms Ns= .

ITT Goulds Nss vs. Ns tradeoff chart (SGsT curve) Nss= .

18000
Attainable Pump Nss (US units)

16000 Not attainable

with acceptable
14000 performance Existing SGsT line
12000
Nss = 17841 (345)
10000
Nss = 17066 (330)
8000
Nss = 14766 (286)
6000
Attainable & Nss = 9568 (185)
4000 acceptable
2000 performance
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pump Ns (US units)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 24
 How To Tell If A Pump Design is Modern
Use Warren Frasers calculation to find the onset of suction side recirculation

Older designs will have an onset at >80% of BEP

Good modern designs will have an onset at 60% of BEP

If recirculation is in between 80% and 60%, consider the criticality and power of
the pump and if in doubt treat it as if it were an older design

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 25 25
 The cost of constraining Nss (energy costs matter)
Goulds uses the graph shown below as an average for an industrial pump with
a 10 year life

Energy cost amounts to around 1/3rd of the LCC - based on US industrial

electricity prices. If you live in a region of the world where electricity costs
substantially more, this will be a larger portion.

The US industrial electricity cost has

been around $0.07 per KWh in 2014

In Europe it is around twice this at

$0.16 per KWh.

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 Optimizing Pump Hydraulics November 9, 2015 26 26
 The cost of constraining Nss (energy costs matter)

How does limiting the maximum Nss affect the pump energy cost ?

Nss is a function of the pump speed (as well as BEP flow and NPSHr).
So the normal way to achieve a target Nss limit such as 11,000 (when
flow and NPSHr are fixed), is to slow the pump down

When the pump is slowed down the pump

Specific Speed (Ns) also reduces. This
reduction affects the efficiency that the
pump can attain as shown in the chart

For any given pump BEP flowrate, lowering

the pump Specific Speed will lower the
attainable efficiency, sometimes
significantly
(1000) (2000) (3000)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013
Optimizing Pump Hydraulics November 9, 2015 27 27
 The cost of constraining Nss (RL example OH2 )

Head 651 ft (198.4 m), Flow 1598 USGPM (363 m3/hr), Maximum NPSHr 26 ft (8 m),
SG 0.754, 60 Hz

The pump sold was a 3x8-27A running at 1785 RPM with an efficiency of 64% and an
absorbed power of 310 HP (231 KW). The specific speed of this selection is 482 US
units (9 metric)

Because the Nss was limited to 11,000 (US units) a 2 pole selection was not possible.
However if that limit was raised to the SGsT limit, a valid selection would the 4x6-13H
at 3560 RPM, efficiency = 79.5%, power = 249 HP (186 KW)

P = 45 KW

For a pump running 8000 hrs/year 45 x 8000 x $0.07 = $25,200 per year

For the 20 year life this will cost an additional $0.5 million in energy usage

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 Optimizing Pump Hydraulics November 9, 2015 28 28
 The cost of constraining Nss (RL example OH2 )

P = 45 KW

For a pump running 8000 hrs/year 45 x 8000 x $0.07 = $25,200 per year

For the 20 year life this will cost an additional $0.5 million in energy usage

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 Optimizing Pump Hydraulics November 9, 2015 29 29
 The cost of constraining Nss (BB2 example)

Head 1191 ft (363 m), Flow 1940 USGPM (441 m3/hr), Maximum NPSHr 18 ft (5.5 m),
SG 0.65, 60 Hz

The pump sold was a 8x10-27CD running at 1785 RPM with an efficiency of 64.5% and
an absorbed power of 574 HP (438 KW). The specific speed of this selection is 598 US
units (12 metric)

Raising the Nss limit above 11,000 would allow a 2 pole selection with an efficiency of
71.5% and an absorbed power of 533 HP (398 KW)

P = 40 KW

For a pump running 8000 hrs/year 40 x 8000 x $0.07 = $22,400 per year

For the 20 year life this will cost an additional $0.45 million in energy usage

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 Optimizing Pump Hydraulics November 9, 2015 30 30
 The cost of constraining Nss (BB2 example)

P = 40 KW

For a pump running 8000 hrs/year 40 x 8000 x $0.07 = $22,400 per year

For the 20 year life this will cost an additional $0.45 million in energy usage

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 Optimizing Pump Hydraulics November 9, 2015 31 31
 Thank you for your attention

Questions ?

Special thanks to the following individuals for their assistance:

David Cowan Thomas Liebner

Susan Sullivan Dennis Fenner
Mark Ohlrich Martin Temple
Patricia BabowiczWebb John Salerno (Jr.)

Calgary Pump Symposium 2015

2013 32