Feature
Cover Story
Report
Assessing Centrifugal
Pump Systems
Scott Mansfield
Consultant
n important job we are often
A -Õ««Þ
tasked with is assessing the op-
eration of a centrifugal pump in
a given situation. On some occa-
sions we will be asked to size a new
pump for a given application. Other
times we might be asked to find out
why a pump system is not behaving as
had been hoped. Finally, we might be
asked to change something in a pip-
ing system, perhaps a control valve or
a spray nozzle, and we want to make
sure the pump continues to perform
acceptably in the new configuration.
To address these tasks, we will first
take a look at the basic flow require-
ments of the most common pumping
configuration namely, the transfer of
liquid from a low elevation to a higher
elevation. Then we will have a close
look at this same system for a better
understanding of what is going on.
Next we will have a brief view of one
other pumping system to appreciate
how a similar pump will respond to a
different application. Finally, we will
quickly cover some aspects of pump
protection.
Case 1: the basics
The starting point in pump analy-
sis should be to establish the system
characteristic, or system curve. The
system curve is the curve that would
result from plotting pressure drop ver-
sus flow with the pump absent. The
main reason for starting here is that
the curve defines what is required of
the pump. The pump must suite the
system; not the other way around.
It doesn’t make sense to examine a
pump catalog or to contact a pump
vendor until this easy task has been
carried out.
System curve: As an example, con-
34 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM AUGUST 2005
A pump must suit the
system, not the other
way around
iÛiÊ
>݈“Õ“ÊÃÌ>̈Vʅi>`ÊrÊÇäʇÊÎʳÊxäÊrÊ££ÇÊvÌ Vœ˜ÌÀœ
i>`Ê Õˆ`ˆ˜}
"«iÀ>̈˜}ʏiÛi Ì>˜Ž
-̜À>}iÊ
Ì>˜Ž
xäÊvÌ
/œÊ“ˆÝiÀÃ
ˆ}… £xÊvÌ
iÛi >LœÛiÊ
ÃÕV̈œ˜
ÇäÊvÌ
ˆ FIGURE 1. One of the
most common pumping
œÜ ÎÊvÌÊ>LœÛiÊ ­ œÌÊ̜ÊÃV>i® configurations is for the
iÛi transfer of liquid from a low
ÃÕV̈œ˜
elevation to a higher elevation. The system
shown here is for Case 1 discussed in the text
TABLE1. DESIGN PARAMETERS, CASE 1
Design flow rate 280 gpm, controlled (average flowrate on flowsheets)
Maximum flow rate 310 gpm, controlled
Discharge line 490 ft x 4 in. (includes equivalent lengths for fittings)
Suction line 14 ft x 5 in. (includes equivalent lengths for fittings)
Supply level, high 15 ft above suction
Supply level, low 3 ft above suction
Pump elevation 1,000 ft above mean sea level
sider the proposed system shown in exit are taken as one velocity head. Be-
Figure 1. A manufacturing operation cause length of pipe already includes
on a hill requires water from a source allowances for fittings, fittings are not
down the hill. The supply water origi- listed separately.
nates in a treatment plant and is to be We are now ready for the first esti-
accumulated in a storage tank at the mate of control valve friction.
bottom of the hill. From there it will Control valve: Because the head tank
be pumped up the slope (70 ft vertical is operated at a constant level, a level
rise) to the base of the structure, and control valve is employed, as shown in
then vertically upward to the discharge Figure 1. We note in Table 1 that both
point in the side of a small constant- the average and the maximum flow-
head tank. The design parameters are rates must be lower than the flowrate
given in Table 1. Control-valve param- corresponding to the wide-open con-
eters are not included; they are listed trol valve. This is because a wide-open
separately below. Note that the level control valve is not controlling, yet the
of water in the supply tank varies. specification in Table 1 is for the maxi-
Our calculations begin with an es- mum flowrate to be controlled.
timate of friction losses in the piping To get started, we will assume a con-
for the maximum controlled flow (310 trol-valve size and valve position (per-
gpm). A breakdown of the losses is centage open) for the 310 gpm case;
given in Table 2. To save time, we use then we will do some calculations and
the tables in Cameron Hydraulic Data review the results. Looking in a ran-
[1]. Individual losses for entrance and dom (or old) control-valve catalog, we
 TABLE 2. FRICTION LOSSES, AT 310 GPM (WITHOUT VALVE)
Description Loss Loss, ft v, ft/s tank. During this process, the flowrate
(velocity heads) would be quite small, and the friction
1. Entrance to suction line 1.00 0.38 4.97 loss would be negligible. This part of
2. Suction line 0.23 4.97 the system curve, coincides with the
vertical axis (Q 5 0) up to 117 ft of
3. Discharge line 25.58 7.81
water.
4. Discharge to head tank 1.00 0.95 7.81 If the (imaginary) air pressure on
Sum: 27.14 the storage tank is fixed at 117 ft (50.7
psi), flow will stop, i.e. Q = 0. If the air
pressure is increased to 117 + 38.46 ft
TABLE 3. CASE 1, POINTS ON THE £Çä
™ä¯
= 155 ft of water, flow will occur at the
SYSTEM CURVE, QMAX = 310 GPM maximum design rate: Q = 310 gpm.
£Èä
Friction: Obviously, if the pressure is increased
Piping Valve Total: even more, the flow will increase cor-
/œÌ>Ê…i>`]ÊvÌʜvÊÜ>ÌiÀ

£xä respondingly. Our curve goes out to

Q, gpm Loss, ft 6P, ft Hsf + 117
nearly 350 gpm, well beyond the range
0 0 0 117 £{ä of interest. This is our first analysis of
50 0.832 0.294 118.1 the system curve.
£Îä Pump curve: Now we go through a
100 3.130 1.177 121.3
similar exercise (using another random
150 6.792 2.650 126.4 £Óä or old catalog) for determining a plau-
££ÇÊvÌ 6iÀ̈V>Ê
200 11.76 4.711 133.4 «œÀ̈œ˜
sible pump curve. We select a pump
£ä that at 1,750 rpm will deliver about
250 18.02 7.362 142.3
450 gpm. Our system conditions fit
300 25.53 10.60 153.1 ä xä £ää £xä Óää Óxä Îää Îxä {ää into the center of the range of service
310 27.14 11.32 155.5 œÜÀ>Ìi]}«“ described by the vendor. This pump has
350 34.27 14.42 165.7
FIGURE 2. The system curve for Case 1 a housing that will accommodate an
is shown here for a maximum controlled impeller of size 9 to 12 in. in diameter.
400 44.23 18.84 180.0 flowrate of 310 gpm (control valve 90%
We construct our pump curve by inter-
open, maximum static head)
polating between impellers of 11.25
home in a 4-in. equal-percentage valve in the same manner as with Table 2. and 12 in. Our hypothetical impeller is
that, at 310 gpm, would operate about Valve friction for these flows was esti- 11.5 inches. The results are shown as
90% open. This is acceptable for the mated by ⌬P = 11.32.(Q/310)2. Several the pump curve in Figure 3. This shows
moment, so we set about calculating a flowrates were selected for flows from total dynamic head (TDH*; ft) plotted
system curve with the valve 90% open. 0 to 400 gpm. For each flow a value of versus throughput (gpm).
To obtain the pressure drop across Hsf was calculated. Since the system Operating point: We note that in Fig-
the control valve we use the equation curve includes static head as well as ure 3, the two curves (pump curve and
for the valve coefficient, cv: friction head, we add 117 ft to each of 90% curve from Figure 2) cross at Q =
the friction values. Table 3 lists the 310, H = 155. This is confirmation of
cv = Q.(sp.gr./⌬P)1/2 (1)
results. Total head versus flowrate is our pump choice. Whether or not it is
where Q is flowrate (gpm), sp.gr. is spe- plotted in Figure 2. This is the system a valid design statement is still under
cific gravity of the fluid (water sp.gr. = curve for the case where the control question as this is an intermediate
1), and ⌬P is pressure drop across the valve is 90% open, required static result in a trial-and-error process. Be-
valve (psi). head is highest (low level in the sup- fore looking at system curves for our
The cv given in the vendor catalogue ply tank), and flow is at the maximum proposed design flow and other logical
for the 90% open, 4-in. valve is 140. We controlled rate. operating points, we take a look at the
rearrange Equation 1 and (keeping in Before looking at how the pump case where the control valve is wide
mind that in this case, sp.gr. = 1) cal- fits into this analysis, we will exam- open. This curve was obtained by using
culate ⌬P from, ine the system curve some more. To valve data from the valve vendor’s cat-
start with, imagine Figure 1 without alog. It is based on a valve coefficient
⌬P = (Q/cv)2 = (310/140)2 = 4.90 psi
the pump (and with the control valve of 210 for a wide open valve. This curve
which is 11.32 feet of water. To obtain 90% open). Without a motive force, the is also shown in Figure 3 as the lower
the total system friction loss, Hsf, we flow would be zero, and the level in the (100%) system curve. We note that the
add the values for piping plus valve: discharge leg would be at the same operating point for this case would be
level as the liquid in the storage tank. about 330 gpm. So far we don’t see
Hsf = 27.14 + 11.32 = 38.46 ft H2O
Imagine applying air pressure slowly anything that would suggest a system
To build the rest of the curve, data in the supply tank. The level in the
for pipe friction for other flows were discharge leg would slowly rise until 1. TDH is the pressure increase across the pump,
measured from suction centerline to discharge
taken from Cameron [1] and compiled reaching the control level of the head centerline.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM AUGUST 2005 35

 £Çä £Çä
£ää¯ £{äÊ Ó£äÊ ÓnäÊ £ää¯
Cover Story *Փ« ™ä¯ }«“ }«“ }«“ ™ä¯
£Èä £Èä ÇäÊ
}«“

/œÌ>Ê…i>`]ÊvÌʜvÊÜ>ÌiÀ

/œÌ>Ê…i>`]ÊvÌʜvÊÜ>ÌiÀ
£xä £xä
that would not operate properly.
We complete our analysis of the
£{ä £{ä
pump-piping-valve system by look- *Փ«
ing at the design flow (280 gpm), and VÕÀÛi

other logical operating points. We note £Îä £Îä

that the user of the stream from the
pump is a mixing operation consisting £Óä £Óä
of four identical mixers. Each mixer on
ä ä
the average will use 70 gpm; therefore, ä xä £ää £xä Óää Óxä Îää Îxä {ää ä xä £ää £xä Óää Óxä Îää Îxä {ää
œÜÀ>Ìi]}«“ œÜÀ>Ìi]}«“
depending on how many mixers are op-
erating, the normal flowrates would be FIGURE 3. Two system curves and a FIGURE 4. A summary of the calcula-
70, 140, 210, and 280 gpm. possible pump curve for Case 1. based tions (system and pump curves)
on a valve coefficient of 210 for Case 1
Table 4 summarizes calculations for
these added conditions plus the two TABLE 4. ARRAY OF DESIGN CONDITIONS
cases already discussed. All the sys-
Case Valve Operating, Description Valve
tem curves and the pump curve are No. position gpm 6P, ft
shown in Figure 4.
At this point, our trial and error pro- Case 1a. 100% open 330 no control 5.7
cess is just about complete. We have Case 1b. 90% open 310 nominal max. rate 11.3
started with a pump, a control valve, Case 1c. 82% open 280 nominal design rate 18.1
a supply source, a discharge point and
Case 1d. 70% open 210 one user off line 30.3
a piping configuration. We have looked
at flowrates, pressures and valve posi- Case 1e. 53% open 140 two users off line 39.0
tions and have not encountered diffi- Case 1f. 35% open 70 three users off line 44.7
culties.

NPSH
Before leaving our hypothetical pump
selection, we must have a look at the
net positive suction head (NPSH) that
would result from our stated operation.
Specifically, we will examine one con-
dition only: the worst condition. This
would be at the highest flow, 330 gpm.
Available NPSH is the calculated
pressure (absolute) at the eye of the
impeller minus the vapor pressure of
the fluid at the same place. We start
by using known conditions of the fluid
at the surface of the supply tank.
Since the tank is located about 1,000
feet above sea level (see Table 1), the
atmospheric pressure acting on the
water therein will be about 32.5 ft of
water. Since no source of energy ex-
ists between the surface of the water
in the tank and the pump suction, we
can use a simple form of the Bernoulli
equation* [2]:
(p + z + v2/64.34)2 =
(p + z + v2/64.34)1 – friction loss (2)
where the Subscript 1 refers to condi-
tions at the surface of liquid in the tank
and Subscript 2 refers to conditions at
2. A good discussion of the Bernoulli equation
plus different forms of it can be found in Engi-
neering Design for Process Facilities, McGraw-
Hill, 1993. See endnote [2].
36 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM AUGUST 2005
the eye of the impeller, and where p
is absolute pressure head (ft of fluid
flowing), z is elevation above the pump
suction (ft) and v is fluid velocity (ft/s).
First we determine subscript 1 expres-
sion using the known conditions at the
surface of water in the tank:
(p + z + v2/64.34)1 – friction loss =
(32.5 + 3 + 0) – 0.7 = 34.8
because the water surface is 3 ft above
the suction and the velocity at that
point is negligible, and the entrance
loss and the line loss are 0.7 ft.
The left side of Equation 2 must be
equal to this, so
(p + z + v2/64.34)2 = 34.8
or
p2 + 0 +0 = 34.8
so p2 = 34.8 ft. We use v = 0 because
we note that our pump vendor as-
sumes that velocity in the suction line
is converted into pressure at the im-
peller. NPSH is the value of p minus
the vapor pressure, so:
available NPSH = 34.8 – 0.84 = 34.0 ft
Checking the vendor’s catalog, we
note that the required NPSH is about
8 ft of water. Thus we meet, and eas-
ily exceed, this requirement. From
experience, we suspected that NPSH
would not be a problem; this analysis
confirms it. Below, we will check out
a design condition where NPSH is
somewhat in doubt.
It is important to note that all these
tasks can be carried out using random
(or old) catalog information. When
equipment procurement is initiated,
the system and pump curves should
be included as part of the bid package.
This way, the vendors will have a head
start on understanding what they have
to bid. They will love you for it, and
you will get better, lower bids, because
the vendors will not be adding money
to cover contingencies. Of course their
pump and valve curves will not exactly
match what you use from your catalogs,
but they will be close enough so that no
major surprises will be encountered.
Case 2: suction lift
Let’s now say that, instead of pumping
from a supply 3 ft higher than the suc-
tion, we are pumping from a supply 20
ft lower than the suction. The situa-
tion is shown in Figure 5. The pump
location and the discharge side con-
figuration are the same as Case 1, but
the suction side comes from a lake.
To make things simple, we will
only look at the case where the con-

ÓäÊvÌ
µÕˆÛ>i˜Ìʏi˜}̅ÊrÊnäÊvÌ°
>À}i
TABLE 5. FRICTION LOSSES, AT 310 GPM (WITHOUT CONTROL VALVE)
Description
1. Foot valve
2. Suction line, 80 ft equiv.
3. Discharge line
4. Discharge to head tank
trol valve is set for 310 gpm (that is,
maximum controllable flow). Figure 5
shows a barge supporting part of the
suction line and a foot valve (to keep
from losing prime). Table 5 summa-
rizes the conditions.
The static TDH head is 20 + 70 + 50
or 140 ft. The TDH head at 310 gpm is
140 + 28.98 + 11.32 or 180.3 ft, where
the control valve adds 11.32 ft, as in
Case 1. This is the operating point on
the system curve. Other points on the
system curve are calculated as was
done with Case 1. These points are
shown as the system curve in Figure
6. Note that the system curve climbs
the vertical axis to 140 ft (compared
to 117 ft earlier) until incipient flow
begins. Now, as we did with Case 1, we
search in the pump catalog for a pump
that will deliver 310 gpm at 180.3 ft.
As it turns out, this pump is the next
series larger and has an impeller 12.5
in. diameter. This pump and the pump
from Case 1 are shown in Figure 6.
It is interesting to note that using
the pump from Case 1 would have de-
livered only 220 gpm. This is far less
than the required 310 gpm maximum
controlled rate.
Now let us have a look at NPSH for
Case 2. To find conditions at the im-
peller, we start out with known con-
ditions at the surface of the lake and
apply the Bernoulli equation. Specifi-
cally, we use the right side of Equation
2 and plug in the values appropriate
for Case 2:
(p + z + v2/64.34)1 – friction loss =
(32.5 – 20 – 0) – 2.45 = 10.05
The left side of Equation 2 must be
equal to this, so
œÌÊ̜ÊÃV>i
FIGURE 5. Case 2 considers
a situation where pumping from a
supply that is 20 ft lower than the suction
Loss (velocity heads) Loss, ft v, ft/s
3.00 1.14 4.97
1.31 4.97
25.58 7.81
1.00 0.95 7.81
Sum: 28.98
(p + z + v2/64.34)2 = 10.05
or
p2 + 0 + 0 = 10.05
where, as before, we adopt the pump
manufacturer’s standard of assuming
the velocity in the inlet line is con-
verted to pressure at the eye of the
impeller.
As before, this result minus the
vapor pressure of water is the avail-
able NPSH:
available NPSH = 10.05 – 0.84 = 9.2 ft
We see in the vendor’s data that this
pump requires 4 ft of NPSH, so we are
in good shape here. We should, however,
be asking what the chances are for a
drop in the lake level. A drop of five feet
would be disastrous. A drop of three feet
is reason for serious concern.
Pump protection
The safety of employees, the integrity
of the operation, and the investment
capital can be imperiled if measures
to protect the pump are overlooked.
Here we discuss three of them, but
there are quite a few others. During
all phases of design and procurement
these issues must be examined. In the
cases presented here, the power input
will often be in excess of 30 h.p. Such
a level of power can be lethal (besides
electrical, there are pressure, velocity
and heat hazards).
Running dry: Unless a pump is spe-
cifically designed to run dry, it should
never be allowed to do so. The main
cause of running dry is a loss of supply
liquid. This could occur in Case 1 by an
interruption to the feed into the supply
tank. The way to prevent this problem
is add provisions to sound an alarm and
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM AUGUST 2005
£™ä
™ä¯
*Փ«
£nä £Ó°xʈ˜
/œÌ>Ê…i>`]ÊvÌʜvÊÜ>ÌiÀ
£Çä
*Փ«
£Èä ££°xʈ˜
£xä
£{ä
ä
ä xä £ää £xä Óää Óxä Îää Îxä
œÜÀ>Ìi]}«“
FIGURE 6. System and pump curves
for Case 2
shut off the pump automatically once a
minimum acceptable level in the tank
is no longer available. Remember that
vortex action can allow entry of air into
the suction line; this too can stop flow.
Vortexes can be prevented by the addi-
tion of baffles inside the tank.
Automated alarm and shutdown can
be initiated from a flow switch that ac-
tuates on a minimum flow condition.
In Case 2 the supply could become
blocked by algae growing in the suc-
tion line. Blockage could also be due to
some debris getting caught, so intake
screens are advised. A drop in supply
level has already been mentioned. An-
other possibility is the entry of air in
the suction line. Possible entry points
for air are through a hole formed by
corrosion, or through a failed gasket
at a flange. In any event, the use of a
flow switch is advised.
Shutoff: Shutoff occurs when the dis-
charge line is blocked. (In the examples
above, shutoff would occur as a result
of all four mixers going off line.) This
results in the fluid being churned end-
lessly inside the pump. Power from the
driver (usually an electric motor) is
converted into heat. This is not usually
a problem for fractional-horsepower (<1
h.p.) steel or alloy pumps. For pumps
with large drivers or delicate parts,
however, shutoff can be destructive. Its
detrimental effects can be avoided by
providing a small recycle line back to
the supply tank to maintain a flow ad-
equate to dissipate heat, or by detect-
ing a zero flow condition (as with the
blocked suction) and shutting down
the pump. Recycle lines are simple, re-
liable, and maintenance free, so Case 1
might best be served by a recycle line.
Since Case 2 will require a flow switch
37
 Cover Story
in any case, a flow switch is indicated,
but the inclusion of a recycle line also
would have the added benefit of drain-
ing the discharge line when the pump
is halted (assuming the discharge line
is equipped with a check valve). This
would result in less strain on the motor
when the pump is started and would
help prevent freezing in cold weather.
Unwanted flows: When a centrifu-
gal pump loses power, it no longer
provides TDH, and then it simply be-
comes another restriction in the line.
For the two cases shown here, the
fluid in the discharge line would flow
back through the pump and into the
supply source. For many installations
this is not a problem. In the examples
presented here, the elevations and line
sizes are such that an unrestrained
backward flow would probably be det-
rimental; thus a check valve in the
discharge line is warranted.
Occasionally the discharge is located
at a level lower than the suction, but a
Circle 25 on p. 58 or go to adlinks.che.com/4819-25
38 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM AUGUST 2005
pump is needed for good control-valve
performance (a system curve with
a negative static head). If the pump
should experience a loss of power, the
control valve would most likely re-
spond by opening 100%, and an un-
wanted flow in the forward direction
would result; this could be detrimental.
A check valve is no good in this situa-
tion. The indicated remedy would be to
add a valve in the discharge line that
would automatically close in the event
that the pump rpm were to drop below
a minimum value. Other triggers could
be employed such as loss of discharge
pressure or loss of power.
References
1. Westway, C.R., Loomis, A.W., “Cameron Hy-
draulic Data,” 15th Edition, Ingersoll-Rand,
Woodcliff Lake, N.J., 1977.
2. Mansfield, S., “Engineering Design for Process
Facilities,” McGraw Hill, New York, 1993.
3. Hicks, T.G., “Pump Application Engineering,”
McGraw Hill, New York, 1971.
Final remarks
The starting point for studying most
pump systems should begin with the
system curve. Typical system curves
for a variety of applications can be
found in textbooks, such as refer-
ence [3]. Once the system curve has
been determined, the quest for a TDH
source can be undertaken. ■
Edited by Gerald Ondrey
Author
Scott Mansfield is currently a
private consultant (626 E. Roses
Rd., San Gabriel, Calif. 91775.
Phone: 626-285-9609; Email:
smansfield7@mindspring.
com). He has more than 30
years experience in selecting,
sizing, installing, and run-
ning process equipment. In
the past, Mansfield worked
for DuPont, Foote Mineral Co.,
Jacobs Engineering, and Inte-
grated Equipment Services. He is the author of
McGraw Hill’s “Engineering Design for Process
Facilities,” and has authored numerous articles.
He has a B.S. in chemical engineering from the
University of Arizona, and is a member of the
AIChE and the National Society of Professional
Engineers.