See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326929081

Impeller design for an axial-flow pump based on multi-objective optimization

Article  in  Indian Journal of Engineering and Materials Sciences · April 2018

CITATION READS
1 480

3 authors:

Hong-Seok Park Fuqing Miao

University of Ulsan Pusan National University
145 PUBLICATIONS   931 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Trung-Thanh Nguyen
Le Quy Don Technical University
42 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy efficient optimization for forging process of crankshaft View project

Optimization of Roll forming process using the integration between Genetic Algorithm and Hill climbing with neural network View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Trung-Thanh Nguyen on 10 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences
Vol. 25, April 2018, pp. 183-190

Impeller design for an axial-flow pump based on multi-objective optimization

Hong-Seok Park, Fuqing Miao & Trung-Thanh Nguyen*
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ulsan, 93 Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan, South-Korea, 680-749

Received 27 July 2015; accepted 3 July 2017

This paper presents a design optimization process for an axial-flow pump impeller; in which geometrical parameters are
optimized to increase the efficiency (η) and reduce the net positive suction head required (NPSHr). The design variables
evaluated include the hub angle, chord angle, the cascade solidity of the chord, and blade thickness. To identify the
relationships between geometrical parameters and efficiency as well as the net positive suction head required, a numerical
simulation approach was applied in conjunction with a design of experiments (DOE) and group method of data handling
(GMDH)-type neural networks with the meta-model. An integrated approach combining a multi-objective particle swarm
optimization (MOPSO) algorithm and mapping method was used to generate Pareto diagram and determine the best optimal
solution. The optimized design improved efficiency by 4.24% and reduced the net positive suction head required by
approximately 11.68% relative to the initial design. Therefore, this work is expected to improve the performance of
prototype axial-flow pumps.

Keywords: Axial-flow pump impeller, Numerical experiment, Group method of data handling, Particle swarm optimization,
Design optimization

Axial-flow pumps provide effective transport and are
widely used in agricultural and industrial applications.
Compared to other pump types, axial-flow pumps
have higher flow rates and lower head, and also
have simpler structures. However, they also tend to
consume more energy than other types of fluid
machinery. Rising energy prices are increasing the
importance of designing and manufacturing more
efficient hydraulic equipment. Finding ways to improve
the efficiency of the axial-flow pump continues to
become more important.
Improving the design efficiency and working
performance of fluid machinery has been discussed by
many researchers. Because it reduces the prototyping
cost and time, the use of a finite element method
(FEM)-based approach with a well-defined numerical
model and optimization technique has become the
intelligent choice for such optimizations, rather than
expensive physical experiments1,2. For this purpose,
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) have been
used to represent the flow behavior and to identify
potential modifications to improve the performance of
centrifugal pumps3,4 and radial pumps5. A combination
of artificial neural networks (ANN) with non-
dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II)
——————
*Corresponding author (E-mail: trungthanhk21@mta.edu.vn)
was adopted to improve the helico-axial-multiphase
pump efficiency based on an optimal impeller6. In
addition, optimization of a design guide vane behind
the impeller can be considered as an effective solution
to increase the pump efficiency7. To improve the
mixed-flow pump performance, an optimization of the
impeller and diffuser was conducted by using numerical
simulation and a design of experiments (DOE)8. These
research results have indicated that the combination of
CFD-based approaches and optimization methods is a
powerful technique to predict and improve the
working performance of fluid machinery.
Recently, improving the pump performances by
optimizing impeller geometry has been successfully
achieved in several studies. The pump cavitation
performance can be significantly improved with new
impellers designed by properly extending the blade
inlet and enlarging the blade inlet angle9 as well as
optimal slots10. Wang et al.11 determined an optimal
value for vane wrap angle to obtain the best cavitation
performance. Similarly, Tao et al.12 proposed the
leading edge ellipse ratio and blade thickness based
on CFD simulation and genetic algorithm. However,
the aforementioned publications often optimized
impellers in order to improve the cavitation
performance. Geometrical parameter optimizations
in the impeller for resolving the trade-off between
184 INDIAN J ENG. MATER. SCI., APRIL 2018

the pump efficiency (n) and net positive suction torque that the fluid puts on the rotating axis,
head required (NPSHr) have not been thoroughly respectively.
investigated. Besides the efficiency, net positive Net positive suction head required is defined as the
suction head required (NPSHr) should be considered total energy in the liquid required to overcome the
as an important factor in pump performance. friction losses from the suction nozzle to the eye of
Increasing the net positive suction head required can the impeller without causing vaporization. The value
damage the pump, leading to a reduction or stoppage of net positive suction head required can be calculated
of the fluid flow13. Minimizing NPSHr is an important by using the following formula.
criterion in optimizing the design. Due to the wide Pin  Pmin U in2 … (2)
application of axial-flow pumps, it is essential to have NPSHr  
 2g
a reliable numerical model for conducting parametric
studies to increase design efficiency. Changing the Here, Pin and Pmin are the inlet pressure and the
design parameters of pump components in general minimum pressure of whole blade, while γ and Uin are
and the impeller geometry in particular will vary the the fluid’s specific weight and the inlet fluid velocity,
efficiency and net positive suction head required. respectively.
Besides that, the generation of an optimal solution can Table 1 lists the levels of four key geometrical
significantly improve prototyping performance and parameters, including hub angle (βh), chord angle
reduce manufacturing cost. Therefore, an effective (βc), cascade solidity of the chord (σc), and blade
approach that optimizes design parameters in terms of thickness (H). The parameter ranges were selected
multi-objective optimization is still an important area according to common technical values used in current
of research; this is the focus of the present paper. impeller, practical data from real company (Maintenance
The aim of the present work was first to construct Innovation of Real Automation Engineering Company,
mathematical models of the pump efficiency (η) and Korea), the capacities of the devices used (i.e., the
the net positive suction head required (NPSHr) with pump power), and available literature information1-8.
respect to various impeller geometrical parameters In the numerical approach, the efficiency (η) and
such as the hub angle, chord angle, the cascade net positive suction head required (NPSHr) were
solidity of the chord, and blade thickness, based on calculated by using the simulation results extracted
numerical results. Consequently, a hybrid approach
Table 1 — Parameter levels
combining a multi-objective particle swarm optimization
(MOPSO) algorithm and a mapping method was Symbol Parameters Level-1 Level 0 Level +1
employed to determine the best compromise solution βh Hub angle (deg) 36 45 54
from the Pareto set. A framework is introduced for βc Chord angle (deg) 21 23 25
solving the multi-objective optimization problem. The σc Cascade solidity of chord 0.75 0.80 0.85
design variables of impeller blades are shown in Fig 1. H Thickness of blade (mm) 7 9 11

Research Methodology
Optimization problem
As mentioned in earlier, both objective functions
for pump efficiency (η) and the net positive suction
head required (NPSHr) in an axial flow pump were
optimized simultaneously by means of numerical
experiments and a multi-objective optimization
process. The efficiency of an axial flow pump is
defined as follows14

(Ek Ep )60


2 nT … (1)
Here, ΔEk, ΔEp, n, and T are the kinetic energy
difference, the pressure energy difference in the inlet Fig. 1 — Design variables of impeller blades
and outlet per unit time, the rotation speed, and the
 PARK et al.: IMPELLER DESIGN FOR AN AXIAL-FLOW PUMP
based on Eqs (1) and (2). According to the aim and
decision space, the optimization process was
formulated by the following expression:
Find X = [βh, βc, σc, H]
Maximize the pump efficiency η (βh, βc, σc, H)
Minimize the net positive suction head required
NPSHr (βh, βc, σc, H)
Subject to: 36 ≤ βh ≤ 54 (deg), 21 ≤ βc ≤ 25 (deg), 0.75 ≤
σc ≤ 0.85, 7 ≤ H ≤ 11 (mm).
Optimization strategy
The framework of simulation-based design
of experiments and multi-objective optimization used
to optimize the parameters is given in Fig. 2. Firstly,
we defined the design variables and design constraints
and performed a design of experiments (DOE). Instead
of using direct numerical optimization, we applied a
meta-model to reduce the number of simulations
required. The theory of DOE, the approximation
method used, and the meta-model used are discussed
in detail elsewhere15. Secondly, the numerical model
of the axial-flow pump was developed, and virtual
experiments were carried out by using different
combinations of inputs in the design matrix. Thirdly,
the data obtained from the simulations were used to
construct approximate mathematical relations between
the inputs (geometrical parameters) and the outputs
(pump efficiency and net positive suction head
required). We verified the fidelity of the approximate
model before carrying out the optimization process.
Fig. 2 — Simulation based optimization approach
185
Finally, we performed an optimization based on the
regression explicit equations obtained by means of the
previous approximation. This method is called a meta
model-based optimization approach.
The meta model-based optimization algorithm is
given in Fig. 3. To construct two approximate models
of the efficiency and the net positive suction head
required in terms of geometrical parameters, we
applied a group method of data handling (GMDH)-
type neural network16, which builds an analytical
function by means of a feed-forward network based on
a quadratic node transfer function; the approximate
coefficients of this function are obtained by using a
regression technique. The optimization problem can
be solved by any optimization algorithm; however,
multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO)
algorithm is preferred for a global solution. Also,
compared to other optimization algorithms, such
as neural networks or genetic algorithms, this
algorithm is faster and cheaper. Many researchers
have demonstrated that MOPSO is an efficient and
viable technique for solving complex optimization
problems17,18.
On the multi-objective optimization problem, it is
difficult to find a solution that optimizes all the
objective functions at the same time. When one
objective function is improved, at least one other
objective function will be weakened simultaneously.
To overcome this problem, a mapping method based
on a non-dominated Pareto diagram was used in the
Fig. 3 — Algorithm of meta-model based optimization
186 INDIAN J ENG. MATER. SCI., APRIL 2018
present work to find an appropriate solution. In this
method, the values of the objective functions for all
non-dominated points are mapped to the interval
between 0 and 119. The mapped value of each design
point is calculated as
f  f min
Mapped value of (f)  f  f
max min
where f is the value of the objective function, fmax
and fmin are the maximum and minimum values of the
objective functions in the whole of the Pareto front.
The best optimal point is simply considered to be the
one having the minimum sum among the finite Pareto
solutions. In the final step, confirmation experiments
are also very necessary to verify the optimization
results. It can be observed that this optimization
design process can be used for solving common
MOPSO to improve design quality and efficiency.
Numerical Results
Flow analysis
In order to improve the precision of the numerical
simulation results, a three-dimensional whole flow
passage is developed based on CFD code ANSYS
Fluent. The Reynolds-averaged Navier- Stokes equations
of mass, momentum and energy conservation equations
for incompressible flow are as follows20:
U i
0
xi
U i P   U i U j  … (5)
U j   (  )   ui'u 'j 
x j xi x j  x j xi 
T    T  domain boundary to precisely fit the fluid domain
U j     T 'u 'j 
x j x j  Pr x j 
where P, T, and Ui are the mean pressure,
temperature, and velocity components, respectively;
T′ and u′i are the fluctuating temperature and velocity
components, respectively; xi is the coordinate
direction; and ρ, μ, and Pr are the fluid density,
dynamic viscosity, and Prandtl number, respectively.
We used the shear stress transport (STT) k–ω
model in this simulation, owing to its relatively low
computational cost as well as its accuracy in the
determination of the turbulent viscosity, which is
considered sufficient for industrial applications.
The turbulent kinetic energy, k, and the specific
dissipation rate, ω, were obtained from the following
transport equations21.
y (  k ) y (  ku )   k  … (7)
   k   Gk  Yk  Sk
t xi x j  xi 
y (  k ) y ( u )     … (8)
      G  Y  S
t xi x j  xi 
… (3) The source terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs (7)
and (8) and other model constants are available in the
ANSYS Fluent user manual22. Therefore, a duplicated
description is unnecessary in this paper.
Boundary conditions
The pressure velocity coupling was treated by
using the well-known SIMPLE method. The mass
flow rate was defined for the pump inlet, a static
pressure boundary condition was used at the outlet,
and non-slip conditions were applied all around the
walls. The second order upwind difference scheme
was used for the momentum, turbulent kinetic energy,
and dissipation rate equations. The set of algebraic
equations for each variable were solved sequentially
by using an iterative method. The solution was
considered to have converged when the normalized
residual fell below 10−7 for the governing transport
equations.
The meshing type was generated by using ANSYS
Gambit 2.4.6; a tetragonal mesh was adopted for the
pump and impeller surroundings, and the remaining
areas were filled with hexagonal mesh. The grid
… (4)
generation method based on a binary tree algorithm is
used to generate the adaptive Cartesian grid for
numerical simulation. The density of the coarse grids
increased based on the dichotomy method in the
region requiring high geometric precision. The grid is
laid out in accordance with the surface of the fluid
… (6)
along the boundary. The computational domain,
comprising the inlet, impeller, and guide vane,
consists of 1150460 grids. The grid independence of
the flow components is shown in Fig. 4.
Table 2 lists the simulation conditions used.
The various impeller geometries were designed
by using CATIA V5R20 and were imported into
the software. Representative outputs of the CFD
simulation are presented in Fig. 5.
Mathematical prediction models
According to the experimental plan, we performed 81
simulation runs, thereby obtaining response data that
were used for training and testing the GMDH-type
neural networks. A training set, which consists of
 PARK et al.: IMPELLER DESIGN FOR AN AXIAL-FLOW PUMP
81 input-output data pairs, was used for training
the neural network models, and 20 input-output
data samples were employed for testing set to show
the predictive accuracy of the developed models.
Specific parameters of the GMDH-type neural network
were population size, number of generations, crossover
probability, and mutation probability, with the respective
values of 20, 500, 0.9 and 0.09. The polynomial models
showing the pump efficiency (η) and the net positive
suction head required (NPSHr) in terms of the
geometrical parameters are expressed as follows:
Y (4)  0.5412  0.411 h  2.143 c + 0.016 h 2  0.0124c 2 +0.00012 h  c
Y  6   16.895  1.2183 H  0.495 c  0.008 H 2 - 0.0041 c 2 +0.0012 H  c
Y 1  15.03  1.96 c  0.6181 c  0.023 c 2  0.0041 c 2 +0.0012  c c
Y  7   34.107  1.254H  0.49h  0.0082H  0.0092h +0.00059H h
2 2
Y  9   54.324  0.5912Y  4   1.0126Y  6   0.00521Y  4   0.0063Y  6 
2 2
+0.0191Y  4  Y  6 
... (9)
Table 2 — Operating conditions used in the simulation
Parameter Number Fluid Liquid Rotation Mass Pump
of blades temperature density speed flow head
rate
Value 4 20°C 999 530 rpm 2.61 2.31 m
kg/m³ m³/s
Fig. 4 — Meshing flow components
Fig. 5 — Representative simulation outputs
187
Y (3)  54.324  0.5914Y (4)  1.0126Y (6)  0.00521Y (4) 2  0.0063Y (6) 2
0.0191Y (4)Y (6)
  0.7241  3.0174Y  9   5.0124Y  3  2.3104Y  9   2.5983Y  3
2 2
5.362Y  9  Y  3
N (3)  0.6432  0.015h  0.17c  0.0325h2 -0.0274c 2 +0.0000023h c
N 1  3.524  0.134h  0.0245 c  0.0418h 2  0.00002 h c
N  7   5.643  0.2134 H  0.02192  0.0021H 2 +0.0004  h 2 +0.000025 H  h
N  4   1.89  0.213 c +0.015 c  0.004  c 2 +0.000012 c c
N  9   6.941  3.7845 N  3  0.5418 N 1  0.4723 N  3   0.0245 N 1
2 2
0.0475 N  3  N 1
… (10)
N (6)  6.147  2.1873N (7)  0.7122 N (4)  0.218 N (7)  0.0947 N (4) 2
2
0.4234 N (7) N (4)
NPSHr  0.412  0.062 N  9   1.148 N  6   0.0812 N  9   0.0412 N  6 
2 2
0.1271N  9  N (6)
To validate the accuracy of the approximate
models, various statistical measures of the models’
objective function results were determined: absolute
fraction of variance (R2), root mean squared error
(MSE), and mean absolute percentage of error
(MAPE). Table 3 lists the results; the models fit the
observations well.
Additionally, to verify the accuracy of the polynomial
models, confirmation tests were executed on two
random sets of design parameters. Table 4 lists the
188 INDIAN J ENG. MATER. SCI., APRIL 2018

random data sets that were used for verification, and Figure 6 also indicated that minimizing net positive
compares the results of the analysis by the GMDH- suction head required (NPSHr) will decrease the
type neural networks developed herein and the results efficiency (η). There was no design point that
of CFD simulation. The percentage deviations for optimized both objective functions. Therefore, it is
the two response variables lie within the ranges of necessary to find an appropriate optimum among
0.1% to 0.13% and 0.24% to 0.34%, respectively. points on the Pareto frontier. The mapping method
There was a little error between the two sets of was adopted to calculate the mapped values for
results, indicating that the method developed herein is the two objectives at the specific optimal point. The
adequate and can be used to predict the objectives results revealed that point C has the smallest sum
with high accuracy. Given the higher computational value and it can be considered as the best optimum
cost of CFD-based simulation, the developed models design point (Table 5).
herein is a much simpler and more efficient way to The optimization results listed in Table 5 were
predict the outputs with the limited ranges of variables regarded as design parameters of the impeller shape to
considered in the present work. Therefore, the obtained simulate the correspondence between pump efficiency
models could be applied in the optimization process. and net positive suction head required. A comparison
between MOPSO and numerical experiments was
Results and Discussion conducted to check the accuracy of the optimized
The MOPSO algorithm described earlier was used results. The errors between the experimental results
in conjunction with the developed mathematical models and optimal results for the two objectives were
to search for Pareto-optimal solutions. The non- only 0.12% and 0.27%, respectively, illustrating the
dominated optimum points on the Pareto frontier thus efficiency and practical potential of the proposed
obtained are shown in Fig. 6. The blue points indicate optimization method. Importantly, the net positive
feasible optimal solutions that can be used to meet suction head required to exhibit an approximate
different requirements. In Fig. 6, the Pareto optimal reduction of 11.68% compared to the initial value and
labelled A and E are the best solutions for the net the efficiency has improved about 4.24%.
positive suction head required and the pump
Table 5 — Results of multi-objective optimization process and
efficiency, respectively. Moreover, other design points, numerical experiment
namely B and D, can be considered as better solutions
Method Design variables Objective functions
reflecting the trade-off between the objective
functions. It can be observed that, compared to A, the βh (deg) βc (deg) σc H (mm) η (%) NPSHr (m)
optimum of point B represented an improvement of MOPSO 53.5 22.5 0.81 8.2 83.6 7.28
efficiency, but an increase in the net positive suction CFD 53.5 22.5 0.81 8.2 83.7 7.30
head required. In contrast, compared to the E, the Error (%) 0.12 0.27
design point D showed a reduction in the net positive
suction head required but a decrease of efficiency.

Table 3 — Statistical measures of the objective functions

Parameter R2 RMSE MAPE (%)
Train Test Train Test Train Test
η 0.9996 0.9991 1.0256 1.0212 0.0081 0.0080
NPSHr 0.9991 0.9990 0.0488 0.0481 0.0070 0.0068

Table 4 — Comparisons between GMDH and CFD

No βh (deg) βc (deg) σc H (mm) Method η (%) NPSHr (m)
54 25 0.85 10 GMDH 70.80 8.75
1 CFD 70.72 8.72
Error (%) 0.13 0.34
45 22 0.75 7 GMDH 80.50 8.35
2 CFD 80.42 8.33
Error (%) 0.1 0.24 Fig. 6 — Finite Pareto solutions
 PARK et al.: IMPELLER DESIGN FOR AN AXIAL-FLOW PUMP
Fig. 7 — Comparison of the cavitation performance between
the original and optimized design
Fig. 8 — Axial-flow pump impeller prototype
189
According to the best combination of the
geometrical parameters, the optimized impeller is
designed and simulated using the same method. The
predicted performance was compared with the
original one in Fig. 7. At the design conditions,
the NPSHr of the optimized pump decreases by
0.85 m, which significantly improves the cavitation
performance. Furthermore, the pump efficiency
reaches 83.6%, compared to the initial design. A
prototype impeller was designed and manufactured
according to the optimization results, including
casting (Fig. 8a) and polishing process (Fig. 8b) in
order to produce the final form (Fig. 8c), indicating
that the proposed approach was feasible and effective.
Conclusions
This paper has described a design process for the
axial-flow pump impeller parameters such as hub
angle, chord angle, the cascade solidity of the chord,
and blade thickness, carried out using CFD-based
approach and a multi-objective optimization method.
The goals of this work were to increase the efficiency
(η) and reduce the net positive suction head required
(NPSHr). The numerical simulation approach was
employed in conjunction with a design of experiments
(DOE) and group method of data handling (GMDH)-
type neural networks to develop polynomial models
of the objectives in terms of the geometrical
parameters. Because the two objectives traded off
with each other, the best optimum design point was
determined by using a mapping method based on the
finite Pareto solutions generated by using multi-
objective particle swarm optimization. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this investigation
within the ranges of factors considered in this study:
(i) The two polynomial models developed to
optimize the objective functions of efficiency and
net positive suction head required, carried out by
GMDH-type neural networks, and predicted the
values of the responses with sufficient accuracy.
(ii) The multi-objective optimization gave results
representing an approximate 11.68% reduction
of the net positive suction head required and an
increase of 4.24% in pump efficiency compared
to initial values. An industrial trial based on the
optimal results demonstrated that the proposed
approach was feasible and effective in design
parameter optimization for the axial-flow pump
impeller. However, the design parameters of the
guide vane are also important factors affecting
the pump efficiency and the net positive suction
View publication stats
190 INDIAN J ENG. MATER. SCI., APRIL 2018
head required. Accordingly, a holistic optimization
approach should be carried out to include
consideration of the guide vane geometry.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Ministry of Trade,
Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) under Industrial
Technology Innovation Program. No.10062677. 'For
plastic injection molds with 50% improved cooling
efficiency, development of a composite machinable
3D printing equipment & mold steel powder
manufacturing technology having 30 μm grade in
diameter'.
Nomenclature
η = pump efficiency (%)
NPSHr = Net positive suction head required (m)
βh = hub angle, (°)
βc = chord angle, (°)
σc = cascade solidity of chord
H = thickness of blade, (mm)
R2 = absolute fraction of variance
RMSE = root mean squared error
MAPE = mean absolute percentage of error
References
1 Kumar J Suresh, Ganesan V, Mallikarjuna J M &
Govindarajan S, Indian J Eng Mater Sci, 20 (2013) 350-360.
2 Song Chang-Heon, Kwon Ki-Beom, Perk Jin-Young,
Oh Joo-Young, Lee Shinok, Shin Dae-Young & Cho Jung-
Woo, Int J Prec Eng Manuf, 15 (2014) 1041-1050.
3 ShojaeeFard M H, Boyaghchi F A & Ehghaghi M B, IUST
Int J Eng Sci, 17 (2006) 53-60.
4 Croba D & Kueny J L, Int J Numer Methods Fluids, 22
(1996) 467-481.
5 Anagnostopoulos J S, WSEAS Trans Fluid Mech, 7 (2006)
763-770.
6 Zhang Jinya, Zhu Hongwu, Yang Chun, Li Yan & Wei
Huan, Energy Conver Manage, 52 (2011) 538-546.
7 Luo Xingqi, Guo Pengcheng, Zhu Guojun & Ding Kuang,
J Drain Irrig Machinery Engine, 28 (2010) 369–373.
8 Kim Sung, Lee Kyoung-Yong, Kim Joon-Hyung, Kim
Jin-Hyuk, Jung Uk-Hee & Choi Young-Seok, J Mech Sci
Technol, 29 (2015) 227-240.
9 Xianwu L, Yao Z, Junqi P, et al., J Tsinghua Univ, 5 (2008) 7-18.
10 Xis S F, Wang Y, Liu Z C, et al., IOP Conf Ser: Materials
Science and Engineering, (2015), 1936-1951.
11 Wang Y, Liu Q, Liu D, et al., China Rural Water and
Hydropower, (2012), 11-32.
12 Tao R, Xiao R, Yang W, et al., Math Problems Eng, 3 (2014)
1-9.
13 Nourbakhsh A, Pump and Pumping (University of Tehran
Press, Iran), 2006.
14 Bachus L & Custodio A, Know and understand centrifugal
pumps (Elsevier press, United States), 2003.
15 Simpson T W, Peplinski J D, Koch P N & Allen J K, Eng
Comput, 17 (2001) 129-150.
16 Phillip H S, DTREG predictive modeling software (DTREG
Inc., United States), 1984.
17 Tamizharasan T & Barnabas J Kingston, Indian J Eng Mater
Sci, 21(2014) 543-556.
18 Elahe Fallah-Mehdipoura, Omid Bozorg Haddada, Mahmoud M
& Rezapour Tabarib, Expert Syst Appl, 39 (2012) 2794-2803.
19 Xinjie Yu & Mitsuo Gen, Introduction to Evolutionary
Algorithms (Springer Verlag London Limited, United
Kingdom), 2010.
20 Launder B E & Spalding D B, Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng, 3 (1974) 269-289.
21 O’Donovan T S & Murray D B, Int J Heat Mass Transfer,
51(2008) 6169-6179.
22 ANSYS FLUENT, Computational Fluid Dynamics Code
Version 13 (ANSYS Inc., United States).