A.T. Dumlao, M.J. Gulay, M. Ramirez, M.F. Reyes / Process Eng. Lab.

(2019)

ChE 135
Process Engineering Laboratory

Generating Operating Curves for Various Pump Operations

Alicia Theresse Dumlao*, Michael Jemziel Gulay Monique Ramirez, Myka Felice Reyes
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

REPORT INFO ABSTRACT

Report History: The experiment aimed to determine the differences of total head losses of fluid
Revised 20 January 2019 with respect to varying flow rates and varying pump motor speeds. The flow
Received 20 January 2019 rates were varied from 50 L/min to 160 L/min. It was concluded that the total
head losses generally decreased with increasing flowrate, and that the pump
Keywords: motor speed was generally directly proportional with that of the total head
Chemical losses. It is recommended that the experiment be done with the use of the
Engineering second pump so as to be able to better describe the effects of series and parallel
Pumps configurations.

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................2
2. Materials and Methodology…………………………………….…………………………….……………………….…………………………….…………….2
3. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 4
References .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
_____________
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 0917 774 4569
Email address: aliciadumlao@gmail.com/agdumlao1@up.edu.ph
 A.T. Dumlao, M.J. Gulay, M. Ramirez, M.F. Reyes / Process Eng. Lab. (2019)
1. Introduction
Fluid flow is defined as the motion of fluids due to
unbalanced forces. Fluid flow may be achieved with
series piping systems, parallel, or branching piping
systems. In the case of series piping systems, there is
only one major flow rate computed for and so for
such a system, the fluid only flows in one direction.
As for parallel systems, one major flowrate at the
feed of the system would then be divided into
different pipes. For parallel systems, friction losses
would also be more prominent due to the elbows
and additional valves present in the system.
In cases however that there are obstructions, such
as friction or negative pressure differences, to the
fluid’s path, additional work is needed to keep the
fluid moving. In the case of moving liquids, pumps
are added to the system. Pumps move liquids from
one point to another by providing additional energy
to the fluid. This transfer of energy leads to changes
in fluid properties such as pressure and velocity. The
pressure is often times expressed as head, while the
velocity may be computed for by determining the
flowrate.
There are two kinds of pumps: positive
displacement pumps and kinetic pumps. Kinetic
pumps may be further characterized into axial flow,
mixed flow, radial flow, and centrifugal pumps. In
the case of the experiment, a centrifugal pump was
used.
The exchange of energy in the system is expressed
by the general energy balanced equation seen in
equation 1.
∆𝑃 ∆𝑣 2
+ ∆𝑧 + + ∑ 𝐹 = 𝑇𝐷𝐻[1]
𝜌𝑔 2𝑔
All of the terms are expressed in meters of fluid
(often times, water is used as basis) and are added
to complete the Total Dynamic Head, which is
defined as the pump’s ability to push fluids through
a system. The first term is called the pressure head.
This term accounts for elevation difference that
corresponds to a pressure enough to overcome the
pressure in the system. The next term is the
elevation head, which describes the total change in
elevation that the liquid must undergo, accounting
for the difference in potential energy. On the other
hand kinetic energy differences are computed in the
third term. Additional friction losses are also since
accounted for in computing the total dynamic head.
The friction losses may be expressed with equation
number 2.
𝐿 𝑣2 32𝜇𝐿𝑣𝑎𝑣𝑒
𝐹 = 𝑓𝐷 𝐷 2𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔𝐷 2
[2]
Equation 2 shows that the friction losses are a
function of skin friction and form friction. The
velocity variables may be computed for using the
flowrate and the pipe diameters given by the
system. The friction factors may also be computed
for using correlations such as the Churchill
equation.
Head (h) and flowrates (Q) may also be related to
each other with this equation:
8
𝑄 = √2𝑔𝐶𝑒 (ℎ + 0.00085)5⁄2 [3]
15
The acceleration due to gravity is accounted for with
the variable g, while the Ce is set to be 0.5765. The
suction pipe is said to be 31.75 mm while the
delivery pipe is 25.4mm.
The relationship of the flowrate and head may be
better represented with pump characteristic curves.
These curves are dependent on various factors such
as motor speed and pump size, meaning that
characteristic curves are unique for different pump
sizes and motor speeds.
In this experiment, the relationship between the
experimental values of the pressure differences and
the flowrate will be determined and compared with
the theoretical values. Effects of varying pump
motor speed on the pressure difference will also be
calculated. The experiment was limited only to the
measurement of pump 1, since the gauge for pump 2
was non-functional.
2. Materials and Methodology
2.1 Materials and Apparatus
In this experiment, a series/parallel pump rig was
used.
2.2 Procedure
The valves in the apparatus were first adjusted to
allow only pump 1 to be active. The speed of the
pump was then gradually increased to 2000 rpm.
 A.T. Dumlao, M.J. Gulay, M. Ramirez, M.F. Reyes / Process Eng. Lab. (2019)
Figure 1. Pump 1 Configuration
The speed of the pump was then gradually increased
to 2000 rpm. Afterwhich, the flowrate was varied
from 50 L/min to 160 L/min by controlling one of
the main valves. As soon the readings in the
pressure gauges have stabilized, the readings
corresponding to the suction and discharge heads
were then recorded. The process was repeated for
the series and parallel configurations, and for a
different pump motor speed of 1600 rpm. Three (3)
trials were conducted for each configuration.
Figures 2 and 3 show the configuration of the pipes
for the series and parallel connections respectively.
Figure 2. Series Pipe Configuration
Figure 3. Parallel Pipe Configuration
The valves were always checked for leaks. In the
cases that leaks were already prominent, the
operation was halted and the trials were repeated,
considering the last recorded flowrate as the
maximum limit achieved with the configuration
being followed.
3. Results and Discussion
The valves serve as the controlling gates that allow
the fluid to flow in the desired configuration. Valve 1
is the major controller of the flow since it is used to
control the initial flowrate of the fluid into the
system. Valve 2 on the other hand controls the fluid
that flows from pump 1. The series and parallel
connections are controlled on the other hand by
valves 3 and 4.
The data gathered from all the trials involving the
different configurations were used to plot the pump
characteristic curves.
Figure 4 shows the total head vs flowrate of the
simple pump configuration. In this configuration,
only the pump 1 is utilized. The general trend shows
that increasing the flowrate would decrease the total
change in head, decreasing the total height needed
to be overcome by a fluid in higher flowrates.
Characteristic Curve for Pump 1
2000 rpm 1600 rpm
6
Total Head, m H2O
4
0
0 50 100 150
Flowrate, L/min
Figure 4. Characteristic Curves for Pump 1 Configuration
For series piping configurations, it can be seen that
the total head still decreases with increasing
flowrate. The downward slope of the change in total
head as the flowrate increases is steep. Thus the
total head is greatly affected by the fluid flowrate.
This is mainly due to the fact that in a series
 A.T. Dumlao, M.J. Gulay, M. Ramirez, M.F. Reyes / Process Eng. Lab. (2019)
configuration, the pressure losses are additive as you Overall, it can be seen that for higher motor speeds,
progress along the piping length. the total head is significantly greater. This is
consistent with the energy balance equation, where
a larger change in velocity would translate to a
Characteristic Curve for Series larger value of total head loss. This increase in head
Configuration loss may also be attributed by the increase of
friction loses as the bulk of the flow is increased.
2000 rpm 1600 rpm

8 The piping systems also contribute to the gathered data.

Total Head, m H2O

For the series configuration, changes in the flowrate

6 result in drastic decreases in the total head. Thus, series
configurations may be utilized for a wider range of
4 pressure differences. On the other hand, the changes in
total head for the parallel configuration is only minimal,
2 meaning that it can be used for systems that are limited
to a certain range of pressure losses.
0
0 50 100 150 200
Flowrate, L/min
4. Conclusion and Recommendations

Figure 5. Characteristic Curves for Pumps in Series
As compared with the other configurations, it can
be seen that the change in the total head of the
system in a parallel pump configuration has a less
steep slope, meaning that the effect of flow rate on
the total head is lesser, than that of a series pump
configuration. This may be explained by the nature
of fluid flow when subjected to parallel piping. In
parallel piping configurations, the fluid is divided
into different flow paths, and thus the overall
pressure drops are lower while the overall friction
losses higher as compared to series configurations.
Because the friction losses are always present due to
the elbows and valves present in dividing the flow
into various branches, the differences in total head
measurements are less prominent as you increase
the fluid flowrate.
Characteristic Curve for Parallel
Configuration
2000 rpm 1600 rpm
8
Total Head, m H2O
With the data analysed, it can be concluded that
for a higher flowrate, no matter what the pipe
configuration is, the total head decreases. On
the other hand, the relationship between the
impeller motor speed and the total head is
directly proportional. A conclusion may also be
made with the choice of piping systems.
Employing parallel piping would result in lesser
effect of total head losses with increasing
flowrate. Thus for systems that have narrow
ranges of the pressure or elevation differences,
parallel piping may be employed. On the other
hand series piping may be used for systems that
require high total head changes.
However, the data obtained were all limited due
to the second pump’s lack of functionality. Thus,
it is recommended that the apparatus be fixed so
that other groups would be able to fully measure
the effect of having parallel and series piping
with more than a pump involved in the system.
Functionality of the second pump would also aid
in conducting the experiment since the pump 2
configuration would be employed.

References
6 [1] Cengel, Y.A., Cimbala J.M., Fluid Mechanics:
Fundamentals and Applications 1st ed. McGraw-Hill.
4
2006
2 [2] McNally Institute. Series or Parallel Pump
Information. 2018. Retrieved from
0 http://www.mcnallyinstitute.com/18-html/18-1.htm
0 50 100 150 200
[3] McCabe, W., Smith, J. and Harriott, P. ‘Unit
Flowrate, L/min Operations of Chemical Engineering’, Singapore:
McGrawHill; 2001

Figure 6. Characteristic Curves for Pumps in Parallel

 A.T. Dumlao, M.J. Gulay, M. Ramirez, M.F. Reyes / Process Eng. Lab. (2019)
Appendix
Speed: 2000 rpm

Table 1. Data from Pump Configuration 1

Q, L/min Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Total
Head
0 0.5 6.25 0.5 6.25 0.5 6.25 5.75
50 0.75 5.6 0.75 6 0.75 6 5.116667
100 1.2 4.8 1.2 5 1.2 5 3.733333
120 1.45 4 1.5 4.2 1.5 4.2 2.65
140 1.75 3.5 1.8 3.8 1.75 3.8 1.933333

Table 2. Data from Series Configuration

Q, L/min Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Total
Head
0 0.5 7.2 0.5 7.2 0.5 7.2 6.7
50 0.75 6 0.75 6.2 0.8 6.2 5.366667
100 1.2 5 1.25 5.2 1.25 5.4 3.966667
120 1.45 4.8 1.5 4.8 1.5 4.8 3.316667
140 1.85 4 1.8 4 1.85 3.8 2.1
160 2.25 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.8 0.45

Table 3. Data from Parallel Configuration

Q, L/min Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Total
Head
0 0.5 7 0.5 7 0.5 7 6.5
50 0.5 6.8 0.5 6.8 0.55 6.8 6.283333
100 0.7 6.4 0.6 6.5 0.65 6.6 5.85
120 0.75 6.2 0.7 6.2 0.7 6.2 5.483333
140 0.8 6 0.8 6 0.8 6.1 5.233333
160 0.85 5.8 0.9 5.8 0.9 5.8 4.916667

Speed: 1600 RPM

Table 4. Data from Pump Configuration 1

Q, L/min Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Total Head
0 0.5 4.2 0.5 4.2 0.5 4.2 3.7
50 0.8 3.5 0.8 3.8 0.8 3.5 2.8
100 1.2 2.3 1.2 2.3 1.2 2.5 1.166667
120 1.4 2 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 0.666667
 A.T. Dumlao, M.J. Gulay, M. Ramirez, M.F. Reyes / Process Eng. Lab. (2019)
Table 5. Data from Series Configuration

Q, L/min Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Total
Head
0 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.9 3.4
50 0.75 2.9 0.8 3 0.8 3 2.183333
100 1.25 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.25 2.1 0.866667
120 1.4 1.2 1.45 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.183333
140 1.7 0.2 1.75 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.516667

Table 6. Data from Parallel Configuration

Q, L/min Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Suction Discharge Total
Head
0 0.5 4 0.5 4 0.5 4 3.5
50 0.6 3.9 0.6 3.9 0.6 3.9 3.3
100 0.7 3.8 0.7 3.8 0.7 3.8 3.1
120 0.8 3.4 0.75 3.4 0.75 3.5 2.666667
140 0.85 3.2 0.8 3.2 0.85 3.2 2.366667