CFD Analysis & Experimental Model - Intake

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/249322823
CFD simulation and experimental validation of a horizontal pump intake

system
Article in ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · September 2012

DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2012.721183
CITATIONS READS
2 876
4 authors:
Subramanya Pradeep Sayantan Ganguly
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS
Indian Institute of Technology Ropar
32 PUBLICATIONS 137 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
P G Prasad Ms Mohan Kumar

Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science, Department of Civil Engineering
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS 131 PUBLICATIONS 1,283 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
A feasibility study on aquifer storage of water by artificial recharge in and around Punjab region, India View project
Parameter Estimation in Coastal Phreatic Aquifer View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sayantan Ganguly on 11 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Science]
On: 01 December 2013, At: 21:43
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20
CFD simulation and experimental validation of a

horizontal pump intake system
a a a a
S. Pradeep , G. Sayantan , P.G. Prasad & M.S. Mohan Kumar
a
Department of Civil Engineering , Indian Institute of Science , Bangalore – 560012 ,
India
Published online: 28 Sep 2012.
To cite this article: S. Pradeep , G. Sayantan , P.G. Prasad & M.S. Mohan Kumar (2012) CFD simulation and
experimental validation of a horizontal pump intake system, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 18:3, 173-185, DOI:
10.1080/09715010.2012.721183
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2012.721183
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2012, 173–185
CFD simulation and experimental validation of a horizontal pump intake system

S. Pradeep, G. Sayantan, P.G. Prasad and M.S. Mohan Kumar*
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India

(Received 23 August 2011; final version received 19 November 2011)
In the present study, the numerical simulation of a horizontal pump intake system with multiple pumps has been
presented. Simulations were performed using a commercially available computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
software code FLUENT, which included estimation of variables such as velocity distribution at the cross section
of draft tube inlet, swirl angle in the pump suction pipe and streamline patterns in the sump chamber. Four
different cases given by three different sets of discharges and three different operating conditions defined by
number of pumps running both symmetrically and asymmetrically were tested. Numerically computed average
velocity data, vertical velocity profiles at the draft tube inlet and swirl angle at the pump suction pipe are in good
agreement with the experimentally obtained ones. CFD also predicted the formation of a circulation zone in the
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Science] at 21:43 01 December 2013
forebay, which is in good agreement with the experimental observations although its size was greater than that
estimated by CFD.
Keywords: pump sump; velocity distributions; swirl angle; horizontal intake; streamlines; computational fluid
dynamics; turbulent flow; k-epsilon model
1. Introduction
Water intake system or pumping stations are built to draw water from a source such as river and used for irrigation,
thermal power plants etc. In general, the intake structure is designed based on Hydraulic Institute Standards (HIS)
(1998), British Hydromechanics Research Association (BHRA) (Prosser 1977) standards, and the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers (JSME) (1984) standards. These hydraulic intake structures must be carefully designed to ensure
that there is uniform distribution of flow at the entry to the pumps. The intake structure design plays an important role
in governing the flow pattern at the entry to the pump. Uneven flow distributions and vortices in the sump chamber
can lead to air entering the pump impeller, which can cause cavitation problems. In addition, uneven distribution of
load on the impeller causes undesirable vibrations and noise. All these factors reduce the performance and life of the
pumps. Furthermore, the design of the pump intake system varies depending on its need and use. Hence, studies are
needed to be carried out to determine the flow behaviour around the pump intakes.
The pump sump physical model study includes construction of a (scaled or actual) model of the experimental set-
up, followed by analysis of flow behaviour. Observations are made to identify the locations of surface and subsurface
vortices, their strength and frequency. Measurements of swirl angle inside the suction pipe of the pump are also needed
to detect the presence of vortices. Velocity distribution is needed to be measured at different cross sections in the
channel, especially at or near the entrance of the pump suction pipe, to examine the uniformity of the approaching flow
towards the impeller. Such a process is time consuming and expensive. Moreover, HIS and other standards provide
basic guidelines to design pump sump. Frequently, the design of an intake system needs to be tested for several
additions and remedial modifications which may not be practically viable to implement in the physical model. Hence
there is need for more research in the numerical simulations of pump-approach flow distributions.
Numerical analysis techniques are currently used in several engineering fields such as aerodynamics, heat transfer
analysis, and structural analysis. The governing equations of fluid flow in partial derivative and integral forms have
become easier to solve because of the evolution of computers and commercial codes. The use of numerical techniques
in pump sump model studies is also done at an international level by experts all over the globe. Constantinescu and
Patel (1997) have used turbulence models to conduct numerical simulation of flow in pump intake bays.
Constantinescu and Patel (1998) developed a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to study the formation of
free surface and wall-attached vortices. Their model solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equation and the
two-layer turbulence model (k–" at low Reynolds number [Re] and k–! at high Reynolds number). Based on the above-
mentioned work, Roberge (1999) studied the usability of FIDAP, a commercial CFD package for vortex prediction in
a pump intake which has a single-pump vertical intake, using the standard k–" model, and comparison has been made
between the results of a physical sump model with that of the CFD simulation. Rajendran et al. (1999) have performed
a numerical study with emphasis on prediction of properties of various types of vortices and validated their results with
experimental analysis. Ansar et al. (2002) developed a CFD model for pump approach flow distributions and have
*Corresponding author. Email: msmk@civil.iisc.ernet.in
ISSN 0971–5010 print/ISSN 2164–3040 online

ß 2012 Indian Society for Hydraulics
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2012.721183
http://www.tandfonline.com
174 S. Pradeep et al.
studied for cases of single-pump and dual-pump sump model. For both the cases, simulations were run for cases with
cross-flow and without cross-flow. The results were found to be in good agreement with laboratory flow measurements.
Ansar and Nakato (2001) have experimentally studied the formation of vortex in the sump chamber with respect to the
approach flow with and without cross-flow in a pump intake system. Strength and persistence of the surface and
subsurface vortices is not well predicted by the CFD techniques. The unsteady and unstable nature of the vortices cannot
be identified by CFD models nor can they predict whether the vortex is air entraining (Johansson et al. 2005). Marghzar
et al. (2003) have conducted a numerical simulation of flow for an asymmetric horizontal intake system.
In most of the above-mentioned studies, single-pump and dual-pump intake systems and vertical intake systems
have been extensively studied. Studies of flow behaviour in pump intake systems with horizontal intake systems and
multiple pumps have rarely been done. In the present study, symmetrical horizontal intake to the pump with multiple
pumps is modelled. A three-dimensional model of the experimental set-up has been developed. The CFD models
developed are tested for accuracy by comparing them with experimental results. Various measured variables from the
experiments compared with numerical results are presented in this paper.
2. Experimental Set-up and Methodology

To validate the results and predictions obtained by CFD analysis, experimental studies are essential. Laboratory
experiments were conducted at the hydraulic engineering laboratory of the Indian Institute of Science. Figures 1A
and 1B represent the plan and elevation of the experimental set-up (1:12 scale to the prototype) respectively. The scale
used is a standard one in performing experiments. The Reynolds number in the pump sump approach channel (based
on the flow depth) varied from 1.58 105 to 3.22 105, which is considerably high. Hence it is considered that the
viscous effects did not suppress the formation of air-entrained vortices. The model set-up has a supply tank feeding to
the intake system through an inlet followed by a short approach channel, a slope transition and an expanding forebay
and sump chamber. An auxiliary cooling water (ACW) channel exists at one side of the approach channel. The ACW
channel supplies water to the auxiliary cooling water pumps (not modelled in this study). There are six bays in the
sump chamber directing the flow into six pumps, and the six individual bays are separated by piers.
Stop logs are also included in each individual bay, which partially closed the channel. Six pumps with a capacity of
16 kW (which can operate up to a capacity of 0.09 m3/s) each and with horizontal intake draft tubes were set up at the
end of each bay. The experimental set-up was provided with a recirculation system of water where water from
the individual bays were pumped by the centrifugal pumps to the far end of the stilling tank before the inlet of the
approach channel. Screens and wooden planks were used at the inlet of the approach channel with an aim to reduce
the turbulence in the flow. The discharge of the delivery pipes of the system was measured using orifice plates with
mercury manometers, provided in each delivery pipe, which were calibrated before performing the tests. Gate valves
(A) Draft tube inlet

Stop log Pier
Pump 1
14.47°
Pump 2
Pump 3
Flow direction Approach
2.95 1.00 channel 0.875
0.408
Pump 4
(Clear width between piers)
Pump 5 Slope transition
Pump 6 Forebay
Y
1.104 3.778 1.44
Draft tube
Stop log
(B) Pier
Water Level = 0.592 Flow direction

Draft tube
entrance Approach
Forebay channel
Slope Tansition
Floor level = 0.0
Z
0.164 0.3
Draft tube 1.104 3.778 1.44
Figure 1. (A) Plan and (B) elevation of the experimental set-up (all dimensions are in metres).
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 175
for controlling the discharge were installed in the delivery pipes. In order to keep the Froude number same for both the
prototype and the model, the discharge of the model is calculated following the Froudian condition.
2:5
Qm Lm
¼ , ð1aÞ
Qp Lp
where Qm and Qp are the model and prototype discharges, respectively, and Lm and Lp are the model and prototype
length scales, respectively. The discharge calculated following the Froudian similarity condition is termed as the
Froudian discharge. Similarly, for twice Froudian condition, the discharge is calculated according to the following
relation:
2:2
Qm Lm
¼ : ð1bÞ
Qp Lp
Then for the equal-velocity condition, the relation is given by
2
Qm Lm
¼ : ð1cÞ
Qp Lp
The experimental and simulation studies were done for a total of four cases given by three different sets of
discharges, namely, Froudian (0.023 m3/s), twice Froudian (0.047 m3/s) and equal-velocity (0.077 m3/s) discharge
conditions and three different operating conditions defined by the different number of pumps running. The water level
in the sump is 0.592 m and is always kept constant. Steady-state analysis is considered for all the cases.
3. Flow measurements
3.1. Velocity measurements
Velocity distributions were measured for all the cases mentioned before in the approach channel and at the entry to
the draft tube using a Pitot tube fitted with an inclined manometer calibrated before performing any measurement.
A grid (0.408 m 0.164 m) was defined over the cross section at the entry to the draft tube (Figure 2A), covering fully
the clear waterway between two piers, in order to obtain the cross-sectional velocity distribution for experimental
measurements. Velocity data were captured at 48 grid points on the cross section of the draft tube entry.
The discharge to the approach channel was fed gradually and a sufficient time was allowed for the flow to become
stable before taking any velocity reading. As the flow at the draft tube entry is highly turbulent, numerous readings
were taken and were time averaged. The time-averaged velocity reading did appear to be almost constant implying
steady flow condition.
3.2. Swirl angle measurements

Swirl angle is measured using a single-bladed vortometer. A vortometer consists of vanes which are attached inside the
pump intake pipe. These vanes rotate on a free-rotating frictionless bearing about a pivot which is fixed on the two
rods attached to the intake pipe wall. At the end of the vanes, a magnetic strip is attached. On the circumference of the
intake pipes, sensors are attached. These sensors are connected with the electronic device which measures the number
of rotations and the swirl angle . The vortometer data can be collected using a computer-based data acquisition
system for any duration required. Swirl angle, at any particular location, is given by

vt
¼ tan1 , ð2Þ
va

where ¼ swirl angle in degree, vt ¼ tangential velocity of fluid ¼ dN
60 m/s, d ¼ diameter of pipe at the vortometer in
meter, N ¼ speed of rotation
Q of the vortometer blade in revolutions per minute, va ¼ mean axial velocity through the
pump suction pipe ¼ m/s, Q ¼ discharge through the pump intake pipe in m3/s, A ¼ area of cross section of the
2
A
2
vertometer ¼ d4 m .
4. Computational method
Numerical computations in this study have been done using ANSYS FLUENT version 6.3.26. FLUENT is a state-of-
the-art CFD software code for modelling fluid flow and heat transfer in complex geometries. FLUENT is written in the
C programming language. It provides all the tools required to simulate the flow. The software code can solve the
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations in Cartesian coordinates using the two-equation k–" turbulence
model. Steady-state solutions are found by iteration in pseudo-time.
(A) Grid points
0.164
0.154
0.124
0.100
0.084
0.066
0.044
0.016
0.004
z 0 0.029 0.099 0.169 0.239 0.309 0.379 0.408
y
(B)
Figure 2. (A) View of the cross section at the draft tube entrance showing the points of velocity measurement in the experimental
set-up (dimensions are in metres) and (B) grid used for CFD computations.
A three-dimensional model of the pump intake system was developed to mimic the actual experimental set-up. A
finite-volume grid (Figure 2B) with tetrahedral meshing scheme was used to generate the finite-volume mesh. The
meshing scheme was composed of 12,182 cell volumes. The use of unstructured hybrid grids allows greater flexibility in
meshing the computational domain for complex geometries. The necessary boundary conditions were then
implemented. At the inlet of the approach channel, velocity inlet boundary condition was used. The average velocity
data were specified at this boundary. For the pumps, velocity outlet boundary condition was specified. The average
velocity of the discharge drawn by each pump was calculated and used as boundary condition. Symmetry boundary
condition was applied for the free surface of water as no flow takes place across that surface. In FLUENT, the
symmetry boundary condition can be used to model zero-shear slip walls in viscous flow. The water surface is
considered as horizontal and having atmospheric pressure upon it. The floor of the channel and sump and also the
other no flow boundaries such as the side walls of the channel and piers were treated as wall boundary and no slip
condition was applied to all of them. The turbulent model selected for the study was the popular k–" model. Here all
the residual targets for the convergence criteria were set at 105 to achieve higher accuracy of results for velocity
distribution. The residual in FLUENT is defined as the imbalance of some quantity (mass, energy or momentum)
between the neighbouring cells, given by a ratio of the residual at Mth iteration to the largest absolute value of the
residual in the first few iterations, for example. The residual for the continuity equation can be defined as
Rciteration M
, ð3Þ
Rciteration m
where the numerator is the continuity residual (i.e. the mass imbalance between the neighbouring cells) at Mth iteration
and the denominator is the largest continuity residual in the first m iterations.
GAMBIT version 2.3.16, a software complementary to FLUENT, was used as pre-processor to create the 3D
geometry and 3D mesh. The same was also used to define the finite volume fluid continuum as water and to set the
boundary zones and boundary conditions as mentioned before.
5. Governing equations
FLUENT solves the mass and momentum continuity equations to analyse the flow field. The continuity or mass
conservation equation is given in Cartesian tensor form as
@ @ ðui Þ
þ ¼ 0, ð4Þ
@t @xi
where ¼ density of the fluid and ui ¼ velocity components in tensorial notation.
Considering the flow to be steady and fluid to be incompressible, the equation reduces to
@ui
¼ 0: ð5Þ
@xi
The transport of the averaged flow quantities for turbulence flow is governed by the RANS equations. The whole
range of scales of turbulence can be modelled by using them and hence the RANS-based modelling approach greatly
reduces the required computational effort and resources, and is therefore widely used for turbulence modelling for
turbulent flow analysis. The RANS equations in tensorial notations are given by

@ @ @p @ @ui @uj @
ðui Þ þ ðui uj Þ ¼ þ þ þ u0i u0j , ð6Þ
@t @xj @xi @xj @xj @xi @xj
where p ¼ pressure of fluid, u0i ¼ fluctuating part of the velocity and ¼ dynamic viscosity
Since we are finding the steady-state solution, the equation reduces to

@
@p @ @ui @uj @
ui uj ¼ þ þ þ u0i u0j : ð7Þ
@xj @xi @xj @xj @xi @xj
The terms u0i u0j represent the turbulent shear stress or the Reynolds shear stress, which gives rise to six additional
unknowns in the Navier–Stokes equation which are to be modelled to solve the equation fully.
5.1. Standard k–e turbulence model

The two-equation k–" model is the most widely used and validated turbulence model for practical engineering
purposes. Flow analysis in case of shear layers, boundary layers, and duct flows has been successfully achieved using
this model (Tu et al. 2007). The partial differential equations for k and ", proposed by Launder and Spalding (1972),
are given by

@ @ @ t @k
ðkÞ þ ðui kÞ ¼ þ þ Gk þ Gb " Ym þ Sk , ð8Þ
@t @xi @xj k @xj

@ @ @ t @" " "2
ð"Þ þ ðui "Þ ¼ þ þ C1" ðC3 "Gb þ Gk Þ C2" þ S" , ð9Þ
@t @xi @xj " @xj k k
where k ¼ turbulent kinetic energy, " ¼ rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy and t ¼ turbulent dynamic
2
viscosity ¼ C k" , where C is a constant, k and " are turbulent Prandtl numbers for turbulent kinetic energy (k) and
dissipation rate (") respectively. Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity
gradients and Gb is the turbulent kinetic energy generated due to buoyancy. Ym represents contribution of the
fluctuating dilation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate. C1", C2" and C3" are the model constants.

Default values of these model constants are C ¼ 0.09, k ¼ 1.0, " ¼ 1.3, C1" ¼ 1.44, C2" ¼ 1.92. C3 " ¼ tanhuv, where v
is the flow velocity in vertical direction and u is the flow velocity in the streamwise direction.
6. Results and discussion

Among the several variables that can be used in order to analyse and compare between the numerical and the
experimental results in this study, the velocity distribution at the draft tube entry, the swirl angle measured at the exit
of the draft tube and the circulation patterns in the sump chamber have been chosen. As mentioned earlier, three sets of
discharges (0.023, 0.047 and 0.077 m3/s) were considered for the flow analysis, with different operating conditions given
by the different number of pumps running.
6.1. Case 1
In this case, four (nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6) out of six pumps were made to run. This pump combination was considered in
order to study asymmetric flow conditions. The discharge of each pump is 0.047 m3/s and the total discharge is
0.188 m3/s. Re based on pump suction pipe diameter is 3.0 105. From the computational results, it can be seen that in
the horizontal plan view (Figure 3A), a large zone of rotating mass of water is created at the left side of the expanding
forebay. The reason for this circulation zone of water is evidently the presence of two standby pumps in bays 4 and 5
and also the asymmetry involved in the design because of the presence of the ACW channel (Figure 1A). Existence of
the channel introduces non-uniformity in the flow, which in turn results in formation of the circulation zone. The effect
of this zone is most intense at a plane passing through the draft tube entrance, where the maximum velocity in the
circulation zone reaches about 0.39 m/s and reduces gradually towards the surface, with maximum velocity of the same
about 0.3 m/s (Figure 3B). The existence of this large rotating mass of water opposes the incoming flow from upstream
and forces the flow towards the other side of the forebay. Hence the streamlines are compressed on that side, making
the flow non-uniform in nature. The streamlines entering into bay 6 shows the highest curvature as a consequence of
this. Figure 5 shows the position of the circulation zone that was observed in the experimental set-up. From these
figures, it has been observed that the position of circulation zone obtained from the experimental method and the
computational method are approximately same, although the actual size of the circulation zone is greater than that
predicted by numerical computation. The streamline pattern on the vertical plane was plotted (Figure 8A) for a section
passing through the centreline of bay 5, as it was observed from the plan view of the streamlines that this particular
section passes through the circulation zone for all the cases considered. The profiles show a zone of disturbance in the
forebay region, where there is rotation due to the formation of a circulation zone and near the stop log, where one
small vortex zone is created before the stop log because of obstruction and return flow and another one created behind
it. For all other sections passing through other bays, the velocity distribution was quite uniform (not shown) except
near the stop log. Unfortunately, providing experimental evidence of this was not possible.
The main flow direction is considered as X (as shown in Figure 1A). Figure 9A represents the cross section
averaged (Q/Ad), experimental average and average velocity obtained from numerical analysis at the entrance of draft
tube at different bays. The plot shows quite good agreement between the average velocities calculated by different
methods. Furthermore, to compare the velocity distribution obtained via experimental and computational methods,
Figure 3. Streamline patterns (A) at a plane passing through the draft tube centre and (B) at a plane passing on the surface for case
1 (index bar indicates velocity in metres per second). [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]
the vertical velocity profile at different grid points (the grid that was defined for the experimental measurements of
velocity, Figure 2A) of the cross section at the draft tube inlet along the width of a bay are considered. Each diagram in
Figure 4 represents the vertical velocity profile at different widths on the draft tube cross section and contains the velocity
data for streamwise velocity for all the bays with running pumps computed using the experimental and computational
procedures. The velocity data obtained at the cross section of draft tube entry, from the computational method and that
obtained from experimental technique, lie within the range of 0.6 to 0.8 m/s. The profiles in this case also match quite well
except for little deviation in bay 6. Because of asymmetric configuration of pumps running, there exists a zone of
circulation (as seen in Figures 3A and 3B), the size of which is overpredicted by the CFD results than actually seen in the
experiments. Furthermore, because of the presence of the circulation zone, the streamlines are most curved while entering
bay 6. Hence the velocity values computed numerically are also higher than the actual experimental values at distances
0.029, 0.099, 0.169 and 0.239 m from the left wall of the draft tube entrance cross section.
The relative standard deviations (RSDs) of the velocity data obtained from the experiments and that of the
computational technique for four bays with running pumps is given by the following
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pi¼n
2
i¼1 ui uavg
¼ , ð10Þ
n
Exp Bay 1 CFD Bay 1 Exp Bay 3 CFD Bay 3 Exp Bay 6
CFD Bay 6 Exp Bay 2 CFD Bay 2
y = 0.029 m y = 0.099 m
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6 z/D
z/D 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/uavg u/uavg
y = 0.169 m y = 0.239 m
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
z/D z/D
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/uavg u/uavg
y = 0.309 m y = 0.379 m
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6
z/D 0.6 z/D
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/uavg u/uavg
Figure 4. Velocity distribution plots for case 1 at distances of 0.029, 0.099, 0.169, 0.239, 0.309 and 0.379 m from the left wall of draft
tube entrance cross section (referring to Figure 2A). [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]
Bays Pier
Forebay
Circulation zone
Figure 5. Photograph showing the circulation zone at the left side of expanding forebay (view from upstream). [To view a colour
version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]
Table 1. Experimental and numerical values of relative standard deviation

(RSD) of velocity distribution at the draft tube inlet cross section for all the cases.
Case Bay no. Exp. uRSD (%) CFD uRSD (%)
Case 1 Bay 1 4.3 5.6

Bay 2 4.5 5.5
Bay 3 7.5 5.8
Bay 6 5.2 8.6
Case 2 Bay 1 6.3 5.8
Bay 6 8.7 7.5
Case 3 Bay 1 4.3 5.9
Bay 2 4.7 5.0
Bay 3 5.2 4.9
Bay 4 5.6 5.3
Bay 5 6.2 5.8
Bay 6 6.3 6.6
Case 4 Bay 1 4.8 6.0
Bay 2 5.0 5.2
Bay 3 5.3 5.1
Bay 4 6.2 5.4
Bay 5 7.0 5.8
Bay 6 6.8 6.6

uRSD ¼ 100, ð11Þ
uavg
where ¼ standard deviation, n ¼ number of velocity measurements, ui ¼ velocity (measured or computed) at a
particular location in metres per second, uavg ¼ measured or computed average velocity in metres per second and
uRSD ¼ relative standard deviation (percentage). Values of uRSD are tabulated in Table 1 for all the cases and both the
procedures. RSD is an estimate of fluctuations of velocity data from its mean value. Although in most of the cases the
values are comparable, in few cases the deviations of the experimental and computational values of uRSD are precisely
due to the limited number of points used in order to calculate the velocity distribution at the cross-section entrance.
Figure 10A shows the average swirl data obtained from the vortometer measurements and that calculated
numerically. The convergence of results for this case is satisfactory except for little deviation at bay 3. Measurement of
time-averaged and instantaneous swirl angle ensured that for all the cases, its value never exceeded 2.5 degrees, which is
well within the HIS recommended value of 5 degrees for short- and long-term averaged values.
6.2. Case 2
In this case, two pumps (nos. 1 and 6) were made to run and the rest of the pumps, namely 2, 3, 4 and 5, were shut
down. The discharge of each pump is 0.077 m3/s. Re based on pump suction pipe diameter is 4.92 105. As shown in
Figures 6A and 6B, the flow condition in this scenario is quite symmetrical and hence more uniform. The circulation
Figure 6. Streamline patterns (A) at a plane passing through the draft tube centre and (B) at a plane passing on the surface for case
2 (index bar indicates velocity in metres per second). [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]
zone near the left side wall of the expanding forebay still exists although its size has reduced. The circulation zone seen
in Figures 6A and 6B was also observed in the physical model. The reason for this was the presence of the ACW
channel. Although this was not running, it caused the velocity to reduce at its side making the velocity distribution
non-uniform across the width of the approach channel, as can be seen in Figure 6B. This effect carried into the forebay
and resulted in the formation of the circulation zone on the left side of the forebay. The profiles in vertical plane
(Figure 8B) also show similar behaviour as the previous case. The comparison between the cross-sectional average (Q/
Ad), experimental average and computational average velocity is represented in Figure 9B, again showing good
matching of the results. The velocity profile data for different widths on the draft tube inlet cross section for this case
has been plotted in Figure 7. The RMS deviations from the mean of velocity measurements obtained from the
experimental data and that of the computational technique for the two bays with running pumps and are tabulated in
Table 1. Comparison of the swirl data obtained by experiment and computations has been represented in Figure 10B,
showing good convergence of results.
6.3. Case 3
The discharge in this case was limited 0.023 m3/s (Froudian discharge) and all the six pumps were made to run. Re
based on pipe diameter for this case was 1.42 105. The flow pattern in this case was most uniform among the four as
the size of the circulation zone was the smallest. Once again, the parameters measured by experimental procedure are in
good agreement with the numerical values of the average velocities (Figure 9C) and swirl angle (Figure 10C).
6.4. Case 4
Twice Froudian discharge (0.047 m3/s) was considered for this case with all six pumps running. Re based on pipe
diameter for this case was 3.0 105. Increase in discharge from the previous case increases average velocity in the
forebay, which in turn increases the size of the circulation zone. All other results from experimental measurements and
numerical computations are matching well (Figure 9D) except the swirl angle (Figure 10D), where the CFD
calculations overestimated the angle for all the cases.
Exp Bay 1 CFD Bay 1 Exp Bay 6 CFD Bay 6
y = 0.029 m y = 0.099 m
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
z/D z/D
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/uavg u/uavg
y = 0.169 m y = 0.239 m
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
z/D z/D
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/uavg u/uavg
y = 0.309 m y = 0.379 m
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
z/D z/D
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
u/uavg
u/uavg
Figure 7. Velocity distribution plots for case 2 at distances of 0.029, 0.099, 0.169, 0.239, 0.309 and 0.379 m respectively from the left
wall of draft tube entrance cross-section (referring to Figure 2A). [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of
this Journal.]
Figure 8. Streamline pattern on a vertical plane passing through the centreline of bay 5 for (A) case 1 and (B) case 2 (index bar
indicates velocity in metres per second). [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]
Cross-sectional Average
CFD Average
Exp Average
(A)1.4 (B)
1.4
1.2 1.2
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity (m/s)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bay No.
Bay No.
(C)1.4 (D) 1.4

1.2 1.2
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity (m/s)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bay No. Bay No.
Figure 9. Comparison of cross-sectional average, numerical average and experimental average velocities at a cross section at the
entry to the draft tube for (A) case 1, (B) case 2, (C) case 3 and (D) case 4. [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online
version of this Journal.]
CFD
EXP
(A) (B)
2.5
2.5
Swirl Angle (Degree)
2
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bay No. Bay No.
(C) (D)
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bay No. Bay No.
Figure 10. Comparison of average swirl angle computed by numerical method and measured by experimental procedure in the
pump suction pipe at the exit of the draft tube for (A) case 1, (B) case 2, (C) case 3 and (D) case 4. [To view a colour version of this
figure, see the online version of this Journal.]
7. Conclusions
In this study, an attempt was made to simulate a pump sump intake system with multiple pumps and horizontal intake
using a CFD software code FLUENT. Experiments were conducted simultaneously to validate the results obtained by
numerical computations. The main motive was to evaluate the capability of CFD to analyse the flow field and to
predict some chosen parameters for different cases. The cases were selected with the view of including both symmetrical
and asymmetrical cases with varying discharges. The predictions made using FLUENT for flow distributions and
velocity distribution and swirl angle data were close to the experimental results. The parameters measured, such as the
velocity distribution at the draft tube entrance, the swirl data measured within the pump intake pipe and the circulation
pattern in the expanding forebay, match well with experiments for different cases. The positions of the circulation zone
predicted by CFD calculations were almost the same as those in the experiments although their size varied. Thus, the
present study has ensured that the design of the pump intake was safe considering all flow variables. The swirl angles
measured and also computed from CFD inside the suction pipe at the exit of the draft tube were found to be within the
safe limits of 5 degrees as suggested by Hydraulic Institute Standards. Various recommendations in the literature
propose a suction bell velocity in the range of 1.1–2.4 m/s for large-size vertical intakes (Prosser 1977). Considering the
suction draft tube entry here as similar to an ‘‘extended bell mouth entry,’’ the velocity of less than 1.4 m/s (Figures 4
and 7) at this location seems to be conservative. In spite of the fact that CFD calculations cannot predict the vortex
strength or size accurately or determine whether it is air entraining, it can be used for predicting the flow field nature in
terms of other parameters. Experiments for site-specific models are indispensable, but CFD can be used as a useful tool
to select one or two appropriate models among many options and to check whether the design is safe to run under
different operating conditions, as experimental modelling of flow at pump intakes involves high construction cost of
the scaled model and is a time-consuming process.
The study can be further extended to improvement of the experimental observations by using particle image
velocimetry (PIV) for better prediction of vortices in the sump chamber. Formation of vortices at the back and side
walls, at the floor and the free surface also can be observed by the technique and can be simulated using numerical
methods which have been a challenge with the rapid development in the field of CFD. Different turbulence models can
also be tested in order to judge their capability for better predictions. The study can also be extended for different grid
resolutions, to judge their effects on the modelling.
Notations
The following symbols are used in this paper:
n 2o
A area of cross-section of the pipe at the vortometer ¼ d4 .
Ad area of cross-section of the draft tube entrance.
C constant ¼ 0.09.
C1", C2", C3" model constants
C1" 1.44,
C2" 1.92.
C3" tanhuv
D vertical dimension of the draft tube entrance cross-section.
d diameter of the pipe at the vortometer.
Gk generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients.
Gb turbulent kinetic energy generated due to buoyancy.
k turbulent kinetic energy.
Lm length scale in the model.
Lp length scale in the prototype.
N speed of rotation of the vortometer blade.
p pressure of fluid.
Q discharge for a single pump.
Qm model discharge.
Qp prototype discharge.
Re Reynolds number.
u flow velocity in stream wise direction.
ui velocity components in Tensorial notation.
u0i fluctuating part of the velocity.
v flow velocity in vertical direction.

vt tangential velocity of fluid ¼ dN
60 .
va mean axial velocity through the vortometer ¼ Q A .
Ym contribution of the fluctuating dilation in compressible turbulence to overall dissipation rate.
swirl angle.
density of the fluid.
dynamic viscosity.
" rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy.
t turbulent dynamic viscosity.
k turbulent Prandtl number for turbulent kinetic energy.
" turbulent Prandtl number for dissipation rate.
References
Ansar, M., and Nakato, T. (2001). ‘‘Experimental study of 3D pump-intake flows with and without cross flow.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng.,
ASCE, 127(10), 825–834.
Ansar, M., Nakato, T., and Constantinescu, G. (2002). ‘‘Numerical simulations of inviscid three-dimensional flows at single-and
dual-pump intakes.’’ J. Hydraulic Res., 40(4), 461–470.
Constantinescu, G., and Patel, V.C. (1997). Numerical simulation of flow in pump-bays using near-wall turbulence models, IIHR
Report No. 394, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Constantinescu, G., and Patel, V.C. (1998). ‘‘Numerical model for simulation of pump-intake flow and vortices.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng.,
124(2), 123–134.
FLUENT 6.3 (2006). User guide, Fluent Inc., Laconia, NH.
GAMBIT 2.3.16 (2006). User guide, Fluent Inc., Laconia, NH.
Hydraulic Institute Standards (1998). American national standard for pump intake design, ANSI/HI 9.8., American National
Standards Institute, Hydraulic Institute, Washington, DC.
Johansson, A.E., Stacy, P.S., White, D.K., and Lin, F. (2005). ‘‘Advancements in hydraulic modelling of cooling water intakes in
power plants.’’ Proc. PWR2005 ASME Power Chicago, Illinois, 7–16.
Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) (1984). Mode of testing method of pump sump, JSME S 004, Tokyo.
Launder, B.E., and Spalding, D.B. (1972). Lectures in mathematical models of turbulence, Academic Press, London.
Marghzar, S.H., Montazerin, N., and Rahimzadeh, H. (2003). ‘‘Flow field, turbulence and critical condition at a horizontal water
intake.’’ Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. A-J Power, 217(1), 53–62.
Prosser, M.J. (1977). The hydraulic design of pump sumps and intakes, British Hydromechanics Research Association (BHRA),
Bedford, England.
Rajendran, V.P., Constantinescu, G., and Patel, V.C. (1999). ‘‘Experimental validation of numerical model of flow in pump-intake
bays.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 125(11), 1119–1125.
Roberge, J.A. (1999). ‘‘Use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to model flow at pump intakes.’’ M.S. dissertation,
Environmental Eng., Worcester Polytech. Inst., Worcester, MA.
Tu, J., Heng, G.Y., and Liu, C. (2007). Computational fluid dynamics—A practical approach, Elsevier Science & Technology,
New York.
View publication stats

CFD Analysis & Experimental Model - Intake

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFD Analysis & Experimental Model - Intake

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

CFD simulation and experimental validation of a horizontal pump intake

Article in ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · September 2012

Subramanya Pradeep Sayantan Ganguly

P G Prasad Ms Mohan Kumar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Parameter Estimation in Coastal Phreatic Aquifer View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

CFD simulation and experimental validation of a

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2012.721183

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

CFD simulation and experimental validation of a horizontal pump intake system

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India

*Corresponding author. Email: msmk@civil.iisc.ernet.in

ISSN 0971–5010 print/ISSN 2164–3040 online

2. Experimental Set-up and Methodology

(A) Draft tube inlet

Pump 5 Slope transition

Water Level = 0.592 Flow direction

3.2. Swirl angle measurements

(A) Grid points

z 0 0.029 0.099 0.169 0.239 0.309 0.379 0.408

5.1. Standard k–e turbulence model

6. Results and discussion

Table 1. Experimental and numerical values of relative standard deviation

Case Bay no. Exp. uRSD (%) CFD uRSD (%)

Case 1 Bay 1 4.3 5.6

Exp Bay 1 CFD Bay 1 Exp Bay 6 CFD Bay 6

(C)1.4 (D) 1.4

Swirl Angle (Degree)

Swirl Angle (Degree)

View publication stats

You might also like