Brochure

AR = A
2
/A
1
AR = A
1
/A
2
Area ratio
H
loss,expansion
= ζ
.
H
dyn,1
H
loss,contraction
= ζ
.
H
dyn,2
Pressure loss coefficient ζ
1,00,80,60,40,20
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
A
1
A
2
A
1
A
2
8888
5. Pump losses
Model
Based on experience, it is assumed that the acceleration of the fluid from V
1
to V
0
is loss-free, whereas the subsequent mixing loss depends on the area
ratio now compared to the contraction A
0
as well as the dynamic head in the
contraction:
(5.1)
(5.2)
(5.3)
(5.4)
(5.5)
(5.6)
(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)
(5.10)
(5.11)
(5.12)
(5.13)
(5.14)
(5.15)
constantPPP
loss, shaft sealloss, bearingloss, mechanical
=+=
g2
V
HH
2
dyn, inloss, friktion
⋅ ζ = ⋅ ζ =
g2D
LV
fH
h
2
loss, pipe
=
O
A4
D
h
=
ν
=
h
VD
Re
Re
64
f
laminar
=
0.0047
32mm
0.15mm
k/D Relative roughness:
110500
sm101
0.032m3.45m s
VD
Re
Reynolds number:
sm3.45
m0.032
4
sm(10/3600)
A
Q
VMean velocity:
h
26
h
22
3
==
=
⋅
⋅
=
ν
=
=
π
==
−
sm
sm
gD
LV
f
H
h
loss, pipe
1.2 m
9.8120.032m
)3.45(2m
0.031
2
Pipe loss:
2
2
2
=
⋅⋅
⋅
==
g2
V
HH
2
1
dyn,1loss, expansion
⋅ ζ = ⋅ ζ =
2
2
1
A
A
1






− = ζ
g2
V
A
A
1H
2
0
2
2
0
loss, contraction
⋅






− =
g2
V
HH
2
2
dyn,2
loss, contraction
⋅ζ=⋅ζ=
g2
ww
g2
w
H
2
1, kanal1
2
s
loss, incidence
⋅
−
ϕ=
⋅
ϕ=
2
2
design1 loss, incidence
k)QQ(kH +−⋅=
m
22
6
4
22
3
2
loss, disk
DU
102
103.7k
)e5D(DUkρ
P








⋅ ν
⋅ =
+ =
−
( ) ( )
( )
( )
B
5
2
3
A
5
2
3
B
loss, disk
A
loss, disk
Dn
Dn
PP =
(5.16)
(5.17)
(5.18)
(5.19)
leakageimpeller
QQQ +=
( )
g8
DD
HH
2
gap
2
2
2
stat, impellerstat, gap
−
ω − =
g2
V
1.0
g2
V
s
L
f
g2
V
0.5H
222
stat, gap
++=
gap
leakage
stat, gap
VA
Q
1.5
s
L
f
2gH
V
=
+
=
where
V
0
= Fluid velocity in contraction [m/s]
A
0
/A
2
= Area ratio [-]
The disadvantage of this model is that it assumes knowledge of A
0
which is
not directly measureable. The following alternative formulation is therefore
often used:
(5.1)
(5.2)
(5.3)
(5.4)
(5.5)
(5.6)
(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)
(5.10)
(5.11)
(5.12)
(5.13)
(5.14)
(5.15)
constantPPP
loss, shaft sealloss, bearingloss, mechanical
=+=
g2
V
HH
2
dyn, inloss, friktion
⋅ ζ = ⋅ ζ =
g2D
LV
fH
h
2
loss, pipe
=
O
A4
D
h
=
ν
=
h
VD
Re
Re
64
f
laminar
=
0.0047
32mm
0.15mm
k/D Relative roughness:
110500
sm101
0.032m3.45m s
VD
Re
Reynolds number:
sm3.45
m0.032
4
sm(10/3600)
A
Q
VMean velocity:
h
26
h
22
3
==
=
⋅
⋅
=
ν
=
=
π
==
−
sm
sm
gD
LV
f
H
h
loss, pipe
1.2 m
9.8120.032m
)3.45(2m
0.031
2
Pipe loss:
2
2
2
=
⋅⋅
⋅
==
g2
V
HH
2
1
dyn,1loss, expansion
⋅ ζ = ⋅ ζ =
2
2
1
A
A
1






− = ζ
g2
V
A
A
1H
2
0
2
2
0
loss, contraction
⋅






− =
g2
V
HH
2
2
dyn,2
loss, contraction
⋅ζ=⋅ζ=
g2
ww
g2
w
H
2
1, kanal1
2
s
loss, incidence
⋅
−
ϕ=
⋅
ϕ=
2
2
design1 loss, incidence
k)QQ(kH +−⋅=
m
22
6
4
22
3
2
loss, disk
DU
102
103.7k
)e5D(DUkρ
P








⋅ ν
⋅ =
+ =
−
( ) ( )
( )
( )
B
5
2
3
A
5
2
3
B
loss, disk
A
loss, disk
Dn
Dn
PP =
(5.16)
(5.17)
(5.18)
(5.19)
leakageimpeller
QQQ +=
( )
g8
DD
HH
2
gap
2
2
2
stat, impellerstat, gap
−
ω − =
g2
V
1.0
g2
V
s
L
f
g2
V
0.5H
222
stat, gap
++=
gap
leakage
stat, gap
VA
Q
1.5
s
L
f
2gH
V
=
+
=
where
H
dyn,2
= Dynamic head out of the component [m]
V
2
= Fluid velocity out of the component [m/s]
Figure 5.9 compares loss coecients at sudden cross-section expansions
and –contractions as function of the area ratio A
1
/A
2
between the inlet and
outlet. As shown, the loss coecient, and thereby also the head loss, is in
general smaller at contractions than in expansions. This applies in particular
at large area ratios.
The head loss coecient for geometries with smooth area changes can be
found by table lookup. As mentioned earlier, the pressure loss in a cross-sec-
tion contraction can be reduced to almost zero by rounding o the edges.
Figure 5.9: Head loss coecents at sudden
cross-section contractions and expansions.