What is the purpose of minimum flow?

pumpindustry.com.au/what-is-the-purpose-of-minimum-flow

Michelle Goldsmith December 30, 2015

by Randal Ferman, Vice President Ekwestrel Corp

Minimum flow is a subject that many pump professionals will give a lot of time and
consideration to. Here, we look at the ultimate purpose of minimum flow, how it
should be established, and how it differs depending on the pumping application in
question.

Over the years, the use of the term minimum flow has evolved. Decades ago, industrial
centrifugal pump manufacturers would often quote a single, relatively low value for
minimum flow in order to prevent users from running their pumps to destruction.

The term minimum flow generally meant the lowest continuous flow at which the
pump was permitted to operate. These values did not take into account duration,
vibration level or other factors.

Today, we have minimum flow values for continuous operation, for intermittent
operation and for permissible temperature rise.

1/9
Figure 1 shows the relationships between various off-design pump phenomena and
minimum flow conditions. This head versus flow rate curve is based on S.
Gopalakrishnan’s curve from his well-cited paper, ‘A New Method for Computing
Minimum Flow’.

Figure 1. Pump phenomena and minimum flows.

As an aside, I recall Gopal (everyone knew him by that name) made a local technical
presentation using the now well-known chart, before it was published. Evidently
someone copied the chart from a handout of the overhead slides and it was quickly
pirated by someone else, then others. Copies or variants of this chart are now found
widely in papers and presentations on pumps.

The minimum flow quoted for continuous operation is usually referred to as minimum
continuous stable flow, or its more common abbreviation, MCSF. A pump’s MCSF is
the flow below which the pump should not be operated continuously. The primary
purpose of MCSF is to achieve satisfactory bearing and seal life. However, MCSF may
also be based on other considerations.

Any of the following factors may be considered in establishing the MCSF:

• Manufacturer’s experience

• Rule of thumb

• Calculated onset of suction recirculation or discharge recirculation

• Radial thrust

• Temperature rise

• Cavitation erosion intensity

• Maximum permissible pressure rise (for system purposes)

• Maximum permissible power rise (high specific speed and axial flow pumps)

• A combination of the above factors or others not listed.

2/9
For API 610 specified hydrocarbon processing pumps, the value of MCSF normally
coincides with the lower flow limit of the allowable operating range, as shown in Figure
2, where a specified vibration limit must not be exceeded.

Figure 2. Vibration limits for allowable operating

range and preferred operating range.

The MCSF value can range from roughly 10-80 per cent of best efficiency point (BEP)
flow, depending on pump size and type, operating speed, impeller suction geometry,
liquid density, and other factors.

A size 2” (50mm) discharge single-stage process pump may have an MCSF as low as
ten per cent of BEP flow. MCSF is often in the range of 30-60 per cent of BEP flow for
process pumps with discharge sizes 3” (75 mm) and larger. Large mixed flow vertical
pumps and very high head-per-stage centrifugal pumps may have an MCSF greater
than 60 per cent of BEP flow. Axial flow pumps have a power curve that rises toward
shut-off and minimum flow may be limited by the power rating of the driver.

On certain high energy pumps, the minimum flow is governed by cavitation erosion
damage. Minimum continuous flow for 40,000-hour impeller erosion life is where the
system NPSH available curve intersects the pump’s NPSH required curve, at lower-
than-BEP flow.

Intermittent minimum flow, when specified, is usually given as a percentage of MCSF.

On some applications, the governing value may be based on temperature rise. On large
high energy pumps, the value of intermittent minimum flow could be, for example, 70
per cent of MCSF and not to exceed 100 hours per year.

For some applications, a thermal minimum flow or minimum continuous thermal flow
is specified based on permissible liquid temperature rise. MCTF is usually, but not
always, lower than MCSF.

Although a pump’s thermal minimum flow is not always specified, the end user can
readily calculate its value based on input mechanical power heating up the liquid. The
limiting temperature rise is based on a safe margin to prevent flashing of the pumped
liquid to vapour, which can result in pump seizure.

3/9
Thermal minimum flow is not normally a concern at pump start-up, as long as the
closed discharge valve is set to begin opening right away. However, if the margin of
system NPSHA above pump NPSHR is minimal, then the temperature rise conditions
at pump start-up should be checked carefully.

A few pump applications, such as the use of a vertical turbine jockey pump for
maintaining pressure in a large fire sprinkler system, can potentially operate
continuously at shut-off while pump suction recirculation mixes with the water in the
sump in which it operates. The sump acts as a heat sink and a minimal water
temperature rise is not a problem. This example is a rare exception to an almost
invariable restriction on operating the pump continuously at shut-off.

The purpose of minimum flow is generally to prevent undue wear and tear or damage
to the pump. In the real environment of a process or utility plant, a pump is operated
at just about any condition demanded by the situation at hand. Thus there are different
pump minimum flows for different purposes.

For an independent evaluation of a pump minimum flow issue, contact an experienced

consulting engineer who can help with your specific application.

About Randal Ferman

Randal has more than 35 years of experience

in the pump industry. During 32 years with
global pump manufacturer Flowserve, he was
responsible for assignments in order
engineering, field technical services, hydraulic
design, training and product development,
involving a broad range of pump types and
applications. In 2009, Randal became a full-
time principal of Ekwestrel Corp in Los
Angeles, where he provides independent,
objective engineering consulting services on
new and existing pumping equipment and
systems.

Related articles
Related Articles

4/9
 +

Searching for groundwater to supplement water supplies in NSW

Emergency water supply works are well underway in several rural NSW
communities in the state’s north, in an effort...

5/9
 +

Electrifying industry – new opportunity for improving energy efficiency

The Australian manufacturing industry is at a crossroads. Transforming the

materials we dig up or grow into the products...

0 Comments

Featured Video

6/9
Read the latest edition online

Sponsored Content

Solar pump solution for filling a rural water tank August 13, 2020

As a reseller and installer of Commodore solar pumping equipment, Midwest

Valves...

What to look for when purchasing positive displacement pumps July 9,

2020
When it comes to choosing the right positive displacement pump for an
applicatio...

Finding the best bearing solution for water treatment blowers July 8, 2020

The turbocompressor has become a mainstay of modern water treatment

technology, ...

QME makes return to Mackay in September July 7, 2020

For over 25 years Queensland Mining and Engineering Expo (QME) has been at
the h...

Pump genius: pump intelligence to your system July 1, 2020

Pumps, pipelines and fittings can get seriously damaged if pressure or flow are ...

Recent Tweets

The WA Government is investing $35.5 million in Pilbara water infrastructure

projects, including upgrading the exis… https://t.co/xwVcd4MiP0 about 1 day
ago from TweetDeck ReplyRetweetFavorite

7/9
 APPEA has warned that the Western Australian Government’s domestic gas
policy restrictions run counter to the Feder… https://t.co/o5jOxrgeRY about 1
day ago from TweetDeck ReplyRetweetFavorite
The Queensland Government is undertaking a $1.4 million business case into
potential water supply options for the L… https://t.co/Rw0NZ3MlJ0 about 3
days ago from TweetDeck ReplyRetweetFavorite
Townsville City Council is holding industry briefings on stage two of the
Haughton pipeline project, open to engine… https://t.co/ZY3RqYbMfl about 3
days ago from TweetDeck ReplyRetweetFavorite
The Western Australian Government is investing over $30 million to upgrade
Rottnest Island's infrastructure, includ… https://t.co/ceniKcSmMg 10:53:00 AM
August 13, 2020 from TweetDeck ReplyRetweetFavorite

@pumpmag

Events

1. WA Mining Conference and Exhibition

October 14 - October 15

2. Digital Mines 2021

April 20, 2021 - April 22, 2021

3. Austmine 2021

May 25, 2021 - May 27, 2021

4. Waste Expo Australia 2021

October 27, 2021 - October 28, 2021

View All Events

©2020 Pump Industry. All rights reserved

CONTACT US
8/9
We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you,
asap.

Sending

9/9
Centrifugal Pumps – Minimum Flow
globalpumps.com.au/engineering/centrifugal-pumps-minimum-flow

Calculate the Minimum Flow for a Centrifugal Pump

Fluid cavitation and pump failure may occur if the liquid within a centrifugal pump
starts to vaporize. The pressure and temperature and flow through a pump must be
carefully monitored to prevent process fluid vaporization within a pump casing. Because
the pump’s motor is a continuous heat source, removal of its heat is an important
consideration when trying to keep the fluid below its saturation temperature at the
pressure within the pump.

Minimum flow through a pump can be

estimated with the following equation.

where:

q = minimum flow rate

PBHP = power input in BHP

Cp = Specific heat of the fluid (BTU/lb

°F)

SG = Specific gravity of the fluid

You may also be interested in the chemical resistant

diaphragm pumps or other products available such as best
pumps for slurry, electric drum pump and diaphragm
pumps for sale.

1/1
 O0NF-92O732--1

EE92 014438
OPERATING PUMPS ON MINIMUM FLOW"

D. A. Casada, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Y. C. Li, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Abstract

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations in Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 require that
components important to safety be designed and tested to quality standards commensurate with the
importance of the safety functions to be performed. The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a
reference the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
for criteria in conducting inservice testing of pumps. The ASME Code allows the performance of
pump inservice testing using mini-flow bypass loops. Operating experience and studies performed
for the Nuclear Plant Aging Research Program (NUREG/CR-4597 Vols. I and II) showed that a
leading cause of pump problems and failures is associated with hydraulic instability phenomena
induced by low flow operation.
The NRC staff issued Information Notice (IN) 87-59 to alert all licensees to iwo miniflow
design concerns identified by Westinghouse. The first potential problem discussed in this IN
involves parallel pump operation. If the head/capacity curve of one of the parallel pumps is greater
than the other, the weaker pump may be dead-headed when the pumps are operating at low-flow
conditions. The other problem relates to potential pump damage as a result of hydraulic instability
during low-flow operation. In NRC Bulletin 88-04, dated May 5, 1988, the staff requested all
licensees to investigate and correct, as applicable, the two miniflow design concerns. The staff
also developed a Temporary Instruction, TI 2515/105, dated January 29, 1990, to inspect for the
adequacy of licensee response and follow-up actions to NRC Bulletin 88-04.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory has reviewed utility responses to Bulletin 88-04 under the
auspices of the NRC's Nuclear Plant Aging Research Program, and participated in several NRC
inspections. Examples of actions that have been taken, an assessment of the overall industry
response, and resultant conclusions and recommendations are presented.

* 'Research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Interagency Agreement DOE 1886-8082-8B with the U. S. Department of Energy
under contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400 with the Martin Marietta Energy Systems. Inc.

OKTfllBUTJOU u r I n i a n B r i l M E - r (s
 OPERATING PUMPS ON MINIMUM FLOW

Background

Historically, minimum flow capacity for centrifugal pumps was based on ensuring that the
temperature rise through the pump was not excessive. As a general rule of thumb, the minimum
flow rate was specified so that the temperature rise through the pump would be less than 15°F (it
should be noted that this rule of thumb was not universally applied, and temperature rises greater
than 50°F have been used for some pump applications).
It has been recognized for many years that in higher energy density pumps at low-flow
operation, destructive hydraulic forces, not temperature rise, limit safe minimum flow. Unsteady
flow conditions within the pump result in substantial radial and axial forces (static as well as
dynamic) on both the stationary and rotating parts. Resultant damage can be manifested in a
number of ways, including impeller or diffuser breakage, thrust bearing and/or balance device
failure due to excessive loading, cavitation damage on suction stage impellers, increased seal
leakage or failure, seal injection piping failure, shaft or coupling breakage, and rotating element
seizure^-). In addition to the internal forces generated by unsteady flow within the pump itself,
interaction between the pump and the system at low-flow conditions can result in substantial
surging and vibration that can affect not only the pump, but other system componems and
supports.
As the effects of low-flow operation have become better understood by pump technologists,
design modifications that can reduce unsteady flow conditions have been developed.
Modifications to pump geometries have been demonstrated to allow operation at lower flow rates
with substantially reduced impact^. Some pump original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and
non-OEM repair shops now offer design options or retrofits that allow pumps to be operated
acceptably at reduced minimum flow. However, there remain in service a large number of pumps
that were not designed specifically to allow operation under low-flow conditions and for which no
modifications have been made.
In May of 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Bulletin 88-04, "Potential
Safety-Related Pump Loss." The Bulletin addressed two general concerns:

• The potential for dead-heading one of two pumps when operated in parallel
• The adequacy of pump minimum flow protection provided by the installed minimum flow
lines.
 With regard to the first concern, the Bulletin specifically discussed the potential problem of
parallel pump operation during minifiow operation, noting that the stronger of two pumps can
dead-head the weaker pump. It was also noted that the strong/weak pump situation is not a
problem at moderate to high flow conditions because of the shape of pump head-capacity curves in
those regions. Relative to the second item, the Bulletin noted that pump manufacturers now advise
that desired minimum flow capacity is greater than was originally specified for some pumps. The
Bulletin required that all plants conduct a review of all safety-related pumps.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), under the auspices of the NRC's Nuclear Plant
Aging Research Program, reviewed industry responses to the issues identified in the Bulletin®.
The principal purpose of the study was to provide a general assessment of the type and extent of
actions taken in response to the Bulletin. The review consisted of several elements:

• Discussions with representatives of several pump manufacturers

• General review of all utility correspondence to the NRC responding to the Bulletin
• Review of the distribution of pump suppliers whose pumps are used in selected systems
• Detailed on-site review at selected plants

The results of this study are summarized in this paper.

ORNL also participated in individual plant inspections in support of NRC's Nuclear Reactor
Regulation activities. The inspections were conducted to review the adequacy of the specific
plants' responses to the Bulletin. Some observations made during the inspections are presented.

Discussions with Pump Manufacturers

ORNL met with representatives of four of the major manufacturers of pumps used in safety-
related service in U.S. plants. These four manufacturers together have furnished about 75% of the
pumps used in the safety-related systems of primary concern.
Three of the principal areas of discussion, and the results of the discussions are provided
below.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi-
bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-
ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-
mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinion! of authors expreued herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
 • Which types of pumps are most susceptible to low-flow degradation?
The pumps noted to be most susceptible to low-flow degradation were high energy and high
suction specific speed (high flow, low NPSH required) pumps.

• What are the associatedfailure modes?

Failure/degradation modes associated with low-flow operation that were most often mentioned
were seal failure, occasional shaft breakage, bearing failure, excessive wear of wear rings, and
cavitation damage.

• What are some possible means for demonstrating a pump's ability to successfully operate
under low-flow conditions?
The OEMs identified a couple of correlations that can provide some very general insights into
the relative requirements for pump minimum flow^-^. However, the use of the generic
correlations to address 88-04 was discouraged.
There was fairly uniform agreement that there was a need to be able to measure the forces
present (for example, radial thrust) in order to predict component life. It was recognized,
however, that this is not practical for field-installed pumps. There was a general consensus that
with the current state of understanding, a properiy conducted field test could verify that particular
pump's capability under the test conditions. One manufacturer noted that tolerance stack-ups and
pre-test service life could play major roles in the results of such testing. Another manufacturer
noted that in tests conducted by their company overseas, the hydraulically induced forces
associated with several pumps of the same model varied by a factor of three to four.
Several of the manufacturers emphasized the need for a test program to address intermittent
operation at low flow, in light of the fact that there is no objective data related to such operation.
The subject of the suitability of current monitoring practices was discussed. There was
consistent agreement that testing pumps under miniflow conditions was of little value, from a
hydraulic performance demonstration standpoint. The vendors observed that of the means that are
currently practicable, spectral vibration monitoring and trending was the best indicator of
potentially damaging conditions. However, it was noted that monitoring capability for some
pumps (specifically deep-well pumps) was limited. It was also noted that the parameter that most
needed to be measured was force on pump components, and that could only be accurately
monitored currently using intrusive means. Two changes to current in-service testing practices
were recommended:
• Periodically conduct testing at close to the pumps best efficiency point (BEP) to verify that
the pump performance has not substantially degraded.
• Minimize or discontinue practice of routinely testing pumps at minimum flow conditions in
order to demonstrate pump operability.
 Assessment of Written Plant Responses

General Discussion

The correspondence from all plants to the NRC on Bulletin 88-04 was reviewed to provide an
indication of the range of actions taken in response to the Bulletin. The review evaluated the
licensees' analyses and data for low-flow operation presented in their response and determined
what actions, in terms of design changes, procedure changes, special inspections, etc., have been
or will be made.
The level of information provided in the correspondence varied substantially. For some plants,
there was a fairly detailed discussion of original and current minimum flow recommendations and
existing system configuration, as well as an identification of specific design, procedural, or other
changes made to address Bulletin concerns. There were also a number of responses that provided
only an indication that the issues had been reviewed, with little or no system/pump specific
information provided.

Procedural and Design Changes and Special Testing

An attempt was made to determine the extent and types of procedural and design changes made
in response to the Bulletin, as well as special tests that were conducted.
The distribution of identified changes, by system, for both pressurized water reactors (PWRs)
and boiling water reactors (BWRs) is provided in Figures 1 and 2. It should be recognized that it
is likely that there were procedural or other administrative actions taken that were not identified in
the written responses, and are thus not reflected in these figures.

HI P7\ R F7L
ESW HPSI/CCP LPSI/RHR
AFW ccw cs

Figure 1. Number of PWR units in which design and procedure changes were made
 6
5
1 1

I
4
3 i
2
1
1
0
ESW HPCI HPCS
1 LPCI/RHR LPCS RCIC

Figure 2. Number of BWR units in which design and procedure changes were made

Several different types of design changes were identified in the responses. These are indicated
in Figure 3. The majority of the design changes involved either increasing the size of the orifice in
the miniflow line or otherwise modifying the minimum flow line. It is noteworthy that no
modifications to pump design were identified in the written responses. Subsequent to the
completion of the review, verbal discussions have revealed one plant that is in the process of
modifying auxiliary feedwater pump impeller vane and diffuser clearances to minimize low-flow
operation problems.

PWR BWR

Changed control or alarm setpoint Orifice/miniflow line change

Installed check valve

Figure 3. Distribution of design changes, by type of change

 A total of 44 special tests or inspections that either had been conducted or would be conducted
to monitor pump condition were identified. About 2/3 of these tests were associated with either
low pressure core spray (LPCS), low pressure coolant injection/residual heat removal
(LPCVRHR), low pressure safety injection/residual heat removal (LPSI/RHR), or containment
spray (CS) systems.
A number of types of special analyses were also identified. Most of these involved parallel
pump competition. A total of 48 such analyses were specified. Almost half of these involved the
LPCI/RHR or LPSI/RHR systems. Twenty-one of the analyses were minimum acceptable flow
calculations, based on either a published correlation or on other undesignated bases. Note that
these analyses were performed by the utility (not by the pump manufacturer).
It was noted during the review that a substantial fraction of the design and procedural changes
were made by a relatively small portion of the industry. Figure 4 indicates that 80% of the changes
were made by about 30% of the plants. All noted changes were made by less than half of the
plants.

o
1
1
c
SO

Q
O

?3

o 100
Percentage of Plants

Figure 4. Distribution of procedural or design actions taken in response to NRC Bulletin 88-04
 Summary

The written response review made two principal observations:

• There are no generic guidelines for determining the acceptability of a pump for operation
under the various modes and times required in support of both normal and emergency
conditions, and
• The low-flow issue was not adequately addressed by all plants.

It was observed that the lack of generic guidelines essentially guaranteed that the issue would
not be uniformly and adequately addressed.

Individual Plant Inspections

The NRC has conducted inspections of several plants to review plant responses in more detail
than was possible through the correspondence review discussed above. ORNL participated,
primarily under the auspices of the Mechanical Engineering Branch, in four inspections conducted
at a single unit Combustion Engineering plant, a General Electric twin-unit plant, a single-unit
Westinghouse plant, and a three-unit facility comprised of a single Westinghouse unit and two
Combustion Engineering units. In addition, ORNL assisted the NRC in the review of another
plant's pump test and subsequent disassembly/examination program. These inspections served to
confirm the observations made during the review of the written responses. Some pertinent
observations made during the inspections are provided below.

Parallel Pump Competition

Personnel at one of the plants inspected had identified that parallel pump competition existed in
the RHR system, and was in the process of installing check valves to preclude competition in the
future. The actions being taken by the utility to address the pump competition were judged to be
appropriate.
During another inspection, the inspectors noted the potential for parallel pump interaction to
exist during a pump switch-over sequence. In this case, two RHR+ pumps share a common
minimum flow line, and normally only one pump is operated. The concern primarily exists during

t The RHR pumps in this plant are used soiciy Tor residual heat removal, unlike the dual function RHR/Iow
pressure injection pumps in most plants.
 the process of switching over from one pump to the other. The utility agreed that the potential
exists, and is in the process of identifying corrective actions.
The other two inspections also found situations in which it was not intuitively obvious that
pump competition would be precluded. In one case, personnel contracted by the plant to review
the Bulletin concerns had failed to note the absence of orifices in the minimum flow lines of the
core spray pumps for one unit (the orifices did exist on the other). The minimum flow lines from
two pumps joined into a common header, and it was not clear that the head losses prior to the
common header connection were sufficient to prevent pump competition. Subsequent hydraulic
analyses showed that competition should not occur. For the other plant, several minimum flow
lines, each of which carried several hundred gallons per minute, joined in a common header.
There had been no analysis performed to verify the absence of pump competition prior to the
inspection.
While the latter two situations have subsequently been found to be acceptable, they had not
been considered prior to the inspections, and are indicative of a somewhat superficial review.
It appears that the primary generic parallel pump competition concern (affecting several RHR
systems) has been adequately identified and addressed. The only new parallel pump competition
concern identified in the four inspections is specific to a single unit. It is unlikely that there are
additional pumps that are generically within any of the four NSSS scopes of supply, including the
emergency core cooling system pumps, for which a parallel pump competition problem exists that
has not been identified. This conclusion is based on the facts that no other parallel pump
competition situations were identified, and that most NSSS systems are reasonably similar in
design. However, the fact that three of the four plants inspected had conditions for which potential
competition existed, but had not been identified by the utilities, leaves some residual uncertainty.

Minimum Flow Adequacy

Most of the inspection activities were oriented toward the adequacy of minimum flow
provisions. At three of the four facilities, the majority of the OEMs had been contacted to
determine the current recommended minimum flow rate. None of these three plants had contacted
the service water pump OEM*. At the fourth facility (the three unit plant), however, the OEM for
only one pump had been contacted.

* Note that, generally speaking, the service water system pumps would normally be run at a substantial fraction of
design flow, and most likely minimum flow adequacy would not be a concern.
 For the fourteen pump applications at the four facilities which had been reviewed relative to the
manufacturer's current recommended minimum flow rate, the distribution of the level of
conformance with supplier recommendations shown in Table 1 was found.

Table 1. Level of Conformance to OEM Recommended Minimum Flow

Number Level of Conformance to OEM

of pumps Minimum Flow Recommendations
4 Fully meet current recommendations with existing configuration.
1 Meet current recommendations after completing system modification.
3 Nominally meet OEM recommendations (available flow is essentially equal
to that recommended).
2 Meet current recommendations, for most plant conditions. Some off-normal
(non-emergency) conditions could lead to operation outside the
recommendations.
4 Do not meet current recommendations.

The observations made during the on-site inspections relative to parallel pump competition and
the potential inadequacy of minimum flow supported the conclusion reached during the review of
the written responses that, generally speaking, the response to the low-flow degradation issue has
been relatively superficial. There was a considerable variation in the approaches taken by
individual plants involved in the inspection to address the Bulletin concerns.
Methods which were judged to be appropriate means of assuring adequate pump reliability that
were noted during both the written response review and during the inspections included:

• Verification that the pump minimum flow line supports a flow rate that meets the vendor
recommendations for continuous operation
• Verification that although the pump minimum flow line does not support a flow rate that
meets the vendor recommendations for continuous operation, it does support a flow rate
that meets a time-restricted flow rate, along with a verification that there are adequate
administrative controls to ensure that the pump is not operated for a time in excess of the
vendor recommendations
• For pumps which did not meet the vendor recommendations during regular operation, a
commitment by the plant to carefully monitor pump performance and to periodically
disassemble and examine the pump for signs of damage
 Approaches that have been taken in addressing the issue that were judged to not be adequate or
which had other weaknesses included one or more of the following:

• Reliance on static modeling of pumps

• Reliance on the absence of low-flow-attributed failures (i.e., not the absence of failures,
rather the fact thai none of ihe failures that had occurred had been attributed by plant
personnel to low-flow operation)
• Reliance on non-spectral vibration data from in-service testing
• Dependence upon instrumentation whose accuracy at test conditions was insufficient to
form solid conclusions
• Failure to have in place administrative controls which would assure compliance with pump
manufacturer recommendations
• The assumption of orifices being present in minimum flow lines when there were none
• Failure to recognize that off-normal procedural controls created situations where the pumps
would be operated outside the manufacturer recommendations (even though the plant had
determined that pump operation would fully comply with the recommendations when
operated under normal conditions)

While some of the above approaches are not without merit, the extent to which they were relied
upon (in various combinations) did not provide an adequate level of assurance that the pump would
operate reliably.
The site inspections revealed varying levels of appreciation for the types of damage that could
be manifested from operation of pumps at low flows. Some plant personnel had an excellent
understanding of the damage mechanisms and appropriate means of monitoring, while others were
not well aware of the potential problems.
Most plants had reviewed at least the historical failure data for the pumps at their plant;
however, there had been little done in the way of reviewing failure data more generically. For
example, one plant used an auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pump of the same model and with similar
minimum flow rates as another plant which had found substantial low-flow related damage when
the AFW pumps were disassembled and examined" . The plant personnel were not aware of the
experience at the other plant, even though the information was available through the Nuclear Plant
Reliability Data System.
AH of the plants inspected were using, or were in the process of developing, a pump spectral
vibration monitoring program which goes beyond ASME Code requirements. There appeared to

* The damage found ultimately resulted in the issuance of a 10CFR21 report from the manufacturer. See discussion
below under "A Postscript."
 be a need for improved monitoring and trending of the data, however. As an example, an auxiliary
feedwater pump at one plant showed substantial increases in vibration at vane passing frequency
during the two most recent tests. However, there was no programmatic monitoring and i.ending
practice to note the change; as a result, no actions were being taken to more carefully monitor the
pump. It should be noted that the ASME Code-required testing results did not reflect the increased
vibration at this frequency due to the fact that the in-service test program only monitored overall
displacement.

General Conclusions

Based upon the review of the written responses and the individual plant inspections, pump
competition concerns appear to have been adequately addressed by the utility reviews. However, it
appears that additional efforts are needed to resolve low-flow-related issues. Fundamentally, there
is a need for a better definition of how a pump could be qualified for low-flow operation. In order
to achieve the required level of definition, additional insights into the parameters that influence a
pump's ability to operate successfully at low-flow are needed. Also needed is a better
understanding of design or monitored parameters that could be used to make the necessary
determinations.
This issue is currently in the NRC potential generic issue prioritization process. The purpose
of the prioritization is to assess the safety significance of the issue and the need for additional NRC
guidance on evaluating and correcting miniflow deficiencies.

A Postscript

In September, 1991, at the time that the individual plant inspections were being completed,
Ingersoll-Rand issued a 10 CFR 21 report^ on broken cast iron diffusers in multistage pumps
used in AFW applications. The problem was initially identified at Surry Unit 2 in 1988.
Following a reactor trip, low flow to one steam generator was noted. Inspections found that pump
diffuser vane pieces had lodged in a venturi, thereby restricting flow.
Subsequent inspections found that cavitation damage to the AFW cast iron diffusers was
evident, particularly at the leading edge of the diffuser vanes. Damage was most evident at the first
stage diffuser, although damage was also seen in other stages. There was also damage found at
some areas of diffuser vane to shroud junctions, which was also believed to be the result of low-
flow induced cavitation erosion. Ingersoll-Rand noted that the primary cause of the breakage was
cavitation damage at the leading edge of the diffuser vanes which resulted from accumulated
operation of the pump at minimum flow.
 After finding indications of similar damage at other plants, Ingersoll-Rand issued the 10 CFR
21 report. It should be noted that in several of the instances in which damage was found, the
pumps were satisfactory, according to technical specification and AS ME-Code-required testing
results. This could be anticipated in light of the fact that the pumps are tested at minimum flow
conditions where internals degradation of this nature would not be detectable.
Ingersoll-Rand recommended periodic inspection of the pumps for damage of the diffusers,
and replacement of the cast iron parts with stainless steei, if necessary. They further recommended
conduct of periodic testing at higher flow rates, if possible.
At least one plant in our knowledge has elected to modify the AFW pumps by changing the
impeller/diffuser gap clearances. This type of design change has been successfully employed on a
large number of high energy fossil plant pumps. The potential benefit offered by this change, in
lieu of or in addition to the material replacement change, is the fact that the root cause of the
diffuser vane damage is being more directly addressed. This has the benefit of not only
minimizing cavitation damage, but also of minimizing overall loading on the pump rotating and
stationary parts, thereby minimizing other vibration-related problems which have resulted from
low-flow operation.
 References

1. M. L. Adams and E. Makay. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. Aging and Service Wear of Auxiliary
Feedwater Pumps for PWR Nuclear Power Plants. USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4597, Vol. 1
(ORNL-6282/V1). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986.

2. E. Makay and J. A. Barrett. "Changes in Hydraulic Component Geometries Greatly Increased

Power Plant Availability and Reduced Maintenance Costs: Case Histories." First International
Pump Symposium. Texas A&M University, May 1984.

3. D. A. Casada. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. Potential Safety-Related Pump Loss: An Assessment of
Industry Data. USNRC Report NUREG/CR-5706 (ORNL-6671). Washington, D. C :
Government Printing Office, 1991.

4. S. Gopalakrishnan. "A New Method for Computing Minimum Flow." Fifth International
Pump Symposium. Texas A&M University, 1988.

5. C. C. Heald and R. Palgrave. "Backflow Control Improves Pump Performance." Oil and Gas
Journal. February 25, 1985, pp. 96-105.

6. Letter to R. Fuhrmeister (U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) from G. Young (Ingersoll-

Rand), 10CFR21 Reportability of a Potential Safety Hazard From Broken Cast Iron Diffusor
Pieces in Auxiliary Feed Water Pumps, September 19, 1991.
 List of Acronyms

AFW auxiliary feedwater

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BEP best efficiency point
BWR boiling water reactor
CCP centrifugal charging pump
CCW component cooling water
CS containment spray
ESW emergency service water
HPCI high pressure coolant injection
HPCS high pressure core spray
HPSI high pressure safety injection
LPCI low pressure coolant injection
LPCS low pressure core spray
LPSI low pressure safety injection
NPSH net positive suction head
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OEM original equipment manufacturer
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PWR pressurized water reactor
RCIC reactor core isolation cooling
RHR residual heat removal
8/13/13 Print Article - Sizing a Minimum Flow Recirculation Line

This article is also available for viewing online at http://kb.eng-software.com/questions/202/

Sizing a Minimum Flow Recirculation Line

Most pumps have a minimum flow rate that they should not operate below. The pump manufacturer provides this
value. Operating a pump below the specified minimum flow rate can greatly reduce a pump's life. Typical problems that
can occur with sustained operation below the minimum flow are excessive temperature rise of the pumped fluid, higher
radial bearing loads, higher axial thrust, and excessive noise and vibration. Care should be taken to ensure that the pump
manufacturer's minimum flow recommendations are always met.

The minimum flow line (which flows back to the pump sump or suction tank) should be located between the pump
discharge and the pump isolation line. The pipeline should be directed to the sump in order to avoid turbulence in the
pump suction line. The minimum flow recirculation line should never be directed back to the pump suction. This will cause
overheating of the recirculation fluid and excessive turbulence in the pump suction. The figure below shows a minimum
flow recirculation line modeled in PIPE-FLO:

To size the minimum flow recirculation line:

1. Draw and design the minimum flow recirculation line from the pump discharge to the pump supply tank as shown
in the figure above.
2. Install an orifice in the minimum flow recirculation line and set it to the pump's minimum flow value.

NOTE: The pump's minimum flow rate can be obtained from the Design Notes dialog box in the pump selection
module. If a value is not listed in the dialog box, you should consult the manufacturer.
3. Click the Open/Close button and close the line leading out to the system.
4. Click the Calculate button.
5. Size the orifice by double-clicking on the orifice and clicking on the size button in the lower right hand side of the
dialog box. Click OK and PIPE-FLO places the calculated size in the Size box.

kb.eng-software.com/questions/202/__print 1/1
Sizing a Minimum Flow Recirculation Line
kb.eng-software.com/eskb/pipe-flo/modeling-piping-system-devices/sizing-a-minimum-flow-recirculation-line

by Engineered Software, Inc.

For most pumps, there is a minimum flow rate that they should not operate below. The
pump manufacturer provides this value. Typical problems that can occur with sustained
operation below the minimum flow are: an excessive temperature rise of the pumped
fluid, higher radial bearing loads, higher axial thrust, and excessive noise and vibration
all of which can greatly reduce the life of the pump. Care should be taken to ensure that
the pump manufacturer's minimum flow recommendations are always met.

The minimum flow line (which flows back to the pump sump or suction tank) should be
located between the pump discharge and the pump isolation line. The pipeline should
be directed to the sump in order to avoid turbulence in the pump suction line. The
minimum flow recirculation line should never be directed back to the pump
suction. This will cause overheating of the recirculation fluid and excessive turbulence
in the pump suction. The figure below shows a minimum flow recirculation line
modeled in PIPE-FLO:

To size the minimum flow recirculation line:

1. Draw and design the minimum flow recirculation line from the pump discharge to
the pump supply tank as shown in the figure above.

1/2
 2. Install an orifice in the minimum flow recirculation line.
NOTE: Consult the manufacturer for the minimum flow rate.
3. Click the Open/Close button and close the line leading out to the system.
4. Now specify a diameter size for the orifice through the property grid in the
diameter field until the minimum flow rate is calculated.
"Sizing an Orifice in PIPE-FLO 12" is Knowledge Base # 479 and the link is under
Related Articles below.
5. Click the Calculate button.

For reference to older versions of PIPE-FLO see attachments below.

Sizing a Minimum Flow Recirculation Line old.pdf

2/2
Working with Minimum Flow
pumpsandsystems.com/working-minimum-flow

Breadcrumbs

by Lev Nelik
12/17/2011

Pumps & Systems, November 2007

Our repair shop came upon a customer that purposely buys oversized pumps and
immediately operates them at nearly 80 percent closed valve. Each year, after the hot
days of summer simmer down, they evaluate the pumps' performance by measuring
flow. If the flow dropped by more than ~10 percent, they slightly open the valve (say 70
percent closed) to compensate and run the pump at this new valve position the next
season.

They felt proud of this "pro-active" maintenance program. They pumped mostly clean
water, did not worry much about spills and catastrophic failures, and periodically
changed packings. Despite vibration levels being around ~0.7-in/sec (pumps were held
to the sole plates by only half the number of bolts required, and some sole plates did not
even have holes drilled), they did not feel they had any problems.

Each year, several pumps would reach the point where a valve could not open any
further. These units were sent to be overhauled. Once the pump returned from the
repair shop, the valve was again set almost closed and the story was repeated.

In this profitable privately-owned company, the same mechanics that took care of the
pumps also paved the driveways, fixed roofs, and worked on employee cars in their
shop. The pumps were rather noisy, but were installed inside the buildings where
anyone rarely went (other than to periodically open the valves a bit more). This noise
didn't bother anyone, but for those who did complain, the advice was not to listen, or to
use plugs.

Another pump repair shop that serviced these folks was regarded as friendly,
reasonable and always willing to pick up a worn out pump at the end of each season on
time. The only reason we got involved was by accident. At first, it was rather difficult to
discuss the concept of BEP, MCSF, vibration criteria, and the need to actually bolt the
pumps down so they didn't just sit there like rocket launches held mostly by the flange
connection. We talked about the dangers of running pumps significantly to the left of
the BEP, which brought us to the question: "What is MCSF"?

Minimum Continuous Stable Flow (MCSF) is defined as the minimum flow below
which the pump should not be operated continuously. It can operate there for a short
time (such as start-up), but not too long. The main reasons to avoid minimum flow are
1/4
unstable operation, high radial and axial thrust, vibrations and noise - all of which
ultimately deflect the shaft; damage the seal, bearings, and couplings; and reduce
reliability significantly. The value MCSF is established by the pump manufacturer and
guided by several factors, including pump type, pump energy level, pump Ns and Nss
and onset of recirculation, guiding specifications, and experience.

For critical, more sophisticated designs, on-set of suction recirculation often is a main
factor. 1 For simpler cases, field feedback and experience present opportunities for
simplified methods.2 To further clarify things, some specifications simply state the
allowable minimum flow (as well as maximum flow, on the other side of the BEP). For
example, API-610 spec requires no less than 60 percent as allowable, and no less than
70 percent as preferred.3

Regardless of which method is used, the main objective is to prevent the pump shaft
from deflecting excessively and causing seals to leak, bearings to overload, and the
coupling to overstress. It is intuitively (I must be careful here!) known that shorter and
thicker shafts resist deflecting force better, thus such shaft designs are preferred. The
measure of shaft "robustness" (its resistance to deflection, stiffness) is a so-called ratio,
L3/D4.

This ratio comes from the deflection formula: y = WL 3 / 3EI, or deflection at the end of
a cantilevered shaft. Since the moment of inertia for a round bar is I = π x d4 / 64, then
substituting we get: y = (64W / 3Eπ) x L 3/D4 = k x L 3/D4. Thus, for the same load, the
lower the quantity (L3/D4), the lower the deflection. Short, beefy shafts have lower
L3/D4, which is a good thing.

Consider a typical end suction ANSI design below (see Figure 1), a 1.5 x 1-6. The shaft
diameter under the sleeve is 1.125-in, and the length of the shaft from the bearing to
impeller centerline is approximately 7-in, thus L3/D4 = 73/1.1254 = 214. Typically, end
suction pumps have this "slenderness ratio" between 10 to 300, the lower the better.
One of the reasons the design in Figure 1 has high value (214) is because it allows for a
double mechanical seal, which requires extra room to fit. Had the design been intended
for a single seal only, the shaft could have been shortened, to lower the ratio, but then
seal options would be limited.

Figure 1. A typical end suction pump design: the shaft is relatively slender,
with a high value of L3/D4

The radial hydraulic thrust is almost non-existent when a pump operates near its BEP,
but increases rapidly towards the shut-off by the approximate formula2: R = k x H x D x
b / 2.31, where H is pump head in feet, D and b are impeller OD and width at the OD (in
inches), and k an empirical factor. For single volute pumps, k = 0.36 x [1 - (Q/QBEP)2)
(same ref. [2], although even higher k-values were reported as well). For the 1.5 x 1-6
design, Dmax = 6.06", b ~ 1.0". Consider the pump performance in Figure 2.

2/4
Figure 2. Typical performance characteristics of the end suction ANSI
pump, size 1.5 x 1-6. Source: 2004 Goulds Pumps Manual, ITT Industries

We will not use a rated point (which is application specific) at reduced diameter, but
instead consider a full diameter scenario. At the BEP (100-gpm), the pump head is 130-
ft, but radial thrust is zero, since k = 0. At the shut-off (155-ft), radial thrust is
maximum (k = 0.36): R = (0.36 x 155 x 6.06 x 1.0) / 2.31 = 146.4 lbs, and shaft
deflection at the impeller is: y = 147 x 73 / [3 x (30 x E+6) x 3.14 x 1.1254) / 64] = 0.007
in.

Deflection at the seal is somewhat less and can be calculated by the similar formula,
which produces a value roughly half of that at the impeller centerline, i.e. 0.0035-in. As
most seal manufacturers recommend, less than 0.002-in deflection is allowed at the seal
faces for their proper, non-leaky, operation. Obviously in our example, near shut-off
operation produces deflection almost double the value allowed by seal manufacturers. It
is also possible to back-calculate the flow at which deflection at the seal would be exactly
0.002-in, by making the following tabulation (see Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1 shows that when the valve is closed to choke the flow to about 60 percent of the
BEP, deflection at the seal reaches limiting value. Thus the pump should not be allowed
to operate below this flow. The OEM performance curve shows MCSF is allowed to be as
low as 10-gpm (less then 10 percent of the BEP), where point shaft deflection at the seal
exceeds the limit; albeit for small, low energy pumps, this rule appears to be relaxed. (In
defense of the OEM, no known studies show a relationship between the deflection at the
seal faces and seal life, and a 0.002-in rule of thumb is the only known make-it-or-
break-it criteria.4)

For these reasons, larger pumps typically utilize a double volute, for which radial thrust
is more balanced and shaft deflections reduced significantly. A concentric volute is
another example of reducing shaft deflections, but with some sacrifice of pump
efficiency.

A modification of the ANSI end suction design recently entered the market, where rotor
design allows a much greater variation of the operating flow, significantly below a BEP
point. However, it requires a case-by-case evaluation of the system parameters to
ensure the dimensional envelope allows exact retrofit of a problematic pump, which the
new design replaces.

By the way, whatever happened to that customer? Nothing so far. But I will let you
know in a few years.

References:

3/4
 1. Frazer, H., "Flow Recirculation in Centrifugal Pumps," presented at ASME
meeting, 1981.

2. Stepanoff, A., Centrifugal and Axial Flow Pumps, 2nd edition, 1957

3. API-610, Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Heavy Duty Chemical, and Gas
Industry Services, Washington, DC.

4. Hydraulic Institute, Mechanical Seals for Pumps: Application Guidelines,

Parsippany, NJ, 2006.

Dr. Nelik (aka "Dr. Pump") is president of Pumping Machinery, LLC, an Atlanta-based
firm specializing in pump consulting, training, equipment troubleshooting, and pump
repairs. Dr. Nelik has 30 years experience in pumps and pumping equipment. He has
published over 50 documents on pump operations, the engineering aspects of
centrifugal and positive displacement pumps, and maintenance methods to improve
reliability, increase energy savings, and optimize pump-to-system operations. With
questions, comments, or to attend his Pump School, he can be contacted at
www.PumpingMachinery.com.

Missed your issue of Pumps & Systems

because you are not at work?

View our digital edition here.

Related Articles

From Our Partners

4/4
Rule-of-thumb For Minimum Flow Recycle
webwormcpt.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-of-thumb-for-minimum-flow-recycle.html

Friday, August 3, 2007

Display problem ? Click HERE

"Is there a rule of thumb used in determining the flow required through the recycle line
on the pump discharge in case of minimum flow problem in pump? If yes, what
percentage of the pump flow is considered to flow through the recycle line."

Strainght forward answer...

PUMP FLOW = RECYCLE FLOW + DELIVER FLOW

Percentage can ranged from 10% to 50% (or even 60%) of PUMP FLOW may be
considered during design phase. I am recommending 30%-40%...However, this figure
shall always be checked & confirmed with actual selected pump when they are
manufactured.

There are at least four (4) main factors possibily determining pump MINIMUM
RECYCLE flow. There are :

a) Fluid temperature rise

b) Minimum stable flow
c) Internal recirculation
d) Thrust capacity

Fluid temperature rise

As fluid enters pump suction chamber, pump impeller will spin the fluid and energy
from shaft / impeller is transferred into fluid. However, there are mechanical losses
within the pump in the energy transferring process. The mechanical losses will be
transformed into acoustic energy (e.g. noise) and thermal energy (e.g. fluid temperature
rise). Acoustic energy may transfer to fluid, pump casing and piping and it is further
emitted to atmosphere as noise. Similarly thermal energy will also transfer to fluid,
pump casing and piping. However, pumping process is a rather “fast” action and in
general there is “insufficient time” for heat transfer from fluid to pump casing and
piping. Thus, majority of the thermal energy will stay in the fluid and eventually cause
fluid temperature rise (and/or liquid flashing). Reduce fluid passing pump results less
heat “carrier” and higher temperature rises and high potential of liquid flashing. Thus a

1/4
minimum flow can be established from fluid temperature rise. A process engineer may
needs to establish minimum flow of a pump from temperature rise perspective. The
principle is rather simple where

Energy loss to fluid = fluid thermal heat gain

Above has considered acoustic energy is zero.

Fluid temperature rise,

Where
h = pump head
g = gravity acceleration
e = pump shaft efficiency
Q = pump flow
Cp = fluid specific heat

Minimum system stable flow

Sometime a pumping system may shows two stable flows at certain pump head. As a
result, it ”hunts“ or ”shuttles“ between these two flows and potentially damage the
pump and other equipment within the pumping system. For example, gas trapped in
the discharge line pocket. Trapped gas will reduce liquid flow path and increase line
pressure drop. Pump head increase push trapped gas towards downward piping. As
trapped gas move into the downward piping, liquid flow path increases and reduce the
pump head. Trapped gas will form smaller bubble due to fluid turbulence and it will rise
in the downward piping and finally back to the high pocket again. Similar cycle occurs
again and pump oscillate in two flows. A process engineer shall always piping system to
avoid pump operate in the oscillation region.

Internal recirculation
As flow rate decreases in the pump chamber, flow reversal will occur at the pump
suction and discharge vanes. Recirculation vortex will form at both ends and potentially
damage pump. Thermal heat gain within vortex will further increase pump fluid
temperature and potential flashing occurs.

Axial thrust load

Axial thrust in a pump increases rapidly as flows are reduced and head increased. A
minimum flow needs to be maintained so the thrust developed by the pump does not
impair bearing life.

Related Topic
Labels: Internal Recirculation, Minimum flow, Pump

posted by Webworm, 6:16 PM

0 Comments:
2/4
Post a Comment

Let us know your opinion !!! You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Home:
<< Home

Hot Posts

FOLLOW ME

Enter your email address:

SUPPORT This Site

FREE Info
Free Newsletter Free Magazine

Latest Posts
COLLECTION of Typical Overall Heat Transfer Coeffi... Rule-of-thumb to gage
suitability of Plate-Heat-Ex... What type of heat exchanger can be used to handle ...
FAYF - Heat Transfer - Useful Heat Transfer Equation Should we consider JET FIRE for
Pressure Relief Va... FLARE combustion efficiency An attempt to determine security
vulnerabilities i... Should Forced Draft or Induced Draft Air Cooler be... CE - Evaluation
and Advances in Flowmeters FAYF - Flowmeter selection in brief...

Links
Chem & Proc tech Oil & Gas tech Heat Exch tech Gen Tech Webworm DC Chemical and
Process Engineering Chemical Engineering World Smart Process Design ChEng

Visitors
(Since Apr. 21,2007)
3/4
Archives
April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007
November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008
May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008
November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009
May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009
November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010
May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November
2010 December 2011 July 2012 August 2012

4/4
What Is a Centrifugal Pump Minimum Flow Bypass
Line?
blog.craneengineering.net/what-is-a-centrifugal-pump-minimum-flow-bypass-line

Written by Sara Peters | September 14, 2017

Centrifugal pumps rely on fluid to keep cool and lubricated while operating. They also
rely on the fact that discharged fluid has somewhere to go. But what if the process
dictates it needs only a fraction of the pump’s minimum flow requirement? What if
there's a closed valve downstream? What happens when a pump’s basic hydraulic needs
are no longer met?

This is where a minimum flow bypass line is best applied. A bypass line is most
commonly used when there’s an issue meeting the minimum flow requirements, and/or
for protection against deadheading the pump.

A minimum flow bypass, or recirculation, line can be configured many ways. It could be
as simple as a continuous bypass, where the requirements are only piping and an
orifice. A more complex line could be set up to use a series of valves.

Below is an illustration of a simple minimum flow bypass line.

Meeting Minimum Flow Conditions

Every pump has a minimum flow requirement. Operating pumps at below minimum
flow can result in the following consequences:

Pitted/worn impeller vanes

Overheated casing/bearings
Excessive noise or vibration
Broken shafts
Mechanical seal failures
Poor performance efficiency

Adding a bypass line will allow the pump to sustain the minimum flow requirement,
even when the process requires less flow.
1/3
Protection Against Deadheading
Our Application Engineers always recommend installing a recirculation line when high
pressure pumps are in use. If a high pressure pump is deadheaded, significant damage
results for the pump or the system. Not only can this be an expensive mistake, but also a
cause for safety concern.

Recirculation lines provide a means of relief for high pressure pumps when operated
against a closed valve or other system obstruction.

Process Liquid Impact Consideration

Meeting minimum flow and protecting the pump against deadheading conditions are
the main reasons why recirculation loops are installed. But, they can also help keep
product in a desired state.

For instance, they can help turn a tank over and keep solids in suspension. They can
also keep fluids susceptible to change, due to temperature or shear thinning/thickening,
in the state preferred for process.

Some engineers have concerns about the inevitable wasted energy that comes from
using minimum flow bypass lines. It’s important that the system has been evaluated to
ensure the pump is properly sized for the application and the bypass line is absolutely
necessary.

If you’re not sure that a bypass line is right for you, consult an engineer who is well
versed in pump selection and pipe design.

2/3
Need help with a tough pumping application? Ask us about it! We gladly provide
technical assistance to businesses and municipalities in Wisconsin and upper
Michigan.

View full post

3/3