Unsteady Fluid Flow Analysis as Applied to the Internal

Flow in a Pump using ANSYS CFX

Yasushi Funaba
Toshiyuki Sato
Satomi Suzuki
Akimitsu Terunuma
Takahide Nagahara
Hitachi Plant Technologies, Ltd. (from April this year)

Abstract
Recent years have shown a growth in the utilization of virtual analysis models in the early part of the
product development cycle. This approach had been considered a more efficient method of developing a
product, since it reduces the number of prototypes required, hence, reducing actual development cost and it
expediates market release. Since the introduction of a PC cluster in our company, we had been able to
execute larger scale analysis with an increase in calculation speed. It also became possible to analyze the
internal flow in a pump using unsteady state with sufficient accuracy. There were some incidents wherein
steady state fluid flow prediction in not applicable. This report introduces some examples comparing
analysis results with experimental data as applied to some of our company’s products.

Introduction
Our company’s main focus is the development, design, production, sale, and aftercare of pumps and
blowers used in turbomachinery. Therefore, it was necessary to introduce an accurate analytical code for
turbomachinery.
After testing several analytical codes, we concluded that CFX-TASCflow (TASCflow) to be the best and
easy to use. Through development and evolution, ANSYS CFX is the present benchmark for
turbomachinery. However, some functions of TASCflow have been carried over and is still used in ANSYS
CFX. As for the analysis of the turbomachinery in our company, ANSYS CFX is becoming the standard
now.
On the other hand, three dimension CAD development is also remarkable, as a result, the mesher tool can
automatically make the mesh by using the obtained three dimension shape to a practical level, and it has
been able to greatly reduce time and costs that are needed to make the mesh.
A generable mesh in the automatic operation is only the tetra or a mixture of the tetra and the prism in the
current state, and ANSYS CFX can use these meshes. Therefore, the operation of this code is
comparatively easy, even for an analytical beginner.
Recent years have shown the growth in the utilization of virtual analysis models in the early part of the
product development cycle. This approach had been considered a more efficient method of developing a
product since it reduces the number of prototypes required, hence, reducing actual development cost and it
expediates market release. Since the introduction of a PC cluster in our company, we had been able to
execute larger scale analysis with an increase in calculation speed. It also became possible to analyze the
internal flow in a pump using unsteady state with sufficient accuracy. There were some incidents, wherein,
steady state fluid flow prediction in not applicable.
Figure 1 shows the calculation accuracy of the pump performance (Head) in steady flow analysis. It is
understood not to be corresponding to the centrifugal pump with diffuser vane, the double-suction volute
pump, and the axial pump.
 20 Double-Suction Volute Pump
Centrifugal pump with diffuser vane
Centrifugal pump
15
Difference between measured
and analyzed value(%)
Centrifugal Mixed-flow pump Mixed-flow pump1
Mixed-flow pump2
pump
（％）

10 Axial pump

Not to be
value 実験値－計算値　

0 corresponding
-5

-10

-15

-20
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Ns Axial pump
Centrifugal pump Double-suction
with diffuser vane volute pump

Figure 1. The calculation accuracy of the pump performance (Head) in steady flow
analysis

This report introduces some examples comparing analysis results with experimental data as applied to some
of our company’s products.

Case Study 1: Centrifugal pump with diffuser vane

Figure 2 shows a centrifugal pump with diffuser vane that is a RFP(Reactor feed pump). Since the impeller
exit is near the diffuser vane tip, rotor-stator interaction is strong.

Figure 2. RFP(Reactor feed pump)

Figure 3 shows an analytical result by the steady analysis (frozen/rotor model). It tends to excessively
evaluate the loss in the diffuser vane, and an unnatural vortex is created as indicated by the arrows.
However, such an unnatural vortex disappears if the unsteady fluid analysis (rotor/stator model) is used.

Figure 3. An analytical result by the steady analysis (frozen/rotor model)

But, if the unsteady fluid analysis is used from the beginning of CFD, we need a lot of analytical time.
Figure 4 is one of the ideas to evade this. The analysis for steady state is calculated in the beginning in tens
of steps. This result is adjusted to an initial value and it is shown to be able to obtain the stability solution
by rotating the impeller five times.
Steady Analysis: tens of steps

The stability solution

Unsteady Analysis by rotating the impeller
five times
Stability Solution

0.843

0.836

Initial value 0.829

Pressure coefficient

0.822

0.815

0.808

0.801

0.794
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number that impeller rotated

Figure 4. One of the ideas to obtain the stability solution

Figure 5 shows an analytical result by the unsteady analysis (rotor/stator model). It is understood that an
unnatural vortex in the diffuser vane disappears by the process of changing from a 180 deg rotation position
to a 360 deg rotation position.

180deg rotation position 360deg rotation position

Figure 5. An analytical result by the unsteady analysis (rotor/stator model)

Figure 6 is the comparison of heads of unsteady fluid analysis and steady fluid analysis. It is almost
corresponding in unsteady fluid analysis though it is about 15% lower than the measurement value in
steady fluid analysis.

1.5

1.4
Unsteady Analysis
1.3
Normarized head

1.2
Measurement Value
1.1

1
Steady Analysis
0.9
Frozen/rotor(100%Q)
0.8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Rotation angle (deg)

Figure 6. The comparison of heads of unsteady fluid analysis and steady fluid analysis
Case Study 2: Double-Suction Volute Pump
Figure 7 shows the structure of double-suction volute pump.
Volute Impeller

Discharge

Suction

Figure 7. The structure of double-suction volute pump

Example 1: Ns=135
Figure 8 shows a relative position of the blade and a leading edge of the division wall. The flow might be
different for steady fluid analysis according to the relative position of the blade and leading edge of the
division wall (or Tongue). Figure 9 shows three kinds of blade position. Fluid analyses have been done in 3
positions.

Blade position 1 Blade position 2 Blade position 3

Figure 8. Relative position of blade and Figure 9. Three kinds of blade position
leading edge of division wall

Figure 10 shows an Entire grid and impeller grid. In this example, a non-structural grid was adopted. Figure
11 shows streamlines of analytical result.

Figure 10. Entire grid and impeller grid Figure 11. Streamlines of analytical result
Figure 12 shows a velocity vector of steady analysis and unsteady analysis. In the steady fluid analysis, an
unnatural flow is formed by generating the low flow velocity region, and causing the recirculation in the
impeller. Such a flow doesn't exist in unsteady fluid analysis.

Steady analysis Unsteady analysis

Blade position 1

Figure 12. Velocity vector of Steady analysis and Unsteady analysis

Figure 13 shows the comparison between a measurement value, steady fluid analysis, and unsteady fluid
analysis. It is understood that the accuracy of unsteady fluid analysis is better.

Pressure Coefficient Normalized Efficiency

1.2 1.1

1.15
1.05
1.1
Pressure Coefficient

1
Normalized Efficiency

1.05

1 0.95

0.95
0.9
0.9
Unsteady analysis Unsteady analysis
0.85 Steady analysis
0.85 Steady analysis
1.15 Measurement Measurement
0.8 0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rotation angle(deg) Rotation angle(deg)

Figure 13. The comparison between a measurement value, steady fluid analysis, and
unsteady fluid analysis
Example 2: Ns=333
Figure 14 shows another example of the analysis for steady state that makes the blade position a parameter
and analyzes it.
Especially, the flow situation in the vicinity of the leading edge changes with the blade position. Figure 15
shows the result with unsteady fluid analysis. The flow separation occurs in the analysis for steady state
toward the outside of the leading edge, in unsteady fluid analysis it occurs toward the inside of the leading
edge, and it differs obviously. To apply the result of the analysis for steady state to the design of volute as it
is, involves risk.

Figure 14. The analysis for steady state that makes the blade position a parameter

Figure 15. The result by unsteady fluid analysis

Figure 16 shows the comparison between a measurement value, steady fluid analysis, and unsteady fluid
analysis as shown in example 2. As with example 1, it is understood that the accuracy of unsteady fluid
analysis is better.
 1.25 1.06
Unsteady analysis, Measured pressure coefficient
1.225 Pressure coefficient
1.03
1.2
1.175

Efficiency
1.0
Coefficient

1.15 Measured efficiency

Pressure全揚程[m]

Unsteady analysis,

効率[%]
Efficiency
1.125 0.97

Normalized
1.1
Steady analysis, Efficiency 0.94
1.075
1.05
0.92
1.025 Steady analysis,
Pressure coefficient
1.0 0.89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
羽根車位置(deg)
Rotation angle(deg)
Figure 16. The comparison between a measurement value, steady fluid analysis, and
unsteady fluid analysis

Figure 17 shows the difference of double-suction volute pump which is the in-phase impeller and the
varying phase impeller. Figure 18 is a result of these unsteady fluid analyses.
The varying phase impeller shows double the frequency in the number of blades with the in-phase impeller,
and it is understood that the amplitude of the pressure change is about a half. The varying phase impeller
has the possibility to decrease noise and vibration more than the in-phase impeller.

The in-phase impeller The varying phase impeller

Offset arrangement

同相羽根車
Figure 17. The difference 異相羽根車
between double-suction volute pump which is the in-phase
impeller and the varying phase impeller
 24.5
1.25
Measured, in-phase impeller
The in-phase impeller

Analysis, in-phase impeller The amplitude of the

pressure change is large
Coefficient

24
1.2
Pressure全揚程[m]

23.5
1.175
The varying phase
Analysis, varying phase impeller impeller

Measured, varying phase impeller The amplitude of the

1.15
23 pressure change is small
1 21 41 61 81 101 121
Analysis step
Figure 18. The comparison of head fluctuations between the in-phase impeller and the
varying phase impeller

Case Study 3: Axial Pump

Figure 19 shows the structural chart of the axial pump. Figure 20 is the comparison of the steady fluid
analysis and the unsteady fluid analysis for the secondary flow in an A-A section. When using unsteady
fluid analysis the flow was almost identical, however when using steady fluid analysis the flow became
irregular and was unnatural as a whole.

Guide vane(10)

A A

Impeller(3)
Figure 19. Structure of the axial pump
 Secondary flow in guide vane
Steady Analysis Unsteady Analysis
Irregular Almost identical
Section A-A Section A-A

Vortices are generated

Figure 20. The comparison of the steady fluid analysis and the unsteady fluid analysis

Figure 21 shows the comparison between a measurement value, steady fluid analysis, and unsteady fluid
analysis. It is understood that the accuracy of unsteady fluid analysis is better.

1.2

1.15 Measured pressure coefficient

1.1 Unsteady analysis,

Pressure Coefficient

1.05 Pressure coefficient

1

0.95

0.9
Steady analysis, Pressure
0.85 coefficient
0.8
0 50 100 150 200
Analysis step

Figure 21. The comparison between a measurement value, steady fluid analysis, and
unsteady fluid analysis
Conclusion
The analysis for steady state on the centrifugal pump with a diffuser vane, double-suction volute pump, and
axial pump might not be corresponding to the measurement value. Therefore, the unsteady fluid analysis
was applied in these cases. Figure 22 shows the results. By using the unsteady fluid analysis from this
figure, we can obtain data which is sufficiently accurate to use as a guidepost for design.

Double-Suction Volute Pump

20 Double-Suction Volute Pump (Unsteady)
Mixed-flow pump Centrifugal pump with diffuser vane
Difference between measured

Centrifugal pump with diffuser vane (Unsteady)

15
value(%)

Centrifugal pump
Centrifugal Mixed-flow pump1
10 pump
％）

Mixed-flow pump2
and analyzed （

Axial pump
value 実験値－計算値　

5 Axial pump (Unsteady)

-5

-10

-15

-20
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Ns
Centrifugal pump Axial pump
with diffuser vane Double-suction
volute pump
Figure 22. Improvement of accuracy by the unsteady fluid analysis