Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2019, Vol. 11(12) 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2019
Investigation of flow separation in a DOI: 10.1177/1687814019897832
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
centrifugal pump impeller based on
improved delayed detached eddy
simulation method

Yun Ren1,2 , Zuchao Zhu1, Denghao Wu3 ,

Xiaojun Li1 and Lanfang Jiang2

Abstract
The mechanism of flow separation in the impeller of a centrifugal pump with a low specific speed was explored by
experimental, numerical, and theoretical methods. A novel delayed Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes/large eddy simula-
tion hybrid algorithm combined with a rotation and curvature correction method was developed to calculate the inner
flow field of the original pump for the large friction loss in the centrifugal impeller, high adverse pressure gradient, and
large blade curvature. Boundary vorticity flux theory was introduced for internal flow diagnosis, and the relative velocity
vector near the surface of the blade and the distribution of the dimensionless pressure coefficient was analyzed. The
validity of the numerical method was verified, and the location of the backflow area and its flow features were deter-
mined. Finally, based on flow diagnosis, the geometric parameters influencing the flow state of the impeller were specifi-
cally adjusted to obtain a new design impeller. The results showed that the distribution of the boundary vorticity flux
peak values, the skin friction streamline, and near-wall relative velocities improved significantly after the design change. In
addition, the flow separation was delayed, the force applied on the blade was improved, the head under the part-load
condition was improved, and the hydraulic efficiency was improved over the global flow ranges. It was demonstrated that
the delayed Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes/large eddy simulation hybrid algorithm was capable to capture the separa-
tion flow in a centrifugal pump, and the boundary vorticity flux theory was suitable for the internal flow diagnosis of cen-
trifugal pump.

Keywords
Pump, improved delayed detached eddy simulation, boundary vorticity flux, hydraulic optimization, flow separation

Date received: 31 July 2019; accepted: 28 November 2019

Handling Editor: James Baldwin

Introduction
1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Zhejiang Sci-Tech
Centrifugal pumps are used in aerospace, nuclear University, Hangzhou, China
power, petrochemistry, and ocean engineering areas.1,2 2
Zhijiang College, Zhejiang University of Technology, Shaoxing, China
However, these pumps suffer from operational instabil- 3
College of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology,
ity and technical limitations that affect their design and Hangzhou, China
restrict their application. With strong rotation of the
Corresponding author:
impeller flow passage, large curvature, viscosity, and a Zuchao Zhu, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Zhejiang
high adverse pressure gradient, unsteady flow struc- Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China.
tures such as flow separation, vortex, and secondary Email: zhuzuchao@zstu.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
flow can occur. In addition, there are axial, radial, and
peripheral vortices of different sizes. The flow separa-
tion is particularly intensive under the part-load condi-
tions. This flow may exhibit intensive hydrodynamic
characteristics, decreasing the operational efficiency of
the centrifugal pump, shortening its service life, and
potentially causing severe accidents. Thus, there is a
significant need to study flow separation in the centri-
fugal pump and determine its mechanism.
In the past few decades, theoretical analyses, experi-
ments, and numerical simulation methods have been
used to study the problem of flow separation in a
pump. Traditional methods evaluate flow stability
based on such macroscopic information as velocity and
pressure. However, these methods are incomplete and
cannot be used to identify area of blade that required
for improvement. To address this problem, many scho-
lars have proposed new methods to study flow instabil-
ity. Dou3 proposed a method to characterize flow
instability based on an energy gradient and used this
method to describe flow instability in various types of
parallel flow geometric models and coaxial rotation
cylinders. This method was successfully used by Zheng
et al.4 to analyze the impact of the impeller passages on
flow stability in the centrifugal pump. Li et al.5 investi-
gated the variation of flow losses in a centrifugal pump
based on the velocity distribution and entropy genera-
tion fields. Wang et al.6 proposed an energy loss model
to optimize the design of a typical multistage centrifu-
gal pump. Recent studies by Zhou et al.,7 and Zhang
et al.8 introduced the theory of local vorticity dynamics
diagnosis, taking advantage of its ability to significantly
amplify unstable flow and examining the boundary vor-
ticity flux (BVF) distribution on the impeller blade to
investigate hydraulic performance. This approach was
successfully used to provide a reference for vortex
dynamics diagnosis to improve the hydraulic design of
the centrifugal pump impeller.
Other studies have used particle image velocity (PIV)
and pressure pulsation tests to study flow separation in
a centrifugal pump. Yang et al.9 performed a hydraulic
performance test on a centrifugal pump with a guide
vane and detected two regions of H–Q curve instability
under a low flow rate between 0.4Qd and 0.7Qd. And
the flow separation structure in the flow passage
between blades in the diffuser in the hump instability
region was analyzed using a pressure pulsation test and
high-speed flow visualization. Miorini et al.10 measured
the complex flow field in the tip region of an axial
water-jet pump using high-resolution PIV, revealed the
evolution process of the tip leakage vortex, and found
that the meandering of vortex filaments dominate pas-
sage flow. Keller et al.11 measured the flow separation
structure in a centrifugal pump with vaneless volute
using two-dimensional PIV, analyzed the dynamic evo-
lution of transient physical quantity in the pump with
impeller rotation, used spectral analysis to characterize
the energy at the blade-passing frequency, and elabo-
rated the dynamic transmission process of the vortex
within the impeller channel. Atif et al.12 studied the
flow structure of a mixed flow pump under off-design
conditions using the PIV technique. The results showed
that the instability of the performance curve was due to
the rotating stall, and the pressure pulsation frequency
spectrum exhibits two peaks, one correlating to the
rotor–stator interaction frequency and its resonance
frequency and the second correlating to the frequency
of vortex shedding arising from separation of the
boundary layer of the blade caused by the rotating stall.
The flow separation in the pump was demonstrated to
be an important source for the pressure pulsations and
the radial loads fluctuations.13
Experimental investigation is difficult due to the
inability to visualize the internal flow of a pump. As an
alternative, with the improvements of computer hard-
ware and the optimization of computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) algorithms, numerical simulation has
become an important tool to investigate flow.14–16 In
recent years, researchers have developed more effective
methods to study pump flow. By reference to a
dynamic hybrid model and a non-linear model, Yang
and Wang17 proposed a hybrid non-linear subgrid-scale
(SGS) model for large eddy simulation (LES) and con-
ducted preliminary numerical research on the pump
impeller of Pedersen.18 Compared with the PIV test,
the hybrid non-linear SGS approach enables more
accurate prediction of the low velocity zone in the flow
passage and allows easier capture of the turbulent
energy and the vortex structure in the turbulent flow
field compared with the dynamic subgrid approach.
Subsequently, Zhou et al.19 studied the detailed charac-
teristics of the rotating stall in the impeller under a
small flow using the above hybrid non-linear SGS
model and proposed three evaluation parameters of a
stall: blockage coefficient, stall cell size, and strength.
Detached eddy simulation (DES) and delayed detached
eddy simulation (DDES) methods developed by
Spalart et al.20 effectively combine the advantages of
LES and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(URANS), and it can be used to process large separa-
tion flow with a large Reynolds number with limited
computational resources. The DES-type or DDES-type
methods have been widely applied to multiple types of
flow simulation.21–23
In this article, the improved delayed detached eddy
simulation (IDDES) numerical method is used to study
the internal separation flow. Internal flow in the impel-
ler is diagnosed using boundary vorticity dynamics the-
ory. And the position of flow separation generated
within the centrifugal pump impeller is identified using
BVF, the skin friction streamline, and the surface pres-
sure distribution on a blade section at half span. The
Ren et al.
results are used to guide a new design for the impeller;
as a result, the improvement on global hydraulic per-
formance was achieved and pressure distribution on
blade surface was stabilized.
Development of a novel IDDES hybrid
method
IDDES hybrid methods
The IDDES24 method is a DES-type method and is the
latest version of a series of RANS/LES hybrid meth-
ods. In this work, the IDDES method proposed by
Shur was used. This method combines characteristics
of both DDES and WMLES (wall-modeled large eddy
simulation) models and can solve the problem of ‘‘Log-
Layer Mismatch’’ in the vicinity of the boundary layer
and accelerate the conversion from RANS to LES in
the separation zone. Compared with other DES mod-
els, IDDES further reduces the eddy viscosity coeffi-
cient of small subgrids in the logarithmic zone by
redefining the LES scale near the wall surface. The con-
version from the RANS zone to the LES zone is more
accurate based on the definition of lIDDES, the length
scale of the wall surface model, thus avoiding insuffi-
ciency of the Reynolds stress modeling in the RANS
zone and allowing the turbulent small-scale structure in
the LES zone to be distinguished.
The IDDES model used in this article was created
based on the k-v shear-stress transport (SST) model
with its transport equation as follows
 
∂k ∂k ∂ ∂k k 3=2
+ uj = ðn + s k n t Þ + Pk 
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj lIDDES
 
∂v ∂v ∂ ∂v
+ uj = ðn + s v n t Þ
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
v 1 ∂k ∂v
+ g Pk  fr  bv2 + 2ð1  F1 Þsv2 ð2Þ
k v ∂xj ∂xj
where the production term Pk reads as
Pk = y t S2 = 2yt Sij Oij ð3Þ
where F1 is the blending function, and the coefficients
in the SST model are the following: sk1 = 0.85, sv1 =
0.65, b.1p= 0.075, b* = 0.09, k = 0.41,g 1 = b1 =b 
ffiffiffiffiffi
sv1 k2 b ’ 0:46912, sk2 = 1.0, sv2 = 0.856, b2 =
0.0828, b* = 0.09, k = 0.41, and g 2 = b2 =b 
.p
ffiffiffiffiffi
sv2 k2 b ’ 0:44035.
For the dissipation term in the k equation in the
IDDES governing equation, lIDDES is defined by
 
lIDDES = e
f d  ð1 + fe Þ  lRANS + 1  e
f d  lLES ð4Þ
3
The two working modes of the IDDES method are
achieved by the conversion between the two types of
length scales. The DDES length scale lDDES and the
length scale of the LES wall surface lWMLES are defined
as follows
 
lDDES = e
f d  lRANS + 1  e
f d  lLES ð5Þ
lWMLES = fB  ð1 + fe Þ  lRANS + ð1  fB Þ  lLES ð6Þ
The definitions of lRANS and lLES differ from those
in the DDES method.20 The grid scale is modified as
follows
D = min½maxðCw Dmax , Cw dw , Dmin Þ, Dmax  ð7Þ
where the coefficients are as follows: Cw = 0.15; dw =
lRANS = k1/2/b*v; Dmax = max (Dx, Dy, Dz); Dmin =
min (Dx, Dy, Dz); and Dx, Dy, and Dz are the grid
length scale in the x, y, and z directions, respectively.
See Shur et al.23 for the expressions of f~d, fe, and fB
in the above functions.
Rotation and curvature correction
It is well known that k-v SST turbulence model is one
of linear eddy viscosity models (LEVMs), and the key
weakness of existing LEVMs is that they cannot cap-
ture the effects of streamline curvature and system rota-
tion, which significantly contribute to the turbulent
flows of pumps. An efficient approach to resolve this
issue was proposed by Spalart and Shur24 and is
described in the following.
The production term Pk of the k-v SST model is
ð1Þ
multiplied by a coefficient, and it is defined by
fr = maxfmin ðfrotation , 1:25Þ, 0g ð8Þ
2r 
 
frotation = ð1 + cr1 Þ 1  cr3 tan1 ðcr2er Þ  cr1
1 + r
ð9Þ
The empirical constants cr1, cr2, and cr3 are set equal
to 1.0, 2.0, and 1.0, respectively. The expressions of vari-
ables r* and er in equation (9) were described previously.25
In this work, fr is applied as a multiplier of the produc-
tion term Pk in the original k-v SST model as follows
Pk ! Pk  fr ð10Þ
The expressions of the mean stretching tensor Sij and
the intrinsic mean spin tensor Oij are defined by
1 ∂ui ∂uj
Sij = + ð11Þ
2 ∂xj ∂xi
1 ∂ui ∂uj
Oij = =  + 2ejim vm ð12Þ
2 ∂xj ∂xi
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 1. The impeller and volute.

Table 1. Main pump parameters.

Parameter Sign Value Unit Figure 2. Grid independency study data.

Flow rate at best efficiency point QBEP 27 m3/h

Head at best efficiency point HBEP 11.6 m
Rotation speed of impeller n 1450 r/min
Inlet diameter of impeller D1 0.075 m
Outlet diameter of impeller D2 0.198 m
Number of blades z 6 –
Outlet blade angle b2 42 °
Inlet blade angle b1 33.6 °
Total blade wrap angle g 110 °
Outlet width of impeller b2 0.009 m
Base circle diameter of volute D3 0.22 m
Outlet diameter of volute D4 0.05 m
Inlet width of volute b3 0.033 m

BEP: best efficiency point.

where vm is the vector form of angular velocity (m = 1,

2, and 3, representing the x, y, and z directions, respec- Figure 3. Grids of pump model.
tively); ejim is the permutation symbol.

The grids of impeller and volute are shown in Figure 3.

Numerical setup and description
Pump model. In this study, the above-described govern-
ing equations were solved by ANSYS-FLUENT 16.2.
The low specific speed pump structure is shown in
Figure 1, and the main geometric parameters of the
pump are presented in Table 1.
Mesh generation. To increase the accuracy of numerical
computation, a structured grid partition was used for
the whole fluid domain. Different grid schematics were
tested, as shown in Figure 2. A local refined mesh was
applied near the wall, and the y + value near the
boundary wall was lower than 50. A grid independence
analysis was conducted before computation. As can be
seen in Figure 2, in Schemes 3–5 (more than ;1.57 mil-
lion grids), the pump head fluctuates little with
increased grids. Therefore, Scheme 4 was adopted.
Solution parameters. The time-dependent governing
equations were discretized in both space and time
domains. A high-resolution scheme was adopted for
the advection term, and a second-order backward
Euler algorithm was used for the transient term. The
equations used the finite volume method for dispersion
in space and used the second-order implicit scheme for
dispersion in the time domain. A time step of 0.001149
s was used, equal to 1/360 of the rotation period. For
spatial differences in physical quantity, the diffusion
term included the second-order central difference. The
decoupling of the velocity pressure used the semi-
implicit method for pressure-linked equations-consis-
tent (SIMPLEC) algorithm. To balance computational
resources and accuracy, the residuals were 10–5 for 20
iterations in each time step in this study.
Ren et al. 5

To rapidly achieve computational stability, the

improved SST steady-state model was used to solve a
steady flow field result and the steady-state case result
as the initial flow field for the unsteady simulation. The
IDDES model was used with the above initial values.
Sufficient computational time was used to guarantee
accurate statistics (average velocity and average pres-
sure) in the flow field after stabilization of the flow.
The computation proceeded for 20 revolutions of the
impeller. Given that the goal was to understand the
mechanism of flow separation, the following flow con-
ditions were selected: 1.2QBEP, 1.0QBEP, 0.8QBEP,
0.6QBEP, 0.4QBEP, and 0.2QBEP.

Results and discussion

Flow field visualization experiments
The hydraulic performance and PIV inner flow experi- Figure 4. Test system.
ments were performed in the laboratory of the Research
Center of Fluid Machinery Engineering and Technology
of Jiangsu University, as shown in Figure 4. The
PIV test errors, pressure sensor calibration, motor
speed, shaft power, and flow measurement uncertainty
analyses for this pump are discussed in detail in
literature.26,27
The test region of the impeller is illustrated in
Figure 5, and the six different flow passages are named
as no. 1 to 6. In the test, three sections of the impeller
flow passage were selected in the midsection and sec-
tions near the shroud and hub. To determine the photo-
graphed section of the shroud and hub, the laser sheet
was adjusted to fit to the surface of the shroud and hub. Figure 5. Schematic diagram of testing region.
The laser sheet is 1–2 mm. To avoid the interference
from shroud and hub, the distance between the imaged
section and the shroud and hub was 0.5–1 mm. The
imaged section is shown in Figure 6. Sections 1, 2, and
3 in Figure 6 represent the cross section near the
shroud, middle section, and the cross section near the
hub, respectively. To explore the working conditions
that lead to flow separation, the flow rate was decreased
from 1.2QBEP to 0.1QBEP. The changes in the flow
structure in the impeller were observed as flow was
decreased. For simplicity, only the flow field in section
2 was analyzed.
Figure 7 presents the distribution of relative veloci-
ties from high flow to low flow within the section near
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of the test section.
the middle. The following conclusions can be drawn
from the results:

1. Under the large flow rate, the low velocity zones
are formed near the pressure surface (PS) and
areas of high velocity were near the suction
surface (SS). Thus, the SS is relatively more sta-
ble than the PS. With decreased flow rate and
under the action of impeller rotation, the low
momentum fluids near the PS increased gradu-
ally, causing the high momentum fluids near the
SS to move toward the exit.
2. The high-speed revolution of the impeller would
cause flow separation to occur near the PS. A
separation vortex starts to develop on the PS of
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Passage 1 at 0.6QBEP. With decreased flow, the
area of the separation vortex increases gradu-
ally, and the core area of the vortex separates
from the PS. A large separation vortex forms
move toward the middle and concentrate at the
impeller outlet.
3. In Passage 1, the number of separation vortices
and the vortex intensity decrease with the
decrease in flow rate. At 0.4QBEP, the separa-
tion vortex starts to evolve from a single vortex
to double vortices. The action range of the vor-
tex cluster increases with the flow decrease, and
separation vortex occurs in multiple flow pas-
sages. At 0.2QBEP, the multiple-vortex struc-
tures converge into a large vortex cluster, which
blocks the flow passage at the impeller outlet.
4. The separation vortices first appear in several
flow passages close to the tongue, particularly in
Passage 1. With the decrease in flow, the separa-
tion vortices expand into other flow passages.
The streamline in Passage 6 starts to show disor-
der at 0.6QBEP. Separation vortices occur on the
PS at 0.4QBEP. The single vortex evolves into
multiple vortex systems and expands toward the
outlet with decreased flow. Under the whole
flow range, no obvious flow separation occurs
Figure 7. Relative velocity distribution in section 2 under different flow conditions (unit: m/s): (1) 1.2QBEP, (2) 1.0QBEP, (3) 0.8QBEP,
(4) 0.6QBEP, (5) 0.4QBEP, and (6) 0.2QBEP.
in Passage 5 and the streamlines in this passage
are smoother than those in other flow passages,
which may reflect effects of the relative position
of the flow passage.
Behind the hub, Passages 2 and 3 are in the dark
region because the impeller hub blocks the laser, so the
laser intensity in this area is weak. The uneven distribu-
tion of laser in this area leads to more red spots and
blue spots in Passages 2 and 3 than in other passages.
Thus, there are significant errors in the velocity field in
this area. Also, as can be seen in Figure 7, the stream-
lines in Passages 2 and 3 are less smooth than those in
other passages under various working conditions, so
these are not included in the analysis of velocity fields.
Evaluations of the numerical framework
Figure 8 compares the pump head versus flow rate
(H–Q) curves. The rotating speed of the pump is
1450r/min. As shown in Figure 8, the parameters of the
pump at the best efficiency point (BEP) are as follows:
flow rate QBEP = 27.72 m3/h and head HBEP = 11.58
m. The specific speed was ns = 74 at the BEP (ns =
3.65nQ1/2/H3/4).
Ren et al.
Figure 8. Comparison of hydraulic performance between
experimental and numerical results.
The new IDDES model computation results were
more consistent with the experimental data than the
original one, especially when the flow rate was lower
than 0.6QBEP (17 m3/h). According to the H–Q curves,
the head relative discrepancies by new IDDES model
were about 5% both at 0.2QBEP (6 m3/h) and 1.2QBEP
(33 m3/h), but the head relative discrepancies under
other flow conditions were all less than 2.5%. There
were some differences between the actual experimental
model and the ideal model of numerical calculations
that were attributable to the manufacturing process
(e.g. stamping and welding). The observed deviations
also may be attributable to uncertainties in the instru-
ments, apparatus, and pipeline system during the test.
Leakage from the wear ring was neglected in the simu-
lation. Overall, the results show that the new numerical
method is credible.
It can be seen from Figure 7 that the separation vor-
tex started at 0.6QBEP. Therefore, in order to further
compare with the PIV test, the development of separa-
tion flow in the section 2 under 0.6QBEP was investi-
gated in Figure 9. As the impeller rotating at different
angles, it indicated that the new model was more accu-
rate than the original model in terms of the range of
low speed zone near the PS, the range of high
speed zone near the SS at the impeller inlet, the jet-
wake flow at the impeller exit and the structure vortex
in passage 1.
BVF internal flow diagnosis
BVF is the core concept of boundary vorticity
dynamics, originating from the boundary vorticity
model proposed by Lighthill28 in 1963. A source of vor-
ticity at a solid wall is not only the tangential pressure
7
gradient but also acceleration of the wall, curvature,
and skin friction. For a constant rotational speed, the
acceleration term is zero. For high Reynolds number,
the contribution of skin friction is negligible and the
effect of curvature is small (except at sharp edges
and corners). This is why, for a high Reynolds number
and away from sharp corners, the BVF reduces to
equation (13)
1_
sP =  n 3 rp ð13Þ
r
_
where n is the unit normal vector pointing out of the
fluid and r is the density of fluid.
In an incompressible fluid field with conservative
body force, BVF is the root cause of the occurrence and
diffusion of vorticity and can induce a series of flow
separation phenomena such as boundary layer separa-
tion, secondary flow, or large-scale separation. Wu and
colleagues29,30 established the theory of boundary vorti-
city dynamics. The torque applied on the blade can be
obtained by integration
ð þ
1 2 1
My =  rr spy dS + pr2 dy ð14Þ
2 2
Sb ∂Sb
where r is the radius of impeller, Sb is the blade surface,
∂Sb is the boundary of the blade surface, spy is the axial
component of the boundary vorticity flow sp caused by
the pressure gradient of the blade surface, and p is the
pressure. As can be seen in formula (14), controlling
the distribution of BVF on the blade surface can inhibit
flow separation and improve the force applied on the
blade, thus optimizing impeller design.
The skin friction vector is an important basis to eval-
uate flow separation. Its expression is
t =  mv 3 n ð15Þ
where m is dynamic viscosity, v is the vorticity, and n
represents the unit normal vector outward from fluid.
According to the judgment criterion for flow separa-
tion, the skin friction streamline converged in the flow
separation zone.
Based on the above analysis of PIV results, the flow
separation in the impeller flow passage starts at the PS
of blade 1 close to the tongue and increases in Passage
1. BVF contour distribution on the PS and SS of blade
1 was computed with the improved IDDES method,
Surface 1 is illustrated in Figure 10, and is offset by 0.5
mm from the blade surface. The simulated data by the
improved IDDES method for the skin friction stream-
line and the velocity distribution on Surface 1 are pre-
sented in Figure 11.
According to formula (14), the spy peak value, either
positive or negative, indicates excessively large pressure
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 9. Comparison of the numerical predicted and experimental separation flow evolutions under 0.6QBEP. (1) Exp. result at
0.6QBEP: (a) 0T, (b) 1/3T, and (c) 2/3T. (2) Cal. result by original model at 0.6QBEP: (a) 0T, (b) 1/3T, and (c) 2/3T. (3) Cal. result by new
IDDES model at 0.6QBEP: (a) 0T, (b) 1/3T, and (c) 2/3T.

gradient in this area. A dramatic stress change should

Figure 10. Schematic of Surface 1 and positions of monitoring
points (TE: tail edge; LE: leading edge).
be avoided. As can be seen in Figure 11, a large pres-
sure gradient and a positive peak value of spy occur at
the leading edge due to the severe impact from the
flow. A negative peak area occurs at the tail edge, indi-
cating the large pressure gradient in this area is due to
rotor–stator interaction. However, in the middle area
of the impeller flow passage, when the flow rate
decreased to 0.6QBEP, there was a strip of spy positive
peak area on the PS. When the flow further decreased,
the spy positive peak area expanded toward the tail
edge, indicating a dramatically increased vorticity gen-
eration rate. This spatial accumulative effect finally
would lead to large-scale separation. Thus, a high and
Ren et al.
Figure 11. Distribution of spy and skin friction streamline on
blade 1 and velocity vector on Surface 1: (1) BVF distribution on
the PS surface of blade 1 under different flow conditions: (a)
1.0QBEP, (b) 0.8QBEP, (c) 0.6QBEP, (d) 0.4QBEP, and (e) 0.2QBEP. (2)
BVF distribution on the SS surface of blade 1 under different
flow conditions: (a) 1.0QBEP, (b) 0.8QBEP, (c) 0.6QBEP, (d)
0.4QBEP, and (e) 0.2QBEP.
steep spy positive peak is a precursor of large-scale
separation. Based on the skin friction streamline and
the distribution of relative velocity vectors on Surface
1, under the flow condition of 0.6QBEP, flow separation
occurred in the spy positive peak area. This is the area
where the skin friction streamline converged to a point.
Back flow areas completely opposite to the main flow
areas started to occur in this area. With a further
decrease in flow, the flow separation area moved
toward the tailing edge. The area of the back flow area
also expanded, as indicated by the distribution of velo-
city vectors. Compared with the PS, the SS had a more
even distribution of spy. Based on the distribution of
the skin friction streamline on the SS and the relative
velocity vectors on Surface 1, when the flow decreased
to 0.2QBEP, back flow occurred and this area almost
covered the whole flow passage from the inlet to the
outlet. Overall, the simulated data are consistent with
the PIV results.
The dimensionless pressure coefficient distribution
(cp = (p 2 pinlet)/(0.5ru22)) on the intersection line
9
between the middle section of the flow passage and the
blade surface was quantitatively analyzed. As can be
seen in Figure 12, the value of Cp of the PS is larger
than that of the SS under large flow. When the flow
decreases to 0.6QBEP, the pressure of the SS is larger
than that of the PS when the blade surface pressure
along the flow direction length is 0.7. This corresponds
to the positive peak area of spy and is consistent with
the start of flow separation at the initial flow condition
of 0.6QBEP. As flow decreases, the area with a SS larger
than the PS expands to the outlet and almost occupies
the whole flow passage under 0.2QBEP, suggesting that
negative work applied on the fluid here.
The BVF diagnosis and distribution of dimensionless
pressure coefficients can reflect the conditions of pres-
surization and help identify design defects. There was a
large area from the middle part of the PS to the trailing
edge with a high-pressure gradient, suggesting unrea-
sonable pressurization. Thus, the optimization design
should focus on the PS.
Blade redesign and analysis
Redesign for blade. The problems of the original impeller
blade 1 present from the middle of the PS to the tailing
edge suggest that the area has a large curvature, thus
making the flow angle inconsistent with the blade angle
and increasing the risk of flow separation close to the
blade surface. Thus, the blade angles over the entire
length of the blade are reduced, by the way, the wrap
angle of blade and outlet width of the impeller are
increased. This normally leads to a steeper H–Q curve
and helps to make the blade load more even. Thus, the
difference between the flow angle and the blade angle is
decreased to eliminate flow separation in the flow pas-
sage. And further, this prevents the hump at part-load
conditions (since stall will inevitably happen at low
flow rate). The major geometric parameters of the
impeller following optimization are shown in Table 2.
Figure 13 presents the comparison between the original
blade and the optimized blade.
Analysis of results. The optimized impeller was subject to
three-dimensional reconstruction, mesh partitioning,
and numerical computation. The boundary conditions
and computational methods were the same as those
used for the original impeller. After computation, a
contour of spy distribution on the surface of the opti-
mized impeller was obtained according to formulas
(15)–(17), as shown in Figure 14. As can be seen in the
diagram, the distribution of spy on the PS of the
optimized blade is significantly more uniform; the spy
positive peak at the leading edge also decreases sub-
stantially. A strip-shaped spy positive peak area in the
middle of the flow passage still exists, but the peak
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 12. Distribution of pressure coefficients on the middle lines of the blade: (a) 1.0QBEP, (b) 0.8QBEP, (c) 0.6QBEP, (d) 0.4QBEP,
and (e) 0.2QBEP.

occurs at 0.4QBEP instead of 0.6QBEP. According to the

Figure 13. Comparison between the original blade and
optimized blade.
Table 2. Main pump parameters.
Parameter
Inlet diameter of impeller
Outlet diameter of impeller
Number of blades
Outlet blade angle
Inlet blade angle
Total blade wrap angle
Outlet width of impeller
distribution of the skin friction streamline and the sur-
face relative velocity vectors, the skin friction stream-
line starts to converge at 0.4QBEP. An obvious back
flow area occurs also at 0.4QBEP. This indicates that
the optimized impeller inhibits the back flow area in
the flow passage, and the hydraulic loss is reduced and
the efficiency is improved for the optimized impeller.
Comparison of Figures 11 and 14 reveals that the
significant difference in flow field distribution between
the original blade surface and the optimized blade sur-
face starts to occur at 0.6QBEP. Figure 15 presents the
distribution of skin friction coefficients on the middle
lines on blade 1 before and after optimization. As can
be seen in the diagram, the original blade PS has a large
area (x/c = 0.08–0.7) with a small skin friction coeffi-
cient. The skin friction coefficient approximates 0 at
x/c = 0.57, indicating the presence of a separation flow
here, which basically corresponds to the position where
Sign Value Unit the back flow occurs in Figure 11. The skin friction
coefficient of the SS of the original impeller fluctuates
D1 0.075 m
D2 0.198 m considerably. The skin friction coefficient decreases dra-
z 6 – matically near the leading edge, in the middle part of the
b2 26.5 ° blade, and at the tailing edge, likely due to the vortex
b1 30 ° structure on the PS. The optimized skin friction coeffi-
g 120 °
b2 0.01 m cient was decreased substantially at the leading edge. In
the middle part, there is an area (x/c = 0.2–0.65) with a
Ren et al.
Figure 15. Comparison of the skin friction coefficient on the
middle profile between the original blade and optimized blade.
Figure 14. Distribution of spy and skin friction streamline on
the optimized blade 1 and velocity vector on the Surface 1.
(1) BVF distribution on the PS surface of blade 1 under
different flow conditions: (a) 1.0QBEP, (b) 0.8QBEP, (c) 0.6QBEP,
(d) 0.4QBEP, and (e) 0.2QBEP. (2) BVF distribution on the SS
surface of blade 1 under different flow conditions: (a) 1.0QBEP,
(b) 0.8QBEP, (c) 0.6QBEP, (d) 0.4QBEP, and (e) 0.2QBEP.
small skin friction coefficient that is larger than the skin
friction coefficient in the same position for the original
impeller. In addition, the optimized SS skin friction
coefficient fluctuates gently, indicating small energy dissi-
pation, conducive to the improvement of the pump
efficiency.
Table 3 compares the major performance indexes of
the original pump and optimized pump. As can be seen
in the table, the head of the optimized pump is basically
consistent with that of the original centrifugal pump for
flow ranging from 0.6QBEP to 1.0QBEP. The head is
increased significantly at 0.2QBEP and 0.4QBEP, and the
hump of the H–Q curve of the original centrifugal
pump is eliminated. The hydraulic efficiency of the opti-
mized pump improved significantly, indicating that the
optimized impeller has less loss and higher efficiency.
Conclusion
Internal flow states of a centrifugal pump were studied
experimentally and numerically. Results are as follows:
11
1. Based on external testing and PIV internal flow
testing techniques, the internal and hydraulic
characteristics of a centrifugal pump were
examined under different flow conditions,
allowing observation of the evolution of flow
separation in the impeller passages. The PIV
internal flow measurements showed that flow
separation started to occur at 0.6QBEP, devel-
oped at 0.4QBEP, and finally extended to
almost the whole passage at 0.2QBEP. The flow
state in Passage 1 was the least steady and the
flow state in Passage 5 was the steadiest one.
The data allowed description of propagation
of flow separation in the flow passages. A
separation vortex always started from the PS.
A single vortex evolved into multiple vortices.
Finally, multiple vortices aggregated into a
large vortex that moved toward the center of
the flow passage and finally blocked the whole
flow passage.
2. The SST k-v turbulent model and the new
IDDES method were applied to a numerical
model involving rotation and curvature correc-
tion. The improved numerical method was vali-
dated by hydraulic performance test and PIV
data.
3. By diagnosing the internal flow of the model
pump impeller using boundary vorticity
dynamics, the blade surface BVF, skin friction
streamlines, and the distribution of the near-
surface relative velocity vectors were obtained.
The impeller started to experience back flow at
about 0.6QBEP. Located on the PS and near the
middle part of the blade, the backflow area
expanded toward the tailing edge with the
decrease of flow rate.
12
Table 3. Major performance indexes of the pump before and after optimization.
Performance indexes Flow condition
1.0
H (m) Before optimization 11.68
After optimization 11.43
hh (%) Before optimization 71.50
After optimization 81.41
4. The BVF positive and negative peak zones on
the original blade were geometrically optimized.
The angle difference between the flow angle and
the blade angle was reduced. Compared with the
original blade, the redesigned blade had a more
uniform BVF distribution and exhibited little
fluctuation. It effectively delayed the occurrence
of back flow in the impeller flow passage and
improved the hydraulic performance of the cen-
trifugal pump.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from
the National Natural Science Foundation of China titled with
‘‘Studies on the unsteady flow characteristics in the centrifugal
pump impeller at lower flow rate conditions based on vorticity
dynamics’’ (grant no. 51606167), the Open Foundation of
Zhejiang Provincial Top Key Academic Discipline of
Mechanical Engineering (grant no. ZSTUME02A04), Zhejiang
Provincial Postdoctoral Preferred funding project of 2016 titled
with ‘‘Studies on the inner flow mechanism in the centrifugal
pump impeller at lower flow rate conditions based on anisotro-
pic LES analysis,’’ and the Public Welfare Technology
Application Research Projects of Zhejiang Province (grant no.
2016C31043).
ORCID iDs
Yun Ren https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8979-119X
Denghao Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4042-8381
References
1. Wang C, He X, Zhang D, et al. Numerical and experi-
mental study of the self-priming process of a multistage
self-priming centrifugal pump. Int J Energ Res 2019; 43:
4074–4092.
2. He X, Jiao W, Wang C, et al. Influence of surface rough-
ness on the pump performance based on computational
fluid dynamics. IEEE Access 2019; 7: 105331–105341.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
12.50 13.49 13.67 11.96
12.89 13.40 14.34 14.00
69.06 65.57 53.82 28.03
82.40 76.18 69.29 50.20
3. Dou HS. Mechanism of flow instability and transition to
turbulence. Int J Non-Linear Mech 2006; 41: 512–517.
4. Zheng LL, Dou HS, Jiang W, et al. Influence of rotor-
stator interaction on flow stability in centrifugal pump
based on energy gradient method. Int J Turbo Jet Eng
2016; 33: 413–419.
5. Li XJ, Jiang ZW, Zhu ZC, et al. Entropy generation
analysis for the cavitating head-drop characteristic of a
centrifugal pump. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical
Engineering Science 2018; 232: 4637–4646.
6. Wang C, Shi W, Wang X, et al. Optimal design of multi-
stage centrifugal pump based on the combined energy
loss model and computational fluid dynamics. Appl
Energ 2017; 187: 10–26.
7. Zhou X, Zhang YX, Ji ZL, et al. The optimal hydraulic
design of centrifugal impeller using genetic algorithm
with BVF. Int J Rotat Mach 2014; 2: 8453.
8. Zhang SF, Li XJ, Hu B, et al. Numerical investigation of
attached cavitating flow in thermo-sensitive fluid with
special emphasis on thermal effect and shedding
dynamics. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2019; 44: 3170–3184.
9. Yang J, Pavesi G, Liu XH, et al. Unsteady flow charac-
teristics regarding hump instability in the first stage of a
multistage pump-turbine in pump mode. Renew Energ
2018; 127: 377–385.
10. Miorini RL, Wu H and Katz J. The internal structure of
the tip leakage vortex within the rotor of an axial waterjet
pump. J Turbomach-Trans ASME 2012; 134: 031018.
11. Keller J, Blanco E, Barrio R, et al. PIV measurements of
the unsteady flow structures in a volute centrifugal pump
at a high flow rate. Exp Fluids 2014; 55: 1820.
12. Atif A, Benmansour S, Bois G, et al. Numerical and
experimental comparison of the vaned diffuser interac-
tion inside the impeller velocity field of a centrifugal
pump. Sci China Technol Sci 2011; 54: 286–294.
13. Yao Z, Wang FJ, Qu LX, et al. Experimental investiga-
tion of time-frequency characteristics of pressure fluctua-
tions in a double-suction centrifugal pump. J Fluid Eng-
Trans ASME 2011; 133: 101303.
14. Guo XM, Zhu LH, Zhu ZC, et al. Numerical and experi-
mental investigations on the cavitation characteristics of
a high-speed centrifugal pump with a splitter-blade indu-
cer. J Mech Sci Technol 2015; 29: 259–267.
15. Wang C, Hu B, Zhu Y, et al. Numerical study on the gas-
water two-phase flow in the self-priming process of self-
priming centrifugal pump. Processes 2019; 7: 330.
16. Wang C, He X, Shi W, et al. Numerical study on pres-
sure fluctuation of a multistage centrifugal pump based
on whole flow field. AIP Adv 2019; 9: 035118.
Ren et al.
17. Yang ZJ and Wang FJ. A dynamic mixed nonlinear
subgrid-scale model for large-eddy simulation. Eng Com-
put 2012; 29: 778–791.
18. Pedersen N, Larsen PS and Jacobsen CB. Flow in a cen-
trifugal pump impeller at design and off-design condi-
tions: part I: particle image velocimetry (PIV) and laser
Doppler velocimetry (LDV) measurements. J Fluids Eng
2003; 125: 61–72.
19. Zhou PJ, Wang FJ, Yang ZJ, et al. Investigation of rotat-
ing stall for a centrifugal pump impeller using various
SGS models. J Hydrodynam 2017; 29: 235–242.
20. Spalart PR, Deck S, Shur M, et al. A new version of
detached eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid
densities. Theor Comp Fluid Dyn 2006; 20: 181–195.
21. Zhou PJ, Wang FJ and Yang M. Internal flow numerical
simulation of double-suction centrifugal pump using
DES model. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Envi-
ronmental Science, 15(3), 032051. DOI: 10.1088/1755-
1315/15/3/032051
22. Xiao ZX, Liu J, Luo KY, et al. Investigation of flows
around a rudimentary landing gear with advanced
detached-eddy-simulation approaches. AIAA J 2013; 51:
107–125.
23. Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MK, et al. A hybrid
RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-
modelled LES capabilities. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2008;
29: 1638–1649.
13
24. Spalart PR and Shur ML. On the sensitization of turbu-
lence models to rotation and curvature. Aerosp Sci Tech-
nol 1997; 5: 297–302.
25. Smirnov PE and Menter FR. Sensitization of the SST
turbulence model to rotation and curvature by applying
the Spalart-Shur correction term. J Turbomach-T ASME
2009; 131: 2305–2314.
26. Ren Y, Liu HL, Wang K, et al. Numerical simulation of
inner flow in a double blades pump based on OpenFOAM
and its PIV verification. In: Proceedings of Heat transfer,
fluids engineerings, & nanochannels, microchannels and mini-
channels conferences FEDSM 2012-72037, Rio Grande,
Puerto Rico, 8–12 July 2012. New York: ASME.
27. Wu DH, Ren Y, Mu JG, et al. Experimental investigation
on characteristics of flow instabilities in centrifugal pump
impeller under part-load conditions. Adv Mech Eng 2014;
2014: 604812.
28. Lighthill MJ. Introduction: boundary layer theory, in lami-
nar boundary layer. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1963, pp. 46–113.
29. Wu JZ and Wu JM. Vorticity dynamics on boundaries.
Adv Appl Mech 1996; 32: 119–222.
30. Wu JZ, Roach RL, Lo CF, et al. Aerodynamics diagnos-
tics and design based on boundary vorticity dynamics.
In: Proceedings of the 17th AIAA applied aerodynamics
conference, Norfolk, VA, 28 June–1 July, AIAA Paper
no. 99-3103, 1999, pp. 33–46. Reston, VA: AIAA.