MOMENTUM TRANSFER OPS.

Dr. Vicente J. Garza

PROJECT FEEDBACK FJ2021

Cinthya & Co.

R: Pages not numbered

R: Several tables broken between pages without proper continuation
R: Several subscripts or superscripts no written as such (lbf, hf, ft^3, etc.)
R: Several equation numbers not aligned to the right
R: Several tables without captions
R: No references (url’s) to pump data
R: Some graphs don’t show what is being plotted (axes labels)
E2: The selected pump is too big. If you notice on the pump curve (A2) on the x-axis it says “(US Gallons
per minute x 10)”, that means that the values shown are not 5, 10, 15 gpm, etc., they are 50, 100, 150
gpm, etc.
E2: In addition, you assume that you would be able to open the valve more to get the desired flow rate
of 110 gpm but the system curve had already been created with valves fully open
E2: Cost was apparently calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E3: The selected pump is too big. If you notice on the pump curve (A3) on the x-axis it says “(US Gallons
per minute x 100)”, that means that the values shown are not 10, 20, 30 gpm, etc., they are 100, 200,
300 gpm, etc.
E3: The operating point of the combined pumps seems to be less that 110 gpm, even though you state
that it is 110 gpm
E3: Cost was apparently calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E4: In Scenario 2, the op. point for each pump in parallel had to be 55/2, that is, 27.5 gpm (not 55 gpm)

Diego & Co.

R: Several subscripts or superscripts no written as such (ft^3, hf, gc, etc )

R: Equation numbers not aligned properly
R: Some equations exceed the document margins
R: Equation 3 is missing a square in the diameter
R: Not enough spacing between some equations and text (e.g. eq.4)
R: Orphan table titles at the bottom of a page
R: Figure 6 apparently has the wrong caption. I think it should be “gate valve”
R: Font size used in some table is unproportionately big
R: Too many digits used to represent some quantities in the report (e.g., Table 9)
R: Incorrect ordering of tables; Table 9 on p. 15 should’ve been Table 6
E1: Several elements of the system drawing done by hand do not look very professional
E2: I’m not sure why you located points for half the desired flow rate. That is something that only E4
needed to do
E2: The cost per kWh of energy is too high. The cost is calculated incorretly; they shouldn’t be added.
Worst-case would be to set it to $3.07/kWh
E3: It is not clear what the value given in Fig. 10 represents but it shouldn’t be there
E3: Unit cost used is too high
E4: I did not understand why you concluded that the pumps in parallel were better than a single pump
for the original flow rate. They both had the same total hp (4 hp vs. 2x2hp)
E4: Unit cost used is too high

Erika & Co.

R: Images of calculations done by hand, even though they were allowed in the report, should’ve been
placed in an appendix (not in the main report).
R: Equations used to calculate the system head should’ve bee described in the report with their
appropriate nomenclature (not just a picture of calculations)
R: It would have been more convenient to create the system curve using units for Q of gpm since the
pump analysis would need to be done in those units
R: Some equation numbers not aligned to the right
R: Embedding Excel tables in the main report is not very professional
R: Description of selection of pumps for parallel case indicates that both options gave enough “heat”
(p.8) which has nothing to do with the selection (“energy” perhaps?)
R: Some numbers reported in tables with excessive number of digits
E2: The use of eq. 1 to calculate both BHP and efficiency does not seem right. And what is the “modified
efficiency?”
E2: Apparently you used pump efficiency to convert from BHP to MHP and this is incorrect. You
should’ve used a motor efficiency
E2: How was NPSHr obtained? It doesn’t seem to be in the manufacturer’s graph
E3: The operating point of each pump when working in parallel is not reported or shown in the graph. It
appears things suchs as the NPSHr were read based on the op. point of the combined pumps which is
not correct.
E3: The manufacturer chart does not have efficiencies in it and yet efficiencies are reported by you. An
explanation should’ve been included or an appendix showing how it was calculated
E4: I could not find the comparison asked in part (a) of E4 tasks in the report; it seems you jumped
directly to scenario 1
E4: How as NPSHr obtained for the single pump in scenario 1 if it is not reported in the manufacturer’s
graph?
E4: For scenario 2, no op. point is given and it seems that the incorrect point was used. If the new flow
rate is now 35 gpm, then the flow rate of each pump in parallel would be half of that, i.e., 17.5 gpm.
Furthermore, NPSHr would not be the same as before
E4: For scenario 3 the op. point of each pump is not given in the text. The one shown in green in Fig. 12
cannot be the operating point of the pump after adjustments (it seems to be the op. point before
adjustments)
E4: The manufacturer charts do not have efficiencies in them and yet efficiencies are reported by you.
An explanation should’ve been included or an appendix showing how they were calculated

Elda & Co.

R: Some tables split across pages with a proper continuation header

R: Equation numbers not aligned
R: Equations right next to text without proper spacing
R: Table 1.2 with heading in Spanish without translation
R: Tables without captions
R: Orphan section titles at the bottom of a page (p.7)
R: At least one graph without axes labels
E1: Hand-drawn schematic for the system is not very professional
E1: Labels for the two requested points on system curve not shown
E2: Graph 2.2 seems to be incorrect. The selected pump at 100 gpm (6.3 l/s) develops less than 75 ft of
head, while the system requirement is 100 ft. So, graph 2.2 does not reproduce the pump curve
correctly. In fact, the selected pump is to small in terms of head even with the max impeller
E2: As a result of the last comment, I don’t see how you were able to read BHP, NPSHr and efficiency
E2: It seems that cost was calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E3: Project description asked to select a pump to be placed in parallel “with another”, that is, just two.
You chose a pump that would require 3 in parallel
E3: For the adjusted operating point you provide an efficiency and an NPSHr but the manufacturer graph
does not show either of those. No explanation is given as to how they were determined
E3: It seems that cost was calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E4: Analysis of scenario 1 does not mention or show the new operating point which should be for half
the original flow rate, that is, the new operating point should be at 50 gpm. Instead, it mentions a new
operating point with 140 gpm?
E4: And the same thing happen in the analysis of scenario 2. New operating point should be 50 gpm and
therefore the flow rate of each pump 25 gpm.
E4: Once again in the analysis of scenario 2 nothing is mentioned about how efficiency and NPSHr were
determined (they did not appear in manufacturer’s chart)
E4: Analysis of scenario 3 doesn’t seem to be correct. If 3 pumps in parallel were able to provide 100
gpm, then 2 pumps in parallel would definitely be able to provide 50 gpm
E4: Comparing scenarios doesn’t have much meaning with so many apparent errors in analysis

Marcelo & Co.

R: Schematic of system with hand-written values is not very professional

R: Equations numbering not aligned properly; they also include work “Eq”
R: Subscript and superscripts not used as such (hf, gc, Hsys, etc.)
R: Innacurate technical descriptions such as: “volumetric flux” p.3, “operating point in the valve”, p.3
R: Citations to figure references not provided in the main report
R: At least one table without a caption
R: References not aligned properly
R: Some graphs without axes labels
R: Embedding Excel images directly in the document is usually not very professional
R: Some figures not centered
E1: The pictures used to describe the valves could’ve been better
E1: No reference (citation) given in the text to the power cost or a description of what it applies to
E2: It appears cost was calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E3: Poor drawing in reproducing manufacturer pump curve in Excel (doesn’t show the curved tendency)
E3: The selected pump and impeller (8 in) are too big for operation in parallel. You should’ve aimed for
a pump with an impeller that with half the flow rate (40 gpm) could deliver the head of 70 ft
E3: They diagram with the analysis does not seem to be correct. It does seem to have the combined
pump drawn correctly
E3: Fig. 15 says the operating point of pump 2 is 80 gpm and this cannot be correct. The op. point of
each pump in parallel should be 40 gpm after adjustments
E3: No efficiency provided (it could’ve been calculated)
E3: Apparently op. cost was calculated with BHP instead of MHP

Montse & Co.

R: Equations not numbered

R: Subscripts and superscripts not used as such (hf, gc, ft3, etc.)
R: Including Excel images directly on the main report is not very professional
R: Fig. 3 has some formatting issues
R: Reproduction of pump curve by E3 for the 4 5/16 impeller in Excel was not very accurate (gray curve
in Fig. 13; tendency is not quite right)
R: Some formulas exceed margins
E3: The op. point of each pump in parallel should have exactly half the value of flow rate in relation to
the op. point of the combined pumps. So it should’ve been (65 gpm, 65 ft), not (60 gpm, 65 ft)
E4: In part (a), the comparison should’ve been made for the adjusted op. point in both cases. Not sure
why it says 140 gpm and 30 ft for pumps in parallel (that cannot be correct). In addition, the flow rate
and head are not the results, the results are BHP, efficiency, cost.
E4: Incorrect op. point for scenario 1. Yellow point should be farther above, on top of red line
E4: Op. point for each point for scenario 2 is incorrect. If the new flow rate is 65 gpm and you have two
pumps in parallel, the flow rate of each pump should be 65/2 (32.5 gpm)
E4: No figure showing the analysis of scenario 3

Mauricio & Co.

R: At least one table without caption

R: At least one table not centered
R: Including Excel tables in the report is usually not very professional
R: Subscripts/Superscripts not written as such (m3, ft3, ft^3, etc.)
R: At least one graph without axes labels
R: Too many digits in some numerical values (see Table 4.1)
E2: Original pump curve used to select pump and impeller and do the graphical analysis should’ve been
provided (there is no way I can verify your values)
E2: Apparently, cost was calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E3: Apparently, cost was calculated with BHP instead of MHP
E4: It seems that the points shown in the figures (4.1, 4.2) for Scenario 1 are not quite right. 140 gpm =
31.8 m3/h or 0.31 ft/s. So half the flow rate would be 15.9 m3/h and 0.155 ft3/s.

Mariana & Co.

R: No separation between some equations and text

R: Some table quantities without specification of units
R: Information in the drawing by hand is not very professional
R: At least one orphan figure title at the top of a page (p.7)
R: Strange formatting of some units with superscripts (see m3 on p.7)
R: Pump curve in Fig. 6 too small to be readable
R: Some figures without axes labels
R: Some equation numbers not aligned properly
R: At least one orphan section title 8 (p.15)
E1: System curve diagram does not show the two requested points
E4: Modified system curve for scenario 2 doesn’t look quadratic