energies
Article
A Study Comparing the Subsurface Vortex Characteristics in
Pump Sumps
Sangyoon Kim 1,2 , Changgu Kim 3 , Byungha Kim 3 , Hyunjun Jang 2,4 , Incheol Kim 5 and Young-Ho Lee 6, *
Citation: Kim, S.; Kim, C.; Kim, B.;
Jang, H.; Kim, I.; Lee, Y.-H. A Study
Comparing the Subsurface Vortex
Characteristics in Pump Sumps.
Energies 2022, 15, 5049. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en15145049
Academic Editor: Giuseppe Pascazio
Received: 6 June 2022
Accepted: 9 July 2022
Published: 11 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 5049. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145049
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, 727,
Taejong-ro, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 49112, Korea; syoony749@gmail.com
2 High Turbo Machinery (HTM) Co., 2, Busandaehak-ro, 63beon-gil, Geumjeong-gu, Busan 46241, Korea;
hyunjun9559@gmail.com
3 Flowithus Co., Ltd., 107, Gwahaksandan 1-ro, Gangseo-gu, Busan 46742, Korea; goo@flowithus.net (C.K.);
kbh@flowithus.net (B.K.)
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 43241, Korea
5 Green Energy Institute, 177, Samhyangcheon-ro, Mokpo City 58656, Korea; kic3645@gei.re.kr
6 Division of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, 727, Taejong-ro, Yeongdo-gu,
Busan 49112, Korea
* Correspondence: lyh@kmou.ac.kr
Abstract: The vortex generated around the suction region of the pump sump causes problems such as
damage to the pump, increased maintenance costs, and failure to supply coolant smoothly. Therefore,
analyzing vortices is essential in pump sump design. However, the CFD analysis alone is insufficient
in pump sumps vortex analysis since the reliability of the results is doubtful in scaled model tests.
This study conducted the model test to validate a suitable CFD simulation method by identifying
the Type 2 vortex among the three types of subsurface vortices. The dye test and PIV technology
were used to visualize the Type 2 subsurface vortices, whereas the PIV vorticity results were then
compared to the CFD results. The average vorticity of 60.2 (1/s) was identified as the reference level
of Type 2 subsurface vortices formation by mapping the dye test results with the PIV vorticity results.
Furthermore, the average vorticities of 84.63 (1/s) and 85.15 (1/s) were recorded in the presence
of Type 2 subsurface vortices in PIV and CFD, respectively, and these values can be applied to the
designing of pump sumps.
Keywords: pump sump; particle image velocimetry (PIV); computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
1. Introduction
The vortex generated around the suction region of the pump sump causes adverse
effects such as the deterioration of pump performance and deviations in operating condi-
tions [1–5]. If a flow imbalance occurs in the water reservoir, this causes a swirling flow
around the sump intake, reducing the efficiency and stability of the pump. Although ASME
HI 9.8 Standard 2018 [6] does not recommend vortices prediction via computational fluid
dynamics (CFD), it is frequently performed because of the high industry demand to reduce
model testing time and cost. In the study by Choi et al., the location of the vortex was
predicted using CFD techniques [7]. In addition, CFD was used to analyze the swirl angle,
which was used to determine the imbalance of the water returned to the pump through the
bell-mouth by Ayham Amin et al. [8,9]. As such, the prediction of pump sump performance
using CFD techniques has been carried out effectively, but it is difficult to predict the free
surface vortices and sub-surface vortices using CFD under the ASME HI 9.8 standard. For
this reason, it is impossible to define the vortex types by analyzing the CFD results alone,
but with the sump test, it is possible to approach these tasks conservatively [6,10].
Experiments using PIV technology have problems such as the visualization of a limited
number of particles, the reflection of diffuse particles, and the limitations of the grids used
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 2 of 12

in the post-processing program. Therefore, comparing the results of limited PIV data
and CFD is inevitably accompanied by errors [11–14]. Nevertheless, CFD simulations are
necessary for pump sump models since it is more useful if a standard range or vortex level
values are presented.
The vortices generated by the pump sump can be divided into free surface vortices
and subsurface vortices. Furthermore, subsurface vortices are classified in Figure 1 based
on the level of vortex strength as Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3. In the case of Type 1 subsurface
vortex, a simple swirl occurs, and the dye does not enter the bell-mouth, even if the swirl is
recognized through the dye test. Subsurface vortices of Type 2 can be clearly visualized
through the dye test, in which the generated vortex core flows into the bell-mouth. Even in
the absence of the dye test, Type 3 subsurface vortices can be recognized since the vortex
core visualizes the air or bubble flow into the bell-mouth [6]. When the subsurface vortex
exceeds Type 1, the pump sump was identified as an inappropriate design which the design
should be improved using modifications such as AVD (anti-vortex devices).

Figure 1. Classification of subsurface vortex: (a) Type 1; (b) Type 2; (c) Type 3.

CFD analysis was carried out on pump sumps to compare the swirl angle with
tangential velocity analysis and confirm the uniform flow into the bell-mouth. Moreover,
CFD was used to optimize the design of the pumping station by observing the CFD flow
field around the AVD. Ayham Amin et al. claim that subsurface vortices can be generated
in specific areas and can even have an adverse effect when the swirl angle is 5◦ or less, even
though these cases are according to the standard value [6,8]. At this point, the type of the
generated vortex cannot be defined without the CFD, so the AVD design is as conservative
as possible [15].
This study focuses on analyzing the subsurface vortex generation of Type 2 in the
model test in terms of vorticity as well as vortex core area and location using CACTUS
Ver.3.3, which is a commercial program that post-processes PIV results taken with a high-
speed camera [16]. Then, the model test results are compared with different CFD methods
using Ansys CFX 17.2, a commercial CFD program. We tried to find the correlation between
the model test and CFD through analysis of the subsurface vortex in terms of vorticity,
indicating the strength of the swirl.

2. Model Test Method

Even though there are several pumps lined up in pumping stations, a single-channeled
pump sump was used in this study. The experimental flow channel is made of acrylic
material 4 m in length, 0.5 m in width, and 0.8 m in height. The sump test maintained the
flow rate at 153.5 m3 /h. In the pump sump test model, the flow distributor is introduced
to facilitate the generation of vortices by artificially causing a flow biased to one side [10],
which is fabricated to match the length and width of the short channel. Figure 2a shows
the experimental set-up indicating the main components, whereas Figure 2b illustrates the
flow distributor and Figure 2c illustrates the dimensions of the flow distributor.
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 3 of 12

Figure 2. Sump test model: (a) experimental set up; (b) flow distributor; (c) dimension of
flow distributor.

Experimental flow behavior was analyzed based on the PIV’s (particle image velocime-
try) visualization technology and digital image processing technology. PIV is a method that
obtains velocity vectors at multiple points simultaneously by tracing the particles in two
images [17]. For PIV measurements, polyvinyl chloride tracer particles with an average
diameter of 100 µm were seeded in the water. These particles had a specific gravity of 1.02,
similar to the water, resulting in even distribution in the flow field. An air-cooled DPSS
(diode-pumped solid-state) was used to create a continuous laser sheet with an output of
4 W to illuminate the particles. A laser sheet was used to illuminate the PIV particles since
the normal light beams reflect air bubbles interfering with the light path during image
recording [18]. A Photron CCD camera was used to capture the motion of the particles.
The maximum fps (frame per second) of the camera is 10,000, and the camera has a pixel
resolution of 1024 × 1024. The camera was installed on the left side of the flow channel.
Since the experiment was conducted under low-light conditions, 250 fps was selected to
illuminate the PIV particles in the laser sheet to have a clear resolution [19,20]. The images
captured by the CCD camera were then processed using Cactus ver.3.3 using the grey-level
cross-correlation algorithm for particle tracking [21]. Figure 3 shows the PIV setup at the
experiment, and Table 1 lists the specifications of the devices used in PIV measurements.
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 4 of 12

Figure 3. PIV measurement set up.

Table 1. Model test specifications for PIV.

Type Spec.
Dimensions of test device 4000(L) × 500(W) × 800 (H)
Test Flowrate 153.5 m3 /h
1024 p × 1024 p
High-speed camera
Max fps: 10,000
Output: 4 W
DPSS Laser
Type: continuous
CACTUS Ver. 3.3
Software Identification:
Grey-Level Cross-correlation
PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride)
Particle
Diameter: 100 µm

3. Dye Test and PIV Post-Process

The PIV technology could capture the spatially and temporally resolved velocity
measurements on the flow plane [22]. The subsurface vortices of Type 2 were generated by
the flow distributor along the left wall of the channel. Therefore, the generated vortices can
be observed on the cross-section plane, which is 10 mm away from the left wall.
Figure 4 visualizes the PIV post-processed streak line results on the cross-section plane.
It can see the dynamic behavior of the subsurface vortex of Type 2 since the vortices change
their shape and location. The area beneath the bell-mouth was prioritized where the highest
vorticity was recorded using averaged data.
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 5 of 12

Figure 4. Motion of the Type 2 subsurface vortex (streak line results of PIV post-process).

Since the vorticity (ζ) is directly related to the strength of rotation, it was used to
analyze the subsurface vortices of both the PIV and CFD results. Equation (1) is the formula
for the vorticity and uses the velocity vectors on the 2D plane [23]:

∂v ∂u
ζ = 2ω = − (1)
∂x ∂y

Initially, the model test was allowed to be stable from the beginning before taking
the measurements. After the sump test was stable, showing periodic behavior, subsurface
vortex formation of Type 2 was determined by comparing the time series dye test results
with the post-processed vorticity results in PIV, as shown in Figure 5. Vortex formation
is periodic in most sump test studies [15,24,25], whereas the observed subsurface vortex
of Type 2 in this study followed a periodic pattern with a 2.56 s time period. The period
pattern includes the appearance, maintenance and disappearance of the Type 2 subsurface
vortices, whereas there is a period of absence of the subsurface vortices before they appear
again. The periodic pattern is visualized in the dye test over a long period, whereas the PIV
post-process mainly focuses on one cycle. This period pattern was used to compare the dye
test results with the PIV vorticity contours in the time series. As shown in Figure 5a, the
subsurface vortices of Type 2 were determined with the dye test (the dye core entered the
bell-mouth), whereas the PIV vorticity was higher than 63.8 (1/s). After the half-cycle was
completed, the subsurface vortices of Type 2 disappeared, as shown in Figure 5b. In the
absence of Type 2 subsurface vortices, the lowest vorticity value is recorded as less than
56.6 (1/s). Therefore, 60.2 (1/s) was estimated as the average value for the formation of
subsurface vortices of Type 2. Hence, the Type 2 subsurface vortex analysis in PIV and
CFD data is based on the 60.2 (1/s) reference level where the Type 2 subsurface vortex core
appears in the dye test results.
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 6 of 12

Figure 5. Mapping of dye test results with post-processed PIV results: (a) presence of subsurface
vortices of Type 2; (b) absence of subsurface vortices of Type 2.

4. CFD Simulation Setup

The fluid domain for the single-channel and the bell-mouth were modeled and meshed,
as shown in Figure 6. The mesh at the main focus area was extra refined, while the near-wall
treatment is used both at the channel wall and bell-mouth. Figure 6a shows the boundary
conditions for CFD analysis. Single-phase analysis was carried out using only water as the
working fluid. Therefore, the free surface of the water (top surface of the water channel) was
denoted as a free-slip wall to imply the effect on the air phase [26]. Hence, the multiphase
effect was somewhat applied in the single-phase simulation to reduce the number of nodes,
computational power, and simulation time. Since the free-slip wall was applied at the
water–air interface, subsurface vortices were formed rather than free surface vortices. The
gravity condition was applied where the water flow behavior considered the hydraulic
pressure. An opening-type inlet was applied based on the 0 Pa relative pressure to provide
a level of flow that the pump could inhale. In addition, the velocity outlet was applied
to maintain the constant flow rate while minimizing the errors during CFD solving [26].
Table 2 summarized details of the CFD setup used in this study.

Table 2. Summary of CFD set-up.

Boundary
Option Option
Condition
Steady
Analysis type Inlet Opening pressure: 0 Pa
state/Transient
SST (Steady state)
Turbulence SST (Transient) Top Free slip wall
LES (Transient)
Working fluid Water Outlet Velocity
Ref. pressure 1 atm No. of nodes 6,583,453
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 7 of 12

Figure 6. Fluid domains for CFD analysis: (a) CFD set up; (b) mesh.

In order to determine an accurate subsurface vorticity analysis in CFD, the simulations

are divided into steady-state and transient-state analyses. In addition, transient analysis
can be further classified into two types: LES (Large Eddy Simulation) and RANS (Reynolds-
averaged Navier–Stokes equation) models. SST (shear stress transport) turbulence model
is used, in the RANS simulations, whereas the Smagorinsky turbulence model was used in
LES [27,28]. Through different CFD models, we tried to find a suitable model to compare
the Type 2 subsurface vortices, which show similar behavior to pump sump test results.
In the LES analysis, small vortices of a certain size are replaced or eliminated by
the spatial filter that replaces small vortices. In this regard, the simplified expression of
LES follows Equation (2) [29,30]. Where, ui represents the resolvable scale region, and úı
represents the sub-grid-scale region.

ui = ui + úı (2)
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 8 of 12

Mesh was performed using multi-grid mesh to make the grid denser in the corre-
sponding areas, as shown in Figure 6b. Thus, the RMS courant numbers are less than 10 in
the transient simulations, whereas the grid size was minimized as the number of nodes
increased and the time steps decreased to 0.01 s. Furthermore, the maximum y+ value at
the left wall was 8.5, whereas Xin-Lei Zhang et al. claimed the y+ value in the range of
15–20 when the wall function was applied in the RANS simulation [28,30]. Thus, in this
analysis, the number of meshes near the bell-mouth, the main analysis area, was controlled
by conducting the grid sensitivity test under the steady-state SST turbulence model. The
sensitivity was compared to the flow rate of the pump test, which was determined to have
an average value of 153.5 m3 /h. At the locations where a vortex was expected to occur,
analysis nodes were based on more than 1000 grid nodes created using PIV Post.
Table 3 shows the five different cases used in the mesh sensitivity analysis. When the
number of nodes increases, the flow rate converges into the desired value, as shown in
Figure 7. However, the ten million node simulation took a long time to stabilize while also
consuming high computational power [31]. Therefore, the model with 6.5 million nodes
was selected as the optimal mesh for CFD analysis, in which the flow rate error was only
0.2% compared to the ten million-node case.

Table 3. Mesh sensitivity study for CFD.

No. of Nodes
No. of Nodes Flowrate (m3 /h) Error (%)
in Main CFD Area
1,565,710 232 152.73 0.50
2,379,700 477 153.06 0.29
3,790,080 983 153.15 0.23
6,583,453 4589 153.23 0.18
10,573,560 11,414 153.26 0.16

Figure 7. Mesh sensitivity study results.

5. Results and Discussion

Vortices repeatedly cycle through creation and extinction while changing their location,
intensity, and flow pattern. Similarly, the Type 2 subsurface vortices also appear, move, and
disappear within a few seconds.
The steady-state analysis considers the flow pattern as a “converged stable” state
and shows an overall average single result. Therefore, as shown in Figure 8, the vorticity
contour of steady-state CFD was similar to the time-averaged PIV post-processed results. In
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 9 of 12

CFD results, the maximum vorticity was measured around the positive y-axis and denoted
in red color. However, in PIV results, vorticity was measured around the negative y-axis.
Hence the maximum vorticity was identified as the highest negative value denoted in blue
color. Here the maximum vorticities at the vortex core are recorded as 62.65 (1/s) and
65 (1/s) in steady-state CFD and time-averaged PIV results, respectively.

Figure 8. Comparison of vorticity: (a) steady-state CFD results (SST turbulence model); (b) time-
averaged PIV results.

In the PIV post-processed results, the position of the subsurface vortices of Type 2 moves
0.03 m in the x-axis direction, where the RANS (SST turbulence) simulation shows similar
behavior. Furthermore, the maximum vorticity value at the Type 2 subsurface vortex core
is almost similar to the RANS simulation (96.88 (1/s)), with the PIV results (103 (1/s)),
as in Figure 9a,b. However, in the LES simulation, the maximum vorticity was quite
high (164.76 (1/s)) compared with the PIV results, as shown in Figure 9c. Since the same
mesh was used in RANS and LES models, the mesh resolution was insufficient in the LES
simulation to capture the actual magnitude of vorticity at the side wall. Aljaž Škerlavaj et al.
claim the y+ value is in the range of 10–100 at the floor of the vortex core when simulating
the pump sump models in LES [28]. However, the 8.5 y+ value in this study was insufficient
to capture the accurate vorticity in Type 2 subsurface vortices at the left wall. Therefore,
the mesh should be finer than the current mesh to simulate the LES model having accurate
analysis of subsurface vortices. Thus, LES simulation with finer mesh consumes more time
to solve, requiring high computational power and storage.

Figure 9. Comparison of vorticity: (a) PIV; (b) RANS-CFD (transient/SST turbulence model);
(c) LES-CFD.

The PIV results for subsurface vortices of Type 2 were analyzed with the transient
RANS simulations combined with the SST turbulence model. Dye test visualization and
post-process PIV data were used to determine the appearance of Type 2 subsurface vortices.
A 60.2 (1/s) average vorticity value was recognized as the reference level to form the
Type 2 subsurface vortices, as described in Section 3. Therefore, the 60.2 (1/s) vorticity
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 10 of 12

line was used as the reference level in both PIV and CFD vorticity analyses. Figure 10
illustrates the vorticity variation in the vortex core for a single cycle in the post-processed
PIV and CFD results. Here, one cycle of Type 2 subsurface vortex phenomena (period of
2.56 s) was divided into a 100-time step. The average cycle value of vorticity in the PIV
results was calculated as 65.68 (1/s). The trend of the vorticity of PIV and the CFD results is
similar in the presence of the Type 2 subsurface vortex. The maximum vorticity of the Type
2 subsurface vortex was 107.9 (1/s) in the PIV results, whereas 104.9 (1/s) was recorded
in CFD results. However, the average vorticity values of Type 2 subsurface vortices are
similar in the PIV and CFD results recording 84.63 (1/s) and 85.15 (1/s), respectively. In
this case, the error between the PIV and the CFD is 0.62% marking a reasonable agreement.

Figure 10. Vorticity time series data at Type 2 subsurface vortex core.

The vorticity variation in the PIV results is spread due to the limitations of PIV
techniques. Since this is a 2D PIV system, it could not provide information on the axial
structure of the vortex, even though there were many particles. Furthermore, the grid
size of PIV post-process was selected depending on the number of particles in the capture
plane [14]. In addition, the optimal frame per second settings was selected in the high-
speed camera to illuminate the particles clearly. The vorticity variation in the CFD results
is smoother than that observed in the PIV results due to the fine mesh region where the
Type 2 subsurface vortices were formed.

6. Conclusions
This study mainly focuses on analyzing the Type 2 subsurface vortex in the PIV
sump test and CFD simulation since the ANSI/HI 9.8 (2018) standard claims avoidance of
Type 2 and 3 subsurface vortices in pump sump design. RANS steady-state (SST), RANS
transient (SST), and LES transient analyses were considered in the CFD study, whereas
RANS transient analysis shows a good agreement with the PIV test results over the other
CFD models. RANS steady-state simulations were initially carried out to observe the basic
characteristics of Type 2 subsurface vortices, especially comparing the average vorticity
magnitude with PIV time-averaged results. Even though the RANS steady-state results
are similar to the time-averaged PIV data, it does not imply the dynamic behavior of
the Type 2 subsurface vortices in the time frame. The LES transient behavior of Type 2
subsurface vortices differs from the PIV results, especially the vorticity magnitude at the
vortex core since the LES model required a lower y+ value despite the current value being
8.5. Therefore, the RANS transient (SST) simulation results were compared with the PIV
post-process results in the form of the vorticity of the subsurface vortex core of Type 2.
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 11 of 12

The dye test was used to determine the reference level of the vorticity when Type
2 subsurface vortices are formed. The periodic behavior of the Type 2 subsurface vor-
tex was used to map the dye test results with the PIV post-processed vorticity values.
60.2 (1/s) vorticity was identified as the reference level to form the Type 2 subsurface
vortices. The average vorticities of the Type 2 subsurface vortex were recorded as 84.63
(1/s) and 85.15 (1/s) in PIV and CFD, respectively, showing good agreement. The vorticity
variation spreads in the PIV results in the presence of the Type 2 subsurface vortex because
of the limitation of the PIV techniques. However, the CFD vorticity variation was smooth
in the RANS transient simulation due to the finer mesh in the considered region.
This study concluded by calming the vorticity value of the Type 2 subsurface vortices,
which is a criterion to determine the suitability of pump sump design by comparing the
model test PIV with the CFD simulation results.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.K. and C.K.; methodology, B.K.; software, S.K. and C.K.;
validation, I.K.; formal analysis, H.J.; investigation, S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.;
writing—review and editing, C.K., B.K., H.J., I.K., and Y.-H.L.; supervision, S.K., C.K. and Y.-H.L.;
project administration, S.K. and Y.-H.L.; funding acquisition, S.K., C.K., B.K. and Y.-H.L. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by (a) the New & Renewable Energy of the Korea Institute
of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government
Ministry of Knowledge Economy (No. 20193020020220).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhao, Y.X.; Kim, C.G.; Lee, Y.H. CFD study on flow characteristics of pump sump and performance analysis of the mixed flow
pump. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2013, 52, 1–6. [CrossRef]
2. El-Shaikh, S.A.-F.A.-G. CFD Technique for Solving Low Water Level Problem of Axial Flow Pumps. Am. J. Water Sci. Eng. 2017, 3,
34–44.
3. Arocena, V.M.; Abuan, B.E.; Reyes, J.G.T.; Rodgers, P.L.; Danao, L.A.M. Numerical Investigation of the Performance of a
Submersible Pump: Prediction of Recirculation, Vortex Formation, and Swirl Resulting from Off-Design Operating Conditions.
Energies 2021, 14, 5082. [CrossRef]
4. Guo, M.; Zuo, Z.; Liu, S.; Zou, H.; Chen, B.; Li, D. Experimental Vortex Flow Patterns in the Primary and Secondary Pump Intakes
of a Model Underground Pumping Station. Energies 2020, 13, 1790. [CrossRef]
5. Okamura, T.; Kamemoto, K. CFD simulation of flow in model pump sumps for detection of vortices. In Proceedings of the 8th
Asian International Fluid Machinery Conference, Yichang, China, 12–15 October 2005.
6. ANSI/HI 9.8-2018; American National Standard, Pump Intake Design. Hydraulic Institute: Parsippany, NJ, USA, 2018.
7. Choi, J.; Choi, Y.; Kim, C.; Lee, Y. Flow uniformity in a multi-intake pump sump model. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2010, 24, 1389–1400.
[CrossRef]
8. Amin, A.; Kim, B.H.; Kim, C.G.; Lee, Y.H. Numerical Analysis of Vortices Behavior in a Pump Sump. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ.
Sci. 2019, 240, 032020. [CrossRef]
9. Arocena, V.M.; Abuan, B.E.; Reyes, J.G.T.; Rodgers, P.L.; Danao, L.A.M. Reduction of Entrained Vortices in Submersible Pump
Suction Lines Using Numerical Simulations. Energies 2020, 13, 6136. [CrossRef]
10. Khoshkalam, N.; Najafi, A.F.; Rahimian, M.H.; Magagnato, F. Numerical study on air-core vortex: Analysis of generation
mechanism. Arch. Appl. Mech. 2020, 90, 1–16. [CrossRef]
11. Xiong, Q.; Chen, Z.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Xu, J. Micro-PIV measurement and CFD simulation of flow field and swirling strength during
droplet formation process in a coaxial microchannel. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2018, 185, 157–167. [CrossRef]
12. Ranade1, V.V.; Perrard, M.; Le Sauze, N.; Xuereb, C.; Bertrand, J. Trailing vortices of rushton turbine: PIV Measurements and CFD
Simulations with Snapshot Approach. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2001, 71, 3–12. [CrossRef]
13. Nagahara, T.; Sato, T.; Okamura, T. Measurement of the flow around the submerged vortex cavitation in a pump intake by means
of piv. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Cavitation (cav2003), Osaka, Japan, 1–4 November 2003.
14. Rajendran, V.P.; Patel, V.C. Measurement of Vortices in Model Pump-Intake Bay By Piv. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2000, 126, 322–334.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 5049 12 of 12

15. TSJ S 002-2005; Standard Method for Model Testing the Performance of a Pump Sump. Turbomachinery Society of Japan:
Tokyo, Japan, 2005.
16. Mohammed Faizal, M. Rafiuddin Ahmed, Young-Ho Lee; On utilizing the orbital motion in water waves to drive a Savonius
rotor. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 164–169. [CrossRef]
17. CACTUS 3.3 User’s Guide; Image Information Technology Co., Ltd.: Busan, Korea, 2008.
18. Ge, M.; Manikkam, P.; Ghossein, J.; Subramanian, R.K.; Coutier-Delgosha, O.; Zhang, G. Dynamic mode decomposition to classify
cavitating flow regimes induced by thermodynamic effects. Energy 2022, 254, 124426. [CrossRef]
19. Ge, M.; Petkovšek, M.; Zhang, G.; Jacobs, D.; Coutier-Delgosha, O. Cavitation dynamics and thermodynamic effects at elevated
temperatures in a small Venturi channel. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 170, 120970. [CrossRef]
20. Ge, M.; Sun, C.; Zhang, G.; Coutier-Delgosha, O.; Fan, D. Combined suppression effects on hydrodynamic cavitation performance
in Venturi-type reactor for process intensification. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2022, 86, 106035. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Choi, J.W.; Lee, Y.H. Development of Grey Level Cross Correlation Method in PIV. KSME Conf. Ser. 1995, 2, 396–400.
22. Ge, M.; Zhang, G.; Petkovšek, M.; Long, K.; Coutier-Delgosh, O. Intensity and regimes changing of hydrodynamic cavitation
considering temperature effects. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 338, 130470. [CrossRef]
23. Raffel, M.; Willert, C.; Wereley, S.; Kompenhans, J. Particle Image Velocimetry: A Practical Guide; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007.
24. Song, X.; Liu, C. Experimental investigation of floor-attached vortex effects on the pressure pulsation at the bottom of the axial
flow pump sump. Renew. Energy 2020, 145, 2327–2336. [CrossRef]
25. Song, X.; Liu, C.; Wang, Z. Study on the Vortex in a Pump Sump and Its Influence on the Pump Unit. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022,
10, 103. [CrossRef]
26. Kim, C.G.; Kim, B.H.; Bang, B.H.; Lee, Y.H. Experimental and CFD analysis for prediction of vortex and swirl angle in the pump
sump station model. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 72, 042044. [CrossRef]
27. Škerlavaj, A.; Vehar, F.; Pavlin, R.; Lipej, A. A Hydraulic Study of Cooling Water Intake Structure. In Proceedings of the IAHR WG
Meeting on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Brno, Czech Republic, 14–16 October 2009.
28. Zhang, X.; Ge, M.; Zhang, G.; Coutier-Delgosha, O. Compressible effects modeling for turbulent cavitating flow in a small venturi
channel: An empirical turbulent eddy viscosity correction. Phys. Fluids 2021, 33, 035148. [CrossRef]
29. Guo, M.; Tang, X.; Su, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, F. Applications of Three-Dimensional LBM-LES Combined Model for Pump Intakes.
Commun. Comput. Phys. 2018, 24, 104–122. [CrossRef]
30. Wei-Liang, C.; Shih-Chun, H. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of intake model with cross flow. J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B 2011,
23, 314–324.
31. Ge, M.; Zhang, X.; Brookshire, K.; Coutier-Delgosha, O. Parametric and V&V study in a fundamental CFD process: Revisiting the
lid-driven cavity flow. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 2022, 94, 515–530.