See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333207845

Entropy Generation Analysis of Water Jet Pump using Computational Fluid

Dynamics

Conference Paper · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 70

2 authors:

Muhammad Penta Helios Wanchai Asvapoositkul

Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
21 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 368 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Penta Helios on 04 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The 9th TSME International Conference on Mechanical Engineering
11-14 December 2018
Phuket, Thailand

CST0002

Entropy Generation Analysis of Water Jet Pump using

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Muhammad Penta Helios 1,3,* and Wanchai Asvapoositkul2

1
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University
of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s
University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand
3
Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, King
Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand

* Corresponding Author: muhammad.helios@mail.kmutt.ac.th

Abstract. In this paper, the entropy generation rates analysis of three-dimensional water jet pump
zones is numerically studied using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling. Entropy
generation rate of two different motive fluid velocity, 0.732 m/s and 1.465 m/s, at constant
temperature 288.16 K is analysed. Further, the effect of parameters, motive fluid velocity and
temperature are selected and investigated. The CFD results are verified and validated using the
experimental data from literature under no entrainment mode condition. The results show that
the highest entropy generation take place in throat zone around 55 % of total entropy generation,
which was indicated the highest location of energy loss. Around 99% of entropy generation in
water jet pump was produced by dissipation. The effect of motive fluid velocity is more
significant than motive fluid temperature. Increasing velocity increased entropy generation rate
significantly in five zones i.e. throat, convergent, chamber, nozzle and diffuser, while increasing
motive fluid temperature influenced decreasing of entropy generation in throat zone only.

1. Introduction
A jet pump is a pumping device that converted momentum from a high velocity primary jet flow to
secondary flow. It was also called ejectors, injectors, eductors, elevators, gas compressors or exhauster
depending on the motivator phase [1]. Jet pump is also categorized as a static fluid machinery and static
mixing reaction equipment. Due to a simple design, ease to machine, high durability and absence moving
part, jet pump was very reliable devices with low maintenance, operational and installation cost [2]. It
is also suitable to install in remote and inaccessible location to deal with toxic, explosive, flammable
and contaminating substance [3].
Complexity of jet pump flows are become more challenging and require appropriate configuration
technique to investigated flow phenomena i.e. mixing, jet flow, recirculation, cavitation, pressure
recovery and to minimize inefficiency problem [4]. Many methods and techniques were developed and
applied for studying and investigating. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and entropy generation
method are two of the promising techniques which most common to be implemented nowadays.
Several number of previous researcher implemented CFD in the jet pump performance and flow field
[5-10]. Most of them focus on improving efficiency of jet pump from geometrical aspect. Unlike CFD,
entropy generation method was clearly revealed the inefficiency location in the system based on the
second law of thermodynamics (SLT). This method was divided into sub-method i.e. entropy generation
analysis (EGA) [11] and entropy generation minimization (EGM) [12-15]. At this time, Kock and
Herwig [16-17] combined entropy generation method and CFD code to analyze entropy generation of
the system.
In this paper, central jet pump (CJP), centerline nozzle, was taken as domain to be studied, which
both fluids in primary and secondary flows are liquid. The present study is aiming to investigate the
energy dissipation in jet pump by applying EGA approach in CFD. The study tried to estimate and to
analyze entropy generation and its portion in each zone of jet pump.

2. CFD Modelling Strategy

Numerical simulation using commercial CFD software, ANSYS FLUENT 14.0, was conducted to
investigate inefficiency zone of jet pump by using entropy generation analysis. In this study, entropy
generation by indirect method was selected as an appropriate criterion to estimate irreversibility [16-17].
2.1. Modelling Assumptions
The assumptions made are as follows:
1. The water is assumed to be incompressible fluid (ρ= constant).
2. The thermo-physical properties of water vary with temperature.
3. The flow is steady-state, three dimensional and turbulent.
4. The gravity effect is neglected since configuration is horizontal.
5. No-slip condition is assumed at the pipe wall.
6. The heat transfer between water and surroundings does not exist.
7. Jet pump was assumed work at atmospheric pressure

2.2. Governing Equations

The governing equations on behalf of three dimensions of the cartesian coordinate, the conservation
equations i.e. continuity, momentum and energy can be expressed as follow [19]:
 Continuity
𝜕(𝑢) 𝜕(𝑣) 𝜕(𝑤)
+ + =0 (1)
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧
𝜌∇. (V) = 0 (2)
Where V and ∇ stand for compact form of dot product and gradient vector respectively.
 Momentum
𝜌(V. ∇)V = −∇𝑝 + 𝜇∇2 V + 𝜌𝑔 = 0 (3)
The first term in the LHS equation (3) describes inertia force, while terms in the RHS describes pressure
force, viscous force, and body force respectively. Since the density is constant and absence of gravity,
the equation (3) can be rewritten as follow
𝜌(V. ∇)V = −∇𝑝 + 𝜇∇2 V = 0 (4)
Where v and p stand for kinematic viscosity and pressure.
 Energy
𝜌𝑐𝑝 (V. ∇)𝑇 = 𝑘∇2 𝑇 + 𝜙 (5)
Where cp, k and ϕ represent specific heat, thermal conductivity and viscous dissipation respectively.
Note cp≈cv that for incompressible flows.

2.3. Boundary Conditions & Parameter Definitions

An ejector dimension given by Tang, J., et. al., [20] was adapted to generate a 3D model of water
jet pump. The model generated using ANSYS Modeler 2014 and sliced into eight different regions as
shown in figure 1. It also modified by extending 5D of inlet nozzle zone and suction regions change
flow pattern of water.
 Figure 1. Splitting zones of jet pump

Figure 2. Mesh geometry and boundary conditions

As boundary conditions, velocity boundaries on inlet zone was set up as velocity, while both
pressure boundaries (on suction and outlet zone) were set pressure inlet and outlet respectively as
exposed in figure 2. Hybrid mesh (structured and unstructured mesh) was applied in the model generated
807161 elements. In this case, mesh quality criteria i.e. orthogonal quality, skewness and aspect ratio
were concerned [21]. Based on the criteria, minimum orthogonal quality, maximum skewness and high
aspect ratio were 0.1941, 0.87 and 25.62 respectively. The orthogonal quality is in good range, whilst
both skewness and aspect ratio were in acceptable range [21]. Further, sensitivity analysis by varies
operating parameter of motive fluid used in this study was summarized in table 1.
Table 1. Parameters selection of water jet pump

Parameter Value Unit

Velocity 0.1 to 1.4 m/s
Temperature 278.16 to 328.16 K

2.4. Material Properties

The properties of water, specific heat, thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity, were developed
as function of temperature into polynomial equation except density [22]. The density of water was about
1000 kg/m³ [20]. The properties were tabulated in table 2.
Table 2. Water properties as polynomial function of temperature
Properties Function
Specific Heat, 0.00000000757T -0.00000961715T3 +0.00458832992T 2-
4

Cp (J/kg-K) 0.97460985323T+81.93215034461
Thermal Conductivity, 0.00000000115T 4-0.00000145491T 3+0.00068215032T 2-
λ (W/m-K) 0.13845189110T+10.760272295
Dynamic Viscosity, 0.00000000009T 4-0.00000011637T 3+0.00005586252T 2 -
μ (kg/m-s) 0.01195955712T + 0.96484151345
 The data in table 2 was required to meet matching point between CFD and experiment results. The
function has residual 0.99 statistically and was valid at temperature range from 278 K to 328 K.

2.5. Entropy Generation Model

Entropy generation model is limited on investigating entropy generation rate due to heat transfer
(𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻 ) and fluid friction (𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷 ). The sum of that was the same as energy dissipation [16-17]. Thus,
the transport equation for entropy in cartesian coordinate system given by Spurk [23] can be written as
∂𝑠 𝑞⃗
𝜌 ( + 𝛻. v𝑠) = 𝛻 ( ) + 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷 + 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻 (6)
𝜕𝑡 𝑇
Entropy generation rate was the integration of volumetric entropy generation rate, which was
divided into two parts using time averaging approach i.e. mean and fluctuating. The detail of volumetric
entropy calculation was given by Herwig and Kock [16]. Thus, volumetric entropy generation equations
can be expressed as follow:
′′′ ′′′ ′′′
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷 = 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷 ̅ + 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷 ′ (7)
′′′ ′′′ ′′′
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻 = 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻
̅ + 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻 ′ (8)
In order to achieve integrated entropy generation, the volumetric entropy generation rates must be
integrated by respecting to volume. Therefore, both volumetric entropy generation in equations (7) and
(8) can be integrated and be written as
′′′
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷̅ = ∫ 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷
̅ 𝑑𝑉 (9)
𝑉
′′′
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷′ = ∫ 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐷 ′ 𝑑𝑉 (10)
𝑉
′′′
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻̅ = ∫ 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻
̅ 𝑑𝑉 (11)
𝑉
′′′
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻′ = ∫ 𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝐻 ′ 𝑑𝑉 (12)
𝑉

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Verification and Validation
The CFD simulation was verified and validated by using the data experiment given by Tang, J., et.
al. [20]. Two verification approaches were used. As first, comparison the velocity profile at inlet zone
and approximation solution using 1/7th power law were conducted. Figure 3 showed that velocity
profiles of CFD results agreed to the approximate solution of turbulent velocity profile. The average
velocity 0.732 m/s was used to account maximum velocity 1/7th power law.
1

0.8
Velocity (m/s)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
y axis

Figure 3. Velocity profile of water in inlet nozzle at average velocity 0.732 m/s
 As approximate solution, the maximum velocity was accounted around 0.896 m/s. Then, the
average and maximum velocity using CFD were about 0.779 m/s and 0.898 m/s respectively. It means
the percentage error for both velocities was around 6.03% and 0.15% respectively. The second,
comparison outlet nozzle velocity with experimental data results. The CFD result was about 26.31, while
the experiment result was 26.4 m/s [20]. Percentage error for outlet nozzle velocity is about 0.34%.
35,000

30,000
Vacuum Pressure (Pa)
25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000
Experiment [20] CFD
5,000

0
283 288 293 298 303 308 313 318 323
Temperature (K)
Figure 4. Comparison of vacuum pressure between experiment and CFD according to the variation of
water flow rate.
Furthermore, the validation was conducted by compared increment of vacuum pressure at no
entrainment mode or no secondary flow as illustrated in figure 4. It is clearly seen that Increasing
temperature of motive fluid affect the vacuum level of jet pump. Due to lack actual data of actual
operating pressure and the measurement position of the experimental point, operating pressure of the jet
pump was assumed as atmospheric condition and throat-entry was selected as measurement point. The
prediction of vacuum level pressure of CFD has similar trend to experimental data, with the percentage
error is about 10.37%.
3.2. Entropy Generation Rate Analysis
Two entropy generation analyses at temperature 288.16 K were assessed using CFD. Indirect
method was implemented to determined entropy in each zone of jet pump. The CFD results found that
the highest volumetric entropy generation (𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛 ) occurred in the throat by following chamber, nozzle,
diffuser and convergent zones for both velocities as shown in figure 5. Increasing the two times motive
fluid velocity triggered rise of entropy generation about seven times.
1.00
0.732 m/s
1.465 m/s
0.80

0.60
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛 (W/K)

0.40

0.20

0.00

Zones

Figure 5. Volumetric entropy generation rate in each zone different motive fluid velocity
′′′
According to the amount of integrated entropy generation rate (𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛 ), the entropy generation due
to dissipation was superior to entropy generation due to heat transfer. It was clearly seen in terms of
percentage as shown in figure 6. At 0.732 m/s, the entropy generation due to dissipation was dominated
by turbulent dissipation, while viscous dissipation dominates when the velocity reaches two times higher.
Further, entropy generation due to heat transfer almost had no contribution in entropy generation in
water jet pump.
 Sgen dissipation due to viscous Sgen dissipation due to viscous
Sgen dissipation due to turbulent Sgen
Sgen dissipation
dissipation due due to viscosity
to turbulent
Sgen thermal due to temperature gradient Sgen
Sgen dissipation
thermal due to turbulence
due to temperature gradient
Sgen thermal due to temperature fluctuation Sgen thermal due to temperature gradient
Sgen thermal due to temperature fluctuation
Sgen thermal due to temperature fluctuation

54.75% 0.00%
0.01% 45.57%
0.00%
45.57%
0.02%
0.03%
45.21% 54.41% 0.02%
54.41%
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Volumetric entropy generation rate in each zone different motive fluid velocity

3.3. Effect of Operating Conditions Effect of increasing motive fluid velocity

Increasing of velocity from 0.1 m/s to 1.4 m/s were investigated as follow previous experiment.
The result showed entropy generation rates in each zone tends to increase with increasing velocity except
suction, inlet and outlet zones. It indicated that there were five zones possible to be jet pump
.00 improvement, which the throat zone has more chance possibility than other zones.
1.00 inlet zone 0.16
.75
nozzle
0.75 0.12
suction
𝑠̇𝑔𝑒𝑛 (W/K)

.50
(W/K)

0.50 chamber 0.08

convergent
.25 0.04
0.25 throat
diffuser
.00 0.00 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.8
0.2 0.4 1 0.6 1.2
0.8 11.4 1.2 1.6
1.4 1.6
outlet zone 273 283 293 303 313 323 333
Temperature (K)
Velocity
Velocity (m/s) (m/s)
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Volumetric entropy generation rate in each zone (a) by velocity; (b) by temperature
3.3.2. Effect of increasing motive fluid temperature
In this sensitivity analysis, the velocity of water was maintained 0.732 m/s and the temperature
was varied from 278.16 K to 328.16 K. The result showed entropy generation rates in each zone tends
to stable with increasing motive fluid temperature except throat. Entropy generation rate of throat
inclined slightly as shown in figure 7b. It indicated that increasing temperature of motive fluid just
effected the mixing process of fluid in the throat.

4. Concluding Remarks
Combination of entropy generation analysis in CFD code are presented to analysis the location of
the highest entropy generation in water jet pump. Splitting region has been used to support identification
of entropy generation. Two parameters i.e. velocity and temperature were investigated and analyzed.
The numerical results of vacuum pressure are in good agreement with experimental results. In case of
entropy generation analysis, three important findings has been studied as follow 1) the highest entropy
generation, about 55 % of total entropy generation, was traced in throat, while the rest was distributed
in by chamber, nozzle, diffuser and convergent. 2) More than 99% of entropy generation rate in water
jet pump is due to dissipation and 3) the effect of motive fluid velocity is more significant than motive
fluid temperature.
 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Faculty of Engineering, The Petchra Pra Jom Klao
PhD scholarship, Grant No. 1/2559, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi and Center
for Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Education Thailand for financial support.

References
[1] Karassik I J, Messina J P, Cooper, P and Heald C C 2001. Pump Handbook, Third Edition (USA-
McGraw Hill).
[2] Yuan G, Zhang L, Zhang H and Wang Z 2011 Numerical and experimental investigation of
performance of the liquid-gas and liquid jet pumps in desalination systems Desalination 276 89-
95.
[3] Long X P, Zeng Q L, Yang X L, and Xiao L 2012 Structure optimization of an annular jet pump
using design of experiment method and CFD IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 15 1–7.
[4] El-Hayek M D and Hammoud A H 2006 Prediction of liquid jet pump performance using
computational fluid dynamics Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics Elounda,
Greece August 21-23, 148-53.
[5] Aldas K and Yapici R 2014 Investigation of effects of scale and surface roughness on efficiency of
water jet pumps using CFD J. Eng. Appl. Comp. Fluid Mech. 8(1) 14–25.
[6] Lisowski E and Momeni H 2010 CFD modelling of a jet pump with circumferential nozzles for
large flow rates Arch. Foundry Eng. 10(3) 69 -72.
[7] Momeni H 2010 CFD analysis of water jet pump Tech.Trans. Mech. 2-M(8) 185-91.
[8] Domagala M 2013 Simulation of cavitation in jet pump Tech.Trans. Mech. 1-M(5)51-58.
[9] Momeni H and Domagala M 2015 CFD simulation of transport solid particles by jet pumps
Tech. Trans. Mech. 2-M(7) 185-91.
[10] Song X G, Park J H, Kim S G and Parl Y C 2013 Performance comparison and erosion prediction
of jet pumps by using a numerical method Math. Comput.Model. 57(1-2) 245-53.
[11] Bejan A 1982 Entropy generation through heat and fluid flow (USA: Wiley & Sons).
[12] Bejan A 1996a Method of entropy generation minimization, or modelling and optimization based
on combined heat transfer and thermodynamics Revue Générale de Thermique 35 637-46.
[13] Bejan A 1996b Entropy generation minimization: the new thermodynamics of finite-size devices
and finite-time processes Applied Physics, 79 (3). 1191-218.
[14] Bejan A 1999 The method of entropy generation minimization Energy and Environment 11-22.
[15] Bejan, A. (2013), Entropy generation minimization, exergy analysis, and the constructal law
Arab J. Sci. Eng. 38 329-40.
[16] Herwig H and Kock F 2007 Direct and indirect methods of calculating entropy generation rates
in turbulent convective heat transfer problems Heat Mass Transf. 43 207–215.
[17] Kock F and Herwig H 2004 Local entropy production in turbulent shear flows: a high-Reynolds
number model with wall function Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 47 2205–15.
[18] Long X, Yao H and Zhao J 2009 Investigation on mechanism of critical cavitating flow in liquid
jet pumps under operating limits Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (9) 2415-20.
[19] White F M 2011 Fluid Mechanics, 7th edition (USA: McGraw-Hill).
[20] Tang J, Zhang Z, Li L, Wang J, Liu J and Zhou Y 2016. Influence of driving fluid properties on
the performance of liquid-driving ejector Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 101 20–26.
[21] ANSYS 2011 ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide 14.0 (USA: Ansys, Inc.).
[22] NIST database, 2018. Standard reference data. Accessed on March 5th, 2018.
[23] Spurk J H 1989 Stromungslehre (Berlin: Springer)

View publication stats