ARTICLE #13: PARALLEL OPERATION OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS and

the Importance of Curve Stability

Some time ago, one of our readers asked a question about a parallel operation of pumps.
This prompted a discussion which was posted under Q&A Section, Question #25. Later on,
another reader inquired about the unstable curves and their effect on pumps parallel
operation, which resulted in another Pump Magazine Article (#8). This generated interest
from our friends at Pump-Flo company, who asked our permission to reprint the article on
their web site. Pump-Flo is a maker of pump hydraulic selection curves program, for the
pumps made by several pump manufacturers. Their readers also liked the topic on parallel
operation, and more discussion followed, which we posted in Q&A Section, under Question
#48.

We have been receiving more questions and comments from our readers, and the latest one
(which we show below) convinced us of a need to respond with a formal article (#13), which
is what you are reading.

Question:

A chemical pump supplier engineer was asked why two of his pumps in parallel appeared
to be unstable at certain points on the curve, notwithstanding that the curve was an
inherently stable curve with continuous rising gradient to shut off. Both pumps are
identical, same diameter impeller, end suction type.

This instability was experienced in a mining plant on a cooling tower system with acidic
water at 50 deg C. The instability could be corrected by altering the settings of the
discharge gate valve, i.e. changing the head and flow on the pump. The suction head was
more than adequate at 10 psig. The NPSHr was less than 0 psig.

His explanation was linked to the suction manifold, which directed liquid in a straight feed
to one pump [A] and liquid via 2 x 90 degree elbows to the second pump [B]. There was a
very short straight portion of pipe between the 2nd elbow and the suction flange on pump
B, approximately 3-4 pipe diameters [pipe dia 10"]

This arrangement it was argued, caused the suction head on the 2nd pump to fluctuate
rapidly, both increasing and decreasing the suction head to pump B beyond the smooth
flow suction head experienced by pump A. This fluctuation or vortexing could be
substantial enough to cause the 2 pumps to fight themselves and result in the instability
experienced.

While the argument is plausible and credible, is this a recognized phenomenon in the
industry that can and has occurred on a number of other occasions? The solution, if this is
the cause of the instability, would be of course to change the manifold to more smoothly
direct flow to the 2nd pump, eliminating the 90 degree elbows.

Hugh Lloyd
National Process Equipment, Canada

Answer: Dear Hugh,

As we understand it, this is a setup you have:

V3

V1

V2

EL2
EL1

Note: elbows EL1 and EL2 are shown within the same plane for sketch simplicity, but in
reality most likely are in different planes.

The stable curve the supplier engineer pointed to is probably a manufacturer curve from
the catalog, which probably looks something like this:

Head

Flow

The H-Q curve is continuously rising, i.e. deemed stable.

Pump Magazine Article #8 talked about unstable (drooping) curves:

As was explained in Article #8, unstable curves cause problem for pumps operating in
parallel, which would explain Hughs problem. However, what is puzzling is why the two
pumps, having stable curves, behave as if their curves are unstable?

However, the pumps are not identical. Clearly, the suction approach to Pump B is different
from Pump A. While it is generally known that sharp turns, multiple elbows, short pipes,
and other obstructions are not a good thing for pumps, and numerous Case Histories have
been published to illustrate and warn the pump users not to do that (Hydraulic Institute
even issued guidelines on suction approach dimensions, sump configurations, etc. all to
help avoid problems) questions nevertheless come up each time another problematic
parallel operation surfaces.

There are many reasons why tipsy-turvey suction could cause instability. Lets take a
look how an apparently stable H-Q curve, even as tested by the manufacturer, can
become unstable when a pump ends up with a curvey suction. There is no other way to
understand this without having to delve into the heart of the impeller hydraulics. The head
generated by the impeller is the difference between the velocity angular momentum
between the impeller inlet and exit:

H = [ (U x Vtheta)OD - (U x Vtheta)eye ] / g

Impeller OD

Impeller Eye

The g is gravitational constant, U is peripheral rotational velocity, subscript

theta means peripheral projection of the absolute flow velocity vector, and H
is impeller head. If fluid velocities are taken in feet per second, and g=32.17
ft/sec2, then head H comes out in feet. There is also hydraulic efficiency involved,
but we skip that for simplicity.

Hydraulic designers refer to this in terms of velocity triangles, which essentially is a set
of fluid velocity vectors are the inlet and the exit of the impeller:

W1

V2

W2

V1
U1
Alpha1 = 90 degrees

U2
Alpha2 = 20 degrees

The projection of the absolute velocity V onto peripheral velocity U is called

Vtheta . For most end-suction pumps, the absolute flow angle at the inlet is 90
degrees, which is also referred to as no-prewhirl condition. Thus the projection
of the V1 velocity onto U1 is zero, and thus the product (U x V theta)eye = 0

For example, if a Pump A develops 100 feet of head at the BEP point of 1000 gpm,
the impeller exit component contributes all 100 feet if there is no pre-whirl, and
there is no effect of the impeller inlet no addition and no subtraction. At lower
flow, the exit velocity triangle changes (Vtheta)OD component gets larger, and thus
more head is generated. At the shut-off, there is no through-flow, and the (V theta)OD
essentially overlays directly over the vector U2. Thus, at zero flow (shut valve),
the head is the highest, - for typical end-suction pumps, such as ANSI, for
example, the rise to shut-off is approximately 110 - 130%. And in order for the
H-Q curve to be stable this rise must be continuous in order to avoid
instabilities if operated in parallel.

Double-suction pumps, for example, are different. Their casing forms a toiletbowl-shaped suction, which just as a toilet! creates a prewhirl:

U1
Alpha1 = 45-60 degrees

Now the product (U x Vtheta)eye is not zero! If this product amounts to, say, 30 feet, the
impeller would generate less head: 100-30 = 70 feet. However, hydraulic designers
would compensate for that by altering the impeller exit geometry width, blade
angles, etc. so that the exit portion would produce extra head, say 130 feet
and the net result would remain the same 130-30 = 100 feet.

Therefore, by changing impeller geometry, it possible to change the curve shape,

including the rise to shut-off. Likewise, by changing the pre-rotation (pre-whirl), it
is also possible to change the rise-to-shut-off. In fact, the change could go either
way the head at the BEP can either increase, or decrease depending whether
the pre-rotation is positive (as shown above), or negative. The shut-off head,
however, does not depend on prerotation component.

When a designer accounts for a known pre-rotation in the casing (such as for
double suction pumps example), he or she does it in a way to preserve the flow
dynamics, and maintain smooth flow and good efficiency. The designer has not
control, however, if the pre-rotation is created artificially, such as bad suction
piping, multiple elbows, and so on, - including the direction of the prerotation. If
the deck gets stacked the wrong way, the flow in the suction piping may end up
with negative rotation, - and double-turning elbows are known to be nasty on flow
patterns.

The resulting velocity inlet triangle may thus look like this:

Alpha1 = 140 degrees, i.e. negative Vtheta results.

This could create a negative inlet term - for example, (U x V theta)eye = - 40 feet
(minus). Since the exit is fixed, the net head would become 100 (-40) = +140 feet,
- which is obviously greater then the shut off head, - i.e. an unstable curve got
created:

Hpeak=140
Hso= 120

As Hugh rightly noted, the solution, if this is the cause of the instability, would indeed be to
change the manifold to a more conventional and appropriate inlet piping configuration.
Even though there could always be other reasons involved, a good piping is not a
guarantee, but a beginning to a trouble-free pump operation.

Next, lets look at the parallel operation in more detail, starting with stable curves.

Situation 1: Single Pump

The pump must generate pressure (head) to overcome hydraulic losses in the system. These
losses consist of losses in a valves, bends, elbows, heat exchanger and pipe friction. From
basic hydraulics, a friction loss is proportional to the square of flow:

HLOSS = k x Q2

The summation of individual losses is equal to a total system hydraulic loss:

HLOSS = KVALVE X Q2 + KELBOW X Q2 + KHE x Q2 + = (KVALVE + KELBOW + KHE +) x Q2 =

kSYSTEM x Q2

We were able to do the math above and add the individual hydraulic coefficient
due to the fact that the flow is the same throughout the system. We could not do
that so easily if the system had branches, with flows branching out all over. This
is analogous to the electric circuit, where the same current flowing from one
component to the next result in different voltage drops across the individual
resistors. In hydraulics, the pressure drop due to fluid flow is similar to the
voltage drop due to electric current.

Once the kSYSTEM is calculated, a system curve can be plotted:

hLOSS

Flow

If the pump curve and a system curve are plotted together, an intersection thus determines
the pump operating point, because it belongs to both curves:

Head

Flow (Q)

Situation 2: (2) pumps in parallel, but with a common resistance element (valve)

Flows Q1 and Q2 combine, and that is what flows through the valve: Qvalve = Q1+Q2

The valve curve is similar parabola as shown in the previous example:

h = k x Qvalve2 = k x (Q1+Q2)2

Mathematically, a pump curve is a Head as a function of Flow. Or, it can be also expressed
as Flow as a function of Head, i.e.:
Q1 = f(H1), and Q2 = f(H2)

In general, the pumps do not have to be identical.

Then, Qtotal = Q1+Q2 = f(H1) + f(H2)

Since Qtotal = Qvalve, the combined pump curve and a valve (i.e. system) curves can be
plotted and the intersection would determine the head (pressure) where the pump/system
will operate:

Head

1 pump

500 600

2 pumps (Qtotal = Q1 x 2)

Flow, gpm

(for simplicity both pumps here were assumed to be identical)

Note an interesting thing: when only one pump was operating (point 500 gpm), the flow
was 500 gpm. But when the second pump also came on line, they together, did not produce
500x2 = 1000 gpm! Instead, only 600 gpm flows through the system! Clearly, the answer to
that is in the shape of the system resistance curve. However, if the pumps were pumping
against mainly a static head (such as pressurized tank) then the flows would be additive!
Why? Because the static head curve is not a parabola, but a straight line, independent of
flow, and thus parallel to the flow axis:

Head

100 psi (system)

500

500 gpm

1000

Flow, gpm

1000 gpm
100 psi

500 gpm

Note: in general, a combination of friction as well as static heads may be present, although
usually either one or the other scenario is more predominant.

Situation 3: (2) pumps in parallel, but NOT with common resistance

Now, that is getting interesting. In the previous example, the change of the valve setting
(changing valve k coefficient) affects both pumps the same way. But what if we have a
system like this:

Common valve, V0

Valve V2

Lets assume, for simplicity, two identical pumps, and the valves are identical also. Assume
also that each valve is throttled the same percentage (i.e. having the same coefficient k):

Head,ft

PUMP CURVE

hsys

(Hso= 120 ft)

HBEP = 100 ft

VALVE CURVE

Flow, gpm
Flow, gpm

250

500 (BEP)
300 400

Digitize several points form the valve curve into a

Table below to make it easier to work with, as we
go:

Flow, gpm

100

200

300

400

500

600

hsys, ft

16

36

64

100

144

We know the following:

Assume there are no other losses except for the (2) valves. In other words, all other
losses have been combined into the (2) equivalent valves V0 and V2
Valve V0 sees the combined flows: from Pump 1 plus Pump 2
The head generated by the Pump 1 is equal to the pressure drop (head loss) across the
Valve V0, because of the pressure continuity the nodal point at the exit of the Pump 1
is the same as the entry point into the Valve V0
Valve V2 sees flow from Pump 2 only
System must be in balance, to satisfy individual pump H-Q curves, and individual valve
h-Q curves.

The solution is iterative:

a) Guess at the flow from Pump 1, Q1=250 gpm.

b) Per H-Q curve of Pump 1, head H1=118 feet

c) Head loss across valve V0 is equal to head generated by Pump 1, i.e. valve
h1=H1=118 ft
d) From the valve V0 curve, Q0 = 543 (we actually cheated a bit here got the
equation for the parabola, h0 = Q02/2500, and then just plugged-in the numbers)
e) Total pumps flow is equal to what is flowing through valve V0, i.e. Qtotal=Q0=543
f) Flow through Pump 2 is the difference: Q2 = Q0 Q1 = 543-250 = 293 gpm
g) From the Pump 2 curve (we used identical pumps in this case), H2 = 116 ft
(approximately, as it is more difficult to derive the polynomial equation for the
pumps. For the valve it is easy - parabola)
h) A pressure drop across the valve V2 is the difference between the pressures at its exit
and inlet. The exit pressure is equal to what Pump 1 generated, and the inlet is what
Pump 2 generated, i.e. h2 = 116-118 = -2 ft. This is impossible, i.e. our first guessed
flow from Pump 1 was wrong. Lets re-guess and go around again:

a) New guess, Q1=300 gpm

b) H1 = 115 ft
c) h0 = H1 = 115 ft
d) Q0 = 536 gpm
e) Qtotal = Q0 = 536 gpm
f) Q2 = Q0 Q1 = 536 300 = 236 gpm
g) H2 = 119 ft from pump curve
h) h2 = H2 H1 = 119-115 = 4 ft
i) From valve curve (or interpolating from the Table), Qvalve2=100 gpm
j) Q2 = Qvalve2 = 100 gpm (from the flow continuity what flows to Valve 2 has to
come out from Pump 2). This is not equal to Pump 2 flow as derived at step (f), so
we need to guess again. (But we are getting closer).

a) Next guess, Q1 = 400 gpm

b) H1 = 113 ft
c) h0 = H1 = 113 ft
d) Q0 = 532 gpm
e) Qtotal = Q0 = 532 gpm
f) Q2 = Q0 Q1 = 532-400 = 132 gpm
g) H2 = 119.5 ft from pump curve
h) h2 = H2 H1 = 119.5-113 = 6.5 ft
i) Qvalve2 = 127 gpm
j) Q2 = Qvalve2 = 127 gpm

We now reached a reasonable convergence. Thus the final answer is:

Pump 1: flow = 400 gpm, head = 113 ft
Pump 2: flow = 132 gpm, head = 119.5 ft

The above solution has a numeric (analytical) counterpart, and could be solved by writing
a set of simultaneous equations and solving them:

h2 = k2 x Q22
h0 = k0 x (Q1+Q2)2 we could even have different valves or valve settings
(different k0 and k2)
H1 = f(Q1) or Q1 = f(H1)
H2 = f(Q2) or Q2 = f(H2) pumps also could be different
H1 = h0

h2 = H1 H2

(6) equations and (6) unknowns: Q1, Q2, H1, H2, h1, h2

Clearly, even a simple case of just two pumps and two valves can be a rather time
consuming task to solve. Clearly, for a real pumping system, with many pumps
and components, a manual method is impractical. This is when computers come
handy, as Ray Hardee P.E., Engineered Software, Inc, explained in the discussion
for Question #48. Obviously a more refined math and methods can be employed
but lets leave that for the programmers and mathematicians! For now, and from
the practical point of view, - if we have a piping network program like that and a
clear manual of how to use it a solution of even a complex system would
become an easy job.

One of such companies is Sunrise Systems, and you can get more information
about them and their product via their web site at www.sunrise-sys.com

Note that we have only touched on systems with stable curves. What happens if
the pump curves are not stable? Well, mathematically, we get multiple solutions.
In other words, just as was explained in Article #8, a pump would be technically
able to operate at two flows for the same given head. How do programs like the
ones mentioned solve this?! That, however, is another issue. In the meantime
stay away from the unstable curves, and, for that matter from bad piping!