CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Dissertation entitled CFD ANALYSIS OF PUMP INTAKE SUMP
FLOW PATTERN - EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN SUMP GEOMETRY and submitted by
JAYDEV CHAKRABORTY having ID-No. 2012HD91507 for the partial fulfillment of the
requirements of M.S. Project Engineering and Management degree of BITS, embodies the
bonafide work done by him/her under my supervision.

______________________
Signature of the Supervisor

Place : ____________________
_______________________________________
Date : ____________________

Name, Designation, Organization & Location.

Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani

Off-Campus Work Integrated Learning Programme
First Semester 2014-2015
DCPL ZG629T: Dissertation
BITS ID No.

: 2012HD91507

NAME OF THE STUDENT

: JAYDEV CHAKRABORTY

EMAIL ADDRESS

: 2012hd91507@wilp.bits-pilani.ac.in

EMPLOYING ORGANISATION

: Development Consultants Private Limited

SUPERVISORS NAME

: Dr. Ranjan Ganguly

SUPERVISORS EMAIL ADDRESS

: ranjan@pe.jusl.ac.in

DISSERTATION TITLE

: CFD ANALYSIS OF PUMP INTAKE SUMP FLOW

PATTERN - EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN SUMP
GEOMETRY.

ABSTRACT
This paper considers the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as a tool to assist the engineer
in the hydraulic design of pump intakes by comparing different cases and establishing the actual
need of the additional geometrical features, like the pump compartments and baffles.
Encouragingly, the results show CFD can be utilised to produce qualitative statements regarding the
overall system performance.
It is not yet claimed that CFD can replace physical modelling, but, it can provide a powerful tool to
supplement the experience and hydraulic expertise of the pump intake system designer.
Keywords: CFD, environmental, hydraulic, model, simulation, sump, turbulence, vortex.

Signature of Student

Signature of Supervisor

Name: Jaydev Chakraborty

Place: Kolkata
Date: 14/11/2014

Name: Dr. Ranjan Ganguly

Place: Kolkata
Date: 14/11/2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation work was carried out under the principal supervision of Dr. Ranjan Ganguly,
Associate professor, Department of power engineering, Jadavpur University. I express my heartfelt
gratitude towards his continual support and valuable guidance amidst his busy schedule.
I must also thank Mr. D. S. Mallick, Executive director and HOD Mechanical Engineering,DCPL,
and Mr. N.A. Chaudhuri, Executive director, DCPL, for their encouragement and support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................8
1.1.

Motivation....................................................................................................................................8

1.2.

Problems associated with aberrant CW flow................................................................................9

1.3.

Importance of CFD analysis for studying flow pattern of CW pump-intake..............................10

1.4.

Literature search.........................................................................................................................10

1.5.

Objectives..................................................................................................................................11

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................12
2.1.

System description.....................................................................................................................12

2.2.

Geometry...................................................................................................................................12

2.3.

Flow Data...................................................................................................................................13

2.4.

Case setup and configurations used............................................................................................14

SOLUTION METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................15
3.1.

Governing Equations..................................................................................................................15

3.2.

Boundary Conditions.................................................................................................................16

3.3.

Method of Solution....................................................................................................................16

3.4.

Mesh..........................................................................................................................................17

3.5.

Solution and Post-processing.....................................................................................................18

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.........................................................................................19

4.1.

General.......................................................................................................................................19

4.2.

Particle Tracer Pathlines.............................................................................................................19

4.3.

Surface streamlines....................................................................................................................21

4.4.

Velocity contours.......................................................................................................................23

4.5.

Vorticity plots.............................................................................................................................28

References.............................................................................................................................29

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : CW and ACW sump drawing (Plan view)....................................................................................................12
Figure 2 : CW Compartment (Elevation View).............................................................................................................13
Figure 3: ACW Compartment (Elevation view)............................................................................................................13
Figure 4 : CASE 2 Sump with Compartments...........................................................................................................14
Figure 5 : CASE 1 Basic Sump Geometry..................................................................................................................14
Figure 6 : CASE 3 - Sump with Compartments and Baffles........................................................................................14
Figure 7 : Computational domain (Plan).......................................................................................................................17
Figure 8 : Computational domain (End view)...............................................................................................................17
Figure 9 : ACW Bell.........................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 10 : CW Bell..........................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 11 : Particle Tracers from inlet - Case1 (left) and Case2 (right)......................................................................19
Figure 12 : Particle Tracers from inlet Case2 (left) and Case3 (right).....................................................................20
Figure 13 : Particle tracers entering ACW bell Case 1 (left) and Case 2 (right).....................................................21
Figure 14 : Surface streamlines Case1.........................................................................................................................22
Figure 15 : Surface streamlines Case2.........................................................................................................................22
Figure 16 : Surface streamlines Case3.........................................................................................................................22
Figure 17 : Streamlines at -6.2 M - Case 1 and Case 3..................................................................................................23
Figure 18 : Location of strategic Planes.........................................................................................................................23
Figure 19 : Case 1 Velocity Contour Plane A-A..........................................................................................................24
Figure 20 : Case 2 Velocity Contour Plane A-A..........................................................................................................24
Figure 21 : Case 3 Velocity Contour Plane A-A..........................................................................................................25
Figure 22 : Velocity contour comparison Plane A-A Case 1 (left) and Case 3 (right).............................................25
Figure 23 : Velocity contour comparison Plane B-B Case 1 (left) and Case 3 (right).............................................26
Figure 24 : Velocity Contours Plane C-C Case 1........................................................................................................27
Figure 25 : Velocity Contours Plane C-C Case 2........................................................................................................27
Figure 26 : Velocity Contours Plane C-C Case 3........................................................................................................27
Figure 27 : CW1 Bell Vorticity Case 1......................................................................................................................28
Figure 28 : CW2 Bell Vorticity Case 1......................................................................................................................28
Figure 29 : ACW1 Bell Vorticity Case 1...................................................................................................................28
Figure 30 : ACW3 Bell Vorticity Case 1...................................................................................................................28
Figure 31 : CW1 Bell Vorticity Case 2......................................................................................................................29
Figure 32 : CW2 Bell Vorticity Case 2......................................................................................................................29
Figure 33 : ACW1 Bell Vorticity Case 2...................................................................................................................29
Figure 34 : ACW3 Bell Vorticity Case 2...................................................................................................................29
Figure 35 : CW1 Bell Vorticity Case 3......................................................................................................................30
Figure 36 : CW2 Bell Vorticity Case 3......................................................................................................................30
Figure 37 : ACW1 Bell Vorticity Case 3...................................................................................................................30
Figure 38 : ACW3 Bell Vorticity Case 3...................................................................................................................30

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Abbreviations used.............................................................................................................................................7
Table 2: Flow Data...........................................................................................................................................................13

Table 1 : Abbreviations used

CW
ACW
HIS
ANSI
CFD
RANS

Circulating Water / Cooling Water

Auxiliary Cooling Water
Hydraulic Institute standards
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equation

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Motivation

The basic hydraulic design of CW pump intake systems are done in accordance with the guidelines
provided by the Hydraulic Institute Standards (ANSI/HI 9.8-1998).These standard designs are often
modified on an ad-hoc basis to incorporate different site specific constraints. These modifications
can impact upon approach flow characteristics and result in underperformance of the CW and ACW
pumps. The function of CW system in a thermal power plant is to dissipate thermal load of Steam
Turbine Condenser, Plate Heat Exchangers and other mechanical equipments in the turbine and
boiler area. This system rejects the heat to the atmosphere at cooling towers and the cooled water is
pumped backed to the CW system by CW and ACW pumps. In a thermal power plant, CW pumps
handle by far the largest volume of fluid flow, albeit at a low head.
CW Pumps are known to experience common operational problems such as reduced flowrate and
head, effects on power consumption and increased vibration and noise. In many extreme cases
pumps may suffer erosion of the impeller due to cavitation, and excessive wear of shafts, bearings,
wear rings and couplings. This results in severe deterioration of pump performance and reliability,
and corresponds to a significant increase in operation and maintenance costs. These problems are
sometimes associated with certain undesirable approach flow characteristics and are caused
primarily by poor design of the pump intake structure. Poor intake sump design may result in
submerged or surface vortices, swirl of flow entering the pump, non-uniform distribution of
velocity at the pump impeller and entrainment of air or gas bubbles. Laboratory experiments on
scale-models have been utilised to identify the source of particular problems with a pump sump or
intake and find practical solutions to rectify them. Such investigations have generally resulted in
successful solutions to identified problems, however, physical model studies are time consuming
and expensive.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a tool for solving fluid flow problems. This paper considers
the use of CFD as a tool to assist in the design of pump intake structures and study the importance
of various sump geometrical features such as the CW compartments, ACW compartments and the
baffles. ANSYS FLUENT ver 13.0 has been used to solve the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equation for solution of the problem.
In this study correlation will be sought between cases and the effects of different geometrical
components will be studied.

1.2.

Problems associated with aberrant CW flow.

For pumps to achieve their optimum hydraulic performance across all operating conditions the flow
at the impeller must meet specific hydraulic conditions. Pump inlet conditions are often overlooked
while designing the pumping intake stations, yet they may constitute the single reason for a
pumping station failing to meet its required design flow rate. Regardless of the type of intake,
whether pressurized, sump or forebay, pump performance is dependent upon the provision of
adequate hydraulic conditions at the impeller. A number of problems in the CW intake system can
be associated with aberrant water flow. Undesirable vibrations, reduction in flow rates, erosion of
impeller, excessive wear of bearings, shaft, couplings etc. are some of the problems which can be
associated with aberrant flow of water in the pump intake sump. These problems usually lead to
higher operation and maintenance costs and affect the system adversely.
Ideally, the flow approaching the intake section of CW pumps should be uniform and steady, with
vortices at the pump suction close to zero.
Pump intake design must satisfy the requirements for proper approach flow patterns for the
following specific hydraulic conditions:
1. Surface vortices;
2. Submerged vortices;
3. Swirl of flow entering the pump;
4. Non-uniform distribution of velocity at the pump impeller; and
5. Entrained air or gas bubbles.
The negative impact of each of these hydraulic conditions varies with pump specific speed and size.
In general, axial flow pumps (high specific speed) or large pumps are more susceptible to poor
performance under adverse conditions than radial flow pumps (low specific speed) or small pumps1.
The geometric orientation of the sump or the forebay plays a major role in determining the
uniformity of the approach flow and can be a source of vortex formations. The vortices, generated
particularly in separation zones, near the pump entrances, have the tendency of getting advected to
the pump intake before getting dissipated due to viscous action. The presence of high vorticity at
the pump bell-mouth, adversely affects pump head and discharge and thus, is always undesirable.
Further, the call for frequent maintenance due to wear and tear of parts, amplifies the operation and
maintenance costs of the pumps. Cavitations, fluctuations of load, vibration and noise, higher inlet
losses and reduced pumping efficiency are some of the problems that these pumps can face
attributed mainly to the aberrant flow patterns in the intake sump and forebay. Therefore, the design
of the channels leading into the sump, the forebays, the sump itself with all the necessary structures,
shape of the intake, and the relative locations of the pumps should aim at producing such flow
conditions that the angular momentum about the point of intake is as low as possible.

1.3.

Importance of CFD analysis for studying flow pattern of CW pump-intake.

Analysis done by experimental testing of scaled down models which goes through a number of
modification cycles to arrive at a satisfactory solution is both time consuming & expensive. With
development of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) & enhancement of computing capabilities,
analysis can be done in much less time & expense
In the present work an attempt has been made to simulate and predict the flow conditions such as
vortices and swirl for multiple pump intakes in a single sump, with an aim to validate and
understand the need and importance of some of the geometrical features like the pump
compartments and the baffles using commercially available computational fluid dynamic software
ANSYS FLUENT 13.0 2 as an important design optimization tool for intake sumps. The time and
cost involved in doing the pump sump physical model studies for the variation of sump geometry
and other components is very high and may be impractical. Hence the present study emphasises on
studying the effect of change in pump-intake geometry using CFD as the analysis tool.

1.4.

Literature search.

1.5.

Objectives.
The objectives of the present study will be the following:

3D Geometric modelling of CW pump-intake sump.

The initial CFD analysis will include a part of the CW Channel (upto 5 m upstream
of forebay), forebay and the pump suction bell mouths. Other structural features viz.
pump sump chambers, baffles etc. will be subsequently added and their impact in the
overall flow pattern will be studied.

Meshing (grid formation) of the 3D model as needed for the finite-volume CFD
analysis.

Simulating the flow in the pump sump using CFD software and analysing the flow
profile. Graphical representation of various flow parameters.

Study the effects of changes in sump geometry namely CW and ACW compartments
and baffles on various flow parameters with the aim of reduction or preferably no
vortex formation at the pump inlet.

2.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
2.1. System description
The present study has been made on the CW intake system , installed for 1270MW Coal based
Power Plant at Nagpur, Maharashtra of M/s Ideal Energy Projects Limited (IEPL) 3. The CW and
ACW pumps were supplied by M/s Worthington Pumps India Ltd (WPIL). The system constitutes
two (2) CW pumps and three (3) ACW pumps. Under normal condition, both the CW and two out
of the three ACW pumps would be operating. For all practical purposes, the free water surface has
been treated to be horizontal.
2.2. Geometry
The sump geometry along with the CW and ACW bell profile are as per WPIL drawings and in line
with the guidelines stipulated by ANSI/HIS-1998 4. The computational domain starts with a CW
channel (up to 5 m upstream of forebay; additional length of 5 m has been considered to have the
flow fully developed), which ends in an expanding forebay with vertically sloping section. After the
forebay, lies the rectangular portion of the sump consisting of two CW pumps and three ACW
pumps. Towards the ends of each of the bay, is placed the suction pipes of the pumps at required
clearances from the boundaries. The suction pipes consist of pump suction bell mouth and outlet
pipes. The outlet pipe from the suction bell mouth of each pump is extended vertically up to the free
surface to ensure a fully developed outflow. Initial study comprises the pump-sump and forebay
only. In the subsequent stages, the separation compartments and the baffles were added and their
effect on the overall flow pattern was studied.

Figure 1 : CW and ACW sump drawing (Plan view)

Figure 2: ACW Compartment (Elevation view)

2.3. Flow Data

Figure 3 : CW Compartment (Elevation View)

For the present case, maximum volumetric flow rate of each of the pumps are considered for the
CFD simulation. Further, the initial geometry is modelled consisting of the forebay, side-walls,
suction bell mouths and discharge pipes. The additional structural items viz. compartment walls,
baffles etc. were modelled subsequently and their effect on the overall flow-pattern within the
computational domain was studied.
Table 2: Flow Data

2.4.

CW Pumps

ACW Pumps

No. of Pumps

No. of Pumps Working

Rated Vol. Flow Rate of

Each Pump

17,000 m3/h

1250 m3/h

Max Vol. Flow Rate of

Each Pump

22,100 m3/h

1625 m3/h

Suction Bell Diameter

2043 mm

584 mm

C
as
e

setup and configurations used

The simulations were performed on the following configurations and the effect of introducing the
additional geometrical features (compartments and baffles) were studied and are reported in a case-

to-case basis. This ensured comparisons between the cases and systematic approach to understand
the effects of various geometrical features in the pump intake sump.
Table 3 : Configuration used
CONFIGURATION
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3

DETAILS
Basic Sump geometry with
forebay only.
Addition of CW and ACW
compartments to Case 1.
Further addition of baffle walls in
front of the pump chambers.

Figure 4 : CASE 1 Basic Sump Geometry

FIGURE REFERENCE
Figure 4: Basic Sump Geometry

Figure 5 : CASE 2 Sump with Compartments

Figure 6 : CASE 3 - Sump with Compartments and Baffles

3. SOLUTION METHODOLOGY
3.1. Governing Equations
The flow through the CW pump sump is isothermal, incompressible and fully turbulent. The
conservation of mass and momentum for the flow is represented by the Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes Equations, which are:

ui
0
xi
(1)

u j ui
x j

1
2
ui u j

p k eff
xi
3
x j x j xi

(2)

where the effective turbulent momentum diffusivity is given as

eff

k2
t C

(3)

For turbulence modeling of the flow, standard k- method is employed as follows:

k u j k

t
x j
x j

u j

t
x j
x j

t k

Gk
k x j

C
G

1
k
2
k
k
x j

(4)

(5)

The rate of production of turbulent kinetic energy Gk is expressed as

ui u j ui

x j xi
x j

Gk t

(6)

Typical constants for the Standard k- model are C=0.09, C1=1.44, C2=1.92, k = 1.0, = 1.3.

3.2. Boundary Conditions

The fully elliptic nature of the governing equations require boundary conditions to be specified at
all the physical boundaries of the computational domain. The inlet boundary condition is applied at
the entry of the computational domain in terms of the total mass flow entering into the sump. A
turbulent intensity of 10% and integral length scale have been considered at the inlet. The boundary
conditions at the outlet of pipes (at the downstream of the bellmouths) are considered to be fully
developed. All wetted surfaces (channel walls, channel bottom, piers, baffle wall, and the intake
pipes of the pumps) are specified as walls with no slip boundary condition. The top free surface has
been treated as a boundary with symmetry.
The boundary conditions at various physical boundaries of computational domain are as follows :
Inlet boundary condition is applied at entry to the computational domain in terms of total mass
flow
entering into the sump
A turbulent intensity of 10% & integral length scale considered at the inlet
Boundary conditions at outlet of pipes, downstream of the bell mouth are considered to be fully
developed
All wetted surfaces (channel walls, channel bottom, piers, baffle wall and intake pipes of the
pumps) are specified as walls with no slip boundary condition
Top surface has been treated as a boundary with symmetry

3.3. Method of Solution

The governing equations are numerically solved using a finite volume CFD code following
SIMPLE algorithm [6]. More than 2.5 million tetrahedral computational meshes have been used to
discterize the computational domain. Finer grids are adopted at the bellmouth inlet and in the pump
compartments where the velocity gradients are high (See Fig. 2). The field variables are discretized
using the Power Law scheme. An underrelaxation parameter of 0.7 is used for the momentum
equation and 0.8 for the k and equations. The solution proceeds through a succession of iterations
till the residuals fell below a preset convergence value of 10-5.

3.4. Mesh
To analyze fluid flows, flow domains are split into smaller subdomains (made up of geometric
primitives like hexahedra and tetrahedra in 3D and quadrilaterals and triangles in 2D). The
governing equations are then discretized and solved inside each of these subdomains. The aim of
the simulation was to analyse the fluid flow within the computational domain. Considering that the
quality and resolution of the mesh have a great impact on the results, a fine hybrid tetrahedral
element mesh of about 1.5 million cells were used. (Fig 7 to Fig 10 below).

Figure 7 : Computational domain (Plan)

Figure 8 : Computational domain (End view)

Figure 10 : CW Bell

Figure 9 : ACW Bell

3.5. Solution and Post-processing

The process of solving a complex system is inherently difficult and requires high-end computing
machines. For stability and convergence several hundred iterations were performed in ANSYS
FLUENT 13.0 SOFTWARE. The post processing of results were done using ANSYS CFD POST
and other tools like MS EXCEL.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. General
The results presented within this section are obtained using the commercially available FLUENT
CFD modelling software. The simulations of different cases are compared and the effects of
addition of the geometrical components are discussed. The major criteria which are considered for
the comparison of the flow parameters in between the cases are: prediction of vortices, swirl angle,
velocity distribution and air entrainment. For the ease of reference, Cases 1 to 3 will be referred to.

4.2. Particle Tracer Pathlines

Particles were released from the inlet surface and the pathlines over the entire computational domain were
captured (see figures 11 - 15 ).

The figure below (fig.11) compares the pathlines of particle-tracers, released from the inlet surface,
between Case 1 (basic sump geometry) and Case 2 (addition of CW and ACW compartments). The
encircled area shows the formation of a circulation zone in Case 1, which is eliminated due to the
Figure 11 : Particle Tracers from inlet - Case1 (left) and Case2 (right)

inclusion of the pump compartments, in Case 2.

Comparing Case 2 (addition of CW and ACW compartments) with Case 3 (with compartments and
baffles), the particles are observed to flow upto the top of the pump bellmouths and then dip inside
to enter the bellmouth, in Case 2, while due to the presence of baffles in Case 3, the particles reach
the bellmouths underneath the baffle walls.(see fig 12 below)

Figure 12 : Particle Tracers from inlet Case2 (left) and Case3 (right)

The flow occurring in Case 1 and Case 2 is not desirable as the fluid enters the bell of the pump
from right above and may entrap air with it. The probability of the presence of air core is higher in
these two cases ( Case 1 and 2) rather than in Case 3. This can be illustrated by the following image
(see figure 13 ).

Figure 13 : Particle tracers entering ACW bell Case 1 (left) and Case 2 (right)

The particle tracer pathlines depict the betterment of overall flow within the sump area with
subsequent additions of compartment walls and baffles. Similar comparative cases will be given in
the following sections and the qualitative development of flow parameters will be discussed.

4.3. Surface streamlines

The surface streamlines (at symmetry) are plotted to understand the pattern of flow, occurring at the
free surface of the computational domain. These images (see fig. 14 and 15 ) show that vortices are
created above the bell mouths in Case 1, while addition of compartments in Case 2, eradicates this
problem and vortex is found outside the pump compartments. Further addition of the baffle walls in
Case 3, diminishes the number of streams reaching the pump suction from the top (see fig. 16).

Figure 14 : Surface streamlines Case1

Figure 15 : Surface streamlines Case2

Figure 16 : Surface streamlines Case3

Streamlines at a lower elevation (horizontal plane at EL 6.2 m from top), also depicts the
betterment of flow from Case 1 (fig.16) to Case 3 (fig.17).

Figure 17 : Streamlines at -6.2 M - Case 1 and Case 3

4.4. Velocity contours

Velocity contours are another set of identifiers, which can be used to predict flow abnormalities,
within the computational domain. The domain is cut into a number of planes at strategic locations
(see fig.18 below) in order to analyse and understand the velocity profiles in those areas.

Figure 18 : Location of strategic Planes

Velocity Contours on Plane A-A

Possible zone of air core

Figure 19 : Case 1 Velocity Contour Plane A-A

It is observed in the above figure (fig.19) that there is a zone above the bellmouth, where the
gradient of velocity from top-to-bottom is positive. Moreover, the velocity vectors in this zone are
not axial to the plane and are rather tangential to it. This is conducive for formation of air core,
which might even reach the pump suction and cause adverse effects to the impeller.
On addition of pump compartments, as in Case 2, it is observed that the above problem is resisted.
However, there exists a zone of high re-cirulation, just behind the CW bell (see fig.20 below),
which again can be detrimental to the pump suction.

Zone of high recirculation

Figure 20 : Case 2 Velocity Contour Plane A-A

The velocity contour on the same plane for Case 3 shows a gradual increase in velocity as the flow
approaches the suction bellmouth, underneath the baffle walls (see fig. 21 below). No major
aberrations in flow profile are observed.

Figure 21 : Case 3 Velocity Contour Plane A-A

In order to provide a more comparative picture, particle tracers were added along with the velocity
contour lines for comparing the base case (Case 1) and the final case (Case 2). The figure is given
below.

Figure 22 : Velocity contour comparison Plane A-A Case 1 (left) and Case 3 (right)

Velocity Contours on Plane B-B

Figure 23 below, shows the velocity magnitude contours in y-z direction at plane B-B. In the left
side image (Case 1), the velocity gradient is from top to bottom direction as shown by the arrow
while in the right side image ( Case 3), the gradient is from the sides.
The flow profiles at the bellmouths of CW pumps 1 and 2 are almost identical in Case 3 (right side
image below), showing evidence of nearly similar flow distributions, whereas in Case 1 (left image
below) the absence of compartment walls on one side and presence of the sump wall on the other
side of the CW pumps, there is a slight difference in the contour profiles.

Figure 23 : Velocity contour comparison Plane B-B Case 1 (left) and Case 3 (right)

Velocity Contours on Plane C-C

Gradual betterment of flow is observed from Case 1 to Case 3 as depicted by the below images.
Flow irregularities tend to minimize on addition of compartments and baffles.

Figure 24 : Velocity Contours Plane C-C Case 1

Figure 25 : Velocity Contours Plane C-C Case 2

Figure 26 : Velocity Contours Plane C-C Case 3

4.5. Vorticity plots

The z-vorticity distributions on x-y plane at the CW and ACW pump bellmouth throats are shown in
Figs. 7 and 8 respectively. For the CW pump bellmouths, the z-vorticity distributions shows
positive and negative z regions on the top and the bottom halves for each CW pump. This can be
attributed to the inertia of the flow entering the bellmouth from the direction of the forebay (see Fig.
4). Similar trend is found in the ACW bellmouths, too. Evaluation of swirl angle following the
method described in Section 2.5 shows that the swirl angle for all the pumps remains well within
the permissible limit of 5o.
The above flow profiles are drawn under when ACW pump1 and 2 are in operation, along with two
CW pumps. For the other two combinations, viz., ACW pumps 1 and 3, and ACW pumps 2 and 3 in

operation, qualitatively similar flow profiles are obtained. However, depending upon the actual zvorticity distributions, the values of the swirl angles at the pump bellmouths differ slightly. The
values of swirl angles under different combinations of ACW pump operation is listed in Table 2. It
is seen from Table 2 that the swirl angle
Case 1 :

Figure 27 : CW1 Bell Vorticity Case 1

Figure 29 : ACW1 Bell Vorticity Case 1

Case 2:

Figure 28 : CW2 Bell Vorticity Case 1

Figure 30 : ACW3 Bell Vorticity Case 1

Figure 31 : CW1 Bell Vorticity Case 2

Figure 32 : CW2 Bell Vorticity Case 2

Figure 33 : ACW1 Bell Vorticity Case 2

Figure 34 : ACW3 Bell Vorticity Case 2

Case 3:

Figure 35 : CW1 Bell Vorticity Case 3

Figure 36 : CW2 Bell Vorticity Case 3

Figure 37 : ACW1 Bell Vorticity Case 3

Figure 38 : ACW3 Bell Vorticity Case 3

5. References

1 CFD Modelling of a Pump Intake - Barak Truasheim

2 ANSYS FLUENT Ver 13.0 - Manual
3 IEPL DOC No
4 ANSI / HIS 1998