Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Laboratory Report 1


1. Aim
To determine the H vs Q, power vs Q and efficiency vs Q curves for a centrifugal, and
compare with the published H-Q and theoretical P-Q and - Q curves.

2. Apparatus

• A single stage centrifugal pump driven independently by a variable speed motor

• Gate valve for regulating flow rate
• Pressure transducers
• Revolution counter
• Flow meter

1. Procedure

• Switch the pump on.

• Check that the gate valve is fully open. The ball valve is to remain fully open
throughout the lab.
• Select the speed at which the pump will operate (1950 rpm).
• Record the flow inlet and outlet pressure, the flow rate, and torque with the gate
valve fully open.
• Record 10 readings of pressure, flow rate and torque by reducing the flow rate at a
constant proportional increment until zero flow-rate is achieved.

1. Theory
To determine the power, head and efficiency curves, the affinity laws need to be used.
Once the experimental values are obtained, the curves were to be drawn and compared
to the pump published curve.

1.1.Power-Flow Rate (P-Q) graph

Using the available data recorded from the laboratory, the output power is
calculated (refer to Appendix B). The experimental P-Q curve at 1950 rpm is then
drawn (refer to Appendix C1).
From the affinity laws, the experimental power at 2900 rpm can be determined
using the formula:

P' = P/ρN3D5

By selecting relative points corresponding to the flow rate of the published P-Q
curve, the theoretical and experimental values can be equated to each other to
determine the experimental power at 2900 rpm (refer to Appendix B).

1.2.Head-Flow Rate (H-Q) graph

Using the calculated velocities and the differential pressure, Bernoulli’s equation
was used to calculate the pump total head (refer to Appendix B). The experimental
H-Q curve at 1950 rpm was drawn (refer to Appendix C1).
From the affinity laws, the experimental head at 2900 rpm can be determined using
the formula:

ψ = gH/N2D2

Equating the published and experimental using the formula above, the
experimental head can be obtained at 2900 rpm (refer to Appendix B).

The corresponding flow rates at 2900 rpm were obtained using the affinity law

Ф = Q/ND3

By equating the published data and the experimental data, the flow rate at 2900
rpm can be determined (refer to Appendix B).

1.3.Efficiency-Flow Rate (η-Q) graph

To determine the efficiency, the pump power output and the motor input power are
to be calculated (refer to AppendixB). The ratio of the output power (Pout) to the
input power (Pin) will provide the efficiency of the pump at 1950 rpm in the

η = PoutPin

The efficiency values are graphically shown in Appendix C2.

1.4.Expected Trends
Figure 1: Centrifugal Pump Performance curve (www.aldobarbera.it/eng/prod-dett)

The expected curve of the experimental power at 2900 rpm should resemble that of
the published, with the power output lower at the same speed.

The expected curve of the experimental head is expected to be similar to the

published, with the head values lower than the published.

According to theoretical centrifugal pumps, η-Q curves should have the same trend
as other centrifugal pumps, with similar values of efficiency.

The trends of a centrifugal pump should be of identical appearance to Figure 1:

Centrifugal Pump Performance curve.

2. Results

2.1.Table of the results. Refer to Appendix A for tabulated results.

2.2.Pump performance graphs
2.2.1. Output Power vs Flow Rate (P-Q)

2.2.2. Head vs Flow Rate (H-Q)

2.2.3. Efficiency vs Flow Rate (η-Q)
3. Discussion
3.1.Power vs Flow Rate
On comparison of the published to the experimental Power-Flow curves, it is
evident that both trends display a proportional output power with respect to the
flow rate. With the gate valve fully open, the power delivered is at its peak of
performance. As the gate valve is closed, the output power reduces proportionally
until the gate valve is fully close. Therefore there will be no flow, and similarly, the
output power will be zero at complete valve closure.

The published power-flow curve is not seen running with a trend starting/ending at
zero flow rate, which illustrates that the valve governing flow to the flow meter
was not fully closed, but is shown in operation between 9-24 m3/h. In the
experiment, the pump was programmed to run at a motor speed of 1950 rpm.
From the graph of Power vs Flow Rate, it is evident that the reduction of the motor
speed reduces the power that can be delivered by the pump. It is also evident that a
reduction in the motor speed reduces the rate of flow through the flow meter.

It is understood that the reduction in motor speed reduces the angular velocity of
the impeller, resulting in less fluid dispensation through the flow meter and into the
storage tank. Due to the loss of angular velocity, the input power is reduced,
according to the formula P=Tω. The system losses thus reduce the output power,
making it lower at a lower speed.

3.2. Head vs Flow Rate

The experimental curve and published curve lines, at 2900 rpm, display similar
trends. Graphically it is evident that the head increases as the gate valve was closed
and the flow rate reduced. When the flow rate is at zero, the highest head value is
recorded. When the flow is at maximum, the lowest head value is recorded. The
experimental head is shown to be lower than the published head, and similarly, the
experimental flow rate is shown to be less than the published flow rate.
From the graphical data it is evident that a reduction in speed affects the
performance of the pump by reducing the head and the flow rate of the system.

3.3.Efficiency vs Flow Rate

The efficiency was calculated at a motor speed of 1950 rpm. Graphically it is
noticeable that the pump becomes less efficient as the gate valve is closed. When
the valve is opened fully and at speed is at the highest testing level, the pump is at
its most efficient percentage. A centrifugal pump performance curve was obtained.
The motor speed is programmed to 2900 rpm.

When comparing the experimental efficiency-flow curve to a published curve

obtained, it is noticeable that the same trend is obtained, with values efficiency
percentages fluctuating at the same levels. The published trend shows a maximum
efficiency of more or less 45%, whereas the experimental trend shows a maximum
efficiency of 45.87%. Refer to the efficiency curve on Figure 1: Centrifugal Pump
Performance curve.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

The laboratory experiment proved that a decrease in the motor speed does affect the
characteristic performance curves of the pump. The reduction in speed causes a
reduction in the P-Q and H-Q values. This is seen in the difference of the trends
between the experimental and published curves (Refer to P-Q and H-Q graphs in

The η-Q trends will remain the same no matter the motor speeds that are set. This is
because the speed increase/decrease would cause the input and output power to
increase/decrease at the same rate. Therefore the efficiencies would remain the same,
or in the same region as another speed-as experiments do give you varying values.

The experimental H-Q reading at zero flow-rate was not the maximum head value.
However, during the experiment, when the gate valve was completely closed and the
flow rate was zero, the torque reading fluctuated. The group therefore had to take an
average reading, which made the point at zero flow inaccurate. It could be
recommended that the gauges be more precise.

Losses were to be neglected. If all losses were considered, the outcome of the readings
could have varied to the readings obtained in this laboratory.

5. References

Anon, 2011. The Engineering ToolBox.

< http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/astm-copper-tubes-d_779.html >
[31 March 2011].
Anon, 2011. Pompe Barbera.
[4 April 2011].
Appendix A - Results.

Inlet Outlet Pump Motor Volume Motor Pump Pump Pump Pump
pressure pressure Differential Speed Flowrate Input Inlet Outlet Total Power Overall
Sample Torque Efficiency
Pressure Power Velocity Velocity Head Output
Number P1 [Nm] Egr
P2 dPp1 n1 Qv Pe1 V1 V2 H1 P1
[Bars] [Bars] [bars] [rpm] [m³/h] [W] [m/s] [m/s] [m] [W] [%]

1 -0.16 0.44 0.6 1950 2.09 10.83 426.785 1.432 3.548 6.65331 196.351 45.68
2 -0.14 0.52 0.66 1950 2.03 9.747 414.533 1.289 3.184 7.15983 190.169 45.87
3 -0.14 0.58 0.72 1950 1.98 8.664 404.323 1.146 2.842 7.6842 181.414 44.87
4 -0.13 0.64 0.77 1950 1.92 7.581 392.071 1.008 2.483 8.112 167.576 42.74
5 -0.12 0.69 0.81 1950 1.84 6.498 375.736 0.8595 2.1292 8.4503 149.6599 39.83
6 -0.11 0.73 0.84 1950 1.75 5.415 357.356 0.716 1.769 8.6959 128.3014 35.903
7 -0.11 0.76 0.87 1950 1.66 4.332 338.978 0.573 1.428 8.9557 105.7164 31.19
8 -0.10 0.79 0.89 1950 1.57 3.249 320.5995 0.4297 1.088 9.1233 80.773 25.194
9 -0.10 0.8 0.9 1950 1.45 2.166 296.095 0.286 0.708 9.18845 54.227 18.314
10 -0.09 0.82 0.91 1950 1.3 1.083 265.465 0.143 0.3548 9.28162 27.3914 10.318
11 -0.05 0.85 0.9 1950 1.18 0 240.9602 0 0 9.1743 0 0