6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)

Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008

Simulation of the unsteady, incompressible flow in a centrifugal

pump with vaned diffuser using staggered and collocated grid
methods in 2D
D. de Kleine, B.P.M. van Esch* , J.G.M. Kuerten A.W. Vreman
Eindhoven University of Technology Vreman Research
Department of Mechanical Engineering Godfried Bomanstraat 46
PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven 7552 NT Hengelo
The Netherlands The Netherlands
* b.p.m.v.esch@tue.nl

Abstract: For the design of turbomachines like compressors, turbines, fans, and centrifugal pumps more and more
use is made of commercially available flow simulation software. To the authors best knowledge, in all cases dis-
cretization schemes based on a collocated grid are used. However, using a collocated grid method, the incompress-
ible Navier-Stokes equations can suffer from odd-even decoupling. The adaptations necessary to suppress odd-even
decoupling in incompressible flows result in calculations which are either less accurate or more time-consuming,
especially for unsteady flows. In this paper we consider an alternative method based on a staggered-grid approach.
The method is ideally suited for calculating unsteady incompressible flow on highly non-uniform block-structured
grids. The unsteady flow in a radial pump with a vaned diffuser is calculated in 2D and compared with results
obtained with a commercially available code. The time dependent velocity and pressure fields are validated with
experimental results available in literature. The comparison shows that the collocated discretization can achieve
the same accuracy as the staggered discretization although calculation time is two times larger.

Key–Words: staggered, collocated, unsteady incompressible flow, odd-even decoupling

May 31, 2008

Nomenclature Subscripts
b [mm] impeller blade span 0 suction pipe
c [mm] chord length 1 impeller leading edge
p [Pa] static pressure 2 impeller trailing edge
r [mm] radius 3 diffusor leading edge
u [m/s] velocity 4 diffusor trailing edge
w [m/s] velocity in rotating frame r radial direction
z [-] number of blades t total
p−p0
Cp = 2 ρU 2 [-] static pressure coefficient x x direction
2
Q [m3 /s] flow rate θ tangential direction
Re = cUν 2 [-] Reynolds number
U2 [m/s] impeller tip speed
δ [mm] tip clearance 1 Introduction
ν [m2 /s] kinematic viscosity The design of new turbomachines is based on
ρ [kg/m3 ] density a combination of empirical knowledge of com-
Q
φ = U2 πr2 [-] flow coefficient parable turbomachines, experimental results and
2
pt4 −pt0
ψ = 2 ρU 2 [-] total pressure coefficient Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simula-
2
Ω [rad/s] angular velocity tions. The role of CFD is increasing due to
the development of computationally cheap and
accurate numerical methods and the continuous

ISSN: 1790-5095 139 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5

 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008
growth of computer resources in terms of speed
and storage.
When performing a CFD simulation one always
has to select the appropriate numerical method
bearing in mind the accuracy needed and the
available calculation time. A Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulation for example is
more accurate than a simulation based on poten-
tial flow theory, but also requires more calcula-
tion time. In this paper RANS simulations are
studied, because for turbomachinery they provide
the most accurate results within an acceptable
calculation time.
One of the choices that have to be made is be-
tween a transient, a stationary or one of the
quasi-stationary simulation options available in
CFD software. A stationary simulation can be
relatively accurate when the acceleration term
is small. In turbomachinery this is the case
when operating close to the design point (BEP).
However, further away from the BEP, time-
dependent effects due to rotor-stator interaction,
rotor-tongue interaction, stall and cavitation get
stronger. Non-uniform inflow conditions can also
result in a severe time-dependent flow. Under
these conditions a transient simulation is neces-
sary in order to accurately model the flow.
In most finite volume based CFD software the
discretization of the partial differential equations
is on a collocated grid. However, using a col-
located grid method, the incompressible Navier-
Stokes equations can suffer from odd-even de-
coupling. The adaptations needed to suppress de-
coupling result in calculations which are either
less accurate or more time-consuming, especially
for time-dependent flows. An alternative method
based on a staggered-grid approach does not suf-
fer from odd-even decoupling. Contrary to the
original staggered-grid based methods, Wessel-
ing [11] proposed a staggered discretization that
proved to be accurate on non-smooth grids. This
method is implemented in the block-structured
DeFT solver ([15]).
The aim of this paper is to compare the staggered
DeFT solver with the collocated Fluent solver for
the simulation of the time-dependent incompress-
ible flow in a centrifugal pump with a vaned dif-
fuser. To compare the performance of the two
solvers, not only the accuracy of the simulation
ISSN: 1790-5095
results is monitored, but also the calculation time
needed. The time-dependent velocity and pres-
sure fields are validated with experimental results
available in literature. The next section treats the
problem of odd-even decoupling occurring in in-
compressible flows and solutions to suppress it.
Section 3 gives a few more details on the stag-
gered discretization in the DeFT code. In section
4 DeFT and Fluent are compared simulating an
unsteady channel flow. The measurements and
the numerical model concerning the centrifugal
pump are introduced in section 5. After this, the
results of the measurements and calculations are
compared. Finally, in section 6, conclusions are
given.
2 Collocated versus staggered grids
In this section the problem of odd-even decou-
pling on collocated grids is explained, as well as
the measures against it. A staggered grid method
without this decoupling problem is also consid-
ered.
2.1 Collocated grid method
On a collocated grid the dependent variables are
all positioned in the same nodes, e.g. in the cell
centers (Fig. 1). Odd-even decoupling will occur
uy
ux
p
control
volume
y
x
Figure 1: collocated grid
for the gradients of these variables, in case cen-
tral discretization is used on a uniform grid, i.e.
the gradient in odd-numbered nodes only uses in-
formation from even-numbered nodes, and vise-
versa. This decoupling does not have to be a
problem if it is suppressed by other terms in the
partial differential equations that do have an odd-
even coupling. However, when these are weak
or not present at all, an unphysical checkerboard
pattern of the variable appears. The most severe
case of odd-even decoupling arises for the pres-
140 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5
 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008
sure in the incompressible Navier-Stokes equa-
tions, since the pressure is only present in gra-
dient form. The velocity in the continuity equa-
tion is decoupled as well, but coupled (in some
cases, weakly, [1]) via the momentum equations.
Thus, to calculate incompressible flow on a col-
located grid, measures have to be taken in order
to prevent odd-even decoupling. This is done ei-
ther through one-sided discretization, flux split-
ting, Pressure Weighted Interpolation (PWI) or
the artificial compressibility method. They are
summarized in [1] and outlined in the next sub-
section.
2.2 Odd-even coupling methods
One-sided instead of central discretization can be
used to avoid odd-even decoupling. A forward
discretization for the velocity derivative and a
backward discretization for the pressure gradient
(or vice versa) are used to establish the necessary
coupling between odd and even positions. This
was applied in [3] and a proof of convergence
was given in [4]. This method is however first-
order accurate and dissipative.
Flux splitting applied to the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions in [5], [6] and [7] is based on a more
sophisticated combination of one-sided forward
and backward discretizations. This method also
prevents odd-even decoupling, but is dissipative
as well.
The Pressure Weighted Interpolation (PWI)
method was introduced in [8]. The core of the
solution to suppress odd-even decoupling is the
addition of a small pressure term to the continuity
equation. The term is smaller than the discretiza-
tion error of the original mass conservation equa-
tion and consists of pressures from odd and even
positions thus establishing the coupling. In the
originally proposed PWI method, the calculation
results depended on certain relaxation factors, but
a version without this drawback was proposed in
[12]. When strong body forces are present, the
PWI method has to be adapted to work properly,
see [13]. Fluent uses the PWI method [14], but
different types are recommended when for exam-
ple a strong body force, a curved domain or a flow
with a high swirl number is present.
The artificial compressibility method is in princi-
ISSN: 1790-5095
ple only suited to obtain steady solutions. Using
an artificial equation of state, the time derivative
of the pressure is added to the continuity equa-
tion ([9]), just like in the compressible case. The
pressure in the even points is now coupled to
the velocity in the odd points. Because the odd
and even velocities are coupled through the mo-
mentum equations, the odd and even pressures
are coupled as well. The solution proceeds in
time until it becomes steady, driving the added
artificial compressibility term to zero. For accu-
rate unsteady simulations the procedure has to be
changed. Pseudo time is introduced and for ev-
ery physical time step the added artificial term is
driven to zero by iterating in pseudo time. This is
sometimes called dual time stepping. The artifi-
cial compressibility method and the PWI method
are compared in [16]. It turned out that the PWI
method needs less computer memory and results
in better accuracy and mass conservation.
2.3 Staggered grid method
Instead of a collocated grid it is possible to use
a staggered grid where different variables are po-
sitioned at different locations in a cell (Fig. 2).
In this paper a staggered discretization is used
uy
ux
p
y
x
Figure 2: Stagggered grid
where the volume fluxes are positioned at the
middle of the faces of a cell and the pressure and
other scalars like turbulence quantities are posi-
tioned in the cell centers. The main advantage
of a staggered grid is that first spatial derivatives
can be calculated using information from adja-
cent nodes with a second-order central scheme
thus preventing odd-even decoupling [2]. Due to
this advantage a staggered grid is in principle fa-
vorable for computing incompressible flow. No
artificial terms are needed in the solution proce-
dure. The next section explains more about the
staggered discretization and the DeFT code.
141 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5
 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008
3 Methodology
The staggered discretization as originally intro-
duced by [10] is not accurate on non-uniform
grids. Therefore, it is not useful for the complex
geometry in turbomachines. In [11] an improved
staggered discretization for the incompressible
RANS equations is given, which is accurate on
non-smooth grids as well. This is achieved by
taking care of the geometrical smoothness prop-
erties of the grid. It also avoids the use of
Christoffel symbols by preceding the transforma-
tion of the equations to invariant form by the
finite volume integration, removing the second
derivative of the bilinear mapping. The control
volumes for the continuity and momentum equa-
tions with the discretization stencils are given in
Fig. 3. In DeFT the convection term can be
uy
ux
p
control
volume
y
x y
a b c
Figure 3: Control volume and discretization stencil for (a)
the continuity equation, (b) the convection and (c) com-
bined pressure and viscous terms of the momentum equa-
tion respectively.
discretized by a central or a first-order upwind
scheme. For the temporal discretization the first-
order Euler scheme is implemented. DeFT solves
the time-dependent incompressible RANS equa-
tions on the block-structured boundary fitted grid
using a pressure correction method. The stan-
dard k −  turbulence model with wall-functions
is used to determine the turbulent stresses.
Making a boundary fitted block-structured grid
for a complex geometry is a difficult task. To
be more flexible in grid design, the possibility of
non-matching grid blocks is implemented. The
variables are linearly interpolated along the mu-
tual block face. This procedure is also used for
the implementation of the sliding interface be-
tween the rotating grid of the impeller and the
grid of the stator, where the adjacent cells are
reconnected at every time step. For the rotating
frame of reference the Coriolis and centrifugal
force implemented as source terms.
ISSN: 1790-5095
4 Unsteady channel flow
Before proceeding to the case of a centrifugal
pump, the potential difference in performance
between collocated and staggered-grid methods
is illustrated for a simple laminar, but unsteady,
channel flow. The solution for the velocity and
pressure is given analytically as
ux = <(A(1 − y 2 ) +
(cosh(ωy) − cosh(ω)) exp(νω 2 t − a)),
p = <(ν(L − x)
(2A − ω 2 cosh(ω) exp(νω 2 t − a))),
where
A = 10, ν = 0.01, ω = 20(1 + i),
L = 10, a = 20,
with <(x) denoting the real part of x and i the
imaginary unit. In Fig. 4 the geometry of the
channel is given, as well as the dimensions of the
uniform grid. Both Fluent and DeFT are used
1
inflow x 50 cells outflow
10 cells
-1
0 10
Figure 4: Channel
to simulate this flow with ρ = 1, starting from
an initial condition of zero pressure and velocity.
At the inlet boundary the analytical velocity is
prescribed. The walls are modeled by the noslip
condition. At the outflow boundary, DeFT pre-
scribes zero stress, where Fluent imposes a zero
normal gradient for the pressure and the veloc-
ities. For temporal discretization the first-order
Euler scheme is used with a time step of 0.001 s.
The convective terms are discretized with a cen-
tral scheme in DeFT and the QUICK scheme in
Fluent. To compare the accuracy of the simula-
tions, the calculated average pressure at the chan-
nel inlet is monitored. In Fig. 5 the error p is
plotted as a function of time. The error is nor-
malized by the amplitude of the analytical pres-
sure fluctuation at the inflow boundary, which is
40 Pa. The different curves are calculation re-
sults for different values of the convergence crite-
ria that are used. The dotted curve represents the
142 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5
 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008

0.5

measurements
εp [−]

0 δ
b

−0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluent, residual 1E−3, calculation time 8 min.
Fluent, residual 1E−5, calculation time 14 min.
Fluent, residual 1E−6, calculation time 31 min.
DeFT, residual 1E−6, calculation time 40 s
0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005 0 1 23 4
εp [−]

−0.005

−0.01

−0.015

−0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time [s]
Figure 6: Geometry of the pump.
Figure 5: Normalized error p in average inlet pressure.

1.
-3
standard value of 10 for the convergence criteria
in Fluent. The upper graph shows that the corre- Table 1: Geometrical data
Rotor Stator
sponding calculation results in an inlet pressure
z 7 - z 12 -
error as large as 50%. When the value of the con- r1 120 mm r3 222 mm
vergence criteria is decreased, the error becomes r2 210 mm r4 332 mm
smaller, as can be seen in the lower graph. For b 40 mm b 40 mm
the convergence criteria value of 10-6 , the error c 222 mm c 294 mm
of the Fluent calculation becomes less than 1%. δ 0.4 mm
In DeFT the convergence criteria of 10-6 results
in an error below 1% as well. The calculation
time needed for each simulation is given in the 5.1 Measurements
legend of Fig. 5. It appears that DeFT is much
faster than Fluent, approximately 30 times, for In an open circuit air is fed to the pump via
the same level of accuracy. an axial pipe and driven back into the sur-
roundings shortly after it leaves the stator vanes.
The operating conditions are given in Tab. 2.
A constant-temperature anemometer with sin-
5 Centrifugal pump
The centrifugal pump that is used to validate the Table 2: Operating conditions
simulation results is of radial type, with a vaned Ω 2000 rpm
φ 0.048 -
diffuser. It was tested experimentally in [19]. The ψ 0.65 -
main reason for choosing this case is the present Re 6.5 105 -
version of DeFT being limited to 2D. In good ap- ρ 1.2 kg/m3
proximation, the geometry of this pump is 2D
as well, except for the inlet region, see Fig. 6. gle sensor probes was used to measure the un-
Another reason is that results of CFD simulations steady 3D velocity at the impeller outlet. A flush
are available in literature ([18], [20] and [17]). mounted miniature fast response pressure trans-
The geometrical data of the pump is given in Tab. ducer was used to measure the unsteady static
ISSN: 1790-5095 143 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5
 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008
pressure at the front cover of the unshrouded im-
peller. Velocity and pressure were measured at
different circumferential positions at a constant
radius of 214 mm, in the clearance gap between
the rotor and stator. For each of the 30 positions
across a stator passage 160 measurements were
done at a rate of 18.7 kHz covering two rotor
channel passages. This was repeated 700 times
to be able to ensemble average the measurements.
Quantities are also averaged over the 30 stator po-
sitions to get the circumferentially averaged flow
in a rotor passage. The normalized circumferen-
tially averaged radial velocity, relative tangential
velocity and static pressure coefficient are pre-
sented in Fig.9.
5.2 Calculations
Since DeFT can handle only one type of bound-
ary condition on each block face, a large num-
ber of blocks is required for this particular pump.
Fig. 7 shows part of the 126 blocks. A detail
Figure 7: Block structure of the pump.
of the mesh is plotted in Fig. 8. The number
stator vane →
non-matching
sliding interface →
rotor blade trailing edge →
Figure 8: Close-up of the mesh near the sliding interface.
of grid cells in a rotor and a stator channel are
3920 and 7032 respectively. The total number
of cells equals 111824. The inlet and outlet ra-
ISSN: 1790-5095
dius of the domain are 50 and 500 mm respec-
tively. The value of y + ranges from 2 to 40.
Due to the boundary layers at the hub and the
casing, the radial velocity at mid-span is larger
than the span-averaged radial velocity. Because
this displacement effect of the flow is not mod-
eled in 2D, the flow rate used in the simulations
is increased by 14%. This new flow rate is deter-
mined through integration of the measured radial
velocity at mid-span in [19]. At the inlet the cor-
responding radial velocity is prescribed together
with k = 1 m2 s−2 and  = 10 m2 s−3 which corre-
sponds to a turbulence intensity of 3.8% of the in-
flow velocity and a length scale of 16 mm. Wall-
functions are prescribed at all blade surfaces. At
the outlet of the domain a zero stress is prescribed
in DeFT. For the turbulent quantities in DeFT and
all flow variables in Fluent the gradient normal
to the outflow boundary is set to zero. For the
velocity and pressure a zero initial value is pre-
scribed, while k and  are initialized with their
value at the inflow boundary. For temporal dis-
cretization the first-order Euler scheme is used
with a constant time step of 2 · 10−5 s, which re-
sults in 1500 time steps per revolution. The resid-
ual that has to be reached for convergence is set to
10−4 for all equations. The above described sim-
ulation model is used in both DeFT and Fluent.
There are, however, some important differences
between Fluent and DeFT. Fluent uses multi-grid
and has an unstructured solver, while DeFT uses
a block-structured GMRES solver.
5.3 Comparison
Results of calculations using DeFT and Fluent
are given in Fig. 9. Radial velocity, relative
tangential velocity and pressure, averaged in the
rotating frame of reference, are compared with
measured values. The trailing edge of the ro-
tor blade coincides with the zero position along
the horizontal axis. As seen from the rotating
frame of reference, the stator blades move from
left to right. The Fluent calculation was done
with 5 different types op PWI, all giving the same
result. The QUICK scheme used in Fluent for
higher order accuracy results in a solution that
becomes unstable after one revolution. The re-
sults obtained with first-order upwind discretiza-
144 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5
 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008

0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15

wr/U2
0.15
2
w /U
r

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
DeFT central DeFT central
DeFT first−order −0.3 experiment [19]
−0.4
Fluent first−order Torbergsen 2D [17]
−0.4
−0.5 experiment [19] He 3D [20]
−0.5

wθ/U2
2
w /U

−0.6
θ

−0.6
−0.7 −0.7

−0.8 −0.8
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

Cp
p

0.5 0.5
C

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
normalized coordinate along the rotor pitch [−] normalized coordinate along the rotor pitch

Figure 9: Circumferentially averaged radial velocity, rela- Figure 10: Circumferentially averaged radial velocity, rel-
tive tangential velocity and pressure coefficient. ative tangential velocity and pressure coefficient.

tion in DeFT and Fluent are very similar, but the
time necessary for the Fluent calculation is twice
as long. After about 5 revolutions a periodic so-
lution is obtained. The computer memory used
by DeFT and Fluent is equal to 181 and 153 MB
respectively, both using double precision. The
central discretization of DeFT with less numer-
ical dissipation results in more pronounced peaks
best visible for the tangential velocity. In Fig. 10
the curves for the central discretization in DeFT
are compared with the experimental results and
CFD results from [20] and [17]. In [20] the 3D
thin-layer RANS equations are solved, using the
artificial compressibility method with dual time
stepping combined with a PWI method. The grid
consists of 874,000 nodal points and the tip clear-
ance is modeled using one computational cell.
The pressure distribution is not given in [20].
In [17] the 2D RANS equations are solved us-
ing CFX4.1 using a grid of 21048 cells. There
is qualitative agreement between measurements
and calculations, with a pronounced difference
in values of minima and maxima, and phase.
The pressure phase shift between the numerical
and experimental results is larger than the phase
shift between the two numerical results. In [17]
and [21] it is argued that the pressure minimum
should be positioned at the trailing edge of the ro-
ISSN: 1790-5095
tor, due to high relative velocities. A time lag in
the pressure measurement therefore seems to be
a plausible explanation for the phase shift.
6 Conclusions
When compared with the experimental results,
the calculations of [20] are significantly better
than the other CFD results. Apparently 3D flow
effects are significant. The staggered method
of DeFT has a better performance since it only
needs half the calculation time to get equal
accuracy, despite the fact that Fluent uses multi-
grid, which is known to reduce computing time
considerably. Yet, the difference between both
methods is less pronounced than was the case
for the unsteady channel flow that was treated
in section 4. The reason is two-fold. First of
all, multi-grid methods are more effective with
increasing number of nodes. Secondly, since the
current implementation of DeFT can only handle
one type of boundary condition at each block
face, the total number of blocks in the grid is very
large, deteriorating the convergence behavior
of DeFT. With 203 words per node, computer
memory usage for DeFT is large but not signifi-
cantly larger than for Fluent. Future research will
145 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5
 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on FLUID MECHANICS and AERODYNAMICS (FMA'08)
Rhodes, Greece, August 20-22, 2008
focus on 3D applications in turbomachinery and
more flexible handling of boundary conditions in
DeFT.
Acknowledgements: This research is sup-
ported by the technology foundation STW,
project No. 06642.
References:
[1] P. Wesseling, Principles of computational
fluid dynamics, Springer –Verlag, Berlin–
Heidelberg–New York 2000
[2] S.V. Patankar, Numerical heat transfer and
fluid flow, Hemisphere publishing corpora-
tion, Washington–New York–London 1980
[3] L. Fuchs and H.S. Zhao, Solution of three-
dimensional viscous incompressible flows
by a multigrid method. Int. J. Num. Meth.
in Fluids. 4, 1984, pp. 539-555.
[4] J.H. Ellison, C.A. Hall and T.A. Porsching,
An unconditionally stable convergent finite
difference method for Navier-Stokes prob-
lems on curved domains. SIAM J. Num.
Anal. 24, 1987, pp. 1233–1248.
[5] E. Dick, A flux-vector splitting method for
steady Navier-Stokes equations. Int. J. Num.
Meth. in Fluids. 8, 1988, pp. 317-326.
[6] E. Dick, A multigrid method for steady
incompressible Navier-Stokes equations
based on partial flux splitting. Int. J. Num.
Meth. in Fluids. 9, 1989, pp. 113-120.
[7] E. Dick and J. Linden, A multigrid method
for steady incompressible Navier-Stokes
equations based on flux difference splitting.
Int. J. Meth. in Fluids. 14, 1992, pp. 1311-
1323.
[8] C.M. Rhie and W.L. Chow, Numerical study
of the turbulent flow past an airfoil with
trailing edge separation. AIAA J. 21, 1983,
pp. 1525–1532.
[9] A.J. Chorin, A numerical method for solv-
ing incompressible viscous flow problems.
J. Comp. Phys. 2, 1967, pp. 12–26.
[10] F.H. Harlow and J.E. Welch, Numerical cal-
culation of timedependent viscous flow of
fluid with a free surface. Phys. Fluids 8,
1965, pp. 2182–2189.
ISSN: 1790-5095
[11] P. Wesseling, A. Segal, C.G.M. Kassels
and H. Bijl, Computing flows on general
two-dimensional staggered grids. J. Eng.
Math. 34, 1998, pp. 21–44.
[12] T.F. Miller and F.W. Schmidt, Use of a
pressure-weighted interpolation method for
the solution of the incompressible Navier-
Stokes equations on a nonstaggered grid
system. Num. Heat Transfer 14, 1988,
pp. 213–233.
[13] C.Y. Gu, Computations of flows with large
body forces. Num. Meth. Lam. Turb. Flow 7
part 2, 1991, pp. 1568–1578.
[14] Fluent user guide
[15] User manual of the DeFT incompressible
flow solver.
[16] P. Tamamidis, G. Zhang and D.N. Assa-
nis, Comparison of pressure-based and ar-
tificial compressibility methods for solving
3D steady incompressible flows. Num. J.
Comp. Phys. 124, 1996, pp. 1–13.
[17] E. Torbergsen and M.F. White, Transient
simulation of impeller/diffuser interactions,
ASME FEDSM, 1997.
[18] J.F. Combes, P.F. Bert and J.L. Kueny, Nu-
merical investigation of the rotor-stator in-
teraction in a centrifugal pump using a finite
element method, ASME FEDSM, 1997.
[19] M. Ubaldi, P. Zunino, G. Barigozzi and
A. Cattanei, An experimental investiga-
tion of stator induced unsteadyness on cen-
trifugal impeller outflow, J. Turbomachin-
ery 118, 1996, pp. 41–54.
[20] L. He and K. Sato, Numerical solution of
incompressible unsteady flows in turboma-
chinery, J. of fluids engineering 123, 2001,
pp. 680–685.
[21] S. Chu, R. Dong and J. Katz, Relation-
ship between unsteady flow, pressure fluc-
tuations and noise in a centrifugal pump -
Part B: Effects of blade-tongue interactions,
ASME, J. of fluid engineering 117, 1995,
pp. 30-35.
146 ISBN: 978-960-6766-98-5