Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 391~394

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x

DOI 10.1007/s12206-010-1221-7

Maximum suction lift of water jet pumps

Iran E. Lima Neto*
Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Cear, Brazil (Manuscript Received July 13, 2010; Revised October 4, 2010; Accepted October 4, 2010) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
This paper describes an experimental study on water jet pumps with different diameters and nozzle-to-throat area ratios. The results revealed that the area ratio was an important parameter to characterize the maximum suction lift of the jet pumps, while their diameters had a negligible effect. All jet pumps reached the cavitation regime at a suction lift of about 8 mH2O. In the non-cavitating region, it was found that the higher the area ratio, the higher the maximum suction lift for the same motive pressure head. However, the lower the area ratio, the higher the resistance to enter the cavitation regime. A dimensionless correlation was obtained for the non-cavitating region to describe the maximum suction lift as a function of a modified Thoma number and the area ratio. Curve fitting of experimental data also provided a dimensionless correlation to predict the onset of cavitation. Finally, applications of the results are presented.
Keywords: Cavitation; Ejector; Jet pump; Suction head; Water ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction
Jet pumps have long been used to pump liquids, gases or granular solids [1-9]. Although the efficiency of jet pumps is usually lower than that of conventional pumps, these accessories present some advantages such as reliable operation, no moving parts, self-priming, low maintenance cost, long equipment life, low noise level, and feasibility to operate under several ranges of pressure and flow rate [10]. Previous experimental studies on water jet pumps have mostly focused on the assessment of maximum efficiency, which occurs for a given head loss through the pump when the suction lift (or head) is relatively small, that is, when the suction flow rate is maximum. In the experiments conducted by Winoto et al. [6] and Lima Neto and Porto [7], for example, the maximum suction lift was up to 1.6 mH2O. The authors used one-dimensional models based on the conservation equations of energy and momentum to express a head ratio N as a function of head loss coefficients, a flow ratio M and a nozzleto-throat area ratio R. However, when the suction lift increases (as a valve at the suction line is closed), the flow rate is expected to decrease up to zero, and the approach above cannot predict the results. At relatively high suction lifts, cavitation may also play an important role and make the phenomenon even more complex. Therefore, the understanding of the maxThis paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Jun Sang Park * Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 85 3366 9491, Fax.: +55 85 3366 9627 E-mail address: iran@deha.ufc.br KSME & Springer 2011

imum suction lift in water jet pumps is important, especially in drainage, dredging, well-pumping and other systems where the suction liquid is usually raised from more than 3 meters below the jet pump level. Stepanoff [1] reports a maximum suction lift of about 8 mH2O in well-pumping systems, but no further details on the conditions for which it occurs is given. The understanding of the relationships between suction lift and suction flow rate for jet pumps operating under such higher suction lift conditions is also important, provided the M-N curve is not expected to give reliable results in this case. To the authors knowledge, no experimental study examining the maximum suction lift of water jet pumps has been reported in the literature. Therefore, the present paper investigates experimentally the maximum suction lift of water jet pumps with different nominal diameters and nozzle-to-throat area ratios. The main objective of the study is to obtain equations that can be used in practical cases and provide basic information for the validation of numerical models.

2. Experiments
A schematic of the jet pumps tested in this study is shown in Fig. 1. The jet pumps were built from PVC with different nominal diameters (D), nozzle-to-throat area ratios (R), among other dimensions presented in Table 1. The jet pumps were the same used by Lima Neto and Porto [7], which had similar geometry as the commercial ones evaluated by Stepanoff [1], Mueller [2], Winoto et al. [6], and Bonnington and King [10]. The following items were used for carrying out the tests: a centrifugal pump with a capacity of 2.2 l/s and a manometric

392 Table 1. Jet pump dimensions.

I. E. Lima Neto / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 391~394
Overflow Pipe LEGEND Delivery Tank

Jet Pump JP1 JP2 JP3 JP4 JP5 JP6

D (mm) 25 25 25 32 32 32

38.3 43.9
o o o o o o

D n /D R =(D n /D t )2 L t /D L d /D L JP /D 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.53 0.25 0.35 0.53

LJP

2.50 2.10 1.72 2.50 2.11 1.72

1.78 2.24 2.67 1.78 2.23 2.67

6.91 7.07 7.30 6.87 7.04 7.26

1 - Centrifugal pump 2 - Gate valve 3 - Flow transducer 4 - Discharge meter 5 - Needle valve 6 - Manometer

20 10

49.0 39.2 44.7 50.0

8 9 2.22m 2.60m 1.83m 1.76m LJP 1.70m

11

1.87m

0.72m Auxiliary Pump

Dn

Dt

Fig. 2. Schematic of the experimental set-up.

Lt

Ld

Fig. 1. Schematic of the jet pumps.

head of 60 mH2O; two digital discharge meters with transducers of inductive magnetic type, with diameters of 25 and 32 mm and capacities respectively of 2.2 and 1.9 l/s, both with an accuracy of 1%; two digital manometers with a precision of 1% and a bottom scale of 60 m H2O; a mercury column vacuum meter, with millimeter scale and bottom scale of 750 mmHg; two 100 liter water tanks in addition to gate, globe, and needle valves. The experimental set-up is shown schematically in Fig. 2. A centrifugal pump delivered water from a feed tank to the jet pump. The secondary fluid was lifted from a suction water tank, with a delivery tank being supplied by the resulting flow. The suction water tank was fed by an auxiliary tank to minimize turbulence at the suction line entrance. An auxiliary pump supplied this tank as well as the feeding tank. The delivery water tank returned to the reservoir of the auxiliary pump through an overflow pipe. The exit pipeline from the pump was of 50 mm diameter, which was also the size of the feeding, suction and discharge pipes. The total length of the pipelines varied with the length LJP of each jet pump. The tests started with all valves open. The experimental conditions included motive pressure heads (Pm) of 10 50 mH2O, suction lifts or pressure heads (Ps) of 1.4 1.6 mH2O, discharge pressure heads (Pd) of 3.2 12 mH2O, motive flow rates (Qm) of 0.4 1.7 l/s, and suction flow rates (Qs) of 0.0 0.7 l/s. For each experimental condition, the suction lift was gradually increased by closing the valve at the suction line. It was also observed that the increase in the suction lift was linearly related with a decrease in the suction flow rate. Therefore, in order to investigate the conditions for maximum suction lifts, all the measurements of Pm, Ps, Pd and Qm were taken after closing the suction valve until the suction flow rate became zero (Qs = 0).

Fig. 3. Experimental results for (a) motive flow rate; (b) maximum suction lift; (c) discharge pressure head as a function of the motive pressure head. Note that the minus sign in Ps is not shown.

3. Results and discussions

A summary of the experimental results for the motive flow

rate (Qm), maximum suction lift (Ps), and discharge pressure head (Pd) as a function of the motive pressure head (Pm) is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen in Figs. 3(a) and 3(c) that both Qm and Pd increase consistently with Pm. On the other hand, Fig. 3(b) shows that the maximum suction lift Ps increases with Pm until it becomes approximately constant and equal to 9 mH2O (minus sign is not shown). It is interesting to observe that similar behaviours were obtained with the jet pumps with the same nozzle-to-throat area ratios (R) but with different nominal di-

1.50m

Feeding Tank

10

3.00m

7 - Jet pump 8 - Suction tank 9 - Globe valve 10 - Vacuum meter 11 - Auxiliary suction tank

I. E. Lima Neto / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 391~394

393

ameters (D). This suggests that R is an important parameter to characterize the maximum suction lift of water jet pumps, while their size is of negligible relevance. Indeed, the nozzleto-throat area ratio is the most important geometrical parameter used to investigate the efficiency and cavitation limit in water jet pumps under low suction lift conditions [2, 3, 6, 7]. Fig. 3(b) shows that all jet pumps tested here reached the cavitation regime at Ps 8 mH2O. At this point, both jet pump vibration and characteristic cavitation noises occurred. Therefore, it can be inferred that the cavitation phenomenon was caused by low suction pressure (or high suction lift), as pointed out by Cunningham et al. [3]. In fact, the limit of Ps 8 mH2O coincides with the maximum suction lift reported by Stepanoff [1]. A cavitation limit for Ps between 8 and 9 mH2O has also been observed in centrifugal pumps [11]. Fig. 3(b) also indicates that before the onset of cavitation, the higher the area ratio, the higher the maximum suction lift for the same motive pressure head. However, the lower the area ratio (and as a consequence, the lower the suction nozzle angle, ), the higher the resistance to enter the cavitation regime, since the suction nozzle and throat areas are increased, decreasing the combined fluid velocity and increasing the static pressure. In order to normalize the results for the non-cavitating region and make them applicable to other similar jet pumps and flow conditions, dimensional analysis was conducted. Thus, using the Buckinghams Pi theorem, the following relationship can be obtained:

Fig. 4. Plot of the dimensionless parameters indicating the curve fitting for the non-cavitating region given by Eq. (2) and the cavitation limit given by Eq. (3).

= f

Ps , , R P

(1)

where P is the pressure drop through the jet pump given by P = Pm - Pd and is a modified Thoma number given by = 2gP*/Vj2 (similar to the Thoma number described in Ref. [1]), in which P* is the difference between the atmospheric pressure and the vapour pressure and Vj is the average flow velocity at the jet exit. Note that the parameter P was included in Eq. (1) in order to nondimensionalize Ps, while and R were included to evaluate respectively the potential for cavitation and the impact of jet pump geometry on Ps. Thus, curve fitting of experimental data provided the following dimensionless correlation:
P 1 2 s

Fig. 5. Example of combination of the results obtained from Eq. (2) and the 1-D model presented by Lima Neto and Porto [7] to evaluate the relationships between different suction lifts and suction flow rates.

13

< 1.05

(3)

Fig. 4 also shows a drop in the ordinate values after the condition imposed by Eq. (3) is attained, which reinforces the idea that the cavitation limit has been reached.

4. Applications
The results obtained can be used to estimate the maximum suction lifts of water jet pumps similar to those tested here. For example, considering a jet pump system with the following parameters: Dj = 8 mm, R = 0.25, Pm = 30 mH2O, Pd = 9 mH2O, and P* = 9.1 mH2O, one can use Eq. (3) to obtain (/R)1/3 = 1.1 (> 1.05), which means that the flow is within the non-cavitation region. Then, one can use Eq. (2) to obtain a maximum suction lift Ps of 5.7 mH2O. Note that for such conditions, the suction flow rate Qs is zero. These results can also be combined with those from conventional jet pump models to study the relationships between different suction lifts and suction flow rates. An example is shown in Fig. 5, where the results are combined with those obtained from the 1-D model presented by Lima

[R(1 R )]5 3 = 14.84 5.63

13

R .

(2)

Fig. 4 shows that Eq. (2) fit well the experimental data, with a correlation coefficient r = 0.93. Because of the complexity of the flow at the cavitating region, a general correlation using the parameters above could not be obtained for that region. However, it can be seen that the onset of cavitation, that is, the region where the jet pumps started to vibrate and audible cavitation noises occurred, is well described by the following condition:

394

I. E. Lima Neto / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 391~394

Neto and Porto [7], considering the same conditions as described above except for the suction lift (Ps = 1.6 mH2O). Thus, assuming a linear relationship between suction lift and suction flow rate, as observed in the preliminary tests conducted in this study, a curve of the type Qs = 0.417 - 0.073Ps can be generated to provide, for example, Qs = 0.381 l/s when Ps = 0.5 mH2O or Qs = 0.125 l/s when Ps = 4 mH2O (see Fig. 5). Overall, the results presented in this study can also be used to validate numerical models for simulation of flows in water jet pumps under high suction lift conditions.

References
[1] A. J. Stepanoff, Centrifugal and axial flow pumps: Theory, design and application, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York (1957). [2] N. H. G. Mueller, Water jet pump, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 90 (3) (1964) 83-113. [3] R. G. Cunningham, A. G. Hansen and T. Y. Na, Jet pump cavitation, J. Basic Eng., ASME 92 (1970) 483-494. [4] T. F. Salam and B. M. Gibbs, Gas and solid discharge from fluidzed-bed using a jet pump, Powder Technology, 50 (2) (1987) 111-120. [5] D. Wang and P. W. Wypych, Water-only performance of proportioning jet pumps for hydraulic transportation of solids, Powder Technology, 84 (1) (1995) 57-64. [6] S. H. Winoto, H. Li and D. A. Shah, Efficiency of jet pumps, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 126 (2) (2000) 150-156. [7] I. E. Lima Neto and R. M. Porto, Performance of low-cost ejectors, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 130 (2) (2004) 122-128. [8] X. Long, N. Han and Q. Chen, Influence of nozzle exit tip thickness on the performance and flow field of jet pump, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 22 (2008) 1959-1965. [9] I. E. Lima Neto, D. Z. Zhu and N. Rajaratnam, Horizontal injection of gas-liquid mixtures in a water tank. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 134 (12) (2008) 1722-1731. [10] S. T. Bonnington and A. L. King, Jet pumps and ejectors: A state of art, review and bibliography. BHRA Fluid Engineering Series, Cranfield, England (1976). [11] D. Wu, L. Wang, Z. Hao, Z. Li and Z. Bao, Experimental study on hydrodynamic performance of a cavitating centrifugal pump during transient operation, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 24 (2) (2010) 575-582.

5. Conclusions
An experimental study was performed on water jet pumps with different nominal diameters and nozzle-to-throat area ratios. The results showed that the maximum suction lift (as well as the motive flow rate and discharge pressure head) is directly dependent on the motive pressure head until it becomes approximately constant and equal to 9 mH2O for all jet pumps. The nozzle-to-throat area ratio was found to be an important geometrical parameter to characterize the maximum suction lift of the jet pumps, while their nominal diameter had a negligible impact. All jet pumps reached the cavitation regime at a maximum suction lift of about 8 mH2O. In the noncavitating region, it was found that the higher the area ratio, the higher the maximum suction lift for the same motive pressure head. However, the lower the area ratio, the higher the resistance to enter the cavitation regime. Dimensional analysis was conducted and a dimensionless correlation was obtained for the non-cavitating region to describe the maximum suction lift as a function of a modified Thoma number and the nozzle-to-throat area ratio. Curve fitting of experimental data also provided a dimensionless correlation to predict the onset of cavitation. Finally, applications of these correlations to practical cases were presented. Although new experimental results and practical correlations were obtained in the present work, additional experimental and/or numerical studies are recommended to extrapolate the results for other jet pump designs and flow conditions.

Acknowledgment
This study was supported by the Research Support Foundation of the State of So Paulo (FAPESP) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel Foundation (CAPES), Ministry of Education, Brazil. The author thanks Dr. Rodrigo de Melo Porto from the University of So Paulo So Carlos for his helpful insights to this work.

Iran E. Lima Neto is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Cear, Brazil. He obtained his B.Sc. degree in 1998 from the above university, M.Sc. degree in 2001 from the University of So Paulo So Carlos, and Ph.D. degree in 2007 from the University of Alberta. His major research interests include fluids engineering, jets, plumes and multiphase flows. He has published 10 journal papers and about 20 conference papers in the fields of fluid mechanics and hydraulics.