reducing cavitation potential at the condensate extraction pump...

International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 121

Reducing Cavitation Potential at the Condensate Extraction Pump in Labuan Power

Plant, Indonesia

David Wijaya1, Triyogi Yuwono2,*)

1Graduate Student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,

2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Jl. Arif Rahman Hakim, Kampus

ITS-Sukolilo, Surabaya-60111, East Java, Indonesia *)

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract— Condensate Extraction Pump (CEP) plays an

important role in feeding water requirements for Boiler and

Turbine operations. CEP is the main component in a condensate water system that serves to pump condensate water

from hot well to deaerator. The CEP performance of Labuan

power plant, Indonesia, has significantly dropped which is

likely due to cavitation. Cavitation can be prevented by ensuring that the pressure in the suction pipe (before entering

the pump) must be above the saturated vapor pressure at

working temperature. Maintaining the pressure in the suction

pipe so that it is not lower than the saturated vapor pressure; one of which is by designing the suction pipe installation such

that it does not cause many head losses, so that it produces a

pressure that is still high enough at the end of the suction pipe

near the pump inlet. This is the objective of this present study, wherein this study the modifications of existing suction pipe

installation will be carried out, in an effort to avoid CEP from

the dangers of cavitation. There are two ways to reduce the head losses in the suction

pipe conducted in this study, namely (i) by uniformity the

overall pipe diameter, this is to avoid the effect of diffuser and/or nozzle in changes in pipe diameter that can increase

minor head losses, (ii) by changing the junction angle from a

large angle to a smaller angle, it is clear that with a smaller

angle will increase the streamline at the confluence of two

streams with different vector directions. Numerical simulations

were carried out to analyze the stated problems above using

Computational Fluid Dynamic software, Ansys Fluent version

19.2. The simulation results show that for all variations tested

in this study, head losses increase with increasing total mass

flow rates. By uniformizing the diameter of the suction pipe,

which is 630 mm, and changing the intersection or junction

angle from 90° to 45° have been proven to have succeeded in

giving the lowest head loss in the suction pipe. In the maximum

mass flow rate, of 263.88 kg/s, the total head loss of the existing model is 1.91 meters, model-1 is 1.92 meters, model-2 is 1.88

meters and Model-3 is 1.91 meters. Thus, model-2 promises the

smallest risk of cavitation in CEP and certainly will increase

the reliability of the Labuan Power Plant, Indonesia.

Index Term— cavitation, condensate extraction pump, head loss, streamline.

I. INTRODUCTION

A Pump is a turbomachine which increases the energy level of fluid when fluid flow through them [1]. In the power

plant system, Condensate Extraction Pump (CEP) plays an

important role. When the CEP does not work in design

conditions, it can disrupt the reliability of the condensate system and cause disruption to the power plant installation

cycle. Bad performance of pumps can influence plant

operations such as maintenance costs, downtime, lost

production, increased operating costs [2]. In the end it will cause financial losses for the company. Currently, to

improve pump efficiency, there are several methods, namely

testing optimization, optimization of velocity coefficient, optimization of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), and

optimization of the Energy Loss Model (ELM). Being the

semi-theoretical and semi-empirical, test optimization plays

an important role in the pump design and orthogonal tests are widely used in the industry [3].

Cavitation is the phenomenon of changing the vapor

phase of a flowing liquid that has a pressure lower than the

saturated pressure at the working temperature that occurs at

the pump suction [4]. This phase change can be caused by a decrease in pressure or an increase in working temperature

in the pump suction pipe. The cavitation phenomenon is

related to the suction head of the pump. The suction pressure head is the total pressure equivalent to the pump axis which

has been reduced by saturated vapor pressure. The

equivalent pressure head is based on the static pressure on

the suction side and the velocity head in the area. Static pressure can be read from a pressure gauge. Saturated vapor

pressure is a pressure where changes in fluid phase from

liquid to gas occur at a constant temperature [5]. When the pressure head near the inlet impeller is lower

than the saturated vapor pressure, thus cavitation occurs.

This means that the fluid evaporates more easily under

lower-pressure conditions. The important thing to good

operates the pump is providing a good inlet flow to the pump suction. Piping installation accessories, such as;

Elbows, junctions, or similar flow disturbances near pumps

have been shown to trigger various mechanical and hydraulic problems. The existence of cavitation on the

suction side of the pump with high energy can cause

cavitation damage and instability of the pump system [6,7].

Cavitation damage is the most recognized cavitation detrimental effect. It is known to remove materials from the-

191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S

mailto:[email protected]


Pitting Corrosion

Fig. 1. Cavitation erosion on second stage bowl diffuser and position of Bowl Diffuser at CEP installation.

Junction Tee 90o

Fig. 2. The existing condition of the suction piping CEP Labuan Power Plant, Indonesia.


International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 123 flow boundary surfaces however hard or tough the material can be [8].

CEP is one of the multistage centrifugal pumps, the fluid

discharge directly into a volute casing which gradually increases in the area (bowl diffuser casing). The volute casing which has a diffuser form is designed to decrease the

fluid velocity when fluid exits the impeller, and this reduction in kinetic energy is transformed to increase in pressure. The volute casing, with its increasing area in the

direction of flow, is used to produce an essentially uniform velocity distribution as the fluid moves around the casing into the outlet. Multi-stage pumps that are operated in series,

i.e the liquid is coming out of the first stage flow to the second stage eye, the fluid exits from the second stage flow the eye to the third stage, and so on. The same flow rate through each stage, but each stage provides an additional

pressure increase. Thus, a very high discharge pressure, or head can be increased by a multistage pump [9].

The results of the CEP inspection during the overhaul

on 29 June - 5 August 2018 have indicated that there has

been found a form of pitting corrosion damage to the CEP 2B bowl diffuser in the second stage as shown in Figure 1.

One possibility of this damage is caused by erosion due to

cavitation. In Figure 1, it appears that pitting corrosion

penetrates the outside of the diffuser bowl, where the outer part is the line suction from CEP, so that local recirculation

occurs from the first stage discharge to the suction side of

the CEP. When local circulation occurs, the CEP performance decreases due to the fluid do not flow to the

discharge side, but returns to the suction side. Damaged

bowl diffuser position and CEP suction flow path can be

seen in Figure 1. At present the decline in CEP performance has become

an important issue at the Labuan Power Plant Indonesia,

where the decrease in CEP performance is considered due to cavitation occurred in the CEP system. With the declining

performance conditions, CEP cannot meet the needs of the power plant loads and threatens the reliability of the Labuan

Power Plant. Concerning the important role of CEP in a power plant,

several studies on cavitation at the pump have been carried out by many researchers, as follows:

Authors [10] examined the effect of blockage on the inlet of a centrifugal pump against cavitation. Adding

blockage to the suction side means increasing the headloss

on the suction side. Cavitation events are detected by Vector

Support Machine (VSM) which detects high vibrational values if cavitation occurs. The results showed that with

greater levels of blockage, there was an increase in

cavitation. And with higher flow rates, the formation of cavitation increases larger too. Authors [11] conducted an

experimental test of the effect of temperature on cavitation

on the centrifugal pump blade. Cavitation at the pump is

indicated by the value of the Thoma cavitation number (σ). The authors have stated that the smaller the cavitation

number, the easier cavitation occurs. The experimental

results show that the cavitation number will be lower if the temperature of the liquid rises. The authors have also

confirmed that cavitation numbers also affect the head

coefficient, which is a dimensionless number that states the

pump's ability to convert mechanical energy into the pump head. The lower the cavitation number will result in the

lower the head coefficient. Authors [12] conducted an

experimental test and numerical simulation at a condensate

pump. The research domain is divided into three parts: the

suction pipe zone of the pump impeller, the impeller zone, and the extension of the downstream impeller zone. The

rotating coordinate system is used to adjust the impeller

zone with measured rotation speed, while the other parts are in a stationary coordinate system. The simulation results of cavitation flow adequately illustrate the development of cavitation at the pump, and predictions of decreased performance due to cavitation. With a higher flow rate, head drops are steeper than lower flow rates. At each flow rate, the occurrence of cavitation on the surface of the suction blade and cavitation develops along the surface of the impeller. Subsequent research requires studies of the relationship between the length of the relative cavity and the decrease in performance. Due to cavitation is damage to the fluid flow area, indicated by increasing surface roughness. Authors [13] have studied the effects of roughness effect on centrifugal pump performance. An increase in surface roughness will reduce the hydraulic efficiency of the impeller, because roughness increases the flow resistance in turbulent flow whereas in laminar flow roughness has no effect on the resistance due to no exchange of momentum across the flow. Author [14] investigated the comparative numerical study of open channel junction flows and losses

of energy. The numerical experiment set junction angle 30o,

45o, 60

o and 90

o. The result of numerical simulation,

secondary pattern and energy losses is dominated with a bigger junction angle. The authors [15] focused on optimizing the coefficient of local resistance in concave shape tee junction. How to improve the tee junction by added the concave contour. In the straight duct with a larger flow, the tee junction with concave contour can reduce head losses between 20.45% and 248.2%.

From several studies above, there is an important point

that has not been widely discussed, namely how to reduce

the potential of cavitation by increasing the pressure on the suction side of the pump. This is the reason for this research,

because cavitation can be prevented by increasing the

pressure of the suction side of the pump or decreasing fluid temperature. In this study, the method used to prevent

cavitation in CEP is by reducing the head losses on the

suction side of the pump, so that the pressure in this section

becomes above the saturated pressure of the flowing liquid in the working temperature. As is known, there are several

possibilities to reduce head loss in the piping system, such

as; reduce the major losses, i.e. reducing the pipe length, enlarging the diameter of pipe and also smoothing the inner

surface of the pipe, and/or reducing minor losses, i.e.

avoiding connections with changes in pipe diameter,

improving the connection system or junction so that it approaches the rules of flow behavior, etc.

Existing piping conditions can be seen in Figure 2. It

can be seen that there is a connecting pipe with enlargement

of the pipe diameter from 480 mm to 630 mm, so there is a diffuser effect that adds to the head losses. In Figure 2, the

red arrows indicate the direction of the condensate water

flow, and the isometric of the existing suction pipe is

modeled in Figure 3. Based on the existing CEP piping system described

above, there are potential improvements that can be made to the suction pipe installation and proposed in this study, are:



Inlet 1

Inlet 2

Outlet 1

Outlet 2

Fig. 3. Isometric suction pipe installation of CEP Labuan Power Plant.

a) Uniformity the diameter of the pipe on the suction side,

becoming larger which is 680 mm, b) Minimizing the tee junction angle, i.e from 90

o to 60

o

and/or 45o.

This study will propose three alternative suction pipe

models to reduce the potential cavitation in CEP. Inlet-2 in Model-1 (Figure 5), the pipe diameter same with the existing diameter, 480 mm and inlet-1 is 630 mm. To remove the diffuser effect at the existing model, the uniformized

diameter at the inlet-1 and the junction angle are 45o.

Model-2 (Figure 6) was proposed with all uniform diameters

in 630 mm and 45o junction angles. And the last, Model-3

(Figure 6) is proposed with all uniform diameters in 630 mm

and 60o junction angles. The bigger diameter pipe and

smaller angle junction, predicted improve streamline and reduce secondary flow which will reduce head losses and it will reduce potential cavitation in CEP. From the three models that were proposed, a numerical simulation was performed and which model was selected gave the smallest head loss.

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this numerical simulation, Computational Fluid Dynamic software, Ansys Fluent version 19.2, is used where

actual data is needed as a reference for modeling and

simulation of the system to be examined. Experimental data is taken when Labuan power plant in operation. The actual

data used are two types, technical data and operating data.

Technical data is used to do modeling and describe the geometry in the field to be entered into the software. While,

the operating data is used for modeling validation made.

Modeling is declared valid if the difference between the

actual data in the field and the model from the simulation results has an error value of less than 5%. This means that

the model system created using the software is the same as

the actual conditions in the field.

A. Simulation

Simulation methods have been widely used to predict the velocity, pressure and temperature of fluid flow in several

cases. The working fluid used in CEP is condensate water which is the steam condensation of the Power plant cycle

which is accommodated in the reservoir tank as shown in Figure 4. Field operations data are taken when the pump is

operating and the unit is loaded. Operating data is obtained from the parameters in the Distribute Control System (DCS)

in the Central Control Room (CCR).

In this study, the suction pipe CEP will be modeled in

3D using commercial meshing software, Gambit version 2.4.6. This software is used to create geometry, meshing, and to define domain modeling. Meanwhile, the pressure drop from the inlet to the outlet is predicted using Ansys Fluent 19.2 software. The operating data taken is as follows, (where the result can be seen in Table 1): a) Electric Current of CEP (in Ampere) b) Discharge Pressure (Pa) c) Mass Flow rate (kg/sec)

d) Reservoir tank pressure (Pa) e) Reservoir tank level (m)

f) Suction Pressure (Pa) g) Fluid temperature (

oC)

The geometry of suction pipeline CEP is shown in

Figure 5. Where, the geometry has been modeled close to

the real condition, to get the same or close comparison results between numerical and experimental. Many research

studies prove that non-matching geometry is the main cause

of differences between experimental and numerical results. In this study, the geometry and modeling existing based on

manufacturing data and drawing in Labuan Power Plant.

After making the geometry and the model is complete, the

simulation using Fluent-software continues to run on the existing model by operating the data and parameters that

have been taken in Table 1. In addition to geometry, the specification of suitable

boundary conditions is also important for the accuracy of

any numerical analysis. In this study, the inlet-1 and 2 boundaries of the flow domain have been specified as mass

flow rate, while the outlet-1 boundary has been specified as

a pressure outlet, which can be seen in Table 3. The mass flow rate at the inlet boundary has been varied by circulating

valve position. In this study, the total mass flow rate was

used in three conditions; (i) 180.56 kg/s (ii) 220.83 kg/s and

(iii) 263.89 kg/s The problem in this study was solved through numerical

simulations using ANSYS Fluent 19.2 software. For validation, the initial results of the simulation of the existing

model are compared with the data from the actual measurement results. After the existing model is valid, i.e.

when the error is less than 5%, proceed with the simulation of three models made and compare the model which the

lowest head loss in the CEP suction pipeline. The meshing model presented in Figure 7.

Assuming that turbulent flow with kinetic energy coefficient

() = 1, the calculation of head losses (HL) follows the following equation:

𝐻𝐿 = (𝑃1

𝜌+

𝑉12

2+ 𝑔𝑧1) − (

𝑃2

𝜌+

𝑉22

2+ 𝑔𝑧2)

where:

HL : head Loss (m)

P1 : dynamic Pressure at point 1 (kPa)

ρ : density of water (kg/m3)

V1 : average velocity in point 1 (m/s)

g : gravity (m/s2)

z1 : elevation head in point 1 (m)

P2 : dynamic Pressure at point 1 (kPa) V2 : average velocity in point 1 (m/s) z2 : elevation head in point 1 (m).



Pressure

Storage Tank

Level tank

Suction Temp

Pressure

CEP A CEP B

Mass

Ampere,

Flow Rate

Pressure

Fig. 4. The existing experimental test from DCS in Labuan Power Plant, Indonesia.

Table I

Data experimental result No Parameter Unit Data-1 Data-2 Data-3

1 Load [MW] 203 210 301 2 Electric current [A] 86.6 94.28 101 3 Discharge pressure [MPa] 3.00 2.77 2.40

4 Mass flow rate [kg/s] 180.56 220.83 263.89

5 Reservoir pressure [kPa] -93.72 -92.00 -91.65

6 Suction pressure [kPa] -83.74 -82.10 -82.10 7 Reservoir tank level [cm] 104.2 161 166

8 Temperature [oC] 40.0 40.4 44.4

Existing Model Model-1

Fig. 5. The geometry of the Existing Model and Model-1



Model-2 Model-3

Fig. 6. The geometry of Model-2 and Model-3

Table II

Boundary condition setting

No Name Boundary condition type Value

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3

1 Inlet-1 Mass flow rate 122.78 kg/s 150.16 kg/s 122.78 kg/s

Turbulent intensity 3.20 % 3.20 % 3.20 %

Hydraulic diameter 0.48 m 0.63 m 0.63m

2 Inlet-2 Mass flow rate 57.78 kg/s 70.67 kg/s 110.67 kg/s Turbulent intensity 3.20 % 3.20 % 3.20 %

Hydraulic diameter 0.48 m 0.63 m 0.63 m

3 Outlet-1 Pressure outlet -83,740 Pa -82,100 Pa -82,100 Pa

Turbulent intensity 3.20 % 3.20 % 3.20 %

Hydraulic diameter 0.63 m 0.63 m 0.63 m

4 Outlet-2 Wall - - -

5 Filter Filter strainer zone Porisity = 0.174 Porisity = 0.174 Porisity = 0.174

B. Validation C. Simulation with Alternative Design

In order to prove the accuracy of the model in this study, it is important to do the validation. The model is declared

valid if the deviation between actual data and experiment is less than 5%. The result of the simulation of suction pipe

CEP was validated by measuring the total head losses from inlet-1 to outlet-1 and the total head losses from inlet-2 to

outlet-2. This comparison is resumed in Table 3. From Table 3, it can be seen that deviations are less than 3%. So, it can

continue to run simulations for other models.

There are three alternative designs of CEP suction pipe installation and meshing models are shown in Figure 7. The

calculation result from simulations of the three models is shown in Table 4. Variation in this simulation is the change

in total mass flow rate in three conditions in each model, so that it can be known the change in the head loss at each

model. The mass flow rate settings are 180.55 kg/s; 222.22 kg/s and 263.88 kg/s.



Table III Validation data head loss between experiment and simulation existing model

Head loss (m) Total mass flow rate (kg/s) Total mass flow rate (kg/s) Total mass flow rate (kg/s)

Inlet-1 Inlet-2 Inlet-1 Inlet-2 Inlet-1 Inlet-2

Experiment 1.850 1.831 1.862 1.834 1.902 1.884

Simulation 1.870 1.862 1.895 1.884 1.921 1.922

Deviation 1.08 % 1.65 % 1.75 % 2.65 % 1.01 % 1.99 %

Fig. 7. Meshing in existing model use for the validation process

Fig. 8. Meshing Model-1



Fig. 9. Meshing Model-2.

Fig. 10. Meshing Model-3.

Table IV Head Loss Calculation result in Existing Model, Model-1, Model-2 and Model-3

Parameter Unit Existing Model-1 Model-2 Model-3

Total [kg/s] 180.55 220.83 263.86 180.56 222.22 263.89 180.55 222.22 263.88 180.56 222.22 263.89

flow rate

Flow [kg/s] 122.78 150.16 179.42 104.30 138.37 152.44 122.77 151.11 179.44 108.56 133.61 158.66

inlet-1

Flow [kg/s] 57.78 70.67 84.44 76.25 93.85 111.45 57.78 71.11 84.44 72.00 88.61 105.23

inlet-2

Total [m] 1.87 1.89 1.91 1.85 1.88 1.90 1.85 1.86 1.88 1.86 1.87 1.90

head loss



Fig. 11. The comparison Velocity profile in total mass flow rate 263.88 kg/sec between; (a). Existing Model, (b). Model-1,

(c). Model-2 and (d). Model-3.

Fig.12. Comparison StreamLine profile in total mass flow rate 263.88 kg/sec between: (a). Existing Model, (b). Model -1 (c). Model-2 and (d). Model-3.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Fig. 13. Comparison Total Head Loss between Existing, Model 1, 2 and 3

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The simulation result of suction CEP has shown in Figures 11 and 12, shown that for all variations tested in this

study, head losses increase with increasing total mass flow rates. Weak secondary circulation even if the angle is larger

and also even in smaller upstream pipe diameter. Model-2 is

the best streamline for all model was simulated. The calculation of total head loss has shown in Table 4

and the comparison chart shown in Figure 13. For existing

models, the mass flow rate of 180.55 kg/s has a total head

loss of 1.87 meters; while for 220.83 kg/s it gives a total head

loss of 1.89 meters; and for 263.86 kg/s produces a total head

loss of 1.91 meters. On Model-1, that is for the mass flow

rate of 180.56 kg/s has a total head loss of 1.85 meters; while

for 222.22 kg/s it gives a total head loss of 1.88 meters; and

for 263.89 kg/s produces a total head loss of 1.90 meters. On Model-2, namely for a mass flow rate of 180.55 kg/s has a

total head loss of 1.85 meters; while for 222.22 kg/s it

generates a total head loss of 1.86 meters; and for 263.88

kg/s produces a total head loss of 1.88 meters. On Model-3,

for the mass flow rate of 180.56 kg/s it has a total head loss

of 1.86 meters; while for 222.22 kg/s it gives a total head loss

of 1.87 meters; and for 263.89 kg/s produces a total head loss

of 1.90 meters. Existing suction pipe has the highest head losses at all

flow rates operated. Model-1 and 3 practically have a greater head loss than Model-2, because with a larger angle

connection (junction), this will increases head loss. Model-2

has the smallest total head loss among all the proposed models, so model-2 has the lowest cavitation potential in

CED compared to other models.

IV. CONCLUSION The simulation results show that for all variations tested

in this study, head losses increase with increasing total mass

flow rates. By uniformizing the suction pipe diameter, which is 630 mm, and changing the intersection angle from 90° to

45° has been proven to have succeeded in giving the lowest

head loss in the suction pipe. In maximum mass flow rate, in 263.88 kg/s, the total head loss Existing model is 1.91 m,

Model-1 is 1.91 meters, Model-2 is 1.88 meters and Model-3

is 1.91 meters. The alternative design of Model-2 has the

smallest head losses. This promises the smallest cavitation risk in CEP and will certainly increase the reliability of the

Labuan Power Plant.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit

sectors. Also, the authors have declared no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

[1]. Haque, M. E., Islam, M. S., Islam, M. R., Haniu, H., & Akhter, M. S. (2019). Energy efficiency improvement of submersible pumps using

in barind area of Bangladesh. Energy Procedia, 160, 123–130. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.127)

[2]. Matlakala, M. E., Kallon, D. V. V., Simelane, S. P., & Mashinini, P. M. (2019). Impact of Design Parameters on the Performance of Centrifugal Pumps. Procedia Manufacturing, 35, 197–206.

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.05.027) [3]. Wang, C., Shi, W., Wang, X., Jiang, X., Yang, Y., Li, W., & Zhou,

L. (2017). Optimal design of multistage centrifugal pump based on

the combined energy loss model and computational fluid dynamics.

Applied Energy, 187, 10–26. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.046)

[4]. Song-Sheng Deng, Guo-Dong Li, Jin-Fa Guan, Xao-Chen Chen, Lu-

Xing Liu (2019). Numerical Study of cavitation in centrifugal pump

conveying different liquid materials. Result in Physics

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.02.009) [5]. Jean-Piere Franc, Jean-Marie Michel (2004). Fundamentals of

Cavitation. France: Institute National Polytechnique de Grenoble

(INPG). [6]. Donald P, Sloteman (1995). Avoiding cavitation in suction stage of

high energy pump. World Pumps (https:worldpumps.com)

[7]. WORLD PUMPS (2018). Pump Cavitation and how to avoid it (https:worldpumps.com)

[8]. Maxime Binama, Alex Muhirwa, Emmanuel Bisengimana (2016). Cavitation Effects in Centrifugal Pumps-A Review. Int. Journal of

Engineering Research and Applications. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2019.05.008).

[9]. Bruce R. Munson, Theodore H Okiishi, Wade W Huebsch (2009). Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc. [10]. Bordoloi, D.J. & Tiwari, R. (2017) Identification of suction flow

blockages and casing cavitations in centrifugal pumps by optimal

support vector machine. J Braz Soc. Mech Sci Eng. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.07.092)

[11]. Delly, J. (2009) Pengaruh Temperatur Terhadap Terjadinya Kavitasi

pada Sudu Pompa Sentrifugal. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Mesin Vol.1

No.1 Tahun 2009. [12]. A Yu, W P Yu, Z B Pan, X W Luo, B Ji, X Y Xu (2014). Cavitation

Performance Evaluation for a Condensate Pump. 6th International

Conference on Pumps and Fans with Compressors and Winds

(https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/52/6/062014) [13]. Bellary, S. A. I., & Samad, A. (2013). Exit Blade Angle and

Roughness Effect on Centrifugal Pump Performance. ASME 2013 Gas Turbine India Conference. (https://doi.org/10.1115/GTINDIA2013-3531)

[14]. Luo, H., Fytanidis, D. K., Schmidt, A. R., & García, M. H. (2018).

Comparative 1D and 3D numerical investigation of open-channel

junction flows and energy losses. Advances in Water Resources, 117, 120–139. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.05.012)

[15]. Gao, R., Zhang, H., Li, A., Liu, K., Yu, S., & Deng, B. (2018). A novel low-resistance duct tee emulating a river course. Building and

Environment, 144, 295–304. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.08.034)


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.127

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.05.027

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.046

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.02.0

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.04.014

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.04.014

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2019.05.008

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.07.092

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/52/6/062014

https://doi.org/10.1115/GTINDIA2013-3531

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.05.012

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.08.034

reducing cavitation potential at the condensate extraction pump...

Documents