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
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 122
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.
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
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:
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 124
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).
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 125
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
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 126
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.
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 127
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
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 128
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
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 129
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.
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S
International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 130
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)
191606-8484-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S