**3.1 Swirl angle evaluation**

**Figures 7** and **8** show the distribution of swirl angle values at different submergence ratios in the case of false floor and false wall flow conditioner, respectively.

**Figure 7.** *Swirl angle values at different submergence ratios for the false floor case.*

**153**

*Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

if the submergence ratio is decreased below 1.

splitter as suggested by Kang et al. [9].

**3.2 Simulation of flow in full-scale pump sump model**

Generally, the installation of floor splitter plate has shown reduction in the swirl angle values. The parameter that can be used to characterize the reduction effect of the floor

In this experiment, the average value of *R*θ for the false floor case is 1.53, while in the false wall case, the average value of *R*θ is 1.62. In **Figure 7**, the swirl angle values show a decreasing trend with increasing submergence ratio for *S/Smin* greater than 1 when installed with floor splitter plate. This is due to the fact that for *S/Smin* greater than 1, there was only a submerged vortex present in the sump. As the function of floor splitter plate is to eliminate submerged vortices, this result proved that the installation of floor splitter plate has served the purpose. When *S/Smin* is decreased below 1, the swirl angle values increase with decreasing submergence ratio. The inception of free surface vortex at *S/Smin* below 1 has caused bigger fluctuation in swirl angle as can be seen in the larger uncertainties within this region. The higher swirl angle values are contributed by the increase in approach flow velocity at lower water levels. The floor splitter vortex has shown limited swirl angle reduction effect

In **Figure 8**, the swirl angle values show a sinusoidal trend with increasing submergence ratio for *S/Smin* greater than 1 when installed with floor splitter plate. The trend is contributed by the inception of free surface vortex at *S/Smin* greater than 1. Although the theory behind the minimum inlet submergence *Smin* is that there should be no free surface vortex formed in the sump if the submergence *S* is greater than *Smin*, this deviation from the theory was contributed by the use of false wall in which the flow has been prerotated at the beginning of the sump. The prerotation has therefore caused the flow to develop a free surface vortex earlier than expected. In the experiment, this situation occurred at *S/Smin* = 1.15. As the swirl angle decreases when *S/Smin* decreases below 1.15, the reduction effect of the floor splitter plate can be observed in the decreasing trend of the swirl angle values. Similar to the case of false floor, the swirl angle increases as the submergence ratio

decreases due to the increasing approach flow velocity at low water levels.

Despite the swirl angle reduction effect of floor splitter plate, the fulfilment of the requirement of swirl angle reduction below 5° has not been achieved for most of the cases. In the case of false floor, there is no submergence ratio value at which the swirl angle has been reduced below 5°; however, for the false wall case, the reduction of swirl angle values below 5° can be seen between *S/Smin* = 1.00 and *S/Smin* = 1.05, i.e. the requirement for all submergence ratios when installed with floor splitter plate. This result shows that there is a limiting factor that prevented the swirl angle reduction below 5° and that factor lies on the design of the floor

The first part of the discussion on the result of simulation of flow in full-scale pump sump model is about the vortex elimination by the installation of floor splitter plate. The evaluation is based on the vorticity in the y-axis *ωy* due to its influence on the swirling motion of the flow. The value of *ωy* is normalized by the ratio of velocity in the suction pipe and the pipe inner diameter *νd/d*. **Figure 9** shows the cross section along x-y plane in which the evaluation of the result in the streamwise direction takes place and its corresponding results which are shown in **Figure 10**. From **Figure 10**, it can be observed that the core of the vortex, indicated by the high-intensity region extending from the floor towards inside of the pump, has

(4)

splitter plate is the swirl angle reduction factor *R*θ which is defined as follows: *R*θ = \_ θ*withoutAVD* θ*withAVD*

**Figure 8.** *Swirl angle values at different submergence ratios for the false wall case.*

*Vortex Dynamics Theories and Applications*

**Figures 7** and **8** show the distribution of swirl angle values at different submergence ratios in the case of false floor and false wall flow conditioner, respectively.

**3. Results and discussion**

**3.1 Swirl angle evaluation**

**152**

**Figure 8.**

**Figure 7.**

*Swirl angle values at different submergence ratios for the false floor case.*

*Swirl angle values at different submergence ratios for the false wall case.*

Generally, the installation of floor splitter plate has shown reduction in the swirl angle values. The parameter that can be used to characterize the reduction effect of the floor splitter plate is the swirl angle reduction factor *R*θ which is defined as follows: *R*θ = \_

$$\mathcal{R}\_0 = \frac{\Theta\_{\text{utilatorial}}}{\Theta\_{\text{within}}} \tag{4}$$

In this experiment, the average value of *R*θ for the false floor case is 1.53, while in the false wall case, the average value of *R*θ is 1.62. In **Figure 7**, the swirl angle values show a decreasing trend with increasing submergence ratio for *S/Smin* greater than 1 when installed with floor splitter plate. This is due to the fact that for *S/Smin* greater than 1, there was only a submerged vortex present in the sump. As the function of floor splitter plate is to eliminate submerged vortices, this result proved that the installation of floor splitter plate has served the purpose. When *S/Smin* is decreased below 1, the swirl angle values increase with decreasing submergence ratio. The inception of free surface vortex at *S/Smin* below 1 has caused bigger fluctuation in swirl angle as can be seen in the larger uncertainties within this region. The higher swirl angle values are contributed by the increase in approach flow velocity at lower water levels. The floor splitter vortex has shown limited swirl angle reduction effect if the submergence ratio is decreased below 1.

In **Figure 8**, the swirl angle values show a sinusoidal trend with increasing submergence ratio for *S/Smin* greater than 1 when installed with floor splitter plate. The trend is contributed by the inception of free surface vortex at *S/Smin* greater than 1. Although the theory behind the minimum inlet submergence *Smin* is that there should be no free surface vortex formed in the sump if the submergence *S* is greater than *Smin*, this deviation from the theory was contributed by the use of false wall in which the flow has been prerotated at the beginning of the sump. The prerotation has therefore caused the flow to develop a free surface vortex earlier than expected. In the experiment, this situation occurred at *S/Smin* = 1.15. As the swirl angle decreases when *S/Smin* decreases below 1.15, the reduction effect of the floor splitter plate can be observed in the decreasing trend of the swirl angle values. Similar to the case of false floor, the swirl angle increases as the submergence ratio decreases due to the increasing approach flow velocity at low water levels.

Despite the swirl angle reduction effect of floor splitter plate, the fulfilment of the requirement of swirl angle reduction below 5° has not been achieved for most of the cases. In the case of false floor, there is no submergence ratio value at which the swirl angle has been reduced below 5°; however, for the false wall case, the reduction of swirl angle values below 5° can be seen between *S/Smin* = 1.00 and *S/Smin* = 1.05, i.e. the requirement for all submergence ratios when installed with floor splitter plate. This result shows that there is a limiting factor that prevented the swirl angle reduction below 5° and that factor lies on the design of the floor splitter as suggested by Kang et al. [9].

#### **3.2 Simulation of flow in full-scale pump sump model**

The first part of the discussion on the result of simulation of flow in full-scale pump sump model is about the vortex elimination by the installation of floor splitter plate. The evaluation is based on the vorticity in the y-axis *ωy* due to its influence on the swirling motion of the flow. The value of *ωy* is normalized by the ratio of velocity in the suction pipe and the pipe inner diameter *νd/d*. **Figure 9** shows the cross section along x-y plane in which the evaluation of the result in the streamwise direction takes place and its corresponding results which are shown in **Figure 10**.

From **Figure 10**, it can be observed that the core of the vortex, indicated by the high-intensity region extending from the floor towards inside of the pump, has

**Figure 9.** *Evaluation area in x-y plane of the pump sump model (z = 1600 mm).*

#### **Figure 10.**

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the location of vortex in x-y plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor splitter plate. Dashed circular lines denote pipe diameter.*

been eliminated with the installation of floor splitter plate. The vorticity in the pipe has also been reduced which can be seen from the contour colors. The velocity vectors, which appear to point diagonally to the left indicating a strong swirling flow in the pipe, have been straightened in a direction vertically upward towards the direction of suction when installed with floor splitter plate.

When observing the cross section in the spanwise direction (in the plane illustrated in **Figure 11**), similar results are presented. Basically the flow that enters the pump is divided into two regions, namely the right side and the left side flow, due to the geometry of the sump. The flow entrance velocity from the right and the left side of the inlet are nearly the same because of the nearly symmetrical positioning of the pump. The flow entered the pump in a spiral manner without the installation of floor splitter which resulted in vortex formation near to the left side of the pump. When installed with floor splitter plate, the flow is reorganized, and therefore the spiral motion of the flow has been reduced and hence the vortex eliminated. This situation is reflected by the discontinued vortex core shown in **Figure 12** with the installation of floor splitter plate.

**155**

**Figure 11.**

**Figure 12.**

*splitter plate.*

*Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

*Evaluation area in y-z plane of the pump sump model (x = 15,860 mm).*

As the main function of floor splitter plate is to eliminate vortices formed at the sump floor, an evaluation about the vorticity in the plane at the sump floor is necessary. This location is shown in **Figure 13**. The vortex core is indicated by the spiralling streamline under the pump inlet which can be seen in **Figure 14** in the case without floor splitter plate. As the floor splitter plate was installed, the path of the spiral streamline was interrupted by the plate, and therefore the formation of vortex was prevented. Due to the suction by the pump, a small vortex attached to the side of the floor splitter plate was formed which is inherited from the flow without floor splitter plate as shown in **Figure 14(b)**. However, this vortex constitutes a much smaller vortex core diameter (estimated to be less than 0.1D based on the scale at the x-axis of the graph) and relatively weak compared to the large vortex

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the location of vortex in y-z plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor* 

*Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

*Vortex Dynamics Theories and Applications*

**154**

installation of floor splitter plate.

**Figure 10.**

**Figure 9.**

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the location of vortex in x-y plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with* 

been eliminated with the installation of floor splitter plate. The vorticity in the pipe has also been reduced which can be seen from the contour colors. The velocity vectors, which appear to point diagonally to the left indicating a strong swirling flow in the pipe, have been straightened in a direction vertically upward towards the

When observing the cross section in the spanwise direction (in the plane illustrated in **Figure 11**), similar results are presented. Basically the flow that enters the pump is divided into two regions, namely the right side and the left side flow, due to the geometry of the sump. The flow entrance velocity from the right and the left side of the inlet are nearly the same because of the nearly symmetrical positioning of the pump. The flow entered the pump in a spiral manner without the installation of floor splitter which resulted in vortex formation near to the left side of the pump. When installed with floor splitter plate, the flow is reorganized, and therefore the spiral motion of the flow has been reduced and hence the vortex eliminated. This situation is reflected by the discontinued vortex core shown in **Figure 12** with the

*floor splitter plate. Dashed circular lines denote pipe diameter.*

*Evaluation area in x-y plane of the pump sump model (z = 1600 mm).*

direction of suction when installed with floor splitter plate.

**Figure 11.** *Evaluation area in y-z plane of the pump sump model (x = 15,860 mm).*

**Figure 12.**

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the location of vortex in y-z plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor splitter plate.*

As the main function of floor splitter plate is to eliminate vortices formed at the sump floor, an evaluation about the vorticity in the plane at the sump floor is necessary. This location is shown in **Figure 13**. The vortex core is indicated by the spiralling streamline under the pump inlet which can be seen in **Figure 14** in the case without floor splitter plate. As the floor splitter plate was installed, the path of the spiral streamline was interrupted by the plate, and therefore the formation of vortex was prevented. Due to the suction by the pump, a small vortex attached to the side of the floor splitter plate was formed which is inherited from the flow without floor splitter plate as shown in **Figure 14(b)**. However, this vortex constitutes a much smaller vortex core diameter (estimated to be less than 0.1D based on the scale at the x-axis of the graph) and relatively weak compared to the large vortex

**Figure 13.** *Evaluation area in z-x plane of the pump sump model (y = 10 mm).*

**Figure 14.**

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the floor of the sump in z-x plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor splitter plate.*

(estimated to be about 0.2D) which can be seen in **Figure 14(a)**, and therefore it can be considered as nondestructive to the pump impeller.

The next part of the evaluation is about the swirl angle reduction characteristics of floor splitter plate installation. For this purpose, an evaluation plane was selected at the position comparable to the installation of swirl metre in the experimental model. The location of the plane is shown in **Figure 15**, and its corresponding results are displayed in in **Figure 16**. The flow at the swirl metre location was rotational with relatively high velocity components as indicated by the velocity vectors. The two visible vorticity regions show the divided inflow field in the pipe as explained in the previous paragraph which is considerably high in reference to the value of *νd/d* as shown in **Figure 16**. With the installation of floor splitter,

**157**

**Figure 15.**

**Figure 16.**

*floor splitter plate.*

presented in the previous subsection.

*Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

the magnitude of both vorticity regions is significantly reduced and the resulting velocity vectors are also smaller in size compared to the case without floor splitter. This indicates that the spiral flow has been dissolved by the floor splitter plate into a relatively straight flow and the outcome is consistent with the experimental result

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the swirl metre position in z-x plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with* 

*Evaluation area at the position of swirl metre in z-x plane of the pump sump model (y = 4250 mm).*

To get a better understanding about the result, a 3D streamline visualization of the intake flow in the sump is illustrated for every case as comparison in **Figure 18**. It can be seen that the intake flow was spiral before the installation of floor splitter plate and as the floor splitter was installed, the spiral motion of the flow was dissolved and went into a relatively straight path. Quantitative values can also be extracted from the result to obtain the associated swirl angle values. The approach for the calculation of swirl angle from the simulation results is based on the principle of Eq. (1) itself where by definition the swirl angle is the angle between the velocity components of the intake flow in the axial and tangential direction. From Eq. (1), the term *πdn* represents the tangential velocity component, while the term *v* represents the axial velocity

*Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

*Vortex Dynamics Theories and Applications*

*Evaluation area in z-x plane of the pump sump model (y = 10 mm).*

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the floor of the sump in z-x plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor* 

The next part of the evaluation is about the swirl angle reduction characteristics of floor splitter plate installation. For this purpose, an evaluation plane was selected at the position comparable to the installation of swirl metre in the experimental model. The location of the plane is shown in **Figure 15**, and its corresponding results are displayed in in **Figure 16**. The flow at the swirl metre location was rotational with relatively high velocity components as indicated by the velocity vectors. The two visible vorticity regions show the divided inflow field in the pipe as explained in the previous paragraph which is considerably high in reference to the value of *νd/d* as shown in **Figure 16**. With the installation of floor splitter,

(estimated to be about 0.2D) which can be seen in **Figure 14(a)**, and therefore it

can be considered as nondestructive to the pump impeller.

**156**

**Figure 13.**

**Figure 14.**

*splitter plate.*

**Figure 15.** *Evaluation area at the position of swirl metre in z-x plane of the pump sump model (y = 4250 mm).*

#### **Figure 16.**

*Contour plot of ωy/(νd/d) at the swirl metre position in z-x plane; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor splitter plate.*

the magnitude of both vorticity regions is significantly reduced and the resulting velocity vectors are also smaller in size compared to the case without floor splitter. This indicates that the spiral flow has been dissolved by the floor splitter plate into a relatively straight flow and the outcome is consistent with the experimental result presented in the previous subsection.

To get a better understanding about the result, a 3D streamline visualization of the intake flow in the sump is illustrated for every case as comparison in **Figure 18**. It can be seen that the intake flow was spiral before the installation of floor splitter plate and as the floor splitter was installed, the spiral motion of the flow was dissolved and went into a relatively straight path. Quantitative values can also be extracted from the result to obtain the associated swirl angle values. The approach for the calculation of swirl angle from the simulation results is based on the principle of Eq. (1) itself where by definition the swirl angle is the angle between the velocity components of the intake flow in the axial and tangential direction. From Eq. (1), the term *πdn* represents the tangential velocity component, while the term *v* represents the axial velocity

**Figure 18.**

*3D streamline plot showing the intake flow in the sump with the seeding of the flow starts at the floor of the sump; (a) without floor splitter plate, (b) with floor splitter plate.*

component; both are at the location of the swirl metre used in the experiment. **Figure 17** shows the velocity triangle diagram which shows the relationship between swirl angle and both of the velocity components in a schematic representation.

Based on this approach in Eq. (1), the velocity components in the axial and tangential direction were derived from the simulation results. As the result was given in vorticity values, the tangential velocity component must be derived from the angular velocity which equals to half of the vorticity [10]. The vorticity of the flow at the position of the swirl metre is calculated by the integration of the vorticity in the plane and divided by the cross section to obtain the vorticity value per unit area. After getting the value of angular velocity, the following correlation is used to calculate the tangential velocity:

$$
\boldsymbol{\nu}\_t = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{r}} \cdot \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_\mathbf{y} \tag{5}
$$

**159**

*Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

floor splitter heights have been analysed [11].

in **Figure 17**.

**4. Conclusions**

swirl angle in the pump intake.

and Drainage (DID), Malaysia.

**Acknowledgements**

pipe at the swirl metre location to get the velocity per unit area. The reason of performing integration to find the velocity values is that the swirling motion of the intake flow in the pipe constitutes a solid body rotation and the swirl angle value describes the rotation body as a whole [1], and this is where the integration of the velocity across the cross-sectional area becomes the most practical way of calculating the swirl angle in the simulation. After obtaining both velocity values, the swirl angle was then calculated using the velocity triangle diagram as shown

By following the described procedure, the swirl angle value for the case without floor splitter plate installation is 7.58°, while for the case with floor splitter plate, the swirl angle value is 4.09°. Although these values are based on average velocities as the simulation was conducted in a steady-state simulation and therefore are much smaller than the actual swirl angle values, it can be considered as adequate because they are used for comparison purpose and not for the determination of absolute values. Once again, the results are in agreement with the experimental data. This study complements a previous experimental investigation in which the effects of

A study on the application of vortex control principle at pump intake was carried out by using an anti-vortex device type called the floor splitter plate. The device was installed in a pump sump model to eliminate vortices formed at the intake and reduce the swirling motion in the intake pipe as a method to improve pump efficiency in actual applications. Evaluation of the effect was conducted based on experimental and numerical approaches. The experimental part comprised swirl angle measurement which was performed according to ANSI/ HI 9.8-2018 standard. To complement the results obtained in the experiment, a numerical simulation of the flow in a full-scale pump sump was conducted. The results showed that the installation of floor splitter plate has successfully eliminated the vortex formed at the sump floor and reduced the swirl angle in the intake flow. However, the reduction effect was not sufficient to achieve the criteria set in the ANSI/HI 9.8-2018 standard which requires the swirl angle to be less than 5°, and therefore optimization of the floor splitter plate design is needed. The simulation of flow in a full-scale pump sump produced similar findings with the experimental results. From the contour and streamline plot, it was found that the immersion of the floor splitter plate has disrupted the vortical flow under the pump inlet and provided a flow straightening effect to eliminate destructive vortices and reduce

The research has been funded by the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change (MESTECC), Malaysia, under Science Fund grant No. SF1326 and carried out in collaboration with the Department of Irrigation

The method to derive the value of axial velocity component from the results was based on the same principle in which the integral value of axial velocity component in the plane was extracted and divided by cross-sectional area of the *Application of Vortex Control Principle at Pump Intake DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92853*

pipe at the swirl metre location to get the velocity per unit area. The reason of performing integration to find the velocity values is that the swirling motion of the intake flow in the pipe constitutes a solid body rotation and the swirl angle value describes the rotation body as a whole [1], and this is where the integration of the velocity across the cross-sectional area becomes the most practical way of calculating the swirl angle in the simulation. After obtaining both velocity values, the swirl angle was then calculated using the velocity triangle diagram as shown in **Figure 17**.

By following the described procedure, the swirl angle value for the case without floor splitter plate installation is 7.58°, while for the case with floor splitter plate, the swirl angle value is 4.09°. Although these values are based on average velocities as the simulation was conducted in a steady-state simulation and therefore are much smaller than the actual swirl angle values, it can be considered as adequate because they are used for comparison purpose and not for the determination of absolute values. Once again, the results are in agreement with the experimental data. This study complements a previous experimental investigation in which the effects of floor splitter heights have been analysed [11].
