Part of the Fluid Mechanics curriculum at Cal Poly Pomona was to analyze the performance of a centrifugal pump and generate a report of the relevant results.

1. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Mechanical Engineering Department
MEMORANDUM
To: Professor Biddle Date: Nov. 11, 2014
From: Thomas Gross
Subject: Centrifugal Pump Performance Experiment
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the performance characteristics of a
Bell & Gossett Model 1510 centrifugal pump in the form of pump head, power input to the
pump, and pump efficiency as a function of flow rate for pump speeds of 1150 rpm and 1750
rpm and compare them to the manufactures data presented in figure 3 and figure 4 in the lab
manual on pages 26 and 27 respectively.
The pump in use (Pump A) has a 5 5
⁄8 “ diameter impeller and is ran by a 5 HP, 3 Phase,
460V, 184T frame motor which is controlled with a square D variable frequency controller (3
Phase, 460V, 20A rating). The pump is part of a closed pipe loop where water is fed from a 4 ft.
diameter industrial water reservoir. The suction side pipe has a nominal diameter of 1.5” and
the discharge side pipe has a nominal diameter 1.25”. The inside pipe diameter was determined
using Appendix C in the lab manual on page 56. A digital display panel read out the pump
speed, the pressure difference across the pump, the water temperature, the shaft torque,
which was measure by a Himmelstein torquemeter, and the volumetric flow rate through the
pump, which was measured by a turbine flow meter downstream of the pump.
Prior to turning the pump on, ball valves 1, 2, and 3 were opened, as seen in the
schematic. The instructor turned the pump on and adjusted the speed to 1150rpm. Data was
recorded at 100, 85, 70, 55, 40, 25, and 0% flowrates by adjusting the globe valve where the
maximum (100%) flowrate was obtained by fully opening valve. The globe valve was only
closed for a few seconds to prevent damage to the operating pump from the increasing
pressure on the suction side due to the 0% flowrate. The pump was then turned off and the
speed set to 1750 rpm and the procedure repeated.
The pump head (hp) which consists of the static(elevation) head, friction head, pressure
head, and the velocity head measures the total resistance the pump must overcome in unit feet
(meter for SI system). It was calculated using the conservation of energy equation for steady
flow through a control volume which in this case is the pump. This equation contains both the
pressure head and the elevation head since the pressure differential measured across the pump
is the sum of the static and hydrostatic pressures. The power delivered to the water by the
pump 푊̇
표푢푡 , the power delivered to the pump by the motor or the brake horsepower 푊̇
푖푛, and
the pump efficiency ηp where then calculated at each flowrate Q(gpm) using the formulas
presented on page 24 of the lab manual. This data was tabulated and is presented in Table 3

2. and Table 4. Three plots were created, each presenting data for the 1150rpm run and the 1750
rpm run in the form of hp vs Q, 푊̇
푖푛vs Q, and ηp vs Q and are presented in Figure 1, Figure 2 and
Figure 3 respectively.
During the experiment, the pump was unable to be ran at a speed of 1150rpm and the
instructor set the speed to 1140rpm. The data reflects this change. The pump in the lab was
never to be ran at 1750rpm and was expected to be ran at 1740rpm, however the higher speed
was causing problems and the instructor provided the experimental data. The hp vs Q curve
starts off horizontal and begins to slope downward as the flowrate is increased. This indicates
that the maximum pump head is at low flowrates ranging between 0 to 15 gpm. The 푊̇
푖푛vs Q
graph is rather uninformative in this case. The manufacture does not present any data
regarding power into the pump for the low speed, and only two data points for the high speed.
The curve, which has a positive slope, indicates that as the flowrate is increased the power to
the pump must also be increased. The ηp vs Q curve shows us that the as the flowrate is
increased from zero the efficiency increases until it reaches a maximum and then begins to
decrease. For the 1140rpm run the maximum efficiency is achieved at a flowrate of
approximately 25 gpm and for the 1740rpm run the maximum efficiency is achieved at a
flowrate of approximately 35gpm. In all cases the 1740rpm run has greater values than the
1140rpm run. The 1740rpm run starts with a larger pump head, requires a larger work input,
and reaches a higher efficiency than the 1140 rpm run. The percent differences between the
experimental and manufactures curves are presented in Table 5 and Table 6 highlighting the
minimum and maximum values. Unfortunately the experimental pump speed and the
manufacturers pump speeds were not identical and therefor greater error encured, however it
was expected that there would be error since the pump in the laboratory sits with water in it
for months on end which does cause corrosion. This corrosion would cause the pump head to
decrease, and the efficiency to decrease. However as seen in the graph, for slower flowrates,
the experimental efficiency for the 1740 rpm run was more efficient than what the
manufacturer posted for 1750 rpm, which was not expected. Due to corrosion in the pump, the
power input required was expected in increase to overcome this loss, however since the data is
for 1740 and 1750 and it is hard to accurately use the graph to determine if this is true.

3. Table 1: Raw Data from the 1140 rpm Run
Run # N (RPM) T (lb·in) △P (Psi) Q (gpm)
1 1140 14.9 3.11 38.2
2 1140 13.9 4.09 32.3
3 1140 12.4 4.84 26.3
4 1140 11.8 5.29 21.0
5 1140 10.2 5.57 15.2
6 1140 9.7 5.73 10.8
7 1140 7.5 5.74 0.00
Table 2: Raw Data from the 1740 rpm Run
Run # N (RPM) T (lb·in) △P (Psi) Q (gpm)
1 1740 26.39 4.79 65.51
2 1740 24.32 8.31 55.23
3 1740 22.10 10.65 46.10
4 1740 19.50 12.65 36.10
5 1740 16.70 13.65 16.39
6 1740 13.80 14.37 16.25
7 1740 9.61 14.50 0.00
Table 3: Results from the 1140 rpm Run
Run # N (rpm) Q̇ (gpm) Q̇ (ft3/s) Vin (ft/s) Vout (ft/s) hp (ft) Ẇout(hp) Ẇin(hp) ηth (%)
1 1140 38.2 0.085 6.0 8.2 7.7 0.07 0.27 27.4
2 1140 32.3 0.072 5.1 6.9 9.8 0.08 0.25 31.7
3 1140 26.3 0.059 4.2 5.7 11.4 0.08 0.22 33.8
4 1140 21.0 0.047 3.3 4.5 12.4 0.07 0.21 30.7
5 1140 15.2 0.034 2.4 3.3 12.9 0.05 0.18 26.9
6 1140 10.8 0.024 1.7 2.3 13.27 0.04 0.17 20.7
7 1140 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 13.25 0.00 0.14 0.00
Table 4: Results from the 1740 rpm Run
Run # N (rpm) Q̇ (gpm) Q̇ (ft3/s) Vin (ft/s) Vout (ft/s) hp (ft) Ẇout(hp) Ẇin(hp) ηth (%)
1 1740 65.51 0.146 10.3 14.0 12.4 0.21 0.73 28.4
2 1740 55.23 0.123 8.7 11.8 20.2 0.28 0.67 41.9
3 1740 46.10 0.103 7.3 9.9 25.3 0.29 0.61 48.3
4 1740 36.10 0.080 5.6 7.7 29.6 0.27 0.54 50.2
5 1740 26.39 0.059 4.1 5.7 31.7 0.21 0.46 45.9
6 1740 16.25 0.036 2.5 3.5 33.3 0.14 0.38 35.8
7 1740 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.00 0.27 0.0

4. Minimum Percent Difference (not taking into account Q = 0 for ηth)
Maximum Percent Difference
Table 5: Percent Differences from the 1140 rpm Run
Q
(gpm)
hp
(expt)
hp
(manuf)
% Diff. Ẇin
(expt)
Ẇin
(manuf)
% Diff. ηth
(expt)
ηth
(manuf)
% Diff.
38.2 7.66 10.8 29.0 0.27 NA NA 27.45 41 33.1
32.3 9.79 12.5 21.7 0.25 NA NA 31.78 43.7 27.3
26.3 11.41 13.8 17.3 0.22 NA NA 33.80 42.7 20.8
21.0 12.36 14.5 14.7 0.21 NA NA 30.74 40 23.2
15.2 12.94 14.8 12.6 0.18 NA NA 26.94 32 15.8
10.8 13.27 15 11.5 0.17 NA NA 20.75 35 40.7
0.00 13.26 15 11.6 0.14 NA NA 0.00 0.0 0.0
Table 6: Percent Differences from the 1740 rpm Run
Q
(gpm)
hp
(expt)
hp
(manuf)
% Diff. Ẇin
(expt)
Ẇin
(manuf)
% Diff. ηth
(expt)
ηth
(manuf)
% Diff.
65.5 12.48 21 40.6 0.73 NA NA 28.35 43 34.1
55.2 20.20 26.5 23.8 0.67 0.75 10.5 41.98 49 14.3
46.1 25.30 30.5 17.1 0.61 NA NA 48.30 51.5 6.2
36.1 29.64 33.3 11.0 0.54 NA NA 50.24 50 -0.5*
26.4 31.75 34.5 8.0 0.46 0.5 7.8 45.93 45 -2.1*
16.3 33.28 35 4.9 0.38 NA NA 35.87 30 -19.6*
0.00 33.49 35 4.3 0.27 NA NA 0.00 0 0.0
*Negative numbers indicate the experimental efficiency is higher than the efficiency presented by the
manufacturer.

5. 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pump Head, hp, (ft)
Volumetric Flowrate, Q, (gpm)
1750 Pump Head (manuf)
1740 Pump Head (expt)
1150 Pump Head (manuf)
1140 Pump Head (expt)
Figure 1: Pump Head Performance Chart
Cal Poly Pomona
Mechanical Engineering Department
Thomas Gross Nov. 08, 2014
Figure 1: Bell & Gossett Model 1510 1.25AC 5.625in Diam. impeller Centrifugal Pump pump head vs flowrate when ran at
1140 &1740 rpm plotted against the manufactures given pump head when ran at 1150&1750 rpm.

6. 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Power in, W, (hp)
Flowrate, Q, (gpm)
1750 Power In (Manuf)
1740 Power In (expt)
1140 Power In (expt)
Figure 2: Power In(bhp) Performance Chart
Cal Poly Pomona
Mechanical Engineering Department
Thomas Gross Nov. 08, 2014
Figure 2: Bell & Gossett Model 1510 1.25AC 5.625in Diam. impeller Centrifugal Pump experimental brake horsepower at different
flowrates when ran at 1140 &1740 rpm plotted against the manufactures given bhp when ran at 1150&1750 rpm.

7. 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Efficiency, nth, (%)
Flowrate, Q, (gpm)
1750rpm Efficiency
(manuf)
1740rpm Efficiency
(expt)
1150rpm Efficiency
(manuf)
1140rpm Efficiency
(expt)
Figure 3: Pump Efficiency vs Flowrate Curve
Cal Poly Pomona
Mechanical Engineering Department
Thomas Gross Nov. 08, 2014
Figure 3: Bell & Gossett Model 1510 1.25AC 5.625in Diam. impeller Centrifugal Pump experimental efficency
at 1140 &1740 rpm plotted against the manufactures given efficiency when ran at 1150&1750 rpm.

8. Schematic

9. Sample Calculations
From ME313L Fluids Laboratory Manual: Appendix C
Nominal Diam. (in) Inside Diam. (in) Outside Diam. (in)
Discharge Side 1.25 1.380 1.660
Suction Side 1.50 1.610 1.900
From Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 7th by Munson: Table B.1
Using linear interpolation to solve for γ at 62.9°F:
훾 = ( 푇 − 푇2) (
훾2 − 훾1
푇2 − 푇1
) + 훾1
= (62.9 − 60) (
62.30 − 62.37
70 − 60
) + 62.37
= 62.3497 푙푏/푓푡3
For Run Number 3 at 1140 rpm:
Flow Rate (
풇풕ퟑ
풔
): 푄 [
푓푡3
푠
] = 푄[푔푝푚] 푥 [
푓푡3
7.48 푔푎푙
1 푚푖푛
60 푠푒푐
] 푥 [
]
= 26.3
푔푎푙
푚푖푛
푥 [
푓푡3
7.48 푔푎푙
1 푚푖푛
60 푠푒푐
] 푥 [
]
푄 = 0.0586
푓푡3
푠
풇풕
풔
푽풔풖풄풕풊풐풏(
): 푉푠푢푐푡푖표푛 =
푄
퐴푠푢푐푡푖표푛
=
푄
휋
4
(퐼퐷)2 =
푓푡3
푠
0.0586
휋
4
(1.610 푖푛)2 [
144푖푛2
푓푡2 ] = 4.15
푓푡
푠
풇풕
풔
푽풅풊풔풄풉풂풓품풆 (
): 푉푑푖푠푐ℎ푎푟푔푒 =
푄
퐴푑푖푠ℎ푐푎푟푔푒
=
푄
휋
4
(퐼퐷)2 =
0.0586
푓푡3
푠
휋
4
144푖푛2
푓푡2 ] = 5.65
( 1.380 푖푛)2 [
푓푡
푠
Pump Head (풇풕): ℎ푝 =
훥푝
훾@62.9°퐹
+
2 − 푉푠푢푐푡푖표푛
푉푑푖푠푐ℎ푎푟푔푒
2
2푔
Where: 훥푝 = 4.84 Psi
푉푑푖푠푐ℎ푎푟푔푒 = 5.65 푓푡/푠
푉푠푢푐푡푖표푛 = 4.15 푓푡/푠
ℎ푝 =
144푖푛2
푓푡2 ] 4.84
[
lb
푖푛2
62.35
푙푏
푓푡3
+
[ (5.65
푓푡
푠
2
− (4.15
)
푓푡
푠
2
]
)
2 푥 32.3
푓푡
푠2
ℎ푝 = 11.41 푓푡
Temp. °F γ (lb/ft3)
60 62.37
70 62.30

10. Power Delivered to Water by the Pump (풉풑): 푊̇
표푢푡 = 훾@62.9°퐹푄ℎ푝
Where: 훾 = 62.35 푙푏/푓푡3
푄 = 0.0586
푓푡3
푠
ℎ푝 = 11.41 푓푡
푊̇
표푢푡 = (62.35
푙푏
푓푡3) (0.0586
푓푡3
푠
) (11.41 푓푡)
= 41.66
푓푡 · 푙푏
푠
[
1 ℎ푝
550
푓푡 · 푙푏
푠
]
푊̇
표푢푡 = 0.08 ℎ푝
Power Delivered to the Pump by The Motor (the Brake Horsepower):
푊̇
푖푛 = 휔푇
Where: 휔 = 푁 [
푟푒푣
푚푖푛
] [
2휋푟푎푑
푟푒푣
푚푖푛
60푠푒푐
] [
] = 1140
푟푒푣
푚푖푛
[
2휋푟푎푑
푟푒푣
] [
푚푖푛
60푠푒푐
] = 119.38
1
푠푒푐
T = 12.4 in · lb
푊̇
푖푛 = (119.38
1
푠푒푐
)(12.4 in · lb)
푊̇
푖푛 = 1480.318
푖푛 · 푙푏
푠
푓푡
12 푖푛
[
][
1 ℎ푝
550
푓푡 · 푙푏
푠
]
푊̇
푖푛 = 0.22 ℎ푝
Pump Efficiency(%): ηp = 푊̇표푢푡
푊̇푖푛
= 0.08 ℎ푝
0.22 ℎ푝
ηp = 33.5%

11. For Run Number 3 at 1740 rpm:
Flow Rate (
풇풕ퟑ
풔
): 푄 [
푓푡3
푠
] = 푄[푔푝푚] 푥 [
푓푡3
7.48 푔푎푙
1 푚푖푛
60 푠푒푐
] 푥 [
]
= 46.10
푔푎푙
푚푖푛
푥 [
푓푡3
7.48 푔푎푙
] 푥 [
1 푚푖푛
60 푠푒푐
]
푄 = 0.103
푓푡3
푠
풇풕
풔
푽풔풖풄풕풊풐풏(
): 푉푠푢푐푡푖표푛 =
푄
퐴푠푢푐푡푖표푛
=
푄
휋
4
(퐼퐷)2 =
0.103
푓푡3
푠
휋
4
(1.610 푖푛)2 [
144푖푛2
푓푡2 ] = 7.27
푓푡
푠
풇풕
풔
푽풅풊풔풄풉풂풓품풆 (
): 푉푑푖푠푐ℎ푎푟푔푒 =
푄
퐴푑푖푠ℎ푐푎푟푔푒
=
푄
휋
4
(퐼퐷)2 =
0.103
푓푡3
푠
휋
4
144푖푛2
푓푡2 ] = 9.89
( 1.380 푖푛)2 [
푓푡
푠
Pump Head (풇풕): ℎ푝 =
훥푝
훾@62.9°퐹
+
2 − 푉푠푢푐푡푖표푛
푉푑푖푠푐ℎ푎푟푔푒
2
2푔
Where: 훥푝 = 10.65 Psi
푉푑푖푠푐ℎ푎푟푔푒 = 9.89 푓푡/푠
푉푠푢푐푡푖표푛 = 7.27 푓푡/푠
ℎ푝 =
[
144푖푛2
푓푡2 ]10.65
lb
푖푛2
62.35
푙푏
푓푡3
+
[ (9.89
푓푡
푠
2
− (7.27
)
푓푡
푠
)
2
]
2 푥 32.3
푓푡
푠2
ℎ푝 = 25.30 푓푡
Power Delivered to Water by the Pump (풉풑): 푊̇
표푢푡 = 훾@62.9°퐹푄ℎ푝
Where: 훾 = 62.35 푙푏/푓푡3
푄 = 0.103
푓푡3
푠
ℎ푝 = 25.30 푓푡
푊̇
표푢푡 = (62.35
푙푏
푓푡3) (0.103
푓푡3
푠
) (25.30 푓푡)
= 162.48
푓푡 · 푙푏
푠
[
1 ℎ푝
550
푓푡 · 푙푏
푠
]
푊̇
표푢푡 = 0.29 ℎ푝

12. Power Delivered to the Pump by The Motor (the Brake Horsepower):
푊̇
푖푛 = 휔푇
Where: 휔 = 푁 [
푟푒푣
푚푖푛
] [
2휋푟푎푑
푟푒푣
푚푖푛
60푠푒푐
] [
] = 1740
푟푒푣
푚푖푛
[
2휋푟푎푑
푟푒푣
] [
푚푖푛
60푠푒푐
] = 182.21
1
푠푒푐
T = 22.10 in · lb
푊̇
푖푛 = (182.21
1
푠푒푐
)(22.10 in · lb)
푊̇
푖푛 = 4026.89
푖푛 · 푙푏
푠
푓푡
12 푖푛
[
][
1 ℎ푝
550
푓푡 · 푙푏
푠
]
푊̇
푖푛 = 0.61 ℎ푝
Pump Efficiency(%): ηp =
푊̇
표푢푡
푊̇
푖푛
=
0.29 ℎ푝
0.61 ℎ푝
ηp = 48.3%

13. CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA
Mechanical Engineering Department
CENTRIFUGAL PUMP PERFORMANCE DATA
Test Personnel Thomas Gross Date Oct. 29, 2014
Test Location Fluids Lab, 17-1468
Ambient Conditions:
Pressure
Temperature
Data Recorded by Thomas Gross Data Sheet Prepared by Thomas Gross
TEST EQUIPMENT/INSTRUMENTAION USED:
Description Variable
Measured
Inventory or
Serial No.
Calibration Due
Date
TEST DATA
Table 1:
Run No. Pump Speed, N
(RPM)
Shaft Torque, T
(lb·in)
Shaft Angular Speed,
ω (RPM)
Pressure Rise, △P
(Psi)
Flow Rate, Q
(gpm)
1 1150
2 1150
3 1150
4 1150
5 1150
6 1150
7 1150
8 1150
Table 2:
Run No. Pump Speed, N
(RPM)
Shaft Torque, T
(lb·in)
Shaft Angular Speed,
ω (RPM)
Pressure Rise, △P
(Psi)
Flow Rate, Q
(gpm)
1 1740
2 1740
3 1740
4 1740
5 1740
6 1740
7 1740
8 1740

14. References
Biddle, Dr. John R. “Experiment 3 – Centrifugal Pump Performance Experiment.” ME313L Fluids
Laboratory, Bldg 17 Rm 1468: Mechanical Engineering Department, California State Polytechnic
University, 2013-2014. 22-27, 52-53, 56. Print.
Munson, Bruce R, et al. Fundamentals of fluid mechanics 7th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: United
States of America, 2013. Print