Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums

Member Login

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

badr82 (Mechanical) (OP)
23 Apr 12 6:24
Please, how can I calculate the NPSHa for a pump?
And, What is the deference between NPSHa and NPSHr?
BigInch (Petroleum)
23 Apr 12 7:28

"a" => NPSH available
"r" => NPSH required is that NPSH required by the pump at a given flowrate.

What would you be doing, if you knew that you could not fail?

bimr (Civil/Environmental)
23 Apr 12 10:47
NPSHA is a function of your system and must be calculated, whereas NPSHR is a function of the pump and must be provided by the pump manufacturer.

In addition to the McNally Site, you may find this site useful:

Helpful Member!  21121956 (Mechanical)
23 Apr 12 11:26
Hello everybody:

Here I am sending the document "NPSH Calculations", by Art Montemayor.

I hope this tutorial can be of help for you.  

El que no puede andar, se sienta.

badr82 (Mechanical) (OP)
24 Apr 12 23:13
Thanx for every body...
I'll read what u sent
Helpful Member!  nfinit (Mechanical)
25 Apr 12 11:11
my review of Mr Montemayor's document:  The drawings to the right of the calculations are misleading.  Pump elevation appears to be subtracted twice based on drawing dimensions.  Assuming friction loss can be problematic and should be verified any time possible. Atmospheric pressure, or "pressure above liquid" is only 14.7psia at sea level (I would assume everyone who posts knows this but I was always taught not to assume).  I don't believe the tutorial provided above is as beneficial as others I have come across.  I tend to reference the Cameron Hydraulic Data book, but if not available this has also proven to be a good source  GPSA books are also a great source of information.

Some times it is necessary to take credit for liquid levels if you can ensure a minimum liquid level will always be present.  In many plants raising a vessel is not an option so in some cases the only way to gain necessary NPSH is to raise the liquid level.  
BigInch (Petroleum)
25 Apr 12 11:48
Ya. Did you copy and paste the first post?



What would you be doing, if you knew that you could not fail?

nfinit (Mechanical)
25 Apr 12 11:55
nope, I missed it and couldn't go back to edit.   
bimr (Civil/Environmental)
25 Apr 12 12:20
I see no problems with Mr Montemayor's document. Perhaps the format was unclear with the extra line below the vinculum instead of the total. I thought the examples were very good.
Pumpsonly (Mechanical)
25 Apr 12 13:26
I agreed with nfinit's finding.
The NPSHA is calculated based on the liquid level above or below the impeller eye. If the liquid level changes in the course of pumping out, the NPSHA should be based on the lowest level= LLL. In most case the pump is stopped when reaching this LLL. Most end-user will still specified a certain margin is required between the NPSHA and NPSHR of the pump at this LLL condition which is really not necessary and only lead to more expensive pump being purchased if the NPSHA is very low.

The tutorial also give out wrong message in the recommendation to
specify a much lower NPSHA when in fact the calculated value id higher.
bimr (Civil/Environmental)
25 Apr 12 15:43
So, you are agreeing with nfinit's mistake? Good for you.

Regarding "If the liquid level changes in the course of pumping out, the NPSHA should be based on the lowest level= LLL."

That his what Mr Montemayor's has done. He is setting the LLL to be 3 ft off the tank bottom.

Regarding "The tutorial also give out wrong message in the recommendation to specify a much lower NPSHA when in fact the calculated value id higher."

Do you think that an NPSH of 20 ft is low? Mr Montemayor's "NOTE: Very few pumps need more than 20 ft of NPSHa."

Mr Montemayor is an engineer with considerable experience and one should hesitate before questioning his posts.
nfinit (Mechanical)
25 Apr 12 16:57
my mistake?  His drawings suggest the static height is 13ft for the first two examples, then adds 10ft from the bottom to centerline, and again subtracts 3ft for pump elevation?  Also suggest posting that the NPSHa is only 20ft, when it is actually 38ft in example 2.  The NPSHa would be 38ft, the acceptable design condition can be based on whatever is determined acceptable.

And what Pumpsonly was agreeing with was only that the statement
"Do NOT account for Liquid Level" is not always a solution.  I have several specific instances where not counting the liquid level would suggest I had to raise a tower 20 feet.  If I am designing a new system, I would gladly take his advice and start at the bottom of the tower.  On existing retrofits, you can install protection devices to ensure the liquid level maintains the desired elevation.  A viable alternative in many cases.

Montemayor wrote that document in 1997.  To expect that an engineer would agree with everything they have ever done in their lives would be quite the accomplishment.  He may still stick by his posts, I am sure there is a valid point to it.  But there are several instances where even the smartest of people are not correct.  

I have a lot of respect for those that post on here, but Montemayor's tutorial leaves questions that I feel are answer in places (like BigInch pointed out) like the McNally Institute.

bimr (Civil/Environmental)
25 Apr 12 21:46
After reviewing the drawings, I see your issue. On the drawing, the tank elevation arrows end at the pump centerline which should indicate that the tank bottom is 13 ft off the ground.

However, the text states that the bottom tank elevation is 10 ft.

Anyway, his calculations are correct.

He also provides some insight:

Assume tanks are empty;
assume pump suctions are 2-3 ft off grade;

The fact that the Montemayor document was made in 1997 is of no relevance to the discussion of NPSH. NPSH calculations precede this discussion by decades.

I fail to understand your issue with the statement to use a maximum of 20 ft NPSHa. If you had a water tower, would you state the NPSHa as 200 ft?
Artisi (Mechanical)
26 Apr 12 10:50
To save all the problems of who's right / wrong etc - just refer to Cameron's Hydraulic Data - Net Positive Suction Head, starting on page 1-10 in my 16th Edition.  Clear, easy to follow and covers all situations.

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)  

BigInch (Petroleum)
26 Apr 12 12:19
McNalley's is correct.  Don't care about the others.

What would you be doing, if you knew that you could not fail?

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close