ProjectsFuel gear pump
Case study · Advanced technology · Vietnam · 2023

CFD of a Jet A-1 fuel gear pump — phase 1: model and ideal assembly

16.01 L/min
mean simulated flow, ideal case — test rig 15 L/min
13.60 · 13.68
flow in L/min of the 2D and 3D models on the same mesh — 2D selected
< −3 atm
pressure in the separating tooth space near the suction port — cavitation risk
~700,000 cells
mesh with 3 cells across the smallest gap, chosen after a mesh study

Context & problem

The Jet A-1 fuel gear pump, developed by a Vietnamese R&D organisation, delivered 15 L/min on its test rig (21 atm, 6,000 rpm), clearly below the 18.09 L/min given by its geometry. The tip clearance to the casing is only 30 µm, the gap between the teeth smaller still, and the pressure in the tooth spaces changes with every mesh — quantities that are hard to measure directly. A trustworthy CFD model was needed to separate the effects of design, assembly and operating conditions.

Approach

  • Transient model, incompressible Newtonian liquid (Jet A-1: 808.6 kg/m³, 2.0 mPa·s), isothermal, standard k-ε; triangular mesh with smoothing + remeshing so the gears can turn through micrometre gaps; 1 µs time step.
  • Boundary conditions from the test rig: 1 atm at suction, 21 atm at delivery, 6,000 rpm.
  • Three validation steps: mesh independence (1, 3, 6 cells across the gap), 2D against 3D, and the smallest gap between the teeth (30, 15, 5 µm) against the test.

Results

  • The 2D and 3D models on the same mesh give 13.60 and 13.68 L/min — 0.6% apart — so 2D was chosen to cut run time for the following cases. Two revolutions are enough to take the mean flow.
  • The smallest gap between the teeth governs the flow: 30 µm gives −9.3% against the test, 15 µm +2.9%, 5 µm +6.7%. The ideal case takes 5 µm, since an ideal design and assembly should deliver more than the real pump and come close to the theoretical flow (17.24 L/min from the actual geometry). The mean flow reaches 16.01 L/min.
  • The separating tooth space near the suction port drops below −3 atm — a risk of vaporisation and cavitation.
  • On the meshing side, liquid is trapped between two teeth (trapped volume): the pressure spikes and then collapses within a very short time, risking surface damage, reduced fatigue life and noise. Recommendation: add a pressure-relief groove.

Value

The validated model is the basis for phase 2: tip clearance, radial and axial eccentricity, surface roughness, speed, the relief groove, and Jet A-1 viscosity varying with pressure and temperature — so that each manufacturing tolerance can be expressed as flow and pressure before machining.

Project gallery

Mean flow: theoretical 18.09 and 17.24 L/min, test 15.00, 3D and 2D models with a 30 µm gap, 2D model with 15 and 5 µm gaps
/image/thiet-bi-bom-banh-rang-02.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)
Triangular mesh in the pump and in the gap between the teeth: 1, 3 and 6 cells across the gap
/image/thiet-bi-bom-banh-rang-03.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)
Formation of the trapped volume between two teeth: before, during and after it breaks up — the pressure in the gap spikes and then collapses
/image/thiet-bi-bom-banh-rang-05.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)
3D model used to check the 2D model, and the pump assembly
/image/thiet-bi-bom-banh-rang-06.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)

Developing a pump or a device with micrometre gaps?

Build a dynamic-mesh CFD model, validate it on the test rig, then express each manufacturing tolerance as flow and pressure.

Send project details

Related projects: Advanced technology · Wind Tunnel & Wind Ring