Cavitation problem in the high-pressure pump inlet pipeline

The second option with a buffer tank in between doesn’t make sense, right?

The second option isn’t very meaningful; it’s sufficient to ensure that the flow rate of the atmospheric pressure pump is higher than that of the high-pressure pump

I think the same, but some people are concerned about cavitation, so they insist on adding it

Pump-to-pump is quite rare, I guess, but it has been seen before; it’s not easy to control. I think it’s difficult to control; at the inlet of the first high-pressure pump, there might be negative pressure or the pressure could be so low that cavitation occurs in the high-pressure pump.

Using a series of pumps is not a viable option; it’s not a matter of cavitation or not. The rear pump is too constrained by the front pump, making any adjustment to the rear pump impossible. If the front pump suddenly stops producing flow and the back pump continues to operate, it also poses a challenge to your pipelines. Cavitation or no cavitation depends mainly on the pressure at the filling head and the properties of the material. If the filling head is too low, or if the temperature of the fluid inside the pump is close to its vaporization temperature, there is a risk of cavitation. It is recommended to add a buffer tank to provide stability and some buffer capacity. When using pumps in series, it is necessary to consider the possibility of problems occurring with the pump ahead; the backup pump should also be equipped with an automatic start function. Otherwise, if the pump ahead fails, could negative pressure be created in the pipeline? Should we also consider the possibility that the front pump is working properly while the rear pump fails suddenly? In that case, should the backup pump for the rear pump be set to start automatically? What if overpressure occurs? Should we add another safety valve between the two pumps? It’s just my personal opinion. Let’s add a buffer tank, bro – any fault could damage the equipment and pipelines.

Mainly, this line is not used frequently; its utilization rate is extremely low. It is only activated in case of sudden emergency situations. To connect it to the storage tank, three or four additional intermediate tanks along with the corresponding instruments and valves are needed, which increases the cost significantly

Is it similar to the temperature-medium used when operating at high temperatures? It’s acceptable if it’s not used frequently. My assumptions are based on sudden failures of the pump under normal operating conditions; since it’s not used often, the likelihood of a failure occurring when it is in use is indeed low. However, the pump ahead needs to have a higher flow rate than the one behind it – without such a difference, the rear pump is still at risk of cavitation

Personally, I think: 1. The front pump should have some margin； 2. A return flow can be added at the outlet of the front pump for automatic adjustment; it operates in reverse when the flow rate from the rear pump is low, and can also supply flow in the opposite direction when the flow rate is high ； 3. As a last resort, consider whether using two pumps for the front pump system, with one in use and one as a backup, would result in lower costs compared to using a buffer tank !

The second option is better, after all, there are buffer tanks in place; if there are problems with the equipment ahead, the equipment behind will not experience any issues for a while. Of course, in an ideal situation, the first option is different – if there are problems with the equipment the year before last, the equipment behind it will also fail as a result

I don’t know the operating parameters of this medium; wouldn’t a multi-stage pump work?