## 3 Results and Validation of the Developed Models  
### Results of the Hydraulic Calculations  
Three different hydraulic calculations were performed using the methods of [PERSON] and [PERSON], as well as a combined method, which integrates the first two and is supplemented by the consideration of the cavitation coefficient. The results of the calculations, presented in Table 3, were compared with the actual data for the CHP 150-315/1500 pump, provided in the second column of Table 3. According to [PERSON]'s method, the blade width deviations at the LE (\(b_{1}\)) and TE (\(b_{2}\)) were 25% and 43%, respectively. The blade installation angles at the LE also show deviations in the range from 24% to 40%. [PERSON]'s method shows a deviation in the outer diameter \(D_{2}\) by 13% and the blade width at the TE (\(b_{2}\)) by 27.5%. The installation angles of the blade LE at the midsection and at the intersection with the shroud, \(\beta_{1b}\) and \(\beta_{1 bsh}\), deviate by 20% and 38%, respectively. In the combined method proposed by the authors of this article, the deviation in the outer diameter from the actual data is 8.6%, while all other parameters have deviations of less than 7.6%. These results highlight that the cavitation coefficient significantly influences the blade width and angles at both the LE and TE. In the combined method, the cavitation coefficient was set to 0.62. The results demonstrate that the combined method achieves a deviation accuracy of less than 9%, confirming its high precision in comparison to the other methods.  
Figure 4: Meshes of the computational domain.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **CHP** \\ **150-315/1500** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Ivanovsky** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**[PERSON]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Combined**} \\  & & & & & & \(k_{cat}\) = 0.62 \\  & **Value** & **Deviation** & **Value** & **Deviation** & **Value** & **Deviation** \\ \hline \(D_{\text{sh}}\), [mm] & 46 & 45.9 & 0.2\% & 45.9 & 0.2\% & 46.8 & 1.7\% \\ \(D_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 60 & 65.0 & 8.3\% & 60.6 & 1.0\% & 61.8 & 3.0\% \\ \(D_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 190 & 187.6 & 1.3\% & 188.0 & 1.1\% & 187.9 & 1.1\% \\ \(D_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 132 & 131.4 & 0.5\% & 132.0 & 0.0\% & 131.5 & 0.4\% \\ \(D_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 324 & 346.0 & 6.8\% & 368.0 & 13.6\% & 296.1 & 8.6\% \\ \(D_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 190 & 187.6 & 1.3\% & 188.0 & 1.1\% & 187.9 & 1.1\% \\ \(D_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 74 & 75.1 & 1.5\% & 76.0 & 2.7\% & 75.2 & 1.6\% \\ \(b_{\text{ls}}\), [mm] & 80 & 60.0 & 25.0\% & 88.0 & 6.3\% & 75.4 & 5.8\% \\ \(b_{\text{2}}\), [mm] & 40 & 22.8 & 43.1\% & 29.0 & 27.5\% & 42.0 & 5.0\% \\ \(\beta_{1b}\), [°] & 20 & 26.1 & 30.7\% & 24.1 & 20.4\% & 19.9 & 0.4\% \\ \(\beta_{2b}\), [°] & 34 & 34.4 & 1.3\% & 37.6 & 10.4\% & 34.5 & 1.6\% \\ \(\beta_{1 bsh}\), [°] & 14 & 19.7 & 40.4\% & 19.4 & 38.4\% & 15.1 & 7.6\% \\ \(\beta_{1 bsh}\), [°] & 32 & 39.8 & 24.4\% & 34.5 & 7.7\% & 30.0 & 6.2\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Main geometric parameters of the impeller.  
As a result of the calculations, the overall calculated efficiency was 80%. The efficiency accounting for the bearing friction and the clearance between the impeller and the solute was approximately 92%, while the efficiency considering the seal leakage reached 97%. The hydraulic efficiency of the pump, which is the lowest and takes into account the energy losses due to hydraulic friction, vortices, and flow separation, was 90%.  
In this method, the nominal shaft power of the pump was 32.7 kW, while the maximum calculated power reached 37 kW.