Discharge Temperature Calculation - That's A Hot Topic

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic
By
Dwayne A Hickman, Kelly Eberle, BSc, PEng

VP, eRCM Products and Solutions – Principal Consultant –
ACI Services, Inc Wood
Cambridge, Ohio Calgary, Alberta
dhickman@aciservicesinc.com kelly.eberle@woodplc.com
GMRC Gas Machinery Conference

4 to 7 October 2021
Louisville, KY
Abstract
Estimating reciprocating compressor performance, such as required power, flowrates and safety are important
when selecting, operating, maintaining or troubleshooting these machines. Today’s performance simulation
programs are generally easy to use, however, they often use general assumptions that can inadvertently lead
to calculated results that differ noticeably from real-world measurements.
One of the more challenging outputs from reciprocating compressor performance modelling is the cylinder
discharge temperature. When selecting equipment, the discharge temperature is rarely the critical item, as
variations between calculated and actual discharge temperature can be resolved later through more cooling
from the heat exchanger. However, since the theoretical predicted discharge temperature is often used as the
basis for determining valve issues (ie, valve condition monitoring, slippage rates), significant differences
between the theoretical and actual discharge temperatures can be problematic.
This technical paper will present the background on calculating discharge temperature for reciprocating
compressors using commonly applied methods. Then, a method of calculating discharge temperature based
on valve loss power converting to heat will be discussed. A case study will demonstrate how this method more
accurately correlates with actual discharge temperatures during compressor operation, solely based on existing
sensor outputs and compressor information.
Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 2

GMRC Gas Machinery Conference 2021 Wood
Introduction
The discharge temperature for the gas stream in a reciprocating compressor is an important characteristic to
understand from several perspectives. The materials used in the compressor components such as valves, often
have temperature limitations. The condition of components can be evaluated based on trending of
temperatures. The design of heat exchangers and other equipment downstream of reciprocating compressor
relies on understanding the discharge temperature from the compressor cylinder. Recent experiences in
extreme environmental temperatures (Texas winter of February 2021 and western North America summer of
2021) show that relying on traditional design approaches may put reliability of machinery operation at risk. An
accurate calculation of discharge temperature is important output for compressor performance modelling.
Why does gas temperature increase during compression?

The fundamental process of compressing gas from a low pressure to high pressure results in the temperature
of the gas increasing. Work done by the piston to compress the gas molecules causes an increase in the
energy of the gas molecules. The compression process occurs very quickly so there is no heat transfer, or at
least very little, from the gas to the piston and cylinder. The compression process is adiabatic, that is, there is
no heat transfer. The increase in internal energy of the gas results in an increase in temperature.
The change in temperature for a real reciprocating compressor cylinder is more complex than a simple
adiabatic compression process. Consider Figure 1 as a typical reciprocating compressor cylinder, as gas flows
from the suction bottle, through the cylinder gas passages and valve, gas s compressed by the piston, flows
through the discharge valve gas passages and out of the discharge nozzle to the discharge bottle.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
Figure 1: Reciprocating compressor cylinder cross-section
T1 and T6 are the suction and discharge temperatures as measured in the bottles and generally shown on the
compressor package control panel and digital control system (DCS). The following explains the change in

temperature as gas travels from suction to discharge. The chart shown in Figure 2 illustrates these
temperature changes in a graphical form. Note the data represented in Figure 2 is not from a calculation and
is shown for illustration purposes.
T1 to T2
 This region is commonly referred to as a region of preheating
 The cylinder casting will generally be at a higher temperature than the suction gas stream as heat from
the discharge portion of the compression cycle causes the cylinder temperature to increase
 There are also pressure drop losses within the cylinder gas passages and often an orifice plate at the
inlet flange connection. These pressure losses are a power loss that is converted to heat, causing a
slight increase in temperature
T2 to T3 and T4 to T5
 Gas flowing through the suction and discharge valve experiences a pressure loss due to restrictions in
the valve and valve cage, which results in a temperature increase
 There may also be pressure losses due to porting in the cylinder liner or piston masking effects
T3 to T4
 These temperatures are the internal suction and discharge temperatures in the clearance volume
 The relationship between T3 and T4 is described by the isentropic compression process that is
discussed in the next section of this paper
T5 to T6
- This region is sometimes referred to as the post-heating region
- The temperature change is similar to the suction side of the cylinder, T1 to T2, expect that the heat
transfer between the cylinder and the flow in the discharge gas passage may result in an overall
reduction of the temperature from T5 to T6. The cylinder temperature will generally be less than the
gas temperature due to heat loss to the environment, and conduction from the discharge side of the
cylinder to the suction side
- Pressure loss converted to heat due to flow in the gas passage and possibly orifice plate at the
cylinder discharge, will increase the gas temperature
- The net effect may be an increase or decrease in temperature between locations T5 to T6

Figure 2: Temperature profile through a compressor cylinder
Discharge temperature calculation methods

Traditional methods
The preceding explanation of the temperature change from suction to discharge illustrates there are many
factors involved. One of the simplest approaches for calculating discharge temperature is given in the GPSA
Engineering Data Book (GPSA, 2004). It offers the following formula Equation 1, as a theoretical value of the
discharge temperature:
( )/
Eq. #1: =
The discharge temperatures calculated with this formula may be somewhat low as it neglects heat from friction,
irreversibility effects, etc; the values obtained from this equation will be reasonable field estimates. When the
’k’ value is determined via CP and CV values (molar heat capacity values), then this predicted discharge
temperature is often referred to as ‘Adiabatic Discharge Temperature’.
A reciprocating compressor’s discharge temperature can be better estimated by substituting the ideal isentropic
exponent, k, for the real gas isentropic exponent with respect to temperature, nt. The values of k and nt can be
5 to 10% different, depending on the gas composition and pressure range. Note that the k and nt will vary
between the suction and discharge conditions, so the question arises as to whether to use the exponent at
suction or discharge conditions. The usual approach is to calculate the exponent at the suction and discharge
conditions and use an average value for this calculation. The average k and nt is used in all calculations in this
paper unless explicitly defined as suction or discharge. The calculated discharge temperature is still approximate
even if nt is used as it neglects real effects during the compression process in a reciprocating compressor.
Some original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) incorporate adjustments to the cylinder’s suction and
discharge pressures, to create a higher compression ratio, which in turn gives a higher predicted discharge
temperature. Two approaches are:

1. Use a fixed amount (eg, 10%) for pressure drops through the valves. Assuming a fixed pressure drop of
10% and a typical ‘k’ value for natural gas of 1.28 results in a factor of 1.045 or 4.5% higher discharge
temperature from the adiabatic discharge temperature, as shown in Equation 2:
Eq. #2: = 1.045 _
Thus, if the original predicted discharge temperature was 310°F, then the new one would be 1.0448
(310+459.67) - 459.67 = 344.48°F (remember, the calculations need to be done using absolute
temperature units). This approach attempts to improve the theoretical discharge temperature
calculation from Equation 1, but it still ignores many real effects that occur during the compression
process that impact discharge temperature.
2. Another variation on Equation 1 uses separate pressure drops for suction and discharge valves, and
considers pressure drops for cylinder passageways, valve flow areas, gas molecular weight, and
operating speeds. The challenge with calculating the discharge temperature using this approach is that
testing or calculations must be done to determine the pressure losses for different cylinders and valves.
Many end users do find that predicted discharge temperatures via this method match reasonably well
to measured discharge temperatures in the field – most of time, and more so for typical natural gas.
/
Eq. #3: = _ ∗
Methods based on power loss
The explanation of the effects involved in the resulting discharge temperature of a reciprocating compressor
shows the many factors involved, and the complexities that need to be considered in calculating discharge
temperature. Distilling many factors, such as the compressor cylinder gas passage design, presence of orifice
plates, losses through the valves, heat loss to the environment and many others, to a concise formula is a
daunting task. Other methods of calculating discharge temperature consider an energy or power loss method.
The amount of valve power loss (or a portion of it) is converted to heat and a corresponding temperature rise.
This approach effectively adjusts the final discharge temperature twice: once for the amount of suction valve
loss (like a preheat); and then again for the discharge valve loss (like a post heat).
Consider a typical pressure-volume curve as shown in Figure 3. The area enclosed by the pressure-volume
curve is the work per revolution required for compressing the gas between suction and discharge pressure.
The work multiplied by speed is power. The area enclosed by points a-b-d-e is the adiabatic power, adiabatic
horsepower (AHP). This area represents an idealized compression process with no losses. The area a-b-c-d-e-f
is called the indicated power, indicated horsepower (IHP), which represents the real power required for
compression. The areas a-e-f and b-c-d are commonly referred to as the suction and discharge valve losses.
The term ’valve loss’ is a bit of a shorthand term, as generally the highest losses occur across the valves. The
valve loss portion of the P-V curve includes other losses in the gas passages, orifice plates and other
components as discussed previously.

c
d b
Pressure (psi)
a
f
Swept Volume (%)
Figure 3: Typical Pressure-volume curve
Recognizing that compressor performance vendors generally have a good understanding of the AHP and IHP,
compressor performance calculations have adopted a variation of the discharge temperature calculation,
including horsepower factors. Compressor performance measurements of P-V curves can also be used as a
basis to calculate the discharge temperature for comparison to measured discharge temperatures.
One method of calculating discharge temperature that includes the concept of AHP and IHP that is published,
is found in the textbook authored by Mohitpour et al. (Mohitpour, Botros, & Van Hardeveld, 2008). They
propose the following in Equation 4 as an improvement to the GPSA formula, as a closer estimate of the
discharge temperature considering performance losses:
( )/
Eq. #4: = 1+ ( − 1)
This theoretical discharge temperature rise is based on the efficiency of the compression process which would
be AHP/IHP.

Compressor OEMs and consultants in this field have concurrently developed different approaches of
discharge temperature calculation that follow a similar form as Equation 4. Some OEMs use the following
equation:
Eq. #5: = _ + _ − _ ∗
It relies on knowing a reasonable _ for a particular compressor and application.
Wood uses a variation of Equations 4 and 5. The AHP is analogous to the idealized GPSA discharge
temperature formula except nt is substituted for k, as nt gives much more accurate results for some gas and
pressure ranges. The IHP quantifies the losses from suction to discharge, so multiplying the idealized
discharge temperature by the ratio of IHP/AHP. Comparisons of many field measurements and analytical
calculations of discharge temperature showed the approach generally resulted in good agreement.
A correction factor, for valve heating coefficient, was applied to the calculation to improve the discharge
temperature prediction slightly, which resulted in the final formula for discharge temperature prediction:
( )/
Eq#6: = 1+ ( − 1)
A value of 1.04 is used for , admittedly a small adjustment, but it has been included as fine-tuning of the
calculation based on comparisons with field measurements over many years. This constant could also be used
to adjust discharge temperature calculation based on performance measurements of power or historical
information, considering degrading valve condition.
Some cylinders are jacketed designs. Generally, the compression process is described as adiabatic, that is,
there is no heat transfer. In a real compressor, there will be a small amount of heat transfer that occurs due
the discharge temperature being much higher than the suction temperature. OEMs, that support jacketed
cylinders, will often have some additional calculations, as the cooling medium in the cylinder jacket can affect
the final discharge temperature (positively or negatively). Jacketed cylinders are somewhat uncommon, so an
in-depth discussion of discharge temperature calculation methods is not presented.
Example calculations
The different equations are used to calculate the discharge temperature for a typical application to show the
differences between each method. The calculations are based on the following inputs:
 TS=80°F (539.67°R), Ps=200psiG, Pd=600psiG, k=1.30, nt=1.28,

 The passageway and valve pressure drops are predicted to be Ps_Drop=11psi, Pd_Drop=23psi,
 Preheat of the gas adds 12°F,
 Cylinder’s (HPs) are 600, 60, and 0 for Compression HP (AHP), valve loss HP (VLHP), and deactivated
end HP (PLHP) respectively
An atmospheric pressure of 14.7psi is assumed. The absolute pressure, psiA, is used in all calculations rather
than gauge pressure, psiG.

. ( . )/ . . ( . )/ .
For Eq#1, _ = 539.67 ∗ = 539.67 ∗
. .
.
_ = 539.67 ∗ (2.8630647)
_ = 539.67 ∗ 1.27474
_ = 687.94
= 228.3°F, which is generally considered the lower estimate.
For Eq. #2, = 1.045 _
= 1.045 ∗ (228.3 + 459.67) − 459.67
= 259.3°F, which is generally considered a good but slightly high estimate.
/
For Eq#3, = _ ∗
/ . / .
600 + 14.7 + 23 637.7
= (539.67 + 12) ∗ = 551.67 ∗
200 + 14.7 − 11 203.7
.
= 551.67 ∗ (3.130584)
= 551.67 ∗ 1.3012926
= 717.88
= 258.2°F, which is generally considered a good, perhaps slightly high, estimate.

( )
For Eq. #4, = 1+ ( − 1)
( )
(600 + 60 + 0) (600 + 14.7)
= 539.67 1 + ( − 1)
(600) (200 + 14.7)
= 702.77
= 243.1°F, which is generally considered a good estimate.
For Eq#5, = _ + _ − _ ∗
600 + 60 + 0
= (539.67 + 12) + 687.97 − (539.67 + 12) ∗
600
= 551.67 + (136.3) ∗ (1.1)
= 701.6
( )
For Eq#6: = 1+ ( − 1)
( . )
1.04 (600 + 60 + 0) (600 + 14.7) .
= 539.67 1+ ( − 1)
600 (200 + 14.7)
The calculated discharge temperatures are described as either a ‘low’, ’high’ or ’good’ estimate of the actual
discharge temperature based on the author’s experience. The results from the example discharge
temperatures are summarized in Table 1 for easy reference and comparison. The discharge temperature
results based on the power or compressor efficiency show results that are more consistent with temperatures
from real compressor systems. Note that the underlying assumption in all these calculations is that the
compressor components are in a good working state. Components with excessive wear or inappropriate
design for the application will result in discharge temperatures that are higher.
Table 1: Calculated discharge temperatures for different methods
Equation Description Discharge

Temperature (°F)
1 Adiabatic discharge temperature 228.3
2 Adiabatic discharge temperature with empirically 259.3

increased compression ratio
3 Considers pre-heating and internal pressures 258.2
4 Modify discharge temperature based on 243.1

compression efficiency
5 Considers pre-heating, power losses and IHP 241.9
6 Includes empirical adjustment to IHP/AHP 239.7
The approaches for calculating discharge temperature based on power are not well known or common
knowledge in the compressor industry. It is interesting that different parties developed similar calculation
methods independently, and these methods offer an improvement over more widely used techniques.

Case study
This case study includes a four-throw, four-stage compressor in an air service supplying 6400 lb/hr at 3000psi.
The compression power is about 400 HP operating at a fixed speed of nominally 1800rpm. Air is being
supplied to a test facility. An image of the compressor package is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Package arrangement
Wood was asked to perform an API 618 study Design Approach 2 to prevent potential pulsation and vibration
problems. The starting point of the pulsation study is performing a compressor performance calculation to
define the flow and pressure dynamics coming from the compressor. Table 2 summarizes the calculated
compressor performance from the compressor vendor as well as Wood’s simulation using the valve loss
discharge temperature calculation method, Equation #6. The discharge temperature is shown to be higher
than the vendor calculated discharge temperature. The differences between calculated discharge
temperatures were discussed early in the design stage, however, they were not thought to be significant
enough to warrant a design change. The main impact of the discharge temperature from the pulsation
analysis perspective is on the acoustic velocity, since the acoustic velocity is proportional to the square root of
absolute temperature. The variation in discharge temperature given in Table 2 will result in a variation in the
acoustic velocity of 1 to 3%. This variation is relatively small and will not impact the pulsation results and
recommendations as the analysis considers sensitivity checks with a speed variation of ±10%. The difference
between the vendor and Wood’s simulation can be ignored for the purposes of the pulsation analysis.

Table 2: Compressor performance calculation during design stage
Parameter Units Vendor Simulation Wood Simulation

Stage 1 Suction Pressure PSIG 195 195
Stage 1 Suction Temperature DEG F 100 100
Stage 1 Discharge Pressure PSIG 446 438
Stage 1 Discharge Temperature DEG F 247 257
Skid edge Temperature DEG F 110 110
The compressor vendor performance results are also used for the cooler design. A vertical flow induced draft
heat exchanger was designed based on the compressor performance as given in Table 2. The cooler design
was completed based on a 100°F maximum inlet temperature and 110°F suction temperature for all
interstages, as well as the final discharge temperature leaving the compressor package. Downstream
equipment was also specified based on the skid edge conditions of 3000psig and 110°F.
Installation and commissioning of the compressor package proceeded smoothly. The pressure pulsation and
vibration on the compressor and other components within the package were well within guideline. One issue
arose as the compressor loading increased to the design pressure, the discharge temperature was too high.
One piece of equipment that is downstream of the compressor package is a desiccant air dryer.
The desiccant air dryer is required to remove residual water vapor in the discharge stream. The desiccant air
dryer has been designed for a maximum gas temperature of 110°F. The discharge air temperature leaving the
compressor package was in the range of 140 to 150°F, too high for the desiccant air dryer to operate.
Investigations were done by the commissioning team to understand the cause of the high discharge
temperature. Calibration of temperature sensors was checked and found to be acceptable. The cooler vendor
was engaged to assess the cooler design for the actual site conditions. The potential for recirculating exhaust
air was also evaluated. The cooler design and site installation was found to be acceptable. The next avenue
explored was the use of orifice plates to reduce pressure pulsations and shaking forces. Several orifice plates
were removed, and additional testing done. The interstage pressures and temperatures changed very little
with the orifice plates removed. Compressor performance measurements were taken using a compressor

analyzer. Results from compressor performance measurements did not reveal any anomalies other than the
discharge temperature difference from the vendor compressor performance calculations.
Wood was engaged at this point to assist with determining why there was such a large deviation between the
measured and calculated discharge system. Table 3 summarizes one set of field measurements and results
from the vendor’s simulation, as well as Wood’s simulation of the compressor performance, using the valve
loss method for calculating the discharge temperature. The approach for calculating the discharge
temperature based on valve loss shows a close correlation with the field measurements. The calculations used
the valve loss determined from the compressor analyzer field measurements as inputs rather than theoretical
valve loss calculations. This result shows that the compressor is operating as would be expected. The reason
for the high final discharge temperature is the compounding effect of higher-than-expected suction
temperature for each stage. The cooler was undersized based on the power loss method of calculating the
expected discharge temperature for each stage, and the volumes of gas needing to be cooled. The cooler
design is somewhat conservative as the first intercooler results in a second-stage suction temperature that is
below the 110°F design temperature, but the cooler is not able to keep up with the higher discharge
temperature in Stages 2 to 4.
Table 3: Operating parameters during commissioning
Parameter Units Field Measured Vendor Simulation Wood Simulation Legend

Stage 1 Suction Pressure PSIG 188 188 188 Inputs
Stage 1 Suction Temperature DEG F 74 74 74 Results
Stage 1 Discharge Pressure PSIG 421 446 442
Stage 1 Discharge Temperature DEG F 250 222 258
Stage 2 Suction Pressure PSIG 407 432 428
Stage 2 Suction Temperature DEG F 107 107 107
Skid edge Pressure PSIG 2945* NA NA
Skid edge Temperature DEG F 142* NA NA
*Estimated from similar operating point
Several measures were discussed as possible solutions to reduce the discharge temperature. The performance
measurements indicated the valve loss was somewhat high for some stages as shown by the shaded areas in
Figure 5. The suction valve losses are reasonable. The discharge valve losses are unusually high. Clearly,

something is restricting the discharge gas during the discharge valve open event. Regardless of what the root
cause is for that (cylinder design, valve selection, restrictive orifice plates, etc), the resulting high discharge
valve losses are there, and much of the energy to push the gas through those restrictions effectively becomes
heat which increases the discharge temperature. Valve loss could be reduced by increasing the valve lift,
increasing the orifice plate beta ratio, and reducing restrictions in the valve assembly or cylinder gas passage.
There are uncertainties and disadvantages to these changes that make them a less desirable solution. Other
options to reduce the discharge temperature are to change sections in the existing cooler or add a secondary
cooler to the system. It was decided that adding a secondary cooler was the simplest and most cost-effective
solution.
Figure 5: Stage 2 measured pressure-volume curves
Implementing discharge temperature calculation in compressor controllers
The methods of calculating discharge temperature based on power offer an opportunity for improving
discharge temperature calculation as compared to traditional methods. The downside of a calculated
discharge temperature based on power is that the method relies on accurate determination of the AHP and
IHP. Determining the compressor powers is well within the capability of most compressor performance
calculations, so a method of calculating discharge temperature based on power is well within the capability of
a desktop performance analysis.
Implementing a power-based discharge temperature calculation in a modern online monitoring system

requires a bit more effort, but is well within the capabilities of modern programmable logic controllers (PLCs)
and edge-computing devices. Equation #4 is perhaps the easiest method to implement. The inputs for
Equation #4 such as Ps, Pd, Ts, and the gas properties are known. The compression efficiency term remains as
an unknown. The compression efficiency is not a constant (like it might be with centrifugal compressors) and
depends on Ps, Pd, Ts, Load Step, and Speed. Fortunately, the impact of speed on the compression efficiency is
small. Thus, the compression efficiency really varies, mostly with Ps, Pd, and Load Step. OEMs (or others) can
generate a table of efficiencies (Ps vs Pd) for each load step, and then these could be curve-fitted so that in the
PLC the efficiency factor could be readily determined by the current load step and pressures. The end user
would have a series of functions FLS (Ps, Pd) that would return the efficiency factor at that combination of Ps
and Pd (for the indicated load step), and then use that in the Td calculation. This curve-fitting approach to
determine compression efficiency would be fast and give significantly improved discharge temperature
predictions and can be programmable into the PLCs.
For example, Figure 6 shows typical cylinder efficiency maps for a double-acting and SACE mode.
Single Acting
Double Acting
Figure 6: Typical compression efficiency curves
These types of plots can be readily curve-fit by rational polynomials of the form F = ( a*X + b*Y + c*X2 + d*Y2
+ e*X*Y + f ) / ( g*X + h*Y + j ). In short, each function only needs 3 to 10 coefficients, and thus a look-up
table of these would only have 3 to 500 items (based on 1 to 50 load steps) which is easily managed by
today’s PLCs.
Takeaways
A method of calculating discharge temperature based on power has been shown to be reliable and more
accurate as compared to traditional methods. However, accuracy of the discharge temperature is based on

the assumption that the AHP and IHP are reasonably well understood, assuming a compressor in good
working order.
These power loss methods of discharge temperature calculation can be used at the design stage, during
analysis of measured compressor performance, or included in online monitoring and PLCs.
References
GPSA. (2004). GPSA Engineering Data Book 12th Edition. GSAP.
Mohitpour, M., Botros, K., & Van Hardeveld, T. (2008). Pipeline Pumping and Compression Systems, A Practical Approach. New York:
ASME Press.
Acknowledgements
The Wood discharge temperature calculation method, Equation #6, was largely developed by work done by
Brian Howes. Bryan Long’s guidance and expertise in compressor performance analysis and discharge
temperature calculation were invaluable.
Nomenclature
AHP = Adiabatic horsepower
Cp = Specific heat at constant pressure or molar heat capacity
Cvh = Valve heating correction factor
Cv = Specific heat at constant volume
IHP = Indicated horsepower
k = Isentropic exponent
nt = Isentropic temperature exponent
= Isentropic efficiency
Pdi = Discharge pressure in the cylinder clearance volume
PLHP = Deactivated end power loss
Psi = Suction pressure in the cylinder clearance volume
r = Compression ratio
Td = Discharge temperature
_ = Adiabatic discharge temperature
Ts = Suction temperature
Ts_preheat = Suction temperature in the cylinder clearance volume including temperature rise from the flange to clearance
volume
VLHP = Valve loss power loss


Discharge Temperature Calculation - That's A Hot Topic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discharge Temperature Calculation - That's A Hot Topic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic

Dwayne A Hickman, Kelly Eberle, BSc, PEng

GMRC Gas Machinery Conference

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 2

Why does gas temperature increase during compression?

Figure 1: Reciprocating compressor cylinder cross-section

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 3

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 4

Discharge temperature calculation methods

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 5

Eq. #2: = 1.045 _

Methods based on power loss

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 6

Swept Volume (%)

Figure 3: Typical Pressure-volume curve

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 7

It relies on knowing a reasonable _ for a particular compressor and application.

 TS=80°F (539.67°R), Ps=200psiG, Pd=600psiG, k=1.30, nt=1.28,

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 8

= 228.3°F, which is generally considered the lower estimate.

For Eq. #2, = 1.045 _

= 1.045 ∗ (228.3 + 459.67) − 459.67

= 259.3°F, which is generally considered a good but slightly high estimate.

= 258.2°F, which is generally considered a good, perhaps slightly high, estimate.

= 243.1°F, which is generally considered a good estimate.

= 551.67 + (136.3) ∗ (1.1)

= 239.7°F, which is generally considered a good estimate.

Table 1: Calculated discharge temperatures for different methods

Equation Description Discharge

1 Adiabatic discharge temperature 228.3

2 Adiabatic discharge temperature with empirically 259.3

3 Considers pre-heating and internal pressures 258.2

4 Modify discharge temperature based on 243.1

5 Considers pre-heating, power losses and IHP 241.9

6 Includes empirical adjustment to IHP/AHP 239.7

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 10

Figure 4: Package arrangement

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 11

Parameter Units Vendor Simulation Wood Simulation

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 12

Table 3: Operating parameters during commissioning

Parameter Units Field Measured Vendor Simulation Wood Simulation Legend

*Estimated from similar operating point

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 13

Figure 5: Stage 2 measured pressure-volume curves

Implementing discharge temperature calculation in compressor controllers

Implementing a power-based discharge temperature calculation in a modern online monitoring system

Figure 6: Typical compression efficiency curves

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 15

Discharge temperature calculation – that’s a hot topic Page 16

You might also like