International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ichmt

Quantitative investigation of the turbulence model effect on

high-pressure-ratio centrifugal compressor performance prediction
Zi-liang Li a, b, c, *, Xin-gen Lu b, c, *, Yun-feng Wu a, b, c, Ge Han b, c
a
Key Laboratory of Light-duty Gas-turbine/Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
c
Innovation Academy for Light-duty Gas Turbine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The accuracy of centrifugal compressors performance and flow field prediction by Computational Fluid Dy­
Turbulence model namics (CFD) is a serious problem facing in the design and analysis process due to its complex flow feature inside.
Second law of thermodynamics Different turbulence models choosing in the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations (RANS) leads to
Entropy generation analysis
different simulation results. In this paper, a high-pressure-ratio centrifugal compressor was used as the simu­
Computational fluid dynamics
Transonic centrifugal compressor
lation object to discuss the effect of common turbulence models, including a one-equation model (Spalart-All­
Secondary flow maras model), a two-equation linear model (Shear Stress Transport model) and a two-equation nonlinear model
(Explicit Algebraic RSM model), on performance prediction under design speed. By introducing the calculation
method of local entropy generation rate, an improved method of dividing different types of loss in centrifugal
compressors was proposed. After comparing with the experiment results, the effect of turbulence models on loss
prediction inside the compressor was quantitative investigated. Further, the flow mechanism underlying was
discussed. The results show that the secondary flow loss have the largest impact on the components’ prediction
performance, also, the reasons for different magnitudes of secondary flow loss inside the impeller and the diffuser
are different. These comparisons hope to help designers choose an appropriate turbulence model in further
compressor design process and may benefit future turbulence modelling development.

1. Introduction
As one of the most widely used high rotation speed turbomachinery
components in the energy process industry, centrifugal compressors
require higher performance to meet increasingly stringent emissions
limits and energy efficiency goals. The Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) has been powerful tools for performance prediction and internal
flow analysis. Although advanced numerical methods like the Large
Eddy Simulation (LES) and the Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) of
flows are more and more applied to fluid mechanics analysis, it is still
too expensive and time-consuming to use these methods for the CFD
solution inside turbomachinery during design process. Therefore, solv­
ing the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations is still the
designers’ best choice, and the choice of turbulence model becomes very
important to close the equations. After decades of research, turbulence
models have developed in various forms. The early mixing-length model
could not accurately reflect the behavior of turbulent flow, so the eddy-
viscous models based on Boussinesq approximation were proposed,
among which the well-known k-ε model [1] was widely used in solving
the internal flow of turbomachinery in early years. However due to the

Abbreviations: Cps, Diffuser static pressure recovery coefficient; Maab, Mare, Absolute Mach number, Relative Mach number; mchock, Chock mass flow rate; Normal
Vr, Dimensionless radial velocity (Dimensionless by the impeller outlet speed); Normal Usec, Dimensionless secondary velocity (Dimensionless by the impeller outlet
speed); PS, Pressure surface; SS, Suction surface; SP, Splitter blade; Sij, Symmetric component in strain-rate tensor; T, T, Static temperature, Static temperature after
Reynold Average; ui, Velocity component in cartesian coordinate; ψ stage, Work coefficient of the stage (Stage total enthalpy rise dimensionless half of the square of
impeller outlet linear speed); Π t, impeller, Π s, impeller, Total pressure ratio of the impeller, Static pressure ratio of the impeller; ηstage, ηimpeller, Isentropic efficiency of the
stage, Isentropic efficiency of the impeller; ξimpeller, ξdiffuser, Entropy loss coefficient of the impeller, Entropy loss coefficient of the diffuser (Dimensionless by the
impeller total enthalpy rise); τij, Friction stress tensor; µ, µt, Dynamic viscosity, Turbulence dynamic viscosity; λ, λt, Thermal conductivity coefficient, turbulence
thermal conductivity coefficient.
* Corresponding authors at: Key Laboratory of Light-duty Gas-turbine/Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190,
China.
E-mail addresses: liziliang1997@outlook.com (Z.-l. Li), xingenlu@hotmail.com (X.-g. Lu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2023.106644

Available online 7 February 2023

0735-1933/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Z.-l. Li et al.
strong adverse gradient and flow curvature in turbomachinery, the k-ε
model is not sufficient enough to predict the flow phenomenon, and k-ω
model [2] was proposed latter (which is facing the problem of free­
stream dependency). In order to overcome the problems of these models,
in early nineteen nineties, the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) model [3] and the
Shear Stress Transport (SST) model [4] were proposed respectively, and
they quickly became the most widely used two turbulence models in
turbomachinery simulation so far.
These models are continually being refined, and many researchers
have compared the performance of centrifugal compressors getting from
different turbulence models. Some researchers found that the perfor­
mance characteristic calculated by the k-ω model is the best fit with the
experimental results [5]. Borm et al. [6,7] found that, the total pressure
ratio obtained by SST model is higher, and regardless of whether the
wall heat transfer is considered, the flow field obtained by the SST model
is closer to the experimental results [8] during simulation of the Radiver
compressor. Jaatinen, [9] and syka have gotten similar conclusions. In
some studies [7,10] it was found that the compressor performance ob­
tained using the SST model is better than other turbulence models
(especially SA model). However, in some studies [5,8,11], researchers
obtained the conclusion that the performance characteristic simulated
with the SA model is higher than that simulated with the SST model, and
attributed this to the lower losses due to the weaker secondary flow
inside the impeller from the SA model. Some studies discussed the effect
of using higher-order modified SST models on centrifugal compressor
flow field simulations. In the process of simulating a centrifugal
compressor, Bourgeois et al. [12] found that the overall performance
obtained by using the original SST model is the closest to the experi­
mental results, and the re-attachment correction of the SST will reduce
its accuracy. The authors thought that the performance difference
brought by the different turbulence model is mainly caused by the
different separation behavior and the different prediction of the tip
leakage flow inside the impeller (also concluded that turbulence model
has little effect on the prediction of flow inside the diffuser). Ali et al.
[13] believe that the curve-corrected SST model can better predict the
flow inside the centrifugal compressor. Due to the isotropic defect of the
eddy-viscous model, some higher-order turbulence models have
anisotropy corrections for normal stress, which are beyond the capa­
bilities of linear eddy viscosity turbulence models. One of these repre­
sentatives is the Explicit Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model (EARSM)
model [14], which is much less demanding than Reynolds Stress Model
(RSM) from the computational [31]. Mehdizadeh et al. [15], Wickerath
and Niehuis [16] and Drăgan et al. [17] compared the results of simu­
lating the internal flow of high-pressure ratio centrifugal compressors
using EARSM and other linear eddy-viscous models. They concluded
that, the EARSM model can better predict the flow separation inside the
diffuser and obtain a higher static pressure increase coefficient.
In the current studies, there are conflicting conclusions reached by
different researchers, while focusing more on the overall performance
rather than the internal flow field. Therefore, in the present work, a
high-pressure-ratio centrifugal compressor is studied. The compressor is
consisted of an impeller with two splitter blades, a wedge diffuser and a
cascade axial diffuser. Through steady-state solution with different
turbulence model (SA, SST and EARSM models), the performance
characteristic under design rotation speed were compared and the per­
formance were evaluated against available compressor rig data.
Furthermore, taking the design point as a representative, the differences
in the loss source and internal flow field under the prediction of different
turbulence models were discussed, and the reasons for the different
performance characteristics are analyzed. The effect of the different
turbulence models on the high-pressure-ratio centrifugal compressor are
compared to help further designers in choosing models and future tur­
bulence modelling research.
2
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644
2. Research object and test rig
A high-pressure-ratio centrifugal compressor designed by the Insti­
tute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences was
chosen as the research object. It is consisted of a semi-open impeller with
two splitters, a wedge diffuser and a cascade axial diffuser. The sche­
matic view of the centrifugal compressor is shown in Fig. 1. The main
parameters of this compressor are shown in Table 1. The compressor test
rig, built at the Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Acad­
emy of Sciences, is shown in Fig. 2. Air flows into the compressor
through the bellmouth and the rectification section, and finally exhausts
through the volute to the environment. The operation point is changed
by the throttle downstream. The rotor is driven by a motor with a power
of 3 MW. The rotating speed changes over a range of 0–42,000 rpm by
the gearbox. The rotating speed is measured by an electrical transducer
with a relative error of ±0.15%. The mass flow rate is calculated at inlet
cross section by using the measured total pressure and static pressure,
with a relative error of ±0.5%. The performance of the compressor was
calculated by using total pressure and total temperature, which were
respectively measured by thermocouples and piezoelectric pressure
sensors. The locations of measurement are shown in Fig. 1. At the
compressor inlet, the total pressure was measured by two rake pressure
probes with three spanwise locations. Downstream the axial diffuser, the
total pressure of stage outlet was measured by six single-point pressure
probes and one rake pressure probe with 7 circumferential locations; the
total temperature of stage outlet was measured by six single-point
temperature probes and one rake temperature probe with five circum­
ferential locations. The measurement error is calculated by error-
propagation analysis, giving ±0.4 for the total pressure ratio and ±1%
for the total-to-total isentropic efficiency.
3. Numerical method
3.1. CFD solver
The numerical simulation was completed by using the commercial
CFD codes NUMECA Fine/Turbo’s Euranus. The solver is based on cell-
centered finite volume method. The Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes
Equation (RANS) were discretized in space using the Jameson central
scheme, 2nd-order spatial accuracy. The temporal discretization scheme
used for the computation was an explicit fourth-order Runge-Kutta
scheme.
3.2. Grids
After verification of grid independence, the object compressor was
separately meshed into a single-passage structured grid with about 5
million nodes. The same grid is used for all turbulence models. When
generating the grid, the grid size of the first layer was set to 0.002 mm, to
guarantee the normalized distance from the wall of the first node (y+) is
below 1.5 for all turbulence model, thus ensuring good accurately cap­
ture the characteristics of viscous flow near the wall.
3.3. Boundary conditions
The steady simulation was conducted with the “Non-reflect” method
at rotor-stator interface, which has been proved enough to capture flow
structure in downstream components [18]. The mixing plane method
was not selected because the reflection of shock and entropy waves at
the diffuser inlet would interfere with the analysis of flow and entropy
generation. As to the boundary condition of simulation, the standard
total pressure and total temperature were specified at the inlet. In
particular, at the inlet boundary, the turbulence intensity was kept to 5%
and the turbulent viscosity ratio was kept to 50 when using different
turbulence models to ensure the same inlet turbulence conditions. The
average static pressure was specified as the outlet. The calculation
Z.-l. Li et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644

Fig. 1. The schematic view of the object compressor.

3.4. Turbulence model

Table 1
Main parameters of the compressor.
Reynolds averaging Navier Stokes equation (RANS) to solve turbu­
Parameter Value lent processes by introducing an averaging term for velocity, and
Design mass flow rate 6.14 kg/s Boussinesq approximation were proposed to solve this term by linking
Design total pressure ratio 12.1 this term to velocity strain tensor (Sij) by turbulence dynamic viscosity
Impeller
(μt). Therefore, the task of the turbulence model becomes to solve the
Blade number 10 + 10 + 10
rotating speed 36,000 rpm turbulent dynamic viscosity by establishing additional conservation
Tip radial clearance 0.225–0.3 mm equations to close the system of equations. The difference between the
Inlet diameter 225 mm different turbulence models lies in the different ways of solving the
Outlet diameter 363 mm turbulent viscosity. Three different types of turbulence model were
Wedge diffuser
chosen in the present work. Among them, the SA model [3] and the SST
Outlet diameter 528 mm
Blade number 21 model [4] represent two totally different types of linear eddy-viscous
Blade height 9 mm models. When solving μt, the former is establishing the conservation
Axial diffuser equation of νt, and the latter is established by establishing the conser­
Blade number 75
vation equation of turbulent kinetic energy (k) and turbulent dissipation
Blade height 7.5 mm
rate (ε or ω). And the EARSM model [14] is a higher-order model, by
introducing higher-order nonlinear terms, which is able to simulate the
started from the chock point and continuously increased the outlet static anisotropy of the Reynolds stresses due to Coriolis forces in the rotating
pressure until the calculation failed to converge. It is considered that the frames of reference. The specific selection of constant coefficients in the
stall boundary of the compressor has been reached. The adiabatic walls turbulence model is consistent with that in the references.
were selected in the simulation, ignoring heat transfer through the walls.
Also, the boundary layer is considered to be a fully turbulent boundary 4. Results and discussion
layer in the simulation.
Three aspects of the numerical simulation results from different

Fig. 2. The centrifugal compressor test rig.

3
Z.-l. Li et al.
turbulence models were analyzed and discussed in present study. Firstly,
the performance characteristics (including the work coefficient and
isentropic efficiency) gained by the SA, SST and EARSM models were
compared with the experiment results. The various specific performance
parameters of different components were also separately compared.
Secondly, after introducing an improved method for distinguishing
different types of losses, the difference sources in entropy generation
were quantitatively analyzed at the design point. At last, on this basis,
the detailed flow field predicted by different turbulence models in the
impeller and diffuser at the design point were compared, to clarify the
flow mechanism behind.
4.1. Overall performance comparison
Fig. 3 compares the performance characteristic of the compressor
stage, including the axial diffuser, at design speed with different tur­
bulence models and experiment results, also the error bands of the
experimental measurements are also plotted in the figure. It can be seen
from the figure that, although the CFD method can predict trends in
compressor performance, only a part of the prediction results of the SA
model is in the error band of the experimental results among all the
results of numerical simulations. This is partly because the tip clearance
of the impeller is difficult to keep at the design value in the experiment,
and on the other hand, it is also limited by the numerical simulation
method itself. This also indicates that, it is necessary to develop the
influence of turbulence model on the prediction of compressor perfor­
mance. It can be found that the performance characteristics obtained by
the SA model are quite different from those obtained by the other two
turbulence models, especially in terms of efficiency and chock mass flow
rate. To further discuss the impact of different turbulence models on the
numerical results, some key performance parameters under design point
are compared in Table 2. Due to the velocity in the axial diffuser is
already very low, and the diffusion in it is relative weaker, the flow is
more manifested as only turning the direction. Therefore, the flow inside
the axial diffuser is not analyzed in this paper, and the key performance
parameters of the diffuser refers to the ones of the radial wedge diffuser.
The sections which are chosen to calculate the performance param­
eters are shown in Fig. 1. Compared with the SA model, the SST model
and the EARSM model obtain significantly higher whole-stage effi­
ciency. At the design point, the isentropic efficiency predicted by the SST
and EARSM models is nearly 1.8% higher than the SA model, and the
Fig. 3. Comparison of performance of the compressor under different turbulence models.
4
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644
EARSM model predicts the highest one. However, after comparing the
efficiency and entropy loss coefficient of the impeller and the diffuser
respectively, it can be found that the source of higher performance is
obviously related to the different components. Almost all the higher
prediction performance of the SST model comes from the impeller, and
the diffuser performance obtained by the SST and SA models is basically
the same (the flow field structure is still different and will be discussed in
following section). On the contrary, under the prediction of the EARSM
model, although the impeller efficiency is also higher than the one under
the SA model, the difference is smaller than that of the SST model, and
the loss in the diffuser is much smaller than that of the other two models,
resulting in a lower diffuser entropy loss coefficient. The SST and
EARSM model also predict higher work coefficient than the SA model.
The work coefficient of stage is mainly depended on the impeller total
pressure ratio and the diffuser total pressure loss coefficient, which the
former represents the work input by the impeller and the latter repre­
sents the work loss in the stator. Further, the work input by the impeller
is determined by the static pressure ratio of the impeller and the impeller
outlet slip coefficient. Although the SA model predicts the largest slip
coefficient at the impeller outlet, it still predicts the lowest stage work
coefficient. On the one hand, it predicts less input work due to lower
static pressure rise in the impeller; on the other hand, it predicts the most
energy loss in the diffuser. The EARSM model predicts higher static
pressure ratios both in the impeller and in the diffuser. This ensures that
the impeller outlet total pressure ratio is consistent with SA model
predictions and the highest work coefficient level, even though it pre­
dicts a smaller slip coefficient.
The chock mass flow rate is another important performance predic­
tion parameter and is significantly affected by the choice of turbulence
model. For the compressor studied in this paper, the aerodynamic throat
which limits the flow rates is located at the diffuser inlet. Therefore, the
chock mass flow rate is affected by the total pressure at the impeller
outlet and the effective flow area of the throat. The SST and EARSM
model may predicts larger chock mass flow rate for different reasons.
The SST model predicts a higher impeller outlet total pressure resulting
in higher flow capacity at the diffuser inlet, while the EARSM model
predicts a smaller diffuser inlet suction surface separation (discussed in
latter section), resulting in a larger effective flow area.
Z.-l. Li et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644

Table 2
key performance parameters under design point with different turbulence model.
ψ stage ηstage mchock Π t, impeller Π s, impeller ηimpeller ξimpeller σs ξdiffuser Cps

SA 2.594 81.54% 6.349 kg/s 15.49 7.13 89.35% 0.1626 0.9582 0.1380 0.635
SST 2.605 83.22% 6.367 kg/s 15.62 7.19 91.10% 0.1279 0.9525 0.1375 0.637
EARSM 2.604 83.30% 6.364 kg/s 15.50 7.25 90.82% 0.1377 0.9439 0.1313 0.657

4.2. Quantitative analysis of influence on performance prediction thickening or separation, the loss of low-energy flow accumulation, the
loss due to the reverse flow at impeller outlet casing side, the loss of the
The prediction of entropy generation inside the compressor by nu­ blade trailing edge wake and so on. The entropy generation in the
merical method has a great influence on the prediction of the remaining flow region is considered as the secondary flow loss. The
compressor performance. Therefore, in present study, after partitioning secondary flow loss is mainly caused by the secondary vortex (such as
the internal flow field of the compressor, the predictions of entropy passage vortex and blade surface vortex) interacting with the core flow
generation by different turbulence models in each region are calculated (considered as ideal flow).
and quantitatively compared. At first, the method of dividing the flow Each loss is calculated by integrating the local entropy generation
region by different entropy generation reason inside the centrifugal rate in each corresponding region. After briefly describing the division
compressor is described. In the one-dimensional or two-dimensional of different loss regions, the calculation method of entropy generation
design process of compressor, the losses inside the blade passage was rate is also briefly described. According to Moore’s assumption [23], the
usually summarized such as boundary layer loss, shock loss, mixing loss, entropy generation is divided into two parts: shear friction caused by
tip leakage loss, end wall loss, secondary loss and so on (there may be velocity gradient (Sgen,V) and heat transfer caused by finite temperature
cases where the same loss is repeatedly calculated). [19] These losses are difference (Sgen,T). Although other models for modelling the local en­
all caused by the flow structure inside the compressor, and many re­ tropy generation rates have also been proposed such as K-B model [24],
searchers have proposed various forms of empirical coefficient equa­ the obtained values are little different. To simplify the calculation, the
tions to the estimate the magnitude of these losses. However, these Moore model is selected in current study. Due to the full turbulence
equations can hardly be used in the flow field solved by three- assumption in the CFD simulation, both the friction coefficient and the
dimensional numerical simulation. Based on the work of Luying Zhang thermal conductivity include the turbulent term, and it is considered
et al. [20], four different regions representing different flow loss that the laminar Prandtl number is the same as the turbulent Prandtl
mechanisms are distinguished in following order. number. Therefore, the entropy generation rate is expressed as
The boundary layer loss is first separated from the various losses, ( )2
according to the previous studies about dissipation in boundary layer, 1 ∂ui λ ∂T
Sgen = τij + 2 = Sgen,V + Sgen,T
such as the work of Dawes [21] and Zaripov et al. [22], the region where T ∂xj T ∂xj
y+ less than 100 contains more than 90% present of entropy generation. ( )2
Another characteristic of fluid inside boundary layer is high turbulence =
2(μ + μt )Sij Sij (λ + λt ) ∂T
+
eddy dissipation. After combining the characteristics of the high tur­
2
T T ∂xj
bulent dissipation rate, the criteria chosen to identify boundary layer is ( )2 ( )2
y+ less than 300. During this distinguish process, the boundary layers on =
2μSij Sij 2μt Sij Sij λ ∂T
+ + 2
λt ∂T
+ 2
the casing surface, hub surface and blade surface are both considered, T T T ∂xj T ∂xj
but it must be emphasized, under the limitation of y+, the boundary
layer loss calculated in present study is conservative due to the blockage = Sgen,V + Sgen,Vt + Sgen,T + Sgen,Tt
and secondary flow in the compressor are inherently mixed with the
boundary layer. The separation of boundary layers or the accumulation Prt =
μt λt
=
of low-energy fluids due to adverse pressure gradients such as shock μ λ
waves are not considered, and these losses is counted in the blocking loss Sgen,V and Sgen,T are defined to calculate the friction loss and heat
or secondary loss. The shock loss is next to be distinguished, and the
transfer caused by laminar viscosity coefficient and laminar thermal
method to identify shock region can be expressed as
conductivity (namely the friction and heat transfer by Reynold average
u u velocity and temperature) and Sgen, Vt and Sgen, Tt are defined to calculate
ε = ∇ρ⋅ > εlimit , γ = − ∇Ma⋅ > γ limit.
|u| |u| the entropy generation due to turbulent viscosity coefficient and tur­
bulent thermal conductivity (namely the fluctuation terms in RANS
These two values respectively reflect the density gradient and Mach
equations). This definition is not to distinguish the losses caused by
number (relative Mach number in rotor and absolute Mach number in
laminar flow and turbulent flow (in fact, all loss in the simulation of full
stator) gradient of the flow direction. The region where ε and γ both
turbulence condition is caused by turbulent flow), but the “laminar flow
larger than the limiting value is identified as shock region. And the
entropy generation” reflects velocity shear or temperature gradient level
limiting value ε and γ is chosen as 30 kg/m4 and − 50/ m in present
in the region and further can be used as a weight to measure the region
study. It must be emphasized that, in RANS steady simulation, the loss in
where has strong turbulence intensity predicted by the turbulence
shock region is simulated by viscosity rather than the flow discontinuity
model. Therefore, some ratios are calculated:
in the reality flow field, therefore, the thickness is larger than the that of
∫ ∫
the reality flow field which is of the order of the molecular free path. The μ dv λt dv
k t = ∫v t = ∫ v
blockage loss is next to be calculated. The blockage region is defined as 1⋅dv 1⋅dv
v v
where occurs reverse flow or the Mach number less than 0.2 (relative
∫
Mach number in rotor and absolute Mach number in stator). The Sgen,Vt dv
blockage loss is a collection of flow losses that are difficult to distinguish kt,V = ∫v
S
v gen,V
dv
by criteria and are therefore considered together. These losses are
mainly caused by blocking the main flow in blade passage for various ∫
Sgen,Tt dv
reasons, including the loss due to the leakage flow throttling process kt,T = ∫v
S dv
from the pressure side to the suction side, the loss due to boundary layer
v gen,T

5
Z.-l. Li et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644

∫ Table 3
Sgen,V dv
Be = ∫v Turbulence ratio in the impeller different turbulence model.
S
v gen,T
dv
SA SST EARSM
kt represents the average level of Turbulence intensity predicted by 6.22 6.22 5.81 Be
turbulence model, and the kt, V and kt, T reflects the distribution of tur­ 20.57 13.97 17.72 kt
Boundary layer
bulence intensity in specify region, a larger value means the strong 1.79 1.91 1.79 kt, V
turbulence appears at locations of high velocity shear or temperature 9.90 7.30 8.41 kt, T
1.80 1.97 1.81 Be
gradients. In addition, the Bejan number (Be) represents the ratio be­
629.06 520.09 640.00 kt
tween the entropy generation due to shear friction and heat transfer Blockage region
160.94 125.73 135.14 kt, V
[29]. It must be admitted that the entropy generation calculated based 154.83 110.97 145.66 kt, T
on Moore’s assumption has errors with the realistic physical entropy 1.36 1.24 1.39 Be
generation, but there is currently no better way to close the entropy 49.62 25.57 17.87 kt
Shock wave
82.50 23.71 28.45 kt, V
equation in turbulence.
66.13 22.17 23.23 kt, T
The losses inside different component is calculated based on the 1.17 1.22 1.17 Be
conservation equation of entropy, i.e., the difference in entropy flow 171.25 86.43 112.60 kt
Secondary flow
into and out for the control volume is equal to the entropy generation in 239.74 160.77 181.77 kt, V
264.74 206.41 254.18 kt, T
the control volume (define flow into as negative and out as positive). The
entropy flux brought by the reverse flow of the impeller and diffuser
interface is introduced here.
∫ Table 4
ΔS = Sgen dv + Sflux,rev Turbulence ratio in the impeller different turbulence model.
v
SA SST EARSM
Due to the existence of the interface, the entropy flowing into the 9.06 9.67 9.28 Be
impeller and the entropy flowing out of the diffuser by reverse flow is 24.41 22.50 19.80 kt
Boundary layer
not strict equal to each other. 1.83 2.35 2.06 kt, V
The entropy generation of each region inside the impeller and 14.23 10.67 11.10 kt, T
16.14 18.14 10.59 Be
diffuser predicted by three different models are respectively shown in
659.61 605.50 426.60 kt
Fig. 4, the percentage of each type of the loss is also shown in this figure. Blockage region
373.65 483.99 275.56 kt, V
And the different turbulence ratios of each region are shown in Tables 3 313.09 340.00 276.40 kt, T
and 4. Some common effects of turbulence models on loss distribution 1.43 1.11 1.40 Be
are discussed first. From the distribution of entropy generation in 1577.63 875.33 2154.36 kt
Shock wave
273.72 126.23 224.85 kt, V
different regions inside the impeller and diffuser, it can be seen that 231.06 78.63 242.97 kt, T
although the losses in different regions are all affected by the choice of 2.50 2.64 2.33 Be
the turbulence model, it still can be considered that the secondary flow 1271.26 1246.01 2322.53 kt
Secondary flow
loss has the greatest impact on the components’ efficiency, which is not 335.45 342.40 298.89 kt, V
312.10 218.27 283.84 kt, T
only the largest part of the loss in the component, but also the part with
the most obvious difference among the predictions under different tur­
bulence models. Also, it can be seen that, the value of kt and Be in the can be considered the loss in boundary layer is concentrate on the region
boundary layer is distinctly different from other regions, except for the closer to the wall. In the boundary layer of both the impeller and the
blockage region of the diffuser. The turbulence intensity in boundary diffuser, it is the SA model predicts the strongest level of velocity shear
layer is much smaller than that of core flow, and difference between and turbulence intensity and the weakest temperature gradient. While
different turbulence prediction is smaller than that of core flow. It can be the SST model both predict the minimum velocity shear level in the
inferred that the turbulence intensity is gradually increased from the boundary layer. Comparing the shock loss in the impeller and diffuser,
near wall region towards the core flow. Another difference from the core the turbulence intensity in the shock wave is limited by the turbulence
flow is that the loss caused by shear friction in the boundary layer is intensity of the surrounding core flow. In the shock wave at the impeller
much larger than that due to heat transfer, and from the value of kt, V, it inlet, the turbulence intensity predicted by the turbulence models is

Fig. 4. Comparison of different types of loss under different turbulence models.

6
Z.-l. Li et al.
smaller than that of diffuser inlet shock wave where the turbulence flow
are the fully developed due to locating downstream. Therefore, although
the impeller inlet shock wave facing a higher Mach number than diffuser
inlet shock wave (1.6 verse 1.3), the loss is even smaller (Emphasizing
again, the RANS method predicts the shock wave loss through viscosity
and heat transfer, which is not the same as the mechanism of shock loss
in real physics, and the internal loss of shock wave is not discussed in
depth here, only its size is described)
The following discussion will separately focus on the impeller and
diffuser. In the impeller, the secondary flow loss, boundary layer loss,
blockage loss and entropy flux due to reverse flow are in the same order
of magnitude, while the shock loss only accounts for less than 5 % of the
total loss. The boundary layer loss predicted by SA model is higher than
that by the other two models. This is mainly due to stronger velocity
shear levels and stronger turbulence intensity in regions with large
temperature gradients predicted by SA model. As for the secondary loss
in the impeller, the entropy generation of shear friction and heat transfer
predicted by the SA model are both significantly different from that
predicted by the other two turbulence models. The former is mainly
caused by stronger turbulence intensity, while the latter is mainly
caused by stronger temperature gradient. The loss caused by turbulence
in the shock wave is determined by the turbulent intensity of sur­
rounding core flow region, this can explain the smallness of the shock
loss prediction of the SST and EARSM models comparing to the SA
model when the shock wave intensity and structure are not significantly
different. Stronger turbulent viscosity acts as the resistant force to the
secondary flow vortices, which can change the strength of the secondary
flow and thus changing the loss caused by the reverse flow (flow details
are discussed in the next section). The blockage region in the impeller is
composed of impeller outlet reverse flow, tip leakage flow, and low-
energy fluid generated by shock boundary layer interaction. There­
fore, the blockage loss and entropy flux brought by the reverse flow are
considered together. The entropy flows into the impeller with reverse
flow, which leads to an increase in the efficiency of the impeller (without
really improving the performance of the impeller) by attributing more
losses to the diffuser when calculating the efficiency. Under the pre­
diction of the weakest core flow turbulent viscosity of the SST model, the
reverse flow at the impeller outlet is the strongest, which naturally
brings the largest impeller blockage loss and also brings the largest en­
tropy flux. Compared to the other two turbulence models, the perfor­
mance gain from entropy flux outweighs the performance deterioration
from blockage loss, so stronger impeller outlet reverse flow has a posi­
tive effect on impeller performance under SST model. Although the
EARSM model also predicts weaker turbulent viscosity and stronger
impeller outlet reverse flow than the SA model, the predicted separation
reattached faster with the development of flow direction, which resulted
in the entropy flux on the rotor-stator interface is even smaller than that
predicted by the SA model (the flow field will be shown in next section),
which is why the EARSM model predicts that the impeller efficiency is
closer to the SA model.
In the diffuser, boundary layer loss and secondary flow loss dominate
the performance predicted, while blockage loss and shock loss accounts
a smaller order of magnitude. In boundary layer loss, as opposed to
impeller, the SA model predicts the least value of entropy generation.
Although predictions of trend of velocity shear intensity and overall
turbulence intensity are similar to those in the impeller, the SA model
predicts lower kt, V in regions with high shear velocity, i.e., regions closer
to the wall, which ultimately leads to lower predictions of entropy
generation. In the secondary flow loss that the three models predict the
most difference, the trend predicted is completely opposite to that in the
impeller. Obviously, the EARSM model predicts the strongest overall
turbulence intensity, and the SA and SST model predicts the similar
ones. However, from the value of kt, Vand kt, T, the EARSM model pre­
dicts lower turbulence intensity in the region where velocity shear or
temperature gradient is strong, further leads to lowest kt, V. This results
in the EARSM model predicting the lowest secondary flow loss. The SA
7
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644
and SST model predict similar level of entropy generation, the only
subtle difference is the turbulence intensity in the high temperature
gradient region. Also, both smaller inlet entropy flux due to reverse flow
and the smaller blockage loss contribute to higher diffuser efficiency
under the EARSM model prediction, although the contributions of both
are relatively small.
The smaller entropy flux is determined by upstream outlet condi­
tions. The blockage region in the diffuser mostly due to boundary layer
separation and low energy fluids accumulation at corner of hub and
pressure surface. The EARSM model predicts the weakest boundary
layer separation on suction surface and corner low energy fluid accu­
mulation, further the smallest blockage loss. Another higher loss pre­
dicted by EARSM is the entropy generation in the shock region. In the
shock region, both the SA and EARSM model predict higher turbulence
intensity, but EARSM obtained a larger shock loss mainly due to the
stronger shock, identifying a larger shock region.
4.3. Flow field comparison and discussion
In this section, some flow field details are compared and discussed to
further distinguish the difference among different turbulence models, to
gain a deeper understanding of the flow mechanism behind performance
difference. The impeller inlet shock wave at 90% span and limiting
streamlines on suction surface are shown in Fig. 5, the region where be
identified as shock by the above methods is also shown by dotted line in
this figure. Under three different turbulence models, there is no obvious
difference in the structure and intensity of the shock wave (it is reflected
form that the identified the aera of shock wave region and relative Mach
number before shock are almost the same). Also, the thickness of the
boundary layer is almost the same after the interaction with shock wave.
However, under the prediction of the SA model, the point where the
boundary layer separates and begins to migrate radially is further
downstream. This also confirms that for the shock wave at impeller inlet,
it is not the shock wave itself but the turbulence intensity of the sur­
rounding core flow predicted by the turbulence model that determines
the value of the shock wave loss. Under the effect of the curvature in the
meridian plane, the secondary flow inside the impeller is the strongest
when the flow changes from axial to radial direction. Therefore, the 70%
streamwise position is selected as a representative for analysis the flow
field in the impeller blade passage. Figs. 6 and 7 separately compares the
normal secondary flow intensity (the secondary flow is defined as the
component of the relative velocity perpendicular to the direction of the
ideal velocity), the turbulent viscosity ratio predicted by different tur­
bulence models. Although the secondary flow structure under different
turbulence models is consistent, there are still obvious differences in the
local secondary flow intensity, and the difference is mainly concentrated
in the corner region of the casing and the main blade suction surface. It
can be seen that the SA model predicts a suction surface vortex which is
farther away from the casing side and has a lower intensity. Also, since
the fluid of the surface vortex on the suction surface is one of the main
sources of the secondary flow on the casing surface, the SA model also
predicts a lower secondary flow intensity on the surface of the casing.
This may relate to the turbulence intensity predicted by different tur­
bulence models in the blade passage. Compared with the other two
turbulence models, the SA model not only predicts a higher overall
turbulence intensity in the blade passage (which is consistent with the
comparison of kt in the core flow mentioned above), but also predicts a
locally larger μt in the corner region mentioned above, which means
stronger friction intensity. This stronger friction suppresses the move­
ment of flow on the blade suction surface from hub to casing side. Fig. 8
compares the entropy generation rate distribution at this section under
different turbulence models. The area with high entropy generation rate
in the blade passage is concentrated in the boundary layer and near the
blade surface where the secondary flow is strong (this is also the reason
why the loss in core flow is named as secondary flow loss). Compared
with the centre of the blade passage, the entropy generation rate is
Z.-l. Li et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of different types of loss under different turbulence models.
Fig. 6. Comparison of secondary flow intensity inside impeller under different
turbulence models.
several orders of magnitude higher in these regions where secondary
flow intensity is strong. However, although the strength of the secondary
flow is different predicted by different turbulence models, the loss in the
strong secondary flow region is not significantly different. On the con­
trary, the most obvious difference in entropy generation rate is in the
central region of the blade passage, and the SA model predicts higher
value here. Comparing the distribution of the μt, it can be considered
that the higher value of loss predicted due to the prediction higher
turbulence intensity, which is consistent with the information getting
from Table 3 discussed before.
Fig. 9 compares the flow field at the impeller blade trailing edge, the
dimensionless reverse mass flow rate is also shown in the figure (the
main blade passage is taken as example). The three-zone flow structure
[25] has different shapes under different secondary flow intensity.
8
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644
Fig. 7. Comparison of turbulent viscosity ratio inside impeller under different
turbulence models.
Although the SA model predicts a smaller size of reverse flow at impeller
trailing edge due to weaker secondary flow, the EARSM model has trend
to predict a thinner and faster re-attachment boundary layer, these two
models obtain almost the same reverse mass flow rate, and the EARSM
model even predicts the much smaller entropy flux value when calcu­
lating at the rotor-stator interface. This is confirmed by the development
of the impeller outlet reverse flow in the vaneless region after meridi­
onal averaging as shown in Fig. 10. Unsurprisingly, the reverse flow at
the impeller outlet is the most severe under the SST model prediction.
Also, as the region of wake at impeller outlet shown in Fig. 9, it is
confirmed that the size of the wake region is proportional to the strength
of the secondary flow. The radial velocity (Vr), circumferential velocity
(Vt) and absolute flow angel (α = arctan (− Vr/Vt)) at rotor-stator
interface are shown in Fig. 11. The EARSM model apparently predicts
Z.-l. Li et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644

Fig. 8. Comparison of local entropy generation rate inside impeller under
different turbulence models.
Fig. 9. Comparison of impeller outlet flow field under different turbu­
lence models.
the most spanwise uniform flow field downstream for the weakest
impeller outlet blockage. The velocity spanwise distribution can also
reflect the difference in slip coefficient at the impeller outlet. From the
definition of slip coefficient (σ s),
Vt
σs =
U − Vr ⋅tanβ2
The SA model predicts a larger Vt and smaller Vr at lower span,
resulting in the largest slip coefficient. This further confirms that the
higher impeller total pressure ratio obtained by other two turbulence
model is due to the larger diffusing capacity in the impeller.
Fig. 12 compares the absolute Mach number distribution at 90% and
10% span inside diffuser to discuss the different flow field characteristic
gotten by different turbulence models. At 90% span, the stagnant
streamline is shown in this figure too. Although the meridional average
absolute angle predicted by the EARSM is more uniform in spanwise
direction, resulting in a more suitable flow angle for diffuser, the inci­
dence angle identified by stagnant streamline is almost the same under
different turbulence models. But characteristic of thinner and faster re-
attachment boundary layer predicted by the EARSM model can also be
found in the diffuser. Diffuser leading edge separation due to positive
incidence angle at 90% span is the weakest predicted by the EARSM
model and is barely visible, and the separation of the suction side at the
diffuser throat is also significantly weaker. Also, at each span, the
development of the boundary layer on the blade surface is thinner under
the EARSM model’s prediction, which results in a significant reduction
in the accumulation of low-energy fluids in the corner between pressure
surface and hub. The weaker boundary separation and low-energy fluid
accumulation in the corner zone not only leads to a smaller blockage
loss, but also increases the diffuser Static pressure recovery coefficient
due to the larger effective flow area. This also leads to a larger predicted
chock mass rate. Compared with the impeller inlet shock, the shock
wave at the diffuser inlet is different under the predictions of different
models. At 10% span, due to the SA model predicts a lower static
pressure ratio in the impeller, the static pressure at impeller outlet is
lower, the acceleration process on the suction surface before the shock
wave is stronger affected by the potential of the upstream static pres­
sure, getting a higher Mach number before the shock. However, under
the prediction of the EARSM model, the shock wave is sharper with a
clearer boundary, a larger shock wave region is identified in the above
shock wave identification method with a larger shock wave loss. The
intensity of secondary flow inside the diffuser are compared in Fig. 13. It
can be seen that, under more uniform diffuser inlet condition, the
EARSM model predicts a significantly weaker secondary flow, especially
with the flow developing inside the diffuser, this difference is more
pronounced. Also, its predicted larger value of μt in the diffuser passage
may also play a role in suppressing the development of secondary flow.
This can also be confirmed in the value of kt of secondary flow region.
Fig. 14 compares the local entropy generation rate inside the diffuser.
Except for the high entropy generation in the boundary layer, the region
with strongest entropy generation rate in the diffuser passage locates at
the throat. From the diffuser throat to downstream, with the decrease of
the velocity, the loss in the blade passage also gradually decreases. At
the diffuser throat, expect for the boundary layer, the loss mostly due to
the secondary flow and its interaction with the suction separation re­
gion. Under the EARSM model prediction, due to the weaker secondary
flow and the smaller suction surface separation region, this part of loss is
obviously reduced. Also, although the EARSM model starts to predict
stronger turbulence intensity from the throat of the diffuser (obvious
larger μt), due to the weaker secondary flow intensity, the velocity shear
in the diffuser blade passage is weaker, as the development of flow lower
local entropy generation rate is gotten. This is consistent with the
analysis in the previous section, it is less secondary flow loss and
blockage region are predicted that leads the ERASM model to predict a
higher efficiency of diffuser and a higher work coefficient of stage.

9
Z.-l. Li et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644

Fig. 10. Comparison of meridional averaging flow field in the vaneless region under different turbulence models.

Fig. 11. Comparison of spanwise velocity and flow angle under different turbulence models.

Fig. 12. Comparison of different types of loss under different turbulence models.

5. Conclusions of distinguishing different types of losses, the difference between the

overall performance of the compressor and the various types of losses
In this study, three different turbulence models (the SA, SST and predicted by different turbulence models are quantitatively analyzed.
EARSM model) were used to predict the performance characteristic in a Furthermore, the different flow phenomena and flow mechanisms
high-pressure-ratio centrifugal compressor. After introducing a method behind are discussed. The main conclusions are as follows:

10
Z.-l. Li et al.
Fig. 13. Comparison of secondary flow intensity inside diffuser under different
turbulence models.
(1) The strong swirling and inhomogeneous of flow in the
compressor present challenges for turbulence models to accu­
rately predict compressor performance. The compressor perfor­
mance predicted by the three turbulence models are all different
from the experimental results. The SA model predicts the lowest
stage performance both in the isentropic efficiency and work
coefficient which the closest to the experimental results, and the
other two models predicted significantly higher performance.
The high performance predicted by the SST model is mainly due
to the difference in the impeller, while the high performance
predicted by the EARSM model is due to the difference both in the
impeller and the diffuser. The differences input work and energy
loss predictions ultimately lead to differences in compressor work
coefficient predictions.
(2) Among the four different types of loss, boundary layer loss and
secondary flow loss account for most of the losses inside
compressor and the difference in secondary flow loss is the main
reason that different turbulence models predict different perfor­
mance. In the secondary flow loss inside the impeller, the SA
11
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644
Fig. 14. Comparison of local entropy generation rate inside diffuser under
different turbulence models.
model predicts the lowest impeller efficiency due to highest
prediction value of μt in core flow, while in the secondary flow
loss inside the diffuser, the EARSM model predicts the highest
diffuser performance due to weakest prediction of secondary flow
intensity and its interaction between boundary layer separation.
(3) The SA model predicted an overall higher turbulence intensity in
the impeller, while the EARSM model predicted an overall higher
turbulence intensity in the diffuser. But the turbulent dissipation
is not only related to the overall turbulence intensity, but also to
the relative distribution position of regions with high turbulence
intensity and regions with strong velocity shear or large tem­
perature difference. Also, the EARSM model tends to predict
thinner and faster re-attachment boundary layer.
It is true that the results predicted by the SA model are closer to the
experimental results in terms of efficiency and pressure ratio, however,
not only because the settings in CFD simulation have non-negligible
impacts on the results, such as the difference scheme in the solver, the
introduction of different artificial viscosities and the kind of rotor-stator
interface and so on, but also because the difficulty of guaranteeing
boundary conditions in experiments and simulations [26], the correct
Z.-l. Li et al.
capture of the flow field structure is more important than the perfor­
mance parameters of the compressor [27]. Therefore, it is very necessary
to carry out detailed measurements of the internal flow field of the
compressor in the future to verify which turbulence model has higher
accuracy. This article is aimed at helping designers to choose a suitable
turbulence model and hoping to provide a reference for subsequent
work on improving the turbulence models.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zi-liang Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investiga­
tion, Writing – original draft. Xin-gen Lu: Resources, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Yun-feng Wu: Visualization,
Investigation. Ge Han: Data curation, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Na­
tional Major Science and Technology Project of China (No. 2017-II-
0002-0014) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
52106065).
References
[1] W. Jones, B.E. Launder, The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation
model of turbulence[J], Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 15 (2) (1972) 301–314.
[2] D.C. Wilcox, Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced
turbulence models[J], AIAA J. 26 (11) (1988) 1299–1310.
[3] P. Spalart, S. Allmaras, A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows
[C], in: 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1992, p. 439.
[4] F.R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications[J], AIAA J. 32 (8) (1994) 1598–1605.
[5] G.R. Solomon, R. Rahul, R. Balaji, et al., Fluid Flow Analysis of a Rotating Vaneless
Diffuser Using CFD, Advances in Mechanical and Materials Technology, Springer,
2022, pp. 1121–1137.
[6] O. Borm, B. Balassa, H.-P. Kau, Comparison of different numerical approaches at
the centrifugal compressor radiver[C], in: 20th ISABE Conference, 2011.
12
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 142 (2023) 106644
[7] O. Borm, H.-P. Kau, Unsteady aerodynamics of a centrifugal compressor stage:
validation of two different CFD solvers[C], in: ASME Turbo Expo 2012: Turbine
Technical Conference and Exposition, 2012, pp. 2753–2764.
[8] K.U. Ziegler, Experimentelle untersuchung der laufrad-diffusor-interaktion in
einem radialverdichter variabler geometrie[M], Shaker, 2003.
[9] A. Jaatinen, Performance Improvement of Centrifugal Compressor Stage with
Pinched Geometry or Vaned Diffuser[M], Lappeenranta University of Technology,
2009.
[10] P.E. Smirnov, T. Hansen, F.R. Menter, Numerical simulation of turbulent flows in
centrifugal compressor stages with different radial gaps[C], in: Turbo Expo: Power
for Land, Sea, and Air, 2007, pp. 1029–1038.
[11] X. Zheng, J. Huenteler, M. Yang, et al., Influence of the volute on the flow in a
centrifugal compressor of a high-pressure ratio turbocharger[J], Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. A: J. Power Energy 224 (8) (2010) 1157–1169.
[12] J.A. Bourgeois, R.J. Martinuzzi, E. Savory, et al., Assessment of turbulence model
predictions for an aero-engine centrifugal compressor[J], 2011.
[13] S. Ali, K.J. Elliott, E. Savory, et al., Investigation of the performance of turbulence
models with respect to high flow curvature in centrifugal compressors[J], J. Fluids
Eng. 138 (5) (2016).
[14] A. Hellsten, New advanced kw turbulence model for high-lift aerodynamics[J],
AIAA J. 43 (9) (2005) 1857–1869.
[15] O.Z. Mehdizadeh, L. Temmerman, B. Tartinville, et al., Applications of EARSM
turbulence models to internal flows[C], in: ASME Turbo Expo 2012: Turbine
Technical Conference and Exposition, 2012, pp. 2079–2086.
[16] B. Wickerath, R. Niehuis, A study of nonlinear Eddy viscosity models in a flow
solver for turbomachinery[C], in: 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical
Sciences, 2006.
[17] V. Drăgan, O. Dumitrescu, I. Mălael, et al., Turbulence model sensitivity on steady
state mapping of a very high pressure ratio compressor stage[C], in: AIP
Conference Proceedings, 2018, p. 020024.
[18] X. He, X. Zheng, J. Wei, et al., Investigation of vaned diffuser splitters on the
performance and flow control of high pressure ratio centrifugal compressors[C], in:
Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, 2016. V02DT42A008.
[19] J.D. Denton, Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines[M]. 78897, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1993.
[20] L. Zhang, L. Kritioti, P. Wang, et al., A detailed loss analysis methodology for
centrifugal compressors[J], J. Turbomach. 144 (5) (2022), 051013.
[21] W. Dawes, A Comparison of Zero and One Equation Turbulence Modelling for
Turbomachinery Calculations[C], Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Turbo Expo, 1990.
V001T01A093.
[22] D. Zaripov, R. Li, N. Dushin, Dissipation rate estimation in the turbulent boundary
layer using high-speed planar particle image velocimetry[J], Exp. Fluids 60 (1)
(2019) 1–16.
[23] J. Moore, J. Moore, Entropy Generation Rates in Air-Cooled Gas Turbine Nozzles:
Part-1-A Turbulent Boundary Layer[J]. ASME paper, 1983.
[24] J.S. Kramer-Bevan, A tool for analysing fluid flow losses[J], 1993.
[25] C. Stuart, S. Spence, D. Filsinger, et al., A three-zone modeling approach for
centrifugal compressor slip factor prediction[J], J. Turbomach. 141 (3) (2019).
[26] Y. Ju, Y. Liu, W. Jiang, et al., Aerodynamic analysis and design optimization of a
centrifugal compressor impeller considering realistic manufacturing uncertainties
[J], Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 115 (2021), 106787.
[27] J.D. Denton, Some Limitations of Turbomachinery CFD[C], Power for Land, Sea,
and Air, Turbo Expo, 2010, pp. 735–745.
[29] A. Bejan, Entropy Generation Minimization: The Method of Thermodynamic
Optimization of Finite-Size Systems and Finite-Time Processes[M], CRC press,
2013.
[31] F. Menter, A. Garbaruk, Y. Egorov, Explicit algebraic Reynolds stress models for
anisotropic wall-bounded flows[J], Prog. Flight Phys. 3 (2012) 89–104.