Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2014: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2014
June 16 – 20, 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany

GT2014-26614

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE STAGE MATCHING IN A MULTI-

STAGE CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR

Pengfei Zhang, Zhiheng Wang, Wenlong Duan, Guang Xi

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710049, P. R. China
xiguang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

φ= flow coefficient = 4 m  /(πρinU2D22)

ABSTRACT
The performance of a multi-stage centrifugal compressor is
commonly generated by stacking the individual stage’s
performance in the industry applications, which makes the
proper stage matching vital in getting favorable performance of
the whole machine. Taking a two-stage centrifugal refrigeration
compressor as the research object, this paper numerically
investigates the two key problems in the stage matching, i.e. 1)
The accuracy of overall performance generated by stacking the
individual stages’ performance; 2) Effects of the inlet and
outlet flow distortions on the individual stage performance and
the axial thrust. It is found that the overall performance of the
multi-stage centrifugal compressor predicted by the stage-
stacking method generally agrees well with that predicted by the
CFD analysis at the small and moderate flow rates, and the
difference is getting bigger at the large flow rate. The numerical
investigations also show that the effect of inlet distortion on the
isentropic efficiency and the total pressure ratio exist mainly at
the large flow rate. The radial distortion of the inflow has little
influence on the performance, while the circumferential
distortion of the inflow affects remarkably. The outlet distortion
also has an important influence on the performance of upstream
stage. The effect of flow distortions at the inlet and outlet on the
impeller thrust is presented as well.
NOMENCLATURE
Di2 = exit diameter of impeller in ith stage [mm]
DC= distortion coefficient
Pt = total pressure [Pa]
m = mass flow rate of impeller [kg/s]
Tt = total temperature [K]
U2 = impeller tip speed [m/s]
V= velocity [m/s]
ηis = total-to-total isentropic efficiency
εt = total pressure ratio=Pt,out/Pt,in
ρ= density at the stagnation state [kg/m3]
Subscripts
in = inlet conditions
out = outlet conditions
Abbreviation
CRD circumferential and radial distortion
ND no distortion
RD radial distortion
INTRODUCTION
Multi-stage centrifugal compressors have been widely
utilized in various industry applications, and their performance
improvement has been drawn much attention in recent years [1-
3]. Many researchers have made efforts to improve the stage
performance through redesigning the impellers or other static
components such as the vane diffuser, the U-bend and the return
channel. It is well known that, the good overall performance of
a multi-stage compressor not only depends on the individual
stage’s performance, but also is greatly affected by the matching
between the stages. The non-uniformity of inflow condition
(also called inflow distortion) is recognized to be one of the
most important factors to affect the stage’s performance, and
many research works have been reported in the literatures. The
concept of inlet distortion is firstly proposed in axial
compressors, and in the last two decades many works have been
carried out, especially in the aircraft engine [4-10]. The effect of
inlet distortion on the overall performance of centrifugal
compressors has drawn much interest in recent years [6, 11-14],
and their results demonstrated that the influences are significant,

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 especially in the serious distortion conditions, and different Computational Domains and Mesh System. Three
types of distortion may have different effects. The blade force computational domains are constructed in our numerical
responses with the inlet distortion were researched numerically simulations.
and experimentally in [15]. According to their results, the (1) The Stage1 and Stage2 are separately modeled, and
forcing function is most sensitive in the leading edge region due their mesh systems are named Mesh-S1 and Mesh-S2
to the inlet angle variations. respectively.
However, so far there are very few literatures reporting the (2) The two-stage compressor is treated as one whole
stage matching in multi-stage centrifugal compressors. Some domain, and its mesh system is named Mesh-S1+S2.
challenging issues, such as how the non-uniformity of the Figure 2 shows the computational domains for our study.
inflow condition (caused by the upstream stage’s wake) affects
the downstream stage’s performance and flow field, and what
is the accuracy of the overall performance obtained by stacking
the individual stage’s performance curve, are still worth being
studied to further improve the performance of multi-stage
centrifugal compressors. This paper takes a two-stage
centrifugal refrigeration compressor as the research object and
numerically studies the stage matching problems.

CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR CONFIGURATION

The centrifugal refrigeration compressor investigated here
(a) Computational domain for the Stage1
has two stages, named the Stage1 and Stage2 in turn. The
Stage1 consists of an impeller with the outer diameter
D12=91.5mm, a vaneless diffuser and a return channel; The
Stage2 consists of an impeller with outer diameter D22=87.5mm,
a vaneless diffuser and a volute. The impellers in the two stages
are un-shrouded and feature nine main/splitter blades. The
return channel has sixteen vanes. The design rotational speed of
the machine is 34,500rpm. At the design operating point, the
flow coefficients of the Stage1 and Stage2 are 0.0966 and
0.0555, respectively. Figure 1 shows the main geometry
configuration of the compressor.

(b) Computational domain for the Stage2

Fig. 1 Main geometry configuration of the compressor

NUMERICAL STUDY METHOD

In the paper, the commercial CFD software NUMECA is
used to analyze the flow and predict the performance by solving
the steady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations
on the multi-block structured grid. The Spalart-Allmaras model (c) Computational domain for the whole machine
is chosen for turbulence closure. The gas considered for the Fig.2 Computational domains
computations is HFC-134a with the real gas properties. Except that the volute in the Stage2 is modeled in the
whole annulus, a single flow passage of the Stage1 or Stage2 is
used with the circumferential periodicity assumption. The

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 cavities on the impellers back side, the shaft end seal and the
inter-stage seal are included to the computational domain to
predict the performance accurately. In order to ensure the
sufficient resolution in the boundaries near the blade surfaces
and the end walls, the grid location near the blade surfaces and
the end walls produces y+ for the first cell center being less than
15. The grid independency study is carried out for the Stage1
and the Stage2, respectively. The variations of the isentropic
efficiencies and total pressure ratios of the Stage1 and Stage2
are both less than 0.5% when the grid nodes counts more than
1.46 million for the Stage1 and 2.45 million for the Stage2.
Therefore, the mesh consisting of 1.46 million grid nodes for
the Stage1 and 2.45million grid nodes for the Stage2 are
adopted in the numerical simulations. The typical surface grids
of the impeller blades, the return channel vane and the cross-
sectional grids of the volute, labyrinth seal and impeller back
cavities are shown in Fig.3.
(a) The main/splitter blade in the Stage1
(b) The return channel vane
(c) The impeller back cavity and labyrinth seal in the Stage2
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
(d) The volute (partial)
Fig.3 Typical surface meshes of blade or vane, meshes in the
seal and cavity passage, and the volute grid
Boundary Conditions. For the assumption of the flow’s
circumferential periodicity in the passage, the periodic
conditions are enforced along the boundaries upstream and
downstream of the passage. For the interface between the
rotating impeller and its upstream and downstream stationary
components, the mixing plane approach is applied. All the solid
wall boundaries are set to be adiabatic and non-slip.
As Table 1 shows, several different inlet boundary
conditions are applied for the corresponding computational
domains. For the computations on the Mesh-S1+S2 and the
Mesh-S1, the uniform distributions of total pressure, total
temperature and velocity are imposed at the inlet of the Stage1.
For the computations on the Mesh-S2, three different inlet
boundary conditions are imposed:
(1) The fixed uniform inlet boundary conditions, which are
the given inlet conditions for the design of the Stage2, are
specified. The computation is named the Comp-S2a for the
simplicity in the following sections.
(2) The total pressure, total temperature and velocity
direction along the radius are specified. Their specified values at
a certain operating point are the circumferentially averaged
results at the inlet of the Stage2 obtained from the Comp-S1+S2
at the corresponding operating point. In this case, the radial
distortion of inlet flow is considered. The computation is called
the Comp-S2b.
(3) The uniform total pressure, total temperature and
velocity direction are specified, and their values are related to
the operating point, which are the surface averaged results at the
inlet of the Stage2 obtained from the Comp-S1+S2 at the
corresponding operating point. In this case, the inlet flow
distortion doesn’t exist. The computation is called the Comp-
S2c. Figure 4 shows the comparisons of the specified inlet total
pressure and circumferential velocity distributions in the Comp-
S2b and the Comp-S2c at the flow coefficient φ =0.064.
Additionally, due to the characteristics of pressure ratio
curve, the averaged static pressure is imposed at the outlet when
 the compressor is operating near the choking flow rate, and the
mass flow rate is imposed to be the outlet boundary condition
when the compressor is operating near the design flow rate. 0.026 Comp-S2b
Comp-S2c
0.024
Table 1 Specified Inlet boundary conditions

Radius,R /m
0.022
Inlet boundary conditions
Mesh Computation 0.02
Pt Tt Vr/|V| Vt/|V| Vz/|V|
(kPa) (K) (-) (-) (-) 0.018
Mesh-
Comp-S1+S2 314.62 275.15 0 0 -1
S1+S2 0.016
Mesh-S1 Comp-S1 314.62 275.15 0 0 -1
Comp -S2a 694.46 305.79 -0.021 -0.287 -0.961 0.014
Circumferentially averaged values from Comp-
Comp -S2b
Mesh-S2 S1+S2 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Comp -S2c Surface averaged values from Comp-S1+S2 Vt/|V|
(b) circumferential velocity distribution
Fig.4 Comparisons of the total pressure and velocity at the
Convergence criteria. The numerical simulation is treated Stage2 inlet in the Comp-S2b and the Comp-S2c
to be converged when the following conditions are satisfied:
Both the relative global and maximum residual errors are less
than 10-4; The relative error between the mass flow rates at the PERFORMANCE STAGE-STACKING METHOD
inlet and the outlet is no more than 0.5%; The global parameters,
such as the efficiency, pressure ratio and torque, are kept almost The stage-stacking method is one of the most commonly
constant with the iteration. used methods in the practical engineering to predict the overall
performance of a multi-stage compressor. In this method, the
performance characteristics of each individual stage at the
Comp-S2b
design inlet conditions are pre-given. Then the total pressure
0.026
Comp-S2c and total temperature at the outlet of upstream stage is
0.024 calculated and used as the inlet conditions of downstream stage.
Radius,R /m

With the calculated inlet conditions, the total pressure and total
0.022 temperature at the outlet of downstream stage can be determined
and used as the inlet conditions of more downstream stage. A
0.02 stage-by-stage calculation through the compressor can finally
determine the outlet conditions of the whole machine, and the
0.018
overall performance of the compressor will be determined.
0.016 It should be noted that, at the off-design operating point,
the outlet conditions of upstream stage is different with the
0.014 design inlet conditions of downstream stage. The performance
0.59 0.6 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65
conversion based on the similarity and scaling laws is carried
Pt /MPa out according to the standard ASME PTC10. In the paper, the
(a) Total pressure distribution in-house multi-stage centrifugal compressor performance
prediction (MsCCPP, developed by Xi’an Jiaotong University)
software is used to generate the performance of the two-stage
compressor. The performance curves of the Stage1 and the
Stage2 are derived from the numerical results of the Comp-S1
and the Comp-S2a, respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCCUSSION

Overall Performance. The CFD-predicted isentropic
efficiency and total pressure ratio of each stage at the design
inlet conditions are shown in Fig.5. Based on the performance
curves of the Stage1 and the Stage2, the two-stage centrifugal
compressor performance is predicted using the MsCCPP
software. The overall performance of the machine predicted by

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the stage-stacking method is shown in Fig.6, and compares with large flow rates, the difference of the pressure is increased
that predicted by the CFD simulations Comp-S1+S2. progressively. It can be also noticed that the stage-stacking
1 2.6 method narrows the flow range, by 4.47% on the low flow rate
Isentropic Efficiency, ηis

Total Pressure Ratio, ε t

2.4
side and 1.33% on the large flow rate side compared with the
0.9
CFD-predicted results. From Fig. 6 (b), it can be seen that the
2.2 shaft power predicted by the stage-stacking method is higher
0.8
2 than that predicted by the CFD analysis, and the difference of
0.7 the shaft power increases with the increase of flow coefficient.
1.8
0.6
From the analysis mentioned above, it can be concluded
1.6 that, the stage-stacking method to predict the performance of a
0.5
η is
multi-stage centrifugal compressor has an acceptable accuracy,
(Comp-S1) 1.4
εt (Comp-S1) but at the large flow rate the accuracy is reduced. Essentially,
0.4 η is (Comp S2a) 1.2
εt (Comp-S2a)
the stage-stacking method is a one-dimensional method, the
0.3 1 flow distortions at the inlet and outlet can’t be taken into
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Flow Coefficient, φ
account. The flow distortion is recognized as one of the
important reasons for the difference of the performance
Fig.5 Calculated isentropic efficiency and total pressure
predicted by the CFD analysis method and the stage-stacking
ratio with flow coefficient
method, and also the different methods of evaluating the real
5.5 gas properties of HFC-134a in MsCCPP and CFD simulations
may be other important reasons. The effects of the non-
5
Total Pressure Ratio, ε t

uniformity of inlet or outlet flow conditions on the performance

4.5 of stages are investigated in the following sections.
Inlet Flow Conditions on Stage’s Performance. The
4
Stage2 is chosen for the study of the inlet flow conditions on the
3.5 stage’s performance. As Table 1 shows, the inlet boundary
conditions of the Comp-S2b and Comp-S2c are based on the
3
results of the Comp-S1+S2. In the Comp-S2b, the
2.5 circumferentially averaged inlet flow conditions are imposed, in
Stage-stacking method which only the radial distortion (RD) is considered. In the
2 Comp-S1+S2 Comp-S2c, the uniform inlet flow conditions are imposed and
1.5 there is no distortion (ND). The computational results from the
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14
Comp-S2b and Comp-S2c are compared with the performance
Flow Coefficient, φ
of the Stage2 predicted by the Comp-S1+S2. In the Comp-
(a) Total pressure ratio S1+S2, the circumferential and radial distortions (CRD) both
70 exist.
As shown in Fig. 7(a), the isentropic efficiency curves of
65 the Stage2 predicted by the Comp-S2b, Comp-S2c, and Comp-
S1+S2 are almost the same at the low and moderate flow rates.
Power, /kW

60 The Comp-S2c has the highest isentropic efficiency. When the

flow coefficient is in the large flow rate region, the efficiency
55 predicted by the Comp-S1+S2 goes down more sharply. At the
flow coefficient Φ=0.098, the distinction of the predicted
50 efficiency between the Comp-S1+S2 and the Comp-S2c reaches
more than 15.0%. In Fig. 7(b), the difference of ε t is also very
45 Stage-stacking methed
Comp-S1+S2 small when the flow coefficient is smaller than 0.0873. These
indicate that, the effect of inlet distortion on the isentropic
40 efficiency and the total pressure ratio exists mainly at the large
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14
Flow Coefficient, φ flow rate. Comparing the results from the Comp-S2b and the
(b) Shaft power Comp-S2c, it is inferred that the RD of the inflow has little
Fig.6 Comparison of the predicted compressor influence on the isentropic efficiency and total pressure ratio,
performance while the circumferential distortion of the inflow affects them
It can be found that, the pressure ratio predicted by the remarkably, especially at the large flow rate. Figure 7(c) shows
stage-stacking method has a good agreement with that predicted the comparison of the predicted shaft power under the different
by the CFD analysis at the low or medium flow rates. At the inlet flow conditions. The differences are not obvious under the

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 small flow rate, but in the large flow rate range, the maximum that, with the increase of flow coefficient, the total pressure is
difference can reach about 2.20%. decreased whilst the velocity is increased. The total pressure
behaves the non-uniformity in the form of the circumferential
1
periodic symmetry due to the nine blades downstream. However,
is
Isentropic efficiency,η

there is no obvious circumferential periodic symmetry of the

0.8 velocity distribution. The distortion coefficient of the velocity is
used to evaluate the distortion, defined by

∫V
2
0.6 dm
DC = 2
0.4
m V
Table 2 lists the inlet distortion coefficients at three
0.2 Stage2 (Comp-S1+S2) different operating conditions. The velocity distortion
Stage2 (Comp-S2b) coefficient at Φ=0.064, which is close to the design flow rate, is
Stage2 (Comp-S2c)
smaller than that at higher and lower flow rates.
0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Flow Coefficient, φ
(a) Isentropic efficiency
εt

2
Total Pressure Ratio,

1.8

1.6

(a) Distribution at the low flow rate point Φ=0.035

1.4

Stage2 (Comp-S1+S2)
1.2 Stage2 (Comp-S2b)
Stage2 (Comp-S2c)
1
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Flow Coefficient, φ
(b) Total pressure ratio
32

30 (b) Distribution at the moderate flow rate point Φ=0.064

28
Power /kW

26

24

22
Stage2 (Comp-S1+S2)
20 Stage2 (Comp-S2b)
Stage2 (Comp-S2c) (c) Distribution at the large flow rate point Φ=0.098
18
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Flow Coefficient, φ Fig. 8 Predicted total pressure and velocity distribution at
(c) Shaft power the Stage2 inlet at three operating points
Fig. 7 Comparison of the performance of the Stage2
with the different inlet flow conditions
Figure 8 shows the distributions of the total pressure and Table 2 Inlet distortion Coefficients
total temperature at the Stage2 inlet predicted by the Comp- Operating point Φ=0.035 Φ=0.064 Φ=0.098
S1+S2 under the small flow rate (Φ=0.035), the moderate flow DC 1.0557 1.0040 1.0043
rate (Φ=0.064) and the large flow rate (Φ=0.098). It can be seen

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Outlet Flow Conditions on Stage’s Performance.
32
Figure 9 compares the performance curves of the Stage1
predicted by the Comp-S1+S2 and the Comp-S1. It’s obvious
30
that the performance curves are very close at the small and large
flow rates. However, the maximum relative error reaches 4.85%

Power, /kW
28
in the isentropic efficiency, 4.48% in the total pressure, 1.40%
in the shaft power. When the flow rate is larger than that at the
26
design operating point, the differences of the predicted
performance are increased obviously, but it is interesting to
notice that the difference is again to be small when close to the 24

maximum flow rate.

22 Stage1 (Comp-S1)
Stage1 (Comp-S1+S2)
0.9
Isentropic Efficiency, η is

0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Flow Coefficient, φ
0.85
(c) Shaft power
Fig.9 Comparison of the Stage1 performance with different
0.8
outlet flow conditions
Figure 10 shows the comparison of the velocity
0.75
distribution at the Stage1 outlet predicted by the Comp-S1+S2
and the Comp-S1. It can be found that, at the low and large flow
0.7
rates, the predicted velocity distributions by the Comp-S1+S2
Stage1 (Comp-S1) and the Comp-S1 are similar, while at the moderate flow rate
0.65 Stage1 (Comp-S1+S2) the difference of velocity distribution is distinct. These lead to
the difference of the predicted performance. This shows that, the
0.6
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 non-uniformity downstream has a great impact on the
Flow Coefficient, φ performance of upstream stage.
(a) Isentropic efficiency

2.6
Total Pressure Ratio, ε t

2.4

2.2

2
Comp-S1+S2 Comp-S1
1.8 (a) At the low flow rate point Φ=0.068

Stage1 (Comp-S1)
1.6
Stage1 (Comp-S1+S2)

1.4
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14
Flow Coefficient, φ
(b) Total pressure ratio

Comp-S1+S2 Comp-S1
(b) At the moderate flow rate point Φ=0.112

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 on the axial thrust of the Stage1. The effect is very small at the
low flow rate, and becomes considerable when the flow
coefficient is more than that of design point. Near the choke
region, the effect is weakened again.

800

750

Axial Force, Fz /N
700
Comp-S1+S2 Comp-S1 650
(c) At the large flow rate point Φ=0.135
600
Fig. 10 Predicted velocity distribution at the Stage1 outlet
Axial Thrust Comparison. The axial thrust is the 550
projection of the global force on the rotation axis, given by 500
Fz = ∑ F ·nz 450 Stage1 from Mesh-S1
where F is the global force 400
Stage1 from Mesh-S1+S2

F = Fpressure + Fviscous 350

0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
They are integrated from the pressure and the velocity Flow Coefficient, φ
fields on the rotating walls. Therefore, the value of axial thrust Fig. 12 Comparison of axial thrust on Stage1 with different
is fundamentally determined by the flow field. Fviscous is quite outlet flow conditions
small, so the axial thrust mainly depends on the static pressure
distribution on the rotating walls of the impeller. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 11 presents the values of axial thrust on the Stage2 To study the stage matching problems in multi-stage
impeller predicted by the Comp-S1+S2, Comp-S2b and Comp- centrifugal compressors, the numerical studies are conducted on
S2c. a two-stage centrifugal refrigeration compressor. The main
results are summarized as follows:
680 The overall performance of multi-stage centrifugal
compressor predicted by the stage-stacking engineering method
660 is generally acceptable. Comparing with the results predicted by
Axial Force, |Fz|/N

Stage2 from Mesh-S1+S2

Stage2 from Mesh-S2b
Stage2 from Mehs-S2c
the multi-stages’ CFD simulations, the deviation occurs mainly
640
in the region of large flow rate.
620
The effect of inlet flow distortion on the isentropic
efficiency and total pressure ratio is presented mainly at the
600 large flow rate. The radial distortion of the inflow has little
influence on the isentropic efficiency and the total pressure ratio,
580 while the circumferential distortion of the inflow has
remarkable effects on them. The outlet distortion also has an
560
obvious effect on the upstream stage performance, especially at
540
the moderate flow rates.
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 The effects of the flow distortions at the inlet and outlet on
Flow Coefficient, φ the axial thrust are also presented. The flow distortions at the
Fig. 11 Comparison of axial thrust on Stage2 impeller inlet or outlet affect the axial thrusts of downstream or upstream
with different inflow conditions impeller evidently.
The differences of the axial thrust predicted by the Comp-
S1+S2, Comp-S2b and Comp-S2c can be clearly observed
under the whole operating range. There exists a large difference ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
region between the design flow rate point and the choke point,
and it also can be found that the axial thrust |Fz | calculated from This present work is financially supported by the National
the Comp-S2b and Comp-S2c increase suddenly when the flow Nature Science Foundation of China under grant No. 51236006.
rate is close to the choke point. Generally, the influence of inlet
conditions on the axial thrust is more remarkable than that on REFERENCES
the overall performance. [1] Hildebrandt, A., Franz, H., and Jakiel, C. “Numerical
Figure 12 shows the influence of the outlet flow conditions

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 analysis of effects of centrifugal compressor impeller
design on overall and flow field performance”, ASME
Paper GT2011 -45014, 2011.
[2] V. V. N. K. Satish K., Guidotti, E., Rubino, D. T.,
Tapinassi L. and Prasad S. “Accuracy of centrifugal
compressor stages performance prediction by means of
high fidelity CFD and validation using advanced
aerodynamic probe”, ASME Paper GT2013-95618, 2013.
[3] Basol, A. M., Abhari, R. S. “Performance improvement of
centrifugal compressors through shroud cavity leakage
management”, ASME Paper GT2013 -95809,2013.
[4] Peaeson H, Mchenzie A. “Wakes in axial compressors”,
Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society. 1959, 63(3):42-47.
[5] Mazzawy, R S. “Multiple segment parallel compressor
model for circumferential flow distortion”, Journal of
Engineering for Power, 1977, 99(10):288-296.
[6] Ariga, I., Kasai, N., Masuda, S., Watanabe, Y. and
Watanabe, I. “The effect of inlet distortion on the
performance characteristics of a centrifugal compressor”,
ASME paper 82-GT-92, 1982.
[7] Harry, D. P. and Lubick, R. J. “Inlet-air distortion effects
on stall, surge, and acceleration margin of a turbojet
engine equipped with variable compressor inlet guide
vanes”, NACA Paper No. RM-E54K26, 1955 .
[8] Nozaki, O., KKikuchi, A. T., and Matsuo, Y. “Unsteady
three-dimensional analysis of inlet distortion in
turbomachinery ”, AIAA Paper 1997-2514, 1997.
[9] Hall, E. J., Heidegger, N. J., Delaney, R. A. “Performance
prediction of endwall treated pan rotors with inflow
distortion”, AIAA Paper 1996-0244, 1996.
[10] Peters,T., Fottern, L. “Effects of co-and counter-rotating
inlet distortions on a 5-stage HP compressor”, ASME
paper GT2002-30395, 2002.
[11] Wright T, Madhavan S, Di Re J. “Centrifugal Fan
Performance with Distorted Inflows”, Trans ASME, J Eng
Gas Turb Power,1984,106(10):895-900.
[12] Ariga I., Ookita A., Masuda S. “Inducer Stall in a
Centrifugal Compressor With Inlet Distortion”, Trans
ASME, Journal of Turbomachinery, 1987, 109(1):27-35.
[13] Kim, Y., Engeda, A., Aungier, R., et al. “The Influence of
Inlet Flow Distortion on the Performance of a Centrifugal
Compressor and the Development of an Improved Inlet
using Numerical Simulations”, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of
Power and Energy. 2001, 215(3): 323-338.
[14] Engeda, A., Kim, Y., Aungier, R., and Direnzi, G. “The
Inlet Flow Structure of a Centrifugal Compressor Stage
and Its Influence on the Compressor Performance", Trans
ASME, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2003,125 (5): 779-
785.
[15] Kammerer, A., and Abhari,R.S. “Blade Forcing Function
and Aerodynamic Work Measurements in a High Speed
Centrifugal Compressor with Inlet Distortion”, Trans
ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbine and
Power, 2010, 132(9): 092504-092515.

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use