Proceedings of GT2006

Proceedings of GT2006
ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air
ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air
May
May 8-11, 2006,Barcelona,
8-11, 2006, Barcelona,Spain
Spain

GT2006-91227

GT2006-91227

PRACTICAL USE OF SIMILARITY AND SCALING LAWS

FOR CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR DESIGN

Guillaume Dufour , Xavier Carbonneau , Jean-Bernard Cazalbou and Patrick Chassaing∗

Département de Mécanique des Fluides, ENSICA
1 pl. Émile Blouin, 31056 Toulouse Cedex 5, FRANCE
Email: gdufour@ensica.fr

ABSTRACT γ = Specific heat ratio.

This article focuses on the practical use of the similarity
principle for centrifugal compressor design, i.e. geometrical
scaling of existing impellers to meet new specifications. Ba-
sic principles of similarity are first used to derive scaling laws.
Then, the analysis of typical specifications and the use of par-
tial similarity (neglecting the Reynolds-number effects) allows
the use of the pressure ratio–specific speed diagram so that a
compressor can be scaled along its best-efficiency operating line.
A practical method is proposed to use these scaling laws in a de-
sign context, in order to define the scaling potential of an existing
stage as the ensemble of specifications that can be met by scal-
ing. Finally, the scaling potential of an industrial compressor is
evaluated and represented as a surface in the 3D space defined
by the similarity variables, with the associated efficiency varia-
tions.
NOMENCLATURE
Pt1 , Tt1 = Inlet total pressure and temperature.
R = Ideal gas constant.
ṁ = Mass flow.
N = Rotation speed.
µ = Dynamic viscosity of the fluid.
∗ also at INPT-ENSEEIHT-Institut de Mécanique des Fluides de Toulouse,
UMR 5502 CNRS, France.
D = Impeller outlet diameter/characteristic length.
Π = Nondimensional similarity variable.
π = Total-total pressure ratio
α, β, λ, σ = Parameters of the scaling laws.
ns = Specific speed.
φ, ψ = Flow and head coefficients.
INTRODUCTION
Centrifugal compressors are widely used in industry for a
large range of applications. Even in a specific field, the operation
requirements can greatly vary and thus cover a large design enve-
lope. This increases costs if a new design has to be made for each
new specification. For this reason, as stated by Japikse [1], scal-
ing of existing stages based on the similarity laws is a valuable
and cost-effective procedure when it can be applied. We shall see
further this method is reliable because it can be based on expe-
rimental data. Although stage scaling has long been applied by
industrial compressors manufacturers, there is little available in
the open literature regarding the practical application of similar-
ity in a design context.
Numerous text book [1–4] on turbomachinery present the
application of the similarity principle. They mainly provide the
theoretical basis for the derivation of nondimensional variables.
In the technical literature, similarity is mostly used for map scal-
ing procedures (see references [5] and [6] for instance). That
is to say, test are carried out on a single-stage model or proto-
type stage at variable operating conditions, and the nondimen-
sional characteristics obtained are then scaled to different oper-

1 Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 ating conditions and sizes of multistage machines. To this end,
the scaling procedures presented in the key reference of Dalbert,
Casey and Schurter [5], are applied for two cases: (i) extrapola-
tion of test results to different operating conditions and (ii) inter-
polation of performance for intermediate values not measured.
In connection with this practice, the impact of parameters that
can not be scaled –such as Reynolds number, roughness, thick-
nesses or tip clearance– have been investigated by Henssler &
Bhinder [7], Pampreen [8] and Skoch & Moore [9] for example,
so that corrections to the map scaling procedures can be made.
Altogether, it comes out that similarity and scaling are ap-
plied to estimate the impact on performance of some scaling fac-
tors. In other words, scaling factors are the inputs, and perfor-
mance the outputs. In the present paper, we tackle the “inverse
problem”: the input is the target performance, and the outputs
are the scaling factors that allow an existing stage to be scaled
to meet the new specification. In this context, we set two main
objectives: (i) the derivation of practical procedures to scale an
existing stage to meet a new specification, and (ii) as a corol-
lary, the identification of the “scaling potential” of an existing
stage. By scaling potential, we mean the range of specifications
that can be met by the application of scaling laws to an existing
stage, represented in a suitable set of nondimensional variables.
For a given specification, the practical interest of the scaling po-
tential is to help selecting a candidate for scaling in a database of
existing compressors.
In the first part of the paper, we shall see how the classical
principle of similarity can be used to derive scaling laws, which
are viewed as transformations with some degrees of freedom, de-
pending on the type of scaling. In the second part, interpreting
typical industrial specifications as a number of constraints will
enable the use of these scaling laws to meet the requirements of
a new specification, as well as to identify the conditions under
which they can be applied (this is the first step in the definition
of the scaling potential). Finally, the scaling envelope of an exist-
ing stage will be considerably enlarged by the use of the specific
speed–pressure ratio (n s –π) diagram, which proves a useful tool
when scaling is applied along the “best-efficiency line” of a com-
pressor map.
1 CLASSICAL SCALING LAWS
In this section, the classical principle of similarity (also
called the Π-theorem [10]) is applied to centrifugal compres-
sors. After the identification of the relevant dimensional quan-
tities and the derivation of the governing nondimensional vari-
ables, a mathematical formalism is used to derive general scaling
laws.
2 Copyright 
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
1.1 Similarity analysis of centrifugal compressors
The first step in the application of the similarity principle is
the selection of the dimensional quantities that govern the prob-
lem at hand. In agreement with Lakshminarayana [4], we select
the following dimensional quantities: inlet total pressure (Pt1 )
and temperature (Tt1 ); mass flow (ṁ) and rotation speed (N);
and gas properties (R, µ, γ). Here, we assume that the physi-
cal properties do not vary with temperature, which is a reason-
able approximation for compressors with moderate pressure ra-
tio (below 3:1) and inlet conditions. Once all these quantities are
fixed, the operation of the stage is entirely and uniquely defined,
that is to say, the pressure ratio (π) and the efficiency (η) of the
compressor simply result from its geometric definition. Since
we consider geometrical similarity, the definition of a stage is
given by a single characteristic dimension (D), usually taken as
the outlet diameter (though it can be any representative length
of the compressor). This can be summarized by the following
equation:


π
= f (Pt1 , RTt1 , ṁ, N, µ, γ, D) , (1)
η
where R and Tt1 have been grouped so that temperature is no
longer a dimensional unit of the problem [4]. Therefore, only
mass, length and time remain.
The power of the Π-theorem is to reduce the number of
quantities needed to define the state of the system by the number
of units involved. The combination of the original dimensional
quantities into Π-products, namely the similarity variables, re-
duces the number of variables to four:

ṁ RTt1 ND
Π1 = , Π2 =  ,
Pt1 D2 γRTt1
ND2 Pt1
Π3 = , Π4 = γ .
µRTt1
Whatever the values of the original seven quantities, if their com-
bination is such that the four similarity variables are equal for
two flows, then the nondimensional solutions (pressure ratio, ef-
ficiency) are strictly identical (this holds only for geometrically
similar machines). This can be expressed as


π
= g(Π1 , Π2 , Π3 , Π4 ) . (2)
η
The four Π products selected for the present study can be inter-
preted as follows:
Π1 can be regarded as a mass flow coefficient (or as an inlet
Mach number based on total quantities);
c 2006 by ASME
 Π2 is the blade tip Mach number (at the outlet if D is taken as in the system of equations yields
the diameter). It is often referred to as a stage Mach number
Mu2 ; 
−2 
Πs1 ṁs RTt1s /Pts1 Ds2 ṁs Ds
Π3 is a Reynolds number (Re); =  =1= βα−1 , (3)
Πb1 ṁb RTt1b /Ptb1 Db
2 ṁb Db
Π4 is the ratio of specific heats, which characterizes the gas.

Πs2 N s Ds / γRTt1s N s Ds 
It can be noted that these parameters are listed here according to =  =1= β , (4)
their hierarchy of importance. Moreover, there is no unique set Πb2 N b Db / γRTt1b N b Db
of similarity variables, since any linear combination of the four
2
Πs3 N s Ds2 Pts1 /µRTts1 Ns Ds
variables can be used. For instance, the flow coefficient φ is often = =1= b αβ−1 . (5)
used in place of Π 1 . Section 3 on Mach number effects will show Π3b 2
N b Db Ptb1 /µRTt1b N Db
how it relates to the Π products. The flow coefficient ψ will then
be introduced as a key non-dimensional performance indicator to Therefore, the solution to the problem is expressed as
be used in place of π when compressibility effects are to be taken
into account. Ns Ds  ṁs 
For the rest of the study, we shall consider that the same gas =α , = α−1 β , and = α−1 β . (6)
Nb D b ṁ b
(air) is used, and therefore µ and γ will be considered as con-
stant, thus Π4 will be omitted of the similarity variables. For this In other words, if we choose any value for the two para-
reason, only 5 dimensional quantities and 3 similarity variables meters α and β, and if the remaining three variables are derived
remain. according to Eqn. (6), then the scaled compressor is in exact sim-
ilarity with the baseline compressor, and strictly identical per-
formance can be expected. We can conclude that exact similar-
1.2 Derivation of scaling laws ity offers two degrees of freedom, which can be measured by 2
We consider an existing impeller, whose dimensional char- scale factors chosen freely among those defined by the five di-
acteristic quantities will be denoted by an upper ‘b’ (‘baseline’). mensional quantities.
Ptb1 , RTt1b , ṁb , N b , Db are therefore fixed quantities, corresponding
to the specification and the geometry of the existing compressor Partial similarity: Re-free scaling. Strictly speaking,
at hand. We want to scale this baseline compressor to derive the theorem can only be applied if all the similarity variables
a new compressor, whose dimensional characteristic quantities are identical. However, it has long been recognized that the
will be denoted by an upper ‘s’ (‘scaled’). Therefore, Pts1 , RTt1s , Reynolds-number effects may remain small if the range of vari-
ṁs , N s and Ds must be obtained from the application of the scal- ation is not too large. In other words, if only Π 1 and Π2 are con-
ing laws that are to be derived now. served, the compressor can still be operated with ‘similar’ per-
formances. This is what Japikse [1] refers to as ‘level 1 design’,
or ‘stage scaling’. Therefore, we can apply the same reason-
Exact similarity. We consider here the case where the ing as for the exact-similarity scaling-law derivation. However,
baseline and the scaled compressors follow strict similarity. In since the Reynolds number (Π 3 ) can vary, only two equations
other words, the dimensional quantities of the scaled compressor remain, and thus 3 mathematical parameters are needed. To il-
must be such that their combination yields the same Π products lustrate the solution of this problem, Pts1 /Ptb1 = α, RTt1s /RTt1b = β
as the baseline compressor. Therefore, the problem is defined by: and ṁs /ṁb = λ will parameterize this solution. Introducing these
three parameters in the system of equations yields
5 known quantities: Ptb1 , RTt1b , ṁb , N b , Db ;
5 unknowns: Pts1 , RTt1s , ṁs , N s , Ds ;
s −2 
Πs1 D
3 equations: Πbi /Πsi = 1 for i = 1, 2, 3. = 1= λ βα−1 , (7)
Π1b Db
Πs2 N s Ds −1/2
Since the number of unknowns is greater than the number of = 1 = β , (8)
equations, we have to select 2 parameters on which the solution Πb2 N b Db
to the problem will depend (note that the word ‘parameter’ is
used to refer to the parameterization of the solution of the under- and, the solution of the problem is expressed as
constrained system of equations). To illustrate the solution to
this problem, Pts1 /Ptb1 = α and RTt1s /RTt1b = β can be selected as Ns Ds
the parameters of the solution. Introducing these two parameters = α1/2 β1/4 λ−1/2 and = α−1/2 β1/4 λ1/2 . (9)
Nb Db

3 Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 We can conclude that Re-free partial similarity offers three de-
grees of freedom. Furthermore, the change in Reynolds number
can be expressed as Π s3 /Πb3 = α1/2 β−1/4 λ1/2 . The change in per-
formance resulting from the partial-similarity scaling is governed
by the ratio of the scaled to baseline Reynolds number.
1.3 Reynolds number impact on performance
The evaluation of performance decrements due to the
Reynolds-number impact on performance has received consid-
erable attention. Many correlations based on experimental data
have been derived, as reviewed by Wiesner [11]. Casey [12]
is the first to take into account the geometry of the impeller,
in terms of outlet blade height and radius: i.e., D 2 should be
replaced by D 2 · b2 for the definition of Π 3 . A more recent
review by Wright [13] concluded that the scaling proposed by
Casey [12] is one of the most effective. An important point was
made in these studies: there exists a limiting Reynolds number
beyond which performance is no longer influenced by changes of
Π3 . In a very recent study, Schleer and Abhari [14] showed that,
in a limited range of Reynolds number, the stability and range of
centrifugal compressors is not affected by Re-free scaling.
Summary
We can provide now a first picture of the scaling potential
of an existing stage. In the 3D map defined by the three simi-
larity variables, representing the scaling potential of a baseline
compressor amounts to placing the points defined by the scaled
compressors. Full similarity restricts the scaling potential to the
2.1 Analysis of a typical specification
A standard specification for single-point design, in its most
general form, imposes the following quantities: Pts1 , RTt1s , ṁs , N s
and πs . Most conveniently, the superscript ‘s’ can indifferently
refer to ‘specification’ or ‘scaled’, since the objective of scaling
is to meet the specification. The isentropic efficiency η of the
compressor is not strictly imposed, but constrained to be the best
possible trade-off for the problem at hand (including operating
range, mechanical and possibly acoustic constraints).
In some sense, the geometry D is the result of the design
process, its variability (which should be further completed by all
geometrical characteristics of the machine) reflects the variabil-
ity of design practices. Therefore, besides this variability, D is
somewhat imposed by the specification, which is reflected by the
fact that relation (1) can be re-arranged to yield


D
= f (Pt1 , RTt1 , ṁ, N, π) . (10)
η
Therefore, the nondimensional similarity variables Π 1,2,3 are (at
least indirectly) imposed. However, since D is not directly avail-
able, a more tractable measure is needed that should reflect the
specification but should be free from the diameter D (since it is
not imposed by the specification): this is precisely the particu-
larity of the specific speed n s (see Balje for instance [3]). The
specific speed is defined as

N ṁ/ρt1
ns = , (11)
∆ht−is
0.75

single, baseline point. Using Re-free partial similarity, the scal- N ṁ0.5 (RTt1 )0.5 (γ − 1)0.75
ing potential materializes as a line, passing through the baseline =
0.75 , (12)
γ−1
point and aligned with the direction of the Π 3 axis. The extent of 0.5 π γ − 1
(γRTt1 )0.75 Pt1
the line (to lower Reynolds numbers) is limited by the acceptable
performance decrement due to the Reynolds-number effects.  0.75
γ−1
= γ−1 Π0.5
1 Π2 , (13)
π γ −1

2 SCALING TO MEET A SPECIFICATION


γ−1
In this section we shall examine what are the practical con- where ∆ht−is = γR/(γ − 1)Tt1 π − 1 . Equation (12) shows
γ

ditions under which these scaling laws can be applied to meet the
requirements imposed by a new specification. We consider that a
database of (existing) compressors is available, which represents
the range of products of a given company (the larger the data-
base, the more relevant it is to resort to scaling for design). Here,
the task is to identify which candidate of the database (baseline)
is suited to be scaled to meet the specification. After discussing
the constraints imposed by a typical specification, we consider
the particular case where the rotation speed N is not imposed,
and then discuss the case where N is also a constraint.
that all the parameters directly imposed by the specification are
included in the definition of the specific speed. Therefore, n s
summarizes a specification.
2.2 Scaling for specifications where N is not imposed
We consider here the specific case where the rotation speed
N is not imposed by the specification, that is to say, only 4 con-
straints remain: Pts1 , RTt1s , ṁs and πs . The first task is the selection
of a possible candidate in the database. Since we have considered

4 Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 so far transformations where the pressure ratio π remains con-
stant (exact similarity) or nearly constant (Re-free partial simi-
larity), it naturally comes out that the baseline compressor must
have the same pressure ratio as the one imposed by the specifica-
tion. If such a compressor exists, it is the baseline. As a matter of
fact, π is ensured, so only 3 scaling constraints remain, and since
partial similarity offers 3 degrees of freedom, the scaling law
derived earlier can meet all the constraints of the specification.
Using the results of section 1, we find that the baseline compres-
sor is to be scaled by a factor α −1/2 β1/4 λ1/2 , and operated at a
rotation speed N s = α1/2 β1/4 λ−1/2 · N b . The scaled compressor
performance is then identical to that of the baseline in terms of
efficiency and meets all the requirements of the specification.
Two important points can be emphasized here:
1. The specific speed n s of the scaled compressor will be iden-
tical to that of the baseline (apart from a slight modification
due to the Reynolds-number-induced change in pressure ra-
tio). Therefore, if more than one compressor of the data-
base have the same π as the specification, the best candidate
would be the one designed at the optimum n s (see Baljé [3]
and Rodgers [15]).
2. Altogether, this shows that for specifications without N im-
posed, a database with only one axis is needed: the pressure
ratio.
2.3 Scaling for specifications where N is imposed
As discussed in the previous section, the candidate of the
database must (at least) have the same pressure ratio as the one
imposed by the specification. Since N is imposed, 4 scaling con-
straints have to be met. Given that partial-similarity scaling of-
fers 3 degrees of freedom, not all the constraints can be met a
priori. Therefore, the solution is to select the baseline in such
a way that the fourth constraint is met by the criteria used to
choose the candidate and not by the scaling law itself. Since the
specific speed remains roughly constant during the Re-free scal-
ing process, the natural choice is to select a baseline compressor
that has the same pressure ratio π and specific speed n s as those
imposed by the specification. Using the definition of the spe-
cific speed (12) and taking into account the fact that n bs = nss and
πb = πs yields
 0.5
ṁs
Nb ṁb
=
0.25
0.5 . (14)
Ns s
RTt1 s
Pt1
b
RTt1 b
Pt1
We now apply the same procedure for scaling the baseline to the
specification, that is to say we let α = Pts1 /Ptb1 , β = RTt1s /RTt1b
and λ = ṁs /ṁb and introduce them in the preceding equation to
5 Copyright 
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
obtain
Nb (λ)0.5
= . (15)
Ns (β)0.25 (α)0.5
Rearranging this equation yields
Ns
= λ−1/2 β1/4 α1/2 , (16)
Nb
which is indeed the same as Eqn. (9). It must be emphasized
here that relation (16) is obtained as a result of the selection
of a baseline candidate such that n bs = nss and πb = πs , as op-
posed to Eqn. (9) which is obtained by expressing that Π 1 and
Π2 are conserved. Therefore, if the geometrical scaling relation
Ds /Db = α−1/2 β1/4 λ1/2 is applied and the compressor is oper-
ated at the rotation speed N s , then the two similarity variables
Π1 and Π2 are conserved. In other words, if the candidate of the
database has the same n s and π as the specification, then upon ap-
plying the geometrical scaling relation D s /Db = α−1/2 β1/4 λ1/2 ,
it comes out that the scaled compressor is in partial similarity
with the baseline compressor and meets all the requirements of
the specification. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. If a compressor of the database has the same specific speed
ns and pressure ratio π as those imposed by the specification,
then it can be selected as the baseline.
2. Altogether, this shows that for specifications where N is im-
posed, a database with two axes is needed: n s and π. There-
fore, taking advantage of the fact that the couple {n s ,π} is
implied by a specification, a baseline (if it exists) for scaling
can easily be chosen as the projection of any compressor of
the database onto the n s –π plane that is superimposed to the
point defined by the specification.
3 MACH NUMBER EFFECTS ANALYSIS
The previous section has shown that the fact that the
Reynolds number effects are limited is central in the practical
application of the scaling laws. Although numerical and experi-
mental studies exist on the impact of Mach number on aerody-
namics ( [16, 17]) and design features ( [18, 19]) of centrifugal-
compressor flows, little can be found in the literature from a si-
milarity or scaling point of view. In this section, we try to derive
a similarity analysis framework for Mach number effects, so that
the possibility of taking advantage of these effects in a scaling
perspective is examined.
3.1 Similarity analysis for Mach number effects
Going back to a basic physical interpretation of the simi-
larity principle, exact similarity between two flows (including
c 2006 by ASME
 Table 1. SPECIFICATION OF THE BASELINE COMPRESSOR.
boundary conditions, i.e. the geometry for our case) means that,
at any location in the flow field, the following nondimensional
physical quantities take the same values for the flows: (i) relative Quantity Value specified
flow angles; (ii) Mach numbers; (iii) Reynolds number; (iv) ther- Inlet total pressure 41000 Pa
modynamics properties of the fluid. This means that, for the two Inlet total temperature 293 K
flows, angle of attack, compressibility, viscous and thermody- mass flow 0.630 kg/s
namics effects must be identical. Although we do find the same Rotation speed 38000 RPM
number of nondimensional variables from this physical analy- Total-total pressure ratio 2.5
sis as from the purely dimensional analysis of the first section,
the physical meanings are slightly different. Indeed, both Π 1
and Π2 relate to compressibility effects, as they both involve the
definition of a Mach number of some kind: Π 1 ∼ Vm /a0 and 3.2 Mach-free scaling
Π2 ∼ U2 /a0 , where Vm is a characteristic velocity based on mass As partial similarity with respect to Reynolds number was
flow, and U2 a characteristic velocity based on peripheral wheel used to derive scaling laws, we derive here a scaling law that
speed. Therefore, we see that angle-of-attack effects are not di- defines a transformation where the flow coefficient φ remains
rectly reflected by the classical set of similarity variables. Intro- constant while Mach number Π 2 varies. The formalism pro-
ducing the flow coefficient φ, defined as posed allows the possibility of Reynolds number Π 3 variations.
We use the following four parameters: Pt1 s /Pb = α, T s /T b = β,
t1 t1 t1
ṁ /ṁ = λ and N /N = σ. Translating into mathematical form
s b b s
ṁ/(ρD2 ) ṁRTt1 the fact that φ should remain constant yields
φ= = , (17)
ND Pt1 ND3

(1/3)
Ds βλ
we can actually show that φ = √1 Π1 .
Therefore φ is a true nondi- = , (21)
γ Π2 Db ασ
mensional variable for it can be expressed as a linear combination
of the nondimensional basic similarity variables. Further, evalu-
ating this expression with the characteristic lengths just defined with this additional relation to maintain the Reynolds number
yields constant:

Ds
φ∼
Vm
∼ arctanβm , (18) λ= . (22)
U2 1 Db

These relations allow a baseline compressor to be scaled with the

where βm 1 is a 1D-averaged value of the inlet relative flow angle. sole impact of the Mach number.
Thus, φ proves to be the appropriate nondimensional similarity
variable that characterizes flow-angles effects. If the similarity
variables triplet {Π1 , Π2 , Π3 } is now replaced by {φ, Π 2 , Π3 }, 3.3 Analysis of a compressor map
Π2 is the single parameter that characterizes both compressibility We consider here an industrial centrifugal compressor,
and rotation effects. whose design-point specification is presented in Table 1. Ex-
It is common practice to use φ in conjunction with the head perimental results for this stage are available. They are obtained
coefficient ψ, which is defined as in an industrial test facility; the compressor is run by a turbine,
and put in an altitude chamber to set the inlet pressure. Experi-

 mental data are acquired at the inlet (just before the intake) and at
γ−1
γRTt1 / (γ − 1) π γ − 1 the outlet (in a pipe located after the scroll). Temperature is mea-
∆his
ψ= = , (19) sured using PT100 probes (three probes are azimuthally located
U22 N 2 D2 in each of the two measurement sections), and static pressures

 are acquired with annular settling chambers on the periphery of
γ−1
π − 1 /(γ − 1)
γ
the measurement sections. The total pressure is then deduced
= . (20) from the knowledge of the mass flow and sections.
Π22 A specificity of the experimental procedure was that the
altitude-chamber pressure, hence Pt1 , was adjusted for each
We shall see in the next paragraph the specificity of this flow speed line data acquisition. The specification (and highest) speed
quantity. line (N=38000 RPM, Π 2 =2.4) was run with Pt1 = 41000 Pa, and

6 Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 ilarity point of view, the comparison of the two operating points
defined by {φ = 0.032, Π 2 = 0.6} and {φ = 0.032, Π 2 = 0.9}
0.825
shows that they are a particular case of the partial-similarity
Mach-free scaling, where Eqns. (21) and (22) are solved for
Total-total isentropic efficiency

0.8

0.775
Ds /Db = 1 at the two operating points. In other words, the fact
that these two points have a performance variation of about 0.3
0.75
efficiency point is a validation of the constant-φ scaling for the
0.725 case of very small Mach number variations.
0.7 From a practical standpoint, this shows that constant-φ scal-
0.675
Pi2=2.4
Pi2=2.2
(38000
(35000
RPM)
RPM ) ing can be applied to make small adjustment of the performance
Pi2=1.9 (30000 RPM)

0.65
Pi2=1.6
Pi2=1.2
(25000
(20000
RPM)
RPM) characteristic of a compressor. If the best-efficiency point (for a
Pi2=0.9 (15000 RPM)
nominal speed line) is obtained at a slightly different mass-flow
0.02 0.03
Flow coefficient
0.04 0.05
than that of the specification, Eqn. (21) can be used to scale the
geometry so that the best-efficiency point becomes the nominal
(a) point.
Analysis of the other speed lines shows that, when Mach-
0.06
number variations are large, the impact on isentropic efficiency
is also large. As a matter of fact, this effect is twofold: (i) the
0.055
maximum efficiency on each speed line peaks at about Π 2 = 1.6
and (ii) the value of φ at which efficiency peaks on each speed
line increases with Π2 .
Head Coefficient

0.05

Finally, the φ–ψ map shows that the head coefficient is

0.045 a more appropriate flow quantity than the pressure ratio to
examine Mach number impact on the pressure rise. This is in
Pi2=2.4 (38000 RPM)
0.04 Pi2=2.2
Pi2=1.9
(35000
(30000
RPM )
RPM)
line with the procedure of reference [5]. If the map had been
Pi2=1.6
Pi2=1.2
Pi2=0.9
(25000
(20000
(15000
RPM)
RPM)
RPM)
plotted as φ–π, the speed lines would not have shown the same
0.035 ‘similarity’ as they do in Fig. 1. Again, comparing each line
0.02 0.03
Flow coefficient
0.04 0.05 provides a qualitative assessment of Mach number effects.

(b) We can conclude from this study that Mach-number-free

scaling can only be limited to a very restricted range of Π 2 . The
Figure 1. MAP OF THE BASELINE COMPRESSOR: φ–η and φ–ψ. next section will show how this issue can be circumvented, so
that scaling over a range of pressure ratio is possible.

the lowest speed line (N=15000 RPM, Π 2 = 0.9) at Pt1 = 75000

Pa. The effect of this procedure is to limit the Reynolds number
variations. As a matter of fact, the 38000 RPM speed line is op-
erated at Π3 = 4.106, and the 15000 RPM speed line is operated
at Π3 = 2.106. For comparison purposes, if the test had been
made at a constant pressure of Pt1 = 41000 Pa, the 15000 RPM
speed line would have been operated at Π 3 = 106 .
For the Mach number assessment, the compressor map is
plotted in terms of isentropic efficiency and head coefficient in
Fig. 1. For the analysis of the map, we neglect the impact of the
Reynolds number. Therefore, each speed line being a constant-
Π2 line, comparing one line to the other gives an incremental
perspective of Mach number effects.
The lines at the two lowest speeds are very close to each
others, which shows that for the smallest values of Π 2 the Mach
number effect is low. Indeed, maximum efficiency are obtained
at the same value of φ = 0.032. Considering this map from a sim-
4 BEST EFFICIENCY LINE SCALING
As summarized at the end of the section 1, a candidate for
scaling must have the same pressure ratio as the specification.
This is because only the design point of a baseline compressor is
considered. However, the design point is not the only operating
point where a compressor exhibits good performance as we have
seen in the previous section.
In this section, we shall first analyze the map of the base-
line compressor and identify its “best efficiency line”. Then, us-
ing the similarity framework set before, we shall see how this
best efficiency line can greatly enlarge the scaling potential of
an existing stage, and prove to be a practical alternative to the
constant-φ scaling. Finally, an illustrative scaling exercise will
demonstrate the practical interest of the method proposed herein.

7 Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 2.6
Pi2=2.4 (38000 RPM)
Pi2=2.2 (35000 RPM )
Pi2=1.9 (30000 RPM)
2.4 Pi2=1.6 (25000 RPM)
Pi2=1.2 (20000 RPM)
Total-total pressure ratio
Pi2=0.9 (15000 RPM)
Pi2=0.6 (10000 RPM)
2.2 Best efficiency line
2 2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1 1
0.05
Π1
Figure 2. PERFORMANCE MAP OF THE BASELINE COMPRESSOR.
4.1 The best efficiency line of a compressor map
The map of the baseline compressor corresponding to the
specification given in Table 1 is again presented in Fig. 2: total-
total pressure ratio is plotted as a function of the nondimensional
mass flow Π1 . A feature of this performance map, typical of cen-
trifugal compressor, is that good efficiency is not restricted to the
speed line corresponding to the design-point rotation speed. As
a matter of fact, maximum efficiency is obtained at a lower rota-
tion speed (as can be observed on Fig. 1). The thick black line
on the map represents what we call the “best efficiency line” of
this compressor, and is obtained by linking in the points corre-
sponding to the maximum efficiency on each speed line. It can be
stated that efficiency decreases slowly in the immediate vicinity
(in term of mass flow) of this line, further away (towards surge
at lower mass flow, and choke at higher) the efficiency gradient
is steeper. These last two remarks hold for all the speed lines
represented.
Therefore, it makes sense to consider that all the points of
this best efficiency line represent satisfying operating conditions
for this baseline compressor. For this reason, we shall now con-
sider the scaling potential of the stage along this line.
4.2 Scaling to meet a specification
Considering that each point of the best efficiency line defines
a new baseline point in terms of dimensional quantities: Ptb∗ 1
, in terms of specific speed, we obtain n s = 0.72, for π = 1.35,
RTt1b∗ , ṁb∗ , Db∗ and πb∗ (the star simply denotes that we do not
consider the design point only, but any point of the best efficiency
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
2.6
Baseline specification
2.4 Best efficiency line
New specification
Total total pressure ratio
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
ns
Figure 3. SPECIFIC SPEED–PRESSURE RATIO (ns –π) DIAGRAM OF
THE BASELINE COMPRESSOR.
line), it naturally comes out that the scaling laws can be applied
to any point of the best efficiency line.
Given the fact that the conditions required to find the scaling
candidate for a new specification is that it must have the same π
and ns as those imposed by the specification, the n s –π diagram
is again a valuable tool to represent the scaling potential of the
baseline compressor. Indeed, it is a simple matter to transfer the
best efficiency line from the Π 1 –π diagram to the n s –π diagram,
using Eqn. (13) with the knowledge of Π 2 for each speed line.
This is represented in Fig. 3.
Regarding the scaling potential of the baseline, the picture
is significantly different. Recalling that a specification defines a
unique point in the n s –π diagram, exact similarity and Re-free
scaling restrict the scaling potential to a single point in this di-
agram. Using the best-efficiency line, all the specifications that
fall on the line represented in Fig. 3 can be met, which shows the
scaling potential has been increased.
4.3 Example
The practical interest of the method is now illustrated by an
example. We first define a new specification in Table 2. Compar-
ing Tables 1 and 2, at first glance, they seem to refer to very dif-
ferent machines. However, if the new specification is interpreted
which is the diamond point in figure 3. Therefore, using the re-
sults of the preceding section, we can conclude that our baseline
8 Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME
 Table 2. A NEW SPECIFICATION.
Quantity Value specified
Inlet total pressure 235000 Pa
Inlet total temperature 365 K
mass flow 1.95 kg/s
Rotation speed 18000 RPM
Total-total pressure ratio 1.35
compressor can be scaled to meet this new specification. This
will roughly amount to operate the baseline compressor on its
(original) 20000 RPM speed line, but with a different Reynolds
number. An important note is to be made here: the scaling re-
lations are not applied to the design-point conditions, but to the
conditions that correspond to the closest point in the n s –π dia-
gram, i.e.: N=20200 RPM for ṁ = 0.369 kg/s with Pt1 = 65000
Pa and Tt1 = 294 K.
Therefore, the following scaling procedure is applied:
1. First, we evaluate the scaling parameters:
α = 235000/65000 = 3.61; β = 365/294 = 1.24 and
λ = 1.95/0.369 = 5.28.
2. Second, we have to evaluate the scaling factor:
Ds /Db = α−1/2 β1/4 λ1/2 = 1.28. This means that the
scaled compressor will roughly be 30% larger than the
baseline compressor.
3. Last, we can validate the selection of the candidate based on
the specific speed criteria. If the scaled compressor is to be
in partial similarity with the baseline compressor, it must be
operated at a speed N s = (λ)−0.5 (β)0.25 (α)0.5 · N b . Evaluat-
ing this expression gives: N s = 0.87 ∗ 20200 = 17650 RPM.
This confirms that only a small difference (less than 2% of
relative difference) with the ideal partial similarity condi-
tions will exist when the scaled compressor is operated at
18000 RPM, which reflects the distance between the new
specification point and the baseline compressor best effi-
ciency curve in the n s –π diagram.
5 Synthesis: the scaling potential of a centrifugal
compressor
The compressor tests have enabled the identification of the
best efficiency line of the baseline. This line is initially defined
by an ensemble of data points in terms of {Pt1 ∗ , T ∗ , ṁ∗ , N ∗ , plus
t1
∗ ∗
π and η }. These data points are also equivalent to an ensem-
ble of points in terms of { Π ∗1 , Π∗2 , Π∗3 , Π∗4 , plus π∗ and η∗ }.
By strict application of the Π–theorem for exact similarity, any
flow configuration that yields the same values of the Π-products
will exhibit identical performance. This includes the application
of geometrical scaling, provided all geometrical and gas proper-
9 Copyright 
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Figure 4. SCALING POTENTIAL OF A BASELINE COMPRESSOR.
ties remain constant (see references [7–9] for the practical lim-
itations). Therefore, with exact similarity, the scaling potential
restricts to the single point denoted by η ref in Fig. 4.
The representation of the best efficiency line in the {Π ∗1 , Π∗2 ,
∗
Π3 } 3D map forms the basis for constructing the full scaling
potential of the baseline. This is the central thick (black) line
in Fig. 4, with the experimentally measured points denoted by
squares. The variations of η along this line is due to the Mach-
number effect.
Furthermore, with Re-free scaling, constant-Π 3 lines can be
drawn from this skeleton. Since it is a partial similarity scaling,
efficiency variations will occur, and the lower boundary of this
line can be set in terms of efficiency decrement: we set -5 pts as
an arbitrary lower limit. The upper limit is somewhat arbitrary
since the Reynolds-number effect saturates when Π 3 increases.
We define this limit as the Reynolds number beyond which no
further significant change of performance is observed. We evalu-
ate the limiting Π3 values on each line with the law proposed by
Casey [12]. Therefore, the limit is approximated by an empirical
correlation, but it can be noted that it is possible to evaluate the
Reynolds-number-induced efficiency variations by experimental
means. These lines are represented as dashed lines in Fig. 4.
As a conclusion, we can claim that the scaling potential of
a baseline centrifugal compressor has been quantitatively evalu-
ated, and materialized by a surface in the 3D map of the simi-
larity variables: the surface delimited by thick red line in Fig. 4
represents the ensemble of operating points where the compres-
sor exhibits good performance.
From a practical standpoint, based on available experimental data
and/or correlations, a database of compressors can be organized
in the {Π∗1 , Π∗2 , Π∗3 } space as an ensemble of surfaces.
If Reynolds number can be neglected, it is even more convenient
and directly tractable to represent the database in the n s –π dia-
c 2006 by ASME
 gram (Fig. 3), to make full use of the scaling potential of existing
compressors to meet new specifications.
Conclusion
The present study has examined the possibility of design-
ing centrifugal compressors by the application of a geometrical
scale factor to an existing baseline compressor. This is the in-
verse problem of the classical problem of scaling test results to
a different operating point. The method proposed relies on the
application of scaling laws derived by the application of the sim-
ilarity principle. The following conclusions can be emphasized:
1. With the use of the Re-free partial similarity, the identifica-
tion of a baseline compressor to meet a new specification is
obvious from the n s –π diagram (Fig. 3).
2. Thanks to the ‘best efficiency scaling’ method proposed
herein, the scaling potential of a baseline centrifugal com-
pressor is rationally defined and delimited (Fig. 4).
3. A constant-φ scaling procedure is proposed, that can be used
to make small adjustments of the best-efficiency point in
terms of mass flow. This also provides a rational framework
for further investigation into the quantification of the Mach-
number effect on centrifugal compressor design features.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their thanks to Liebherr
Aerospace Toulouse S.A. for motivating and funding the present
research project and for authorization to publish the results.
REFERENCES
[1] Japikse, D., 1996. Centrifugal Compressor Design and Per-
formance. Concepts ETI, Inc., Wilder, Vermont.
[2] Shepherd, D., 1956. Principles of turbomachinery. The
Macmillan company, New York.
[3] Baljé, O., 1981. Turbomachines, a guide to design, selec-
tion and theory. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NYC.
[4] Lakshminarayana, B., 1996. Fluid Dynamics and Heat
Transfer of Turbomachinery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
NYC.
[5] Dalbert, P., Casey, M., and Schurter, E., 1988. “Develop-
ment, testing, and performance prediction of radial com-
pressors stages for multistage industrial compressors”. J.
of Turbomachinery, 110, pp. 283–292.
[6] Kurzke, J., and Riegler, C., 2000. “A new compressor map
scaling procedure for preliminary conceptional design of
gas turbines”. In Proc. of the ASME IGTI Turbo Expo 2000,
Munich.
[7] Henssler, H., and Bhinder, F., 1977. “The influence of scal-
ing on the performance of small centrifugal compressors”.
IMechE proceedings.
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70998/ on 03/15/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
[8] Pampreen, R., 1973. “Small turbomachinery compressors
and fan aerodynamics”. J. of Engineering for Power, July,
pp. 251–256.
[9] Skoch, G., and Moore, R., 1987. “Performance of two
10-lb/sec centrifugal compressors with different blade and
shroud thicknesses operating over a range of Reynolds
number”. 23rd Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA, SAE,
ASME and ASEE (AIAA-87-1745).
[10] Buckingham, E., 1914. “On physically similar systems: il-
lustration of the use of dimensional equations”. Phys. Rev.,
4(4).
[11] Wiesner, F., 1979. “A new appraisal of Reynolds number
effects on centrifugal compressor performance”. J. of En-
gineering for Power, 101, pp. 384–396.
[12] Casey, M., 1985. “The effects of Reynolds number on the
efficiency of centrifugal compressor stages”. J. of Engi-
neering for Gas Turbines and Power, 107, pp. 541–548.
[13] Wright, T., 1989. “Comments on compressor efficiency
scaling with Reynolds number and relative roughness”.
Proceedings of the Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress
and Exposition. Toronto, Canada.
[14] Schleer, M., and Abhari, R., 2005. “Influence of geometric
scaling on the stability and range of a turbocharger centrifu-
gal compressor”. ASME Turbo Expo (GT2005-68713).
[15] Rodgers, C., 1980. “Efficiency of centrifugal impellers”.
AGARD CP 282 (Paper 22).
[16] Ibaraki, S., Matsuo, T., Kuma, H., Sumida, K., and Suita,
T., 2003. “Aerodynamics of a transonic centrifugal com-
pressor impeller”. J. of Turbomachinery, 125(2), pp. 346–
351.
[17] Higashimori, H., Hasagawa, K., Sumida, K., and Suita, T.,
2004. “Detailed flow study of Mach number 1.6 high tran-
sonic flow with a shock wave in a pressure ratio 11 centrifu-
gal compressor impeller”. J. of Turbomachinery, 126(4),
pp. 473–481.
[18] Osborne, C., Runstadler, P., and Dodd, W., 1975. “Aerody-
namic and mechanical design of an 8:1 pressure ratio cen-
trifugal compressor”. NASA (CR-134782).
[19] Zangeneh, M., Schleer, M., ger, F. P., and Hong, S., 2004.
“Investigation of an inversely designed centrifugal com-
pressor stagepart i: Design and numerical verification”. J.
of Turbomachinery, 126(1), pp. 73–81.
Copyright 
c 2006 by ASME