Predicting centrifugal compressor
performance
When a plant revamp is planned, assessing an existing centrifugal compressor
to meet new performance requirements is essential
TEK SUTIKNO
Fluor Enterprises
A
mong various types of
compressors commonly
used in process plants,
the centrifugal type is widely
used and suitable in certain
applications such as high gas
flow rates. For some process-
ing plants such as hydropro-
cessing units, the capital cost
for the centrifugal compressor
recycling the reactor loop gas
stream is often the highest rel-
ative to those for the remain-
ing equipment types or items.
The compressor driver also
requires the highest rate of
mechanical or electrical energy
consumption. When an exist-
ing plant needs to be revamped
for expansion, repurposing or
other goals, assessing the capa-
bilities of the existing centrifu-
gal compressor to meet the new
performance requirements is
an essential step for identifying
cost-effective revamp options
without the need for a new
compressor and the associated
systems. In cases where the
compressor needs to be mod-
ified to meet the new require-
ments, the performance of this
modified compressor at off-
design or upset conditions will
also need to be predicted for
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002245
1.20
1.15
1.10
Head at design point
Polytropic head
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.7
Figure 1 Ratios of polytropic head and discharge pressure vs flow Q ratio – design
base case
evaluating overpressure risk
levels and identifying any addi-
tional modification scope neces-
sary for the connected systems.
While the compressor vendor
may be requested to provide
modification options for reus-
ing the existing compressor to
meet new performances needed
for a revamp project, the ven-
dor typically requires a new
commercial contract and prob-
ably considers the option for a
new compressor replacement
is more lucrative than the reuse
option, in addition to the time
period required to complete
1.10
Discharge pressure
Discharge pressure ratio
Polytropic heads 1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
Design flow rate
the evaluation of the existing
compressor. To maximise the
potential reuse of an existing
compressor in a new revamp
project, the ability to predict the
compressor performance can
certainly be essential for assess-
ing or pre-screening the modifi-
cation options more effectively
and in a more timely fashion,
especially when several options
need to be evaluated at a time
and additional options may
come up later.
This article discusses a cor-
relation method for predicting
the performance of an existing
Revamps 2018 1

Polytropic efficiency ratio
(η/η at design point)
Figure 2 Polytropic efficiency vs Q ratio – design base case
centrifugal compressor in new
operating conditions and pre-
sents the results from specific
examples. This method utilises
parameters reported in the lit-
erature and mainly involves
correlating an available set of
performance data to predict the
performances at new operating
conditions.
Existing performance data
The performance curves pro-
vided by the vendor for an
existing centrifugal compressor
typically include the polytropic
head (H) versus the volume
flow rate (Q) at suction and
polytropic efficiency (η) versus
Q. Figures 1 and 2 show these
typical performance curves
provided by the vendor except
that heads and flow rates are
presented as ratios based on
the rated or design operating
points. The left vertical axis of
Figure 1 shows the polytropic
head ratios and right verti-
cal axis discharge pressures Pd
ratios. The polytropic heads
plotted versus the actual volu-
metric flow rate at the suction
condition in Figure 1 are typi-
cally derived by assuming an
essentially adiabatic polytropic
2 Revamps 2018
1.05
1.03
1.01
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.93
0.91
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
Design flow rate
compression path represented
as Equation 1 describing the
pressure (P) and specific vol-
ume (v) relation for this path:
P1 v1n = P2v2n (1)
For ideal gas following Cp
– Cv = R, where R is the gas
constant, Cp heat capacity at
constant pressure, and Cv heat
capacity at constant volume,
Equation 2 can be derived to
describe a reversible, adiabatic
process, and kideal equals to Cp/Cv,
or ideal gas heat capacity ratio:
P1v1k = P2v2k (2)
The polytropic exponent n
describing the adiabatic Pvn
compression path can be esti-
mated by Equation 3 where
η is the polytropic efficiency
shown in Figure 2 as a function
of the inlet volumetric flow
rate. k may be estimated from
molecular weight and temper-
ature correlations or obtained
from a commercial simulation
program. The average of ks at
compressor suction and dis-
charge is generally used for
estimating the k value:
(𝑛𝑛 − 1) (𝑘𝑘 − 1)
= (3)
𝑛𝑛 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
The compressor discharge
pressure Pd in psia at a given
rotation speed (N) can be esti-
mated using Equation 4. As
shown, a number of gas proper-
ties and suction conditions are
needed to predict the discharge
pressure, Pd:
𝑛𝑛 𝐻𝐻 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (𝑛𝑛 − 1)
𝑃𝑃" = 𝑃𝑃% exp ) 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 0 + 1<=
(𝑛𝑛 − 1) 1545 𝑍𝑍789 𝑇𝑇% 𝑛𝑛
(4)
where :
Ps – Suction pressure, psia
n – polytropic exponent
H – head in lbf-ft/lbm
MW – molecular weight, lbm/
lb mole
Zavg – average compressibility
factor
Ts – suction temperature, °R
Flow and head coefficients
The head data in Figure 1 can
be used to generate plots of
head coefficient (ψ) versus flow
coefficient (φ) and η versus φ.
Equations 5 and 6 define φ and ψ
respectively:
700 𝑄𝑄 (5)
𝛷𝛷 =
𝑁𝑁 𝑑𝑑 )
𝐻𝐻 (1300) )
𝜓𝜓 =
𝐼𝐼 𝑁𝑁 ) 𝑑𝑑 )
(6)
where:
Q – inlet volumetric flow rate,
acfm
N – rotational speed, rpm
d – impeller diameter (or effec-
tive), IN
I – number of impellers
Figures 3 and 4 respectively
show the plots of head coeffi-
cient ψ versus flow coefficient φ
and polytropic efficiency η ver-
sus φ. These are derived from
the existing set of curves pro-
vided by the vendor for the
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002245
base case or design case of the
existing compressor. As will be 0.65
discussed next, these figures 0.60
can be used to predict the new

Head coefficient (Ψ)

0.55
performance of the compressor
0.50
when one (or more) of the oper-
0.45
ating parameters has changed.
0.40
Operating conditions 0.35
One of the operating conditions 0.30
affecting compressor perfor- 0.25
mance is the suction pressure.
0.20
Reducing the suction pressure 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
decreases the gas density and
Flow coefficient (φ)
increases the inlet volumet-
ric flow rate, Q. As indicated FIgure 3 Head coefficient vs flow coefficient – design base case
in Figures 1 and 3, higher flow
rates decrease the polytropic
head and the associated dis- 1.01
charge pressure. For a system
Polytropic efficiency ratio

1.00
where the discharge pressure is
(η/η at design point)

0.99
controlled to stay constant, the 0.98
compressor delivers less mass 0.97
flow rate as the suction pres-
0.96
sure is reduced. Conversely, the
compressor in the same con- 0.95

stant discharge pressure sys- 0.94

tem delivers more mass flow 0.93
rate when the suction pressure 0.92
increases. 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
To predict the performance Flow coefficient (φ)
curves of the same compressor
at a lower suction pressure and Figure 4 Polytropic efficiency vs flow coefficient – design base case
other variations of parameters
such as the rotational speed,
flow coefficient φ is first calcu- 1.15
lated using Equation 5 for the 1.10
required range of inlet volu- 1.05
metric flow rates, Q. Based on 1.00
Head at design point

the calculated φ values, Figures

Polytropic head

0.95
3 and 4, which are derived
0.90
from the available performance
0.85
curves, are used to predict the
0.80
head coefficient ψ and the poly-
tropic efficiency η. 0.75

As an example, a new oper- 0.70

Predicted from φ and Ψ
ating Case A revises the suc- 0.65
Vendor data
tion pressure from the known 0.60
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
base case value (100%) to 89%
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
of this value, and the rotational Design flow rate
speed to 99.7%; other parame-
ters remain the same as those Figure 5 Polytropic head ratio vs Q ratio – Case A

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002245 Revamps 2018 3

 ditions and properties – pres-
1.02 sure, temperature, molecular
Predicted
1.00 weight, and compressibility Z.
Polytropic efficiency ratio Vendor data
(η/η at design point) The effects of suction pressures
0.98
and temperatures have been
0.96 discussed in the example Case
0.94 A. As shown in Equation 4, cal-
0.92 culating the discharge pressure
(Pd) requires gas properties –
0.90
molecular weight (MW), Z, and
0.88 polytropic exponent n which
0.86 depends on the specific heat
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 ratio (k) and polytropic effi-
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
ciency (η). The values for η are
Design flow rate
available from the correlation
Figure 6 Polytropic efficiency vs Q ratio – Case A (see Figure 4); the remaining gas
property values, however, need
to be known to calculate cor-
1.20 rectly the discharge pressure.
For the same compressor dis-
Polytropic head/Rated head

1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.6
Figure 7 Polytropic head ratio vs Q ratio – Case B
in the base case. For this Case
A, Figures 5 and 6 show respec-
tively the new heads (H) and
efficiency (η) taken directly
from Figures 3 and 4. The solid
line in Figure 5 or 6 represents
data provided by the compres-
sor vendor for this Case A, and
the dots show the predicted
data which agree with the ven-
dor data.
The suction temperature
(Ts) relates to the gas density.
Q increases somewhat as the
suction temperature becomes
higher, and the polytropic head
(H) decreases at higher Qs. For
Predicted from φ and Ψ
Vendor data
Coeff. with X
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
Design flow rate
a system controlled at a con-
stant discharge pressure, how-
ever, a higher Ts results in a
lower Q to increase H for reach-
ing the controlled discharge
pressure. Similar to suction
pressure variation, the flow and
head coefficient correlation can
be used to generate the new
performance curves at new suc-
tion temperatures.
Gas properties
The inlet volumetric flow rate
Q in Equation 5 for calculating
the flow coefficient is the only
parameter affected by gas con-
cussed so far, Case B, where
MW and suction pressure dif-
fer from those in the base case
or Case A, is another example
case for predicting the new per-
formance curves including the
discharge pressure Pd. Figures
7, 8, and 9 respectively show
the predicted heads, efficien-
cies, and discharge pressures
for Case B with a MW equal to
115% of that in the base case
and suction pressure at 92.3%
of the same base case. Solid
blue lines in these figures show
data provided by the compres-
sor vendor and the dots are the
values predicted using flow
and head coefficients.
As Figure 7 shows, the pre-
dicted polytropic head data
(red dots) in the inlet volumet-
ric flow rate range close to the
design or rated flow rate agrees
reasonably well (less than 1.5%
difference) with the vendor
data. However, at higher flow
rates, or close to the stone wall
point, the correlation method
underpredicts the vendor data
by about 4.0% maximum.
The polytropic exponent n

4 Revamps 2018 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002245

values used for calculating the
discharge pressure Pd are based
on the ideal specific heat ratio
or kideal which varies somewhat
with the temperatures. As the
gas temperature will increase
through the compressor, kideal at
the discharge side will not be
the same as that at the suction,
and the average of suction and
discharge kideal values is nor-
mally used for calculating the
discharge pressure. For a given
compression ratio, however,
the gas temperature will also
increase more at lower poly-
tropic efficiencies, and the aver-
age kideal could vary with the
flow rate Q. However, using a
fixed value of average kideal for
all flow rates in the operating
range typically provides rea-
sonable results. The average
value of suction and discharge
compressibility factors, Zavg,
also varies with pressure ratios
or Qs, but the variation of Zavg
in this example is less than that
of kideal.
The predicted Pds for all Qs in
Figure 9 are shown as red dots
and based on a constant, aver-
age value of kideal. For the new
operating condition, Case B, the
values of kideal at suction and dis-
charge can be estimated from a
commercial program but might
vary dependent on the property
estimation methods. As Pd for
Case B or a new operating case
needs to be estimated first to
get the discharge kideal, iteration
of Pd value may be needed until
the average kideal value used in
Equation 4 results in the calcu-
lated Pd matching the trial value
of Pd. Alternately, Pd can also be
estimated by correlating the X
factor discussed next.
Instead of using Equation 4
for calculating the discharge
pressure Pd, the X factor cor-
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002245
1.02
1.00
Polytropic efficiency ratio
(η/η at design point)
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
Predicted from φ and Ψ
0.88
Vendor data
0.86
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45 1.65
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
Design flow rate
Figure 8 Polytropic efficiency vs Q ratio – Case B
1.10
1.05
Discharge pressure (Pd)
PSIA/Pd at design point
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80 Predicted from φ and Ψ
0.75 Vendor data
Using X factor
0.70
0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 1.45 1.65
Actual inlet flow rate (Q)
Design flow rate
Figure 9 Discharge pressure ratio versus Q ratio – Case B
rection (see Equation 7) can be lar weight (115% of base case).
used to calculate the discharge Again, for a new operating
pressure, Pd, and the polytropic case where the new Pd is not yet
heads are calculated from known, iteration of Pd is likely
Equation 4. The green line and needed to calculate the kideal at
the green dots in Figure 7 show the discharge condition. This
the predicted H data using the discharge kideal is needed to cal-
X factor method with an aver- culate the average kideal (or k2 in
age kideal value which is assumed Equation 7) for the new oper-
constant from one flow rate ating case. The k2 value can be
to another, and the kideal val- used for estimating the Pd pro-
ues at suction and discharge file when Pd assumed to cal-
conditions have been derived culate the discharge kideal value
from a simulation program on agrees with Pd calculated from
the basis of the new molecu- Equation 7. For this example,
Revamps 2018 5
 Case B, the green dots in Figure
9 show the predicted discharge
pressures using the X factor
method. The predicted or cal-
culated Pd at the rated flow
rate is less than 1% different
from the Pd from the vendor.
At flow rates close to the end
of the curve, the Pd difference
is about 2% maximum. For this
example, the X method gives
reasonable agreement with the
vendor data which are typically
derived from ‘wheel to wheel’
calculations and likely based on
in-house k correlation data:
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀" 𝑘𝑘% (𝑘𝑘" − 1)
𝑋𝑋" = 𝑋𝑋%
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀% 𝑘𝑘" (𝑘𝑘% − 1)
(7)
𝑃𝑃&
(*+,)
*
𝑋𝑋 = $
𝑃𝑃'
( −1
Where
Mechanical parameters
Compressor impeller diame-
ter (d), number of impellers (I),
and speed of rotation (N) all
greatly affect the performance.
Increasing any of these param-
eters will result in higher dis-
charge pressures (Pd) and flow
rates (Q). For example, Q var-
ies proportionally with d or
N, and Pd varies with the third
power of d or N. While the com-
pressor capacity can be greatly
expanded by increasing I, d,
and/or N, the existing com-
pressor may have mechanical
or hardware limitations compli-
6 Revamps 2018
cating these options. Increasing
d or I, for example, requires not
only extra space in the existing
compressor but also evaluation
of the impeller tip speed Mach
number, discharge tempera-
tures, and other mechanical
limits. It would likely be worth-
while to first consult with the
compressor vendor before con-
sidering the options of increas-
ing d or I as viable.
For an existing compres-
sor equipped with a variable
speed driver such as a steam
turbine, expander, or motor
with speed-adjustable hydro-
dynamic coupling, increas-
ing the rotation speed N can
be a more cost effective option
relative to increasing I or d.
Overall, to predict the new per-
formance of an existing com-
pressor to be modified with an
increase in d, I, and/or N, the
correlation method presented
earlier may be considered, and
the economic benefits result-
ing from the new performance
can be quantitatively evaluated
against the cost of the compres-
sor modification.
Conclusion
A correlation method using a
set of existing centrifugal com-
pressor performance curves
has been discussed to predict
the performance of this com-
pressor at new operating con-
ditions or after hardware
modifications. The predicted
performance data agree rea-
sonably well with the example
sets of performance data from
the vendor. For the example
case involving a 15% change in
the gas molecular weight, the
correlation method results in
about 2% maximum under-pre-
diction of discharge pressure
at flow rate ranges away from
the design flow rate. As the Cp/
Cv value changes with MW var-
iation, the correlation method
might require iteration when
the new performance require-
ment involves a change in MW.
Nonetheless, the example cases
discussed show the correlation
method can be considered for
screening modification options
at least in the early stages of
engineering evaluation.
Tek Sutikno is a Process Engineering
Manager with Fluor and a Professional
Engineer registered in 11 US states with
over 27 years of experience in the process
industries. He holds BSc, MSc, and DEngr
degrees in chemical engineering and a
MBA degree, all from the University of
Kansas.
Email: tek.sutikno@fluor.com
LINKS
More articles from the following
categories:
Condition Monitoring
Rotating Equipment
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1002245