Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2

Short Laboratory Report

Experiment T2
Two-stage Air
Compressor
th

Tuesday 10 March 2015

Experiments and
Statistics
William Haynes
1324410
Group 14
1

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2

Introduction
Two-stage air compressors have an advantage over the same single stage
process because they save on the compression work W =

p dV

. This is

shown in Figure 1 by the labelled area on the idealized p-V diagram: the total
work is the area enclosed by the diagram. The reason for this advantage is that
the air is cooled in an inter-cooler between the two stages of compression, which
reduces the mass of the air delivered to the second compressor while keeping
the pressure constant. This is why the high-pressure part of the p-V diagram:
above p1, p2; has a smaller area, which represents less work done, however the
same mass of air is delivered in total.
In the experiment, the air compressor was tested under varying receiver
pressures (p3) by adjusting an outlet valve. Readings of various values at each
pressure were taken and used to test the hypothesis and get values for the
overall efficiency (%) of the system, volumetric efficiency (%), Free Air
Delivery (m3 /s), polytropic index of compression n.

Figure 1: Idealised p-V diagram for a two-stage compression cycle with

intercooling.

Objectives

To gain experience of operating a two-stage air compressor with an intercooler and other equipment first-hand.
To explore which parameters affect the performance characteristics of the
compressor, focussing on the index of compression and work done in
compression.

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2

Method and Results

Figure 2: Schematic Diagram of the Two-Stage Intercooled Compressor System

Firstly, the speed of each stage was set to 750rpm, and this was kept constant
through the whole experiment. Then the air flow valve was adjusted to set the
receiver pressure at P3 (see figure 2) to a constant 10 bar (gauge). We then
waited ten minutes for the compressor outlet temperatures (T3 and T6) and the
pressures to stabilize. Once the conditions were stable we recorded the values of
all the parameters in Tables 1&2. Then the previous two steps were repeated
with the receiver pressure set at approximately 9,8,7,6 and 5 bar gauge. All the
recorded values are shown below in Tables 1&2.
Table 1:
Receiv Air
Air to
er
at
Interco
Pressu Inlet
oler T3
re P3
T1
bar
gauge
10.0

Air
from
Interco
oler T5

24.0

99.0

38.0

1st
2nd
Stage
Stage
Air at
Delive Deliver
Delive
ry
y
ry T6
Pressu Pressur
re P0
e P2
bar
bar
C
gauge
gauge
187.0
1.1
10.0
3

1st
Stage
Compr.
Speed

2nd
Stage
Compr.
Speed

rpm

rpm

750.0

750.0

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2
9.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

24.0
25.0
25.0
24.0
25.0

94.5
95.5
95.0
94.0
93.5

35.0
35.0
34.0
33.0
32.0

180.0
170.0
160.0
148.0
138.0

1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0

9.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0

750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0

Table 2:
Receiv
er
Pressu
re P3
bar
gauge
10.0
9.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

Orifice
Temperat
Pressure
ure
Drop
T1

Compressor
Current
A1

Current
A2

Voltage
V1

Voltage
V2

mmH2O

Amp

Amp

Volt

Volt

127.0
130.0
132.0
133.0
132.0
132.0

24.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
24.0
25.0

6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.8

10.0
10.0
8.5
8.0
7.2
7.0

120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00

120.00
122.00
120.00
120.00
121.00
120.00

Analysis
This section analyses the results from the experiment by using them to calculate
certain performance characteristics of the compressor plant.
The first performance characteristic to calculate was the Air Flow Rate at STP
conditions (Standard Temperature and Pressure), referred to as Free Air
Delivery (m3 /s). To do this we first had to determine values for the mass flow
rate (kg/s). The compressed air passes through an orifice of known proportions,
therefore flowrate can be calculated with the formula
where:

m
a

= mass flow rate (kg/s);

p0 / Rair T 1 , air density (kg/m3);

Cd

a=C d EA 2 p
m

(1),

= 0.62, orifice discharge coefficient;

= pressure drop (mmH2O); A =

d2/4, orifice area (m2); E = (1-4)-0.5, where = d/D; T1 = absolute temperature

of air downstream (K). The known values for the orifice are C d = 0.62, d =
12.7mm, D = 25.4mm, therefore E = 1.0328 and A = 0.000127m 2. Having
plugged all the values into eq. (1), we could then convert the values for mass
flowrate

m
a

(kg/s) into volumetric flowrate at STP (or FAD) (m3/s) using the

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2
formula

a Rair T / p
V =m

(2), where: p = 101300 N/m2 (abs.); T = 288K (15oC);

Rair = 287 J/kg K. The values calculated using equations (1) & (2) are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3:
Receiv
er
Pressur
e P3
bar
gauge
10.0
9.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

Pressur
e Drop

Mass
Flow
Rate

Free Air
Delivery

Temperat
ure
T1

mmH2O

kg/s

m3/s

127.0
130.0
132.0
133.0
132.0
132.0

24.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
24.0
25.0

0.00437
0.00442
0.00445
0.00447
0.00445
0.00445

0.00356
0.00361
0.00363
0.00365
0.00363
0.00363

m
a

Figure 3: A graph of Free Air Delivery plotted against a base of delivery

pressure.

Free Air Delivery

Figure 3 shows that the FDA does not vary significantly as the receiver pressure
changes. There is a slight negative gradient to the trend line, however we
assumed this to be negligible.
5

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2
The second performance characteristic to calculate was Electrical Power input
(W) for stage 1 and stage 2 compressors and overall. This was done using the
formula P = VI (3), where: P is electrical power (W); V is voltage (V); I is current
(A). Eq. (3) was used to calculate the electrical input power (W) at each stage,
then the overall electrical input power (W) is simply the sum of the two. The
answers from these calculations are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4:
Receiv
er
Curre Curre Volta Volta
Pressur
nt
nt
ge
ge
e
A1
A2
V1
V2
P3
bar g
Amp
Amp
Volt
Volt
10.0
9.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.8

10.0
10.0
8.5
8.0
7.2
7.0

120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0

120.0
122.0
120.0
120.0
121.0
120.0

Electrical
Input
Power
Stage 1

Electrical
Input
Power
Stage 2

Electrical
Input
Overall

720.0
780.0
720.0
720.0
720.0
696.0

1200.0
1220.0
1020.0
960.0
871.2
840.0

1920.0
2000.0
1740.0
1680.0
1591.2
1536.0

The next performance characteristic to be calculated was Air Indicated Power

(W) for stages 1 and 2, and overall. The formula for this is given as

PR

n1
n

i= m
a Rair T i ( n )
W
n1

(4), where: PR = pressure ratio in absolute values; Ti =

initial air temperature in Kelvin. The values were calculated using eq. (4) for each
stage and then again the overall power is simply the sum of the two stages. The
calculated values are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5:
Recei
ver
Press
ure
P3
bar g
10.0
9.5
8.0
7.0

Air at
Inlet
T1
C
24.0
24.0
25.0
25.0

Mass
Flow
Rate

m
a
kg/s
0.00437
0.00442
0.00445
0.00447

Press
ure
ratio
(abs.)
5.24
5.00
4.29
4.00

Air
Indicated
Power
for Stage
1
W
798.9
779.7
695.2
657.4
6

Air
Indicated
Power
for Stage
2
W
944.3
912.0
817.3
773.8

Overall
Air
Indicate
d Power
W
1743.22
1691.66
1512.56
1431.23

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2
6.0

24.0

0.00445

3.50

577.4

683.4

1260.74

5.0

25.0

0.00445

3.00

495.7

587.2

1082.93

Figure 4: A graph Electrical Power (W) and Air Indicated Power (W) for
stages 1 & 2 and overall against a base of Receiver Pressure (bar gauge).

Electrical Power and Air Indicated Power

Electrical Input Power Stage 2

Linear (Electrical Input Power Stage 2 )

Electrical Input Power Stage 1

Linear (Electrical Input Power Stage 1 )

Air Indicated Power for Stage 1

Linear (Air Indicated Power for Stage 1)

Air Indicated Power for Stage 2

Linear (Air Indicated Power for Stage 2)

Electrical Input Overall

Linear (Electrical Input Overall )

Overall Air Indicated Power

Linear (Overall Air Indicated Power)

Figure 4 shows a positive correlation between electrical power and air

indicated power at stages 1 & 2 and overall, and receiver pressure.

There two important values for the efficiency of the system that were calculated:
The overall efficiency of the compressor system can be defined as:

overall =

Air Indicated Power

Electrical Input Power .

The volumetric efficiency can be defined as:

V =

(actual air delivered /second )

(maximum possible delivery / second) , where the actual air delivered is the

Free Air Delivery (m3/s), which has already been calculated and the maximum
possible air delivery rate is assumed to be the swept volume of the first stage
piston, which we know to be 192.4cm 3. Therefore volumetric efficiency for the
system can be found using the formula

V =
7

( FAD /second )
(swept volume x (speed rpm/60)) .

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2
The calculated values for both of these efficiencies at each pressure are shown
below in Table 6.
Table 6:
Receive
r
Pressur
e
P3
bar g
10.0
9.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

Overall
Electrical
Input Power

Overall Air
Indicated
Power

Overall
Efficienc
y

Free Air
Delivery

Volume
tric
Efficien
cy

W
1920.00
2000.00
1740.00
1680.00
1591.20
1536.00

W
1743.22
1691.66
1512.56
1431.23
1260.74
1082.93

%
90.79
84.58
86.93
85.19
79.23
70.50

m3/s
0.00356
0.00361
0.00363
0.00365
0.00363
0.00363

%
74.09
74.96
75.53
75.82
75.53
75.53

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2
Figure 5: A graph showing overall efficiency (%) against a base of delivery
pressure.

Efficiency

Overall Efficiency

Linear ( Overall Efficiency )

Volumetric Efficiency

Linear (Volumetric Efficiency)

It can be seen from Figure 5 that the system has a greater overall efficiency at
higher delivery pressures. However it is evident that the volumetric efficiency
does not vary as pressure does, because it is proportional to Free Air Delivery,
which we have already seen is independent of delivery pressure.
The final performance characteristic that was calculated was the polytropic
index of compression for each stage and overall. For a polytropic process of an
ideal gas, the relationship between pressure and volume is given as pV n =
constant, so between two states 1&2, p1V1n = p2V2n (5), where n is the

polytropic index. Eq. 5, can be rearranged to get

V1
p
= 2
V2
p1

( )

1
n

(6). The ideal

gas law states pV = nRT. Substituting this into eq. 6 gives the expression

T1
p
= 1
T2
p2

( )

n1
n

(7). We know T1, T2, p1 and p2 for stage 1 and 2 of the compressor

and overall, so eq.7 can be used to find the polytropic index n. Using

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2

logarithms, eq 7, can be rearranged to get

n=
ln

p2
p1

( )
( ) ( )
ln

T1
p
+ ln 2
T2
p1

(8). The

polytropic index for receiver pressure 10 bar (gauge), at stage 1, stage 2 and
overall were calculated and the values are shown in Table 7.

Table 7:
Receiver
Pressure
bar g
10.0

1st Stage
index
1.430

2nd Stage
index
1.308

Overall
index
1.222

The final piece of analysis was to sketch a p-V diagram, similar to fig. 1, using the
measured values of temperatures and pressures for receiver pressure 10 bar
(gauge).
Figure 6: Graph showing pressure against volume.

10

Short Laboratory Report Willliam Haynes 1324410

Experiment T2

Discussion
From these results and subsequent calculations we are able to see which
performance characteristics are affected by changing the pressure at the
receiver. We can see that, in this system, flowrate and Free Air Delivery do not
change significantly when the pressure changes, because there is negligible
gradient to the line in figure 3. Figure 4 clearly shows that a higher electrical
power input at each stage is required to reach higher pressure at the receiver.
This is because more work in compression must be done to reach higher
pressures. The system has a higher overall efficiency when the receiver pressure
is higher (fig.5), but volumetric efficiency is constant, because it is proportional
to Free Air Delivery which we have already seen does not vary.
Table 7 shows the effect of intercooling on the polytropic index of the system.
The overall index is significantly lower than it would be without intercooling,
because it is closer to being isothermal (n=1), i.e. the difference between the
inlet and outlet temperatures is less. Adding more stages with more intercooling
would reduce the index further, increasing the compression work saved. Figure 6
confirms that the two-stage system in the experiment with an intercooler did
save on total work of compression. The work saved by inter-cooling is labelled in
fig 6. This can maximised by finding the ideal inter-stage pressure. Of the
different pressures we tested, 10 bar g (shown in fig. 6) was the optimal.

Conclusion
The experiment was successfully carried out without any major issues that
couldve caused the results not to be valid. There is, however, a degree of small
uncertainty in all the values due to a number of factors: precision errors in the
initial readings; human error in the setting and stabilizing of the pressures or in
the reading of the dials; assumptions that are not perfectly accurate eg. Air
density, Vapour content of air; etc.
Overall, the experiment was successful in giving us experience of operating a
two-stage air compressor with an inter-cooler, in allowing us to explore how
some performance characteristics of the compression are affected by changing
pressure, and understand why multiple stages and intercooling save on
compression work.

11