Public Courses

In-House Courses
Operator Training

How to Estimate Compressor Efficiency?

In the November 2011 tip of the month (TOTM) we presented the compressor calculations of a case study. We
compared the rigorous method results with the values from the shortcut methods. The rigorous method was
based on an equation of state like the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) for calculating the required enthalpies and
entropies. The enthalpies and entropies are used to determine the power requirement and the discharge
temperatures. The results indicated that the accuracy of the shortcut method is sensitive to the value of ideal gas
state heat capacity ratio, k.

From a calculation viewpoint alone, the power calculation is particularly sensitive to the specification of mass flow
rate, suction temperature and pressure, and discharge temperature and pressure. A compressor is going to
operate under varying values of the variables affecting its performance. Thus the most difficult part of a
compressor calculation is specification of a reasonable range for each variable and not the calculation itself.
Reference [1] emphasizes that using a single value for each variable is not the correct way to evaluate a
compression system.

Normally, the thermodynamic calculations are performed for an ideal (reversible) process. The results of a
reversible process are then adapted to the real world through the use of a thermodynamic efficiency. In the
compression process there are three ideal processes that can be visualized: 1) an isothermal process (PV1=C1),
2) an isentropic process (PVk=C2) and 3) a polytropic process (PVn=C3). Any one of these processes can be used
suitably as a basis for evaluating compression power requirements by either hand or computer calculation. The
isothermal process, however, is seldom used as a basis because the normal industrial compression process is
not even approximately carried out at constant temperature.

Note that Dresser Rand is doing quite a lot of work with Near constant temperature compression especially for
CO2compression from vent stacks. For detail refere to:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/high_megawatt/upload/6_1-Approved-Moore.pdf

In this TOTM, we will demonstrate how to determine the efficiency of a compressor from measured flow rate,
composition, suction and discharge temperatures and pressures. A rigorous calculation based on an equation of
state and a shortcut method are considered and the results are compared.

Compress Efficiency

Compressor efciencies vary with compressor type, size, and throughput. They can only be determined
(afterward) by a compressor test, although compressor manufacturers can usually provide good estimates. For
planning purposes, reference [2] suggests the following values for the overall efciencies:

Table 1. Overall Compressor Efficiencies [2]

Compressor Type Efficiency,

Centrifugal 0.70 0.85

High Speed Reciprocating0.72 0.85

Low Speed Reciprocating 0.75 0.90

Rotary Screw 0.65 0.75

Reference [2] indicates that these overall efciencies include gas friction within the compressor, the mechanical
losses (bearings, seals, gear-box, etc.), and gear-box losses. The mechanical efciency varies with compressor
size and type, but 95% is a useful planning number. When calculating the compressor head and discharge
temperature the efciency used will be isentropic or polytropic (isentropic efciency is sometimes called adiabatic
efciency). Adding 3-4 % efciency (mechanical losses) to the overall efciencies in Table 1 will generally give a
good estimate of the thermodynamic efciency [2].

To evaluate the performance of an existing compressor, the objective is to calculate the compressor efficiency ()
and power requirement.

Known and measured properties are:

a. Standard condition gas volume flow rate (qS) or gas mass rate ()

b. Gas composition (zi)

c. Suction pressure (P1) and temperature (T1)

d. Discharge pressure (P2) and temperature (T2)

Estimating Efficiency Rigorous Method

The heart of any commercial process flow simulation software is an equation of state. Due to their simplicity and
relative accuracy, a cubic EOS such as Soave Redlich-Kwong (SRK) [3] or Peng-Robinson [4] is used. These
equations are used to calculate Vapor-Liquid-Equilibria (VLE), enthalpy (h), and entropy (s). With proper binary
interaction coefficients, the process simulation results of these two equations are practically the same. Therefore,
only the SRK is used in this work.

The isentropic efficiency is defined by

Where:

Isen = Isentropic efficiency

h1 = Suction enthalpy calculated at P1, T1, and composition (zi)

h2 = Discharge enthalpy calculated at P2, T2, and composition (zi)

h2Isen = Isentropic discharge enthalpy at P2 (or T2), S2Isen =S1, and composition (zi)
 = Mass flow rate

The computation compressor efficiency or power involves two steps

1. Determination of the ideal or isentropic (reversible and adiabatic) enthalpy change (h2Isen-h1) of the
compression process.

2. Determination of the actual enthalpy change (h2-h1).

The step-by-step calculation based on an EOS:

a. Assume steady state, i.e.

b. Assume the feed composition remain unchanged

c. Calculate suction enthalpy h1=f(P1, T1, and zi) and entropy s1=f(P1, T1, and zi) by EOS

d. Assume isentropic process and set s2Isen = f (P2, T2Isen, zi) = s1 = f (P1, T1, zi).

e. Calculate the ideal enthalpy (h2Isen) at discharge condition for known zi, T2 (or P2) and s2Isen.

f. Calculate the actual enthalpy (h2) at discharge condition for known zi, T2 and P2.

g. Calculate isentropic efficiency by Equation 1: Isen = (h2Isen h1)/(h2 h1)

h. Calculate power by Equation 2:

Estimating Efficiency Shortcut Method

The isentropic path exponent (k) or ideal gas heat capacity ratio (k=CP/CV) can be calculated by the correlation
presented in the May 2013 TOTM:

Where:

T = Temperature, K (R)

= Gas relative density; ratio of gas molecular weight to air molecular weight

A = 0.000272 (0.000151)

The actual discharge temperature based on an isentropic path can be estimated by

Solving for the isentropic efficiency,

Similarly, the actual discharge temperature based on a polytropic path can be estimated by

Solving the above equation for the polytropic path coefficient (n):

Similarly, the actual discharge temperature based on a polytropic path can be estimated (Poly) by:

The isentropic head is calculated by

Similarly, the polytropic head is calculated by

For an isentropic (reversible and adiabatic) process the power is calculated by

Or for a polytropic process the power is calculated by

Alternatively:

Where:

Head = Compressor head, m (ft)

Power = Compressor power, kW (HP)

R = Universal gas constant, 848 kg-m/(kmol-K) or (1545 ft-lbf/(lbmol-R))

PS = Standard condition pressure, kPa (psia)

P1 = Suction pressure, kPa (psia)

P2 = Discharge pressure, kPa (psia)

TS = Standard condition temperature, K (R)

T1 = Suction temperature, K (R)

T2 = Discharge temperature, K (R)

qS = Gas volumetric rate at the standard condition, Sm3/d (scf/day)

Za = Average gas compressibility factor = (Z1+Z2)/2

Z1 = Gas compressibility factor at the suction condition

Z2 = Gas compressibility factor at the discharge condition

MW = Gas molecular weight

The power calculation should be made per stage of compression and then summed for all stages connected to a
single driver.
The step-by-step calculation for shortcut method

a. Calculate the isentropic exponent (k) by Equation 3 using the average temperature defined by T = (T1+3T2)/4.
This form of average temperature was defined to obtain better match between the rigorous and shortcut method
results.

b. Calculate the isentropic efficiency (Isen) by Equation 5.

c. Calculate the polytropic coefficient (n) by Equation 7.

d. Calculate the polytropic efficiency (Poly) by Equation 8.

e. Calculate the isentropic and polytropic heads by Equations 9 and 10, respectively.

f. Calculate the required power per stage by either Equation 11 or 12.

Case Study

A natural gas mixture is compressed using a three-stage centrifugal compressor. The process flow diagram is
shown in Figure 1. For each stage, the measured pressure, and temperature are presented in Table 1. The
measured feed composition, flowrates, and calculated molecular weight and relative density are presented in
Table 2.

Figure 1. Process flow diagram for a 3-stage compression

Table 1. Measured temperature and pressure for the three stages of compression

Table 2. Gas analysis and flow rate for the three stages of compression
* Calculated

Results and Discussions

The process flow diagram shown in Figure 1 was simulated by ProMax software [5] to perform the rigorous
calculations using the SRK EOS. The program calculated polytropic and isentropic efficiencies, heads, and
compression power. The program also calculated the isentropic path exponent (k), and polytropic path exponent
(n). These calculated results are presented in Table 2 for all three stages under SRK headingings. The
calculations performed by ProMax are very similar to the step-by-step of a through h described in the rigorous
section. Table 2 also presents the shortcut caculation results for the corresponding values under the shortcut
heading. The shortcut calculations are based on the step-by-step of a through f described in the shortcut method
section. The error percent between the rigrous method and the shortcut methods for each stage are presented in
Table 2, too. Table 2 indicates that excellent agreements are obtained for stages 1 and 2. However, larger
deviations are obseved for the isetropic and polytropic exponents of stage 3 due to high pressure operation
which deviated too far from ideal gas state conditions.

Table 3. Summary of the rigorous and shortcut calculated results

Conclusions

Table 2 indicates that there are good agreements between the shortcut and the rigorous results. The differences
between the rigorous and shortcut method results for facilities calculations and planning purposes are negligible.
For stage 3, due to high-pressure operation and deviating too far from the ideal gas state condition, a larger error
is observed for the isentropic exponent (k).

The calculated isentropic exponent (k) in the ProMax [5] is not the ideal gas state heat capacity (CP/CV) ratio. It is
the value of the isentropic exponent that is required to yield an isentropic path from inlet to outlet. Its value is
calculated as an integration of that path. Thus it is somewhat of an average value representing the true
isentropic path. For ideal gases, the value would be equal (CP/CV) ratio.

This error in k also illustrates the importance of specifying which correlation is to be used when ordering a
performance test (ie, refer to ASME PTC-10 for additional details), so that client and vendor are on the same
agreement moving forwards with regard to molecular weight (MW) and k for the test fluid. For further detail refer
to reference [6] and August and September 2010 TOTMs [7, 8].

It may also be worth noting that when trending n and the polytropic efficiency to evaluate machine condition, the
relative accuracy of measurement instrument/equipment (temperature and pressure transducers) and mapping of
compressor performance to the original performance curve (actual gas volume flow rate vs speed), introduces
many potential erroneous sources into this daily evaluation.

Note that the accuracy of the shortcut methods is dependent on the values of k and n. The definition of average
temperature in the shortcut method was adjusted to obtain a better match between the isentropic path exponent
(k) calculated by rigorous method.

To learn more about similar cases and how to minimize operational problems, we suggest attending our G4 (Gas
Conditioning and Processing), PF4 (Oil Production and Processing Facilities), ME46 (Compressor
SystemsMechanical Design and Specifications) and ME44 (Fundamentals of Pump and Compressors
Systems), courses.

PetroSkills offers consulting expertise on this subject and many others. For more information about these
services, visit our website at http://petroskills.com/consulting, or email us at consulting@PetroSkills.com.

Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Reference:
1. Maddox, R. N. and L. L. Lilly, Gas conditioning and processing, Volume 3: Advanced Techniques and
Applications, John M. Campbell and Company, 2nd Ed., Norman, Oklahoma, USA, 1990.

2. Campbell, J.M., Gas Conditioning and Processing, Volume 2: The Equipment Modules, 9th Edition, 2nd Printing,
Editors Hubbard, R. and SnowMcGregor, K., Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma, 2014.

3. Soave, G., Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, pp. 1197-1203, 1972.

4. Peng, D. Y., and Robinson, D. B., Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, p. 59, 1976.

5. ProMax 3.2, Bryan Research and Engineering, Inc, Bryan, Texas, 2014.

6. ASME PTC-10, Performance test Code on Compressors and Exhausters, 1997.

7. Honeywell, J. Important Aspects of Centrifugal Compressor Testing-Part 1, Tip of the Month, August
2010

8. Honeywell, J. Important Aspects of Centrifugal Compressor Testing-Part 2, Tip of the Month, September 2010

Did you enjoy this post? Do you have a question?

Leave us a Comment below!

Want to read more articles like this?

Subscribe to our RSS Feed or visit the Tip of the Month Archives for past articles.

Posted on July 1, 2015 at 12:00 am

11 comments

Categories: Gas Processing, Mechanical, Pipeline, Process Facilities

Recieve new post updates: Entries (RSS)

Recieve follow up comments updates: RSS 2.0

Written by Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

DR. MAHMOOD MOSHFEGHIAN is a Senior Technical Advisor and Senior Instructor. He is the author of most
Tips of the Month and develops technical software for PetroSkills. He has 40 years teaching experience in
universities as well as for oil and gas industries. Dr. Moshfeghian joined JMC in 1990 as a part time consultant
and then as full time instructor/consultant in 2005. Moshfeghian was Professor of Chemical Engineering at Shiraz
University. Dr. Moshfeghian is a senior member of AIChE and has published more than 125 technical papers on
thermodynamic properties and Process Engineering. Dr. Moshfeghian has presented invited papers in
international conferences. He is a member of the Editorial Board for the International Journal of Oil, Gas, and
Coal Technology and a member of the GPSA Technical Committee Group F. He holds B.S. (74), M.S. (75) and
and PhD (78) degrees in Chemical Engineering, all from Oklahoma State University.

View all posts by: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Previous post

Next Post

11 responses to How to Estimate Compressor Efficiency?

1. Paul says:

August 31, 2015 at 7:11 am

 thanks for the article,
I would also mention that rigorous methods (based on interpolated values such as ASME PTC-10 or
numerical integration pin->pout such as Huntington etc.) consider non-contant values for properties from
pin->pout,
these variations may originate large errors (see the example provided in Huntingtons paper),
finally, a procedure can also consider phase equilibria, I know Prode Properties
(see http://www.prode.com/docs/pppman.pdf) which includes both Huntington and a proprietary
method for solving a polytropic stage with phase equilibria,
when there is a change of phase it is difficult to evaluate and adopt a value for efficiency in different
conditions

Reply

2. Francis says:

December 28, 2015 at 9:30 am

Please may I know the equation seven. I cannot find the formula for calculating the polytropic path
exponent(n). Please can u write the formula for calculating polytropic path exponent

Reply

o Laurent says:

February 25, 2016 at 8:37 am

There is an obvious mistake in (7) when you inverse (6).

Reply

Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian says:

February 27, 2016 at 9:54 am

Laurent:
You are correct, both temperature and pressure ratios should have been ln(T2/T1)
and ln(P2/P1).
Thanks.

Reply

3. Daniel says:

April 22, 2016 at 3:51 am

Hello, used these equations with preos did not work, gave me an efficiency of 4000

Reply

4. Ray Fang says:

April 25, 2016 at 9:32 pm

Contact us to learn about CAE350

CAE350 compressor analyzing system is a low cost portable system to test the capacity,power
efficiency and unit air consumption of the compressor

Contact with fangliang@comatemeter.com to know more

 Reply

5. Panos says:

June 17, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Here is the link of a new article, which describes the rigorous calculation of the polytropic efficiency
based on thermodynamics of real gases. A comparison with data shown on this website (!) can also be
found, under:

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/tjj.ahead-of-print/tjj-2016-0029/tjj-2016-0029.xml?format=INT

Reply

o Arif says:

November 2, 2016 at 12:55 pm

Panos, the link does not work

Reply

o Arif says:

November 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Panos, nothing works as the link

Reply

6. Norman Day says:

September 7, 2016 at 3:21 pm

Please calculate or estimate overall efficiency of the following

AIR
5.4 bore
6.5 stroke
1800-2400 RPM
mechanical valves
from a Caterpillar 3406 Diesel engine

Reply

7. Norman Day says:

September 7, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Please calculate or estimate overall efficiency of;

AIR
BORE 5.4 INCHES
STROKE 6.5 INCHES
1800-2400 RPM
Mechanical valves
Caterpillar 3406 Diesel Engine
is 85% practical?

Reply
 Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Search
Search for:

o English TOTM Home

o Spanish TOTM Home

Archives
o December 2016

o November 2016

o October 2016
o September 2016

o August 2016

o July 2016

o June 2016

o May 2016

o April 2016

o March 2016

o February 2016

o January 2016

o December 2015

o November 2015

o October 2015

o September 2015

o August 2015

o July 2015

o June 2015

o May 2015

o April 2015

o March 2015

o February 2015

o January 2015

o December 2014

o November 2014

o October 2014
o September 2014

o August 2014

o July 2014

o June 2014

o May 2014

o April 2014

o March 2014

o February 2014

o January 2014

o December 2013

o November 2013

o October 2013

o September 2013

o August 2013

o July 2013

o June 2013

o May 2013

o April 2013

o March 2013

o February 2013

o January 2013

o December 2012

o November 2012

o October 2012
o September 2012

o August 2012

o July 2012

o June 2012

o May 2012

o April 2012

o March 2012

o February 2012

o January 2012

o December 2011

o November 2011

o October 2011

o September 2011

o August 2011

o July 2011

o June 2011

o May 2011

o April 2011

o March 2011

o February 2011

o January 2011

o December 2010

o November 2010

o October 2010
o September 2010

o August 2010

o July 2010

o June 2010

o May 2010

o April 2010

o March 2010

o February 2010

o January 2010

o December 2009

o November 2009

o October 2009

o September 2009

o August 2009

o July 2009

o June 2009

o May 2009

o April 2009

o March 2009

o February 2009

o January 2009

o December 2008

o November 2008

o October 2008
o September 2008

o August 2008

o July 2008

o June 2008

o May 2008

o April 2008

o March 2008

o February 2008

o January 2008

o December 2007

o November 2007

o October 2007

o September 2007

o August 2007

o July 2007

o June 2007

o May 2007

o April 2007

o March 2007

o February 2007

o January 2007

o December 2006

o November 2006

o October 2006
o September 2006

o August 2006

o July 2006

o June 2006

o May 2006

o April 2006

o March 2006

o February 2006

o January 2006

o December 2005

o November 2005

o October 2005

o September 2005

o August 2005

o July 2005

o June 2005

o Complete Archives

o Free Subscription

Topics
o Gas Processing

o Mechanical

o Pipeline

o Process Facilities

o Process Safety
o Refining

o Reliability Engineering

o Supply Chain Management

o Uncategorized

o Water and Corrosion

Meta
o Register

o Log in

o Entries RSS

o Comments RSS

o WordPress.org

Training Helpful Links Company Information

Public Courses Request Information Contact Us

In-House Courses Consulting Services About Us

Operator Training Tip of the Month Job Postings

Online Course Previews Campbell Forums Testimonials

HGPA Educational Sessions Conversion Tool Download Catalog (PDF)

Course Schedule John M. Campbell & Co. Request Catalog

Books
Oil and Gas Training Instructor Bios
GCAP Software
Facilities Engineering FAQ
Training GCAP Mobile
Links
Liquefied Natural Gas Continuing Education
Training Credits Kindle Disclaimer

Petroleum Engineering Follow us on Twitter

Courses

John M. Campbell & Co.

1215 Crossroads Blvd.
Suite 230
Norman, OK. 73072