Another New Look at Polytropic Calculations Methods For Turbomachinery Performance

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319472250
Another New Look at Polytropic Calculations Methods for Turbomachinery

Performance
Technical Report · September 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10331.87841
CITATIONS READS
0 96
1 author:
Richard A Huntington
Oak Hill Turbo & Associates
113 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Polytropic Analysis of Turbomachinery View project
1985 ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines & Power paper View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Richard A Huntington on 14 September 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Another New Look at Polytropic Calculation Methods
for Turbomachinery Performance
Richard Huntington, Oak Hill Turbo & Associates, LLC
September 2017
Abstract: Performance calculations of turbomachinery, such as centrifugal compressors, have been based on polytropic
analysis for many years1, 2,3. By this analysis, the thermodynamic path between the inlet and outlet of the turbomachine is
assumed to follow a constant polytropic efficiency or at least a step-wise constant efficiency path to allow known
characteristics of head and efficiency of the machine to be converted to pressure and temperature changes and power of the
machine for various operating conditions. These conditions may include gas compositions, operating pressures, temperatures
and operating speed. Alternatively, in the situation of a performance test of the machine, the measured flow, pressures and
temperatures at the inlets and outlets of the turbomachine may be measured and through polytropic analysis converted to a
characteristic polytropic head and polytropic efficiency of the machine. The thermodynamic quandary of polytropic analysis,
is that unlike enthalpy or entropy, polytropic head cannot be measured or determined directly via an Equation of State (EOS).
As a result, the calculation method selected impacts the evaluations of performance. There have been many technical
papers1,4, 5,6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15 over the last forty years, including by this author, written to criticize and/or evaluate the various
methods and especially to criticize the (until now) de-facto industry standard2,3 developed by Schultz2 and included in PTC-
103 since 1965. This paper is another that takes a look at the polytropic methods proposed by various authors and also proposes
an update of the 1985 Huntington (3-point) end-point method1 and a replacement of the 1985 Huntington Reference Method1
to substantially improve the accuracy of the end-point and numerical integration classes of polytropic calculation methods.
Introduction:
Evans and Huble14,15 provide an excellent overview of the various polytropic calculation methods that have been proposed in
the 40 years since Mallen and Saville4 first published a serious criticism of the Schultz2,3 method. These methods may be
divided into two major groups. Specifically “end point” methods and “numerical integration” methods. End point methods
are those that calculate polytropic head and efficiency based on the operating conditions at the end points (i.e. inlet and outlet
points) of the turbomachine with minimal iteration or repeated calculations. Numerical integration methods break the
thermodynamic path from the inlet to outlet points into many sub-paths that may be calculated separately and presumably
more accurately than with an end point method.
In addition to their overview of the various methods, Evans and Huble14 in their Appendix D Table 8 compare and evaluate
the accuracies of five end point methods and three numerical integration methods for 70 example cases previously published
by several authors1,2,10,13. Evans and Huble have tabulated the deviations of the various methods and list them individually
vs. the 100-Step Small Stage numerical integration method in their Table 8. The average absolute deviations of each of the
five end point methods for the 70 example cases is given in Table 1, below. From this, the most accurate is the 1985
Huntington 3-point method.
Table 1 - End point Methods vs. 100-Step Small Stage
1
1985
10 4
Huntington 3- Sandberg- Mallen &
2,3 2,3
Point Colby Saville Schultz fs Schultz XY
0.034% 0.145% 0.289% 0.322% 1.143%
But, as will be shown in a later part of this paper, the 100-Step Small Stage method is not the best one to use to compare to
the other methods. The small stage method predictably under-estimates the polytropic head regardless of the number of steps
used. The deviations asymptotically reduce as the number of steps of the numerical integration increase but at 100 steps, the
accuracy is similar to the 1985 Huntington 3-point method. A better basis for the relative comparisons of the methods is the
1985 Reference method1. Table 2 reconsiders the data in Table 8 of Reference 14 and changes the base of comparison to the
350-Step Reference method that was also calculated in Reference 14.
Table 2 - End point Methods vs. 350-Step Reference Method
1
1985
10 4
Huntington 3- Sandberg- Mallen &
2,3 2,3
Point Colby Saville Schultz fs Schultz XY
0.052% 0.170% 0.328% 0.290% 1.159%
1 Copyright © 2017 by Richard Huntington, Oak Hill Turbo & Associates LLC
With the improved comparison basis, the relative rankings of the end point methods do not change. The 1985 Huntington 3-
point method is the most accurate and has an average absolute deviation of 0.052%. And it must be noted that the least
accurate methods are the two included in the current version of PTC-102. This situation certainly begs for improvements to
PTC-10 that were called for in 19977 when PTC-10 had its last major revision.
As Evans and Huble14 have provided excellent data for the five end point methods and that these data can be reevaluated to
adjust the basis of comparison among the methods, the only end point method that will be considered further here is the
Huntington method1. In addition, since there are three competing numerical integration methods that were evaluated by
Evans and Huble and since each have unique formulations, these methods plus a new numerical integration method will be
discussed in the following sections of this paper.
Numerical Integration Methods for Polytropic Analysis of Turbomachines
Small Stage Method: The small stage method was originally outlined by Hundseid et al8. The procedure to implement the
Small Stage method has been detailed by several authors including Evans and Huble14 and Taher11. The assumption of the
Small Stage method is that the polytropic head can be estimated by dividing the thermodynamic path from the inlet to the
outlet of the turbomachine (state 1 to state 2) into many sub-paths, calculating the isentropic head of each sub-path precisely
with an EOS and then summing these isentropic heads to provide a reasonable estimate of the polytropic head for the whole
path.
As described by these authors8,11,14, this procedure divides each sub-path into two portions: 1) An isentropic pressure change
and 2) an isobaric enthalpy (heat) change as shown in Figures 1 & 2.
Fig. 1: Small Stage Compression Path Steps Fig. 2: Small Stage Algorithm Example Calculation
(From Reference 14) (From Reference 14)
Equation (1) shows the basic steps of the Small Stage method, where Hp is the polytropic head, e is the constant efficiency
and Hs,i is the isentropic head for the ith sub-path.
Eqn. (1)
If the end point pressures and temperatures of the turbomachine are known, then after determining the number of steps and
dividing the calculations into n steps of equal pressure ratio, a value of the efficiency, e, is selected. The calculations proceed
as indicted by Eqn. (1) to find the estimated outlet temperature. This estimated outlet temperature is compared to the actual
value needed and if within an acceptable tolerance, then the sum of the Hs,i is assumed to equal the polytropic head, Hp and
the last efficiency is assumed to be the polytropic efficiency. If the temperature is not within the acceptable tolerance, then
the efficiency is adjusted until the temperature tolerance is satisfied.
In the limit where n approaches infinity, Eqn. (1) is exact. However, for practical values of n, there is a consistent deviation
between the sum of Hs,i and Hp because this Small Stage method assumes that there is no polytropic work attributed to the
isobaric enthalpy change portion of the ith sub-path. This, in fact, is not true.
To visualize the work that is ignored by the Small Stage method, consider a virtual experiment. Trap the fluid at the end of
the isentropic pressure change portion of the ith step in a cylinder with a weighted plunger to maintain a constant pressure on
the fluid. Then apply heat raise the enthalpy of the fluid to the correct value for the end of that sub-path. With the heat
addition, the volume of the gas at constant pressure increases and the weighted plunger rises. Work is done to raise this weight
and this work is the difference between the polytropic and the isentropic head of the ith sub-path. By considering the volume
change during the heat addition, the difference between these heads can be found.
To estimate this missing work, the polytropic head integral shown in Eqn. (1) may be divided in n sub-paths and if n is large
enough, then the change in volume may be considered to vary linearly with pressure and the polytropic head of the ith sub-
path integrated directly.
Eqn. (2)
The isentropic head for the ith sub-path may also be determined by a similar integral.
Eqn. (3)
The Small Stage method assumes that Hs,i can be used to estimate the polytropic head (Hp,i) of each sub-path and then summed
to estimate the polytropic head from state 1 to state 2 of the turbomachine. Therefore the consistent deviation associated with
this assumption can be estimated by evaluating the difference between these expressions for Hp,i and Hs,i as in Eqn. (4).
Eqn. (4)
Based on Eqn. (4), this deviation is proportional to the pressure change of each sub-path and the difference between the
specific volume at end of the ith sub-path (Vi+1) and specific volume at the end of the isentropic portion of that sub-path
(Vs,i+1). As the number of integration steps is increased, both of these contributors to the deviation decrease and the Small
Stage head asymptotically approaches the actual polytropic head between states 1 and 2 as shown for example case “Hunt 4”
from Reference 14 in Fig. 3 below.
Polytropic Head for Sample Case Hunt 4 of Reference 14

26900
Polytropic Head, ft-lbf/lbm
26850
26800
26750
Small Stage
26700
26650
26600
1 10 100 1000
Number of Steps for Numerical Integration
Fig. 3 - Small Stage Method Polytropic Head vs. No. of Integration Steps
Since all of the information necessary to estimate the deviations given by Eqn. (4) are knowable as each sub-path is calculated
for the Small Stage method, the corrections given by Eqn. (4) may be applied for each sub-path and summed to substantially
improve the accuracy of a thus Improved Small Stage method. Specifically, after the isentropic pressure change portion of
each sub-path, the specific volume may be determined with an EOS and similarly after the isobaric enthalpy change portion,
the specific volume may also be determined.
Figure 4 demonstrates this new Improved Small Stage method for the same example case as shown in Figure 3.

26900
26850
26800
26750 Improved Small Stage
26700
Small Stage
26650
26600
1 10 100 1000
Fig. 4 - Comparison of Improved Small Stage and the (uncorrected) Small Stage Methods
Figure 4 clearly demonstrates that the Improved Small Stage method substantially improves the accuracy of this method. It
achieves the same asymptotic value of head as the number of integration steps is increased but at a much lower number of
steps than required by the uncorrected Small Stage method.
1985 Reference Method: The 1985 Reference method1 was originally documented to demonstrate the relative accuracy of
the Huntington 3-point method vs. Schultz vs. Mallen & Saville. The 1985 Reference method is a simple numerical integration
of the VdP with an assumption that the specific volume varies linearly with pressure over each sub-path.
Eqn. (2) provides the equations for this method and the details of the procedure to execute this method are described in
Reference 1. But briefly, the 1985 Reference procedure starts by dividing the pressure change from state 1 to state 2 into n
sub-paths of equal pressure ratio and selecting an initial guess of the polytropic efficiency, e. The procedure uses two nested
iteration loops. First, for each ith sub-path, Pi, Ti, hi, Vi and Pi+1 are known but Ti+1, hi+1 and Vi+1 are not. An initial estimate
of Ti+1 is made and then hi+1, Vi+1 are calculated with an EOS and Hp,i is calculated using Eqn. (2). The enthalpy change should
equal the quotient of polytropic head and polytropic efficiency and if these are not within an acceptable tolerance, then the
temperature, Ti+1, must be adjusted until an acceptable tolerance is achieved for each sub-path. The second iteration loop,
similar to the Small Stage method, is to adjust the estimated efficiency until the calculated outlet temperature at state 2 is
within an acceptable tolerance to the actual value.
Figure 5 adds the 1985 Reference method to Figure 4 for the “Hunt 4” example from Reference 14.

26950
26900
26850
26750
1985 Reference
26700
Small Stage
26650
26600
1 10 100 1000
Fig. 5 - Comparison of 1985 Reference, Small Stage and Improved Small Stage Methods
For 50 or more integration steps, the 1985 Reference and the Improved Small Stage method are essentially equal. At 50 steps,
the difference is less than 0.01% and at 600 steps, the difference is about 0.5ppm. These are both substantial improvements
over the uncorrected Small Stage method that has a difference vs. the average of the 1985 Reference and Improved Small
Stage of 0.19% at 50 steps and 0.015% at 600 steps.
Sandberg-Colby 20 Step Integration: Sandberg-Colby10 proposed a 20-step numerical integration method that assumed a
stepwise constant polytropic exponent from state 1 to state 2 of the turbomachine. For each sub-path, polytropic head is found
using the traditional Ideal Gas polytropic head equation as shown in Equation (5):
Eqn. (5)
For each sub-path, the end point temperature, Ti+1, is adjusted so that the enthalpy change for the ith sub-path equals the
incremental polytropic head of the sub-path divided by the constant polytropic efficiency. This forms the inner iteration loop
for this method. Similar to the other numerical integration methods, an outer iteration loop adjusts the polytropic efficiency
so that the calculated outlet temperature at state 2 is within an acceptable tolerance of the desired outlet temperature.
Figure 6 below, repeats the comparisons shown in Figure 5 but now with the addition of the Sandberg-Colby 20-Step method
(SC20). SC20 has similar accuracy to the 1985 Reference and the Improved Small Stage methods. SC20 for this case is 0.06%
less than the average of the 1985 Reference and Improved Small Stage methods at 20 or more steps. In comparison with the
uncorrected Small Stage method, the Small Stage requires about 200 steps to be more accurate than SC20.

26950
26900
26850
26750 1985 Reference
26700 Small Stage
Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
26650
26600
1 10 100 1000
Fig. 6 - Comparison of Numerical Integration Methods including Sandberg-Colby 20-Step
End Point Method for Polytropic Analysis of Turbomachines

Huntington Method Revisited: In Reference 1, this author proposed a new polytropic calculation method for turbomachines
to provide much better accuracy than the Schultz2 method and to answer the question of whether the Mallen and Saville and
other methods were any better than Schultz. The resulting method calculated polytropic head and efficiency based on the end
points and one intermediate point along the polytropic path. Evans & Huble classified it as a 3-point end point method but it
equally could have been classified as a 2-step integration method. The unique aspect of the Huntington method is that it does
not attempt to integrate or otherwise calculate polytropic or isentropic head directly but rather attempts to integrate entropy
vs. pressure along a constant efficiency polytropic path as a definite integral. Equation (6) describes the underlying basis for
this method.
Eqn. (6)
The development of this equation is detailed in Reference 1 and will not be repeated here. But it is very important to
understand that along a constant efficiency polytropic path, this differential equation is exact and includes no restrictive
assumptions regarding the behavior of the fluid or other factors. Equally important to note is that this equation relates entropy
change with pressure along a polytropic path with only compressibility factor, Z, as a parameter. Finally, it is important to
realize that since the constant efficiency polytropic path is a defined thermodynamic path, fluid properties, such as
temperature, enthalpy, entropy, specific heat, etc. and the compressibility factor are uniquely defined by only one state
property of the fluid, such as pressure. So a function, Z(P), can uniquely and fully define the compressibility factor for
a polytropic process based only on pressure.
As a result, if a suitable function to define compressibility factor vs. pressure along the polytropic path can be found, then
Eqn. (6) may be re-written as a definite integral equation:
Eqn. (7)
Once a function for Z(P) is selected, the definite integral of Eqn. (7) may be evaluated. Using known values of entropy at
states 1 and 2 at the end points of the polytropic path, the polytropic efficiency may be calculated and then the polytropic
head calculated using the known values of enthalpy at states 1 and 2. As such, the polytropic efficiency is calculated using
the compressibility function and known values of entropy and in turn the polytropic head is found using this efficiency along
with enthalpy change.
In 1985, Reference 1 referred to the potential use of a linear equation of Z vs. P. But this was rejected since it did not
substantially improve the accuracy versus the Schultz method. Rather a 3-term equation for Z(P) with linear and logarithmic
terms was selected and became the Huntington 3-point method. But in reality, any equation that defines the compressibility
factor vs. pressure along a constant efficiency polytropic path could be used to solve for the polytropic efficiency and head.
Since Eqns. (6) and (7) are exact, the only source of computational error to calculate polytropic efficiency and head is the
accuracy of the Z(P) curve fit to EOS data; the better the selected function Z(P) models the actual compressibility function
along the polytropic path, the more accurate it will be.
Equation (8) shows the two Z(P) functions that were described in Reference 1 plus a new 4-term relationship that provides
further accuracy improvements.
Eqn. (8a)
(8b)
(8c)
Huntington 2-Point Method: With Equation (8a), the only data needed to integrate Equation (7) are the compressibility values
at the end points of the polytropic path; Z1 and Z2 at P=P1 and P=P2. Eqn. (8a) becomes:
Eqn. (9a)
Where:
Eqn. (9b)
With Equation (9b), the polytropic efficiency and thus the polytropic head can be calculated based only on the end points of
the polytropic path. However, as stated in Reference 1, this linear version of Z(P) along the polytropic path has an accuracy
that is similar to but not better than Schultz1.
Huntington 3-Point Method: Reference 1 suggested the use of Equation (8b) to model Z(P) along the polytropic path. Using
this equation the compressibility factor and entropy equations become:
Eqn. (10a)
Eqn. (10b)
Reference 1 shows the expressions for a, b and c for Equation (10a) and (10b) and will not be repeated here. But in any case,
these coefficients may be found by solving the three simultaneous equations for Z1, Z2 and Z3. The procedure to find the
intermediate point given by P3, T3, s3 and Z3 is also described fully in Reference 1. Finally, the results of this formulation for
the Huntington 3-Point method are shown in Table 1 and 2 earlier in this paper and in the Appendix of Reference 14.
New Huntington 4-Point Method: To further improve the accuracy of this method to calculate polytropic head and efficiency,
the 3-term Equation (8b) has been extended to 4 terms and given as Equation (8c). In fact, other forms with more terms,
polynomials, etc. could be used as a form for Equation (8) using either a precise or least-squares curve fit. This 4-term
expression was selected as it required only one more intermediate point and was still easy to integrate in closed form. Using
Equation (8c) the compressibility factor and entropy equations become:
Eqn. (11a)
Eqn. (11b)
For Equation (11a), there are two intermediate conditions along the polytropic path that must be evaluated in order to
determine the coefficients a, b, c and d for this equation. The suggested pressures split the pressure ratio from state 1 to state
2 into equal logarithmic steps as shown above. A similar iteration loop to find the corresponding temperatures, T3 and T4, as
described in Reference 1 may be used for Equation (11a) and is repeated below to be complete:
Initial estimate for T3 and T4 (expressed in absolute temperature units) are:
Eqn. (12a)
Eqn. (12b)
Using these initial values, the compressibility factors at the two intermediate points may be found via an EOS and the values
for a, b, c and d may be calculated by solving the four simultaneous equations for Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 of Equation (11a) and
then the polytropic efficiency using Equation (11b). Next the entropy values s3 and s4 may be calculated via an EOS as given
by Equations (13a) and (13b).
Eqn. (13a) s3 = Entropy at P3 and T3 via an EOS
Eqn. (13a) s4 = Entropy at P4 and T4 via an EOS
Now the expression for entropy given by Equation (11b) may be evaluated at pressures P3 and P4 (rather than at P2) to improve
the estimate of the intermediate temperatures along the polytropic path. Using the latest values of a, b, c, d and polytropic
efficiency, e, equations (14a) and (14b) will calculate the expected values of entropy along the polytropic path, s3' and s4' at
these intermediate points. If the values of a, b, c, d and e are fully converged and correct, then s3' should equal s3 and s4'
should equal s4.
Eqn. (14a)
Eqn. (14b)
If these values are not converged, then improved values of these intermediate temperatures may be calculated using Equations
(15a) and (15b).
Eqn. (15a)
Eqn. (15b)
With these improved intermediate temperatures, the calculations for a, b, c, d and polytropic efficiency using Equation (11a)
and (11b) should be repeated as well as Equations (13a), (13b), (14a), (14b), (15a) and (15b) until the entropy values at the
intermediate points are converged. This author has found for many examples that three iterations (i.e. successive substitution
of T3' for T3 and T4' for T4) are almost always adequate to converge the intermediate entropy values but the author generally
uses a fixed five iterations to be absolutely sure of convergence.
To demonstrate the accuracy of the 3- and 4-point Huntington methods, Figure 6 is modified with these two calculations
added and is shown in Figure 7, below:

26950
Huntington 4-Point
26900
26850
Huntington 3-Point Improved Small Stage

26800
1985 Reference
26750 Small Stage
Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
26700
Huntington 3-Point
26650 Huntington 4-Point
26600
1 10 100 1000
Fig. 7 - Comparison of Numerical Integration Methods with Huntington 3- & 4-Point Methods
For this example, the 1985 Huntington 3-point method calculates a value of polytropic head that is 0.021% less than the
average of the 1985 Reference and Improved Small Stage methods at 600 steps. Assuming that this average is an acceptable
basis for comparisons, the 3-point method is more accurate than the Small Stage method at 300 steps (-0.021% vs. -0.031%),
more accurate than the 1985 Reference Method at 20 Steps (-0.021% vs. +0.043%) and more accurate than the SC20 method
(-.021% vs. -0.058%).
Regarding the 2017 Huntington 4-point method, it calculates a value of polytropic head that is 0.002% greater than the
average of the 1985 Reference and Improved Small Stage methods at 600 steps. This new 4-point method is more accurate
than the uncorrected Small Stage method at 600 steps.
Appendix A provides a tabulation of sample cases that have been used in past publications for the comparison of various
Polytropic calculation methods. Appendix B1, B2 and B3 tabulate the results the Huntington 3-Point, Huntington 4-Point and
the Sandberg-Colby 20 step methods, plus the Small Stage, 1985 Reference, and Improved Small Stage methods at 20, 50,
100, 300 and 600 steps. And Appendix C tabulates the deviations of these methods at these number of steps from the averages
of the 600-step results of the 2017 Reference (see next section), 1985 Reference and the Improved Small Stage methods. The
average of these methods was selected as the base for all comparisons since the results of these were within +/- 2 ppm for all
cases. In addition, charts similar to Figure 7 that show a progression for the numerical integration methods from 5 steps to
600 are included in Appendix D for each of these sample cases.
These charts in Appendix D are useful to demonstrate that all of the numerical integration methods eventually achieve the
same asymptotic value of polytropic head that is assumed to be the average of the 600-step results of the 2017 Reference,
1985 Reference and the Improved Small Stage methods. So it should be concluded that the asymptote is the correct and most
accurate value of polytropic head that may be calculated for each case and it is these values that should be (and are) used as
a basis for comparisons of the various methods, whether they are end-point methods or numerical integration methods, in
Appendices B1, B2 and B3.
Since all of the numerical integration methods eventually reach the same asymptote for each case, to judge the accuracy of
these methods, one must only consider which are inherently more accurate by their formulations and executions and therefore
reach the asymptote with fewer required integration steps than the others. By observation, the most accurate numerical
integration method is the 2017 Reference Method that is described in the next section.
Revisiting Numerical Integration Methods
New 2017 Reference Method: The original focus of this paper was to highlight the new Huntington 4-Point method. But it
became apparent that the 1985 Reference method1 should also be updated and replaced. The 1985 Reference method was
based on a simple numerical integration of VdP with the specific volume linearized over each step of the integration [See
Equation (2)]. However, it is clear that a much improved basis for a Reference method would be to use Equations (6) and (7),
which are exact, and the simplest form of the Z(P) expression from Equation (8), specifically Equation (8a), for each step of
the numerical integration. From these bases, Equation (16) below provides the equations for each step of a new polytropic
numerical integration method:
Eqn. (16a)
Eqn. (16b)
Eqn. (16c)
As defined by Equation (16a), the compressibility factor is assumed to vary linearly with pressure over each sub-path of the
integration. Equation (16b) gives the coefficients for the Equation (16a) and Equation (16c) shows how to calculate the
entropy at the end of the ith sub-path, si+1. At the start of the numerical integration, Zi,, Pi, si, and Pi+1 are known; Zi+1 is not.
So, a secondary iteration loop within the numerical integration process is needed to converge on the value of Zi+1 for each
sub-path. The author has found for many cases that several iterations of successive substitution are sufficient after starting
with an initial value of Zi+1 = Zi. That is, the initial value assumes that the compressibility factor does not change over the
sub-path and Equations (16a) through (16c) are used to update Zi+1 for each sub-path.
The process to execute this new 2017 Reference method follows: As with other methods, first the path from state 1 to state 2
is divided into n sub-paths of equal pressure ratio to establish all of the sub-path pressures from P1 through Pn. The two nested
iteration loops include an inner iteration loop used to converge the value of Zi+1 for each sub-path and the outer iteration loop
that, like the other methods, adjusts the assumed polytropic efficiency to converge on the desired outlet temperature at state
2. For each sub-path, start the inner iteration loop with a value of Zi+1 = Zi and use the current values of Zi,, Pi, and Pi+1 to
calculate ai and bi via Equation (16b). With ai, bi, si (value of entropy at the start of the ith sub-path) and e (current value of
the polytropic efficiency estimate), use Equation (16c) to calculate the value of si+1 for this iteration. The next value of Zi+1
may be calculated via an EOS by using a pressure-entropy property evaluation or Zi+1 = EOS_Compressibility_Factor(P =
Pi+1 and s = si+1). If the change of Zi+1 is less than an acceptable tolerance, then the process may continue to the next sub-path
in the same manner.
Similar to the other numerical integration methods, once the nth sub-path is completed, the final resulting temperature may be
compared to the desired outlet temperature. If this is within an acceptable tolerance, then the current value of polytropic
efficiency is correct. If the final calculated temperature is not within the acceptable tolerance, then the estimated polytropic
efficiency should be adjusted and the inner and outer iteration loops repeated until the final calculated temperature is within
the accepted tolerance.
Once the 2017 Reference method iteration loops are successfully completed, the Polytropic Efficiency for the case is known
and the Polytropic Head may be found from this efficiency multiplied by the enthalpy change from state 1 to state 2:
Eqn. (17)
As done previously, Figure 7 has been modified to now include this new 2017 Reference Method as shown below:
26950
Huntington 4-Point
26900
26850
Huntington 3-Point 2017 Reference

26800
Improved Small Stage
26750 1985 Reference
Small Stage
26700 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
Huntington 3-Point
26650 Huntington 4-Point
26600
1 10 100 1000
Fig. 8 – Comparison of Numerical Integration Methods with the 2017 Reference Method
From Figure 8, it is clear that the 2017 Reference method reaches the same asymptotic value of head as the other numerical
integration methods. At 600 steps, the difference between the 2017 Reference and the average of the 1985 Reference and the
Improved Small Stage method is 1.9 ppm (parts per million) or 0.00019%. But the 2017 Reference method appears to be
inherently more accurate than any of these other numerical integration methods because it reaches the asymptotic value at a
much lower number of steps than required by the others. For example, at 5 integration steps, it is 0.024% below the asymptote;
at 50 steps, the difference is 3.6 ppm; and at 200 steps the difference is 1.4 ppm.
Comparison of Methods: The five numerical integration methods and the 3- and 4-point Huntington methods have been
described in the previous sections. These methods may each be used to perform polytropic calculations but with various levels
of error. For each sample case included in the Appendices, deviations of all methods for various numbers of steps have been
calculated vs. the best available value for each case. These are listed in Appendix C. The best value for each case is assumed
to be the average of the 2017 Reference, Improved Small Stage and 1985 Reference methods at 600 integration steps and
each of these differed by less than 2 ppm from the average for every case.
Figure 9 plots the average absolute deviations of all of the sample cases for each method vs. the number of integration steps.
Of the numerical integration methods, the best accuracy is offered by the 2017 Reference method. Based on Figure 9, the
average deviation reduces from about 150 ppm (0.015%) at 5 steps to less than 1 ppm at 100 steps. The deviation reduces in
proportion to 1/n2 so that a doubling of the number of steps reduces the deviation by a factor of 4. The Improved Small Stage
and the 1985 Reference methods are less accurate than the 2017 Reference method. The deviations of these two methods
reduce from about 1000 ppm (0.1%) and 10,000 ppm (1%) at 5 steps to about 3 ppm and 25 ppm at 100 steps. The rate of
reduction is similar to the 2017 Reference and is proportional to 1/n2. The Small Stage method is the least accurate of the
numerical integration methods and worse yet as its rate of reduction of the deviation is slower than the other methods. For
the Small Stage method, the deviation reduces in proportion to 1/n. As such, to reduce the deviation of the Small Stage by a
factor of 2, the number of steps must be doubled. So a very large number of steps is needed to reach the same accuracy as the
other methods.
The Huntington 3-point, 4-point and the Sandberg-Colby 20-step methods are also included on Figure 9. The best end-point
method is the Huntington 4-point method with an average deviation of 34 ppm. To achieve a better accuracy for polytropic
analyses, one of the numerical integration methods may be used. It is reasonable that a substantial improvement of the
accuracy should be expected with an integration method versus an end point method. Figure 9 can be used to estimate the
number of steps required by each integration method to achieve such an improvement. For example, if a 10 ppm target is a
reasonable improvement over the Huntington 4-point method’s 34 ppm, then the minimum number of integration steps
required for the 2017 Reference is about 20 steps, the Improved Small Stage minimum is about 50 steps and the 1985
Reference minimum is about 150 steps. For the Small Stage, extrapolating this chart gives an estimate of 3600 steps to reach
a 10 ppm average deviation. Clearly, this may not be practical and so the Small Stage method is the least attractive method
even with its relatively easy process to execute this procedure but especially since the Improved Small Stage is only slightly
more difficult to execute and so much more accurate.
Absolute Average Deviation vs. No. of Integraton Steps

10000
1000
Deviation, ppm
100
10 2017 Reference
1985 Reference
Small Stage
1
Sandberg-Colby
Huntington 3-Point
Huntington 4-Point
0.1
1 10 100 1000
No. of Integration Steps
Fig. 9 – Comparison of Deviations for the Numerical Integration Methods
Conclusions: Over the 40 years since Mallen & Saville4 questioned the accuracy of the Schultz2 method to calculate
polytropic head for turbomachinery, many authors including this one, have commented, evaluated and criticized the Schultz
method and some have offered alternative calculation methods to improve the accuracy of polytropic calculations. The
overwhelming consensus of these authors, especially the more recent work, is that the Schultz method within PTC-103, while
a leading technology when it was published in 1962, has passed its expiry date and needs to be replaced by other more
accurate methods in a future revision of PTC-10.
This paper acknowledges the excellent work by Evans and Huble14 to evaluate the accuracy of many of the calculations
methods proposed over these 40 years. In Table 1, these data from Reference 14 are summarized to show that the most
consistently accurate end point method is the Huntington 3-point. However, this author disagrees that the Small Stage
numerical integration method at 100 steps is a good basis to judge other methods. This paper shows the source of a consistent
deviation between the Small Stage method for any number of steps and the most accurate polytropic head available and offers
a new Improved Small Stage method by correcting for this consistent deviation. While the uncorrected Small Stage method
does find the actual polytropic head when the number of steps is very large and is exact with an infinite number of steps, the
Improved Small Stage method achieves an equal accuracy at 20 steps as achieved by the uncorrected Small Stage at 600
steps.
Further, this paper documents the development of two new polytropic calculation methods to further increase the accuracy
for both the end point methods and the numerical integration methods. Both of these new methods employ variations of the
Huntington 3-Point method. In this method from Reference 1, a 3-term equation is used to model the variations of the
compressibility factor along a constant efficiency polytropic path. As other equations may be used with the Huntington
method, a new Huntington 4-Point method has been developed that uses a 4-term compressibility equation to substantially
improve the accuracy over the 3-Point version. In addition, a linear equation for Z(P) is used for each step of a numerical
integration along the constant efficiency polytropic path. This new 2017 Reference method, substantially improves the
accuracy over other numerical integration methods. This 2017 Reference method finds the asymptotic value of head found
by other methods by using a factor of more than 10 times fewer steps. As such, it appears that this new method has a
formulation that models the variation of fluid properties along the constant efficiency polytropic path better than the
alternatives and so has a greater inherent accuracy. Further the new Huntington 4-Point method, as shown in the tabulations
of Appendix C, has better accuracy than the (uncorrected) Small Stage method up to at least 600 steps. The average absolute
deviation of the Huntington 4-Point method is 0.0034% for all of the sample cases while the similar value for the Small Stage
is 0.0061% with a 600 step integration.
It is clear that the computational effort required for the 600-Step Small Stage far exceeds that of the Huntington 4-Point to
achieve a less accurate result. If even better accuracy is needed, then the Improved Small Stage or the 2017 Reference methods
are recommended. If both best accuracy and least computational effort are required, then the 2017 Reference with around 50
steps may be the best compromise with an average absolute deviation of less than 2 ppm (0.0002%) for all cases; the Improved
Small Stage method (the next best) requires about 150 steps to achieve a better accuracy.
Finally, full results of these various methods for all of the sample cases are provided in the Appendices.
Richard Huntington
Oak Hill Turbo & Associates
September 4, 2017
1
Huntington, R.A., “Evaluation of Polytropic Calculation Methods for Turbomachinery Performance”, ASME J. for Engr. &
Power, Vol. 107, pp. 872-879, October 1985.
2
Schultz, John M., “The Polytropic Analysis of Centrifugal Compressors”, ASME J. of Engr. For Power, pp. 69-82, January
1962.
3
ASME Performance Test Code 10 – 1997 on Compressors and Exhausters, ASME, New York, 1997.
4
Mallen, M. and Saville, G., 1977, “Polytropic Processes in the Performance Prediction of Centrifugal Compressors,” I. Mech.
E. Conference Publications C183/77, pp. 89-96.
5
Nathoo, N. S. and Gottenberg, W. G., 1981, “Measuring the Thermodynamic Performance of Multistage Compressors
Operating on Mixed Hydrocarbon Gases,” Proceedings of the Tenth Turbomachinery Symposium, Turbomachinery
Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, pp. 15-23.
6
Nathoo, N. S. and Gottenberg, W. G., 1983, “A New Look at Performance Analysis of Centrifugal Compressors Operating
with Mixed Hydrocarbon Gases,” ASME Journal of Engineering for Power, 105, pp. 920-926.
7
Huntington, R.A., “Limitations of The Schultz Calculation for Polytropic Head - A Proposal for Revision of PTC-10”, DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.1.2088.4087, www.researchgate.net, January 1997.
8
Hundseid, O., Bakken, L. E. and Helde, T., 2006, “A Revised Compressor Polytropic Performance Analysis,” Proceedings of
ASME GT2006, Paper Number 91033, ASME Turbo Expo 2006.
9
Oldrich, J., 2010, “Advanced Polytropic Calculation Method of Centrifugal Compressor,” Proceedings of ASME IMECE2010,
Paper Number 40931, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition 2010.
10
Sandberg, M. R. and Colby, G. M., 2013, “Limitations of ASME PTC 10 in Accurately Evaluating Centrifugal Compressor
Thermodynamic Performance,” Proceedings of the 42nd Turbomachinery Symposium, Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas.
11
Taher, M., 2014, “ASME PTC-10 Performance Testing of Centrifugal Compressors – The Real Gas Calculation Method,”
Proceedings of ASME GT2014, Paper Number 26411, ASME Turbo Expo 2014.
12
Wettstein, H. E., 2014, “Polytropic Change of State Calculations,” Proceedings of ASME IMECE2014, Paper Number 36202,
ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition 2014.
13
Plano, M., 2014, “Evaluation of Thermodynamic Models used for Wet Gas Compressor Design,” Innovative Sustainable
Energy Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
14
Evans, B. F. and Huble, S. R., 2017, Centrifugal Compressor Polytropic Performance: Consistently Accurate Results from
Improved Real Gas Calculations, Proceedings of ASME GT2017, Paper Number 65235, ASME Turbo Expo 2017.
15
Evans, B. F. and Huble, S. R., 2017 Tutorial, “Centrifugal Compressor Performance Making Enlightened Analysis Decisions”,
The 46thTurbomachinery Symposium, Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Appendix A - Thermodynamic Properties per NIST REFPROP rev. 9.1
Case Gas Composition - Thermodynamic Properties by NIST REFPROP ver. 9.1 Operating Conditions Enthalpy Change
Enthalpy Change (ft-lbf/lbm)

Sample Case Designation
Outlet Temperature (˚C)
Enthalpy Change (kJ/kg)

Outlet Temperature (˚F)
Inlet Temperature (˚C)

Inlet Temperature (˚F)
Outlet Pressure (bara)

Outlet Pressure (psia)
Inlet Pressure (bara)

Inlet Pressure (psia)
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbon Dioxide
Mole Weight
Isopentane
Isobutane
Methane
Ethylene
Nitrogen
Propane
Pentane
Hexane
Ethane
Butane
R134A
R12
Evans & Huble14
Case 01 - Schultz 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 120.913 10.00 130.00 -10.00 210.00 0.689 8.963 -23.33 98.89 23034.58 68.851
Evans & Huble
Case 02 - Hunt 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.054 362.50 7250.00 98.30 566.30 24.993 499.870 36.83 296.83 146987.93 439.350
Evans & Huble
Case 03 - Hunt 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.054 362.50 4351.20 98.30 503.30 24.993 300.005 36.83 261.83 121026.68 361.751
Evans & Huble
Case 04 - Hunt 4 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 44.010 1100.10 6000.30 98.30 368.30 75.849 413.706 36.83 186.83 41760.95 124.824
Evans & Huble
Case 05 - SC A 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.026 1500.00 5364.30 90.00 291.30 103.421 369.855 32.22 144.06 42410.72 126.767
Evans & Huble
Case 06 - SC B 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.026 1500.00 6738.80 90.00 331.00 103.421 464.624 32.22 166.11 53598.73 160.208
Evans & Huble
Case 07 - SC C 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.026 1500.00 7496.20 90.00 350.00 103.421 516.845 32.22 176.67 59374.38 177.471
Evans & Huble
Case 08 - SC D 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.026 1700.00 6685.90 70.00 259.20 117.211 460.977 21.11 126.22 42410.57 126.766
Evans & Huble
Case 09 - SC E 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.026 1700.00 8359.20 70.00 294.50 117.211 576.347 21.11 145.83 53586.96 160.173
Evans & Huble
Case 10 - SC F 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 30.026 1700.00 9266.90 70.00 311.50 117.211 638.930 21.11 155.28 59395.84 177.535
Evans & Huble
Case 11 - SC G 0.2629 71.2356 0.0000 25.6274 2.2871 0.5691 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 36.490 1649.70 8189.70 101.20 316.20 113.743 564.660 38.44 157.89 42377.81 126.668
Evans & Huble
Case 12 - SC H 0.2629 71.2356 0.0000 25.6274 2.2871 0.5691 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 36.490 1649.70 10388.10 101.20 354.00 113.743 716.234 38.44 178.89 53584.97 160.167
Evans & Huble
Case 13 - SC I 0.2629 71.2356 0.0000 25.6274 2.2871 0.5691 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 1649.70 11577.40 101.20 372.10 113.743 798.234 38.44 188.94 59392.39 177.525
Evans & Huble
Case 14 - SC J 0.6933 31.6646 0.0000 60.4842 5.5619 1.5369 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.233 3138.60 8615.60 98.50 223.40 216.399 594.025 36.94 106.33 42394.72 126.719
Evans & Huble
Case 15 - SC K 0.6933 31.6646 0.0000 60.4842 5.5619 1.5369 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.233 3138.60 10273.40 98.50 248.80 216.399 708.326 36.94 120.44 53616.24 160.260
Evans & Huble
Case 16 - SC L 0.6933 31.6646 0.0000 60.4842 5.5619 1.5369 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.233 3138.60 11157.30 98.50 261.20 216.399 769.269 36.94 127.33 59424.06 177.620
Evans & Huble
Case 17 - SC M 0.2477 1.2468 0.0000 68.8671 11.9957 10.2964 3.1432 2.7541 0.8927 0.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.287 868.80 2405.30 124.90 267.10 59.902 165.840 51.61 130.61 42381.12 126.678
Evans & Huble
Case 18 - SC N 0.2477 1.2468 0.0000 68.8671 11.9957 10.2964 3.1432 2.7541 0.8927 0.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.287 868.80 3002.50 124.90 298.80 59.902 207.015 51.61 148.22 53577.43 160.144
Evans & Huble
Case 19 - SC O 0.2477 1.2468 0.0000 68.8671 11.9957 10.2964 3.1432 2.7541 0.8927 0.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.287 868.80 3342.70 124.90 314.10 59.902 230.471 51.61 156.72 59339.89 177.368
Evans & Huble
Case 20 - SC P 0.2477 1.2468 0.0000 68.8671 11.9957 10.2964 3.1432 2.7541 0.8927 0.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.287 1891.30 5438.20 120.00 238.30 130.401 374.951 48.89 114.61 42376.88 126.665
Evans & Huble
Case 22 - SC R 0.2477 1.2468 0.0000 68.8671 11.9957 10.2964 3.1432 2.7541 0.8927 0.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.287 1891.30 7188.60 120.00 271.10 130.401 495.637 48.89 132.83 59364.93 177.443
Evans & Huble
Case 37 - SC AG 0.0657 41.3000 0.0000 18.5790 1.5920 37.9660 0.0884 0.3071 0.0134 0.0884 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 38.698 335.00 2862.00 100.00 385.10 23.097 197.328 37.78 196.17 59378.81 177.485
Appendix B1 - Polytropic Head Results for Sample Cases (ft-lbf/lbm)
End Point Methods 600-Step Numerical Integration 300-Step Numerical Integration 100-Step Numerical Integration 50-Step Numerical Integration 20-Step Numerical Integration
Small Stage (uncorrected)


Huntington 4-Point
Huntington 3-Point
Sandberg-Colby
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
Evans & Huble14
Case 01 – Schultz 17285.9 17286.6 17286.0 17286.0 17286.0 17284.5 17286.0 17285.9 17286.1 17283.0 17286.0 17285.9 17287.5 17277.1 17286.0 17285.5 17292.1 17268.2 17286.0 17283.4 17324.2 17241.4 17285.4
Evans & Huble
Case 02 - Hunt 2 118457.1 118451.5 118493.4 118493.5 118493.8 118481.4 118493.4 118493.4 118494.8 118469.2 118493.5 118492.5 118504.7 118420.7 118493.9 118489.5 118538.4 118347.9 118496.2 118469.0 118774.0 118130.0 118521.6
Evans & Huble
Case 03 - Hunt 3 90914.5 90927.0 90926.2 90926.3 90926.5 90915.1 90926.2 90926.2 90927.0 90903.9 90926.3 90925.5 90932.5 90859.2 90926.5 90923.2 90951.1 90792.1 90928.1 90907.3 91081.2 90590.9 90936.9
Evans & Huble
Case 04 - Hunt 4 26873.4 26867.2 26872.7 26872.8 26872.8 26868.6 26872.7 26872.8 26872.8 26864.5 26872.7 26872.6 26873.2 26847.8 26872.7 26872.1 26874.6 26823.0 26872.3 26868.6 26884.3 26748.8 26875.2
Evans & Huble
Case 05 - SC A 34796.4 34795.2 34796.5 34796.5 34796.5 34794.7 34796.5 34796.5 34796.5 34793.0 34796.5 34796.4 34796.9 34785.9 34796.5 34796.3 34798.2 34775.3 34796.5 34795.1 34807.0 34743.5 34798.1
Evans & Huble
Case 06 - SC B 43985.9 43982.8 43985.9 43985.9 43985.9 43983.3 43985.9 43985.9 43986.0 43980.8 43985.9 43985.8 43986.6 43970.5 43985.9 43985.5 43988.7 43955.1 43985.8 43983.5 44003.4 43908.9 43988.7
Evans & Huble
Case 07 - SC C 48736.3 48731.7 48736.2 48736.2 48736.3 48733.2 48736.2 48736.2 48736.3 48730.2 48736.2 48736.1 48737.1 48718.2 48736.2 48735.8 48739.7 48700.1 48736.1 48733.2 48758.0 48646.1 48739.8
Evans & Huble
Case 08 - SC D 34795.8 34793.7 34795.4 34795.5 34795.5 34793.7 34795.4 34795.5 34795.5 34792.0 34795.4 34795.4 34795.8 34785.1 34795.4 34795.2 34796.9 34774.7 34795.3 34794.0 34804.7 34743.7 34797.2
Evans & Huble
Case 09 - SC E 43986.1 43981.3 43985.3 43985.3 43985.3 43982.8 43985.3 43985.3 43985.4 43980.3 43985.3 43985.2 43985.9 43970.4 43985.2 43984.9 43987.7 43955.4 43984.9 43983.0 44000.1 43910.9 43988.0
Evans & Huble
Case 10 - SC F 48740.5 48733.7 48739.3 48739.4 48739.4 48736.5 48739.3 48739.4 48739.5 48733.5 48739.3 48739.3 48740.1 48721.9 48739.3 48738.9 48742.3 48704.4 48738.8 48736.5 48757.5 48652.2 48742.7
Evans & Huble
Case 11 - SC G 34794.9 34790.7 34794.1 34794.1 34794.1 34792.3 34794.1 34794.1 34794.2 34790.5 34794.1 34794.1 34794.6 34783.1 34794.1 34793.9 34796.0 34772.2 34793.8 34792.4 34805.7 34739.4 34796.5
Evans & Huble
Case 12 - SC H 43988.1 43979.0 43986.4 43986.4 43986.4 43983.8 43986.4 43986.4 43986.5 43981.2 43986.4 43986.3 43987.1 43970.7 43986.3 43986.0 43989.3 43955.0 43985.8 43983.7 44004.4 43908.3 43990.0
Evans & Huble
Case 13 - SC I 48743.2 48730.6 48740.8 48740.8 48740.9 48737.8 48740.8 48740.8 48740.9 48734.7 48740.8 48740.7 48741.7 48722.5 48740.7 48740.3 48744.3 48704.2 48740.0 48737.5 48762.4 48649.7 48745.1
Evans & Huble
Case 14 - SC J 34790.0 34789.4 34789.9 34789.9 34789.9 34788.8 34789.9 34789.9 34790.0 34787.7 34789.9 34789.9 34790.1 34783.3 34789.9 34789.8 34790.4 34776.7 34789.7 34789.3 34793.0 34757.0 34790.3
Evans & Huble
Case 15 - SC K 43982.3 43980.7 43982.0 43982.1 43982.1 43980.4 43982.0 43982.1 43982.1 43978.8 43982.0 43982.0 43982.3 43972.3 43982.0 43981.9 43982.9 43962.5 43981.6 43981.0 43987.3 43933.4 43982.7
Evans & Huble
Case 16 - SC L 48736.2 48733.9 48735.8 48735.9 48735.9 48733.9 48735.8 48735.9 48735.9 48732.0 48735.8 48735.8 48736.1 48724.3 48735.7 48735.7 48736.9 48712.8 48735.3 48734.5 48742.3 48678.3 48736.7
Evans & Huble
Case 17 - SC M 34782.3 34782.3 34782.5 34782.5 34782.5 34781.3 34782.5 34782.5 34782.6 34780.0 34782.5 34782.5 34782.9 34775.1 34782.5 34782.4 34784.2 34767.7 34782.6 34781.6 34792.8 34745.4 34783.4
Evans & Huble
Case 18 - SC N 43971.2 43970.8 43971.6 43971.6 43971.7 43969.8 43971.6 43971.6 43971.7 43967.9 43971.6 43971.6 43972.4 43960.5 43971.7 43971.4 43974.6 43949.3 43971.9 43970.0 43990.4 43915.9 43973.7
Evans & Huble
Case 19 - SC O 48717.6 48716.9 48718.3 48718.3 48718.3 48716.1 48718.3 48718.3 48718.4 48713.9 48718.3 48718.2 48719.3 48705.1 48718.3 48718.0 48722.2 48691.8 48718.6 48716.2 48742.5 48652.1 48721.1
Evans & Huble
Case 20 - SC P 34760.1 34759.2 34759.9 34759.9 34759.9 34758.9 34759.9 34759.9 34760.0 34757.9 34759.9 34759.9 34760.2 34753.7 34759.9 34759.8 34760.9 34747.5 34759.9 34759.2 34765.7 34728.9 34761.3
Evans & Huble
Case 22 - SC R 48692.1 48688.9 48691.4 48691.4 48691.4 48689.6 48691.4 48691.4 48691.5 48687.8 48691.4 48691.4 48691.9 48680.7 48691.4 48691.2 48693.3 48670.1 48691.2 48689.9 48703.2 48638.3 48694.1
Evans & Huble
Case 37 - SC AG 48731.5 48738.0 48734.6 48734.6 48734.7 48731.4 48734.6 48734.6 48734.9 48728.1 48734.6 48734.4 48737.5 48715.0 48734.8 48733.8 48746.1 48695.4 48735.6 48729.8 48806.3 48636.5 48739.5
Appendix B2 - Polytropic Head Results for Sample Cases (kJ/kg)


Huntington 4-Point
Huntington 3-Point
Sandberg-Colby
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
Evans & Huble14
Case 01 - Schultz 51.668 51.670 51.668 51.668 51.668 51.664 51.668 51.668 51.669 51.659 51.668 51.668 51.673 51.642 51.668 51.667 51.686 51.615 51.668 51.660 51.782 51.535 51.666
Evans & Huble
Case 02 - Hunt 2 354.071 354.054 354.179 354.180 354.181 354.143 354.179 354.179 354.183 354.107 354.180 354.177 354.213 353.962 354.181 354.168 354.314 353.744 354.188 354.106 355.018 353.093 354.264
Evans & Huble
Case 03 - Hunt 3 271.745 271.783 271.780 271.781 271.781 271.747 271.780 271.780 271.783 271.714 271.781 271.778 271.799 271.580 271.781 271.771 271.855 271.380 271.786 271.724 272.244 270.778 271.812
Evans & Huble
Case 04 - Hunt 4 80.325 80.307 80.323 80.323 80.323 80.311 80.323 80.323 80.323 80.298 80.323 80.323 80.325 80.249 80.323 80.321 80.329 80.174 80.322 80.311 80.358 79.953 80.330
Evans & Huble
Case 05 - SC A 104.007 104.004 104.007 104.007 104.008 104.002 104.007 104.007 104.008 103.997 104.007 104.007 104.009 103.976 104.007 104.007 104.012 103.944 104.007 104.003 104.039 103.849 104.012
Evans & Huble
Case 06 - SC B 131.475 131.465 131.475 131.475 131.475 131.467 131.475 131.475 131.475 131.459 131.475 131.475 131.477 131.429 131.475 131.474 131.483 131.383 131.474 131.468 131.527 131.245 131.483
Evans & Huble
Case 07 - SC C 145.674 145.660 145.674 145.674 145.674 145.665 145.674 145.674 145.674 145.656 145.674 145.673 145.676 145.620 145.673 145.672 145.684 145.566 145.673 145.665 145.739 145.404 145.684
Evans & Huble
Case 08 - SC D 104.005 103.999 104.004 104.004 104.004 103.999 104.004 104.004 104.005 103.994 104.004 104.004 104.006 103.973 104.004 104.004 104.009 103.942 104.004 104.000 104.032 103.850 104.009
Evans & Huble
Case 09 - SC E 131.475 131.461 131.473 131.473 131.473 131.466 131.473 131.473 131.473 131.458 131.473 131.473 131.475 131.428 131.473 131.472 131.480 131.384 131.472 131.466 131.517 131.251 131.481
Evans & Huble
Case 10 - SC F 145.686 145.666 145.683 145.683 145.683 145.674 145.683 145.683 145.683 145.666 145.683 145.683 145.685 145.631 145.683 145.682 145.692 145.578 145.681 145.674 145.737 145.423 145.693
Evans & Huble
Case 11 - SC G 104.003 103.990 104.000 104.000 104.000 103.995 104.000 104.000 104.001 103.989 104.000 104.000 104.002 103.968 104.000 104.000 104.006 103.935 103.999 103.995 104.035 103.837 104.007
Evans & Huble
Case 12 - SC H 131.481 131.454 131.476 131.476 131.476 131.469 131.476 131.476 131.477 131.461 131.476 131.476 131.479 131.429 131.476 131.475 131.485 131.383 131.474 131.468 131.530 131.243 131.487
Evans & Huble
Case 13 - SC I 145.695 145.657 145.687 145.687 145.687 145.678 145.687 145.687 145.688 145.669 145.687 145.687 145.690 145.633 145.687 145.686 145.698 145.578 145.685 145.677 145.752 145.415 145.700
Evans & Huble
Case 14 - SC J 103.988 103.986 103.988 103.988 103.988 103.985 103.988 103.988 103.988 103.981 103.988 103.988 103.988 103.968 103.988 103.988 103.989 103.948 103.987 103.986 103.997 103.889 103.989
Evans & Huble
Case 15 - SC K 131.464 131.459 131.463 131.463 131.463 131.458 131.463 131.463 131.463 131.454 131.463 131.463 131.464 131.434 131.463 131.463 131.466 131.405 131.462 131.460 131.479 131.318 131.465
Evans & Huble
Case 16 - SC L 145.674 145.667 145.672 145.673 145.673 145.667 145.672 145.673 145.673 145.661 145.672 145.672 145.673 145.638 145.672 145.672 145.676 145.604 145.671 145.669 145.692 145.501 145.675
Evans & Huble
Case 17 - SC M 103.965 103.965 103.966 103.966 103.966 103.962 103.966 103.966 103.966 103.958 103.966 103.966 103.967 103.943 103.966 103.965 103.971 103.921 103.966 103.963 103.996 103.855 103.968
Evans & Huble
Case 18 - SC N 131.431 131.430 131.432 131.432 131.432 131.427 131.432 131.432 131.432 131.421 131.432 131.432 131.434 131.399 131.432 131.431 131.441 131.365 131.433 131.427 131.488 131.265 131.438
Evans & Huble
Case 19 - SC O 145.618 145.616 145.620 145.620 145.620 145.613 145.620 145.620 145.620 145.607 145.620 145.620 145.623 145.580 145.620 145.619 145.632 145.541 145.621 145.614 145.692 145.422 145.628
Evans & Huble
Case 20 - SC P 103.899 103.896 103.898 103.898 103.898 103.895 103.898 103.898 103.898 103.892 103.898 103.898 103.899 103.880 103.898 103.898 103.901 103.861 103.898 103.896 103.916 103.805 103.902
Evans & Huble
Case 22 - SC R 145.542 145.532 145.540 145.540 145.540 145.534 145.540 145.540 145.540 145.529 145.540 145.539 145.541 145.508 145.539 145.539 145.545 145.476 145.539 145.535 145.575 145.381 145.548
Evans & Huble
Case 37 - SC AG 145.659 145.679 145.669 145.669 145.669 145.659 145.669 145.669 145.670 145.649 145.669 145.668 145.677 145.610 145.669 145.666 145.703 145.552 145.672 145.654 145.883 145.375 145.683
Appendix B3 - Polytropic Efficiency Results for Sample Cases (%)


Huntington 4-Point
Huntington 3-Point
Sandberg-Colby
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
Evans & Huble14
Case 01 - Schultz 75.043% 75.046% 75.044% 75.043% 75.044% 75.037% 75.044% 75.043% 75.044% 75.031% 75.044% 75.043% 75.050% 75.005% 75.044% 75.042% 75.070% 74.966% 75.044% 75.032% 75.209% 74.850% 75.041%
Evans & Huble
Case 02 - Hunt 2 80.590% 80.586% 80.614% 80.614% 80.615% 80.606% 80.614% 80.614% 80.615% 80.598% 80.614% 80.614% 80.622% 80.565% 80.615% 80.612% 80.645% 80.515% 80.616% 80.598% 80.805% 80.367% 80.634%
Evans & Huble
Case 03 - Hunt 3 75.119% 75.130% 75.129% 75.129% 75.129% 75.120% 75.129% 75.129% 75.130% 75.111% 75.129% 75.128% 75.134% 75.074% 75.129% 75.127% 75.150% 75.018% 75.131% 75.113% 75.257% 74.852% 75.138%
Evans & Huble
Case 04 - Hunt 4 64.350% 64.336% 64.349% 64.349% 64.349% 64.339% 64.349% 64.349% 64.349% 64.329% 64.349% 64.349% 64.350% 64.289% 64.349% 64.347% 64.353% 64.230% 64.348% 64.339% 64.377% 64.052% 64.355%
Evans & Huble
Case 05 - SC A 82.046% 82.043% 82.046% 82.046% 82.046% 82.042% 82.046% 82.046% 82.047% 82.038% 82.046% 82.046% 82.047% 82.021% 82.046% 82.046% 82.050% 81.996% 82.046% 82.043% 82.071% 81.921% 82.050%
Evans & Huble
Case 06 - SC B 82.065% 82.059% 82.065% 82.065% 82.065% 82.060% 82.065% 82.065% 82.065% 82.056% 82.065% 82.065% 82.067% 82.036% 82.065% 82.064% 82.070% 82.008% 82.065% 82.061% 82.098% 81.922% 82.070%
Evans & Huble
Case 07 - SC C 82.083% 82.075% 82.083% 82.083% 82.083% 82.078% 82.083% 82.083% 82.083% 82.073% 82.083% 82.083% 82.084% 82.052% 82.083% 82.082% 82.089% 82.022% 82.083% 82.078% 82.120% 81.931% 82.089%
Evans & Huble
Case 08 - SC D 82.045% 82.040% 82.044% 82.044% 82.044% 82.040% 82.044% 82.044% 82.044% 82.036% 82.044% 82.044% 82.045% 82.020% 82.044% 82.044% 82.048% 81.995% 82.044% 82.041% 82.066% 81.922% 82.048%
Evans & Huble
Case 09 - SC E 82.084% 82.075% 82.082% 82.082% 82.082% 82.077% 82.082% 82.082% 82.082% 82.073% 82.082% 82.082% 82.083% 82.054% 82.082% 82.081% 82.087% 82.026% 82.081% 82.078% 82.110% 81.943% 82.087%
Evans & Huble
Case 10 - SC F 82.060% 82.049% 82.059% 82.059% 82.059% 82.054% 82.059% 82.059% 82.059% 82.049% 82.058% 82.058% 82.060% 82.029% 82.058% 82.058% 82.063% 82.000% 82.058% 82.054% 82.089% 81.912% 82.064%
Evans & Huble
Case 11 - SC G 82.106% 82.097% 82.105% 82.105% 82.105% 82.100% 82.105% 82.105% 82.105% 82.096% 82.105% 82.104% 82.106% 82.079% 82.104% 82.104% 82.109% 82.053% 82.104% 82.101% 82.132% 81.976% 82.110%
Evans & Huble
Case 12 - SC H 82.090% 82.073% 82.087% 82.087% 82.087% 82.082% 82.087% 82.087% 82.087% 82.077% 82.087% 82.087% 82.089% 82.058% 82.087% 82.086% 82.093% 82.029% 82.086% 82.082% 82.121% 81.941% 82.094%
Evans & Huble
Case 13 - SC I 82.070% 82.048% 82.066% 82.066% 82.066% 82.061% 82.066% 82.066% 82.066% 82.055% 82.066% 82.066% 82.067% 82.035% 82.066% 82.065% 82.072% 82.004% 82.064% 82.060% 82.102% 81.912% 82.073%
Evans & Huble
Case 14 - SC J 82.062% 82.061% 82.062% 82.062% 82.062% 82.059% 82.062% 82.062% 82.062% 82.057% 82.062% 82.062% 82.062% 82.046% 82.062% 82.062% 82.063% 82.031% 82.061% 82.061% 82.069% 81.984% 82.063%
Evans & Huble
Case 15 - SC K 82.032% 82.029% 82.031% 82.031% 82.031% 82.028% 82.031% 82.031% 82.031% 82.025% 82.031% 82.031% 82.032% 82.013% 82.031% 82.031% 82.033% 81.995% 82.030% 82.029% 82.041% 81.940% 82.032%
Evans & Huble
Case 16 - SC L 82.014% 82.010% 82.014% 82.014% 82.014% 82.010% 82.014% 82.014% 82.014% 82.007% 82.014% 82.014% 82.014% 81.994% 82.013% 82.013% 82.015% 81.975% 82.013% 82.011% 82.025% 81.917% 82.015%
Evans & Huble
Case 17 - SC M 82.070% 82.070% 82.071% 82.071% 82.071% 82.068% 82.071% 82.071% 82.071% 82.065% 82.071% 82.071% 82.072% 82.053% 82.071% 82.070% 82.075% 82.036% 82.071% 82.069% 82.095% 81.983% 82.073%
Evans & Huble
Case 18 - SC N 82.070% 82.070% 82.071% 82.071% 82.071% 82.068% 82.071% 82.071% 82.071% 82.064% 82.071% 82.071% 82.073% 82.050% 82.071% 82.071% 82.077% 82.030% 82.072% 82.068% 82.106% 81.967% 82.075%
Evans & Huble
Case 19 - SC O 82.099% 82.098% 82.100% 82.100% 82.100% 82.097% 82.100% 82.100% 82.101% 82.093% 82.100% 82.100% 82.102% 82.078% 82.100% 82.100% 82.107% 82.056% 82.101% 82.097% 82.141% 81.989% 82.105%
Evans & Huble
Case 20 - SC P 82.026% 82.024% 82.026% 82.026% 82.026% 82.023% 82.026% 82.026% 82.026% 82.021% 82.026% 82.026% 82.026% 82.011% 82.026% 82.025% 82.028% 81.996% 82.026% 82.024% 82.039% 81.952% 82.029%
Evans & Huble
Case 22 - SC R 82.022% 82.016% 82.020% 82.021% 82.021% 82.018% 82.020% 82.020% 82.021% 82.015% 82.020% 82.020% 82.021% 82.003% 82.020% 82.020% 82.024% 81.985% 82.020% 82.018% 82.040% 81.931% 82.025%
Evans & Huble
Case 37 - SC AG 82.069% 82.080% 82.074% 82.074% 82.074% 82.069% 82.074% 82.074% 82.075% 82.063% 82.074% 82.074% 82.079% 82.041% 82.074% 82.073% 82.093% 82.008% 82.076% 82.066% 82.195% 81.909% 82.082%
Appendix C - Deviations of Polytropic Head from the Average of the Three Better 600-Step Numerical Integrations (ppm)


Huntington 4-Point
Huntington 3-Point
Sandberg-Colby
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
2017 Reference
1985 Reference
Evans & Huble14
Case 01 - Schultz -4.1 38.4 -0.7 -1.0 1.7 -86.5 -0.7 -1.4 9.1 -172.1 -0.6 -6.8 87.6 -514.9 -0.1 -25.0 352.6 -1029.7 3.0 -148.4 2208.7 -2577.5 -34.8
Evans & Huble
Case 02 - Hunt 2 -307.7 -355.1 -1.4 -0.7 2.1 -103.0 -1.3 -1.5 10.0 -205.5 -0.5 -9.1 94.1 -615.2 2.3 -34.6 378.0 -1229.3 21.8 -207.4 2367.0 -3068.0 236.6
Evans & Huble
Case 03 - Hunt 3 -129.7 7.3 -1.3 -0.4 1.7 -123.2 -1.2 -1.2 7.4 -246.1 -0.5 -8.7 67.9 -737.9 2.1 -34.3 272.2 -1475.8 19.7 -208.8 1703.1 -3689.5 116.7
Evans & Huble
Case 04 - Hunt 4 21.9 -208.6 -1.2 0.4 0.9 -154.2 -1.3 -0.3 2.3 -309.1 -1.8 -6.1 17.6 -927.3 -3.6 -25.2 69.0 -1852.5 -16.3 -156.8 429.5 -4612.8 89.2
Evans & Huble
Case 05 - SC A -2.3 -37.5 -0.6 0.1 0.5 -50.7 -0.6 0.0 1.5 -101.6 -0.7 -1.5 12.2 -305.1 -0.7 -6.5 48.4 -610.1 -1.2 -41.1 301.5 -1523.0 46.3
Evans & Huble
Case 06 - SC B -1.0 -71.4 -0.7 0.1 0.6 -58.4 -0.7 -0.1 1.9 -116.9 -0.8 -2.1 16.1 -350.9 -1.0 -8.8 63.8 -701.5 -2.8 -55.1 398.1 -1750.1 63.7
Evans & Huble
Case 07 - SC C 0.5 -93.1 -0.7 0.1 0.6 -61.8 -0.7 -0.2 2.1 -123.7 -0.8 -2.4 17.9 -371.2 -1.2 -10.0 71.4 -741.9 -3.8 -62.0 445.4 -1850.4 72.1
Evans & Huble
Case 08 - SC D 8.7 -50.2 -0.6 0.2 0.5 -49.6 -0.7 0.0 1.4 -99.4 -0.9 -1.5 10.8 -298.4 -1.5 -6.5 42.5 -596.4 -6.2 -41.0 264.8 -1487.0 48.9
Evans & Huble
Case 09 - SC E 17.1 -90.4 -0.7 0.1 0.5 -56.5 -0.7 -0.1 1.7 -113.3 -1.0 -2.1 13.6 -339.8 -2.1 -8.5 54.0 -678.8 -9.7 -53.3 336.7 -1691.4 61.7
Evans & Huble
Case 10 - SC F 22.6 -115.5 -0.7 0.1 0.6 -59.8 -0.7 -0.1 1.8 -119.8 -1.1 -2.3 15.0 -359.3 -2.4 -9.6 59.5 -717.9 -11.8 -59.5 371.0 -1788.0 67.5
Evans & Huble
Case 11 - SC G 22.2 -98.4 -0.6 0.1 0.5 -52.6 -0.7 -0.1 1.6 -105.3 -1.0 -1.9 13.5 -316.0 -2.0 -7.9 53.5 -631.1 -9.5 -49.5 333.3 -1571.9 68.0
Evans & Huble
Case 12 - SC H 39.0 -169.1 -0.7 0.0 0.6 -59.5 -0.7 -0.2 2.0 -119.2 -1.2 -2.4 16.5 -357.2 -2.9 -10.1 65.5 -713.5 -14.7 -62.6 408.6 -1775.8 81.1
Evans & Huble
Case 13 - SC I 49.0 -211.0 -0.7 0.0 0.6 -62.7 -0.7 -0.2 2.1 -125.4 -1.3 -2.8 17.9 -376.3 -3.4 -11.2 71.0 -751.4 -17.6 -69.1 443.4 -1869.4 86.7
Evans & Huble
Case 14 - SC J 3.0 -15.9 -0.5 0.2 0.3 -31.4 -0.6 0.2 0.6 -63.1 -0.8 -0.5 3.8 -189.7 -1.7 -2.6 14.5 -379.3 -7.6 -17.4 89.4 -946.0 11.1
Evans & Huble
Case 15 - SC K 5.7 -30.2 -0.6 0.2 0.3 -36.8 -0.6 0.1 0.7 -73.9 -1.0 -0.7 4.9 -221.9 -2.2 -3.7 19.1 -443.5 -10.7 -23.7 118.5 -1105.8 15.0
Evans & Huble
Case 16 - SC L 7.4 -39.7 -0.5 0.2 0.4 -39.4 -0.6 0.1 0.8 -78.9 -1.0 -0.9 5.6 -237.0 -2.4 -4.2 21.5 -473.7 -12.4 -26.9 133.1 -1180.7 16.8
Evans & Huble
Case 17 - SC M -4.6 -5.7 -0.5 0.1 0.4 -35.4 -0.5 0.0 1.4 -71.0 -0.3 -0.9 11.9 -213.2 0.2 -4.0 47.4 -426.4 3.6 -25.2 295.7 -1066.0 26.5
Evans & Huble
Case 18 - SC N -10.6 -18.4 -0.5 0.0 0.5 -42.3 -0.5 -0.1 1.9 -84.6 -0.3 -1.4 17.1 -253.7 0.4 -5.9 68.4 -507.4 5.4 -36.6 427.6 -1268.0 45.8
Evans & Huble
Case 19 - SC O -14.9 -29.6 -0.6 0.0 0.6 -45.3 -0.5 -0.2 2.2 -90.6 -0.3 -1.7 19.9 -271.9 0.5 -6.9 79.6 -543.7 6.3 -42.6 497.5 -1358.3 57.1
Evans & Huble
Case 20 - SC P 5.2 -21.3 -0.4 0.1 0.3 -29.8 -0.5 0.0 0.9 -59.7 -0.5 -0.7 6.8 -179.3 -0.7 -3.2 26.8 -358.4 -2.0 -20.7 167.0 -893.5 38.0
Evans & Huble
Case 22 - SC R 14.1 -50.9 -0.5 0.1 0.4 -36.5 -0.5 0.0 1.2 -73.1 -0.7 -1.2 9.8 -219.2 -1.2 -4.9 38.9 -438.0 -4.9 -31.0 242.5 -1090.9 54.4
Evans & Huble
Case 37 - SC AG -64.4 68.9 -0.8 -0.4 1.3 -67.3 -0.8 -0.8 6.2 -134.4 -0.1 -4.5 58.4 -402.6 2.3 -16.6 234.9 -805.0 18.8 -99.9 1470.4 -2014.0 99.7
Avg Abs. Deviation (ppm) 34.3 83.0 0.7 0.2 0.7 61 0.7 0.3 2.8 122 0.8 2.8 25 366 1.7 11 98 732 9.5 70 611 1826 65
Avg Abs. Deviation (%) 0.0034% 0.0083% 0.00007% 0.00002% 0.00007% 0.0061% 0.00007% 0.00003% 0.00028% 0.012% 0.00008% 0.00028% 0.0025% 0.037% 0.00017% 0.0011% 0.0098% 0.073% 0.00095% 0.0070% 0.061% 0.183% 0.0065%
Appendix D – Charts of Polytropic Head Results versus Integration Steps
Evans & Huble Case 01 - Schultz Evans & Huble Case 02 - Hunt 2
17500 120000
2017 Reference 2017 Reference

17450
Improved Small Stage 119500 Improved Small Stage
17400
1985 Reference 119000 1985 Reference
17350
Small Stage Small Stage
17300 118500
Sandberg-Colby 20 Step Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
17250
Huntington 3-Point 118000 Huntington 3-Point
17200
Huntington 4-Point Huntington 4-Point
17150 117500
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of Steps for Numerical Integration Number of Steps for Numerical Integration
Evans & Huble Case 03 - Hunt 3 Evans & Huble Case 04 - Hunt 4
91800 26950

91600 26900
91400 Improved Small Stage Improved Small Stage
26850
91200
91000 26800
90800 26750
90600 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
26700
90400 Huntington 3-Point Huntington 3-Point
90200 26650
90000 26600
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 05 - SC A Evans & Huble Case 06 - SC B
34860 44100

34840
44050
34820 Improved Small Stage Improved Small Stage
34800 44000
34780
Small Stage 43950 Small Stage
34760
34740 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step 43900 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
43850
34680 43800
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 07 - SC C Evans & Huble Case 08 - SC D

48850 34840

48800 34820
48750
48700
48650
Sandberg-Colby 20 Step 34740 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
48600 34720
48550 34700
48500 34680
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 09 - SC E Evans & Huble Case 10 - SC F
44100 48850

44050 48800
Improved Small Stage Improved Small Stage
44000 48750 1985 Reference
1985 Reference
43950 Small Stage 48700 Small Stage
43900 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step 48650 Sandberg-Colby 20 Step

43850 48600
43800 48550
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 11 - SC G Evans & Huble Case 12 - SC H

34860 44100
34840 2017 Reference 2017 Reference

34820 44050
34800 44000
34740
34720
43850
34660 43800
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 13 - SC I Evans & Huble Case 14 - SC J
48850 34805

48800
34795
48750 34790
48700 34780
48650
48600 34765
48550
48500 34750
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 15 - SC K Evans & Huble Case 16 - SC L

44020 48780

44000 48760
43980 Improved Small Stage 48740 Improved Small Stage
43960 1985 Reference 48720
1985 Reference
48700
43940 Small Stage Small Stage
48680
48660
43900 Huntington 3-Point 48640 Huntington 3-Point
43880 48620
43860 48600
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 17 - SC M Evans & Huble Case 18 - SC N
34840 44100

34820
34800
34780
34760 43950
Sandberg-Colby 20 Step Sandberg-Colby 20 Step
34740
34720
34700 43850
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 19 - SC O Evans & Huble Case 20 - SC P

48850 34790

48800 34770
48750 34760
34730
34720
48600
48550 34690
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Evans & Huble Case 22 - SC R Evans & Huble Case 37 - SC AG
48760 49100

48720 49000
48700 48900
48640
48620
48600
48560 48500
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
View publication stats

Another New Look at Polytropic Calculations Methods For Turbomachinery Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Another New Look at Polytropic Calculations Methods For Turbomachinery Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Another New Look at Polytropic Calculations Methods for Turbomachinery

Technical Report · September 2017

Polytropic Analysis of Turbomachinery View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Polytropic Head for Sample Case Hunt 4 of Reference 14

Polytropic Head for Sample Case Hunt 4 of Reference 14

26750 Improved Small Stage

Polytropic Head for Sample Case Hunt 4 of Reference 14

26800 Improved Small Stage

Polytropic Head for Sample Case Hunt 4 of Reference 14

26800 Improved Small Stage

26750 1985 Reference

26700 Small Stage

Fig. 6 - Comparison of Numerical Integration Methods including Sandberg-Colby 20-Step

End Point Method for Polytropic Analysis of Turbomachines

Initial estimate for T3 and T4 (expressed in absolute temperature units) are:

Polytropic Head for Sample Case Hunt 4 of Reference 14

Huntington 3-Point Improved Small Stage

26650 Huntington 4-Point

Huntington 3-Point 2017 Reference

Absolute Average Deviation vs. No. of Integraton Steps

Fig. 9 – Comparison of Deviations for the Numerical Integration Methods

Enthalpy Change (ft-lbf/lbm)

Outlet Temperature (˚C)

Enthalpy Change (kJ/kg)

Inlet Temperature (˚C)

Outlet Pressure (bara)

Inlet Pressure (bara)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Improved Small Stage

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)

Small Stage (uncorrected)