Centrifugal Compressor Performance Deviations with Various Refrigerants, Impeller Sizes and Shaft Speeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the pressure of the Montreal Protocol originally written in 1987, the current popularly used HCFC and HFC refrigerants for comfortable air conditioning, such as low pressure refrigerant R123, will have to be phased out in the near future. This forces companies in centrifugal chiller industry to redesign and retest new centrifugal compressors which can accommodate alternative refrigerants. Keeping the present flow path designs is an economic design process for the alternative refrigerants, and is well adapted by companies in this industry. In addition extensively employ the flow similitude theory is also an effective way to minimize the cost of lab tests. However employing similitude in compressible flow does not forecast the content in which compressors meet the uncontrollable situations such as choke and surge. Conclusions can only be drawn from experimental data [Dixon, Ferguson]. This paper will present the theory and experimental verification for a low cost method to predict the compressor performance under an alternative refrigerant based on existing compressor maps. A few factors that affect compressor performance maps, but whose effects cannot be predicted by similitude theory are also analyzed by reviewing large amount of tested data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".