3

Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

3.1 Introduction
In this and the following chapter, we briefly survey the more detailed analyses of
the flow in axial and centrifugal pumps, and provide a survey of some of the mod-
els used to synthesize the noncavitating performance of these turbomachines. The
survey begins in this chapter with a summary of some of the results that emerge
from a more detailed analysis of the two-dimensional flow in the meridional plane
of the turbomachine, while neglecting most of the three-dimensional effects. In this
regard, sections 3.2 through 3.4 address the analyses of linear cascades for axial flow
machines, and section 3.5 summarizes the analyses of radial cascades for centrifugal
machines. Three-dimensional effects are addressed in the next chapter.

3.2 Linear Cascade Analyses

The fluid mechanics of a linear cascade will now be examined in more detail, so that
the role played by the geometry of the blades and information on the resulting forces
on individual blades may be used to supplement the analysis of section 2.7. Referring
to the periodic control volume indicated in figure 3.1, and applying the momentum
theorem to this control volume, the forces, Fx and Fy , imposed by the fluid on each
blade (per unit depth normal to the sketch), are given by

Fx = −(p2 − p1 )h (3.1)
Fy = ρhvm (w1 cos β1 − w2 cos β2 ) (3.2)

where, as a result of continuity, vm1 = vm2 = vm . Note that Fy is entirely consistent

with the expression 2.34 for the torque, T .
To proceed, we define the vector mean of the relative velocities, w1 and w2 , as
having a magnitude wM and a direction βM , where by simple geometry
1
cot βM = (cot β1 + cot β2 ) (3.3)
2


wM = vm sin βM (3.4)

22
3.2 Linear Cascade Analyses 23

2 w2

h vm2

y, Fy
h P2
2

x, Fx

CONTROL
b2
VOLUME

P1
h

1 C D
w1
Fy
L
1
M
b1 – Fx
vm1

Figure 3.1. Schematic of a linear cascade showing the blade geometry, the periodic control volume and
the definition of the lift, L, and drag, D, forces on a blade.

It is conventional and appropriate (as discussed below) to define the lift, L, and the
1
drag, D, components of the total force on a blade, (Fx2 + Fy2 ) 2 , as the components
normal and tangential to the vector mean velocity, wM . More specifically, as shown
in figure 3.1,

L = −Fx cos βM + Fy sin βM (3.5)

D = Fx sin βM + Fy cos βM (3.6)

where L and D are forces per unit depth normal to the sketch. Nondimensional lift
and drag coefficients are defined as

1 2
1 2
CL = L ρwM c; CD = D ρwM c (3.7)
2 2

The list of fundamental relations is complete if we write the expression for the pressure
difference across the cascade as
ρ 2 
p1 − p2 = pLT + w1 − w22 (3.8)
2
24 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

where pLT denotes the total pressure loss across the cascade caused by viscous
effects. In frictionless flow, pLT = 0, and the relation 3.8 becomes the Bernoulli
equation in rotating coordinates (equation 2.30 with r1 = r2 as is appropriate here).
A nondimensional loss coefficient, f , is defined as:

1
f = pLT 2
ρwM (3.9)
2
Equations 3.1 through 3.9 can be manipulated to obtain expressions for the lift and
drag coefficients as follows:


CD = 2f sin βM s (3.10)
 
2 ψ f (φ − cos βM sin βM )
CL = sin βM + (3.11)
s φ sin βM

2 2

ψ is the head coefficient, (p2 − p1 ) ρ R , and
where s = c/h is the solidity, T T

coefficient, vm R. Note that in frictionless flow CD = 0 and CL =

φ is the flow
2ψ sin βM φs; then the total force (lift) on the foil is perpendicular to the direction
defined by the βM of equation 3.3. This provides confirmation that the directions we
chose in defining L and D (see figure 3.1) were appropriate for, in frictionless flow,
CD must indeed be zero.
Also note that equations 3.1 through 3.9 yield the head/flow characteristic given by
 
ψ = φ (cot β1 − cot β2 ) − f φ 2 1 + cot2 βM (3.12)

which, when there is no inlet swirl or prerotation so that tan β1 = φ, becomes

 
1
ψ = 1 − φ cot β2 − f φ + (1 + φ cot β2 )2
2
(3.13)
4

In frictionless flow, when the discharge is parallel with the blades (β2 = βb2 ), this, of
course, reduces to the characteristic equation 2.33. Note that the use of the relation
3.13 allows us to write the expression 3.11 for the lift coefficient as

2
CL = [2 sin βM (cot β1 − cot βM ) − f cos βM ] (3.14)
s
Figure 3.2 presents examples of typical head/flow characteristics resulting from
equation 3.13 for some chosen values of β2 and the friction coefficient, f . It should be
noted that, in any real turbomachine, f will not be constant but will vary substantially
with the flow coefficient, φ, which determines the angle of incidence and other flow
characteristics. More realistic cases are presented a little later in figure 3.3.
 3.2 Linear Cascade Analyses 25

1.0
2 = 30°
0
0.05
0.8 0.10
HEAD COEFFICIENT, 

0.6

2 = 20°
2 = 10°
0
0.4 f=0
0.05
f = 0.05 0.10
f = 0.10

0.2

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

FLOW COEFFICIENT, 
Figure 3.2. Calculated head/flow characteristics for some linear cascades.

1.0

mD = 0

0.8

2 = 20º
HEAD COEFFICIENT, 

0.6 mD = 2

0.4

2 = 10º

0.2

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

FLOW COEFFICIENT, 
Figure 3.3. Calculated head/flow characteristics for a linear cascade using blade drag coefficients given
by equation 3.18 with CD0 = 0.02. The corresponding characteristics with CD0 = mD = 0 are shown in
figure 3.2.
 26 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

1.0
bM = 90º
60º
SHUTOFF HEAD COEFF., O

30º
0.5

10º

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

SOLIDITY, s
Figure 3.4. The performance parameter, ψ0 , as a function of solidity, s, for flat plate cascades with
different blade angles, βb . Adapted by Wislicensus (1947) (see also Sabersky, Acosta and Hauptmann
1989) from the potential flow theory of König (1922).

The observant reader will have noted that all of the preceding equations of this
section involve only the inclinations of the flow and not of the blades, which have
existed only as ill-defined objects that achieve the turning of the flow. In order to
progress further, it is necessary to obtain a detailed solution of the flow, one result of
which will be the connection between the flow angles (βM , β2 ) and the geometry of the
blades, including the blade angles (βb , βb1 , βb2 ). A large literature exists describing
methods for the solutions of these flows, but such detail is beyond the scope of
this text. As in most high Reynolds number flows, one begins with potential flow
solutions, for which the reader should consult a modern text, such as that by Horlock
(1973), or the valuable review by Roudebush (1965). König (1922) produced one
of the earliest potential flow solutions, namely that for a simple flat plate cascade
of infinitely thin blades. This was used to generate figure 3.4. Such potential flow
methods must be supplemented by viscous analyses of the boundary layers on the
blades and the associated wakes in the discharge flow. Leiblein (1965) provided an
excellent review of these viscous flow methods, and some of his basic methodology
will be introduced later.
To begin with, however, one can obtain some useful insights by employing our
basic knowledge and understanding of lift and drag coefficients obtained from tests,
both those on single blades (airfoils, hydrofoils) and those on cascades of blades. One
such observation is that the lift coefficient, CL , is proportional to the sine of the angle
of attack, where the angle of attack is defined as the angle between the mean flow
direction, βM , and a mean blade angle, βbM . Thus

CL = mL sin(βbM − βM ) (3.15)
3.3 Deviation Angle 27

where mL is a constant, a property of the blade or cascade geometry. In the case of

frictionless flow (f = 0), the expression 3.15 may be substituted into equation 3.14,
resulting in an expression for βM . When this is used with equation 3.13, the following
head/flow characteristic results:
  
2mL s sin βbM vθ 1
ψ= 1 − φ cot βbM + (3.16)
4 + mL s sin βbM vm1

where, for convenience, the first factor on the right-hand side is denoted by
 
2mL s sin βbM cot β2 − cot βb2 −1
ψ0 = = 1+ (3.17)
4 + mL s sin βbM cot β1 − cot β2

The factor, ψ0 , is known as the frictionless shut-off head coefficient, since it is

equal to the head coefficient at zero flow rate. The second expression for ψ0 fol-
lows from the preceding equations, and will be used later. Note that, unlike equation
3.13, the head/flow characteristic of equation 3.16 is given in terms of mL and practical


quantities, such as the blade angle, βbM , and the inlet swirl or prerotation, vθ1 vm1 .
It is also useful to consider the drag coefficient, CD , for it clearly defines f and
the viscous losses in the cascade. Instead of being linear with angle of attack, CD will
be an even function so an appropriate empirical result corresponding to equation 3.15
would be
CD = CD0 + mD sin2 (βbM − βM ) (3.18)
where CD0 and mD are constants. Some head/flow characteristics resulting from
typical values of CD0 and mD are shown in figure 3.3. Note that these performance
curves have a shape that is closer to practical performance curves than the constant
friction factor results of figure 3.2.

3.3 Deviation Angle

While the simple, empirical approach of the last section has practical and educational
value, it is also valuable to consider the structure of the flow in more detail, and to
examine how higher level solutions to the flow might be used to predict the perfor-
mance of a cascade of a particular geometry. In doing so, it is important to distinguish
between performance characteristics that are the result of idealized inviscid flow and
those that are caused by viscous effects. Consider, first, the inviscid flow effects.
König (1922) was the first to solve the potential flow through a linear cascade, in
particular for a simple cascade of infinitely thin, straight blades. The solution leads to
values of the deviation, δ, that, in turn, allow evaluation of the shut-off head coeffi-
cient, ψ0 , through equation 3.17. This is shown as a function of solidity in figure 3.4.
Note that for solidities greater than about unity, the idealized, potential flow exits the
blade passages parallel to the blades, and hence ψ0 → 1.
28 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

Another approach to the same issue of relating the flow angle, β2 , to the blade
angles, is to employ an empirical rule for the deviation angle, δ = βb2 − β2 (equation
2.2), in terms of other geometric properties of the cascade. One early empirical relation
suggested by Constant (1939) (see Horlock 1973) relates the deviation to the camber
angle, θc , and the solidity, s, through

1
δN = C θc s 2 (3.19)

where the subscript N refers to nominal conditions, somewhat arbitrarily defined as

the operating condition at which the deflection (β2 − β1 ) has a value that is 80% of
that at which stall would occur. Constant suggested a value of 0.26 for the constant, C.
Note that β2 can then be evaluated and the head rise obtained from the characteristic
3.12. Later investigators explored the variations in the deviation angle with other flow
parameters (see, for example, Howell 1942), and devised more complex correlations
for use in the design of axial flow rotors (Horlock 1973). However, the basic studies of
Leiblein on the boundary layers in linear cascades, and the role which these viscous
effects play in determining the deviation and the losses, superceded much of this
empirical work.

3.4 Viscous Effects in Linear Cascades

It is also of value to examine in more detail the mechanism of viscous loss in a

cascade. Even in two-dimensional cascade flow, the growth of the boundary layers on
the pressure and suction surfaces of the blades, and the wakes they form downstream
of the blades (see figure 3.5), are complex, and not amenable to simple analysis.
However, as the reviews by Roudebush and Lieblein (1965) and Lieblein (1965)
demonstrate, it is nevertheless possible to provide some qualitative guidelines for the

SUCTION
SURFACE

w1
PRESSURE w2
SURFACE

BLADE
WAKE

Figure 3.5. Sketch of the boundary layers on the surfaces of a cascade and the resulting blade wakes.
3.4 Viscous Effects in Linear Cascades 29

0.06
THICKNESS\CHORD, *\c
WAKE MOMENTUM

0.04

0.02

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

DIFFUSION FACTOR, Df
Figure 3.6. Correlation of the ratio of the momentum thickness of the blade wakes, θ ∗ , to the chord, c,
with the diffusion factor, Df , for cascades of blades with three different profiles: NACA 65 − (A10 )
10 series (◦) and two British C.4 parabolic arc profiles (2 and 3). The maximum thickness of the blades
is 0.1c and the Reynolds number is 2.5 × 105 . Adapted from Lieblein (1965).

resulting viscous effects on cascade performance. In this respect, the diffusion factor,
introduced by Lieblein et al. (1953), is a useful concept that is based on the following
approximations. First, we note that under normal operating conditions, the boundary
layer on the suction surface will be much thicker than that on the pressure surface of the
foil, so that, to a first approximation, we may neglect the latter. Then, the thickness
of the wake (and therefore the total pressure loss) will be primarily determined by
that fraction of the suction surface over which the velocity gradient is adverse, since
that is where the majority of the boundary layer growth occurs. Therefore, Lieblein
et al. argued, the momentum thickness of the wake, θ ∗ , should correlate with a
parameter they termed the diffusion factor, given by (wmax − w2 )/wmax , where wmax
is the maximum velocity on the suction surface. One should visualize deceleration or
diffusion of the flow from wmax to w2 , and that this diffusion is the primary factor
in determining the wake thickness. However, since wmax is not easily determined,
Lieblein et al. suggest an approximation to the diffusion factor that is denoted Df ,
and given by

w2 vθ 2 − vθ1
Df = 1 − +
w1 2sw1
sin β1 sin β1 (cot β1 − cot β2 )
= 1− + (3.20)
sin β2 2s

Figure 3.6 shows the correlation of the momentum thickness of the wake (normalized
by the chord) with this diffusion factor, Df , for three foil profiles. Such correlations
are now commonly used to determine the viscous loss due to blade boundary layers
and wakes. Note that, once θ ∗ /c has been determined from such a correlation, the
drag coefficient, CD , and the friction or loss coefficient follow from equations 3.7,
30 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

3.9, and 3.10 and the fact that D = ρw22 θ ∗ :

2 sin2 βM θ ∗ s sin βM θ ∗
CD = ; f= (3.21)
sin2 β2 c sin2 β2 c

The data shown in figure 3.6 were for a specific Reynolds number, Re, and the
correlations must, therefore, be supplemented by a statement on the variation of the
loss coefficient with Re. A number of correlations of this type exist (Roudebush
and Lieblein 1965), and exhibit the expected decrease in the loss coefficient with
increasing Re. For more detail on viscous losses in a cascade, the reader should
consult the aforementioned papers by Lieblein.
In an actual turbomachine, there are several additional viscous loss mechanisms
that were not included in the cascade analyses discussed above. Most obviously, there
are additional viscous layers on the inner and outer surfaces that bound the flow, the
hub and the shroud (or casing). These often give rise to complex, three-dimensional
secondary flows that lead to additional viscous losses (Horlock and Lakshminarayana
1973). Moreover, the rotation of other, “non-active” surfaces of the impeller will lead
to viscous shear stresses, and thence to losses known as “disk friction losses” in the
terminology of turbomachines. Also, leakage flows from the discharge back to the
suction, or from one stage back to a preceding stage in a multistage pump, constitute
effective losses that must be included in any realistic evaluation of the losses in an
actual turbomachine (Balje 1981).

3.5 Radial Cascade Analyses

Two-dimensional models for centrifugal or radial turbomachines begin with analyses
of the flow in a radial cascade (section 2.2 and figure 3.7), the counterpart of the
linear cascade for axial flow machines. More specifically, the counterpart of the
linear flat plate cascade is the logarithmic spiral cascade, defined in section 2.2, and
shown in more detail in figure 3.7. There exist simple conformal mappings that allow
potential flow solutions for the linear cascade to be converted into solutions for the
corresponding radial cascade flow, though the proper interpretation of these solutions
requires special care. The resulting head/flow characteristic for frictionless flow in a
radial cascade of infinitely thin logarithmic spiral blades is given in a classic paper by
Busemann (1928), and takes the form
 
vθ 1
ψ = SfB − ψ0 φ cot βb + (3.22)
vm1

The terms SfB and ψ0 result from quite separate and distinct fluid mechanical effects.
The term involving ψ0 is a consequence of the frictionless, potential flow head rise
through any simple, nonrotating cascade whether of axial, radial, or mixed flow
geometry. Therefore, ψ0 is identical to the quantity, ψ0 , defined by equation 3.17 in
3.5 Radial Cascade Analyses 31

2

STREAMLINE OF
FLOW RELATIVE
TO IMPELLER

DISCHARGE
R2

R1 1

INLET b
 r
BLADE

Figure 3.7. Schematic of the radial cascade corresponding to the linear cascade of figure 3.1.

the context of a linear cascade. The values for ψ0 for a simple cascade of infinitely
thin blades, whether linear, radial or mixed flow, are given in figure 3.4. The ψ0 term
can be thought of as the “through flow” effect, and, as demonstrated by figure 3.4,
the value of ψ0 rapidly approaches unity when the solidity increases to a value a little
greater than one.
However, it is important to recognize that the ψ0 term is the result of a frictionless,
potential flow solution in which the vorticity is zero. This solution would be directly
applicable to a static or nonrotating radial cascade in which the flow entering the
cacade has no component of the vorticity vector in the axial direction. This would be
the case for a nonswirling axial flow that is deflected to enter a nonrotating, radial
cascade in which the axial velocity is zero. But, relative to a rotating radial cascade
(or centrifugal pump impeller), such an inlet flow does have vorticity, specifically a
vorticity with magnitude 2 and a direction of rotation opposite to the direction of
rotation of the impeller. Consequently, the frictionless flow through the impeller is
not irrotational, but has a constant and uniform vorticity of −2.
In inviscid fluid mechanics, one frequently obtains solutions for these kinds of
rotational flows in the following way. First, one obtains the solution for the irrotational
flow, which is represented by ψ0 in the current problem. Mathematically, this is the
complementary solution. Then one adds to this a particular solution that satisfies all the
same boundary conditions, but has a uniform vorticity, −2. In the present context,
this particular, or rotational, solution leads to the term, SfB , which, therefore, has a
32 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

BLADE
DISCHAGE
CIRCLE

d/2

d/2

DISCHARGE INLET
SURFACE SURFACE BLADES
Figure 3.8. A sketch of the displacement component of the inviscid flow through a rotating radial
cascade.

quite different origin from the irrotational term, ψ0 . The division into the rotational
solution and the irrotational solution is such that all the net volumetric flow through the
impeller is included in the irrotational (or ψ0 ) component. The rotational solution has
no through flow, but simply consists of a rotation of the fluid within each blade passage,
as sketched in figure 3.8. Busemann (1928) called this the displacement flow; other
authors refer to its rotating cells as relative eddies (Balje 1980, Dixon 1978). In his
pioneering work on the fluid mechanics of turbomachines, Stodola (1927) was among
the first to recognize the importance of this rotational component of the solution.
Busemann (1928) first calculated its effect upon the head/flow characteristic for the
case of infinitely thin, logarithmic spiral blades, in other words the simple cascade in
the radial configuration. For reasons which will become clear shortly, the function,
SfB , is known as the Busemann slip factor, and Busemann’s solutions lead to the
values presented in figure 3.9 when the solidity, s > 1.1. Note that the values of SfB
are invariably less than or equal to unity, and, therefore, the effect of the displacement
flow is to cause a decrease in the head. This deficiency can, however, be minimized
by using a large number of blades. As the number of blades gets larger, SfB tends to
unity as the rotational flow within an individual blade passage increasingly weakens.
In practice, however, the frictional losses will increase with the number of blades.
Consequently, there is an important compromise that must be made in choosing the
number of blades. As figure 3.9 shows, this compromise will depend on the blade angle.
Furthermore, the compromise must also take into account the structural requirements
for the blades. Thus, radial machines for use with liquids usually have a smaller number
of blades than those used for gases. The reason for this is that a liquid turbomachine
3.5 Radial Cascade Analyses 33

1.0
32
16
8
SLIP FACTOR, SfB

6
4
0.5
2

ZR = 1

0 30º 60º 90º

BLADE ANGLE, b

Figure 3.9. The Busemann slip factor, SfB , plotted against the blade angle, βb , for various numbers of
blades, ZR . The results shown are for radial cascades of infinitely thin logarithmic spiral blades with
solidities, s > 1.1. Adapted by Sabersky, Acosta and Hauptmann (1989) and Wislicenus (1947) from
Busemann’s (1928) theory.

requires much thicker blades, and, therefore, each blade creates much more flow
blockage than in the case of a gas turbomachine. Consequently, liquid machines tend
to have a smaller number of blades, typically eight for the range of specific speeds for
which radial machines are designed (ND < 1.5) (Stepanoff 1948, Anderson). Another
popular engineering criterion (Stepanoff 1948) is that ZR should be one third of the
discharge blade angle, βb (in degrees).
The decrease in the head induced by the displacement flow is due to the nonuni-
formity in the discharge flow; this nonuniformity results in a mean angle of discharge
(denoted by β2 ) that is different from the discharge blade angle, βb2 , and, there-
fore, implies an effective deviation angle or slip, Sf (see section 2.1). In fact, it is
clear that the relations 2.16, 2.32, 3.22, and 2.4 imply that Sf = SfB , and, hence,
the terminology used above. Stodola (1927) recognized that slip would be a conse-
quence of the displacement flow, and estimated the magnitude of the slip velocity,
vθs , in the following approximate way. He argued that the slip velocity could be
roughly estimated as d/2, where d/2 is the radius of the blade discharge circle
shown in figure 3.8. He visualized this as representative of the rotating cell of fluid
in a blade passage, and that the rotation of this cell at  would lead to the afore-
mentioned vθs . Then, provide ZR is not too small, d ≈ 2πR2 sin βb2 , and it follows
that
vθ s = πR2 sin βb2 /ZR (3.23)
and, from equation 2.4, that the estimated slip factor, SfS , is

π sin βb2
SfS = 1 − (3.24)
ZR
34 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

Numerical comparisons with the more exact results of Busemann presented in

figure 3.9, show that equation 3.24 gives a reasonable first approximation. For exam-
ple, an impeller with four blades, a blade angle of 25◦ , and a solidity greater than
unity, has a Stodola slip factor of SfS = 0.668 compared to the value of SfB = 0.712
from Busemann’s more exact theory.
There is a substantial literature on slip factors for centrifugal pumps. Some of
this focuses on the calculation of slip factors for inviscid flow in radial cascades with
blades that are more complex than the infinitely thin, logarithmic spiral blades used by
Busemann. Useful reviews of some of this work can be found, for example, in the work
of Wislicenus (1947), Stanitz (1952), and Ferguson (1963). Other researchers attempt
to find slip factors that provide the best fit to experimental data. In doing so, they also
attempt to account for viscous effects in addition to the inviscid effect for which the
slip factor was originally devised. As an example of this approach, the reader may
consult Wiesner (1967), who reviews the existing, empirical slip factors, and suggests
one that seems to yield the best comparison with the experimental measurements.

3.6 Viscous Effects in Radial Flows

We now turn to a discussion of the viscous effects in centrifugal pumps. Clearly a
radial cascade will experience viscous boundary layers on the blades that are similar
to those discussed earlier for axial flow machines (see section 3.4). However, two
complicating factors tend to generate loss mechanisms that are considerably more
complicated. These two factors are flow separation and secondary flow.
Normally, the flow in a centrifugal pump separates from the suction surface near
the leading edge, and produces a substantial wake on the suction surfaces of each of
the blades. Fischer and Thoma (1932) first identified this phenomenon, and observed
that the wake can occur even at design flow. Normally, it extends all the way to the
impeller discharge. Consequently, the discharge flow consists of a low velocity zone
or wake next to the suction surface, and, necessarily, a flow of increased velocity in
the rest of the blade passage. This “jet-wake structure” of the discharge is sketched
in figure 3.10. Note that this viscous effect tends to counteract the displacement flow
of figure 3.8. Since the work of Fischer and Thoma, many others have studied this
aspect of flows in centrifugal pumps and compressors (see, for example, Acosta and
Bowerman 1957, Johnston and Dean 1966, Eckardt 1976), and it is now recognized
as essential to take these features into account in constructing any model of the flow
in radial turbomachines. Modern analyses of the flow in radial turbomachines usually
incorporate the basic features of the jet-wake structure in the blade passages (for
example, Sturge and Cumpsty 1975, Howard and Osborne 1977). Sturge and Cumpsty
have calculated the shape of the wake in a typical, two-dimensional radial cascade,
using numerical methods to solve a free streamline problem similar to those discussed
in chapter 7.
3.6 Viscous Effects in Radial Flows 35

T
JE
E
AK
W
PRESSURE
SURFACE
SUCTION
SURFACE

DISCHARGE BOUNDARY BLADES

SURFACE LAYER
SEPARATION
Figure 3.10. A sketch of actual discharge flow from a centrifugal pump or compressor including the
alternating pattern of jets and wakes resulting from flow separation from the suction surfaces.

At design flow, the wake or boundary layer on the suction surface may be quite
thin, but as the flow coefficient, φ, is decreased, the increased incidence leads to larger
wakes (Fischer and Thoma 1932, Johnston and Dean 1966). Clearly, the nonuniformity
of the discharge flow implies an “effective” slip due to these viscous effects. This slip
will not only depend on the geometry of the blades but will also be a function of
the flow coefficient and the Reynolds number. The change with flow coefficient is
particularly interesting. As φ is decreased below the design value and the wake grows
in width, an increasing fraction of the flow is concentrated in the jet. Johnston and
Dean (1966) showed that this results in a flow that more closely follows the geometry
of the pressure surface, and, therefore, to a decrease in the slip. This can be a major
effect in radial compressors. Johnston and Dean made measurements in an 18-bladed
radial compressor impeller with a 90◦ discharge blade angle (for which SfS = 0.825),
and found that the effective slip factor increased monotonically from a value of about
0.8 at φ2 = 0.5 to a value of 1.0 at φ2 = 0.15. However, this increase in the slip factor
did not produce an increase in the head rise, because the increase in the viscous losses
was greater than the potential gain from the decrease in the slip.
Finally, it is important to recognize that secondary flows can also have a substantial
effect on the development of the blade wakes, and, therefore, on the jet-wake structure.
Moreover, the geometric differences between the typical radial compressor and the typ-
ical centrifugal pump can lead to significant differences in the secondary flows, the loss
mechanisms, and the jet-wake structure. The typical centrifugal pump geometry was
illustrated in figure 2.7, to which we should append the typical number of blades,
ZR = 8. A typical example is the geometry at ND = 0.6, namely RT 1 /RT 2 ≈ 0.5
and B2 ≈ 0.2RT 2 . Assuming ZR = 8 and a typical blade angle at discharge of 25◦ , it
36 Two-Dimensional Performance Analysis

follows that the blade passage flow at discharge has cross-sectional dimensions nor-
mal to the relative velocity vector of 0.2RT 2 × 0.3RT 2 , while the length of the blade
passage is approximately 1.2RT 2 . Thus the blade passage is fairly wide relative to its
length. In contrast, the typical radial compressor has a much smaller value of B2 /RT 2 ,
and a much larger number of blades. As a result, not only is the blade passage much
narrower relative to its length, but also the typical cross-section of the discharge flow
is far from square, being significantly narrower in the axial direction. The viscous
boundary layers on the suction and pressure surfaces of the blades, and on the hub and
shroud (or casing), will have a greater effect the smaller the cross-sectional dimen-
sions of the blade passage are relative to its length. Moreover, the secondary flows
that occur in the corners of this passage amplify these viscous effects. Consequently,
the flow that discharges from a blade passage of a typical radial compressor is more
radically altered by these viscous effects than the flow discharging from a typical
centrifugal pump.