Supercharger power requirement

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mender
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the power requirements for driving a supercharger, particularly in automotive applications. Participants explore the equations and factors influencing power needs, including efficiency, RPM, and air volume, while considering both theoretical and practical aspects of supercharger design.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks the equation for power required to drive a supercharger, specifically for supplying 700 cfm of air at one atmosphere of boost, assuming 100% efficiency.
  • Another participant suggests that engine builders may provide more practical insights than physicists regarding power requirements.
  • It is noted that power requirements vary with RPM, pressure increase, and air volume, and that efficiency impacts power due to energy losses.
  • A participant describes the typical turbo-supercharger as exhaust-driven, contrasting it with positive displacement and centrifugal types that are shaft-driven.
  • Concerns are raised about the torque required for supercharger operation, particularly under various conditions such as engine seizure.
  • One participant mentions the need for specific examples to understand how different variables affect power requirements.
  • Another participant references the use of isentropic compression equations and polytropic constants for air and fuel-air mixtures in calculating power requirements.
  • A participant shares their experience with R&D compressor projects and mentions the importance of various calculations for accurate power requirements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the power requirements for superchargers, with no consensus reached on specific equations or values. The discussion includes both theoretical considerations and practical experiences, indicating multiple competing views on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of accurately determining power requirements due to factors such as efficiency losses, design parameters, and operational conditions. There are references to specific calculations and tables that may aid in understanding the power requirements, but no definitive equations are provided.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for automotive engineers, race car builders, and enthusiasts interested in supercharger design and performance optimization.

  • #31
My apologies, as usual I'm skipping steps as I type. Since I only have the three test samples, I'm not too worried about exact numbers but I should be a little more careful when I post!

jack action said:
So, if we assume an efficiency of 65% in my last equation:

14.7 psi, 700 cfm, 65%: 53 hp

That will be the expected power from the compressor shaft of that particular compressor.
Which meshes well with my understanding.
mender said:
It works out to about (0.004 hp/cfm*psi boost)/compressor efficiency, so the answer to my original question is 41.2 hp for 700 cfm at 14.7 psi and 100% efficiency. That's about 58.8 hp for a compressor that is about 70% efficient.

Adjusting my constant as mentioned earlier results in the lower 36 hp calculated requirement.

The 36 hp is a "pure" number, before the drive and compressor efficiencies are accounted for. Given a drive efficiency of 96% for each of two steps (pulley/belt, internal gears) and a sweet spot in the compressor map of 75%, the required hp would be 52.1 hp. Using your number of 65% with my equation results in 55.4 hp.

For me, that's close enough. With what has been covered so far, I can plot the trends which is what I was after.

jack action said:
0.00467 * 5.8 * 592 = 16 hp (82.6% eff)
0.00394 * 8.8 * 585 = 20 hp (92.7% eff)
0.00379 * 11.8 * 568 = 25 hp (91.9% eff)

Is this for another compressor? The efficiencies look pretty high with the correct equation.

Same compressor but I assumed an efficiency of 70% and took that out so I could compare other methods of compression and drives. Putting that back in yields 23 hp, 29 hp, and 36 hp respectively. Hope that made sense; my shortcuts don't always to others!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
17K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K