Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid

Mechanics

ISSN: 1994-2060 (Print) 1997-003X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcfm20

Fluid Flow Analysis of a Single-Stage Centrifugal

Fan with a Ported Diffuser

Hongmin Li

To cite this article: Hongmin Li (2009) Fluid Flow Analysis of a Single-Stage Centrifugal Fan with
a Ported Diffuser, Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 3:2, 147-163, DOI:
10.1080/19942060.2009.11015261

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2009.11015261

Copyright 2009 Taylor and Francis Group

LLC

Published online: 19 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3251

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcfm20
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 147–163 (2009)

FLUID FLOW ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE-STAGE CENTRIFUGAL FAN

WITH A PORTED DIFFUSER
Hongmin Li

Ametek, Inc., 627 Lake Street, Kent, OH 44240, USA

E-Mail: HL3@uakron.edu

ABSTRACT: A numerical model is developed for the thermal fluid flow process in a single stage through flow
type centrifugal air moving fan designed for vacuum cleaners. The model predicted data are compared with the
experimental results obtained following the industry standards. The agreements between the numerical and
experimental results validate the model. Quantitative energy losses in every step along the flow path are reported.
Detailed flow structures and pressure distributions are presented. The air-moving performances of the fan under
various conditions are explained. Suggestions on design improvement and application of the motor-fan system
architecture are given.
Keywords: centrifugal, fan, ported diffuser, vacuum cleaner, air moving

1. INTRODUCTION the motor, the air has to be clean. Dust or water

Air moving devices are popularly used in industry
and household devices, such as blowers, air
pumps, and the motor-fan units in vacuum
cleaners (Ataka, Ikezaki and Ishii, 1986; Lioy
et al., 1999). It has been reported that a vacuum
cleaned environment can significantly improve
the productivity and safety in the manufacturing
industry (Kennedy et al., 2003). In most vacuum
cleaners, the fan and the electric motor that drives
the fan are assembled into one unit, a motor-fan
system. Every year, millions of such motor-fan
systems are manufactured. According to the air
flow path, motor-fan units fall into two categories,
the through-flow type and the bypass type. In a
bypass type system, the motor cooling air and the
main air-flow driven by the working fan are
separated (Morinushi et al., 1987; Rittmueller,
Mann and Holger, 1997). The advantage of this
motor-fan architecture is that the fan can move
“dirty air”, air with solid particles (dust) and/or
water drops (Wake, Gray and Brown, 1991). The
disadvantage is that a cooling fan has to be
installed to cool the motor. Normally the cooling
fan takes 70–150 Watts of electric power for an
800–1500 Watt motor-fan system. Secondly, the
cooling fan takes shaft space and a longer and
thicker shaft has to be used compared to the
through-flow type units.
The through flow type units are used in most of
the household vacuum cleaners (Wright, 1984;
Wright, Tzou and Madhavan, 1984; Yu et al.,
2005). Since the main air flow sucked by the
working fan flows through the motor and cools
drops in the air will damage the motor side,
armature, field coils, and especially the bearings
that support the shaft. For this reason, the air has
to be filtered before entering a through-flow type
motor-fan system. A typical design of such
through-flow type architecture with a ported
diffuser is given in Fig. 1. The system includes
the fan-side and the motor that drives the fan. The
rotating impeller is installed on the motor shaft
and rotates at the same speed with the armature.
In the fan side, the fan shell forms a cavity that
contains the impeller. The centrifugal force
created on the air in the impeller blade channels
will suck the air from the surrounding into the fan
eye. After the air exits from the impeller, it rotates
in the space in the fan shell and eventually enters
the ported diffuser. Through the channels in the
ported diffuser, the air is brought into the center
region (shaft region), where two openings exist.
Through these two openings, the air is pushed
into the motor side and cools the motor.
The ported diffuser design is relatively new,
compared to the baffle-diffuser structure, and
recently it is being accepted by the vacuum
cleaner industry. Ported diffuser has the following
advantages. (1) Both the ported diffuser and the
fan-end bracket can be made out of inexpensive
plastic materials or BMC (bulk molding
compound) material. (2) The ported diffuser
supports the fan-end bracket on the outer edge
and on the center bearing bore. Such
direct support significantly increases the
strength/rigidity of the fan-end bracket, which
carries all the weight of the field and armature.

Received: 8 Jul. 2008; Revised: 5 Sep. 2008; Accepted: 8 Oct. 2008

147
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
(3) The ported diffuser can be simply pressed
onto the fan-end bracket by the fan-shell. No
screws are needed and the assembling cost is low.
Recently, the noise level has become a very
important concern for people choosing vacuum
cleaners. The motor-fan unit, which is the central
air-moving device, is the main noise source (Jeon,
Baek and Kim, 2003; Jeon, Rew and Kim, 2004;
Cudina and Prezelj, 2007a & 2007b; Sagoo,
Penny and Booth, 1986). Various noise reduction
techniques have been studied and reported (Sarbu
Impeller
Ported diffuser
Ported diffuser turns
the air first to the
center and then
towards the motor
Fig. 1 Single-stage through flow type motor-fan system. The fan shell and the ported diffuser are cut to show the
internal structure.
Wright (1984) studied the effects of the inlet gap
between the fan and the scroll on the fan
performance of a scroll cage centrifugal blower.
He found that the fan performance increased
when the gap size was reduced and the concept of
optimum gap size was not valid. Wright, Tzou
and Madhavan (1984) experimentally measured
148
and Kraft, 1996). The air flow noise, turbulence
and the vortex sheet noise contribute to both the
wide band noise and the single frequency noises.
Demand on quieter vacuum cleaners is one of the
driving forces for the investigation on the fluid
flow in such motor-fan systems. The other driving
force is the motor efficiency. Higher efficiency
certainly means lower energy loss and more
output air power (air watts). A well designed flow
path in the fan-side can certainly contribute to the
total efficiency of the vacuum cleaner units.
Air entering
Fan-shell
the fan
Air leaving the fan
and entering the
ported diffuser
Fan-end
bracket
Electric motor
and numerically simulated the flow in a
centrifugal impeller with a quasi three-
dimensional code. Pressures on both sides of the
blade were presented. Kim and An (2004)
developed a two-dimensional numerical model
and simulated the flow in a fan with a radial
diffuser. Two-dimensional flow patterns were
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
presented. They reported that the interaction
between the fan-blades and the diffuser-blades
generated a high single-frequency noise. The
modeling effort focused on noise generation and
the predicted flow structure was not correlated
and compared to the performance data of the fan.
Torigoe, Takemura and Sasaoka (1976)
experimentally tested the performance of a fan-
volute system. It was found that by recovering
effectively the dynamic pressure at the fan outlet
to static pressure in the volutes, the fan efficiency
could be improved by 9%. The data presented
were based on the testing of the fan system. The
mechanism of the pressure recovery was not
explained. Yu et al. (2005) studied experimentally
and numerically the flow in a scroll cage
centrifugal fan focusing on the interaction among
the inlet section, impeller, and scroll cage. They
reported that the fan-blade inlet angle was
important to the fan performance. The gap size
affected the leakage flow rate and the overall fan
performance. Clements and Artt (1988)
experimentally studied the effects of the diffuser
channel geometry on the efficiency of a
centrifugal type air compressor. They found that
the radial diffuser channel length to width ratio
should not be larger than 3.7. A short diffuser
channel accompanied with a vaneless diffuser
section could achieve the same pressure recovery
as the diffuser with the same outer diameter did.
Ramamurti and Balasubramanian (1986) studied
the stress in a centrifugal impeller due to the
centrifugal force, while the force generated by the
fluid pressure was not considered. Nakayama et al.
(1985) experimentally measured the relative flow
velocity between the blades of a centrifugal
impeller with a rotating image stopping technique.
They found that the fluid near the low pressure
side of the blade had higher velocity. Fisher and
Inoue (1981) experimentally studied the
interaction between the impeller and four
different radial diffusers. Their results showed
that the radial diffuser played a major role in
establishing the circumferential variation in the
mean flow at the outlet of the impeller. Eads
(1981) presented a set of formulas for the
parameters used in designing a centrifugal
impeller, while these formulas are based on the
fundamental fan laws and basic flow analysis.
To date, the fluid flow process in the air moving
units employed in vacuum cleaners are not well
studied. The design of motor-fan system in the
vacuum cleaning industry is still mostly based on
experiences. Publications on centrifugal fans with
ported diffuser are not well documented in
the literature. This effort presents a CFD
149
investigation on the fluid flow in the fan-side of a
single stage through flow type motor-fan system
with a ported diffuser. Flow structures are
presented. The performance characteristics of the
fan are explained. Energy losses along the flow
path are quantified. Guidance on the fan system
design is given.
2. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
The performance test of the motor-fan system
following the ASTM standard is called box test.
A schematic of the box test system, built
according to ASTM standard, is given in Fig. 2a.
The ASTM standard details specifications on the
size of the box, location to measure the pressure
in the box, flow rate measurement with the
orifices, etc. Details of the ASTM standard can be
found in literature. (Allen et al., 1999).
The motor-fan system being tested is seated on
the top of a box. A rubber boot is employed to
seal between the fan-shell and the box. On the
front side of the box, there is an opening and
standard orifices can be inserted. The pressure in
the box is measured with a pressure indicator
manufactured by Druck Inc. The uncertainty of
the measured gage pressure is ±13 Pascal
(±0.05 inch water). The motor is powered by a
regulated power supply (model 500li, California
Instruments) that provides a 50 kVA power
source. The supplied voltage is kept constant at
120 V. The electric voltage, current, and power
going through the motor are measured by a
Magtrol power analyzer, model 4619. The
uncertainty in voltage and current are ±0.01 volts
and ±0.001 amps, respectively. The rotating
speed of the motor is measured by a strobe light
(Stroboslave model 1935-A, IET Labs, Inc.) with
an uncertainty of ±1 RPM. Pressure, temperature,
and humidity of the surrounding air are measured
for the data correction to standard conditions.
With the measured pressure in the box and the
diameter of the orifice, flow rate is calculated
(Allen et al., 1999). The output air watt of the
motor-fan system is calculated and the system
efficiency data are obtained.
The performance of the motor side is obtained
through the speed torque test. A schematic of the
test rig is given in Fig. 2b. The tested motor is
installed on a torque table (model 2514-20, Eaton
Corporation). The capacity, actual measurement
range, of the torque is 0–2.3 N-m (0–20 pound-
inch). The shaft of the tested motor is connected
to a break motor with a spring connector. The
break motor acts as a load to the tested motor.
Power supply to the break motor is from a
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
Magtrol 4615 power source. The power input to
the break motor is gradually increased form zero
volt, till a maximum voltage, under which the
rotation of the tested motor is stopped. The tested
motor is powered at a constant voltage, 120 V in
this study with a Sorensen Power Supplier, model
DCR800-33B made by Raytheon Company.
Voltage, current, and watts input are measured by
a power analyzer, Magtrol model 5100. The
uncertainties are ±0.1 V, 0.01 A, and 0.1 Watts,
respectively. The speed sensor counts the
120 V
Regulated power supply
Strobe light
Motor-fan system
Box
Orifice plate
a)
Tested motor
Speed sensor
120 V
A Torque table
b)
Fig. 2 Schematic of the testing systems. (a) Motor-fan system performance test rig (box test following ASTM
standard). (b) Motor-side speed-torque test rig.
3. NUMERICAL MODEL
The fluid flow in the fan side is modeled
numerically. A schematic of the numerical
domain and a three-dimensional view of the
model geometry are given in Fig. 3a and 3b,
respectively. In Fig. 3b, the rotating impeller, the
channel in the ported diffuser, and the outlet
openings on the fan-end bracket where air flows
into the motor side are shown. The coordinate
150
frequency of the rotation of the spring connector.
The obtained rotation speed has an uncertainty of
0.2%. At the same time, the torque table measures
the torque (output torque of the tested motor). The
uncertainty in the torque data is 1%. The shaft
work, work transferred from the tested motor to
the break motor through the spring connector, is
then calculated by the torque and the rotation
speed. The motor side efficiency is determined by
the output shaft work and the input power to the
tested motor.
Strobe light
frequency sensor
Data acquisition and
processing computer
Pressure
(vacuum)
sensor
Break motor
0–240 V
system is chosen such that the z-axis is aligned
with the motor shaft centerline. The origin of the
coordinate system is on the bottom surface of the
rotating impeller.
The design of the fan-side in this system,
including the impeller, the fan shell, the diffuser,
and the fan-end bracket, is specified by a number
of dimensions. Without listing all of them, only
the ones that are critical to the fan performance
are given below. The diameter of the fan-shell is
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
143.2 mm (5.6 inches). The diameter of the fan-
shell eye is 35.7 mm (1.4 inches). The thicknesses
of the fan at inlet and outlet are 14.2 mm
(0.56 inch) and 5.1 mm (0.2 inch), respectively.
The axial distance between the diffuser top
surface and the impeller bottom (disc) is 7.3 mm
(0.28 inch). The entrance opening of the diffuser
channel is 6.4 mm by 12.1 mm (0.25 inch by
0.47 inch). The total area of the two openings to
the motor-side on the fan-end bracket is
1868 mm2 (2.9 inch2). The height of the fan shell
lip at the shell-eye is 2 mm (0.08 inch). The size
of the gap between the shell lip and the impeller
opening edge is 3.8 mm (0.15 inch). The impeller
has nine blades. The inlet and outlet blade angles
are 40.6° and 12.9°, respectively.
z
a)
Shell-impeller gap
Shell Lip
Diffuser x
channel
opening
Outlet opening Outlet opening
b)
Rotating impeller z filters are significantly increased. With such a
Inlet
x effects of dust layer on the rotating impeller are
One channel in
ported diffuser Outlet
Fig. 3 Geometrical domain of the three-dimensional
numerical model. (a) Cross-sectional view.
(b) Three-dimensional view.
To simplify the numerical model, the following
simplifications are made. (1) The thickness
(0.635 mm, 0.025 inch) of the rotating impeller
ring, disc, and blades are neglected. The solid
surfaces of the impeller are non-slipping rotating
surfaces on both sides. The heat conduction
resistance through the thin aluminum plates is
also neglected. (2) On the outlet surfaces, the
openings to the motor side, uniform pressure
conditions are assumed. (3) Heat transfer through
the fan shell wall (0.76 mm or 0.03 inch thick
151
steel) is simplified to a convection condition to
the surrounding with convection coefficient of
10 W/m2K, typical forced convection heat transfer
coefficient in a vacuum cleaner environment. (4)
All the surfaces of the impeller, the radial diffuser,
and the fan-end bracket are assumed hydraulically
smooth.
On the impeller blades in a vacuum cleaner, dust
can be found after normal household usage.
However, the effects of the dust on the fluid flow
and fan performance are negligible for through
flow type motor-fan units. With through flow type
motor-fan units, the air is filtered before entering
the motor-fan units. Most of the particles in the
air including water drops and/or dust are
eliminated by the filters. Only very small size
dust can pass through the filters and reach the
rotating impeller. Due to the small sizes of such
dust particles, the dust layer accumulated on the
rotating impeller is normally very thin. No
evidence was found in practice showing adverse
effects of such a thin layer of dust on the
performance of the vacuum units. This might
sound contradictory to the common sense of
vacuum cleaner users, which says that as the dust
accumulates in a vacuum cleaner unit, the unit
sucking power decreases. The reduction of
sucking capability is due to the increase of flow
resistance along the flow path. As the dust
accumulate on the filters and the pipelines,
pressure drops along the pipes and through the
higher resistance, the sucking power of the units
will be reduced even the motor-fan unit
performance remains the same. In this model, the
not considered.
At the inlet of the fan-side, a half-spherical
volume is added to the numerical domain. On the
spherical surface, pressure is specified with the
measured box pressure in the box-test. Such a
spherical inlet region is added to the numerical
domain due to the fact that at the fan-shell eye,
pressure and flow velocities are all unknown and
non-uniform. Accurate boundaries conditions are
not available. A simplified boundary condition,
uniform velocity or uniform static pressure, will
lead to unrealistic flow and pressure fields in the
fan. The outlet of the domain is specified as a
pressure outlet. On the section of the fan-shell
wall shared with the spherical region, heat
transfer through the shell is considered. All the
surfaces of the ported diffuser and the fan end
bracket, which are made from BMC material, are
assumed non-slipping adiabatic walls.
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
The mathematic formulation of the numerical
model includes the continuity equation,
momentum equation, and energy equation. In the
absolute velocity and vector format, the
governing equations are:
∂ρ
( )
r
+ ∇ ρU = 0
∂t
( )
r
∂ ρU
( ) ( )
r r r r r ported diffuser openings, and the associated flow
+ ∇ ⋅ ρU rU + Ω × U = −∇P + ∇ μ∇U
∂t
( )
∂ ( ρE )
( )
r r
+ ∇ ρU ⋅ (ρE + p ) = ∇ k eff ∇T + τ eff ⋅ U
∂t
The relation between pressure, density, and
temperature is governed by the ideal gas law
P / ρ = RT where R is the ideal gas constant. To
simulate the rotation of the impeller, a rotating
reference frame approach is employed. Such a
rotating reference frame has the same origin as
the stationary reference frame but with an angular
r turbulence
velocity about the z-axis. The angular velocity, Ω ,
is the same as the rotation speed of the impeller.
Relative velocity, velocity in the rotating
r
reference frame, U r , is a vector defined by:
r r r r r
U r = U − Ω × r . r is the location vector in the
reference frame. This rotating reference approach
⎡⎛
( )
∂ r
(ρk ) + ∇ ρkU = ∇ ⋅ ⎢⎜⎜ μ + μ 2
∂t ⎣⎝
⎡⎛ ρC k
( )
∂ r
(ρε ) + ∇ ρεU = ∇ ⋅ ⎢⎜⎜ μ + μ 2
∂t ⎣⎝ εσ ε
The contribution of fluctuating dilation in the
air to overall turbulence dissipation rate,
Y M = 2 ρεk / a s2 where a s is the speed of the sound.
The generation of turbulence kinetic energy,
G k = 2 μ t S ⋅ S where S is the mean rate of the
strain tensor in the fluid. The generation of
turbulence due to buoyancy force (temperature
r μt r previous simulations as initial conditions. The
variation), G b = − g ∇ρ where g
ρ Pr t
gravitation vector. The empirical constants, in the
above two equations, are C1 ε = 1.44 , C 2 ε = 1.92 ,
σ k = 1.0 , and σ ε = 1.3 .
The numerical solution of Eq. (1) through Eq. (5)
employs a finite volume discretization approach.
A time marching scheme is employed and the
unsteady partial differential equations are solved.
At the end of the simulation, the solutions of the
considers the rotation of the impeller by adding a
centrifugal force on the fluid in the impeller. The
performance of the impeller is mimicked without
dynamic gridding in the numerical model.
Significant amount of computing time can be
saved. The disadvantage of this approach is that it
(1) only presents steady state solutions. The transient
interaction between the impeller blades and the
(2)
velocity and pressure fluctuations cannot be
obtained.
(3)
In Eq. (3), k eff and τ eff are effective
conductivity and stress tensor, respectively. The
effective thermal conductivity includes molecular
conductivity and the turbulence thermal
conductivity, k eff = k + C p μ t / Pr t The viscosity
in Eq. (2) includes the molecular viscosity, μ 0 ,
and turbulence viscosity, μ t ⋅ μ = μ 0 + μ t . The
viscosity is calculated by
2
μ t = ρ C μ κ / ε with an empirical constant
C μ = 0.09 . The turbulence kinetic energy, κ , and
dissipation rate, ε , are governed by the standard
κ - ε transport equations.
ρC k ⎤
⎞
⎟⎟ ⋅ ∇k ⎥ + G k + Gb − ρε − YM + S k (4)
εσ ε ⎠ ⎦
⎤
⎞ ε ε2
⎟⎟ ⋅ ∇ε ⎥ + C1ε (G k + C 3ε Gb ) − C 2ε ρ + Sε (5)
⎠ ⎦ k k
equations do not vary with time and steady state
solutions are then achieved. As a pseudo-unsteady
simulation, the time marching procedure needs
initial conditions for all the independent variables.
In this effort, the first simulation run employs a
zero velocity, uniform pressure and temperature
r
as initial conditions, U = 0, T = 300k, P-P0 = 0 Pa.
The later simulation runs employ the results of the
is the
relaxation factor for the mass, momentum, energy,
turbulence kinetic energy, and turbulence
dissipation rate are 0.8, 0.6, 0.9, 0.8, and 0.8
respectively. The iterative solution procedure
continues until the residuals of the mass
conservation equation, momentum conservation
equation, and equations for turbulence quantities
are all smaller than 10 -4, while the residual of the
energy equation is lower than 10 -6.
152
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)

To increase the confidence on the results 0.7 80

predicted by the numerical models, a grid 0.6

Motor efficiency, ηm
70
convergence study is conducted for the case when 0.5
the motor-fan system works under a 19.1 mm
60
(0.75 inch) orifice. The results of the grid

%
Nm
0.4

convergence study are given in Table 1. The 0.3

ηm
Ts
50
parameter presented is the shaft work of the fan Torque, Ts
0.2
side, which represents the end results of all the 40
parameters at work pertaining to the fluid flow in 0.1

the fan. Considering the trend of the predicted 0.0 30

shaft work changing with the refining of the grids 20 25 30 35 40 45

ωs
and the difference between the results with kRPM

Grid #2 and Grid #3, the author thinks that Fig. 4 The speed, torque, and efficiency of the
Grid #3 is fine enough for the simulations in this motor-side.
study. Other than the shaft work, we also
compared the air mass flow rate, fan side 36 50

efficiency, outlet velocity, and outlet air

temperature. All parameter comparisons show the 34
system efficiency, ηs
40

same conclusion that simulations with Grid #3 are

fully converged. All the results presented here kRPM
32 30

%
after are obtained with Grid #3.

ηs
30 20
ωs

Table 1 Results of grid independence study. 28 10

Rotation speed, ωs
Dorif = 19.1 mm (3/4 inch).
26 0
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56
Grids #1 #2 #3 Dori mm

Size (k) 659 1,334 1,914

Fig. 5 The flow driving performance of the motor-
Shaft work (W) 860.95 871.83 870.74 fan system.

Difference 1.3% 0.1% 60

50 Experimental
Numerical

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 40

%

4.1 Motor side performance 30

ηf

With the speed torque test described above, the 20

motor side efficiency and the output shaft torque

(torque transferred to the fan side) are obtained 10

and given in Fig. 4. The shaft torque decreases as 0

the motor speed increases. The motor side 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

efficiency is relatively high in the rotation speed Dorif mm

range of 25–34 kRPM. The maximum efficiency
is 72% at 29.5 kRPM.
With the box test following the ASTM standard,
the motor-fan system efficiency and the shaft
rotation speed are obtained and presented in
Fig. 5. As the orifice diameter increases, the shaft
rotation speed first decreases quickly and then
remains almost a constant when the orifice
diameter is larger than 25.4 mm (1 inch). The
system efficiency reaches the maximum, 39.3%,
at the orifice of 19.1 mm (3/4 inch) with a
rotation speed of 29.5 kRPM.
Fig. 6 Comparison of the experimental and the
numerically predicted fan-side efficiencies.
For each of the orifices, the rotation speed of the
motor is known (Fig. 5). With this rotation speed,
the motor side efficiency can be obtained with the
speed torque data shown in Fig. 4. With the above
system efficiency and the motor side efficiency,
the fan side efficiency can be calculated,
η f = η s / η m where η f , η s , and η m are fan-side
efficiency, motor-fan system efficiency, and
motor-side efficiency, respectively. Such

153
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)

experimentally obtained fan-side efficiencies are diameter reduces further beyond 15.9 mm
given in Fig. 6 (solid line). (5/8 inch). At an orifice smaller that 12.7 mm
(0.5 inch), the absolute pressure at the fan inlet
4.2 Model validation drops down to 80 kPa or lower. The
The model predicted fan-side efficiencies for compressibility of air comes into play and reduces
various orifices are also shown in Fig. 6 for further the fan-side efficiency. At orifices larger
comparison. One can see that the agreement than 19.1 mm, the energy loss is also high. At a
between the data is reasonably good at all orifices. larger orifice, the vacuum at the inlet of the fan is
The fan-side efficiency peaks at an orifice of low. However, large amount of air is sucked into
19.1 mm (3/4 inch), which is the design working the impeller. Losses in the fan side due to the
condition of the motor-fan-system in a vacuum friction and the recirculation become larger. Part
cleaner. of the energy, which is not counted in the motor-
The fan-side efficiency is lower when the orifice fan system efficiency (according to the ASTM
diameter is smaller than 19.1 mm. With a small standard) is the dynamic energy associated with
orifice, the fan has to work against a larger the flow velocity at the system outlet. With high
pressure differential between the fan inlet and the air flow rate, such part of dynamic energy is
fan outlet. In other words, the vacuum at the inlet noticeably higher when compared to the case at
of the fan is high. The amount of the air, sucked 19.1 mm orifice.
by the fan, decreases significantly as the orifice

50 40

a) b)
40
Gap loss 30
Impeller loss
%

30

20
EL / W s

EL / W s

20

10
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Dorif mm Dorif mm

20 30

c) d)
Shell loss
15

20
%

10
EL / W s

EL / W s

Diffuser loss
10
5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Dorif mm Dorif mm

30

e)

20
%

Fig. 7 Energy losses in the fan-side at various orifices.

EL / W s

Outflow swirl loss

(a) Loss due to the leakage through the impeller-
10
shell gap. (b) Loss inside the impeller. (c) Loss
between the fan and the diffuser inlets. (d) Loss in
the diffuser. (e) Loss due to the swirling flow at
0 the fan-end bracket openings.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Dorif mm

154
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
Other than the above causes, the fan-side
efficiency peaks at 19.1 mm (3/4 inch) orifices
also because of the design parameters in the fan-
side, including the rotating impeller, the ported
diffuser, and the flow channel in the fan-end
bracket. Such a set of design parameters
determines that the total energy loss at 19.1 mm
(3/4 inch) is the minimum, as shown in Fig. 7.
The energy loss due to the gap between the
impeller and the fan-shell decreases as the orifice
diameter increases. At a 19.1 mm orifice, the
energy loss is about 10% of the shaft work.
Further increase of the orifice diameter does not
change the gap loss significantly. The energy loss
in the impeller is the lowest at a 19.1 mm orifice.
The shell loss, another large energy loss in the
system at a 19.1 mm orifice, counts 15% of the
shaft work. The diffuser loss and the outlet flow
loss are high only at large orifices. At a 19.1 mm
Velocity
m/s
140
70
Pressure
kPa
4
-6
-16
80
60
%
40
MG / Ms
20
0 leakage. (c) Leakage flow rate.
0 10 20
Dorif
orifice, the diffuser loss and outflow losses are
quite low, about 5% of the fan shaft work. Each
of the above energy losses will be analyzed in the
following sections and explained by the flow
structures and pressure distributions.
4.3 Gap loss
The centrifugal impeller is a rotating part while
the fan shell is a stationary one. The gap between
the fan and the shell has to be big enough to
prevent touching and rubbing. Normally the fan
shell has the same curvature as the impeller top
(ring). At the eye of the shell, an inward lip
towards the impeller-eye is used to reduce the
leakage through the gap. The structure of the gap
and the flow structure in the impeller and the gap
can be seen in Fig. 8a.
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 8 Fluid leakage through the
impeller-shell gap.
D orif = 19.1 mm (0.75 inch).
(a) Velocity pattern in the gap.
(b) Pressure that drives the
30 40 50 60
mm
155
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
The leakage flow through the gap is driven by the
combination of the following forces. (1) The
pressure variation in the gap, built up by the
impeller, acts as a driving force. At the impeller
outlet, the pressure is high due to the rotation of
the impeller (centrifugal force associated with the
rotation). At the fan-eye, the air pressure is low.
(2) The centrifugal force created by the high
speed rotation of the air in the gap. This
centrifugal force is against the leakage flow. (3)
The flow resistance in the channel due to the
friction on the shell inner surface and impeller
ring top surface.
The pressure distribution in the gap and the
pressure differential that drives the leakage are
shown in Fig. 8b. The energy loss due to the
leakage through the gap consists of two parts. The
first is the pressure potential energy. Since the
leakage carries a finite amount of air from a high
pressure region to a low pressure region. The
second part is the dynamic energy of the leakage
air, since at the impeller outlet, the air velocity is
very high (very high circumferential velocity
component). This high speed air flows through
the gap and reaches the fan shell eye. When such
high speed air merges/mixes with the low speed
air at the inlet of the fan, its dynamic energy is
mostly lost.
The energy loss of the leakage is proportional to
the leakage flow rate. The leakage flow rate
through the gap, non-dimensionalized by the
system flow rate (flow rate at the shell-eye), for
various orifices is given in Fig. 8c. As one can see,
the leakage rate is very high, reaching 70% of the
net flow rate at 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) orifice. At this
small orifice, the fan rotation speed is high. The
pressure at the fan eye is very low. The pressure
differential that drives the leakage is very high.
On the other hand, the net flow rate of the fan
system is low. With the increase of the orifice
diameter, the vacuum developed by the impeller
at the fan eye decreases. Accordingly, the leakage
flow rate decreases. For orifices larger that
20 mm, the ratio between the leakage flow rate
and the net flow rate remains close to a constant.
One can conclude that the gap size and geometry
chosen in the current design should be employed
only for systems work under an orifice of
19.1 mm (3/4 inch) or larger.
In designing a motor-fan fan system, the rotation
speed is determined by the vacuum cleaner design.
In cleaners that the motor shaft drives a roller-
brush, the motor speed is determined by the
required brush rotation speed. In other vacuum
units that the motor doesn’t drive a brush, the
rotation speed is determined by the required
156
suction and impeller diameter. In other words, fan
designers cannot reduce the leakage flow driving
pressure differential by reducing the fan rotation
speed. The only effective way to lower the
leakage flow rate is to increase the flow resistance
through the gap, such as reducing the gap size.
The lip at the eye of the fan shell certainly creates
additional flow resistance. A non-touching seals,
such as a labyrinth seal, will reduce the leakage
flow rate significantly, compared with the gap
that has a direct opening to the fan eye in the
current design. The above conclusion agrees with
what Wright found on the inlet gap in a scroll
cage centrifugal blower (Wright, 1984).
4.4 Energy loss in the impeller
The rotating impeller is the part in the motor-fan
system that drives the air. The blades sandwiched
between the impeller ring and the disc force the
air in the impeller to rotate. The rotation of the air
builds a pressure differential between the inlet
and outlet of the impeller. The centrifugal force
overcomes the pressure differential and pushes
the air through the channels between the blades
form the inlet at the center to the impeller outlet.
The energy losses in a rotating impeller include
mainly the following three parts. (1) The flow
separation at the leading and the trailing edges of
the blades. (2) The reversed flow in the flow
channel between the blades. (3) Friction loss due
to turbulence and molecular viscosity. The
turbulence loss is unavoidable due to the
designing rotation speed and flow rate. However,
the flow separation and recirculation can be
minimized by proper blade angles. When the flow
direction at the inlet and outlet of the fan follows
the blade angles, there will be no flow separation
on the blade surfaces and no recirculation cells in
the space between the blades. The energy loss
will be low and fan-side efficiency will be high.
The flow structure and pressure distribution in the
impeller, on a plane cutting through the center of
the impeller outlet between the ring and the disc,
are shown in Fig. 9, for orifices of 9.5 mm
(3/8 inch), 19.1 mm (3/4 inch), and 44.5 mm
(1.75 inch). In Figs. 9a, 9b, and 9c, the fluid
relative velocity, velocity relative to the rotating
reference frame, is shown and the gage pressure
distributions on the same planes are given in
Figs. 9a’, 9b’, and 9c’, respectively.
At 19.1 mm (3/4 inch) and 44.5 mm (1.75 inch)
orifices, the flow follows the blade angles at both
the inlet and the outlet. On the blade surfaces,
there is no flow separation. At 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)
orifices, the pressure at the fan-eye is very low
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
and the flow rate through the impeller blade
channels is small. Inspection of Fig. 9a shows that
the flow directions at the inlet and outlet of the
fan do not follow the blade angles. Such flow
patterns in the impeller explain the energy loss in
the impeller for various orifices shown in Fig. 7b.
The present impeller design has a minimum
energy loss at 22.2 mm (7/8 inch) orifice, which
agrees roughly with the maximum system
performance point. For orifices larger than
22.2 mm, flow direction still agrees with the blade
a) a’)
b) b’)
c) c’)
4.5 Shell loss
Shell loss is the energy loss in the air after coming
out of the impeller and before entering the inlet of
the ported diffuser. The shell loss is due to the
following two causes. (1) The air velocity at the
impeller outlet is not uniform. When the higher
speed air and the lower speed air are mixed
together, part of the dynamic energy is lost, even
though the total momentum remains the same.
(2) When the air from the impeller outlet, with
high circumferential velocity component, reaches
the inlet of the diffuser channel, the flow velocity
drops significantly. During this process, the
dynamic energy of the fluid motion is not
157
angles. The energy loss increases slightly due to
the friction loss and turbulence loss.
Comparatively, for orifices smaller than 22.2 mm,
the energy loss increases quickly as the orifice
diameter reduces. We can conclude that to make
the fan-side efficiency peak at a specific orifice,
the proper impeller blade angles have to be
selected, so that there are no flow separation and
recirculation at the targeted working condition
(orifice).
Velocity
m/s
180
90
Pressure
kPa
3
- 9.5
- 22
Fig. 9 Flow structure (a, b, c) and pressure distribution
(a’, b’, c’) in the centrifugal impeller.
(a, a’) D orif = 9.5 mm (0.375 inch).
(b, b’) D orif = 19.1 mm (0.75 inch).
(c, c’) D orif = 44.5 mm (1.75 inch).
effectively recovered into the pressure potential
energy.
The above two parts of the shell energy loss can
be explained in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. The velocity
magnitude distribution at the fan outlet surface is
shown in Fig. 10 for the case with a 19.1 mm
(3/4 inch) orifice. In the region near the surfaces
of the ring, the fan disc, and the surfaces of the
blades, the air rotates with the solid surfaces at the
same speed, 188 m/s. In the center region,
between the disc and the ring, the velocity is
lower (109 m/s). When the air at 188 m/s and the
air at 109 m/s are mixed together, noticeable
amount of energy is lost.
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)

Velocity
magnitude
m/s
ω 188

149

Fig. 10 Flow velocity magnitude at the outlet of the impeller.

D orif = 19.1 mm (0.75 inch). Uav = 118.9 m/s. 109

Velocity
a)
a) m/s
136

68

b)
b) Pressure
kPa
3.5

0.3

- 2.9

Fig. 11 Flow (a) and pressure (b) in the shell

region between the fan outlet and the
channel inlet of the ported diffuser.
D orif = 19.1 mm (3/4 inch).

Figure 11 gives the velocity and pressure
distribution at the impeller outlet and the inlet of a
diffuser channels. After the air comes out of the
impeller and mixed together, the average velocity
is 118.9 m/s. when the air enters the triangular
surface of the wedge region, the average velocity
is only 68 m/s. At the time the air reaches the inlet
of the diffuser channel, the average velocity is
52.2 m/s. The area averaged gage pressures at the
above three surfaces, the outlet of the impeller,
the triangle inlet surface of the wedge region and
the inlet of the diffuser channel are -521 Pa,
566 Pa, and 1448 Pa, respectively. The energy
density (dynamic and pressure potential energy
per unit amount of air) at these three locations are
6519, 2965, and 2769 J/kg, respectively.
Considering that the air flow rate is 0.0321 kg/s,
the energy loss between the impeller outlet and
the triangle wedge region inlet is 114 Watts.
Energy loss in the wedge region is 6.29 Watts.

158
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)

One can see that the energy loss in the wedge
region is insignificant, comparatively. A
tremendous energy loss is between the impeller
outlet and the triangle inlet of the wedge region.
As stated before, such a huge energy loss is due to
the fact that the high dynamic energy (high speed)
of the air at the outlet of the impeller is not
efficiently recovered into pressure potential
energy in the shell region. One can see that the
shell loss in this study and the volute effect in a
fan-volute system studied by Torigoe, Takemura
and Sasaoka (1976) have the same fundamental
mechanism, ineffective recovery of the dynamic
energy into pressure potential energy. The results
presented above can explain the experimental
work of Torigoe, Takemura and Sasaoka and their
conclusion that a well designed volute can
improve the blower efficiency by 9% (Torigoe,
Takemura and Sasaoka, 1976).
Shell loss is one of the biggest energy losses in
the fan system, Fig. 7. The variation of shell loss
with orifice diameters shows a special character,
Fig. 7c. At large orifices, the shell loss remains
high and flat. With a smaller orifice, the shell loss
increases further and reaches a maximum at
15.8 mm (5/8 inch). The orifice design of most
vacuum cleaner motors is larger than 15.8 mm
(5/8 inch). The facts presented above clearly show
that fan side architecture with a ported diffuser is
not a good choice for motor-fan system working
at orifices of 15.8 mm (5/8 inch) or smaller.

a) kPa a’)
1.2

-1.6

m/s
66

b) kPa b’)
3.4

-1.2
m/s
78

kPa
c) 10 c’)

-4.8
m/s
145

Fig. 12 Flow (a, b, c) and pressure (a’, b’, c’) in the diffuser channels. (a, a’) D orif = 9.5 mm (3/8 inch).
(b, b’) D orif = 19.1 mm (3/4 inch). (c, c’) Dorif = 44.5 mm (1.75 inch).

4.6 Diffuser loss where the air enters the motor-side). Figure 12
shows the flow structure and pressure distribution
The diffuser loss is the energy loss inside the
in the horizontal center plane of the diffuser
diffuser (after the air enters the diffuser channel
channels for orifices of 9.5 mm (3/8 inch),
and before the air reaches the outlet of the diffuser

159
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
19.1 mm (3/4 inch), and 44.5 mm (1.75 inch). As
the air flowing through the diffuser channel
towards the center region, the flow velocity is
reduced. In the center region, two circulating
vortices are formed before the air enters the outlet
openings on the fan-end bracket. As the flow
velocity decreases in the diffuser channel, part of
the kinetic energy is recovered into the pressure
potential energy and the pressure is increased.
However, the efficiencies of the pressure recovery
in the channels are not the same due to the
geometrical difference between the channels.
Some channels has higher pressure recovery
capability than other channels (Figs. 12a’, 12b’,
and 12c’).
The diffuser energy loss is mainly due to the
following causes. (1) The flow in the diffuser
changes its direction twice. The air is first turned
towards the center region. The second turn makes
a)
b)
Fig. 13 Flow structure at the outlet of the fan-side (fan-end bracket openings). (a) Dorif = 19.1 mm (3/4 inch).
(b) Dorif = 38.1 mm (1.5 inch).
4.7 Outlet loss
After the flow is turned twice in the diffuser, the
air has a high circulating velocity at the outlet
openings between the diffuser and the motor-side.
160
the air flow towards the motor side. Energy is
always lost during the changing of flow direction.
(2) The flow processes in the diffuser channels
are different due to different channel geometries.
The design of the diffuser has to consider the
supporting of the fan-end bracket, the supporting
of the brushes of the motor, and the location and
geometry of the outlet hole on the fan-end bracket.
In practice, the length, width, and curvature of the
diffuser flow channels cannot be kept the same.
However, the loss in the diffuser is significant
only when the orifice diameter is large and the
flow rate is high, Fig. 7d. The diffuser loss is low
at small orifices since the air velocity at the
diffuser channel inlet is already low as shown in
Fig. 12a’. In other words, the motor architecture
with a ported diffuser should not be employed for
high-flow motor-fan systems.
m/s
70
35
0
m/s
120
60
0
Such a circulating velocity of the air is a waste of
energy, since only the axial component of the
velocity carries the flow rate from the fan side
into the motor side. The circulating velocity
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)
component does not contribute to the flow rate
and contributes very little to the cooling of the
motor-side. The circulating velocity component is
proportional to the total flow rate. When the air
flow rate is high, with larger orifices, the
circulating velocity component is high, as shown
in Fig. 13 for 19.1 mm (3/4 inch) orifice and
38.1 mm (1.5 inch) orifice. At the outlet of the
diffuser channels, the flow already has a
circumferential velocity component. After the air
leaves the diffuser channel and enters a relatively
open space at the center of the diffuser, the
circumference velocity component is increased
and circulation cells (vortices) are formed. To
reduce the circulation velocity at the outlet, the
flow should be guided more radially by the
diffuser channels.
At low flow rate, with small orifices, the outlet
loss due to the circulating velocity is small, 5% of
the shaft-work at 19.1 mm (3/4 inch). The outlet
loss is large only at large orifices, 25% of the
shaft-work at 38.1 mm (1.5 inch) orifice. The
amount of outlet loss is another reason that for
motor-fan system working in the high flow rate
regimes, ported diffuser should not be used.
5. REMARKS ON APPLICATIONS
The current motor-fan system design is
reasonably good in the following aspects. (1) The
designed working condition is at 19.1 mm
(3/4 inch). At this orifice, the energy loss in the
fan-side reaches a minimum. (2) At the designed
working condition, the energy loss in the diffuser
and the outlet loss each counts only 5% of the
shaft work. (3) At the designed working condition,
the fan rotates at 29.5 kRPM. At this speed, the
efficiency of the motor-side is very close to its
maximum. In other words, both the motor side
and the fan side efficiencies reach their peak point
at the designed working condition.
With the energy loss analysis presented above,
one can see that the following modifications can
improve the fan efficiency. (1) The gap loss due
to the leakage between the impeller and the fan-
shell can be reduced. A very effective way is to
add a non-touching seal at the fan-eye to cut
down the leakage flow rate. (2) The shell loss can
be reduced by a radial diffuser that guides the air
flow coming out of the impeller. In the radial
diffuser, the dynamic energy of the high
circumferential velocity of the air can be
recovered much more effectively into pressure
potential energy.
The diffuser loss and the outlet loss become
significant for orifices of 25.4 mm (1 inch) or
161
larger. The gap loss, shell loss, and impeller loss
become very high with orifices of 15.9 mm
(5/8 inch) or smaller. This motor architecture with
ported diffuser should be chosen only for motor-
fan systems, of which the designing peak
efficiency orifices (working point) are between
19.1 mm (3/4 inch) and 22.2 mm (7/8 inch)
orifices.
6. CONCLUSIONS
A numerical model is developed for the fluid flow
process in a through flow type centrifugal motor-
fan system designed for vacuum cleaners. The
agreements, between the model prediction and the
experimentally measured motor and fan
performance data, are reasonably good.
The flow simulations with the numerical model
reveal the flow details in the fan-side and the
energy losses in each part of the fan-side along
the flow path. Results indicate that the biggest
energy losses are the gap loss and the shell loss.
Each of the above losses counts about 15% of the
shaft work at the designed working condition,
19.1 mm (3/4 inch) orifice. The energy loss inside
the impeller is low at the designed working
condition, but increases dramatically when the
orifice size decreases due to flow separation and
recirculation. At larger orifice conditions, the fan
loss also increases due to friction and turbulence
loss. The diffuser loss and the outlet loss are not
large at the working condition, but both of them
will increase and become significant when the air
flow rate increases (large orifices).
With the current motor design, the motor side and
the fan side both peak at the same speed, which is
the speed of the designed working conditions. The
motor-fan system efficiency can be improved by
reducing the leakage flow rate through the
impeller-shell gap. Such a fan-side architecture,
centrifugal impeller with ported diffuser, can only
be employed for motor-fan system designed for
medium flow rate (efficiency peaks at medium
size orifices). For motor-fan systems working at
small orifices (high suction with relatively low
flow rate), redial diffusion should be used to
reduce the shell loss.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the engineers and technicians
in the Electrical-Mechanical Group of Ametek Inc.
for their help on this effort. The support from the
Engineering School at The University of Akron is
also highly appreciated.
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)

NOMENCLATURE Engineers Part A – Journal of Power and

Energy 202(3):163–169.
Cp Specific heat 4. Cudina M, Prezelj J (2007a). Noise
Dorif Orifice diameter generation by vacuum cleaner suction units.
E Enthalpy Part I. Noise generating mechanisms—An
ErL Energy loss overview. Applied Acoustics 68(5):491–502.
g Gravity vector 5. Cudina M, Prezelj J (2007b). Noise
k eff Effective conductivity generation by vacuum cleaner suction units.
MG Gap leakage flow rate Part II. Effect of vaned diffuser on noise
Ms System net flow rate characteristics. Applied Acoustics 68(5):503–
P Pressure 520.
Prt Turbulence Prandtl number 6. Eads D (1981). Establishing a centrifugal-fan
R Ideal gas constant performance curve. Chemical Engineering
r
r Location vector 88(6):201–208.
Mean rate of strain tensor 7. Fisher E, Inoue M (1981). A study of diffuser
S
rotor interaction in a centrifugal-compressor.
T Temperature Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
Ts Shaft torque 23(3):149–156.
tr Time 8. Jeon W, Baek S, Kim C (2003). Analysis of
U Velocity vector the aeroacoustic characteristics of the
Uav Area average velocity centrifugal fan in a vacuum cleaner. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 268(5):1025–1035.
Greek Symbols 9. Jeon W, Rew H, Kim C (2004). Aeroacoustic
characteristics and noise reduction of a
as Speed of sound centrifugal fan for a vacuum cleaner. KSME
ηf Fan-side efficiency International Journal 18(2):185–192.
ηm Motor side efficiency 10. Kennedy D (2003). Process machinery:
ηs Motor-fan system efficiency advanced industrial vacuum cleaning systems
ε Rate of turbulence dissipation increase productivity and improve safety.
Rubber World 227(5):22–23.
κ Turbulence kinetic energy
11. Kim J, Kwac L, An J (2004). 3-D laser
μ Viscosity
vibration measurement and an analysis of the
μ0 Molecular viscosity
unsteady flow-field and aerodynamic sound
μt Turbulence viscosity of turbo fan motor in a vacuum cleaner.
ρ Air density Explosion, Shock Wave and Hypervelocity
τ eff Effective stress tensor Phenomena in Materials 465/466:259–264.
r 12. Lioy P, Wainman T, Zhang J, Goldsmith S
Ω Rotation vector (1999). Typical household vacuum cleaners:
ωs Shaft rotation speed the collection efficiency and emissions
characteristics for fine particles. Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Association
REFERENCES 49(2):200–206.
13. Morinushi K (1987). The influence of
1. Allen R, Baldini N, Donodrio P et al. (Editors) geometric parameters on FC centrifugal fan
(1999). 1999 Annual Book of ASTM noise. Journal of Vibration Acoustics Stress
Standards: Section 15—General Products, and Reliability in Design – Transactions of
Chemical Specialties, and End Use Products. the ASME 109(3):227–234.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 14. Nakayama Y, Yamamoto T, Aoki K, Ohta H
pp. 347–360. (1985). Measurement of relative velocity
2. Ataka Y, Ikezaki K, Ishii K (1986). Clean and distribution in centrifugal blower impeller.
healthy vacuum cleaner. Sharp Technical Bulletin of the JSME – Japan Society of
Journal 35:95–100. Mechanical Engineers 28(243):1978–1985.
3. Clements W, Artt D (1988). The influence of 15. Ramamurti V, Balasubramanian P (1986).
diffuser channel length width ratio on the Contribution to the design of centrifugal fan
efficiency of a centrifugal-compressor. impellers. Zement-kalk-gips 39(11):633–636.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

162
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009)

16. Rittmueller S, Mann J, Holger D (1997).

Iterative design method to reduce the exhaust
and venting noise of a vacuum cleaner motor
with minimum use of absorptive foam. Noise
Control Engineering Journal 45(2):63–68.
17. Sagoo H, Penny J, Booth R (1986).
Identifying noise sources in a vacuum cleaner.
Proceedings – 1986 International Conference
on Noise Control Engineering, Progress in
Noise Control: Inter-Noise 86:1211–1216.
18. Sarbu M, Kraft G (1996). Sound intensity
techniques reduce vacuum cleaner noise.
Noise and Vibration Worldwide 27(7):10–14.
19. Torigoe M, Takemura S, Sasaoka R (1976).
High efficiency fan for the electric vacuum
cleaner. National Technical Report
22(2):159–168.
20. Wake D, Gray R, Brown R (1991).
Assessment on industrial vacuum cleaners of
both wet and dry types for use in potteries.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 35(2):201–
221.
21. Wright T (1984). Centrifugal fan performance
with inlet clearance. Journal of Engineering
for Gas Turbines and Power – Transactions
of the ASME 106(4):906–912.
22. Wright T, Tzou K, Madhavan S (1984). Flow
in a centrifugal fan impeller at off-design
conditions. Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbines and Power – Transactions of the
ASME 106(4):913–919.
23. Yu Z, Li S, He W, Wang W, Huang D, Zhu Z
(2005). Numerical simulation of flow field for
a whole centrifugal fan and analysis of the
effects of blade inlet angle and impeller gap.
HVAC&R Research 11(2):263–283.

163