Search Results

In this paper, the performance of a radial turbine working under pulsatile flow conditions is computed with two different modeling approaches, time resolved 1-dimensional (1-D) and 3-dimensional (3-D) CFD. The 1-D modeling approach is based on measured turbine maps which are used to compute the mass flow rate and work output from the turbine for a given expansion ratio and temperature at the inlet. The map is measured under non-pulsatile flow conditions, and in the 1-D method the turbine is treated as being a quasi-stationary flow device. In the 3-D CFD approach, a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) turbulence approach is used. The objective of LES is to explicitly compute the large scales of the turbulence while modeling the effects of the unresolved scales. Three different cases are considered, where the simplest case only consist of the turbine and the most complex case consist of an exhaust manifold and the turbine.

In this work a comparative study between 1-D and 3-D calculations has been performed on different junctions. The geometries are a 90° T-junction with an area ratio of unity and a 45° junction with an area ratio of 1.78 between the main pipe and the side branch. The latter case had an offset between the centerlines of the main and the branched pipe. The 3-D modeling framework uses the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with the k-ε model both for the steady and the unsteady flow cases. The comparison is made both under steady and pulsating flow conditions. The aim has been to assess the 1-D/3-D differences in terms of measures for flow losses. For the steady flow cases it is shown that there is a large difference between the 1-D and 3-D computed losses for both junction geometries. The differences are largest in the junction and right downstream of it.

To improve today’s 1D engine simulation techniques it is important to investigate how well complex geometries such as the manifold are modeled by these engine simulation tools and to identify the inaccuracies that can be attributed to the 1D assumption. Time resolved 1D and 3D calculations have been performed on the turbulent flow through the outer runners of an exhaust manifold of a 2 liter turbocharged SI engine passenger car The total pressure drop over the exhaust manifold, computed with the 1D and 3D approach, showed to differ over an exhaust pulse. This is so even though a pressure loss coefficient correction has been employed in the 1D model to account for 3D flow effects. The 3D flow in the two outer runners of the manifold shows the presence of secondary flow motion downstream of the first major curvature. The axial velocity profile downstream of the first turn loses its symmetry. As the flow enters the second curvature a swirling motion is formed.

1D engine simulations of turbocharged engines are difficult to perform with good accuracy. Calculations of turbine performance are based on performance maps. These are measured under steady flow conditions using air at moderate temperatures, not very representative of the very hot and pulsating gas flow the on-engine turbine is exposed to. To improve the predictivity of today's 1D engine calculations or the limiting factors of the turbocharger itself, it is most important to gain deeper understanding of how the turbine behaves under on-engine conditions. The objective of this paper is to compare calculated instantaneous on-engine turbine efficiency based on measurements with results from using steady-flow efficiency performance maps. The work is performed using two different turbochargers at two operating points with closed waste gate.