| description abstract | A turbocharger is a key enabler for lowering CO2 emission of an internal combustion engine (ICE) through the reutilization of the exhaust gas energy that would otherwise have been released to the ambient. In its actual operating conditions, a turbocharger turbine operates under highly pulsating flow due to the reciprocating nature of the ICE. Despite this, the turbocharger turbines are still designed using the standard steady-state approach due to the lack of understanding of the complex unsteady pressure and mass propagation within the stage. The application of guide vanes in a turbocharger turbine stage has increased the complexity of flow interactions regardless of whether the vanes are fixed or variable. Although it is enticing to assume that the performance of the vaned turbine is better than the one without (vaneless), there are currently no tangible evidences to support this claim, particularly during the actual pulsating flow operations. Therefore, this research looks into comparing the differences between the two turbine arrangements in terms of their performance at flow field level. For this purpose, a three-dimensional (3D) “full-stage” unsteady turbine computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models for both volutes are constructed and validated against the experimental data. These models are subject to identical instantaneous inlet pressure profile of 60 Hz, which is equivalent to an actual three-cylinder four-stroke engine rotating at 2400 rpm. A similar 95.14 mm diameter mixed-flow turbine rotor rotating at 48,000 rpm is used for both models to enable direct comparison. The complete validation exercises for both steady and unsteady flow conditions are also presented. Results have indicated that neither vaned nor vaneless turbine is capable of maintaining constant efficiency throughout the pulse cycle. Despite that, the vaneless turbine indicated better performance during peak power instances. This work also showed that the pulsating pressure at the turbine inlet affected the vaned and vaneless turbines differently at the flow field level. Furthermore, results also indicated that both the turbines matched its optimum incidence angle for only a fraction of pulse cycle, which is unfavorable. | |
