0
Research Papers

Pulse Performance Modeling of a Twin Entry Turbocharger Turbine Under Full and Unequal Admission

[+] Author and Article Information
Aaron W. Costall1

 Caterpillar Inc., Applied Research Europe, Perkins Engines Co. Ltd., Peterborough PE1 5NA, UKcostall_aaron@cat.com

Robert M. McDavid

 Caterpillar Inc., Applied Research Europe, Perkins Engines Co. Ltd., Peterborough PE1 5NA, UKmcdavid_robert_m@cat.com

Ricardo F. Martinez-Botas

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2BX, UKr.botas@imperial.ac.uk

Nicholas C. Baines

 Concepts NREC, 23 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NX, UKncb@conceptsnrec.com

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 133(2), 021005 (Oct 19, 2010) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000566 History: Received July 20, 2009; Revised August 06, 2009; Published October 19, 2010; Online October 19, 2010

The pulsating nature of gas flow within the exhaust manifold of an internal combustion engine is not well captured by the quasi-steady techniques typically employed by cycle simulation programs for turbocharger modeling. This problem is compounded by the unequal admission conditions imposed on the turbine by the use of multiple entry housings installed as standard on pulse turbocharged diesel engines. This unsteady behavior presents the simulation engineer with a unique set of difficulties when modeling turbocharger turbines. It is common for experienced analysts to accommodate multiple entries by splitting the flow across duplicate components and by tuning the level of interference between volute entries but this necessarily bespoke approach is limited to upstream modifications that cannot capture true turbine unsteady operation. This paper describes recent simulation code development work undertaken at Caterpillar to improve machine submodel accuracy essential for virtual product development meeting U.S. nonroad Tier 4 emission standards. The resulting turbine performance model has been validated against experimental data for a twin entry turbocharger suitable for heavy duty nonroad applications, obtained using a permanent magnet eddy-current dynamometer and pulse flow test facility. Comparison between experiment and prediction demonstrates good agreement under full admission in terms of both instantaneous flow capacity and turbine actual power although unequal admission results indicate the need for further model development.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Imperial College turbocharger test facility layout (8) and (b) photograph of measurement section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Full admission static pressure profiles for both limbs at (a) 30 and (b) 60 Hz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Unequal admission static pressure profiles for both limbs at (a) 30 and (b) 60 Hz

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Single entry model—domain arrangement

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Connecting duct and turbine housing external geometry, (b) fluid surfaces, (c) selected cross sections, and (d) cross section centroids and meanlines

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a) Calibrated steady mass flow characteristics versus measured data, (b) corresponding loss coefficient profiles, and (c) corresponding efficiency profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Single entry predictions versus experimental data at 60 Hz—inner limb: (a) MP mass flow, (b) stage flow capacity, and (c) turbine actual power

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Single entry predictions versus experimental data at 60 Hz—outer limb: (a) MP mass flow, (b) stage flow capacity, and (c) turbine actual power

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Single entry model at 60 Hz—inner limb: predicted versus experimental efficiency and predicted downstream mach number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Twin entry model—domain arrangement; nodes along broken lines are coincident

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Single and twin entry predictions versus experimental data at 60 Hz—inner limb: (a) MP mass flow, (b) stage flow capacity, and (c) turbine actual power

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Twin entry model predictions versus experimental data at 60 Hz: (a) MP mass flow, (b) MP static pressure, and (c) turbine actual power

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In