Accepted Manuscript

A one-dimensional unsteady performance model for turbocharger turbines

Zhanming Ding, Weilin Zhuge, Yangjun Zhang, Hua Chen, Ricardo Martinez-
Botas, Mingyang Yang

PII: S0360-5442(17)30730-2

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.154

Reference: EGY 10795

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 21 December 2016

Revised Date: 26 April 2017

Accepted Date: 30 April 2017

Please cite this article as: Zhanming Ding, Weilin Zhuge, Yangjun Zhang, Hua Chen, Ricardo
Martinez-Botas, Mingyang Yang, A one-dimensional unsteady performance model for turbocharger
turbines, Energy (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.154

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

A one-dimensional unsteady model of turbocharger turbines is presented.

A flow exiting term is included in the volute model considering volute curvature.
The distribution of flow parameters inside the turbine volute could be predicted.
The circumferential non-uniformity at rotor inlet could be preserved.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 A one-dimensional unsteady performance model for turbocharger

2 turbines
3

4 DING Zhanming1,2, ZHUGE Weilin 1, ZHANG Yangjun 1*, CHEN Hua 2, Ricardo Martinez-Botas 3,

5 YANG Mingyang4

6 1 State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

7 2 National Laboratory of Engine Turbocharging Technology, Tianjin, China

8 3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

9 4 School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

10 *Corresponding author: yjzhang@tsinghua.edu.cn

11 Abstract:

12 With the widespread application of pulse turbochargers in internal combustion engines, steady or

13 quasi-steady turbine models are no longer qualified for on-engine turbine performance prediction.

14 Pulsatile flow condition caused by the reciprocating nature of the engine results in strong unsteadiness

15 across the turbocharger turbine, which makes the turbine performance departing from that under steady

16 or quasi-steady conditions. Modelling turbocharger turbine through a one-dimensional (1D) method is

17 an important approach to simulate the unsteady performance of the turbine.

18 In this paper, a 1D performance model of turbocharger turbines is presented. The model solves the

19 turbine volute flow with 1D viscous equations, with volute curvature and circumferentially continuously

20 flow exiting at volute outlet considered. The circumferential flow non-uniformity at volute outlet is

21 preserved. The turbine rotor is modeled with multiple meanline models. The model was used to simulate
22 the performance of a mixed-flow turbine and validated by the experimental data. Results show that the

23 performance predictions are in good agreement with the experimental data. Flow parameters at internal

24 points of the turbine predicted by the 1D model were compared with three-dimensional unsteady

25 simulation results and reasonable agreement was observed, which demonstrates the ability of the 1D

26 model in capturing the pulse propagation.

27 Keywords

28 Turbocharger turbine; One-dimensional model; Unsteady; Pulsating flow; Waste heat recovery.
29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30 Nomenclature

Symbols
A area ( m 2 ) flow exiting term ( kg m 1 s 1 )
a velocity of sound ( m/s ) efficiency

b flow passage width eigenvaule

C constant ratio of performance data

e specific internal energy (J/kg) expansion ratio

F flux vector azimuth angle ( rad )

G any turbine parameter density ( kg/m3 )

h specific enthalpy (J/kg) friction ( kg m -1 s -2 )
k specific heat capacity ratio angular speed ( rad s 1 )

L wet periphery of flow passage ( m ) Subscripts

MFP mass flow parameter( kg s -1 K / Pa ) a ambient

m mass flow rate ( kg/s ) pre

ave cycle-averaged

N turbine rotational speed ( rpm ) f friction

n constant MFP mass flow rate parameter

p pressure ( Pa ) m meridional component

Q specific heat added/withdrew(J/kg) pre pressure

R radius ( m ) Q heat transfer

S source term, constant st steady approach

T temperature ( K ) , period ( s ) qs quasi-steady approach

Tor torque ( N m ) TS total-to-static

t time ( s ) t tangential component

U state vector, blade speed ( m/s ) w wall

V absolute velocity ( m/s ) 1D 1D model

VR velocity ratio 0 turbine inlet, total state

W relative velocity ( m/s ) 1 turbine casing centroid

W power ( W ) 2 volute exit

x position ( m ) 3 rotor inlet

Greek symbols 4 rotor throat

absolute flow angle ( rad ) 5 rotor outlet

relative flow angle ( rad ) 6 turbine outlet

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

31 1. Introduction

32 In spite of the emerging trend of new energy automobiles, it is widely believed that in the coming
33 decades internal combustion engines (ICEs) would remain as the mainstream automotive powertrain

34 weighing the costs and benefits [1,2]. Consequently, improving efficiency and reducing emissions of

35 ICEs would stay as the primary target in automotive powertrain research and development. Engine

36 turbocharging and waste heat recovery technologies are recognized as most promising ways of improving

37 efficiency and cutting carbon dioxide emissions, which heralds the increasingly important role of turbines

38 used in turbocharging and waste heat recovery systems [3,4]. One-dimensional (1D) engine simulation

39 tools are widely used by manufacturers in engine design, where turbines are modelled by performance

40 maps that consist of steady-state experimental data [5]. However, exhaust turbines work under pulsatile

41 flow conditions due to the reciprocating nature of ICEs, and their performance is quite different from

42 steady and quasi-steady inlet conditions. This phenomenon has been confirmed by previous studies, such

43 as Capobianco et al. [6], Karamanis et al. [7] and Szymko et al. [8]. As is widely acknowledged, the

44 unsteady behavior of exhaust turbines in turbocharged ICEs could be quite important and should not be

45 ignored. In comparison with that in turbocharged ICEs, the unsteady performance of turbines could be

46 more important in turbo-compound engines. A typical turbo-compound ICE has a power turbine added

47 downstream to the turbocharger turbine to recover energy from the exhaust gas [9]. The pulsatile exhaust

48 gas flow gives rise to strong unsteadiness in the turbocharger turbine and even stronger unsteadiness in

49 the power turbine [10]. As the performance of the power turbine and turbocharger turbine are quite

50 influential on the engine performance, proper modelling of the unsteady turbine performance is

51 significant for turbo-compound engine design. New emission legislations compel the automotive

52 industry to pay more attention to engine performance in transient and partial load operating conditions,

53 which induces strong unsteadiness in engine exhaust flow and make turbine performance prediction

54 through steady flow turbine maps even more unreliable and the importance of unsteady turbine model

55 more emphasized.

56 For a turbine working under unsteady conditions, some of the most important unsteady behaviors

57 originate from the wave dynamics within the turbine, which renders zero-dimensional (0D) models such

58 as filling-and-emptying models [11] insufficient to predict the turbine performance due to the lack of

59 spatial dimension. Three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) provides the most

60 reliable performance prediction and the most detailed fluid field information of the turbine, which are

61 essential for turbine design, but the high computational cost makes the 3D approach unsuitable for engine

62 cycle simulation. One-dimensional models are favored by many researchers for its simplicity and ability

63 to resolve wave dynamics, and various kind of one-dimensional turbine models have been developed in

64 the past.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

65 Wallace and Adgey proposed a fully unsteady model which treated the turbine volute and nozzles

66 as 1D convergent straight pipes and rotor as a single two-dimensional (2D) duct [12]. The model was

67 later developed by Mizumachi et al. [13] and the rotor passage was simplified to a 1D duct. The model

68 showed its ability in unsteady mass flow rate prediction. Chen and Winterbone [14] proposed a 1D model

69 treating turbine volute as a curved slot, thus the curvature of turbine volute is taken into consideration.

70 Turbine rotor was modelled as multiple 1D passages along the centroid lines of the passages. The flow

71 at volute centroid line and volute exit were connected by an angular momentum relation. Their model

72 showed good prediction of mass flow rate but over-predicted turbine efficiency when validated under

73 steady conditions. Hu and Lawless [15] proposed a 1D model in which the flow was assumed to be along

74 a 1D meridional path in the volute and the rotor passage was simplified to L shaped passage to simplify

75 governing equations of the rotor. The model developed by Hu and Lawless originally aimed at nozzled

76 turbines, and when modelling nozzleless turbines a constant flow angle at volute exit has to be given. A.

77 J. King integrated the turbine model with a commercial 1D engine cycle simulation software and

78 demonstrated the ability of the 1D turbine model to be used in engine cycle simulation [16]. The 1D

79 models discussed above treat the turbine rotor in an unsteady approach, which introduces excessive

80 complexity. On one hand, the geometry of rotor passages is quite complicated and difficult to be

81 considered due to the 1D nature of the models, and over-simplifications of rotor geometry have to be

82 made at the cost of accuracy. On the other hand, some important physical phenomena are difficult to be

83 included in the governing equations in the 1D rotor models, such as the Coriolis force and secondary

84 flows, which undermines the accuracy of the models.

85 The deficiencies of modelling turbine rotor through 1D unsteady approach motivate the combination

86 of 1D modelling of turbine volute and quasi-steady modelling of turbine rotor. Generally, such a quasi-

87 steady assumption of turbine rotor is acceptable due to the short flow travelling distance comparing with

88 the volute, and both experimental [17] and numerical studies [18,19] showed supportive results. In a

89 numerical investigation conducted by Cao et al. [20], the turbine rotor could be treated as a quasi-steady

90 device in terms of cycle-averaged performance even under some extremely highly pulsating flow

91 conditions. Chen et al. [21,22] proposed a model for radial and mixed-flow turbocharger turbines, in

92 which turbine volute was treated as tapered pipes with a semi-empirically determined length and rotor

93 was simulated by a meanline model. The model could not consider the circumferential flow variation

94 directly, and a circumferential variation loss was introduced in the model. Results showed that the

95 unsteady model could capture the unsteady effect, but the cycle-averaged performance of the turbine was

96 not predicted well. Costall studied the unsteady wave propagation in turbines and proposed a series of

97 1D turbine models with different degrees of complexities, from modelling the rotor as a single straight

98 pipe [23,24] to modelling rotor passages as multiple pipes [25], from single entry turbines to twin entry
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

99 turbines [26]. These models proposed by Costall et al. were developed by Chiong et al. by coupling with

100 the meanline rotor model [27,28]. Chiong et al. also proposed a simplified treatment of turbine rotor [29]

101 and developed the model for twin-scroll turbine pulse-flow performance modelling [30,31]. Their models

102 treated turbine volute as straight convergent pipes with single or multiple exits and could predict the

103 turbine unsteady performance in reasonable good agreement with experimental data. However, in these

104 models, the effects of volute curvature were not considered, and an empirical friction term had to be

105 added to consider the loss caused by the volute curvature. Besides, since the effects of the circumferential

106 flow exiting at volute outlet were not modeled, the length of the volute pipe was determined semi-

107 empirically, and the cross-sectional area of the pipe had to be adjusted for better predicting the wave

108 propagation and fluid inertia (filling and emptying) effect. Some researchers such as De Bellis and

109 Marelli [32] developed 1D turbine models based on 1D commercial simulation software, in which turbine

110 volute was modelled as a 1D pipe and turbine mass flow rate and output power were simulated by the

111 performance map. Similar to the models proposed by Costall et al. and Chiong et al., the volute curvature

112 and circumferential flow exiting are not considered in these models. Galindo et al. [33] proposed a 1D

113 turbine model which consists of a 1D volute model and a quasi-steady 0D rotor model. The prediction

114 results of their model showed good agreement with the 3D CFD simulation results, but the flow non-

115 uniformity at volute exit was not considered.

116 In summary, the volute curvature and volute circumferential flow exiting were not considered in

117 most of existing 1D turbine models. The length and cross-sectional area of the volute had to be

118 determined empirically, which limit the general application of the models. Some 1D models considered

119 the effect of volute curvature, but the circumferential flow non-uniformity at volute exit was not modeled.

120 The development of turbine model relies on accurate experimental measurement of turbine

121 performance. Early experimental evaluations [34] suffered from the inability in measuring the relevant

122 instantaneous parameters such as the mass flow rate, turbine speed and torque. In recent years, several

123 novel pulsating flow test rig have been established, as introduced by De Bellis and Marelli [32], Piscaglia

124 et al. [35], Laurantzon et al. [36], Marelli and Capobiano [37] and Kalpakli et al. [38], and more accurate

125 measurements could be conducted. However, in the aforementioned test rigs, tested turbines were loaded

126 by compressors, limiting the range of turbine testing conditions and introducing high uncertainty in

127 turbine instantaneous output power measurement. A high speed eddy current dynamometer is used to

128 measure the turbine output power in the turbocharger test facility available at Imperial College London

129 [8]. The test facility has been used for experiments of single entry [39] and twin entry turbines [40] under

130 pulsating flow conditions, and good confidence of the measured flow parameters could be gained based

131 on the uncertainty analysis carried out by Padzillah [41].

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

132 In this paper, a novel 1D unsteady turbine performance model is proposed. The model consists of a

133 1D volute model, a quasi-steady vaneless nozzle model and multiple meanline rotor models. The key

134 curvature feature of the volute and the circumferential flow exiting the volute are considered in the 1D

135 volute model. The flow non-uniformity at volute exit and rotor inlet could be captured.

136 The model is used to predict the steady and unsteady performance of a turbocharger turbine, and

137 validated against experimental data obtain at the turbocharger test rig at Imperial College London. A full

138 3D unsteady CFD simulation of the turbine is also carried out. The internal flow distribution predictions

139 of the 1D model are compared with the 3D simulation results.

140 2. Model formulation

141 The proposed 1D model consists of a 1D volute model, multiple rotor meanline models and a

142 vaneless nozzle model which connects the volute model and the rotor model. The flow in turbine volute

143 is assumed to be along the centroid line of the volute and the velocity direction is fixed to following the

144 tangent line of the volute centroid. The vaneless nozzle is assumed to be a constant total enthalpy and

145 total pressure element. The rotor is modeled with multiple meanline models in a quasi-steady way, in

146 order to account for the circumferential non-uniformity at rotor inlet.

147 The model is applicable for both radial and mixed-flow turbocharger turbines. The turbine stations

148 are shown in Fig. 1, which is drawn for radial turbines. When the model is applied for mixed-flow

149 turbines, as in this paper, the radius of rotor inlet (R3) should be the root-mean-square inlet radius.

150 2.1 Volute model

151 The fluid in the turbine volute flows out at volute exit while flowing around the volute periphery,

152 as shown in Fig. 2. To model this phenomenon, a flow exiting term is included in the governing

153 equations of the turbine casing, which is similar as in Ref. [14]. The flow exiting term is defined as

154 the mass variation per unit length per unit time in volute centroid which results from the circumferential

155 fluid exiting at volute exit. For the entry section of the turbine casing from turbine inlet to the tongue,

156 0 , and in the volute section is expressed as:

R2
157 2V2 cos 2 b2 (1)
2
dR
R12 1
d

158 The flow exiting term is an important component of the source terms in the governing equations of

159 turbine volute. The proposed flow exiting term in this paper is original in terms of the treatment of volute

160 curvature and the ability to model the circumferentially non-uniform flow exiting of volute. The flow

161 exiting term introduced by Galindo et al. [33,42] was calculated based on the circumferential flow
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

162 uniformity assumption. The models developed by Chiong et al., as discussed in the introduction, used a

163 straight pipe to model the turbine volute and used a single pipe [24-27] or multiple pipes [28,29] to model

164 the volute flow exiting. The flow exiting was averaged over the whole or part of the volute and volute

165 curvature was not considered. In the effort of modelling a diesel particulate filter, a flow exiting term

166 was proposed by Destantes et al [43], but it is different from the flow exiting term in this paper as the

167 effect of flow path curvature was not considered.

168 Thus, the governing equations for the turbine casing could be expressed in vector form as:
U F
169 S (2)
t x

170 where

1
171 U 1V1
(3)
1h01 p1

1V1
172 F 1V12 p1 (4)
1V1h01

1V1 dA1

A1 A1 dx1

1V12 dA1 L1
173 S V2 cos sign V1 w (5)
A1 A1 dx1 A1
V h dA
h02 1 1 01 1 1Q
A1 A1 dx1

174 where 2 2 1 is the angle between the velocity on volute centroid line and volute exit,
175 and the velocity triangles for volute centroid line and volute exit which defines 1 and 2 respectively

176 are shown in Fig. 3. To model the friction loss and heat transfer in turbine volute, a friction term w

177 given by Eq. (6) and a heat transfer term Q given by Eq. (7) are included in the governing equations.

178 w C f 1V12 (6)

L1 V2
179 Q CQ V1c p Tw T1 0.424 1 (7)
A1 cp

180 where C f and CQ are two constants, and c p is the specific heat at constant pressure.

181 The perfect gas state function expressed as Eq. (8) is used to complete the model description.

V2
182 p k 1 e (8)
2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

183 2.2 Vaneless nozzle and rotor models

184 Quasi-steady assumption is used when modelling the flow in the vaneless nozzle and the rotor, and

185 the spatial dimensions of them are neglected. The vaneless nozzle model serves as the connection of the

186 volute 1D model and the rotor meanline model, and several assumptions are made to connect the flow

187 parameters at volute centroid line and rotor inlet. Due to the short flow travelling distance, the friction

188 loss and the heat transfer in the vaneless nozzle should be small, hence it is reasonable to assume that the

189 total pressure and total enthalpy are conserved in the model. Therefore, together with a free vortex

190 relation, the calculation of volute exit (station 2) and rotor inlet (station 3) is based on Eq. (9)-(11).
n n
R R
191 V3 cos 3 V2 cos 2 2 V1 cos 1 1 (9)
R
3 R3
192 p03 p02 p01 (10)
193 h03 h02 h01 (11)

194 where n is a constant typically ranging from 0.85 to 0.95 [44], and in the current research n 0.85 .

195 Turbine rotor is simulated by multiple meanline models whose number is equal to the number of

196 discretized points of the volute centroid line. Incidence loss equations similar to those in Ref.[22] and

197 passage loss equations similar to those in Ref.[45] are used. To complete the model, mass conservation

198 from station 2 to station 5 is included in the model. The 1D volute model and the multiple meanline

199 models are connected by the vaneless nozzle model, i.e. by the free vortex relation, total pressure and

200 total enthalpy conservation between the volute centroid line and the rotor inlet at the same azimuth angle.

201 Flows from different rotor blade passage outlets mix with each other through an isobaric process,

202 and the following equations are used:

203 m 6 m 5 (12)

204 m 6 6 m 5 5 (13)

205 m 6Vm 6 m 5Vm 5 (14)

206 m 6Vt 6 m 5Vt 5 (15)

207 2.3 Boundary conditions

208 The method of characteristics is used for the calculation of boundary points of turbine casing

209 centroid (station 1). Along Mach lines and , the characteristic equations are:
dx1
210 V1 a1 (16)
dt

211 and the corresponding compatibility equations are:

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
212 dp1 a1 1dV1 a1 S 2 V1 S1 k 1 V12 S1 V1 S 2 S3 dt (17)
2

213 where S1, S2 and S3 are components of S in Eq. (5),

214 Along path line 0 ,

dx1
215 V1 (18)
dt

216 and the corresponding compatibility equation is:

1
217 dp1 a12 d 1 a12 S1 k 1 V12 S1 V1 S 2 S3 dt (19)
2

218 At turbine inlet, static pressure is given, and static temperature is given by Eq. (20). Inlet velcity is

219 solved using the compatibility equation along the characterstic line.
k 1
T (t ) p (t ) k
220 (20)
T p

221 For reversed flow at turbine inlet ( V1 0 ), inlet density and inlet velcity are solved by the

222 compatibility equation on 0 and characterstic lines respectively, while inlet pressure is given by

223 experimental data.

224 Close end boundary condition is applied at volute end. Pressure and velocity are calculated by

225 Eq.(21). Density is solved by the compatibility equation on 0 characteristic line.

p1 360 S pre p1 0
226 (21)
V1 0

227 where Spre is a constant.

228 At turbine outlet, static pressure is set to be equal to the ambient pressure.

229 In the model, the turbine expansion ratio, velocity ratio, mass flow parameter (MFP), torque and

230 total-to-static efficiency are solved by Eq. (22)-(26).

p00
231 (22)
p6

U3
232 VR (23)
1 k

2c pT00 1 k

m T00
233 MFP (24)
p00

m U 3Vt 3 U 4Vt 4
234 Tor (25)

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tor
235 TS (26)
1 k

pT00 1 k
mc

236 2.4 Numerical solution

237 The two-step MacCormack scheme is used to solve governing equations for turbine casing centroid.

238 The volute between azimuth angle 0 to 360 was discretized into 36 sections with each section

239 extending over 10 . At each section, flow parameters at volute exit and rotor inlet are solved by Eq. (9)-

240 (11), and flow parameters at rotor throat and rotor outlet are solved by the meanline model. The flow

241 chart of the 1D turbine model under pulsating flow condition is shown in Fig. 4. As a result, the unsteady

242 wave action effect in the turbine casing could be resolved with consideration of the volute curvature, and

243 flow non-uniformity at volute exit and rotor inlet is preserved in the model.

244 3. Experimental methodology

245 The schematic of the cold-flow turbocharger test rig at Imperial College London is shown in Fig. 5.

246 The test rig mainly consists of an air supply and heating system, control valves, a pulse generator, an

247 eddy current dynamometer and data acquisition system. Details of the test rig could be found in Ref.

248 [41]. The instantaneous mass flow rate, instanstaneous inlet static pressure and average inlet static

249 temperature are measured at the measurement plane, and the instantaneous inlet static temperature is

250 obtained by Eq. (20). Instantaneous turbine speed and torque are measured by the speed sensor and the

251 dynamometer respectively. Instantaneous static pressure is recorded at turbine outlet, which always stays

252 very close to the ambient pressure. In the experiments, turbine expansion ratio, velocity ratio, MFP and

253 total-to-static effeciency are evaluated by Eq.(22)-(24) and Eq.(26). Turbine speed factor is evaluated as

254 Eq.(27)

N
255 (27)
T00

256 A vaneless nozzle mixed-flow turbine (the wheel of which is referred as rotor A in Ref.[5]) is used

257 for the experimental study and model validation. Main geometry parameters of the turbine are given in

258 Table 1. Apart from the provided data in Table 1, basic turbine volute curvature data such as 1 1, 1

259 and 1.as functions of azimuth angle are required by the model. The flow angle 1 could be obtained

260 by solving the angle between the tangent line and the peripheral line, as depicted in Fig. 3 (left). Results

261 from steady and unsteady experiments are used for model calibration, in which the coefficients C f and

262 CQ in the friction and heat transfer term, the free vortex exponent n and the loss coefficients in the

263 incidence and passage loss equations are calibrated.

264
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

265 4. Results and discussion

266 4.1 Validation of vaneless nozzle model assumptions

267 To validate the assumptions of the vaneless nozzle model, a 3D numerical study of the turbine was

268 carried out, of which the details are given in Appendix A. When modelling the vaneless nozzle, since the

269 pressure loss and heat transfer in the nozzle is small, it is assumed that on each azimuth angle the total

270 enthalpy and total pressure of volute centroid line, volute exit and rotor inlet are the same, as expressed

271 in Eq. (9) - (11). Results from the 3D numerical study support such an assumption. The total enthalpy

272 and total pressure of volute centroid line, volute exit and rotor inlet predicted by the 3D unsteady
273 simulation are almost equal except for the tongue region (where azimuth angle is around 0 and 360 ),

274 as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. Due to the interaction between the main flow and recirculating flow, the

275 tongue region does not abide by the assumption. Considering that the tongue region is small, the

276 assumption seems reasonable. Besides, the total enthalpy and total pressure waves on the volute centroid,

277 volute exit and rotor inlet are in phase, which supports the quasi-steady assumption in the vaneless

278 nozzle.

279 4.2 Steady performance prediction

280 The steady-state performance of the turbine at two different turbine speed factors is predicted by

281 the 1D model. As shown in Fig. 8, the results are in good agreement with experimental results at both

282 turbine speeds. The predicted MFP is higher than the experimental data with a maximum relative error

283 up to 10% at both turbine speeds. The predicted total-to-static efficiency is higher at high velocity ratio

284 and a little lower at low velocity ratio than experimental results, and the error is within 10 percentage
285 points.

286 4.3 Unsteady performance prediction

287 Under pulsating flow conditions, the total-to-static efficiency defined by Eq.(26) has lost its physical

288 meaning because a time lag exists between flow at turbine inlet and turbine outlet, and turbine torque is

289 used instead. The unsteady performance characteristics of whole turbine (volute + nozzle + rotor),

290 nozzle + rotor and rotor only predicted by the 1D model are presented in Fig. 9. The characteristics

291 of the nozzle + rotor and rotor only overlap with each other. Similar to the expansion ratio, velocity

292 ratio and MFP of the whole turbine, which are defined by Eq. (22) - (24), the expansion ratio, velocity

293 ratio and MFP of nozzle + rotor and rotor only are calculated using the mass flow rate, mass-

294 averaged total pressure and total temperature at the inlet of vaneless nozzle and rotor respectively. As

295 observed, the MFP and torque characteristics of the whole turbine are typical hysteretic loops, but
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

296 those characteristics of the nozzle + rotor and rotor only do not show significant hysteretic feature

297 as a result of the quasi-steady assumption of the vaneless nozzle and rotor. The small performance

298 differences of the nozzle and rotor at same expansion ratios and velocity ratios are due to the

299 circumferential non-uniformity at the inlet of the nozzle and rotor. The hysteretic feature of turbine

300 performance characteristics predicted by the model are derived from the volute.

301 Predicted and experimental results of turbine unsteady performance loops at different pulse

302 frequencies, loads and turbine speeds are given in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. The considered pulsating flow

303 conditions have frequencies ranging from 20 Hz to 60 Hz, corresponding to engine rotational speeds

304 from 600 rpm to 1800 rpm for a typical four cylinder four stroke engine. As observed, the 1D model

305 could predict the basic shape of the hysteresis loops of turbine MFP and torque, which is one of the most

306 important features of turbine performance under pulsating flow conditions. However, the predicted loops

307 have different ranges with the experimental results, because the static pressure and temperature were

308 used as turbine inlet boundary conditions in the 1D model. At high velocity ratios, the predicted turbine

309 torque tend to be higher than the experimental results.

310 Cycle-averaged turbine performance is one of the most important parameters for pulse flow

311 performance prediction. The cycle-averaged value of turbine performance parameter G is defined as the

312 following equation:

T

313 Gave
0
Gdt
(28)
T
314 where G could be expansion ratio, MFP, velocity ratio and torque, and T is the pulse period.

315 To evaluate the accuracy of the cycle-averaged parameter predictions, a comparison factor of cycle-

316 averaged parameters G ,1D is used in this study which is defined as Eq. (29).

Gave ,1D
317 G ,1D (29)
Gave ,exp

318 As a comparison, the cycle-averaged turbine performance was also evaluated through two different
319 approaches, namely a steady approach and a map-based quasi-steady approach. In the steady approach,
320 the turbine MFP and torque were evaluated at the cycle-averaged inlet pulse flow conditions. In the map-
321 based quasi-steady approach, turbine MFP and torque under different expansion ratios and rotating
322 speeds were first obtained through steady-state experiments, then the quasi-steady turbine performance
323 was evaluated according to the inlet pulse flow condition at each time instance. The comparison factors
324 of these two approaches are defined as Eq. (30)-(31).

Gave , st
325 G , st (30)
Gave ,exp

Gave , qs
326 G , qs (31)
Gave ,exp
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

327 where G could be MFP and torque.

328 Apparently, the closer MFP and Tor are to unity, the better the predictions are. In Fig. 12, MFP

329 and Tor of cycle-averaged 1D model prediction results at different operating conditions (14 in total)
330 and corresponding results obtained through steady and quasi-steady approaches are given. As shown in

331 Fig. 12, most of the cycle-averaged 1D model unsteady prediction results concentrate in the green region

332 in which MFP and Tor are both close to unity, while most of the results obtained through steady and

333 quasi-steady approaches fall outside of the green region. Therefore, the 1D model shows its advantage

334 in terms of cycle-averaged performance prediction in comparison with the steady and quasi-steady

335 approaches.

336 4.4 Internal flow prediction

337 Due to the circumferential flow exiting treatment of the turbine volute, the 1D model could predict

338 the internal flow field and the wave propagation process in the turbine casing in a more physical way.

339 Under the operating condition of 40 Hz, high load and 2603 rpm/ K, of which the inlet mass flow rate

340 and static temperature are given in Appendix A, comparisons of internal flow parameters predicted by

341 1D model and 3D simulation at different azimuth angles and time instants are given in Fig. 13 - Fig. 15.

342 Note that when azimuth angle 0 , it is the same as 360 for the volute exit and rotor inlet since

343 they are round, but for the volute centroid they are different.

344 Except for the volute tongue ( 0 ), the 1D model prediction are in good accordance with 3D

345 simulation results in pulse phase and has up to 15% relative error in magnitude. The 1D model predicted

346 pressure, velocity and density are generally lower than the 3D simulation results, and the differences

347 grow along the flow direction in turbine volute, indicating that the losses in the 1D model are larger than

348 those in the 3D simulation. The reasonably good prediction at different azimuth angles of the 1D model

349 proved its ability of capturing flow non-uniformity at volute exit and rotor inlet. The differences between

350 the pressure, velocity and density at turbine inlet between 1D and 3D predictions mainly result from the

351 different approaches adopted for imposing inlet boundary conditions in 1D and 3D simulation. The static

352 pressure and temperature are imposed as inlet boundary conditions in 1D modelling while the mass flow

353 rate and static temperature are imposed as inlet boundary conditions in 3D simulation.
354 Around volute tongue, the 3D model could handle the full communication between the predominant

355 flow and the return flow, but the 1D model treats the volute end with a simple close end boundary without

356 any return flow. So it is not strange that 1D model predicted velocity at rotor inlet has larger discrepancies

357 with the 3D simulation results at 0 . In Fig. 14, the 1D model predicted velocity at volute exit and

358 rotor inlet have a leap at 0 , which is caused by the switch between the non-choking and choking

359 rotor submodels.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

360 5. Conclusions

361 A 1D unsteady performance model for turbocharger turbines has been developed to include the
362 circumferential flow exiting treatment of turbine volute and consider the volute curvature. Compared

363 with previous 1D models of the volute, the new model treats the flow inside the volute in a more rational

364 way, hence is more capable of capturing the unsteady effects in the volute. As the main unsteady wave

365 effects occur in the turbine casing, the vaneless nozzle and the rotor are assumed to be quasi-steady.

366 The model has been validated under various steady and unsteady operating conditions. It could

367 predict turbine steady swallowing capacity in good accuracy, yet tends to over-predict turbine efficiency

368 at high velocity ratio. Under pulsating flow conditions, it has been demonstrated that the model is able
369 to capture the basic hysteretic loops of the turbine. In terms of cycle-averaged results, the 1D model

370 showed much better agreement with experimental results than steady and quasi-steady approaches. It

371 also showed the ability to predict the wave propagation in the turbine volute. Good agreement was

372 observed between the 1D model and 3D URANS model prediction of differnet internal flow parameters.

373 In order to improve the 1D model predictions, more losses such as the leakage loss and tip clearance

374 loss will be included in the model. The volume of the vaneless nozzle and the rotor would be considered

375 so as to improve the unsteady predictions.

376 Acknowledgement

377 The authors would like to thank the funding of National Laboratory of Engine Turbocharging

378 Technology of China (No. 9140C330108140C33006) and the National Science Foundation of China

379 (Grant No.51636005) for the support.

380 Appendix A

381 Despite its high computational cost, three-dimensional modelling of turbocharger turbine provides

382 the most reliable prediction of turbine performance and most detailed flow field. To validate some of the

383 important assumptions of the 1D model, a 3D URANS numerical investigation of the turbine is carried

384 out using commercial CFD code CFX. The computation domain is the same as the 1D model, as shown

385 in Fig. A1. Shear stress transport (SST) turbulence model is used. To model the unsteady stator/rotor

386 interaction, transient rotor/stator method is adopted. As for boundary conditions, mass flow rate and static

387 temperature are given at turbine inlet and static pressure is given at turbine outlet. The operating condition

388 is 40Hz, high load and 2603 rpm/ K, and the inlet pulses are given in Fig. A2. The time step for the
4
389 3D simulation is set to be 10 s.
390 The comparison of experimental, 1D model predicted and 3D URANS predicted turbine

391 performance loops under 40 Hz, high load and 2603 rpm/ K are given in Fig. A3. As observed, the 3D

392 URANS model predicts the hysteretic loops better than the 1D model. However, the 1D model is at least
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

393 104 times faster than the 3D model, which demonstrates the advantage of 1D turbine model in terms of

394 computational cost. The 3D simulation predicted MFP is systematically lower than the experimental

395 data, maybe because that the leakage flow of the impeller back clearance is not considered in the

396 simulation.

397

398 References

399 [1]. Harrison G, Krause J, Thiel C. Transitions and Impacts of Passenger Car Powertrain Technologies

400 in European Member States. Transportation Research Procedia. 2016;14:2620-9.

401 [2]. Pasaoglu G, Harrison G, Jones L, Hill A, Beaudet A, Thiel C. A system dynamics based market

402 agent model simulating future powertrain technology transition: Scenarios in the EU light duty vehicle

403 road transport sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016;104:133-46.

404 [3]. Payri F, Lujn JM, Guardiola C, Pla B. A Challenging Future for the IC Engine: New Technologies

405 and the Control Role. Oil & Gas Science and Technology Revue dIFP Energies nouvelles. 2014;70:15-

406 30.

407 [4]. Ricardo M-B, Apostolos P, Yang M. Overview of boosting options for future downsized engines.

408 Science China Technological Sciences. 2011;54:318-31.

409 [5]. Romagnoli A, Martinez-Botas R. Performance prediction of a nozzled and nozzleless mixed-flow

410 turbine in steady conditions. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 2011;53:557-74.

411 [6]. Capobianco M, Gambarotta A, Cipolla G. Influence of the pulsating flow operation on the turbine

412 characteristics of a small internal combustion engine turbocharger. Proc of IMechE, Paper. 1989.

413 [7]. Karamanis N, Martinez-Botas R. Mixed-flow turbines for automotive turbochargers: steady and
414 unsteady performance. International Journal of Engine Research. 2002;3:127-38.

415 [8]. Szymko S, Martinez-Botas R, Pullen K. Experimental evaluation of turbocharger turbine

416 performance under pulsating flow conditions. ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea, and Air:

417 American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2005. p. 1447-57.

418 [9]. Zhao R, Zhuge W, Zhang Y, Yin Y, Zhao Y, Chen Z. Parametric study of a turbocompound diesel

419 engine based on an analytical model. Energy. 2016;115:435-45.

420 [10]. Zhao R, Zhuge W, Zhang Y, Yang M, Martinez-Botas R. Numerical study of a two-stage turbine

421 characteristic under pulsating flow conditions. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology.

422 2016;30:557-65.

423 [11]. Baines N, Hajilouy-Benisi A, Yeo J. The pulse flow performance and modelling of radial inflow

424 turbines. Institution of Mechanical Engineers Conference Publications: MEDICAL ENGINEERING

425 PUBLICATIONS LTD; 1994. p. 209-.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

426 [12]. Wallace F, Adgey J. Paper 1: Theoretical Assessment of the Non-Steady Flow Performance of

427 Inward Radial Flow Turbines. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Conference

428 Proceedings: SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England; 1967. p. 22-36.

429 [13]. Mizumachi N, Yoshiki H, Endoh T. A study on performance of radial turbine under unsteady flow

430 conditions. Report of Inst. Indus. Sci., Uni. Tokyo, 1979, 28(1): p1-77.

431 [14]. Chen H, Winterbone D. A one-dimensional performance model for turbocharger turbine under

432 pulsating inlet condition. IMechE International conference on turbocharging and turbochargers C2014.

433 p. 113-23.

434 [15]. Hu X, Lawless PB. A model for radial flow turbine performance in highly unsteady flows. ASME

435 Turbo Expo 2001: Power for Land, Sea, and Air: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2001. p.

436 V001T03A16-VT03A16.

437 [16]. King AJ. A turbocharger unsteady performance model for the GT-Power internal combustion

438 engine simulation. 2002.

439 [17]. Yeo J, Baines N. Pulsating flow behaviour in a twin-entry vaneless radial-inflow turbine. 4th

440 International Conference on Turbochargers and Turbocharging (IMechE), London, May1990. p. 22-4.

441 [18]. Galindo J, Fajardo P, Navarro R, Garca-Cuevas LM. Characterization of a radial turbocharger

442 turbine in pulsating flow by means of CFD and its application to engine modeling. Applied Energy.

443 2013;103:116-27.

444 [19]. Hamel M, Abidat M, Litim SA. Investigation of the mixed flow turbine performance under inlet

445 pulsating flow conditions. Comptes Rendus Mcanique. 2012;340:165-76.

446 [20]. Cao T, Xu L, Yang M, Martinez-Botas RF. Radial turbine rotor response to pulsating inlet flows.

447 Journal of Turbomachinery. 2014;136:071003.

448 [21]. Chen H, Winterbone D. A method to predict performance of vaneless radial turbines under steady

449 and unsteady flow conditions. IMechE Turbocharging and Turbochargers, Paper. 1990:13-22.

450 [22]. Chen H, Hakeem I, Martinez-Botas R. Modelling of a turbocharger turbine under pulsating inlet

451 conditions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy.

452 1996;210:397-408.

453 [23]. Costall A, Szymko S, Martinez-Botas RF, Filsinger D, Ninkovic D. Assessment of unsteady

454 behavior in turbocharger turbines. ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea, and Air: American

455 Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2006. p. 1023-38.

456 [24]. Costall A, Martinez-Botas RF. Fundamental characterization of turbocharger turbine unsteady flow

457 behavior. ASME Turbo Expo 2007: Power for Land, Sea, and Air: American Society of Mechanical

458 Engineers; 2007. p. 1827-39.

459 [25]. Costall A. A one-dimensional study of unsteady wave propagation in turbocharger turbines. 2008.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

460 [26]. Costall AW, McDavid RM, Martinez-Botas RF, Baines NC. Pulse performance modeling of a twin

461 entry turbocharger turbine under full and unequal admission. Journal of turbomachinery.

462 2011;133:021005.

463 [27]. Chiong MS, Rajoo S, Romagnoli A, Martinez-Botas R. Unsteady performance prediction of a single

464 entry mixed flow turbine using 1-D gas dynamic code extended with meanline model. ASME Turbo

465 Expo 2012: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition: American Society of Mechanical Engineers;

466 2012. p. 781-95.

467 [28]. Chiong MS, Rajoo S, Romagnoli A, Costall AW, Martinez-Botas RF. Integration of meanline and

468 one-dimensional methods for prediction of pulsating performance of a turbocharger turbine. Energy

469 Conversion and Management. 2014;81:270-81.

470 [29]. Chiong MS, Rajoo S, Romagnoli A, Costall AW, Martinez-Botas RF. Non-adiabatic pressure loss

471 boundary condition for modelling turbocharger turbine pulsating flow. Energy Conversion and

472 Management. 2015;93:267-81.

473 [30]. Chiong MS, Rajoo S, Martinez-Botas RF, Costall AW. Engine turbocharger performance

474 prediction: One-dimensional modeling of a twin entry turbine. Energy Conversion and Management.

475 2012;57:68-78.

476 [31]. Chiong MS, Rajoo S, Romagnoli A, Costall AW, Martinez-Botas RF. One-dimensional pulse-flow

477 modeling of a twin-scroll turbine. Energy. 2016;115:1291-304.

478 [32]. De Bellis V, Marelli S. One-dimensional simulations and experimental analysis of a wastegated

479 turbine for automotive engines under unsteady flow conditions. Proceedings of the Institution of

480 Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering. 2015;229:1801-16.

481 [33]. Galindo J, Tiseira A, Fajardo P, Garca-Cuevas LM. Development and validation of a radial variable

482 geometry turbine model for transient pulsating flow applications. Energy Conversion and Management.

483 2014;85:190-203.

484 [34]. Wallace F, Blair G. The pulsating-flow performance of inward radial-flow turbines. ASME 1965

485 Gas Turbine Conference and Products Show: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1965. p.

486 V001T01A21-VT01A21.

487 [35]. Piscaglia F, Onorati A, Marelli S, Capobianco M. Unsteady behavior in turbocharger turbines:

488 experimental analysis and numerical simulation. SAE Technical Paper; 2007.

489 [36]. Laurantzon F, Tillmark N, Alfredsson H. A pulsating flow rig for analyzing turbocharger

490 performance. 9th International Conference on Turbochargers and Turbocharging2010. p. 363-72.

491 [37]. Marelli S, Capobianco M. Steady and pulsating flow efficiency of a waste-gated turbocharger radial

492 flow turbine for automotive application. Energy. 2011;36:459-65.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

493 [38]. Kalpakli A, rl R, Tillmark N, Alfredsson PH. Experimental investigation on the effect of

494 pulsations on exhaust manifold-related flows aiming at improved efficiency. 10th International

495 Conference on Turbochargers and Turbocharging; London; 15 May 2012 through 16 May 20122012. p.

496 377-87.

497 [39]. Rajoo S, Martinez-Botas R. Unsteady effect in a nozzled turbocharger turbine. Journal of

498 Turbomachinery. 2010;132:031001.

499 [40]. Rajoo S, Romagnoli A, Martinez-Botas RF. Unsteady performance analysis of a twin-entry variable

500 geometry turbocharger turbine. Energy. 2012;38:176-89.

501 [41]. Padzillah MH. Experimental and numerical investigation of an automotive mixed flow turbocharger

502 turbine under pulsating flow conditions: Imperial College London; 2014.

503 [42]. Galindo J, Climent H, Tiseira A, Garca-Cuevas LM. Effect of the numerical scheme resolution on

504 quasi-2D simulation of an automotive radial turbine under highly pulsating flow. Journal of

505 Computational and Applied Mathematics. 2016;291:112-26.

506 [43]. Desantes JM, Serrano JR, Arnau FJ, Piqueras P. Derivation of the method of characteristics for the

507 fluid dynamic solution of flow advection along porous wall channels. Applied Mathematical Modelling.

508 2012;36:3134-52.

509 [44]. Japikse D, Baines N. Introduction to turbomachinery. 1994.

510 [45]. Futral SM, Wasserbauer CA. Off-design performance prediction with experimental verification for

511 a radial-inflow turbine: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 1965.

512
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

513 Table
514 Table 1. Main geometry parameters of the turbocharger turbine
Volute
A/R at volute tongue 33 mm
R at volute tongue 100 mm
Radius of volute outlet 70 mm
Rotor
Blade numbers 12
Root-mean-square inlet radius 42.2 mm
Inlet blade height 18 mm
Inlet blade angle at mid span 20
Cone angle of blade 50
Hub Radius at rotor exit 13.5 mm
Tip radius at rotor exit 39.3 mm
Blade angle at exducer root mean -52
515
516
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

517 Figures

518
519 Fig. 1 Turbine stations considered in the model.

520
521 Fig. 2 Sketch of volute and flow stations.

522
523 Fig. 3 Velocity triangles for volute centroid line and volute exit.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Turbine geometry input and

initialization
Start with azimuth angle,
0
Determine time step t
Compute flow parameters of volute exit
Start from time t 0 and rotor inlet with Eq.(9)-(11)

Compute flow parameters of rotor throat

Solve inner points of turbine and rotor outlet by meanline model
casing centroid with Eq. (2)

No Proceed to next azimuth angle,

Solve boundary points of 360 ? i.e. 10
turbine casing centroid
Yes
Compute flow parameters at turbine outlet

No
Proceed to next time step End of pulse?
t t t
Yes
No
MFP changes <tolearance?

Yes
End
524
525
526 Fig. 4 Flow chart of the 1D turbine model.

527
528 Fig. 5 Schematic of the cold-flow turbocharger test rig.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10 4 Volute centroid
Volute exit
Rotor inlet
5

Total enthalpy(J/kg) 3

1
0
60
120
180
T
240 4T/5
3T/5
Azimuth angle() 300 2T/5
360 T/5
0
Time
529
530 (a) Overall view.
Volute centroid
Volute exit
4
10 Time=0 Rotor inlet
2.2
2
1.8

10 4 Time=0.2T
5
4.5
4
Total enthalpy(J/kg)

10 4 Time=0.4T
5.2
5
4.8

10 4 Time=0.6T
3.5
3
2.5

10 4 Time=0.8T
3
2.5
2

10 4 Time=T
2.2
2
1.8
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Azimuth angle()
531
532 (b) Time sectional view.
533 Fig. 6 Total enthalpy at volute centroid, volute exit and rotor inlet at different azimuth angles and time
534 predicted by 3D simulation.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10 5
Volute centroid
2 Volute exit
Rotor inlet

Total Pressure(Pa)
1.6

1.2
0
60
120
180
T
240 4T/5
Azimuth angle() 300 3T/5
2T/5
360 T/5
0
Time
535
536 (a) Overall view.
Volute centroid
Volute exit
Time=0 Rotor inlet
1.35

1.3

1.25
Time=0.2T
1.8

1.6

1.4
Total pressure(bar)

Time=0.4T
2
1.8
1.6

Time=0.6T
1.5

1.4

1.3
Time=0.8T
1.5

1.4

1.3
Time=T
1.35

1.3

1.25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Azimuth angle()

537
538 (b) Time sectional view.

539 Fig. 7 Total pressure at volute centroid, volute exit and rotor inlet at different azimuth angles and

540 time predicted by 3D simulation.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

541
542 (a) MFP.

543
544 (b) Total-to-static efficiency.
545 Fig. 8 Comparison of turbine performance predicted (1D) and experimental (Exp).
5.0 Whole turbine
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

10 -5 Nozzle+rotor
4.5 Rotor only

4.0

3.5

3.0
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
546 Expansion ratio

547 (a) MFP

2.5
Whole turbine
Torque(N m)

2.0
Nozzle+rotor
Rotor only
1.5

1.0

0.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
548 Velocity ratio

549 (b) Torque

550 Fig. 9 Model predicted characteristics of whole turbine (volute + nozzle + rotor), vaneless nozzle +
551 rotor and rotor only under 40 Hz, high load and 2603 rpm/ K.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

552
10 -5
8.0 7.0
20 Hz High Load Exp
20 Hz High Load 1D 20 Hz High Load Exp
20 Hz Low Load Exp 6.0 20 Hz High Load 1D
7.0 20 Hz Low Load 1D 20 Hz Low Load Exp
20 Hz Low Load 1D
5.0
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

6.0
4.0

Torque(N m)
5.0 3.0

2.0
4.0

1.0

3.0
0.0

2.0 -1.0
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

553 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

554 (a) 20 Hz.

10 -5
7.0 6.0
40 Hz High Load Exp
40 Hz High Load 1D 40 Hz High Load Exp
40 Hz Middle Load Exp 40 Hz High Load 1D
5.0 40 Hz Middle Load Exp
6.0 40 Hz Middle Load 1D
40 Hz Low Load Exp 40 Hz Middle Load 1D
40 Hz Low Load 1D 40 Hz Low Load Exp
4.0 40 Hz Low Load 1D
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

5.0
Torque(N m)

3.0
4.0
2.0

3.0
1.0

2.0
0.0

1.0 -1.0
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

555 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

556 (b) 40 Hz.

10 -5
7.0 5.0
60 Hz High Load Exp
60 Hz High Load Exp
60 Hz High Load 1D
60 Hz High Load 1D
60 Hz Middle Load Exp
6.0 4.0 60 Hz Middle Load Exp
60 Hz Middle Load 1D
60 Hz Middle Load 1D
60 Hz Low Load Exp
60 Hz Low Load Exp
60 Hz Low Load 1D
60 Hz Low Load 1D
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

5.0 3.0
Torque(N m)

4.0 2.0

3.0 1.0

2.0 0.0

1.0 -1.0
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

557 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

558 (c) 60 Hz.

559 Fig. 10 Comparison of predicted (1D) and experimental (Exp) turbine performance loops under
560 different pulse frequencies and loads at 2603 rpm/ K.
561
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10 -5
6.0 4.5
20 Hz High Load Exp
20 Hz High Load Exp
20 Hz High Load 1D 4.0
5.5 20 Hz High Load 1D
20 Hz Low Load Exp
20 Hz Low Load Exp
20 Hz Low Load 1D
3.5 20 Hz Low Load 1D
5.0
3.0
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

4.5

Torque(N m)
2.5
4.0
2.0
3.5
1.5
3.0
1.0
2.5
0.5

2.0 0.0

1.5 -0.5
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

562 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

563 (a) 20 Hz.

-5
10
6.5 4.0
40 Hz High Load Exp
40 Hz High Load 1D 40 Hz High Load Exp
6.0 40 Hz High Load 1D
40 Hz Low Load Exp 3.5
40 Hz Low Load 1D 40 Hz Low Load Exp
5.5 40 Hz Low Load 1D
3.0
5.0
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

2.5
Torque(N m)
4.5

4.0 2.0

3.5
1.5
3.0
1.0
2.5
0.5
2.0

1.5 0.0
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

564 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

565 (b) 40 Hz.

10 -5
6.5 3.5
60 Hz High Load Exp
60 Hz High Load 1D 60 Hz High Load Exp
6.0 60 Hz High Load 1D
60 Hz Low Load Exp 3.0
60 Hz Low Load 1D 60 Hz Low Load Exp
5.5 60 Hz Low Load 1D
2.5
5.0
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

2.0
Torque(N m)

4.5

4.0 1.5

3.5
1.0
3.0
0.5
2.5
0.0
2.0

1.5 -0.5
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

566 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

567 (c) 60 Hz.

568 Fig. 11 Comparison of predicted (1D) and experimental (Exp) turbine performance loops under
569 different pulse frequencies and loads at 1627 rpm/ K.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.10
1D
steady
quasi-steady
1.05

MFP
1.00

0.95

0.90
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

570 Tor

571 Fig. 12 Comparison of MFP and Tor of 1D unsteady model predictions, steady and quasi-steady
572 predictions at different operating conditions.

3D volute centroid
1D volute centroid
Turbine inlet 3D volute exit
1.8
1D volute exit
1.6 3D rotor inlet
1D rotor inlet
1.4

1.2

0
2

1.5

90
2
Pressure(bar)

1.5

180
2

1.5

270
2

1.5

1
0 T/5 2T/5 3T/5 4T/5 T
Time

573
574 Fig. 13 Predicted pressure by 1D model and 3D simulation at different azimuth angles and time
575 instants.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3D volute centroid
1D volute centroid
Turbine inlet 3D volute exit
150
1D volute exit
3D rotor inlet
100 1D rotor inlet

50

0
400

200

90
400
Velocity(m/s)

200

180
400

200

270
400

200

0
0 T/5 2T/5 3T/5 4T/5 T
Time

576
577 Fig. 14 Predicted velocity by 1D model and 3D simulation at different azimuth angles and time
578 instants.

579
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3D volute centroid
1D volute centroid
Turbine inlet 3D volute exit
1.8 1D volute exit
3D rotor inlet
1.6 1D rotor inlet

1.4

0
2

1.5

90
Density(kg/m3)

1.5

180
2

1.5

270
2

1.5

1
0 T/5 2T/5 3T/5 4T/5 T
Time

580
581 Fig. 15 Predicted density by 1D model and 3D simulation at different azimuth angles and time instants.
582
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

583 Figures in Appendix A

584
585 Fig. A1 Mesh of the computational domain for 3D simulation.

0.6
Mass flow rate(kg/s)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time(s)
350
Static temperature(K)

340

330

320

310
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time(s)
586
587 Fig. A2 Inlet mass flow rate and static temperature pulse under 40 Hz, high load and 2603 rpm/ K.
10 -5
7.0 6.0
Exp
Exp
1D
6.5 1D
3D 5.0 3D
6.0
4.0
MFP(kg s-1 K0.5 /Pa)

5.5
Torque(N m)

5.0 3.0

4.5 2.0

4.0
1.0
3.5

0.0
3.0

2.5 -1.0
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
588 Expansion ratio Velocity ratio

589 Fig. A3 Comparison of experimental (Exp), 1D model predicted (1D) and 3D simulation predicted
590 (3D) turbine performance loops under 40 Hz, high load and 2603 rpm/ K.
591