431

Turbine performance studies for automotive

turbochargers. Part 1: steady analysis

A. Romagnoli and R.F. Martinez-Botas*
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Imperial College London
SW7 2AZ Exhibition Road
London, UK
*Corresponding author

S. Rajoo
Dept. Automotive Engineering
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 Johor - Malaysia

SYNOPSIS
This paper presents the results from an experimental investigation
conducted on different turbine designs for an automotive turbocharger.
The design progression was based on a commercial nozzleless unit
that was modified into a variable geometry single and twin entry
turbine. The main geometrical parameters were kept constant for all
the configurations and the turbine was tested under steady and
pulsating flow conditions (pulsating findings are presented in an
accompanying paper).
A significant depreciation in efficiency was measured between the
single and twin entry configuration due to the mixing effects. The
nozzleless unit provides the best compromise in terms of performance
at different speeds.
The twin entry turbine was also tested under partial and unequal
admissions. Based on the test results, a method to determine the
swallowing capacity under partial admission given the full admission
map is presented. The test results also showed that the turbine
swallowing capacity under unequal admission is linked to the full
admission case.

NOMENCLATURE

A Area, [m
2
]

C Absolute velocity, [m/s]
P Pressure, [Pa]
SE Single entry
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
432
T Temperature, [K]
TE Twin entry
VR Velocity ratio
Mass flow rate, [Kg/s]
r Radius, [m]

Absolute flow angle, [deg]

Density, [Kg/m
3
]

Subscript
Azimuth angle
0 Total condition
1 Inner limb/Inlet
2 Outer limb/Outlet
atm Atmospheric
ex Exit
is Isentropic
pa Partial admission
r Rotor
te Twin entry
un Unequal admission


INTRODUCTION

Increasing limitations on exhaust emissions and the need to reduce
fuel consumption have encouraged extensive use of turbochargers in
the automotive sector. The turbocharger turbines comprise two main
elements: the wheel and the stator (or volute). The wheel can be either
radial or mixed flow and its function is to extract work from the
exhaust gases. The main function of the stator is to accelerate and
distribute uniformly the flow around the wheel. The most common
configurations for the stator are nozzleless, nozzled and twin entry. In
a nozzleless turbine, the volute is solely responsible for providing an
adequate swirl and consequently set the inlet flow angle for the rotor.
In a nozzled turbine, the volute is complimented with the downstream
nozzle ring in setting the flow characteristics into the rotor. In this
case, the volute is designed to provide uniform flow into the nozzle.
Additionally, in a variable geometry stator the volute-nozzle coupling
provides additional flexibility in adapting to the incoming flow [1].
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
433
Twin entry turbines are adopted for using the energy of pulsating
exhaust gases. Two banks of exhaust manifolds feed each entry of the
turbine so that the windmill is minimized as the mass flow drops to
zero.
Spence et al. [2] carried out a performance investigation on an
equivalent swallowing capacity basis for three different nozzleless and
nozzled stators. The nozzleless configuration revealed a better
performance than the nozzled one. This was attributed to different
levels of roughness between the stators. In the case by Baines and
Lavy [3] the highest efficiency was measured for the nozzled
configuration. Capobianco and Gambarotta [4] instead compared a
single entry to a twin entry turbine and found that, under full
admission, the efficiency of the twin entry turbine under is about 7%
less.
The study reported here shows the performance for a design
progression from single to twin turbine. An evaluation of the turbine
efficiency and swallowing capacity was carried out on the basis of the
experimental results.


EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY

The automotive research group at Imperial College has actively been
involved in the development and understanding of pulsed flow
turbines since the 1980's. The turbocharger test facility was originally
developed by Dale and Watson [5] and extended by Baines et al.
[6][7]. The experimental facility available at Imperial College London
is a simulated reciprocating engine test bed for turbocharger research.
The facility can perform steady state testing in single and twin entry
turbines; it is also capable of carrying out unsteady tests [8][9]. The
recent installation of an eddy current dynamometer enables turbine
testing within a large velocity ratio range [10][7]. The test-rig is
supplied by screw-type compressors, capable to delivering air up to
1.2 kg/s mass flow rate at a maximum pressure of 5 bars (absolute).
For unsteady testing, an air pulse generator is employed. It simulates
experimentally the engine exhaust gas pulsations by means of a set of
counter rotating plates with appropriately designed cut-outs. A
variable speed D.C. motor controls the rotating frequency of the
chopper plates; hence the frequency of the pulsation can be set [1].
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
434

TURBINE VOLUTE DESIGN
The turbine used in the current study is a mixed flow variable
geometry designed at Imperial College [1]. The design was based on a
commercial nozzleless unit (HOLSET H3B) and it aims for increased
flexibility in the operating envelope of the turbine. The turbine volute
was manufactured in two halves allowing a nozzle-ring and the divider
to be inserted. Such an arrangement of the turbine volute allows
change between four turbine configurations: single entry nozzleless,
single entry nozzled, twin entry nozzled and twin entry nozzleless.
The main geometrical parameters of the turbine arrangements remain
the same.

where S is a constant (1)

(2)

The volute design was carried out using the well established mean
line analysis method [11][12]. The main assumptions for this approach
are: free vortex conditions in the volute and uniform flow distribution
around the volute periphery. This approach results in two basic
equations (1) & (2). Assuming incompressible flow and rearranging
Eq. (1) and (2) one obtains the A/r relation:



The equation above shows that the two critical parameters to be
taken into account in the design of the volute are the cross sectional
area (A) and the correspondent centroid radius (r). In order to
distribute the mass uniformly around the circumference of the rotor,
the ratio between the area and the radius must be a linear function of
the azimuth angle. For a given mass flow rate and density, the radial
component of the velocity going into the rotor is then fixed by the
cross sectional area at the rotor inlet. This means that the volute outlet
angle is given by:

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
435



In order to determine the volute exit flow angle, a simple analysis
was carried out using Eq. (1) to (4). A similar analysis of the HOLSET
3HB turbine provided an exit flow angle of 68 with respect to the
radial direction. Hence a target range of 67 to 72 enveloping the
HOLSET H3B value was chosen and the main geometrical parameters
(area and radius) calculated accordingly.
A similar approach was followed in the design of the divider for the
twin entry turbine. A solid modelling analysis was then carried out in
order to determine the best compromise between area available to the
flow and strength of the material. Amongst all the possible solutions
proposed, a tapered shape divider was chosen. The final design of the
single entry turbine together with the turbine including the divider is
shown in Figures 1 & 2.




Figure 1: Whole turbine stage Figure 2: Divider fitted in the
in single entry turbine
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
436
STEADY TURBINE PERFORMANCE

This paper reports performance results from two single entry
configurations (nozzled and nozzleless volutes) previously
characterised at Imperial College [1][9][13]. These results are
complemented with data recently acquired for a variable geometry
twin entry mixed flow turbine. In this manner, a comprehensive
comparison of different configurations can be carried out. The static
efficiency (given as the ratio between the actual power and the
isentropic power) and the pseudo-dimensional mass flow parameter
have been plotted against the velocity ratio and the pressure ratio
respectively. The definition of these parameters can be found below:




The turbines performance was assessed on an equivalent geometry
basis. The design progression of the volute was aimed to maintain the
A/r, the exit flow angle and the shape of the cross-section similar to
the base line (HOLSET H3B). The turbine wheel used for all the tests
is of a mixed flow nature previously designed at Imperial College by
Abidat [14]. For consistency with previously reported results, the
wheel is referred to as rotor A. The main geometrical parameters are
given in Table 1 and more details can be found in available literature
[15][16].

Table 1 One-dimensional analysis of the advanced rotor A

Rotor Type A
Inlet mean diameter (mm) 83.58 Number of blades 12
Exducer hub diameter
(mm)
27.07 Exit mean blade angle -52
Inlet blade height (mm) 18.0 Inlet blade angle 20

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
437






Figure 3: SE at 80% speed-Nozzled (60) vs. Nozzleless: a-
ts
vs. VR
& b-MFP vs. PR

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
438





Figure 4: SE at 50% speed-Nozzled (60) vs. Nozzleless: a-
ts
vs. VR
& b-MFP vs. PR

Figures 3 & 4 show the performance parameters for a nozzled
turbine at 60
0
vane angle (corresponding to the optimum vane angle
for this turbine) and a nozzleless equivalent (base line). The figures
show results for 50% and 80% of the design speed testing which
corresponds to 32000rpm and 48000rpm respectively. For the
nozzleless mixed flow turbine, the peak total to static isentropic
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
439
efficiency was 0.77 displaying a slight drop of 3 percentage points at
low velocity ratios (50%). Overall, the turbine exhibits features
common to mixed flow turbines [17]. The efficiency curves remains
fairly flat for velocity ratios near to peak. This is even more evident at
50% speed where the efficiency drop, even at higher velocity ratios, is




Figure 5: SE/TE at 80% speed-Different configurations: a-
ts
vs. VR
& b-MFP vs. PR
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
440

small. In the nozzle configuration, the peak efficiency was 0.81 at
80% speed (vane angle of 60). This represents an improvement of 4
percentage points at all low velocity ratios when compared to the
nozzleless case. The same improvement is not visible at the low speed
condition (50% speed) for which similar efficiencies were found.



Figure 6: SE/TE at 50% speed-Different configurations: a-
ts
vs. VR
& b-Mass vs. PR

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
441
Interestingly, a significant shift of the efficiency curve towards low
velocity ratio can be seen in this case: the peak efficiency velocity
ratio shifts from 0.70 to 0.64. Such a shift is significant for energy
extraction, as in the real pulsating condition of the turbine high
efficiency at high pressure ratio (low velocity ratio) is desired. One
would thus presume that such a performance curve would lead to
greater pulse flow performance [15][16][18]. At the present no data
are available on support of this assumption. However a preliminary
comparison between the pulsating flow performance for single entry
nozzled and nozzleless turbine is provided in Part Two of this paper
[19].
In order to test a twin entry turbine, a divider was inserted within
the volute. The design took care to find the best compromise between
the strength of the divider and the area available to the flow. The main
geometrical parameters are the same as those of the nozzled turbine
except for the A/r that was reduced by 6%. Twin entry turbines are
usually adopted to isolate the gas flow from each separate bank of
manifolds. The turbine works under unequal and/or partial admission
conditions for most of its operation; consequently, full admission does
not replicate the working conditions of the turbine under normal
engine operating conditions. Nevertheless, turbine maps are usually
available only for full admission conditions; therefore it seems logical
to report tests under full admission conditions for the twin entry
geometry.
Figures 5 & 6 report the turbine efficiency under full admission at
80% and 50% turbine speed. The presence of the divider has a small
detrimental effect on turbine efficiency; the peak efficiency was found
to be 0.79, which is slightly lower than that measured in single entry.
At high velocity ratios the turbine performance shows an improvement
of few percentage points with respect to the single entry configuration
at both 50% and 80% speeds.
In order to characterize the effects of the vane angle, a set of tests
were carried out in the 70 and 40 vane angle range for both types of
entries (single and twin). The results are reported in Figures 7 & 8. A
slightly lower swallowing capacity was measured for the twin entry
turbine in comparison to the single entry case for both 70 and 40
vane angle. This can be explained as an effect of the divider within the
volute that reduces the area available to the flow. At 70 vane angle,
no significant difference in the peak efficiency value between the
single and twin entry configuration was measured. As the velocity
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
442
ratio increases, the twin entry turbine performs better than the single
entry. The same conclusions can be reached for the 60 vane angle
(refer to Figure 5 & 6) but at 40 the results are different, showing a




Figure 7: SE/TE at 80% speed - 70 vane angle: a-
ts
vs. VR & b-
MFP vs. PR

5% efficiency drop over the whole range of velocity ratios. The
mixing effect between the flows out of two limbs is considerable and
should be taken into account in design-phase.
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
443





Figure 8: SE/TE at 80% speed - 40 vane angle: a-
ts
vs. VR & b-
MFP vs. PR

Figure 9 reports the single and twin entry performance parameters
for 40, 60 and 70 vane angles at 80% speed. The single entry
configuration exhibits the best overall performance with a peak of
81% (60 vane angle 80% speed). At 40 vane angle an efficiency
drop of almost 25% and 20% was measured for the twin and single
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
444
entry configuration in respect to the peak efficiency point (60 vane
angle 80% speed). At 70 the peak efficiency for both the single and
twin entry turbine shows a shift in the velocity ratio down to 0.57. On
the mass flow side, the swallowing capacity at 70 is much lower than
that measured at 60 and 40 vane angle and, for mid range pressure
ratios, it is almost half than that measured at 40.




Figure 9: SE/TE at 80% speed - Different vane angles: a-
ts
vs. VR &
b-MFP vs. PR
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
445







Figure 10: SE/TE at 80% speed-Same swallowing capacity: a-
ts
vs.
VR b-MFP vs. PR

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
446







Figure 11: TE partial admission 80% speed - 60 Vane angle: a-
ts

vs. VR b-MFP vs. PR

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
447



Figure 12: TE partial admission 50% speed - 60 Vane angle: a-
ts

vs. VR b-MFP vs. PR

In order to complete the analysis an assessment of turbine
efficiency on an equivalent swallowing capacity basis was also carried
at 80% speed. In order to let more mass flow to go through, the vanes
were open at 40. As the vanes open, they produce a deviation from
the optimum incidence condition leading to an increase in losses. This
is clearly visible in Figure 10 where there is a detrimental effect of
vane opening to meet the same swallowing capacity.
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
448
As it was previously stated, the twin entry turbocharger always
exhibits an imbalance of flow conditions between the two entries,
caused by the manifold arrangement; the twin entry turbine was also
tested under partial admission conditions for the optimum (60) vane
angle. The importance of partial admission conditions becomes
apparent when evaluating aerodynamic losses and translating these
into the real pulsating operation of the turbocharger.
Figures 11 & 12 report the turbine efficiency at 80% and 50%
speed under full and partial admission condition; where partial is
meant to be the condition in which one entry does not flow at all while
the other flows (labelled as outer open in the figure). These tests are
repeated by reversing entry that flows (labelled as inner open on the
figures), one can thus see the effect of the chosen entry to flow.
Independent the entry that has flow, a large fall in efficiency is
measured, the drop is as large as 20 percentage points at 80% speed
and 24 percentage points at 50% speed. The peak efficiency point for
either inner or outer limb fully open is the same at both speeds, which
is 61% and 53% for 80% and 50% speed respectively. Nevertheless
the inner limb seems to perform better than the outer limb; note the
mass flow in both limbs is the same. This is not a new finding, it is the
consequence of the different paths taken by the flow for a given
shroud curvature.


Figure 13: Mass flow prediction under partial admission - 50% speed
- 60 vane angle
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
449


Figure 14: Mass flow prediction under partial admission - 80% speed
- 60 vane angle
As previously mentioned, turbine maps are usually provided under
full admission conditions and so far no method has been proposed for
evaluating the mass flow parameter under partial admission given a
full admission mass flow curve. Here a simple method is proposed.
Figures 13 & 14 report the swallowing capacity for the twin entry
turbine under full admission conditions for both 50% and 80% speeds.
It can be seen that by simply halving the mass flow measured under
full admission, the corresponding partial admission is not reached. In
fact by following this simple approach, one would be treating the
turbine as a single entry turbine with half the passage area and thus, it
does not take account for the interaction existing between the two
limbs. Furthermore, even though in partial-admission conditions no air
flows at the inlet of one of the entries, stagnant air at atmospheric
pressure is still present within in the non-flow limb and leakages into
that entry from the flowing side can occur. The general expression for
the mass flow parameter is given by Eq. (7). For a twin entry turbine
the mass flow parameter is calculated as a mass-averaged mass flow
parameter where an area averaged pressure is used:
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
450


By blanking off entry 2 (thus = 0) the total mass flow rate
= , leading to:



The total pressure P
02
is near atmospheric as there is no dynamic
head to be taken into account and neglecting the centrifugal head
imposed by the rotor (which is small in any case). The mass flow
parameter calculated by mean of Eq. (10) is given in Figures 13 & 14.
The mass flow prediction from the full entry maps is much improved
for both speeds. At high pressure ratios the newly predicted mass flow
matches that measured experimentally while at low pressure ratios the
simple approach are less accurate. This can be explained if we
consider that at low pressure ratios, the total pressure in the flow-limb
is similar to atmospheric and hence the denominator of Eq. (10) does
not change significantly when the term P
02
/2 is added.
The above discussion centred on what is commonly called partial
admission where one port is completely closed; here we report results
from the partial and full flow cased. These are labelled as unequal
admission cases and one of the questions relates to how the steady
tests under unequal admission should be carried out. For the purpose
of this research, the unequal admission condition was obtained by
keeping constant the pressure ratio in one limb and let the other
change in order to match the selected speed (seen in the line labels of
Figure 15 as Outer followed by the pressure ration kept constant in
that entry). Other approaches are possible such as reported by
Capobianco and Gambarotta [4] that performed a set of unequal cases
by keeping the mass flow ratio between the two limbs constant.


10.1243/17547164C0012010034
451






Figure 15: Twin entry - Mass flow in unequal admission - 80% speed
- 60 vane angle

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
452




Figure 16: Twin entry - Mass flow in unequal admission - 50% speed
- 60 vane angle

Here the tests were carried at 80% and 50% speed and the results
shown in Figures 15 & 16. The trends are similar to those measured
under full admission; this is more evident as the pressure ratio and the
turbine speed increase. For instance at 80% and pressure ratio 1.9 the
mass flow curve follows very closely the full admission curve. As
already mentioned, the unequal admission condition is somewhat
difficult to analyse and published research does not provide much
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
453
insight. Given the similarity between the mass flow curves, we tried to
understand whether or not a common correlation exists between the
full and unequal admission condition. Given the mass flow curves in
Figures 15 & 16, in order to proceed with the analysis, the ratio
between the unequal admission flow and that in the flow-limb was
calculated. The same was done for the pressure ratios.



Figure 17: Swallowing capacity under unequal admission Different
test conditions

The results of such an approach are shown in Figure 17, this figure
includes all the test conditions shown in Figures 15 & 16. It was found
that all the points collapse into a single curve following an exponential
trend. This suggests that a unique correlation links the mass flows
between the two limbs. In fact if we develop the expressions for the
Expansion Ratio and the Mass Flow Parameter Ratio we obtain Eq.
(11) & (12). These equations show that the ratio of Expansion Ratio
corresponds to the pressure ratio between the inner and outer limbs
and that Mass Flow Parameter Ratio is a function of both K and the
mass flow ratio in both limbs.


10.1243/17547164C0012010034
454


Figure 17 shows that Eq. (12) follows an exponential trend and
hence for a given pressure ratio and mass flow in one limb, the mass
flow in the other limb is uniquely defined. In other words, since the
full admission maps are usually available, given the mass flow and the
pressure ratio in one limb, it is possible to define the mass flow and
pressure ratio in the other limb such that their combination
corresponds to any point of the full admission curve. This could be
significant as it could contribute to developing a tool to generate
unequal admission maps from a full admission map. However, it is
still necessary to carry out limited testing to ascertain the constants A
and B. The collection of a sufficient large database will eventually
indicate if there are some commonalities that can be taken into
account in order to find what are the parameters affecting A and B.


CONCLUSIONS

The current paper discusses the progressive evaluation of different
turbine designs from nozzleless to twin entry. The base turbine design
is a commercial nozzleless unit, from which the single entry nozzled
turbine was designed and progressively redesigned to twin entry. The
evaluation shown in the paper covers the steady flow conditions with
discussion on full, partial and unequal admissions.
The nozzled single entry turbine (a with a 60 degree vane angel)
was found to perform better than the corresponding nozzleless
configuration. In twin entry mode the insertion of the divider was
found not to be detrimental to the overall performance; it showed
improvement at high velocity ratios.
As the vanes open (40), a large drop in efficiency occurred
between the single and twin entry turbine. The mixing effects were
evaluated to account for as much as 5% in efficiency loss over the
whole range of velocity ratios. On the other hand, as the vanes close
(70), no difference in efficiency was measured between the single
and twin entry configurations. The peak efficiency is slightly lower
than that measured at 60 vane angle with a significant shift in the
velocity ratio from 0.67 to 0.57.
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
455
The efficiency of the turbines at equivalent swallowing capacity
under steady flow was found to be decreasing from nozzleless to twin
entry design configurations. At velocity ratio of 0.67, the single entry
nozzled turbine efficiency is 16% lower than the nozzleless,
meanwhile the twin entry turbine is 21% lower than the single entry.
The paper also presents a method to calculate the partial admission
swallowing capacity of a twin entry turbine from the full admission
map. This is particularly beneficial as an engine developer will only
generally have the full admission map in a twin entry turbine, and it is
accepted that the turbine operates in partial admission in most cases.
The test results also revealed that the mass flows between limbs are
correlated by an exponential manner.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge Ricardo plc, Ford Motor
Company Ltd and University of Brighton. This consortium along with
Imperial College are part of funded program (TSB) named VERTIGO
(Virtual Emission Research Tools and Integration).

Authors 2010


REFERENCES
1 Srithar, R., Steady and Pulsating Performance of a Variable
Geometry Mixed Flow Turbocharger Turbine, Thesis (PhD).
Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine,
University of London, England, 2007.

2 Spence, S.W.T., Rosborough, R.S.E., Artt. D., McCullogh, G., A
direct performance comparison of vaned and vaneless stators for
radial turbines, Journal of Turbomachinery, ASME Vol.129, pp.
53, January 2007.

3 Baines, N. C., Lavy, M., Flows in Vaned and Vaneless Stators of
Radial Inflow Turbocharger Turbines, Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Turbochargers and Turbocharging Conference, Paper
No. C405/005, pp. 712, 1990.

10.1243/17547164C0012010034
456
4 Capobianco, M., Gambarotta, A., Performance of a twin-entry
automotive turbocharger turbine. ASME Paper 93- ICE-2, 1993.

5 Dale, A., and Watson, D., Vaneless radial turbocharger turbine
performance, 110/86. Turbocharging and turbochargers,
IMechE, 3rd:65:76, 1986.
6 Baines, N.C., Hajilouy-Benisi, A., and Yeo, J.H., The pulse flow
performance and modelling of radial inflow turbines,
c484/006/94. IMechE, pages 209:219, 1994.
7 Szymko, S., The Development of an Eddy Current Dynamometer
forEvaluation of Steady and Pulsating Turbocharger Turbine
Performance, Thesis (Ph.D.), Imperial College London, UK,
2006.

8 Arcoumanis, C., Hakeem, I., Khezzar, L. and Martinez-Botas, R.F.
Performance of a Mixed Flow Turbocharger Turbine Under
Pulsating Flow Conditions, Transc ASME 95-GT-210, 1995.

9 Karamanis, N., Martinez-Botas, R.F., Mixed-Flow Turbines for
Automotive Turbochargers: Steady and unsteady Performance,
IMechE Int. J. Engine Research, Vol 3 No.3, 2002.

10 Szymko, S., Martinez-Botas, R.F., Pullen, K. R., McGlashan, N.R.
and Chen, H., A High-Speed, Permanent Magnet Eddy-Current
Dynamometer for Turbocharger Research 7
th
Int. Conf on
Turbochargers and Turbocharging, Proc. of the IMechE, paper
C602-026, 2002.

11 Watson, N., Janota, M.S., Turbocharging the Internal
Combustion Engine, London: The Maxmillan Press Ltd, 1982.

12 Japikse, D., and Baines, N.C., Introduction to Turbomachinery,
Concept ETI Inc., USA and Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1994.

13 Szymko, S., Martinez-Botas, R.F. and Pullen, K.R. Experimental
Evaluation of Turbocharger Turbine Performance under Pulsating
10.1243/17547164C0012010034
457
Flow Conditions, Proc. of ASME Turbo Expo, GT 2005-68878,
2005.

14 Abidat, M., Design and Testing of a Highly Loaded Mixed Flow
Turbine, Thesis (PhD.), Imperial College of Science, Technology,
and Medicine, University of London, England, 1991.

15 Karamanis, N., Inlet and exit flow characteristics of mixed flow
turbines in advanced automotive turbocharging, Thesis (Ph.D.),
Imperial College London, UK, 2000.

16 Hakeem, I., Steady and Unsteady Performance of Mixed Flow
Turbines forAutomotive Turbochargers, Thesis (Ph.D.), Imperial
College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, University of
London, England, 1995.

17 Srithar, R., Martinez-Botas, R.F., Mixed flow turbine research: a
review, Journal of turbomachinery, ASME Vol.130, Issue 4,
October 2008.

18 Palfreyman, D., Aerodynamics of a mixed flow turbocharger
turbine under steady and pulse flow conditions: A numerical
study, Thesis (Ph,D.), Imperial College London, UK, 2004.

19 Romagnoli, A., Rajoo, S. and Martinez-Botas, R.F., Turbine
performance studies for automotive turbochargers Part two:
unsteady analysis, 9
th
Int. Conf. on Turbocharging and
Turbochargers, Instn. of Mech. Engrs, London, 2009.