0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Degradation of Film Cooling Performance on a Turbine Vane Suction Side due to Surface Roughness

[+] Author and Article Information
James L. Rutledge1

 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

David Robertson2

 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

David G. Bogard

 University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

1

Currently with the U.S. Air Force.

2

Currently with Florida Turbine Technology.

J. Turbomach 128(3), 547-554 (Feb 01, 2005) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2185674 History: Received October 01, 2004; Revised February 01, 2005

After an extended period of operation, the surfaces of turbine airfoils become extremely rough due to deposition, spallation, and erosion. The rough airfoil surfaces will cause film cooling performance degradation due to effects on adiabatic effectiveness and heat transfer coefficients. In this study, the individual and combined effects of roughness upstream and downstream of a row of film cooling holes on the suction side of a turbine vane have been determined. Adiabatic effectiveness and heat transfer coefficients were measured for a range of mainstream turbulence levels and with and without showerhead blowing. Using these parameters, the ultimate film cooling performance was quantified in terms of net heat flux reduction. The dominant effect of roughness was a doubling of the heat transfer coefficients. Maximum adiabatic effectiveness levels were also decreased significantly. Relative to a film cooled smooth surface, a film cooled rough surface was found to increase the heat flux to the surface by 30%–70%.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Heat transfer coefficient augmentation due to blowing at M=0.7(hf∕ho). All smooth, showerhead off, high turbulence.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Spanwise averaged heat transfer coefficients. All smooth, showerhead off, high turbulence.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Spanwise averaged comparison of adiabatic effectiveness with showerhead cooling. Smooth and all rough under high mainstream Tu.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Area averaged comparison of all of the roughness configurations tests under high mainstream Tu

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Spanwise averaged comparison of adiabatic effectiveness. Smooth and all rough under high mainstream Tu

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) Mean velocity profiles for the indicated conditions. (b) rms velocity profiles for the indicated conditions.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of test vane details

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the simulated turbine vane test section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Effect of suction side film cooling on h¯ at x∕D=12 (all smooth, showerhead off)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Heat transfer coefficient distribution, M=0.7. Downstream rough, showerhead off, high turbulence.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Influence of downstream roughness on spanwise averaged heat transfer coefficients. Upstream smooth, showerhead off, low turbulence.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

(a). Net heat flux reduction due to adding suction side blowing. All smooth, high turbulence, showerhead off. (b) Net heat flux reduction due to adding suction side and showerhead blowing. All smooth, high turbulence, showerhead on for cases with suction side cooling.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Net heat flux reduction due to film cooling on a smooth vane with showerhead blowing at M⋆=1.6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Net heat flux reduction with and without showerhead injection for rough walls and high turbulence

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Net heat flux reduction due to film cooling on a fully rough vane

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Heat flux increase due to adding upstream and downstream roughness. High turbulence, showerhead on for cases with suction side cooling.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Effects of turbulence and showerhead cooling on spanwise averaged heat transfer coefficients. All smooth, M=0, holes covered.

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