0
Research Papers

Improving Film Cooling Performance Using Airfoil Contouring

[+] Author and Article Information
Atul Kohli

 Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, M/S 165-16, East Hartford, CT 06108atul.kohli@pw.utc.com

David G. Bogard

Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78713dbogard@mail.utexas.edu

J. Turbomach 130(2), 021007 (Feb 12, 2008) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2750681 History: Received July 13, 2006; Revised August 24, 2006; Published February 12, 2008

In this study, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based optimization process is used to change the contour of the airfoil near a suction-side cooling hole in order to improve its film effectiveness characteristics. An overview of the optimization process, which includes automated geometry, grid generation, and CFD analyses, is provided. From the results for the optimized geometry, it is clear that the detachment of the cooling jet is much reduced and the cooling jet spread in the spanwise direction is increased substantially. The new external contour was then tested in a low-speed wind tunnel to provide a direct measure of the predictive capability. Comparisons to verification test data indicate that good agreement was achieved for both pressure and film cooling effectiveness behavior. This study proves that despite its limitations, current Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methodology can be used a viable design tool and lead to innovative concepts for improving film cooling effectiveness.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the parametric definition of the cooling hole and flowchart of the optimization process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of computational domain with boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Mesh near the film cooling hole

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Optimization history showing average effectiveness of each configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Centerline temperature contours for (a) baseline and (b) optimized geometry show how the optimized airfoil contour changed the trajectory of the cooling jet

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Surface temperature contours for the (b) optimized geometry indicate reduced detachment and increased spreading compared to the (a) baseline

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Schematic of the low-speed cascade test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Detailed view of the test airfoil

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of the predicted and measured pressure distribution between cooling holes for the optimized geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Laterally averaged effectiveness for the baseline airfoil at various blowing ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Laterally averaged effectiveness for the optimized airfoil at various blowing ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Average effectiveness of baseline and optimized geometries for three different blowing ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of laterally averaged effectiveness near the hole (x∕D=5) and far from the hole (x∕D=15) for varying blowing ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Surface effectiveness contours for (a) baseline and (b) optimized geometries for three different blowing ratios

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