0
Research Papers

Suction-Side Gill Region Film Cooling: Effects of Hole Shape and Orientation on Adiabatic Effectiveness and Heat Transfer Coefficient

[+] Author and Article Information
Justin Chappell

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah, 50 S. Central Campus Drive, MEB 2110, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9208

Phil Ligrani1

Donald Schultz Professor of Turbomachinery, University of Oxford, 17 Foundry House, Walton Well Road, Oxford OX2 6AQ, Englandp_ligrani@msn.com

Sri Sreekanth

 Pratt and Whitney Canada, 1801 Courtney Park Drive East, Mississauga, ON, L5A 3S8, Canadasri.sreekanth@pwc.ca

Terry Lucas

 Pratt and Whitney Canada, 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, QC, J4G 1A1, Canadaterrance.lucas@pwc.ca

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 132(3), 031022 (Apr 07, 2010) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3151600 History: Received February 12, 2009; Revised February 26, 2009; Published April 07, 2010; Online April 07, 2010

The performance of suction-side gill region film cooling is investigated using the University of Utah transonic wind tunnel and a simulated turbine vane in a two-dimensional cascade. The effects of film cooling hole orientation, shape, and number of rows, and their resulting effects on thermal film cooling characteristics, are considered for four different hole configurations: round axial (RA), shaped axial (SA), round radial (RR), and round compound (RC). The mainstream Reynolds number based on axial chord is 500,000, the exit Mach number is 0.35, and the tests are conducted using the first row of holes only, second row of holes only, or both rows of holes at blowing ratios of 0.6 and 1.2. Carbon dioxide is used as the injectant to achieve density ratios of 1.73 to 1.92 similar to values present in operating gas turbine engines. A mesh grid is used to give a magnitude of longitudinal turbulence intensity of 5.7% at the inlet of the test section. Results show that the best overall protection over the widest range of blowing ratios and streamwise locations is provided by either the RC holes or the RR holes. This result is particularly significant because the RR hole arrangement, which has lower manufacturing costs compared with the RC and SA arrangements, produces better or equivalent levels of performance in terms of magnitudes of adiabatic film cooling effectiveness and heat transfer coefficient. Such improved performance (relative to RA and SA holes) is most likely a result of compound angles, which increases lateral spreading. As such, the present results indicate that compound angles appear to be more effective than hole shaping in improving thermal protection relative to that given by RA holes.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

University of Utah transonic wind tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic diagram of the test section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Film cooling hole configurations: (a) RA, (b) RR, (c) SA, and (d) RC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Film cooling hole locations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Vane Mach number distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Local adiabatic effectiveness distributions for m=1.2 for first row of holes only: (a) RR hole configuration, (b) SA hole configuration, and (c) RA hole configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Local adiabatic effectiveness distributions for m=0.9 for second row of holes only: (a) RR hole configuration, (b) SA hole configuration, and (c) RA hole configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Local adiabatic effectiveness distributions for m=0.6 for both rows of holes: (a) RC hole configuration, (b) RR hole configuration, (c) SA hole configuration, and (d) RA hole configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Spanwise-averaged adiabatic film cooling effectiveness distributions for the first row of holes only: (a) m=0.6, (b) m=0.9, and (c) m=1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Spanwise-averaged adiabatic film cooling effectiveness distributions for the second row of holes only: (a) m=0.6, (b) m=0.9, and (c) m=1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Spanwise-averaged adiabatic film cooling effectiveness distributions for both rows of holes: (a) m=0.6, (b) m=0.9, and (c) m=1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Spanwise-averaged film cooling heat transfer coefficient distributions for both rows of holes arrangement for a blowing ratio m of 1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Local film cooling heat transfer coefficient distribution for m=1.2 for the RR hole configuration and both rows of holes arrangement

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Local film cooling heat transfer coefficient distribution for m=1.2 for the RC hole configuration and both rows of holes arrangement

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