0
Research Papers

Endwall Film Cooling Effects on Secondary Flows in a Contoured Endwall Nozzle Vane

[+] Author and Article Information
Giovanna Barigozzi

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Viale Marconi, 24044 Dalmine (BG), Italygiovanna.barigozzi@unibg.it

Giuseppe Franchini

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Viale Marconi, 24044 Dalmine (BG), Italygiuseppe.franchini@unibg.it

Antonio Perdichizzi

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Viale Marconi, 24044 Dalmine (BG), Italyantonio.perdichizzi@unibg.it

Marco Quattrore

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Viale Marconi, 24044 Dalmine (BG), Italy

J. Turbomach 132(4), 041005 (Apr 27, 2010) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3192147 History: Received June 30, 2008; Revised February 10, 2009; Published April 27, 2010; Online April 27, 2010

The present paper investigates the effects of endwall injection of cooling flow on the aerodynamic performance of a nozzle vane cascade with endwall contouring. Tests have been performed on a seven vane cascade with a geometry typical of a real gas turbine nozzle vane. The cooling scheme consists of four rows of cylindrical holes. Tests have been carried out at low speed (Ma2is=0.2) with a low inlet turbulence intensity level (1.0%) and with a coolant to mainstream mass flow ratio varied in the range from 0% (solid endwall) to 2.5%. Energy loss coefficient, secondary vorticity, and outlet angle distributions were computed from five-hole probe measured data. Contoured endwall results, with and without film cooling, were compared with planar endwall data. Endwall contouring was responsible for a significant overall loss decrease, as a result of the reduction in both profile and planar side secondary flows losses; a loss increase on the contoured side was instead observed. Like as for the planar endwall, even for the contoured endwall, coolant injection modifies secondary flows, reducing their intensity, but the relevance of the changes is reduced. Nevertheless, for all the tested injection conditions, secondary losses on the contoured side are always higher than in the planar case, while contoured cascade overall losses are lower. A unique minimum overall loss injection condition was found for both tested geometries, which corresponds to an injected mass flow rate of about 1.0%.

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

Meridional profile

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Wind tunnel test section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Cascade and endwall cooling geometry—CONF1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Detail of CONF1 hole geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Isentropic profile Mach number distributions at Z/H=0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Inlet boundary layer profile (X/cax=−80%)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Solid (a) planar and (b) contoured cascade secondary kinetic energy loss coefficient; vorticity and velocity vectors (X/cax=150%)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Spanwise (a) primary loss and (b) flow angle deviation distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Local Mach number: (a) planar cascade midspan distribution (solid) and (b) contoured cascade isentropic endwall distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Discharge coefficients

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Local blowing ratios: (a) planar and (b) contoured cascades

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Planar cascade secondary kinetic energy loss (primary) coefficient (X/cax=150%): (a) MFR=0.5%, (b) MFR=1.0%, (c) MFR=2.0%, and (d) MFR=2.5%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Contoured cascade secondary kinetic energy loss (primary) coefficient (X/cax=150%): (a) MFR=0.5%, (b) MFR=1.0%, (c) MFR=2.0%, and (d) MFR=2.5%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Spanwise primary loss distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Spanwise flow angle deviation distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Mass averaged primary and thermodynamic secondary energy loss coefficients versus M1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Mass averaged primary and thermodynamic overall energy loss coefficients versus M1

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