0
Research Papers

Adiabatic and Overall Effectiveness Measurements of an Effusion Cooling Array for Turbine Endwall Application

[+] Author and Article Information
Bruno Facchini

Department of Energy Engineering “Sergio Stecco,” University of Florence, Via di Santa Marta 3, Firenze 50139, Italybruno.facchini@htc.de.unifi.it

Lorenzo Tarchi

Department of Energy Engineering “Sergio Stecco,” University of Florence, Via di Santa Marta 3, Firenze 50139, Italylorenzo.tarchi@htc.de.unifi.it

Lorenzo Toni

Department of Energy Engineering “Sergio Stecco,” University of Florence, Via di Santa Marta 3, Firenze 50139, Italylorenzo.toni@htc.de.unifi.it

Alberto Ceccherini1

Department of Energy Engineering “Sergio Stecco,” University of Florence, Via di Santa Marta 3, Firenze 50139, Italyalberto.ceccherini@htc.de.unifi.it

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 132(4), 041008 (Apr 29, 2010) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3213555 History: Received March 09, 2009; Revised May 06, 2009; Published April 29, 2010; Online April 29, 2010

An experimental analysis for the evaluation of adiabatic and overall effectiveness of an effusion cooling geometry is presented in this paper. Chosen configuration is a flat plate with 98 holes, with a feasible arrangement for a turbine endwall. Fifteen staggered rows with equal spanwise and streamwise pitches (Sx/D=Sy/D=8.0), a length to diameter ratio of 42.9 and an injection angle of 30 deg are investigated. Measurements have been done on two different test samples made both of plastic material and stainless steel. Adiabatic tests were carried out in order to obtain adiabatic effectiveness bidimensional maps. Even if a very low conductivity material polyvinyl chloride was used, adiabatic tests on a typical effusion geometry suffer, undoubtedly, from conductive phenomena: a full three-dimensional finite element method postprocessing procedure for gathered experimental data was therefore developed for reckoning thermal fluxes across the surface and then correctly obtaining adiabatic effectiveness distributions. The objective of the tests performed on the conductive plate, having the same flow parameters as the adiabatic ones, was the estimation of overall efficiency of the cooled region. Experimental measurements were carried out imposing two different crossflow Mach numbers, 0.15 and 0.40, and varying blowing ratio from 0.5 to 1.7; effectiveness of the cooled surface was evaluated with a steady-state technique, using thermochromic liquid crystal wide band formulation. Results show that the postprocessing procedure correctly succeeded in deducting undesired thermal fluxes across the plate in adiabatic effectiveness evaluation. The increasing blowing ratio effect leads to lower adiabatic effectiveness mean values, while it makes overall effectiveness to grow. Finally, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes steady-state calculations were performed employing an open source computational fluid dynamics code: an adiabatic case has been simulated using both a standard and an anisotropic turbulence model. Numerical achievements have then been compared with experimental measurements.

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 2

Test plates geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Effectiveness map—Mach 0.15—BR=1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Spanwise averaged effectiveness—Mach 0.15—BR 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Iterative procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Spanwise averaged overall effectiveness—Mach 0.15—BR 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Mainstream flow heat transfer coefficient increase

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Adiabatic effectiveness map—Mach 0.15

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Spanwise averaged adiabatic effectiveness—Mach 0.15

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Spanwise averaged overall effectiveness—Mach 0.15—HTCmain enhancement, as in Fig. 8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Adiabatic effectiveness map—Mach 0.40

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Spanwise averaged adiabatic effectiveness—Mach 0.40

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Spanwise averaged overall effectiveness—Mach 0.40—HTCmain enhancement, as in Fig. 8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Spatially averaged adiabatic effectiveness

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

CFD comparison—adiabatic effectiveness map—Mach 0.15—BR 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

CFD comparison—spanwise averaged adiabatic effectiveness—Mach 0.15—BR 1.0

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