0
Research Papers

Experimental Simulation of a Film Cooled Turbine Blade Leading Edge Including Thermal Barrier Coating Effects

[+] Author and Article Information
Jonathan Maikell, David Bogard

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin , Austin, TX 79712

Justin Piggush, Atul Kohli

 Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies, CT 06108

J. Turbomach 133(1), 011014 (Sep 21, 2010) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000537 History: Received March 23, 2009; Revised August 25, 2009; Published September 21, 2010; Online September 21, 2010

For this study, a simulated film cooled turbine blade leading edge, constructed of a special high conductivity material, was used to determine the normalized “metal temperature” representative of actual engine conditions. The Biot number for the model was matched to that for operational engine conditions, ensuring that the normalized wall temperature, i.e., the overall effectiveness, was matched to that for the engine. Measurements of overall effectiveness were made for models with and without thermal barrier coating (TBC) at various operating conditions. This was the first study to experimentally simulate TBC and the effects on overall effectiveness. Two models were used: one with a single row of holes along the stagnation line, and the second with three rows of holes straddling the stagnation line. Film cooling was operated using a density ratio of 1.5 and for range of blowing ratios from M=0.5 to M=3.0. Both models were tested using a range of angles of attack from 0.0 deg to ±5.0 deg. As expected, the TBC coated models had significantly higher external surface temperatures, but lower metal temperatures. These experimental results provide a unique database for evaluating numerical simulations of the effects of TBC on leading edge film cooling performance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Diagram of wind tunnel coolant flow loop

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of leading edge model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Laterally averaged ϕ for the single row model and α=0.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Spatial distributions of ϕ for α=0.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Laterally averaged effectiveness for single row model with varying angle of attack

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Spatial distributions of ϕ for M=2.0 and α=0.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Spatial distributions of ϕ for M=2.0 and α=1.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Laterally averaged ϕ¯ distributions for the uncoated three-row model with varying M and α=0.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Laterally averaged ϕ¯ distributions for the uncoated three-row model with varying α and M=2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Spatial distributions of ϕ for M=2.0, and (a) α=0.0 deg, (b) α=3.0 deg, and (c) α=5.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of ϕ¯ distributions for the one-row models with and without TBC at M=2.0 and with α=0.0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of ϕ¯ and ϕ¯interface distributions for the one-row and three-row coated and uncoated models with equal total mass flow rates of coolant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Effect of angle of attack on ϕ¯ distributions for the three-row model with TBC and blowing ratio of M=2.0

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