0
Research Papers

Effect of Turning Vane Configurations on Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in a Ribbed Internal Cooling System

[+] Author and Article Information
Wei Chen, Hongde Jiang

Gas Turbine Research Center, Department of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Jing Ren

Gas Turbine Research Center, Department of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, Chinarenj@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn

J. Turbomach 133(4), 041012 (Apr 21, 2011) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002989 History: Received June 21, 2010; Revised July 06, 2010; Published April 21, 2011; Online April 21, 2011

The ribbed serpentine blade cooling system is a typical configuration in the modern gas turbine airfoil. In this study, experimental and the numerical efforts were carried out to investigate the local heat transfer and pressure drop distribution of a ribbed blade cooling system with different configurations in the turn region. A test rig containing a ribbed rectangular U-duct with a 180 deg round turn was built in Tsinghua University for this study. The transient liquid crystal method was applied to get the heat transfer distribution. Nine test cases with three turn configurations under three Reynolds numbers were carried out in the experiment. Pressure was measured along the duct in order to determine the influence of turning vane configurations on pressure drop. The test cases were also analyzed numerically based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) with three different turbulence models: the k-ε model, the SST reattachment model, and the Omega Reynolds stress (ORS) turbulence model. Both the experimental and numerical results showed a significant influence of the turning vane configuration on the heat transfer and pressure drop in the convective cooling channel. Among the three configurations, the loss coefficient of turn in configuration 2 was lowest due to the introduction of turning vane. Even the ribs were added in the turn region of configuration 3, the loss coefficient and friction factor are reduced by 23% and 17.5%, respectively. Meanwhile, the heat transfer in baseline configuration is still the highest. As the introduction of turning vane, the heat transfer in the region after turn was reduced by 35%. In configuration 3, the heat transfer in the turn region was enhanced by 15% as the ribs installed in the turn region. In the before turn region, the pressure drop and heat transfer was not influenced by the turn configuration. All the turbulence models captured the trend of heat transfer and pressure drop distribution of three test sections correctly, but all provide overpredicted heat transfer results. Among the models, the ORS turbulence model provided the best prediction. While aiming at high heat transfer level and low pressure drop, it is suggested that a suitable turn configuration, especially with the turning vane and/or the ribs, is a promising way to meet the conflicted requirements of the heat transfer and pressure drop in the convective cooling system.

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 4

Schematic view of the grid topology

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Normalized heat transfer distribution on the ribbed wall for configuration 1 (experimental data): (a) Re=30,000, (b) Re=40,000, and (c) Re=50,000.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Normalized pressure drop for configuration 1 (comparison of the experimental and numerical data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Normalized heat transfer distribution on the ribbed wall for configuration 2 (experimental data): (a) Re=30,000, (b) Re=40,000, and (c) Re=50,000

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Area-averaged heat transfer distribution for configuration 2 (comparison of the experimental and numerical data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Normalized pressure drop for configuration 2 (comparison of the experimental and numerical data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Normalized heat transfer distribution on the ribbed wall for configuration 3 (experimental data): (a) Re=30,000, (b) Re=40,000, and (c) Re=50,000

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Normalized heat transfer distribution for configuration 3 using the ORS turbulence model at Re=50,000 (numerical result)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic view of the solution domain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Normalized heat transfer distribution for configuration 1 using the ORS turbulence model at Re=50,000 (numerical result)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Area-averaged heat transfer distribution for configuration 1 (comparison of the experimental and numerical data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Normalized heat transfer distribution for configuration 2 using the ORS turbulence model at Re=50,000 (numerical result)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of the test sections. (a) test section 1: without turning vane; (b) test section 2: with turning vane in turn; (c) test section 3: with turning vane and ribs in turn; and (d) dimensions of test section 3 (the region in gray color is the capture region by CCD cameras).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the test rig

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Normalized pressure drop for configuration 3 (comparison of the experimental and numerical data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Area-averaged heat transfer distribution for three configurations at Re=50,000 (experimental data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Summary area-averaged Nusselt number ratio of different region for configurations: (a) before turn region, (b) turn region, and (c) after turn region (experimental data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Velocity streamlines on the plane 0.1 mm away from the ribbed wall at Re=50,000 (numerical result): (a) configuration 1, (b) configuration 2, and (c) configuration 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Velocity streamlines on the symmetrical plane of three configurations at Re=50,000 (numerical result): (a) configuration 1, (b) configuration 2, and (c) configuration 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Velocity vector on the cut plane of the turn region at Re=50,000 (numerical result): (a) location of cut plane in the turn region, (b) configuration 1, (c) configuration 2, and (d) configuration 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Normalized pressure drop distribution of three configurations at Re=50,000 (experimental data)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Area-averaged heat transfer distribution for configuration 3 (comparison of the experimental and numerical data)

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