0
Research Papers

# Computational Analysis of Conjugate Heat Transfer and Particulate Deposition on a High Pressure Turbine Vane

[+] Author and Article Information
Weiguo Ai1

Department of Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602aiweiguo@byu.net

Thomas H. Fletcher

Department of Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602

1

Corresponding author.

J. Turbomach 134(4), 041020 (Jul 25, 2011) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003716 History: Received October 21, 2010; Revised December 03, 2010; Published July 25, 2011; Online July 25, 2011

## Abstract

Numerical computations were conducted to simulate flash deposition experiments on gas turbine disk samples with internal impingement and film cooling using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code (FLUENT ). The standard $k-ω$ turbulence model and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes were employed to compute the flow field and heat transfer. The boundary conditions were specified to be in agreement with the conditions measured in experiments performed in the BYU turbine accelerated deposition facility (TADF). A Lagrangian particle method was utilized to predict the ash particulate deposition. User-defined subroutines were linked with FLUENT to build the deposition model. The model includes particle sticking/rebounding and particle detachment, which are applied to the interaction of particles with the impinged wall surface to describe the particle behavior. Conjugate heat transfer calculations were performed to determine the temperature distribution and heat transfer coefficient in the region close to the film cooling hole and in the regions further downstream of a row of film cooling holes. Computational and experimental results were compared to understand the effect of film hole spacing, hole size, and TBC on surface heat transfer. Calculated capture efficiencies compare well with experimental results.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Schematic of the BYU turbine accelerated deposition facility

Figure 2

Schematic of the overall computational domain

Figure 3

Details of the grid used in the simulations

Figure 4

Grid sensitivity study-centerline normalized temperature for the three grids

Figure 5

Schematic of the 2D model

Figure 6

Calculated capture efficiencies obtained from 2D CFD modeling versus measured values

Figure 7

2D CFD calculations of (a) impact efficiency, (b) sticking efficiency, and (c) capture efficiency versus particle size for various gas temperatures

Figure 8

Comparison of averaged front side and back side plate temperature for cases s/d=3.4 and 4.5 from experiment and 3D modeling

Figure 9

Capture efficiency at M=0.5–2.0 for cases s/d=3.4 and 4.5 from experiment and 3D modeling

Figure 10

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness at the variation of M from 0.5 to 2.0 with s/d=3.4 (case 1) and 4.5 (case 2)

Figure 11

Centerline film cooling effectiveness at the variation of M from 0.5 to 2.0 with s/d=3.4 (case 1) and 4.5 (case 2)

Figure 15

Velocity magnitude contours (m/s) with blowing ratio from 0.5 to 2.0 along centerline plane for cases 2 and 3

Figure 16

Gas temperature distribution in X/d=2 for cases 2 and 3. Temperatures are in Kelvin.

Figure 17

Surface temperature profiles of the coupon surface for M=1.0 from the adiabatic and conjugate predictions. Hole diameters were 1.0 mm. Temperatures are in Kelvin.

Figure 20

Centerline conjugate heat transfer coefficient for cases 2 and 3 with M=1.0

Figure 21

Centerline surface temperature for M=1.0 with a TBC layer and different values of thermal conductivity

Figure 22

Laterally averaged surface temperature for M=1.0 with a TBC layer with different values of thermal conductivity

Figure 12

Predicted and measured capture efficiencies at M=0.5–2.0 for a hole size of d=1.5 mm (case 3)

Figure 13

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness with M=0.5–2.0 for case 2 (d=1 mm) and case 3 (d=1.5 mm)

Figure 14

Centerline film cooling effectiveness with the variation of M from 0.5 to 2.0 for case 2 (d=1 mm) and case 3 (d=1.5 mm)

Figure 18

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness at M=1.0 for adiabatic and conjugate cases

Figure 19

Centerline effectiveness at M=1.0 for adiabatic and conjugate cases

## 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 Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections