0
Research Papers

A Model for Cylindrical Hole Film Cooling—Part II: Model Formulation, Implementation and Results

[+] Author and Article Information
Tilman auf dem Kampe

 Siemens AG, Energy Sector, Fossil Power Generation Division, 45468 Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germanytilman.aufdemkampe@siemens.com

Stefan Völker

 Siemens AG, Energy Sector, Fossil Power Generation Division, 45468 Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany

J. Turbomach 134(6), 061011 (Sep 04, 2012) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006307 History: Received September 22, 2010; Revised July 08, 2011; Published September 04, 2012; Online September 04, 2012

A model to simulate flows ejected from cylindrical film cooling holes in 3D-CFD without meshing the cooling hole geometry has been developed. It uses a correlation-based prediction of the complete three-dimensional flow field in the vicinity of a film hole exit based on characteristic film cooling parameters that is presented in part I of this two-part paper. The model describes the film-jet in terms of its shape and the distribution of temperature and velocity components within the film-jet body. For example, the characteristic counter-rotating vortex pair in the film-jet is modeled. Adding source terms to the transport equations for mass, momentum, and energy locally, the correlation-based prediction of the film-jet flow field is imposed onto a 3D-CFD simulation. Source terms are specified in the vicinity of a film hole exit, within a region representative of the volume occupied by the film jet. Each node within this source volume is treated individually in order to model the complex flow structure of the film-jet. The model has successfully been implemented in a commercial CFD code. Its general applicability has been tested and proven. The model’s predictive capability is compared to detailed CFD calculations and experimental investigations. A grid requirement study has been conducted, showing that the film cooling model delivers reasonable predictions of the surface temperature distributions downstream of the ejection location using relatively coarse grids. A minimum grid resolution requirement has been identified.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

An example of a source volume envelope

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Surface temperature predictions using detailed CFD and film cooling model: (a) low blowing and lateral inclination—detailed CFD, (b) low blowing and lateral inclination—film cooling model, (c) high blowing, no lateral inclination—detailed CFD, and (d) high blowing, no lateral inclination—film cooling model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Laterally averaged surface temperatures, detailed CFD versus film cooling model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Temperature distributions in a meridional cut-plane: (a) case with low blowing ratio and lateral inclination—detailed CFD, (b) case with low blowing ratio and lateral inclination—film cooling model, (c) case with high blowing ratio, no lateral inclination—detailed CFD, and (d) case with high blowing ratio, no lateral inclination—film cooling model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Surface static pressure predictions: (a) case with low blowing ratio and lateral inclination—detailed CFD versus model, and (b) case with high blowing ratio, no lateral inclination—detailed CFD versus model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Downstream evolution of film-jet temperature field at x/d = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20: (a) case with low blowing ratio and lateral inclination—detailed CFD, (b) case with low blowing ratio and lateral inclination—film cooling model, (c) case with high blowing ratio, no lateral inclination—detailed CFD, and (d) case with high blowing ratio, no lateral inclination—film cooling model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Laterally Averaged Film Effectiveness, CFD versus Experiments: (a) M = 0.519, DRexp  = 1.3, DRfcm  = 1.4, coolant: cooled nitrogen, and (b) M = 1.103, DRexp  = 1.3, DRfcm  = 1.4, coolant: cooled nitrogen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Laterally Averaged Film Effectiveness, CFD versus Experiments: (a) M = 0.53, DRexp  = 0.90, DRfcm  = 1.4, coolant: heated air, and (b) M = 0.50, DRexp  = 1.37, DRfcm  = 1.4, coolant: heated CO2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Low blowing ratio case: surface temperature prediction of detailed CFD (top) and film cooling model with meshes using 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20 nodes per diameter and the detailed reference mesh (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Laterally averaged temperature, low blowing ratio case

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

High blowing ratio case: surface temperature prediction of detailed CFD (top) and film cooling model with meshes using 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20 nodes per diameter and the detailed reference mesh (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Laterally averaged temperature, high blowing ratio case

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