0
Research Papers

Large-Eddy Simulation of Film Cooling in an Adverse Pressure Gradient Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
Martin Konopka

e-mail: m.konopka@aia.rwth-aachen.de

Wolfgang Schröder

Institute of Aerodynamics,
RWTH Aachen University,
52062 Aachen, Germany

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 6, 2012; final manuscript received July 25, 2012; published online March 25, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(3), 031031 (Mar 25, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1133; doi: 10.1115/1.4007583 History: Received July 06, 2012; Revised July 25, 2012

In order to analyze the interaction of multiple rows of film cooling holes in flows at adverse pressure gradients, large-eddy simulations (LESs) are performed. The considered three-row cooling configuration consists of inclined cooling holes at an angle of 30 deg with a lateral pitch of p/D=3 and a streamwise spacing of l/D=6. The cooling holes possess a fan-shaped exit geometry with lateral and streamwise expansions. For each cooling row the complete internal flow is computed. Air and CO2 are injected in order to investigate the influence of an increased density ratio on the film cooling physics at adverse pressure gradients. The CO2 injected at the same blowing rate as air shows a higher magnitude of the Reynolds shear stress component and, thus, an enhanced mixing downstream of the cooling holes. The LES results of the air and CO2 configurations are compared to the corresponding particle-image velocimetry (PIV) measurements and show a convincing agreement in terms of the averaged streamwise velocity and streamwise velocity fluctuations. Furthermore, the cooling effectiveness is investigated for a zero and an adverse pressure gradient configuration with a temperature ratio at gas turbine conditions. For the adverse pressure gradient case, reduced temperature levels off the wall are observed. However, the cooling effectiveness shows only minor differences compared to the zero pressure gradient flow. The turbulent Schmidt number at CO2 injection shows large variations. Just downstream of the injection it attains low values, whereas high values are detected in the upper mixing zone of the cooling flow and the freestream at each film cooling row.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the multirow film cooling geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sketch of the shaped film cooling geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Numerical and experimental freestream velocity versus the streamwise distance at case I

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Pressure coefficient distribution imposed at the upper boundary compared to the measurements at cases I-III

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Turbulent structures visualized by the λ2 criterion with the mapped-on CO2 mass fraction at case II

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the mean streamwise velocity profiles and the RMS profiles of the streamwise velocity component of the current computations with the PIV measurements for air injection at case I and CO2 injection at case II. The streamwise velocity profiles are offset by Δu¯/u∞ = 0.4 and the streamwise RMS profiles are offset by Δu'2¯/u∞ = 0.08.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Definition of the locations to compare the numerically and experimentally determined flow profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Contours of the cooling effectiveness at the wall at case III for air injection

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Contours of the cooling effectiveness distribution at case II

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Wall normal turbulent heat transport

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of the first row centerline (z/D = 0), and second row centerline (z/D = 1.5) cooling effectiveness of the adverse pressure gradient cases II and III, compared to the zero pressure gradient configuration at case IV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the laterally averaged cooling effectiveness of the adverse pressure gradient cases II and III to the zero pressure gradient case IV and the computation of Renze et al. [11], which corresponds to case IV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Temperature contours at x/D = 26.88 for case III and case IV at the APG and the ZPG

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Temperature profiles of cases III and IV at the centerline of the first film cooling hole (z/D = 0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

The CO2 mass fraction (case II) and the dimensionless fluid temperature fluctuation (case III) in the z/D = 0 plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Reynolds shear stress component profiles at z/D = 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Cooling effectiveness and cooling effectiveness fluctuations at CO2 injection (case II)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Cooling effectiveness and cooling effectiveness fluctuations at air injection (case III)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Contours of the wall-normal turbulent Schmidt number Sct,y at CO2 injection (case II) in the z/D = 0 and x/D = 2-plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Contours of the isotropic turbulent Schmidt number Sct at CO2 injection (case II) in the z/D = 0 and x/D = 2-plane

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