0
Research Papers

Evaluation of CFD Predictions Using Thermal Field Measurements on a Simulated Film Cooled Turbine Blade Leading Edge

[+] Author and Article Information
Sibi Mathew

The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX, 78712
e-mail: sibimathew86@gmail.com

Silvia Ravelli

University of Bergamo,
Bergamo, Italy, 24044
e-mail: silvia.ravelli@unibg.it

David G. Bogard

The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX, 78712
e-mail: dbogard@mail.utexas.edu

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 12, 2011; final manuscript received August 19, 2011; published online October 30, 2012. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(1), 011021 (Oct 30, 2012) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-11-1133; doi: 10.1115/1.4006397 History: Received July 12, 2011; Revised August 19, 2011

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions of film cooling performance for gas turbine airfoils are an important part of the design process for turbine cooling. Typically, industry relies on the approach based on Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations, together with a two-equation turbulence model. The realizable k-ɛ (RKE) model and the shear stress transport k-ω (SST) model are recognized as the most reliable. Their accuracy is generally assessed by comparing to experimentally measured adiabatic effectiveness. In this study, the performances of the RKE and SST models were evaluated by comparing predicted and measured thermal fields in a turbine blade leading edge with three rows of cooling holes, positioned along the stagnation line and at ±25 deg. Predictions and measurements were done with high thermal conductivity models which simulated the conjugate heat transfer effects between the coolant flow and the solid. Particular attention was placed on the thermal fields along the stagnation line, and immediately downstream of the off-stagnation line row of holes. Conventional evaluations in terms of adiabatic effectiveness were also carried out. Predictions of coolant flows at the stagnation line were significantly different when using the two different turbulence models. For a blowing ratio of M = 2.0, the predictions with the SST model showed coolant jet separation at the stagnation line, while the RKE predictions showed no separation. Experimental measurements showed that there was coolant jet separation at the stagnation line, but the actual thermal fields obtained from experimental measurements were significantly different from that predicted by either turbulence model. Similar results were seen for predicted and measured thermal fields downstream of the off-stagnation row of holes.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the wind tunnel facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Side view of the leading edge model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the thermocouple probe with the traverse system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Repeatability tests for normalized temperature measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of the 3D computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Grid resolution at the symmetry plane for the: (a) coarse mesh, (b) fine mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Predicted versus measured laterally averaged adiabatic effectiveness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Predicted surface contours of adiabatic effectiveness according to RKE and SST models compared with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Predicted versus measured adiabatic effectiveness at stagnation line (x/d = 0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Predicted versus measured adiabatic effectiveness at x/d = 5.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Adiabatic versus conducting normalized temperature profile at x/d = 0 and z/d = 2.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Predicted normalized temperature contours along stagnation plane, according to SST model, RKE model compared with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Predicted versus measured normalized temperature profile along stagnation plane at (a) z/d = 0, (b) z/d = 2, (c) z/d = 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Predicted velocity vectors colored by normalized temperature along stagnation plane, according to SST model and RKE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Predicted turbulence intensity contours along stagnation plane, according to SST model and RKE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Predicted normalized temperature contours along x/d = 2 plane according to (a) SST model and (b) RKE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Predicted normalized temperature contours along x/d = 5.1 plane according to SST model, RKE model compared with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Predicted versus measured normalized temperature profile along x/d = 5.1 plane at (a) z/d = 2.9, (b) z/d = 4.9

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