0
Research Papers

Second Law Analysis of Aerodynamic Losses: Results for a Cambered Vane With and Without Film Cooling

[+] Author and Article Information
Phil Ligrani

Oliver L. Parks Endowed Chair,
Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering,
Director of Graduate Programs
e-mail: pligrani@slu.edu

Jae Sik Jin

Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering,
Parks College of Engineering, Aviation, and Technology,
Saint Louis University,
3450 Lindell Boulevard,
McDonnell Douglas Hall, Room 1033A,
St. Louis, MO 63103

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 9, 2012; final manuscript received July 17, 2012; published online June 5, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(4), 041013 (Jun 05, 2013) (14 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1135; doi: 10.1115/1.4007588 History: Received July 09, 2012; Revised July 17, 2012

Results of second law analysis of experimentally-measured aerodynamic losses are presented for a cambered vane with and without film cooling, including comparisons with similar results from a symmetric airfoil. Included are distributions of local entropy creation, as well as mass-averaged magnitudes of global exergy destruction. The axial chord length of the cambered vane is 4.85 cm, the true chord length is 7.27 cm, and the effective pitch is 6.35 cm. Data are presented for three airfoil Mex distributions (including one wherein the flow is transonic), magnitudes of inlet turbulence intensity from 1.1% to 8.2%, and ks/cx surface roughness values of 0, 0.00108, and 0.00258. The associated second law aerodynamics losses are presented for two different measurement locations downstream of the vane trailing edge (one axial chord length and 0.25 axial chord length). The surface roughness, when present, simulates characteristics of the actual roughness which develops on operating turbine airfoils from a utility power engine, over long operating times, due to particulate deposition and to spallation of thermal barrier coatings. Quantitative surface roughness characteristics which are matched include equivalent sandgrain roughness size, as well as the irregularity, nonuniformity, and the three-dimensional irregular arrangement of the roughness. Relative to a smooth, symmetric airfoil with no film cooling at low Mach number and low freestream turbulence intensity, overall, the largest increases in exergy destruction occur with increasing Mach number, and increasing surface roughness. Important variations are also observed as airfoil camber changes. Progressively smaller mass-averaged exergy destruction increases are then observed with changes of freestream turbulence intensity, and different film cooling conditions. In addition, the dependences of overall exergy destruction magnitudes on mainstream turbulence intensity and freestream Mach number are vastly different as level of vane surface roughness changes. When film cooling is present, overall mass-averaged exergy destruction magnitudes are significantly less than values associated with increased airfoil surface roughness for both the cambered vane and the symmetric airfoil. Dimensional exergy destruction values (associated with wake aerodynamic losses) for the symmetric airfoil with film cooling are then significantly higher than data from the cambered vane with film cooling, when compared at a particular blowing ratio.

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

References

Bejan, A., 1978, “General Criterion for Rating Heat-Exchanger Performance,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 21, pp. 655–658. [CrossRef]
Bejan, A., 1980, “Second Law Analysis in Heat Transfer,” Energy, 5, pp. 720–732. [CrossRef]
Griffin, P. C., and Davies, M. R. D., 2004, “Aerodynamic Entropy Generation Rate in a Boundary Layer With High Free Stream Turbulence,” ASME Trans. J. Fluids Eng., 126, pp. 700–703. [CrossRef]
Iandoli, C. L., Sciubba, E., and Zeoli, N., 2008, “The Computation of the Entropy Generation Rate for Turbomachinery Design Application: Some Theoretical Remarks and Practical Examples,” Int. J. Energy Technol. Policy, 6, pp. 64–95. [CrossRef]
Kock, F., and Herwig, H., 2005, “Entropy Production Calculation for Turbulent Shear Flows and Their Implementation in CFD Codes,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 26, pp. 672–680. [CrossRef]
Walsh, E. J., and McEligot, D., 2008, “Relation of Entropy Generation to Wall ‘Laws’ for Turbulent Flows,” Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 22, pp. 649–657. [CrossRef]
McEligot, D. M., Walsh, E. J., and Laurien, E., 2006, “Entropy Generation in the Viscous Layer of a Turbulent Channel Flow,” 5th International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Dubrovnik.
Geogory-Smith, D. G., and Cleak, J. G. E., 1992, “Secondary Flow Measurements in a Turbine Cascade With High Inlet Turbulence,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114, pp. 173–183. [CrossRef]
Giel, P. W., Bunker, R. S., Van Fossen, G. J., and BoyleR. J., 2000, “Heat Transfer Measurements and Predictions on a Power Generation Gas Turbine Blade,” NASA/TM 2000-210021, ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-209.
Boyle, R. J., Luci, B. L., Verhoff, V. G., Camperchioli, W. P., and La, H., 1998, “Aerodynamics of a Transitioning Turbine Stator Over a Range of Reynolds Numbers,” NASA No. 19980218604 1.15:208408, ASME Paper No. 98-GT-285.
Ames, F. E., and Plesniak, M. W., 1997, “The Influence of Large–Scale, High Intensity Turbulence on Vane Aerodynamics Losses, Wake Growth, and the Exit Turbulence Parameters,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119, pp. 182–192. [CrossRef]
Jouini, D. B. M., Sjolander, S. A., and Moustapha, S. H., 2001, “Aerodynamic Performance of a Transonic Turbine Cascade at Off-Design Conditions,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123, pp. 510–518. [CrossRef]
Radomsky, R. W., and Thole, K. A., 2002, “Detailed Boundary Layer Measurements on a Turbine Stator Vane at Elevated Freestream Turbulence Levels,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124, pp. 107–118. [CrossRef]
Boyle, R. J., Lucci, B. L., and SenyitkoR. G., 2002, “Aerodynamics Performance and Turbulence Measurements in a Turbine Vane Cascade,” NASA/TM 2002-211709, ASME Paper No. GT-2002-30434.
Christopher, R. J., Xavier, A. M., Friedrich, O. S., CharlesD. M., and MatthewM., 1998, “High Pressure Turbine Vane Annular Cascade Heat Flux and Aerodynamic Measurements With Comparisons to Predictions,” ASME Paper No. 98-GT-430.
Coton, T., Arts, T., and Lefebvre, M., 2001, “Effects of Reynolds and Mach Numbers on the Profile Losses of a Conventional Low-Pressure Turbine Rotor Cascade With an Increasing Pitch-Chord Ratio,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 215, pp. 763–772. [CrossRef]
Nikuradse, J., 1933, “Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes,” National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Report No. NACA TM 1292.
Schlichting, H., 1936, “Experimental Investigation of the Problem of Surface Roughness,” National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Report No. NACA TM-832.
Coleman, H. W., Hodge, B. K., and Taylor, R. P., 1984, “A Re-Evaluation of Schlichting's Surface Roughness Experiment,” ASME Trans. J. Fluids Eng., 106, pp. 60–65. [CrossRef]
Sigal, A., and Danberg, J. E., 1990, “New Correlation of Roughness Density Effect on Turbulent Boundary Layer,” AIAA J., 28, pp. 554–556. [CrossRef]
Sigal, A., and Danberg, J. E., 1988, “Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layer Over Roughness Surface With Application to Projectile Aerodynamics,” Amy Ballistic Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Grounds MD, Technical Report No. BRL-TR-2977.
Van Rij, J. A., Belnap, B. J., and Ligrani, P.M., 2002, “Analysis and Experiments on Three–Dimensional, Irregular Surface Roughness,” ASME Trans. J. Fluids Eng., 124, pp. 671–677. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Q., Lee, S. W., and Ligrani, P. M., 2004, “Effects of Surface Roughness and Turbulence Intensity on the Aerodynamic Losses Produced by the Suction Surface of a Simulated Turbine Airfoil,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 126(2), pp. 257–265. [CrossRef]
Bammert, K., and Sandstede, H., 1980, “Measurements of the Boundary Layer Development Along a Turbine Blade With Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 102, pp. 978–983. [CrossRef]
Kind, R. J., Serjak, P. J., and Abbott, M. W. P., 1998, “Measurements and Prediction of The Effects of Surface Roughness on Profile Losses and Deviation In a Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120, pp. 20–27. [CrossRef]
Bogard, D. G., Schmidt, D. L., and Tabbita, M., 1998, “Characterization and Laboratory Simulation of Turbine Airfoil Surface Roughness and Associated Heat Transfer,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120, pp. 337–342. [CrossRef]
Abuaf, N., Bunker, R. S., and Lee, C. P., 1998, “Effects of Surface Roughness on Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics Performance of Turbine Airfoils,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120, pp. 522–529. [CrossRef]
Leipold, R., Boese, M., and Fottner, L., 2000, “The Influence of Technical Surface Roughness Caused by Precision Forging on the Flow Around a Highly Loaded Compressor Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 416–425. [CrossRef]
Sitaram, N., Govardhan, M., and Murali Krishna, V. T., 1999, “Loss Reduction by Means of Two-Dimensional Roughness Elements on the Suction Surface of a Linear Turbine Rotor Cascade,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 62, pp. 227–248. [CrossRef]
Stripf, M., Schulz, A., and Wittig, S., 2004, “Surface Roughness Effects on External Heat Transfer of a HP Turbine Vane,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53114.
Roberts, S. K., and Yaras, M. I., 2004, “Boundary-Layer Transition Over Rough Surfaces With Elevated Freestream Turbulence,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53668.
Boyle, R. J. and SenyitkoR. G., 2003, “Measurements and Predictions of Surface Roughness Effects on Turbine Vane Aerodynamics,” ASME Paper No. GT-2003-38580.
Zhang, Q., and Ligrani, P., 2006, “Aerodynamic Losses of a Cambered Turbine Vane: Influences of Surface Roughness and Freestream Turbulence Intensity,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128, pp. 536–546. [CrossRef]
Pullan, G., 2004, “Secondary Flows and Loss Caused by Blade Row Interaction in a Turbine Stage,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53743.
Benner, M., Sjolander, S., and Moustapha, S., 2001, “Shock Wave-Film Cooling Interactions in Transonic Flows,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123, pp. 788–787. [CrossRef]
Day, C. R. B., Oldfield, M. L. G., and Lock, G. D., 2000, “Aerodynamic Performance of an Annular Cascade of Film Cooled Nozzle Guide Vanes Under Engine Representative Conditions,” Exp. Fluids, 29, pp. 117–129. [CrossRef]
Ito, S., Eckert, E. R. G., and Goldstein, R. J., 1980, “Aerodynamic Loss in a Gas Turbine Stage With Film Cooling,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 102, pp. 964–970. [CrossRef]
Hong, Y., Fu, C., Cunzhong, G., and Zhongqi, W., 1997, “Investigation of Cooling-Air Injection on the Flow Field Within a Linear Turbine Cascade,” ASME Paper No. 97-GT-520.
Haller, B. R., and Camus, J. J., 1984, “Aerodynamic Loss Penalty Produced by Film Cooling Transonic Turbine Blades,” Trans. ASME: J. Eng. Gas. Turbines Power, 106, pp. 198–205. [CrossRef]
Kollen, O., and Koschel, W., 1985, “Effect of Film-Cooling on the Aerodynamic Performance of a Turbine Cascade,” Report No. AGARD CP-390.
Ligrani, P. and Jin, J. S., “Second Law Analysis of Aerodynamic Losses From Symmetric Airfoils With and Without Film Cooling,” Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri (submitted).
Chappell, J., Ligrani, P., Sreekanth, S., and Lucas, T., 2009, “Aerodynamic Performance of Suction-Side Gill Region Film Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132, p. 031020. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Q., and Ligrani, P. M., 2004, “Mach Number/Surface Roughness Effects on Symmetric Transonic Turbine Airfoil Aerodynamic Losses,” J. Propul. Power, 20, pp. 1117–1125. [CrossRef]
Jackson, D. J., Lee, K. L., Ligrani, P. M., and Johnson, P. D., 2000, “Transonic Aerodynamic Losses Due to Turbine Airfoil, Suction Surface Film Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 317–326. [CrossRef]
Furukawa, T., and Ligrani, P. M., 2002, “Transonic Film Cooling Effectiveness From Shaped Holes on a Simulated Turbine Airfoil,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer, 16, pp. 228–237. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Q., Sandberg, D., and Ligrani, P. M.2005, “Mach Number and Freestream Turbulence Effects on Turbine Vane Aerodynamic Losses,” J. Propul. Power, 21, pp. 988–996. [CrossRef]
Kline, S. J., and McClintock, F. A., 1953, “Describing Uncertainties in Single Sample Experiments,” Mech Sci., 75, pp. 3–8.
Moffat, R. J., 1988, “Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 1, pp. 3–17. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Q., Goodro, M., Ligrani, P. M., Trindade, R., and Srrekanth, S., 2006, “Influence of Surface Roughness on the Aerodynamic Losses of a Turbine Vane,” Trans. ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128, pp. 568–578. [CrossRef]
Denton, J. D., 1993, “Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME Transactions-J. Tubomach., 115, pp. 621–656. [CrossRef]
Çengel, Y. A. and Boles, M. A., 2011, Thermodynamics an Engineering Approach, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cambered vane test section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Film cooling hole configurations for cambered vane. (a) Round axial (RA), (b) Round radial (RR), (c) Shaped axial (SA), (d) Round compound (RC).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Film cooling hole locations for the cambered vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mach number distributions along the test vane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Three-dimensional Wyko profilometry traces of portions of the rough surfaces. (a) Simulated rough surface with small-sized roughness elements. (b) Rough surface from the pressure side of a turbine vane with particulate deposition from a utility power engine.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Dependence of the ratio of equivalent sandgrain roughness size to mean roughness height on the Sigal and Danberg [20] roughness parameter for the present study, and the Schlichting [18], Coleman et al. [19], and the van Rij et al. [22] investigations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Test section vanes with rough surfaces. (a) Vane with uniform roughness. (b) Vane with variable roughness on pressure side.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane at different exit Mach numbers Mex, measured at x/cx = 1.0 for Tu of 1.1 to 1.6% and ks/cx = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane with varying freestream turbulence intensity Tu for Mex = 0.35 and ks/cx = 0. (a) x/cx = 0.25, (b) x/cx = 1.0.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane with varying freestream turbulence intensity Tu for Mex = 0.71 and ks/cx = 0. (a) x/cx = 0.25, (b) x/cx = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane with varying surface roughness for Mex = 0.71 and Tu of 1.1%. (a) x/cx = 0.25, and (b) x/cx = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane with varying surface roughness for x/cx = 1.0. (a) Mex = 0.50 and Tu of 1.2%, (b) Mex = 0.35 and Tu of 1.6%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane with film cooling from the first row of holes only for x/cx = 1.0, Mex = 0.35, Tu of 5.7%, and ks/cx = 0. (a) m = 0.6, (b) m = 1.2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Entropy creation profiles downstream of the cambered vane with film cooling from both rows of holes for x/cx = 1.0, Mex = 0.35, Tu of 5.7%, and ks/cx = 0. (a) m = 0.6, (b) m = 1.2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Normalized overall exergy destruction as it varies with surface roughness condition for different measurement locations downstream of the cambered vane and the symmetric airfoil with different exit Mach numbers, for freestream turbulence intensity values from 1.1 to 1.6%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Normalized overall exergy destruction as it varies with surface freestream turbulence intensity for different measurement locations downstream of the cambered vane and the symmetric airfoil with smooth surfaces (ks/cx = 0) with different exit Mach numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Normalized overall exergy destruction as it varies with film cooling blowing ratio as measured one axial chord length downstream of the cambered vane and the symmetric airfoil with different exit Mach numbers, and different film cooling configurations and conditions for x/cx = 1.0, Mex = 0.35, Tu of 5.7%, and ks/cx = 0

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