0
Research Papers

Effect of Coolant Density on Leading Edge Showerhead Film Cooling Using the Pressure Sensitive Paint Measurement Technique

[+] Author and Article Information
Je-Chin Han

e-mail: jc-han@tamu.edu
Turbine Heat Transfer Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 9, 2013; final manuscript received July 18, 2013; published online September 27, 2013. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(5), 051011 (Sep 27, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1145; doi: 10.1115/1.4025225 History: Received July 09, 2013; Revised July 18, 2013

The density ratio effect on leading edge showerhead film cooling has been studied experimentally using the pressure sensitive paint (PSP) mass transfer analogy method. The leading edge model is a blunt body with a semicylinder and an after body. There are two designs: seven-row and three-row of film cooling holes for simulating a vane and blade, respectively. The film holes are located at 0 (stagnation row), ±15, ±30, and ±45 deg for the seven-row design, and at 0 and ±30 for the three-row design. Four film hole configurations are used for both test designs: radial angle cylindrical holes, compound angle cylindrical holes, radial angle shaped holes, and compound angle shaped holes. The coolant to mainstream density ratio varies from DR = 1.0, 1.5, to 2.0 while the blowing ratio varies from M = 0.5 to 2.1. Experiments were conducted in a low speed wind tunnel with Reynolds number 100,900 based on mainstream velocity and diameter of the cylinder. The mainstream turbulence intensity near the leading edge model is about 7%. The results show the shaped holes have an overall higher film cooling effectiveness than the cylindrical holes, and the radial angle holes are better than the compound angle holes, particularly at a higher blowing ratio. A larger density ratio makes more coolant attach to the surface and increases film protection for all cases. Radial angle shaped holes provide the best film cooling at a higher density ratio and blowing ratio for both designs.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Leading edge film cooling test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Semicylinder test section and an after body

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Seven-row design: (a) radial angle cylindrical holes, (b) compound angle cylindrical holes, (c) radial angle shaped holes, and (d) compound angle shaped holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Three-row design: (a) radial angle cylindrical holes, (b) compound angle cylindrical holes, (c) radial angle shaped holes, and (d) compound angle shaped holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Definition of orientations and hole shape: (a) cylindrical hole and (b) shaped hole

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Principle of measurement using PSP. (b) Calibration curve for PSP at three different temperatures.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic of local coolant mass flow rate distributions and local blowing ratio: seven-row design (left) and three-row design (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Film cooling effectiveness contour plot of seven-row design: radial angle cylindrical holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Film cooling effectiveness contour plot of seven-row design for all film hole configuration with DR = 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Film cooling effectiveness contour plot of three-row design: radial angle shaped holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of blowing ratio on spanwise averaged film cooling effectiveness of seven-row design for all configurations with DR = 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of blowing ratio on spanwise averaged film cooling effectiveness of three-row design for all configurations with DR = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of hole configuration on spanwise averaged film cooling effectiveness with a medium blowing ratio (left: seven-row design with M = 1.2; right: three-row design with M = 1.0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of density ratio on spanwise averaged film cooling effectiveness of three-row design for two configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Area averaged film cooling effectiveness of seven-row design (upper) and three-row design (lower)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Effect of momentum flux ratio on film cooling effectiveness for three-row design

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