0
Research Papers

Conjugate Heat Transfer Measurements and Predictions of a Blade Endwall With a Thermal Barrier Coating

[+] Author and Article Information
Amy Mensch

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: aem277@psu.edu

Karen A. Thole

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: kthole@psu.edu

Brent A. Craven

Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: bac207@psu.edu

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 7, 2014; final manuscript received July 21, 2014; published online August 26, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(12), 121003 (Aug 26, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1119; doi: 10.1115/1.4028233 History: Received July 07, 2014; Revised July 21, 2014

Multiple thermal protection techniques, including thermal barrier coatings (TBCs), internal cooling and external cooling, are employed for gas turbine components to reduce metal temperatures and extend component life. Understanding the interaction of these cooling methods, in particular, provides valuable information for the design stage. The current study builds upon a conjugate heat transfer model of a blade endwall to examine the impact of a TBC on the cooling performance. The experimental data with and without TBC are compared to results from conjugate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. The cases considered include internal impingement jet cooling and film cooling at different blowing ratios with and without a TBC. Experimental and computational results indicate the TBC has a profound effect, reducing scaled wall temperatures for all cases. The TBC effect is shown to be more significant than the effect of increasing blowing ratio. The computational results, which agree fairly well to the experimental results, are used to explain why the improvement with TBC increases with blowing ratio. Additionally, the computational results reveal significant temperature gradients within the endwall, and information on the flow behavior within the impingement channel.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Configuration of a conjugate endwall with impingement and film cooling and TBC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Depiction of (a) the large-scale low-speed wind tunnel and (b) the test section containing the Pack-B linear blade cascade and conjugate endwall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pack-B cascade static pressure distribution at the blade midspan compared to CFD predictions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of internal and external cooling scheme from (a) the side view and (b) the top view showing the outline of the TBC and discrete thermocouple measurements taken on the endwall in the experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Depiction of (a) the computational domain and boundary conditions, (b) the surface grid for the endwall and TBC, (c) the prism layer volume grid in the holes and impingement channel, and (d) the volume grid in the mainstream, channel, and plenum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Overall effectiveness contours for Mavg = 1.0 (a) measured without TBC, (b) predicted without TBC, and (c) predicted under the TBC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Overall effectiveness contours for Mavg = 2.0 (a) measured without TBC, (b) predicted without TBC, and (c) predicted under the TBC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of overall effectiveness with and without TBC, showing measured and predicted values, along inviscid streamlines, PS (a)–(c) and SS (d)–(f)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Conjugate CFD prediction of nondimensional temperature in the fluid and the solid at different two slices (a) at the first row of impingement holes and (b) at the second row of impingement holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Measured and predicted improvement with TBC, ΔφTBC¯, and the predicted Δqr for the external endwall surface plotted as a function of Mavg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Contours of TBC effectiveness at three blowing ratios, (a) measured Mavg = 0.6, (b) measured Mavg = 1.0, (c) measured Mavg = 2.0, (d) predicted Mavg = 1.0, and (e) predicted Mavg = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of TBC effectiveness with film and impingement cooling, showing measured and predicted values, along inviscid streamlines, for (a) Mavg = 0.6, (b) Mavg = 1.0, and (c) Mavg = 2.0

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