0
Research Papers

The Effects of Vane Showerhead Injection Angle and Film Compound Angle on Nozzle Endwall Cooling (Phantom Cooling)

[+] Author and Article Information
Luzeng Zhang

Solar Turbines Incorporated,
2200 Pacific Highway,
San Diego, CA 92101
e-mail: Zhang_Luzeng_J@solarturbines.com

Juan Yin

Solar Turbines Incorporated,
2200 Pacific Highway,
San Diego, CA 92101
e-mail: Yin_Juan@solarturbines.com

Hee Koo Moon

Solar Turbines Incorporated,
2200 Pacific Highway,
San Diego, CA 92101
e-mail: Moon_Hee_Koo_X@solarturbines.com

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 15, 2014; final manuscript received July 24, 2014; published online September 10, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 137(2), 021003 (Sep 10, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1150; doi: 10.1115/1.4028291 History: Received July 15, 2014; Revised July 24, 2014

The effects of airfoil showerhead (SH) injection angle and film-cooling hole compound angle on nozzle endwall cooling (second order film-cooling effects, also called "phantom cooling") were experimentally investigated in a scaled linear cascade. The test cascade was built based on a typical industrial gas turbine nozzle vane. Endwall surface phantom cooling film effectiveness measurements were made using a computerized pressure sensitive paint (PSP) technique. Nitrogen gas was used to simulate cooling flow as well as a tracer gas to indicate oxygen concentration such that film effectiveness can be obtained by the mass transfer analogy. Two separate nozzle test models were fabricated, which have the same number and size of film-cooling holes but different configurations. One had a SH angle of 45 deg and no compound angles on the pressure and suction side (SS) film holes. The other had a 30 deg SH angle and 30 deg compound angles on the pressure and SS film-cooling holes. Nitrogen gas (cooling air) was fed through nozzle vanes, and measurements were conducted on the endwall surface between the two airfoils where no direct film cooling was applied. Six cooling mass flow ratios (MFRs, blowing ratios) were studied, and local (phantom) film effectiveness distributions were measured. Film effectiveness distributions were pitchwise averaged for comparison. Phantom cooling on the endwall by the SS film injections was found to be insignificant, but phantom cooling on the endwall by the pressure side (PS) airfoil film injections noticeably helped the endwall cooling (phantom cooling) and was a strong function of the MFR. It was concluded that reducing the SH angle and introducing a compound angle on the PS injections would enhance the endwall surface phantom cooling, particularly for a higher MFR.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Roback, R. J., and Dring, R. P., 1993, “Hot Streak and Phantom Cooling in a Turbine Rotor Passage: Part 1—Separate Effects,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), pp. 657–666. [CrossRef]
Roback, R. J., and Dring, R. P., 1993, “Hot Streak and Phantom Cooling in a Turbine Rotor Passage: Part 2—Combined Effects and Analytical Modeling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), pp. 667–674. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y., and Yuan, X., 2012, “Experimental Investigation of Turbine Phantom Cooling on Suction Side With Combustor Turbine Leakage Gap Flow and Endwall Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-69295. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y., and Yuan, X., 2013, “Turbine Endwall Film Cooling With the Pressure Side Radial Holes,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-95273. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L. J., and Moon, H. K., 2008, “The Effect of Wall Thickness on Nozzle Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50631. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L. J., Yin, J., and Moon, H. K., 2009, “The Effect of Compound Angle on Nozzle Pressure Side Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59141. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L. J., Yin, J., and Moon, H. K., 2012, “The Effect of Compound Angle on Nozzle Suction Side Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68357. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L. J., and Pudupatty, R., 1999, “Turbine Nozzle Leading Edge Film Cooling Study in a High Speed Wind Tunnel,” 33rd National Heat Transfer Conference, Albuquerque, NM, Aug. 15–17.
Kline, S. J., and McClintock, F. A., 1953, “Describing Uncertainties in Single Sample Experiments,” ASME J. Mech. Eng., 75(1), pp. 3–8.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of nozzle scaled warm cascade test rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Cascade picture with windows removed (PSP painted endwall shown with light color)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Cross section view of nozzle airfoil film-cooling geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Definition of the angles: (a) injection angle, (b) compound angle, and (c) showerhead angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Nozzle airfoil midspan Mach number distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Phantom cooling effectiveness on the endwall surface—vane 1 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Phantom cooling effectiveness on the endwall surface—vane 2 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Pitchwise phantom cooling effectiveness distribution for vane 1 SH and PS injections: (a) X/Cax = 0.0, (b) X/Cax = 0.5, and (c) X/Cax = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Pitchwise phantom cooling effectiveness distribution for vane 2 SH and PS injections: (a) X/Cax = 0.0, (b) X/Cax = 0.5, and (c) X/Cax = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pitchwise averaged phantom cooling effectiveness for vane 1 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pitchwise averaged phantom cooling effectiveness for vane 2 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Pitchwise averaged phantom cooling effectiveness comparison for vane 1 and 2 SH and PS injections: (a) low MFR cases and (b) high MFR cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Phantom cooling effectiveness on the endwall surface—vane 1 SH and SS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Phantom cooling effectiveness on the endwall surface—vane 2 SH and SS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Phantom cooling effectiveness on the endwall surface—vane 2 SH and SS injections combined with vane 1 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Phantom cooling effectiveness on the endwall surface—vane 1 SH and SS injections combined with vane 2 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Pitchwise phantom cooling effectiveness—vane 2 SH and SS injections combined with vane 1 SH and PS injections, (a) X/Cax = 0.0, (b) X/Cax = 0.5, and (c) X/Cax = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Pitchwise phantom cooling effectiveness—vane 1 SH and SS injections combined with vane 2 SH and PS injections, (a) X/Cax = 0.0, (b) X/Cax = 0.5, and (c) X/Cax = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Pitchwise averaged phantom cooling effectiveness— vane 2 SH and SS injections combined with vane 1 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Pitchwise averaged phantom cooling effectiveness— vane 1 SH and SS injections combined with vane 2 SH and PS injections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Pitchwise averaged phantom cooling effectiveness comparisons for combined injections: (a) low MFR cases and (b) high MFR cases

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