0
Research Papers

Scaling of Film Cooling Performance From Ambient to Engine Temperatures

[+] Author and Article Information
Nathan J. Greiner, Marc D. Polanka, James L. Rutledge

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Air Force Institute of Technology,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received September 9, 2014; final manuscript received September 27, 2014; published online December 30, 2014. Editor: Ronald S. Bunker.

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Turbomach 137(7), 071007 (Jul 01, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1232; doi: 10.1115/1.4029197 History: Received September 09, 2014; Revised September 27, 2014; Online December 30, 2014

The present study employs computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to explore the complexities of scaling film cooling performance measurements from ambient laboratory conditions to high temperature engine conditions. In this investigation, a single shaped hole is examined computationally at both engine and near ambient temperatures to understand the impact of temperature dependent properties on scaling film cooling performance. By varying select flow and thermal parameters for the low temperature cases and comparing the results to high temperature flow, the parameters which must be matched to scale film cooling performance are determined. The results show that only matching the density and mass flux ratios is insufficient for scaling to high temperatures. In accordance with convective heat transfer fundamentals, freestream and coolant Reynolds numbers and Prandtl numbers must also be matched to obtain scalable results. By virtue of the Prandtl number for air remaining nearly constant with temperature, the Prandtl number at ambient conditions is sufficiently matched to engine temperatures. However, laboratory limitations can prevent matching both the freestream and coolant Reynolds numbers simultaneously. By examining this trade-off, it is determined that matching the coolant Reynolds number produces the best scalability. It is also found that by averaging the adiabatic effectiveness of two experiments in which the freestream and coolant Reynolds number are matched, respectively, results in significantly better scalability for cases with a separated coolant jet.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Andrews, G. E., 2012, “Full Coverage Effusion Cooling With a Narrow Duct Backside Coolant Supply,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68629. [CrossRef]
Bunker, R. S., 2002, “Film Cooling Effectiveness Due to Discrete Holes Within a Transverse Surface Slot,” ASME Paper No. GT-2002-30178. [CrossRef]
Baldauf, S., Scheurlen, M., Schulz, A., and Wittig, S., 2002, “Correlation of Film-Cooling Effectiveness From Thermographic Measurements at Enginelike Conditions,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(4), pp. 686–698. [CrossRef]
Harrington, M. K., McWaters, M. A., Bogard, D. G., Lemmon, C. A., and Thole, K. A., 2001, “Full-Coverage Film Cooling With Short Normal Injection Holes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(4), pp. 798–805. [CrossRef]
Kakade, V. U., Thorpe, S. J., and Gerendás, M., 2012, “Effusion-Cooling Performance at Gas Turbine Combustor Representative Flow Conditions,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68115. [CrossRef]
Esgar, J., 1971, “Turbine Cooling–Its Limitations and Its Future in High Temperature Turbines,” Paper No. AGARD-CP-73-71.
Polanka, M. D., 1999, “Detailed Film Cooling Effectiveness and Three Component Velocity Field Measurements on a First Stage Turbine Vane Subject to High Freestream Turbulence,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Thole, K. A., Sinha, A., Bogard, D. G., and Crawford, M. E., 1992, “Mean Temperature Measurements of Jets With a Crossflow for Gas Turbine Film Cooling Application,” Rotating Machinery Transport Phenomena; Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery (ISROMAC-3), pp. 69–85.
Liess, C., 1975, “Experimental Investigation of Film Cooling With Ejection From a Row of Holes for the Application to Gas Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 97(1), pp. 21–27. [CrossRef]
Bons, J. P., MacArthur, C. D., and Rivir, R. B., 1996, “The Effect of High Free-Stream Turbulence on Film Cooling Effectiveness,” ASME J. Turbomach., 118(4), pp. 814–825. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, D. L., and Bogard, D. G., 1996, “Effects of Free-Stream Turbulence and Surface Roughness on Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. 96-GT-462.
ANSYS, 2010, “ANYSYS FLUENT 13.0 User's Guide,” ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Kays, W. M., Crawford, M. E., and Weigand, B., 2005, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
White, F. M., 2006, Viscous Fluid Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Polanka, M. D., Zelina, J., Anderson, W. S., Sekar, B., Evans, D. S., Lin, C.-X., and Stouffer, S. D., 2011, “Heat Release in Turbine Cooling I: Experimental and Computational Comparison of Three Geometries,” J. Propul. Power, 27(2), pp. 257–268. [CrossRef]
Lin, C.-X., Holder, R. J., Sekar, B., Zelina, J., Polanka, M. D., Thornburg, H. J., and Briones, A. M., 2011, “Heat Release in Turbine Cooling II: Numerical Details of Secondary Combustion Surrounding Shaped Holes,” J. Propul. Power, 27(2), pp. 269–281. [CrossRef]
Oguntade, H. I., Andrews, G. E., Burns, A. D., Ingham, D. B., and Pourkashanian, M., 2012, “Conjugate Heat Transfer Predictions of Effusion Cooling: The Influence of the Coolant Jet-flow Direction on Cooling Effectiveness,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68517. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Computational domain with boundary conditions and (b) resolution of grid near the cooling hole [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Grid for shaped coolant hole: (a) grid for the cooling hole outlet and (b) grid for the cooling hole inlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Centerline adiabatic effectiveness (η) for the baseline and Cases 1–8. (a) Cases 1–5 and (b) Cases 6–8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Spanwise averaged adiabatic effectiveness (η¯) for the baseline and Cases 1–8. (a) Cases 1–5 and (b) Cases 6–8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Midplane profile of nondimensional temperature (θ) for the baseline and Cases 1–8. (a) Baseline, (b) Case 1, (c) Case 2, (d) Case 3, (e) Case 4, (f) Case 5, (g) Case 6, (h) Case 7, and (i) Case 8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Contours showing the difference between the θ contour for Cases 1–8 and the baseline θ contour (θCase (1–8) − θBaseline) on the midplane. (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, (c) Case 3, (d) Case 4, (e) Case 5, (f) Case 6, (g) Case 7, and (h) Case 8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Contours of adiabatic effectiveness (η) for the baseline and Cases 1–8. (a) Baseline, (b) Case 1, (c) Case 2, (d) Case 3, (e) Case 4, (f) Case 5, (g) Case 6, (h) Case 7, and (i) Case 8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Contours showing the difference between the η contour for Cases 1–8 and the baseline η contour (ηCase (1–8) − ηBaseline). (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, (c) Case 3, (d) Case 4, (e) Case 5, (f) Case 6, (g) Case 7, and (h) Case 8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Contours of nondimensional temperature (θ) with velocity vectors showing CRVPs at x/D = 2.5 for the baseline and Cases 1–8. (a) Baseline, (b) Case 1, (c) Case 2, (d) Case 3, (e) Case 4, (f) Case 5, (g) Case 6, (h) Case 7, and (i) Case 8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Contours showing the difference between the η contour for Cases 6–8 and the baseline η contour (ηCase (6–8) − ηBaseline) with a zoomed scale. (a) Case 6, (b) Case 7, (c) Case 8, and (d) average of Cases 7 and 8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Midplane profile of nondimensional temperature (θ) for the low and high blowing ratio cases. (a) Case 9, (b) Case 10, (c) Case 11, (d) Case 12, (e) Case 13, and (f) Case 14.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Contours showing the difference between the θ contours at low temperature and high temperature for the low and high blowing ratio cases (θCase (10/11 or 13/14) − θCase (9 or 12)) on the midplane. (a) Case 10, (b) Case 11, (c) Case 13, and (d) Case 14.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Contours of adiabatic effectiveness (η) for the low and high blowing ratio cases. (a) Case 9, (b) Case 10, (c) Case 11, (d) Case 12, (e) Case 13, and (f) Case 14.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contours showing the difference between the η contours at low temperature and high temperature for the low and high blowing ratio cases (ηCase (10/11 or 13/14) − ηCase (9 or 12)). (a) Case 10, (b) Case 11, (c) average of Cases 10 and 11, (d) Case 13, (e) Case 14, and (f) average of Case 13 and 14.

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