0
Research Papers

Build Direction Effects on Additively Manufactured Channels

[+] Author and Article Information
Jacob C. Snyder

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
127 Reber Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: jacob.snyder@psu.edu

Curtis K. Stimpson

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
127 Reber Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: curtis.stimpson@psu.edu

Karen A. Thole

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

Dominic Mongillo

Pratt & Whitney,
400 Main Street,
East Hartford, CT 06118
e-mail: dominic.mongillo@pw.utc.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 16, 2015; final manuscript received November 22, 2015; published online January 20, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(5), 051006 (Jan 20, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1262; doi: 10.1115/1.4032168 History: Received November 16, 2015; Revised November 22, 2015

With the advance of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), also generically referred to as additive manufacturing (AM), novel geometric features of internal channels for gas turbine cooling can be achieved beyond those features using traditional manufacturing techniques. There are many variables, however, in the DMLS process that affect the final quality of the part. Of most interest to gas turbine heat transfer designers are the roughness levels and tolerance levels that can be held for the internal channels. This study investigates the effect of DMLS build direction and channel shape on the pressure loss and heat transfer measurements of small-scale channels. Results indicate that differences in pressure loss occur between the test cases with differing channel shapes and build directions, while little change is measured in heat transfer performance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

CAD model of coupon showing overall dimensions and channel shape detail for the teardrop design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Support structures used for the (a) horizontal, (b) 45 deg, and (c) vertical build directions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Cross sections showing design compared to CT scan of actual parts built: (a) cylindrical—(i) design intent, (ii) horizontal build, (iii) diagonal build, and (iv) vertical build, (b) diamond—(i) design intent and (ii) horizontal build, and (c) teardrop—(i) design intent and (ii) horizontal build. Build directions are defined in Fig. 2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Diagram defining concentricity and cylindrical runout

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Axial slices of horizontally built cylindrical channel showing nonuniform channel cross section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

A streamwise slice through the cylindrical-vertical point cloud showing the fitted surface and roughness elements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Three-dimensional tessellated surfaces comparing final channel quality for horizontally built channels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

CAD image of rig used to measure pressure drop and heat transfer in additively manufactured test coupons

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Relative contributions to uncertainty of friction factor (L) and Nusselt number (R) from dominant measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Cylindrical channel friction factor performance for three different build directions and benchmarking data from Stimpson et al. [18]. Benchmarking error bars range from 10% to 30%, while current study error bars are 7%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Heat transfer performance for cylindrical coupons comparing different build directions and benchmarking data from Stimpson et al. [18]. Marker size represents the uncertainty: current study error is 7% and benchmarking data error is 12%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Friction factor data for horizontally built coupons with Colebrook curves matched to the peak turbulent friction factor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Heat transfer performance of horizontally built coupons. Curves show Gnielinski correlation using friction factor taken from curves in Fig. 12. The size of the marker represents the uncertainty of 7%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Friction factor and heat transfer augmentation for all tested channels

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