0
Research Papers

Turbine Blade Tip Cooling With Blade Rotation—Part II: Shroud Coolant Injection

[+] Author and Article Information
Onieluan Tamunobere

Turbine Innovation and Energy
Research (TIER) Center,
Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Sumanta Acharya

Turbine Innovation and Energy
Research (TIER) Center,
Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA 70803;
Mechanical Engineering Department,
University of Memphis,
Memphis, TN 38152
e-mail: s.acharya@memphis.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 23, 2015; final manuscript received January 31, 2016; published online April 5, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(9), 091003 (Apr 05, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1274; doi: 10.1115/1.4032673 History: Received November 23, 2015; Revised January 31, 2016

In this paper, blade tip cooling is investigated with coolant injection from the shroud alone and a combination of shroud coolant injection and tip cooling. With a nominal rotation speed of 1200 rpm, each blade consists of a cut back squealer tip with a tip clearance of 1.7% of the blade span. The blades also consist of tip holes and pressure side (PS) shaped holes, while the shroud has an array of angled holes and a circumferential slot upstream of the rotor section. Different combinations of the three cooling configurations (tip and PS holes, shroud angled holes, and shroud circumferential slot) are utilized to study the effectiveness of coolant injected from the shroud as a complementary method of cooling the blade tip. The measurements are done using liquid crystal thermography. Blowing ratios of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 are studied for shroud slot cooling, and blowing ratios of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 are studied for shroud hole cooling. For cases with coolant injection from the blade tip, the blowing ratios used are 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0. The results show an increase in film cooling effectiveness with increasing blowing ratio for shroud hole coolant injection. The increased effectiveness from shroud hole coolant is concentrated mainly in the tip region below the shroud holes and toward the blade suction side and the suction side squealer rim. Slot coolant injection results in increased effectiveness on the blade tip near the blade leading edge up to a maximum blowing ratio, after which the cooling effectiveness decreases with increasing blowing ratio. The combination of the different cooling methods results in better overall cooling coverage of the blade tip with the shroud hole and blade tip coolant combination being the most effective. The level of coolant protection is strongly dependent on the blowing ratio and combination of blowing ratios.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Shroud hole and slot schematic [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Shroud and tip cooling configuration [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Heat transfer coefficient for (a) M = 1.0, (b) M = 2.0, (c) M = 3.0, (d) M = 4.0, and (e) M = 5.0 for shroud hole cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Film cooling effectiveness for (a) M = 1.0, (b) M = 2.0, (c) M = 3.0, (d) M = 4.0, and (e) M = 5.0 for shroud hole cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Laterally averaged heat transfer coefficient versus axial distance for (a) M = 1.0, (b) M = 2.0, (c) M = 3.0, (d) M = 4.0, and (e) M = 5.0 for shroud hole cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness versus axial distance for (a) M = 1.0, (b) M = 2.0, (c) M = 3.0, (d) M = 4.0, and (e) M = 5.0 for shroud hole cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Heat transfer coefficient for (a) M = 0.5, (b) M = 1.0, (c) M = 2.0, (d) M = 3.0, and (e) M = 4.0 for shroud slot cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Film cooling effectiveness for (a) M = 0.5, (b) M = 1.0, (c) M = 2.0, (d) M = 3.0, and (e) M = 4.0 for shroud slot cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Laterally averaged heat transfer coefficient versus axial distance for (a) M = 0.5, (b) M = 1.0, (c) M = 2.0, (d) M = 3.0, and (e) M = 4.0 for slot cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness versus axial distance for (a) M = 0.5, (b) M = 1.0, (c) M = 2.0, (d) M = 3.0, and (e) M = 4.0 for shroud slot cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Heat transfer coefficient at shroud hole blowing ratio of 4.0 and tip and PS blowing ratios of (a) M = 1.0, (b) M = 2.0, (c) M = 3.0, and (d) M = 4.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Film cooling effectiveness at shroud hole blowing ratio of 4.0 and tip and PS blowing ratios of (a) M = 1.0, (b) M = 2.0, (c) M = 3.0, and (d) M = 4.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Laterally averaged heat transfer coefficient versus axial distance for shroud hole and tip cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness versus axial distance for shroud hole and tip cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Laterally averaged heat transfer coefficient versus axial distance for shroud hole, shroud slot, and tip cooling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness versus axial distance for shroud hole, shroud slot, and tip cooling

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

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