Research Papers

A Detailed Uncertainty Analysis of Adiabatic Film Cooling Effectiveness Measurements Using Pressure-Sensitive Paint

[+] Author and Article Information
Greg Natsui

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816
e-mail: gnatsui@knights.ucf.edu

Zachary Little

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816
e-mail: Zachary.Little@ucf.edu

Jayanta S. Kapat

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816
e-mail: Jayanta.Kapat@ucf.edu

Jason E. Dees

GE Global Research,
Niskayuna, NY 12309
e-mail: DeesJ@ge.com

Gregory Laskowski

GE Aviation,
Lynn, MA 01905
e-mail: Laskowsk@ge.com

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received January 12, 2016; final manuscript received January 27, 2016; published online March 30, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(8), 081007 (Mar 30, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1011; doi: 10.1115/1.4032674 History: Received January 12, 2016; Revised January 27, 2016

Pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) can be a powerful tool in measuring the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness. There are two distinct sources of error for this measurement technique: the ability to experimentally obtain the data and the validity of the heat and mass transfer analogy for the problem being studied. This paper will assess the experimental aspect of this PSP measurement specifically for film cooling applications. Experiments are conducted in an effort to quantifiably bound expected errors associated with temperature nonuniformities in testing and photodegradation effects. Results show that if careful experimental procedures are put in place, both of these effects can be maintained to have less than 0.022 impact on effectiveness. Through accurate semi in situ calibration down to 4% atmospheric pressure, the near-hole distribution of effectiveness is measured with high accuracy. PSP calibrations are performed for multiple coupons, over multiple days. In addition, to reach a partial pressure of zero the calibration vessel was purged of all air by flowing CO2. The primary contribution of this paper lies in the uncertainty analysis performed on the PSP measurement technique. A thorough uncertainty analysis is conducted and described, in order to completely understand the presented measurements and any shortcomings of the PSP technique. This quantification results in larger, albeit more realistic, values of uncertainty and helps provide a better understanding of film cooling effectiveness measurements taken using the PSP technique. The presented uncertainty analysis takes into account all random error sources associated with sampling and calibration, from intensities to effectiveness. Adiabatic film cooling effectiveness measurements are obtained for a single row of film cooling holes inclined at 20 deg, with CO2 used as coolant. Data are obtained for six blowing ratios. Maps of uncertainty corresponding to each effectiveness profile are available for each test case. These maps show that the uncertainty varies spatially over the test surface and high effectiveness corresponds to low uncertainty. The noise floors can be as high as 0.04 at effectiveness levels of 0. Day-to-day repeatability is presented for each blowing ratio and shows that laterally averaged effectiveness data are repeatable within 0.02 effectiveness.

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


Pedersen, D. R. , Eckert, E. R. G. , and Goldstein, R. J. , 1977, “ Film Cooling With Large Density Differences Between the Mainstream and the Secondary Fluid Measured by the Heat-Mass Transfer Analogy,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 99(4), pp. 620–627. [CrossRef]
Nicoll, W. , and Whitelaw, J. , 1967, “ The Effectiveness of the Uniform Density, Two-Dimensional Wall Jet,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 10(5), pp. 623–639. [CrossRef]
Goldstein, R. J. , and Jin, P. , 2001, “ Film Cooling Downstream of a Row of Discrete Holes With Compound Angle,” ASME Paper No. 2000-GT-248.
Zhang, L. J. , and Fox, M. , 1999, “ Flate Plate Film Cooling Measurement Using PSP and Gas Chromatograph Techniques,” ASME Paper No. AJTE99-6241.
Jones, T. V. , 1999, “ Theory for the Use of Foreign Gas in Simulating Film Cooling,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 20(3), pp. 349–354. [CrossRef]
Charbonnier, D. , Ott, P. , Jonsson, M. , and Köbke, Th. , 2009, “ Experimental and Numerical Study of the Thermal Performance of a Film Cooled Turbine Platform,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-60306.
Wright, L. M. , Gao, Z. , Varvel, T. A. , and Han, J. C. , 2005, “ Assessment of Steady State PSP, TSP, and IR Measurement Techniques for Flat Plate Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. HT2005-72363.
Han, J. C. , and Rallabandi, A. P. , 2010, “ Turbine Blade Film Cooling Using PSP Technique,” Front. Heat Mass Transfer, 1, pp. 1–21. [CrossRef]
Liu, T. , and Sullivan, J. P. , 2005, Pressure and Temperature Sensitive Paints, Springer, New York.
Palluconi, S. , 2013, UniFIB Pressure Sensitive Paint, ISSI, Dayton, OH.
Kameda, M. , Yoshida, M. , Sekiya, T. , and Nakakita, K. , 2015, “ Humidity Effects in the Response of a Porous Pressure-Sensitive Paint,” Sens. Actuators B, 208, pp. 399–405. [CrossRef]
ASME Performance Test Codes 19.1, 2005, Test Uncertainty, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Ahn, J. , Mhetras, S. , and Han, J. C. , 2005, “ Film-Cooling Effectiveness on a Gas Turbine Blade Tip Using Pressure-Sensitive Paint,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 127(5), pp. 521–530. [CrossRef]
Mhetras, S. , Han, J. C. , and Rudolph, R. , 2012, “ Effect of Flow Parameter Variations on Full Coverage Film-Cooling Effectiveness for a Gas Turbine Blade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(1), p. 011004. [CrossRef]
Narzary, D. P. , Liu, K. C. , Rallabandi, A. P. , and Han, J. C. , 2012, “ Influence of Coolant Density on Turbine Blade Film-Cooling Using Pressure Sensitive Paint Technique,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(3), p. 031006. [CrossRef]
Egami, Y. , and Asai, K. , 2002, “ Effects of Antioxidants on Photodegradation of Porous Pressure-Sensitive Paint,” AIAA Paper No. 2002-2905.
Liu, Q. , 2006, Study of Heat Transfer Characteristics of Impinging Air Jet Using Pressure and Temperature Sensitive Luminescent Paint, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
Sinha, A. K. , Bogard, D. G. , and Crawford, M. E. , 1991, “ Film-Cooling Effectiveness Downstream of a Single Row of Holes With Variable Density Ratio,” ASME J. Turbomach., 113(3), pp. 442–449. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, D. L. , Sen, B. , and Bogard, D. G. , 1996, “ Film Cooling With Compound Angle Holes: Adiabatic Effectiveness,” ASME J. Turbomach., 118(4), pp. 807–813. [CrossRef]
Gritsch, M. , Schulz, A. , and Wittig, S. , 1998, “ Adiabatic Wall Effectiveness Measurements of Film-Cooling Holes With Expanded Exits,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120(3), pp. 549–556. [CrossRef]
Goldstein, R. J. , Jin, P. , and Olson, R. L. , 1999, “ Film Cooling Effectiveness and Mass/Heat Transfer Coefficient Downstream of One Row of Discrete Holes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 121(2), pp. 225–232. [CrossRef]
Jung, I. S. , and Lee, J. S. , 2000, “ Effects of Orientation Angles on Film Cooling Over a Flat Plate: Boundary Layer Temperature Distributions and Adiabatic Film Cooling Effectiveness,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(1), pp. 153–160. [CrossRef]
Ling, J. P. C. W. , Ireland, P. T. , and Turner, L. , 2002, “ Full Coverage Film Cooling For Combustor Transition Sections,” ASME Paper No. 2002-GT-30528.
Yu, Y. , Yen, C.-H. , Shih, T. I.-P. , Chyu, M. K. , and Gogineni, S. , 2002, “ Film Cooling Effectiveness and Heat Transfer Coefficient Distributions Around Diffusion Shaped Holes,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 124(5), pp. 820–827. [CrossRef]
Wright, L. M. , McClain, S. T. , and Clemenson, M. D. , 2011, “ Effect of Density Ratio on Flat Plate Film Cooling With Shaped Holes Using PSP,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(4), p. 041011. [CrossRef]
Eberly, M. K. , and Thole, K. A. , 2013, “ Time-Resolved Film-Cooling Flows at High and Low Density Ratios,” ASME J. Turbomach., 136(6), p. 061003. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Relation between pressure ratio and adiabatic film cooling effectiveness for different molecular weight ratios (MW = 1.5192 corresponds to injection of pure CO2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Convergence of the mean for a series of images, each series represents a pixel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

N = 87, calibrations from three surfaces over 3 days to 6 runs total, up and down calibrations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

PSP calibrations at different temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The collapse of the T dependence, α = 2.492

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Film effectiveness uncertainty, uη, as a function of temperature shift and η

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Temporal variation of PSP with constant excitation while maintaining operating conditions (STP)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Uncertainty in effectiveness as a function of effectiveness for a fixed value of uncertainty in PR (uPR = 0.03 in this example)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Model of wind tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Typical static pressures of the tunnel while the wind tunnel is running

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Spatially resolved adiabatic film cooling effectiveness profiles of near-hole performance following a single row for M = 0.3–1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Diagram of sources of error for film cooling effectiveness calculation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Maps of uncertainty, calculated according to Ref. [12], for M = 0.3 and 1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Day-to-day lateral average repeatability, M = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Day-to-day lateral average repeatability, M = 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Day-to-day lateral average repeatability, M = 0.6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Day-to-day lateral average repeatability, M = 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Day-to-day lateral average repeatability, M = 0.9

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Day-to-day lateral average repeatability, M = 1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Day-to-day repeatability of centerline results, M = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Lateral uniformity of centerline results, M = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Centerline effectiveness for different blowing ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Validation of PSP results with other experimental results downstream of a range of different inclination angle geometries. Other results are scaled by pitch to the current pitch of 7.5d.




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