0
Research Papers

Turbine Platform Cooling and Blade Suction Surface Phantom Cooling From Simulated Swirl Purge Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
Shiou-Jiuan Li

Turbine Heat Transfer Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123
e-mail: asjlme2008f@gmail.com

Jiyeon Lee

Turbine Heat Transfer Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123

Je-Chin Han

Turbine Heat Transfer Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123
e-mail: jc-han@tamu.edu

Luzeng Zhang, Hee-Koo Moon

Solar Turbines Incorporated,
San Diego, CA 92101

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received December 14, 2015; final manuscript received January 12, 2016; published online March 15, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(8), 081004 (Mar 15, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-15-1302; doi: 10.1115/1.4032676 History: Received December 14, 2015; Revised January 12, 2016

This paper presents the swirl purge flow on a platform and a modeled land-based turbine rotor blade suction surface. Pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) mass transfer technique provides detailed film-cooling effectiveness distribution on the platform and phantom cooling effectiveness on the blade suction surface. Experiments were conducted in a low-speed wind tunnel facility with a five-blade linear cascade. The inlet Reynolds number based on the chord length is 250,000. Swirl purge flow is simulated by coolant injection through 50 inclined cylindrical holes ahead of the blade leading edge row. Coolant injections from cylindrical holes pass through nozzle endwall and a dolphin nose axisymmetric contour before reaching the platform and blade suction surface. Different “coolant injection angles” and “coolant injection velocity to cascade inlet velocity” result in various swirl ratios to simulate real engine conditions. Simulated swirl purge flow uses coolant injection angles of 30 deg, 45 deg, and 60 deg to produce swirl ratios of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively. Traditional purge flow has a coolant injection angle of 90 deg to generate swirl ratio of 1. Coolant to mainstream mass flow rate (MFR) ratio is 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% for all the swirl ratios. Coolant to mainstream density ratio maintains at 1.5 to match engine conditions. Most of the swirl purge and purge coolant approach the platform; however, a small amount of the coolant migrates to the blade suction surface. Swirl ratio of 0.4 has the highest relative motion between rotor and coolant and severely decreases film cooling and phantom cooling effectiveness. Higher MFR of 1% and 1.5% cases suffers from apparent decrement of the effectiveness while increasing relative motion.

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

Velocity triangle analysis for engine and cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagrams: (a) flow diagram of swirl purge coolant simulation and (b) current test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Suction type wind tunnel with swirl purge flow test section: (a) top view and (b) three-dimensional view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Current blade designs: (a) view of the tested blade and (b) blade angles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Principle of measurement using PSP, (b) camera to caliber inclined angle, and (c) PSP calibration curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Data validation: (a) local nondimensional streamwise vorticity (Ω) distribution with secondary velocity vector at x/Cax = 1.08 [25] and (b) phantom cooling effectiveness on suction surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Aerodynamic information: (a) approaching boundary layer behavior and (b) blade loading

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

MFR effect on platform film-cooling effectiveness distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

MFR effect on spanwise-averaged phantom cooling-effectiveness on suction surface blade span 0–20%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Swirl ratio effect on spanwise-averaged phantom cooling effectiveness on suction surface blade span 0–20%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Phantom cooling effectiveness distribution on suction surface blade span 0–50%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Swirl ratio effect on platform pitchwise-averaged phantom cooling effectiveness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Swirl ratio effect on platform film-cooling effectiveness distribution: (a) MFR = 0.5%, (b) MFR = 1%, and (c) MFR = 1.5%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

MFR effect on platform pitchwise-averaged film-cooling effectiveness

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