Research Papers

Deposition on a Cooled Nozzle Guide Vane With Nonuniform Inlet Temperatures

[+] Author and Article Information
Robin Prenter

Aerospace Research Center,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: prenter.1@osu.edu

Ali Ameri

Aerospace Research Center,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: ameri.1@osu.edu

Jeffrey P. Bons

Aerospace Research Center,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43235
e-mail: bons.2@osu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received January 8, 2016; final manuscript received February 22, 2016; published online April 26, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(10), 101005 (Apr 26, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1010; doi: 10.1115/1.4032924 History: Received January 08, 2016; Revised February 22, 2016

External deposition on a slot film cooled nozzle guide vane, subjected to nonuniform inlet temperatures, was investigated experimentally and computationally. Experiments were conducted using a four-vane cascade, operating at temperatures up to 1353 K and inlet Mach number of approximately 0.1. Surveys of temperature at the inlet and exit planes were acquired to characterize the form and migration of the hot streak. Film cooling was achieved on one of the vanes using a single spanwise slot. Deposition was produced by injecting sub-bituminous ash particles with a median diameter of 6.48 μm upstream of the vane passage. Several deposition tests were conducted, including a baseline case, a hot streak-only case, and a hot streak and film cooled case. Results indicate that capture efficiency is strongly related to both the inlet temperature profiles and film cooling. Deposit distribution patterns are also affected by changes in vane surface temperatures. A computational model was developed to simulate the external and internal flow, conjugate heat transfer, and deposition. Temperature profiles measured experimentally at the inlet were applied as thermal boundary conditions to the simulation. For deposition modeling, an Eulerian–Lagrangian particle tracking model was utilized to track the ash particles through the flow. An experimentally tuned version of the critical viscosity sticking model was implemented, with predicted deposition rates matching experimental results well. Comparing overall deposition rates to results from previous studies indicates that the combined effect of nonuniform inlet temperatures and film cooling cannot be accurately simulated by simple superposition of the two independent effects; thus, inclusion of both conditions in experiments is necessary for realistic simulation of external deposition.

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



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

TuRFR test section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Left: schematic of the annular test section and right: diagram of cooling scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domain (a) and mesh (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the original and tuned critical viscosity models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Inlet temperature profiles for baseline (a) and hot streak (b) overlaid on the inlet, with vane leading edge locations indicated. Adapted from Ref. [24].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Difference in temperature between hot streak and baseline cases (THS − TB), overlaid on the inlet with vane leading edge locations indicated. Adapted from Ref. [24].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Photographs of vane 3 postdeposition for each test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Capture efficiency ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Top: contours of deposit thickness for vanes 2 and 3 after an HS test. Bottom: corresponding linear traces taken from representative regions on the vanes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Contours of Mach number in a midspan slice taken from the baseline case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Contours of total temperature in a midspan slice for each test case. Note: (a) Baseline and (b) hot streak have different contour levels than hot streak and cooling (c).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Exit temperature traces from experiments and CFD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Capture efficiencies from experiments and CFD for each test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contours of normalized deposit thickness for the HS + C case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Midspan traces of normalized deposit thickness for each of the cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Top: trajectory of a single particle that impacts in the region upstream of the slot exit. Bottom: temperature history of the tracked particle (aligned with the top image for reference) for the HS and HS + C cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Relative reduction in deposit thicknesses for the combined case versus the superposition of the independent effects




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