0
Research Papers

Improvement of Turbine Vane Film Cooling Performance by Double Flow-Control Devices

[+] Author and Article Information
Hirokazu Kawabata

National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology,
2-2-9 Machiikedai,
Koriyama, Fukushima 963-0298, Japan
e-mail: kawabata-h@aist.go.jp

Ken-ichi Funazaki

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Iwate University,
18-8 Ueda,
Morioka, Iwate 020-8551, Japan
e-mail: funazaki@iwate-u.ac.jp

Yuya Suzuki

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Iwate University,
18-8 Ueda,
Morioka, Iwate 020-8551, Japan
e-mail: t2414024@iwate-u.ac.jp

Hisato Tagawa

Research and Development Center,
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.,
832-2 Horiguchi,
Hitachinaka, Ibaraki 312-0034, Japan
e-mail: hisato_tagawa@mhps.com

Yasuhiro Horiuchi

Research and Development Center,
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.,
832-2 Horiguchi,
Hitachinaka, Ibaraki 312-0034, Japan
e-mail: yasuhiro1_horiuchi@mhps.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received February 5, 2016; final manuscript received February 24, 2016; published online May 17, 2016. Editor: Kenneth C. Hall.

J. Turbomach 138(11), 111005 (May 17, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1033; doi: 10.1115/1.4033264 History: Received February 05, 2016; Revised February 24, 2016

This study deals with the studies of the effect of double flow-control devices (DFCDs) on turbine vane film cooling. Aiming for improving film effectiveness, two semispheroid DFCDs per pitch were attached to the vane surface upstream of the cooling hole. Although the DFCDs were successfully applied to the flat-plate film cooling in the previous study, the applicability to the turbine vane was to be investigated. In order to observe the flow field in detail, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulation was conducted first. The DFCDs were installed upstream of each cooling hole of the pressure and suction sides of the vane to investigate the effect of the device position. In this paper, the effects of blowing ratio and cooling hole pitch were also investigated. The results obtained by CFD showed that the vortex generated from DFCD suppressed lift-off of the secondary air. As a result, the film effectiveness became significantly higher than that without DFCD condition. Moreover, the improvement in the film effectiveness by DFCD was observed by both of the pressure and suction sides of the turbine vane. Based on the findings through RANS simulation, adiabatic effectiveness and total pressure loss coefficient measurement were performed in a linear cascade test facility. The experiment confirmed that the film effectiveness was improved when DFCDs existed.

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

Flow model and the performance of DFCD [7]: (a) flow model of FCD and (b) film cooling effectiveness distribution for cylindrical hole (blowing ratio = 1.0, flat-plate)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Test model and IR camera location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Test vane configuration: (a) cooling hole configuration and (b) the observation area of each of IR cameras

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

DFCD configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Computational domain and mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Static pressure coefficient distribution (BR = 0.0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Film cooling effectiveness distribution and vortex core region at BR = 0.5: (a) suction side and (b) pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Film cooling effectiveness distribution (p = 3.0d, BR = 0.5): (a) suction side and (b) pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Film cooling effectiveness distribution (p = 3.0d, BR = 1.0): (a) suction side and (b) pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Film cooling effectiveness distribution (p = 4.5d, BR = 0.5): (a) suction side and (b) pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Film cooling effectiveness distribution (p = 4.5d, BR = 1.0): (a) suction side and (b) pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Spanwise-averaged film cooling effectiveness: (a) p = 3.0d condition and (b) p = 4.5d condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Baseline loss coefficient: (a) p = 3.0d condition and (b) p = 4.5d condition

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