0
Research Papers

Turbine Blade Platform Film Cooling With Simulated Swirl Purge Flow and Slashface Leakage Conditions

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrew F Chen

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

Chao-Cheng Shiau

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

Je-Chin Han

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

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received September 20, 2016; final manuscript received October 6, 2016; published online December 1, 2016. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(3), 031012 (Dec 01, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1250; doi: 10.1115/1.4034985 History: Received September 20, 2016; Revised October 06, 2016

The combined effects of inlet purge flow and the slashface leakage flow on the film cooling effectiveness of a turbine blade platform were studied using the pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) technique. Detailed film cooling effectiveness distributions on the endwall were obtained and analyzed. Discrete cylindrical film cooling holes were arranged to achieve an improved coverage on the endwall. Backward injection was attempted by placing backward injection holes near the pressure side leading edge portion. Experiments were done in a five-blade linear cascade with an average turbulence intensity of 10.5%. The inlet and exit Mach numbers were 0.26 and 0.43, respectively. The inlet and exit mainstream Reynolds numbers based on the axial chord length of the blade were 475,000 and 720,000, respectively. The coolant-to-mainstream mass flow ratios (MFR) were varied from 0.5% and 0.75% to 1% for the purge flow. For the endwall film cooling holes and slashface leakage flow, blowing ratios (M) of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 were examined. Coolant-to-mainstream density ratios (DR) that range from 1.0 (close to low temperature experiments) to 1.5 and 2.0 (close to engine conditions) were also examined. The results provide the gas turbine engine designers a better insight into improved film cooling hole configurations as well as various parametric effects on endwall film cooling when the inlet (swirl) purge flow and slashface leakage flow were incorporated.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) PSP calibration curve using Iref acquired at corresponding Iref temperatures (b) PSP calibration curve using Iref acquired at 22 °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic diagram of PSP measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Design of the platform film-cooling and plenum cavities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometry of the inlet purge seal, (swirl) injection plate, and part of the plenum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Five-blade linear cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Static pressure distributions without coolant injection. Pt: inlet total pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Film-cooling effectiveness contour showing inlet purge MFR effect at DR = 1, 1.5, and 2 (M = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Spanwise-averaged film-cooling effectiveness showing inlet purge MFR effect. (a) DR = 1, (b) DR = 1.5, and (c) DR = 2. Platform M = 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Spanwise-averaged film-cooling effectiveness for DR = 1, 1.5, and 2 at (a) M = 0.5, (b) M = 1, and (c) M = 1.5. Inlet purge MFR = 0.75%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Spanwise-averaged film-cooling effectiveness for M = 0.5, 1, 1.5 at (a) DR = 1, (b) DR = 1.5, and (c) DR = 2. Inlet purge MFR = 0.75%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Film-cooling effectiveness contours for density and blowing ratio effects under inlet purge MFR = 0.75%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Inlet purge swirl ratio effects on the platform film cooling: (a) contour plot and (b) spanwise-averaged plot

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