0
Research Papers

The Effect of a Meter-Diffuser Offset on Shaped Film Cooling Hole Adiabatic Effectiveness

[+] Author and Article Information
Shane Haydt

Mem. ASME
Mechanical and Nuclear
Engineering Department,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: shane.haydt@psu.edu

Stephen Lynch

Mem. ASME
Mechanical and Nuclear
Engineering Department,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: splynch@psu.edu

Scott Lewis

Mem. ASME
Turbine Durability,
United Technologies—Pratt & Whitney,
400 Main Street,
East Hartford, CT 06108
e-mail: Scott.Lewis@pw.utc.com

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 18, 2016; final manuscript received February 28, 2017; published online May 2, 2017. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(9), 091012 (May 02, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1299; doi: 10.1115/1.4036199 History: Received November 18, 2016; Revised February 28, 2017

Shaped film cooling holes are used extensively in gas turbines to reduce component temperatures. These holes generally consist of a metering section through the material and a diffuser to spread coolant over the surface. These two hole features are created separately using electrical discharge machining (EDM), and occasionally, an offset can occur between the meter and diffuser due to misalignment. The current study examines the potential impact of this manufacturing defect to the film cooling effectiveness for a well-characterized shaped hole known as the 7-7-7 hole. Five meter-diffuser offset directions and two offset sizes were examined, both computationally and experimentally. Adiabatic effectiveness measurements were obtained at a density ratio of 1.2 and blowing ratios ranging from 0.5 to 3. The detriment in cooling relative to the baseline 7-7-7 hole was worst when the diffuser was shifted upstream (aft meter-diffuser offset), and least when the diffuser was shifted downstream (fore meter-diffuser offset). At some blowing ratios and offset sizes, the fore meter-diffuser offset resulted in slightly higher adiabatic effectiveness than the baseline hole, due to a reduction in the high-momentum region of the coolant jet caused by a separation region created inside the hole by the fore meter-diffuser offset. Steady Reynolds-averaging Navier–Stokes (RANS) predictions did not accurately capture the levels of adiabatic effectiveness or the trend in the offsets, but it did predict the fore offset's improved performance.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of wind tunnel facility used in current study [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Baseline 7-7-7 hole geometry [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Meter-diffuser offset directions tested in this study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The metering section is created first, and then the diffuser is offset from the its centerline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Centerline and laterally averaged effectiveness for three meshes of the same geometry and (b) five different monitors are plotted versus CFD iterations to show solution convergence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

CFD domain with boundary conditions and a depiction of the mesh resolution at the centerline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Adiabatic effectiveness contours for the baseline 7-7-7 hole at DR = 1.2, measured in this study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Baseline 7-7-7 hole laterally averaged effectiveness, with data from Schroeder and Thole [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effectiveness contours for all 1/4D offset directions, at M = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Laterally averaged effectiveness for all 1/4D offset directions, at M = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Adiabatic effectiveness contours for representative offset cases at M = 1.0 and DR = 1.2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Laterally averaged effectiveness for representative cases at M = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Area-averaged effectiveness, averaged from x/D = 3 to 15, for three offset directions at all blowing ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Adiabatic effectiveness contours for the left 1/4D offset

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Area-averaged effectiveness, averaged from x/D = 3 to 15, for all cases (experimental uncertainty indicated)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Adiabatic effectiveness contours for CFD and experimental data, at M = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Laterally averaged effectiveness for three cases, both experimental and CFD, all at M = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Area-averaged effectiveness for both CFD and experimental data at M = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Contour plots of nondimensionalized velocity magnitude at the centerline plane of the hole

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Contour plots of nondimensionalized velocity magnitude at the exit plane of the film cooling hole

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Contours of time-mean streamwise velocity, and u′v′¯ turbulent shear stress in the centerline plane for DR = 1.5, M = 3.0 for the baseline 7-7-7 hole, from Schroeder and Thole [20]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Predicted nondimensional temperature contours at the centerline plane for each 1/4D offset case at M = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Predicted contours of nondimensional temperature and streamlines of in-plane velocity plotted on a plane normal to the main flow direction at x/D = 5 downstream from the hole trailing edge, for all 1/4D offsets at M = 2.0

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