0
Research Papers

Effect of Reynolds Number, Hole Patterns, and Target Plate Thickness on the Cooling Performance of an Impinging Jet Array—Part II: Conjugate Heat Transfer Results and Optimization

[+] Author and Article Information
Weihong Li

Department of Thermal Engineering,
Gas Turbine Institute,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China
e-mail: Liwh13@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn

Li Yang

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Xueying Li

Department of Thermal Engineering,
Gas Turbine Institute,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China
e-mail: lixueying@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn

Jing Ren

Department of Thermal Engineering,
Gas Turbine Institute,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China
e-mail: renj@tsinghua.edu.cn

Hongde Jiang

Department of Thermal Engineering,
Gas Turbine Institute,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 1, 2016; final manuscript received March 7, 2017; published online May 9, 2017. Editor: Kenneth Hall.

J. Turbomach 139(10), 101001 (May 09, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1140; doi: 10.1115/1.4036297 History: Received July 01, 2016; Revised March 07, 2017

This study comprehensively illustrates the effect of Reynolds number, hole spacing, nozzle-to-target distance, and target plate thickness on the conjugate heat transfer (CHT) performance of an impinging jet array. Test models are composed of a specific thermal-conductivity material which exerts a matched model Biot number to that of engine condition. High-resolution temperature measurements are conducted on the impinging-target plate utilizing steady liquid crystal (SLC) with Reynolds numbers ranging from 5000 to 27,500. Different streamwise and spanwise jet-to-jet spacing (i.e., X/D and Y/D: 4–8), nozzle-to-target plate distance (Z/D: 0.75–3), and target plate thickness (t/D: 0.75–2.75) are employed to compose a total of 108 different geometries. Experimental measured temperature is utilized as boundary conditions to conduct finite element simulation. Local and averaged nondimensional temperature and averaged temperature uniformity of target plate “hot side” are obtained. Optimum hole spacing arrangements, impingement distance, and target plate thickness are pointed out to minimize hot side temperature, amount of cooling air and to maximize temperature uniformity. Also included are 2D predictions with different convective boundary conditions, i.e., local 2D distribution and row-averaged heat transfer coefficients (HTCs), to estimate the accuracy of temperature prediction in comparison with the conjugate results.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Double-wall cooling vane with multiple impinging jets [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Impingement cooling test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic representative of test models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of: (a) spanwise average and (b) area average Nusselt number with literature data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Local nondimensional temperature distribution for different Re values. (px, py, pz, t/D) = (6, 6, 2, 1.75).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Spanwise-averaged nondimensional temperature distribution for different Re values. (px, py, pz, t/D) = (6, 6, 2, 1.75).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Local nondimensional temperature distribution for different px values. (py, pz, t/D, Re) = (4, 2, 0.75, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Spanwise-averaged nondimensional temperature distribution for different px values. (py, pz, t/D, Re) = (4, 2, 0.75, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Spanwise-averaged nondimensional temperature distribution for different py values. (px, pz, t/D, Re) = (6, 2, 0.75, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Local nondimensional temperature distribution for different py values. (px, pz, t/D, Re) = (6, 2, 0.75, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Local nondimensional temperature distribution for different impingement distance pz. (px, py, t/D, Re) = (6, 6, 1.75, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Spanwise-averaged nondimensional temperature distribution for different impingement distance pz. (px, py, t/D, Re) = (6, 6, 1.75, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Local nondimensional temperature distribution for different target plate thickness t. (px, py, pz, Re) = (6, 6, 2, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Spanwise-averaged nondimensional temperature distribution for different target plate thickness t. (px, py, pz, Re) = (6, 6, 2, 10 K).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

An overall estimation of Reynolds number, hole pattern, and target plate thickness on (a) area-averaged nondimensional temperature θ and (b) area-averaged relative standard deviation of θ

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Area-averaged nondimensional temperature θ as a function of Gs at various Reynolds numbers. (pz, t/D) = (0.75, 1.75).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Area-averaged nondimensional temperature θ as a function of Gs at various Reynolds numbers. (pz, t/D) = (1.2, 1.75).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Area-averaged nondimensional temperature θ as a function of Gs at various Reynolds numbers. (pz, t/D) = (2, 1.75).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Area-averaged nondimensional temperature θ as a function of Gs at various pz and t/D values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Area-averaged RSD as a function of Gs at various pz and t/D values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Local nondimensional temperature distributions of external side of target plate predicted by different thermal boundary conditions. (px, py, pz, t/D, Re) = (8, 4, 2, 0.75, 20,000).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Spanwise-averaged nontemperature distributions of external side of target plate predicted by different thermal boundary conditions. (px, py, pz, t/D, Re) = (8, 4, 2, 0.75, 20,000).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Comparison of area-averaged θ of conjugate experiments with data predicted with (a) row-averaged heat transfer coefficients and (b) local heat transfer coefficients

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of area-averaged RSD of conjugate experiments with data predicted with: (a) row-averaged heat transfer coefficients and (b) local heat transfer coefficients

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