0
Forced Convection

Influence of Different Rim Widths and Blowing Ratios on Film Cooling Characteristics for a Blade Tip

[+] Author and Article Information
Jin Wang

MOE Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering,  Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Chinawjwcn00@163.com

Bengt Sundén

Department of Energy Sciences,Division of Heat Transfer,  Lund University, P.O. Box 118, SE-22100 Lund, SwedenBengt.Sunden@energy.lth.se

Min Zeng

Qiu-wang Wang1

MOE Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering,  Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Chinawangqw@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

1

Corresponding author.

J. Heat Transfer 134(6), 061701 (May 08, 2012) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006017 History: Received April 14, 2011; Revised November 07, 2011; Published May 08, 2012; Online May 08, 2012

Three-dimensional simulations of the squealer tip on the GE-E3 blade with eight film cooling holes were carried out. The effect of the rim width and the blowing ratio on the blade tip flow and cooling performance were revealed. Numerical simulations were performed to predict the leakage flow and the tip heat transfer with the k–ɛ model. For the squealer tip, the depth of the cavity is fixed but the rim width varies to form a wide cavity, which can decrease the coolant momentum and the tip leakage flow velocity. This cavity contributes to the improvement of the cooling effect in the tip zone. To investigate the influence on the tip heat transfer by the rim width, numerical simulations were performed as a two-part study: (1) unequal rim width study on the pressure side and the suction side and (2) equal rim width study with rim widths of 0.58%, 1.16%, and 1.74% of the axial chord (0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm, respectively) on both the pressure side rim and the suction side rim. With different rim widths, the effect of different global blowing ratios, i.e., M = 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5, was investigated. It is found that the total heat transfer rate is increasing and the heat transfer rates on the rim surface (RS) rapidly ascend with increasing rim width.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Computational models of (a) geometry information (units: mm) and (b) the unequal rim width structure (r1  ≠ r2 )

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Grid feature of (a) the pressure surface and (b) the tip groove surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Tip configurations of (a) the rim surface on the suction side, (b) the rim surface on the pressure side, (c) the groove wall on the suction side, (d) the groove wall on the pressure side, and (e) the groove floor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Grid independence study of UEa

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Contours of Pt/P value of (a) the experimental distribution by Azad [9] for the flat tip, (b) the computed distribution by Yang [29] for the flat tip, (c) the present computed distribution for the flat tip, (d) the experimental distribution by Azad [9] for the squealer tip, (e) the computed distribution by Yang [29] for the squealer tip, and (f) the present computed distribution for the squealer tip on shroud surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Different axial chord cross-stream planes of 25%, 50%, and 75%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Path lines and contours of velocity magnitude on the tip zone for different axial chord locations of (a) 25%, UEa, M = 1; (b) 50%, UEa, M = 1; (c) 75%, UEa, M = 1; (d) 25%, UEc, M = 1; (e) 25%, UEa, M = 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparisons of the film cooling effectiveness for different rim widths (UEa, UEb, and UEc) and different blowing ratios (M = 0.5, 1, and 1.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Averaged heat transfer coefficients for different squealer tip configurations (RS, GF, and GW), different rim widths (UEa, UEb, and UEc), and different blowing ratios (M = 0.5, 1, and 1.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Heat transfer rates on the squealer tip of (a) Ea, (b) Eb, (c) Ec, and (d) total heat transfer rates with blowing ratios of 0.5, 1, and 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of the averaged film cooling effectiveness of Ea, Eb, and Ec (from up to down) with the blowing ratio of 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of the averaged film cooling effectiveness of Eb for the blowing ratios of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 (from up to down)

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