0
Research Papers

Full-Coverage Film Cooling: Film Effectiveness and Heat Transfer Coefficients for Dense Hole Arrays at Different Hole Angles, Contraction Ratios, and Blowing Ratios

[+] Author and Article Information
Phil Ligrani

e-mail: pligrani@slu.edu

Matt Goodro

Graduate Student
e-mail: robert.goodro@us.af.mil
Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford,
Oxford, OX1 3PJ, UK

Mike Fox

Senior Consulting Engineer

Hee-Koo Moon

Heat Transfer Manager
Solar Turbines, Inc.,
San Diego, CA 92101

1Corresponding author.

2Present address: Oliver L. Parks Endowed Chair, Director of Graduate Programs, Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering. Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology, Saint Louis University, 3450 Lindell Boulevard, McDonnell Douglas Hall Room 1033A, St. Louis, MO 63103.

3Present address: Mechanical Engineer, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Hill Air Force Base, UT 84056.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Heat Transfer. Manuscript received March 23, 2012; final manuscript received October 16, 2012; published online February 14, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Frank Cunha.

J. Heat Transfer 135(3), 031707 (Feb 14, 2013) (14 pages) Paper No: HT-12-1130; doi: 10.1115/1.4007981 History: Received March 23, 2012; Revised October 16, 2012

Experimental results are presented for a full-coverage film cooling arrangement which simulates a portion of a gas turbine engine, with appropriate streamwise static pressure gradient. The test surface utilizes varying blowing ratio (BR) along the length of the contraction passage which contains the cooling hole arrangement. For the different experimental conditions examined, film cooling holes are sharp-edged and streamwise inclined either at 20 deg or 30 deg with respect to the liner surface. The film cooling holes in adjacent streamwise rows are staggered with respect to each other. Data are provided for turbulent film cooling, contraction ratios of 1, 3, 4, and 5, blowing ratios (at the test section entrance) of 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0, coolant Reynolds numbers Refc of 10,000–12,000, freestream temperatures from 75 °C to 115 °C, a film hole diameter of 7 mm, and density ratios from 1.15 to 1.25. Nondimensional streamwise and spanwise film cooling hole spacings, X/D and Y/D, are 6, and 5, respectively. When the streamwise hole inclination angle is 20 deg spatially averaged and line-averaged adiabatic effectiveness values at each x/D location are about the same as the contraction ratio varies between 1, 3, and 4, with slightly higher values at each x/D location when the contraction ratio Cr is 5. For each contraction ratio, there is a slight increase in effectiveness when the blowing ratio is increased from 2.0 to 5.0 but there is no further substantial improvement when the blowing ratio is increased to 10.0. Overall, line-averaged and spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness data, and spatially averaged heat transfer coefficient data are described as they are affected by contraction ratio, blowing ratio, hole angle α, and streamwise location x/D. For example, when α = 20 deg, the detrimental effects of mainstream acceleration are apparent since heat transfer coefficients for contraction ratios Cr of 3 and 5 are often higher than values for Cr = 1, especially for x/D > 100.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Sasaki, M., Takahara, K., Kumagai, T., and Hamano, M., 1979, “Film Cooling Effectiveness for Injection From Multirow Holes,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 101(1), pp. 101–108. [CrossRef]
Scrittore, J. J., Thole, K. A., and Burd, S. W., 2007, “Investigation of Velocity Profiles for Effusion Cooling of a Combustor Liner,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129(3), pp. 518–526. [CrossRef]
Ligrani, P. M., Goodro, M., Fox, M., and Moon, H.-K., 2012, “Full-Coverage Film Cooling: Film Effectiveness and Heat Transfer Coefficients for Dense and Sparse Hole Arrays at Different Blowing Ratios,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(6), p. 061039. [CrossRef]
Gritsch, M., Schulz, A., and Wittig, S., 2000, “Film-Cooling Holes With Expanded Exits: Near-Hole Heat Transfer Coefficeints,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow,”21, pp. 145–155.
Baldauf, S., Schultz, A., and Wittig, S., 2001, “High-Resolution Measurements of Local Heat Transfer Coefficients From Discrete Hole Film Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(4), pp. 749–757. [CrossRef]
Baldauf, S., Schultz, A., and Wittig, S., 2001, “High-Resolution Measurements of Local Effectiveness From Discrete Hole Film Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(4), pp. 758–765. [CrossRef]
Bell, C. M., Hamakawa, H., and Ligrani, P. M., 2000, “Film Cooling From Shaped Holes,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 122(2), pp. 224–232. [CrossRef]
Yuen, C. H. N., and Martinez-Botas, R. F., 2005, “Film Cooling Characteristics of Row of Round Holes at Various Streamwise Angles in a Crossflow: Part I. Effectiveness,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 48, pp. 4995–5016. [CrossRef]
Coulthard, S. M., Volino, R. J., and Flack, K. A., 2006, “Effect of Unheated Starting Lengths on Film Cooling Experiments,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(3), pp. 579–588. [CrossRef]
Saumweber, C., and Schulz, A., 2004, “Interaction of Film Cooling Rows: Effects of Hole Geometry and Row Spacing on the Cooling Performance Downstream of the Second Row of Holes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 126(2), pp. 237–246. [CrossRef]
Furukawa, T., and Ligrani, P. M., 2002, “Transonic Film Cooling Effectiveness From Shaped Holes on a Simulated Turbine Airfoil,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer, 16, pp. 228–237. [CrossRef]
Chappell, J., Ligrani, P. M., Sreekanth, S., Lucas, T., and Vlasic, E., 2010, “Aerodynamic Performance of Suction-Side Gill Region Film Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(3), p. 031020. [CrossRef]
Chappell, J., Ligrani, P. M., Sreekanth, S., and Lucas, T., 2010, “Suction-Side Gill Region Film Cooling: Effects of Hole Shape and Orientation on Adiabatic Effectiveness and Heat Transfer Coefficient,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(3), p. 031022. [CrossRef]
Mayle, R. E., and Camarata, F. J., 1975, “Multihole Cooling Film Effectiveness and Heat Transfer,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 97(4), pp. 534–538. [CrossRef]
Leger, B., Miron, P., and Emidio, J. M., 2002, “Geometric and Aero-Thermal Influences on Multiholed Plate Temperature: Application on Combustor Wall,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 46, pp. 1215–1222. [CrossRef]
Lin, Y., Song, B., Li, B., Liu, G., and Wu, Z., 2003, “Investigation of Film Cooling Effectiveness of Full-Coverage Inclined Multihole Walls With Different Hole Arrangements,” ASME, Paper No. GT2003-38881. [CrossRef]
Roach, P. E., 1986, “The Generation of Nearly Isotropic Turbulence by Means of Grids,” J. Heat Fluid Flow, 8(2), pp. 82–92. [CrossRef]
Barigozzi, G., Benzoni, G., Franchini, G., and Perdichizzi, A., 2006, “Fan-Shaped Hole Effects on the Aero-Thermal Performance of a Film-Cooled Endwall,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(1), pp. 43–52. [CrossRef]
O'Dowd, D. O., Zhang, Q., He, L., Ligrani, P. M., and Friedrichs, S., 2011, “Comparison of Heat Transfer Measurement Techniques on a Transonic Turbine Blade Tip,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(2), p. 021028. [CrossRef]
Anthony, R. J., Oldfiend, M. L. G., Jones, T. V., and LaGraff, J. E., 1999, “Development of High-Density Arrays of Thin Film Heat Transfer Gauges,” JSME Thermal Engineering Joint Conference, Paper No. AJTE99-6159.
Kline, S. J., and McClintock, F. A., 1953, “Describing Uncertainties in Single Sample Experiments,” Mech. Eng., 75, pp. 3–8.
Moffat, R. J., 1988, “Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 1(1), pp. 3–17. [CrossRef]
Gritsch, M., Schulz, A., and Wittig, S., 2001, “Effect of Crossflows on the Discharge Coefficient of Film Cooling Holes With Varying Angles of Inclination and Orientation,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(4), pp. 781–787. [CrossRef]
Burd, S. W., and Simon, T. W., 1997, “The Influence of Coolant Supply Geometry on Film Coolant Exit Flow and Surface Adiabatic Effectiveness,” ASME Paper No. 97-GT-25.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Film cooling wind tunnel test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Film cooling test section. + denotes measurement location for mainstream static pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Film cooling test plate for X/D = 6, Y/D = 5 and hole angle 20 deg. (a) Test section dimensions and layout, where all dimensions are given in millimeters. (b) Test section coordinate system.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example of variation of local surface heat flux with surface temperature for one test surface location during a typical transient test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Blowing ratio variation with x/D for different contraction ratios, calculated on the basis of static pressure ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Variation of acceleration parameter through the test section for contraction ratios Cr of 1, 3, 4, and 5. (b) Variation of ratio of coolant mass flow rate to mainstream mass flow rate for X/D = 6, with Y/D = 5, a blowing ratio BR of 5.0 for contraction ratios Cr of 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Spatially resolved, local adiabatic effectiveness at different blowing ratios for hole spacings X/D = 6, Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, and contraction ratio Cr = 1, for (a) constant x/D = 24 and (b) constant y/D = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Spatially resolved, local adiabatic effectiveness at different blowing ratios for hole spacings X/D = 6, Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, and contraction ratio Cr = 3, for (a) constant x/D = 24 and (b) constant y/D = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Spatially resolved, local adiabatic effectiveness at different blowing ratios for hole spacings X/D = 6, Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, and contraction ratio Cr = 4, for (a) constant x/D = 24 and (b) constant y/D = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Spatially resolved, local adiabatic effectiveness at different blowing ratios for hole spacings X/D = 6, Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, and contraction ratio Cr = 5, for (a) constant x/D = 24 and (b) constant y/D = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Line-averaged adiabatic film effectiveness at a blowing ratio BR of 2.0 for hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1, 3, 4, and 5, with line-averaging over y/D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Line-averaged adiabatic film effectiveness at a blowing ratio BR of 10.0 for hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1, 3, 4, and 5, with line-averaging over y/D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Variations of spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness at different contraction ratios Cr for blowing ratio BR of 2.0, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, streamwise hole spacing X/D of 6, and spanwise hole spacing Y/D of 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Variations of spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness at different contraction ratios Cr for blowing ratio BR of 5.0, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, streamwise hole spacing X/D of 6, and spanwise hole spacing Y/D of 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Variations of spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness at different contraction ratios Cr for blowing ratio BR of 10.0, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, streamwise hole spacing X/D of 6, and spanwise hole spacing Y/D of 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Spatially averaged heat transfer coefficients at different contraction ratios Cr for blowing ratio BR of 2.0, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, streamwise hole spacing X/D of 6, and spanwise hole spacing Y/D of 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Spatially averaged heat transfer coefficients at different contraction ratios Cr for blowing ratio BR of 5.0, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, streamwise hole spacing X/D of 6, and spanwise hole spacing Y/D of 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Spatially averaged heat transfer coefficients at different contraction ratios Cr for blowing ratio BR of 10.0, streamwise hole inclination angle of 20 deg, streamwise hole spacing X/D of 6, and spanwise hole spacing Y/D of 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Spatially resolved, local adiabatic effectiveness at different blowing ratios for hole spacings X/D = 6, Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 30 deg, and contraction ratio Cr = 1, for (a) constant x/D = 24 and (b) constant y/D = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Spatially resolved, local adiabatic effectiveness at different blowing ratios for hole spacings X/D = 6, Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angle of 30 deg, and contraction ratio Cr = 4, for (a) constant x/D = 24 and (b) constant y/D = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Line-averaged adiabatic film effectiveness data blowing ratio BR of 2.0 for hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4, with line-averaging over y/D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Line-averaged adiabatic film effectiveness data blowing ratio BR of 10.0 for hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4, with line-averaging over y/D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Variations of spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness for blowing ratio BR of 2.0, hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Variations of spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness for blowing ratio BR of 5.0, hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Variations of spatially averaged-adiabatic film effectiveness for blowing ratio BR of 10.0, hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Variations of spatially averaged heat transfer coefficients for blowing ratio BR of 2.0, hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Variations of spatially averaged heat transfer coefficients for blowing ratio BR of 5.0, hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Variations of spatially averaged heat transfer coefficients for blowing ratio BR of 10.0, hole spacings X/D = 6 and Y/D = 5, streamwise hole inclination angles of 20 deg and 30 deg, and contraction ratios Cr of 1 and 4

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