0
Research Papers: Heat and Mass Transfer

Dependence of Film Cooling Effectiveness on Three-Dimensional Printed Cooling Holes

[+] Author and Article Information
Paul Aghasi, Ephraim Gutmark

Department of Aerospace Engineering,
University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221

David Munday

Research Associate Professor
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received September 13, 2016; final manuscript received March 27, 2017; published online June 1, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Gennady Ziskind.

J. Heat Transfer 139(10), 102003 (Jun 01, 2017) (15 pages) Paper No: HT-16-1577; doi: 10.1115/1.4036509 History: Received September 13, 2016; Revised March 27, 2017

Film cooling effectiveness is closely dependent on the geometry of the hole emitting the cooling film. These holes are sometimes quite expensive to machine by traditional methods, so 3D printed test pieces have the potential to greatly reduce the cost of film cooling experiments. What is unknown is the degree to which parameters like layer resolution and the choice among 3D printing technologies influence the results of a film cooling test. A new flat-plate film cooling facility employing oxygen-sensitive paint (OSP) verified by gas sampling and the mass transfer analogy and measurements both by gas sampling and OSP is verified by comparing measurements by both gas sampling and OSP. The same facility is then used to characterize the film cooling effectiveness of a diffuser-shaped film cooling hole geometry. These diffuser holes are then produced by a variety of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies with different build layer thicknesses. The objective is to determine if cheaper manufacturing techniques afford usable and reliable results. The coolant gas used is CO2 yielding a density ratio (DR) of 1.5. Surface quality is characterized by an optical microscope that measures surface roughness. Test coupons with rougher surface topology generally showed delayed blow off and higher film cooling effectiveness at high blowing ratios (BR) compared to the geometries with lower measured surface roughness. At the present scale, none of the additively manufactured parts consistently matched the traditionally machined part, indicating that caution should be exercised in employing additively manufactured test pieces in film cooling work.

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

References

Schroeder, R. , and Thole, K. , 2014, “ Adiabatic Effectiveness Measurements for a Baseline Shaped Film Cooling Hole,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-25992.
Bogard, D. , and Thole, K. , 2006, “ Gas Turbine Film Cooling,” J. Propul. Power, 22(2), pp. 249–270. [CrossRef]
Bunker, R. S. , 2005, “ A Review of Shaped Hole Turbine Film-Cooling Technology,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 127(4), p. 441. [CrossRef]
Han, J.-C. , Dutta, S. , and Ekkad, S. , 2000, Gas Turbine Heat Transfer and Cooling Technology, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
Goldstein, R. J. , 1971, “ Film Cooling,” Adv. Heat Transfer, 7, pp. 321–379. [CrossRef]
Schroeder, R. P. , and Thole, K. A. , 2016, “ Effect of In-Hole Roughness on Film Cooling From a Shaped Hole,” ASME J. Turbomach., 139(3), p. 31004. [CrossRef]
Jones, T. V. , 1999, “ Theory for the Use of Foreign Gas in Simulating Film Cooling,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 20(3), pp. 349–354. [CrossRef]
Han, J. C. , and Rallabandi, A. P. , 2010, “ Turbine Blade Film Cooling Using PSP Technique,” Front. Heat Mass Transf., 1(1), p. 013001.
Narzary, D. P. , Liu, K.-C. , and Han, J.-C. , 2009, “ Influence of Coolant Density on Turbine Blade Platform Film-Cooling,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59342.
Goldstein, R. J. , and Taylor, J. R. , 1982, “ Mass Transfer in the Neighborhood of Jets Entering a Crossflow,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 104(4), p. 715. [CrossRef]
Lau, S. C. , Han, J. C. , and Batten, T. , 1989, “ Heat Transfer, Pressure Drop, and Mass Flow Rate in Pin Fin Channels With Long and Short Trailing Edge Ejection Holes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 111(2), p. 116. [CrossRef]
McMillin, R. D. , and Lau, S. C. , 1994, “ Effect of Trailing-Edge Ejection on Local Heat (Mass) Transfer in Pin Fin Cooling Channels in Turbine Blades,” ASME J. Turbomach., 116(1), p. 159. [CrossRef]
Ahn, H. S. , Lee, S. W. , Lau, S. C. , and Banerjee, D. , 2007, “ Mass (Heat) Transfer Downstream of Blockages With Round and Elongated Holes in a Rectangular Channel,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 129(12), p. 1676. [CrossRef]
Liu, T. , Guille, M. , and Sullivan, J. P. , 2001, “ Accuracy of Pressure-Sensitive Paint,” AIAA J., 39(1), pp. 103–112. [CrossRef]
Bogard, D. G. , Snook, D. , and Kohli, A. , 2003, “ Rough Surface Effects on Film Cooling of the Suction Side Surface of a Turbine Vane,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2003-42061.
Rutledge, J. L. , Robertson, D. , and Bogard, D. G. , 2006, “ Degradation of Film Cooling Performance on a Turbine Vane Suction Side Due to Surface Roughness,” ASME J. Turbomach., 128(3), p. 547. [CrossRef]
Goldstein, R. J. , Eckert, E. R. G. , Chiang, H. D. , and Elovic, E. , 1985, “ Effect of Surface Roughness on Film Cooling Performance,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 107(1), p. 111. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, D. L. , Sen, B. , and Bogard, D. G. , 1996, “ Effects of Surface Roughness on Film Cooling,” ASME Paper No. 96-GT-299.
Persh, J. , and Bailey, B. M. , 1954, “ Effect of Surface Roughness Over the Downstream Region of a 23 Degree Conical Diffuser,” Langley Field, Hampton, VA, Report No. NACA-TN-3066.
Gritsch, M. , Schulz, A. , and Wittig, S. , 1998, “ Discharge Coefficient Measurements of Film-Cooling Holes With Expanded Exits,” ASME J. Turbomach., 120(3), p. 557. [CrossRef]
Halila, E. E. , Lenahan, D. T. , and Thomas, T. T. , 1982, “ Energy Efficient Engine High Pressure Turbine Test Hardware Detailed Design Report,” General Electric Co, Aircraft Engine Business Group, Cincinnati, OH, Technical Report No. NASA-CR-167955.
Anitha, R. , Arunachalam, S. , and Radhakrishnan, P. , 2001, “ Critical Parameters Influencing the Quality of Prototypes in Fused Deposition Modelling,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 118(1–3), pp. 385–388. [CrossRef]
Pinto, J. M. , Arrieta, C. , Andia, M. E. , Uribe, S. , Ramos-Grez, J. , Vargas, A. , Irarrazaval, P. , and Tejos, C. , 2015, “ Sensitivity Analysis of Geometric Errors in Additive Manufacturing Medical Models,” Med. Eng. Phys., 37(3), pp. 328–334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ahn, D. , Kim, H. , and Lee, S. , 2009, “ Surface Roughness Prediction Using Measured Data and Interpolation in Layered Manufacturing,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(2), pp. 664–671. [CrossRef]
Siemens, 2013, “ Gas Analyzer for Measuring IR-Absorbing Gases, Oxygen, and Hydrogen Sulfide ULTRAMAT 23 Manual,” Siemens, Nürnberg, Germany.
Kim, G. D. , and Oh, Y. T. , 2008, “ A Benchmark Study on Rapid Prototyping Processes and Machines: Quantitative Comparisons of Mechanical Properties, Accuracy, Roughness, Speed, and Material Cost,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B, 222(2), pp. 201–215. [CrossRef]
Moffat, R. J. , 1988, “ Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 1(1), pp. 3–17. [CrossRef]
Mendoza, D. R. , 1997, “ An Analysis of CCD Camera Noise and Its Effect on Pressure Sensitive Paint Instrumentation System Signal-to-Noise Ratio,” International Congress on Instrumentation in Aerospace Simulation Facilities (ICIASF), Pacific Grove, CA, Sept. 29–Oct. 2, pp. 22–29.
Baldauf, S. , Schulz, A. , and Wittig, S. , 2001, “ High-Resolution Measurements of Local Effectiveness From Discrete Hole Film Cooling,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(4), p. 758. [CrossRef]
Eriksen, V. L. , and Goldstein, R. J. , 1974, “ Heat Transfer and Film Cooling Following Injection Through Inclined Circular Tubes,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 96(2), p. 239. [CrossRef]
Ibrahim, D. , Broilo, T. L. , Heitz, C. , de Oliveira, M. G. , de Oliveira, H. W. , Nobre, S. M. W. , dos Santos Filho, J. H. G. , and Silva, D. N. , 2009, “ Dimensional Error of Selective Laser Sintering, Three-Dimensional Printing and PolyJet™ Models in the Reproduction of Mandibular Anatomy,” J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg., 37(3), pp. 167–173. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Close-up view of the OSP painted aluminum CNC machined coupon as the representative for all tested coupons along with (b) 7-7-7 hole dimensions units are (mm) inches

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental arrangement: hatched lines show the flow path that can be used to feed the coolant plenum with CO2 or air

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Detailed experimental dimensions with outlined axis convention. The dots represent gas sampling port locations. The test coupons are the parts manufactured by 3D printing and each contain a row of seven 7-7-7 cooling holes as well as the first row of gas sampling taps (D = 0.1 in, 2.54 mm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

AM build orientation for all test coupons: top surface was built at 60 deg build angle, while the cylindrical portion of the film hole interior was built at 90 deg build angle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparisons of OSP versus gas sampling at BR 1.0 for the middle effectiveness profiles. Gas sampling was used to produce in situ calibration curves for each test coupon.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Surface profilometry measurement location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Surface inclination with respect to build orientation presented by Kim and Oh [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Bare aluminum CNC machined 3D roughness plot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Surface topology for various test coupons after OSP application with scan side length of 0.5D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Round hole validation effort: (a) present study and (b) from Baldauf et al. [29]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Schematic of extracted OSP profile that is used for OSP versus gas sampling validation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Discharge coefficients for each test coupon for all BR's and coolant plenum pressure ratios, geometries sorted with the highest roughness first and decreasing on top figure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of various test coupons at BR = 1.5, I = 1.50

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of various test coupons at BR = 2.0, I = 2.67

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of various test coupons at BR = 3.5, I = 8.17

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Span-averaged film cooling effectiveness for each test coupon at various BR's

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Span-averaged effectiveness comparison for each BR across various test coupons

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Area-averaged effectiveness for 0 < Y/D < 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Area-averaged effectiveness of CNC aluminum coupon subtracted from area-averaged effectiveness of each coupon (geach2 gCNC)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Individual hole span averages for film effectiveness consistency assessment at BR = 2.5, outermost holes are omitted

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