0
Research Papers: Jets, Wakes, and Impingment Cooling

On the Flow Structures and Adiabatic Film Effectiveness for Simple and Compound Angle Hole With Varied Length-to-Diameter Ratio by Large Eddy Simulation and Pressure-Sensitive Paint Techniques

[+] Author and Article Information
Weihong Li

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

Wei Shi

Gas Turbine Institute,
Department of Thermal Engineering,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China
e-mail: shiwei15@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn

Xueying Li

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

Jing Ren

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

Hongde Jiang

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

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received October 12, 2016; final manuscript received May 24, 2017; published online August 9, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Danesh K. Tafti.

J. Heat Transfer 139(12), 122201 (Aug 09, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: HT-16-1653; doi: 10.1115/1.4037085 History: Received October 12, 2016; Revised May 24, 2017

The effects of hole length-to-diameter ratio and compound angle on flat plate film cooling effectiveness are investigated from an experimental and numerical view. Film cooling effectiveness measurements are performed for seven blowing ratios (M) ranging from 0.3 to 2, five-hole length-to-diameter ratios (L/D) from 0.5 to 5, and two compound angles (β: 0 deg and 45 deg) using pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) technique. Results indicate that discrete holes with L = 0.5 and 1 show highest film cooling effectiveness regardless of compound angle. Round hole generally shows an increasing trend as L increases from 2 to 5, while compound angle hole shows a complex trend concerning with blowing ratios (BRs) and length-to-diameter ratios. Compound angle enhances film cooling effectiveness with high blowing ratios and length-to-diameter ratios. In a parallel effort, large eddy simulation (LES) approach is employed to solve the flow field and visualize vortex structures of intube and mainstream regions. It is demonstrated that the counter-rotating vortex pair (CRVP) which is observed in the time-averaged flow field is originated in different vortex structures with varying blowing ratios and length-to-diameter ratios. Scalar field transportation features are also investigated to clarify how different vortex structures affect the temperature distribution and the film cooling effectiveness.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic view of the low-speed wind tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Approach boundary layers measured at x/D = −10 for film cooling measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Film hole configurations: (a) simple angle hole and (b) compound angle hole

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

PSP calibration curves under different temperature conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Spanwise-averaged film cooling effectiveness comparison with published data: (a) simple angle hole and (b) compound angle hole

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Film cooling effectiveness distribution for (a) simple angle hole and (b) compound angle hole at M = 0.8 with varied length-to-diameter ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Spanwise-averaged film cooling effectiveness with varied length-to-diameter ratio and blowing ratio: (a) simple angle hole, M = 0.5, (b) compound hole, M = 0.5, (c) simple angle hole, M = 1.5, and (d) compound hole, M = 1.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Film cooling effectiveness distribution for simple angle hole and compound angle hole with (a) L/D = 0.5 and (b) L/D = 3.5 with varied blowing ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Computational domain with mainflow and coolant

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Mean velocity comparison with experimental data by Pietrzyk et al. [30]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Fluctuation velocity comparison with experimental data by Pietrzyk et al. [30]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Film cooling effectiveness contour comparison of simple angle hole for three blowing ratios with L/D = 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Film cooling effectiveness contour comparison of simple angle hole for three blowing ratios with L/D = 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Plane positions for L/D = 2 and L/D = 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Intube nondimensional axis velocity Un/Uj comparison of simple angle hole for M = 0.8: (a) L/D = 2, (b) L/D = 5, (c) LES of Bodart et al. [31], and (d) experimental data of Bodart et al. [31]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Intube nondimensional axis vorticity ωnD/Uj comparison of simple angle hole for M = 0.8: (a) L/D = 2 and (b) L/D = 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Instantaneous vortical structures and time-averaged ωx vorticity distribution for simple angle hole with L/D = 2: (a) instantaneous results and (b) time-averaged results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Instantaneous vortical structures and time-averaged ωx vorticity distribution for simple angle hole with M = 0.8: (a) instantaneous results and (b) time-averaged results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Time-averaged Q value isosurface and ωx vorticity distribution for simple angle hole with M = 0.4 and varied length-to-diameter ratio: (a) L/D = 0.5, (b) L/D = 2, and (c) L/D = 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Time-averaged dimensionless temperature distributions at three planes and film effectiveness distributions for simple angle hole with varied L/D, M = 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Film cooling effectiveness comparison between experimental and LES results for compound angle hole with M = 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Time-averaged streamwise vorticity ωx distribution and crossflow streamlines of compound angle hole: (a) L/D = 2 and (b) L/D = 5, M = 0.8

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