0
Research Papers

Film Cooling Performance of Tripod Antivortex Injection Holes Over the Pressure and Suction Surfaces of a Nozzle Guide Vane

[+] Author and Article Information
Sridharan Ramesh, Christopher LeBlanc, Diganta Narzary, Srinath Ekkad

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Virginia Tech Blacksburg,
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Mary Anne Alvin

National Energy Technology Laboratory,
1354 Wallace Road,
South Park Township, PA 15129

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received July 8, 2015; final manuscript received October 21, 2016; published online January 24, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Ting Wang.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 9(2), 021006 (Jan 24, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: TSEA-15-1181; doi: 10.1115/1.4035290 History: Received July 08, 2015; Revised October 21, 2016

Film cooling performance of the antivortex (AV) hole has been well documented for a flat plate. The goal of this study is to evaluate the same over an airfoil at three different locations: leading edge suction and pressure surface and midchord suction surface. The airfoil is a scaled up first stage vane from GE E3 engine and is mounted on a low-speed linear cascade wind tunnel. Steady-state infrared (IR) technique was employed to measure the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness. The study has been divided into two parts: the initial part focuses on the performance of the antivortex tripod hole compared to the cylindrical (CY) hole on the leading edge. Effects of blowing ratio (BR) and density ratio (DR) on the performance of cooling holes are studied here. Results show that the tripod hole clearly provides higher film cooling effectiveness than the baseline cylindrical hole case with overall reduced coolant usage on the both pressure and suction sides of the airfoil. The second part of the study focuses on evaluating the performance on the midchord suction surface. While the hole designs studied in the first part were retained as baseline cases, two additional geometries were also tested. These include cylindrical and tripod holes with shaped (SH) exits. Film cooling effectiveness was found at four different blowing ratios. Results show that the tripod holes with and without shaped exits provide much higher film effectiveness than cylindrical and slightly higher effectiveness than shaped exit holes using 50% lesser cooling air while operating at the same blowing ratios. Effectiveness values up to 0.2–0.25 are seen 40-hole diameters downstream for the tripod hole configurations, thus providing cooling in the important trailing edge portion of the airfoil.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Open-loop low-speed wind tunnel with five-vane linear cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Vane geometry with film cooling holes on the leading edge: (a) CY and (b) AV holes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Film cooling hole location on the suction side of the airfoil: an exploded view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Film cooling hole locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Conduction correction: (a) CY hole effectiveness correction contour BR = 1.0, (b) CY hole effectiveness precorrection BR = 1.0, and (c) CY hole effectiveness postcorrection BR = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effectiveness contours for AV hole, BR = 1.0: (a) correction contour, (b) precorrection, (c) postcorrection, and (d) effect of conduction correction on laterally averaged effectiveness for AV hole at BR = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Spanwise velocity profile (inlet) and (b) vane surface velocity profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Adiabatic film cooling effectiveness on the suction side at DR = 0.95: (a) CY BR 0.5, (b) CY BR 1.0, (c) CY BR 1.5, (d) CY BR 2.0, (e) AV BR 1.0, (f) AV BR 2.0, (g) AV BR 3.0, and (h) AV BR 4.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Suction-side laterally averaged effectiveness at various blowing and density ratios: (a) CY and (b) AV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Laterally averaged effectiveness, CO2 as coolant, suction side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of results obtained from the current study with that of Winka et al. [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Adiabatic film cooling effectiveness on the pressure side at DR = 0.95: (a) CY BR 0.5, (b) CY BR 1.0, (c) CY BR 1.5, (d) CY BR 2.0, (e) AV BR 1.0, (f) AV BR 2.0, (g) AV BR 3.0, and (h) AV BR 4.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure-side laterally averaged effectiveness at various blowing and density ratios: (a) CY and (b) AV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Laterally averaged effectiveness, air as coolant, pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Steady-state experimental results: (a) side view of an airfoil along with a sample result and (b)–(e) film cooling effectiveness for CY, AV, SH, and SHAV holes, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Effect of coolant flow rate on laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness for different cooling holes: (a) m˙ ∼ 0.089 g/S, (b) m˙ ∼ 0.179 g/S, (c) m˙ ∼ 0.268 g/S, and (d) m˙ ∼ 0.357 g/S

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Laterally averaged film cooling effectiveness for different cooling holes at (a) BR = 1.0 and (b) BR = 2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Area-averaged effectiveness for different cooling hole geometries with respect to (a) BR and (b) m˙ (kg/s)

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