0
Research Papers

Impact of Wall Temperature on Heat Transfer Coefficient and Aerodynamics for Three-Dimensional Turbine Blade Passage

[+] Author and Article Information
Roberto Maffulli

Turbomachinery Department,
Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
Chaussée de Waterloo 72,
Rhode St Genese 1640, Belgium
e-mail: maffulli@vki.ac.be

Li He

Osney Thermofluids Laboratory,
Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford,
Osney Mead,
Oxford OX2 0ES, UK
e-mail: li.he@eng.ox.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received March 21, 2016; final manuscript received February 5, 2017; published online April 19, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Ting Wang.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 9(4), 041002 (Apr 19, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: TSEA-16-1073; doi: 10.1115/1.4036012 History: Received March 21, 2016; Revised February 05, 2017

The present work is aimed to examine how the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and main three-dimensional (3D) passage aerodynamic features may be affected by a nonadiabatic wall temperature condition. A systematic computational study has been first carried out for a 3D nozzle guide vane (NGV) passage. The impacts of wall temperature on the secondary flows, trailing edge shock waves, and the passage flow capacity are discussed, underlining the connection and interactions between the wall temperature and the external aerodynamics of the 3D passage. The local discrepancies in HTC in these 3D flow regions can be as high as 30–40% when comparing low and high temperature ratio cases. The effort is then directed to a new three-point nonlinear correction method. The benefit of the three-point method in reducing errors in HTC is clearly demonstrated. A further study illustrates that the new method also offers much enhanced robustness in the wall heat flux scaling, particularly relevant when the wall thermal condition is also shown to influence the laminar–turbulent transition exhibited by two well-established transition models adopted in the present work.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematics of the linear and nonlinear dependency of heat transfer with Tw: (a) linear variation of q˙ with Tw and (b) nonlinear variation of q˙ with Tw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Grid used for the performed calculations: (a) computational grid: laminar region highlighted and (b) grid detail: trailing edge-hub

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mis for 50% span section: comparison of CFD with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(q˙/q˙ref) for 50% span section: comparison of CFD with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mesh dependency study. Surface heat flux (W/m2) for the two mesh densities.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Mesh dependency study. Total pressure field (Pa) downstream of the trailing edge.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Midspan HTC distribution for the three analyzed temperature differences

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

HTC dependency on TR, 50% span cut

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

HTC dependency on TR, on the vane pressure side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

HTC dependency on TR, on the vane suction side

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

HTC dependency on TR, on the shroud endwall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

HTC dependency on TR, on the hub endwall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Suction-side shock position for the quasi-adiabatic (TR = 0.99) and cooled (TR = 0.7) case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Streamlines at suction side–endwalls corners for quasi-adiabatic (TR = 0.99) and cooled (TR = 0.7) case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Wall shear stress direction on suction side for quasi-adiabatic (TR = 0.99) and cooled (TR = 0.7) case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Wall shear stress magnitude on suction side for quasi-adiabatic (TR = 0.99) and cooled (TR = 0.7) case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Density contours at TE cut plane for quasi-adiabatic (TR = 0.99) and cooled (TR = 0.7) case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Wall heat transfer (W/m2) for TR = 0.6, direct CFD (center), conventional two-point method (left), and new three-point method (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Prediction error comparison between the two-point and three-point

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

(q˙/q˙ref) (Eq. (3)) for TR = 0.8 and 0.6 using the k–kl–ω transition model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

(q˙/q˙ref) (Eq. (3)) for TR = 0.8 and 0.6 using the transitional SST model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

HTC plots for TR = 0.6 for k–kl–ω transition model, obtained using the traditional two-point method of Eq. (5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of the new three-point method and the conventional two-point method for a transitional case using the k–kl–ω transition model

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