Proceedings of GT2006

Proceedings
ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power ofSea
for Land, GT2006
and Air
ASME Turbo Expo 2006:May
Power for2006,
8-11, Land, Sea and Air
Barcelona, Spain
May 8-11, 2006, Barcelona, Spain

GT2006-90234

GT2006-90234

THREE-DIMENSIONAL FLOW ANALYSIS AND DESIGN IMPROVEMENT

OF LEADING-EDGE FILM-COOLING IN AN INLET GUIDE VANE

Bai-Tao AN Jian-Jun LIU

Institute of Engineering Thermophysics Institute of Engineering Thermophysics
Chinese Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences
Beijing, 100080，China Beijing, 100080，China
E-mail: anbt@mail.etp.ac.cn E-mail: jjl@mail.etp.ac.cn

Hong-De JIANG
Department of Thermal Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing, 100084，China
E-mail: jianghd@cae.cn

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
Numerical investigations on the film cooling of an inlet B axial chord length [m]
guide vane are performed with realistic geometry. The vane D film cooling hole diameter [m]
model comprises one vane passage, 131 shower-head cooling DR density ratio=ρc /ρm
holes in 6 staggered rows around the vane leading edge, and a H vane height [m]
coolant supply plenum. A fully implicit coupled 3D N-S solver H relative vane height
based on finite-volume method and incorporated with unstruc- k turbulent kinetic energy [m2/s2]
tured mixed grid, standard k-ε turbulence model and scalable M blowing ratio=ρcvc /ρmvm
wall function is employed to obtain the numerical solution. Ma Mach number
Two film cooling configurations, named original design and P normalized static pressure
modified design, are presented. The original design and no PS Pressure Surface
cooling case are simulated to obtain flow mechanism and heat SS Suction Surface
transfer characteristics of the leading edge film cooling. In ad- S film cooling hole spanwise spacing [m]
dition, the effects of the meridional endwall contours on the t pitch [m]
leading edge film cooling are considered. The film cooling T temperature [K]
characteristics and interactions between jets and mainstream Tu turbulence intensity [%]
around the leading edge, especially near the stagnation line, are u, v, w Cartesian velocity components [m/s]
analyzed in detail. To provide better coolant coverage on the X, Y, Z Cartesian coordinates
leading edge, the cooling configuration is modified by redis- A, R, θ Cylindrical coordinates
tributing the position and direction of some rows of holes based y+ nondimensional distance from wall
upon the analysis and understanding of the 3D prediction for α circumferential angle [deg]
the original design. The modified design is verified under three β radial angle [deg]
blowing ratios and compared with the original design. ε dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy [m2/s3]
η adiabatic effectiveness=(Taw-Tm)/(Tc-Tm)
KEYWORDS: leading edge film cooling, inlet guide vane, ρ density [kg/m3]
three dimensional numerical simulation, gas turbine φ dimensionless temperature=(Tc-T)/(Tc-Tm)

1 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Subscripts
m mainstream inlet plane
aw adiabatic wall
c coolant jet (average) conditions
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the turbine inlet temperature can lead to
higher thermal efficiency and power output for industrial gas
turbines or higher thrust-weight ratio for aeroengines. At the
present time, the turbine inlet temperature is up to 1900K and
various cooling methods are used to reduce the metal tempera-
ture. Film cooling, as one of the cooling types, has been used in
gas turbines for many years and proved to be an efficient
method protecting blade or vane surface from hot mainstream.
The leading edge of blade or vane, especially the vicinity of the
stagnation line, is a critical region because thermal load is at its
highest in this area and particular protection and cooling design
are required. The flow around the leading edge is always asso-
ciated with mainstream stagnation, strong pressure gradient,
variable curvature, and interaction between rows of shower-
head holes. Sometimes opposed momentum fluxes even occur
at the stagnation line. Many basic investigations have been car-
ried out in this field to understand film cooling mechanisms and
to achieve a reliable film cooling design for blades or vanes.
A number of investigations on leading edge film cooling
use semicircular or symmetrical airfoil model to study the basic
film cooling mechanism.
Mick and Mayle [1] studied the stagnation region on a
semicircular leading edge with a flat afterbody. Two laterally
staggered rows of holes were placed at ±15o and ±44o from
stagnation line. Coolant blowing ratio varied from M=0.38 to
0.97. They found that higher blowing ratio jets penetrate the
mainstream boundary layer, film effectiveness decreased with
increasing blowing ratio. Higher blowing ratio jets tilt along the
holes angle and turbulent mixing is strong. Some subsequent
investigations used the similar geometry. Mehendale and Han
[2] studied the effect of high free stream turbulence intensity on
leading edge film cooling. At low free stream turbulence inten-
sity, the coolant jet structures maintained over a longer distance
downstream of injection and produced higher effectiveness at
both low and high blowing ratios. Higher free stream turbu-
lence intensity reduced film cooling effectiveness at lower
blowing ratios. Ekkad et al [3] examined the effect of coolant
density on effectiveness, but the model only reserved the two
rows of holes at ±15o from the stagnation line. Adiabatic ef-
fectiveness was the highest at M=0.8 when DR=1.5, but effec-
tiveness increasing with blowing ratio up to M=1.2 when
DR=1.0. Ou et al [4] presented the effect of film hole location
(±15o and ±40o from stagnation line) on leading edge heat
transfer. Results clearly showed that two-row injection per-
formed better at low blowing ratio. However, at higher blowing
ratio, two-row injection and one-row injection film effective-
ness distributions were overlapped. Cruse et al [5] studied the
influence of leading edge shapes on leading edge film cooling.
A circular leading edge was compared to an elliptic leading
edge. The spanwise averaged film cooling effectiveness distri-
butions were very similar for the both leading edge geometries.
This important result indicated that a circular leading edge can
be used to simulate the elliptic leading edge of an airfoil.
Chernobrovkin and Lakshminarayana [6] employed the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
experimental data by Cruse et al [5] to study the flow field
near a semicircular film cooled leading edge. The numerical
investigation analyzed the vortex structure caused by main-
stream-coolant interaction. Lin and Shih [7] studied film cool-
ing using a semicircular leading edge with three rows of holes.
They performed an accurate analysis of the flow field by pre-
senting surface adiabatic effectiveness, temperature distribution
and the velocity vector field. Lakehal et al [8] performed nu-
merical calculations on a symmetrical airfoil model. Various
versions of the κ-ε turbulence model were employed. York and
Leylek [9] performed a detailed numerical investigation to ex-
patiate the leading edge film cooling physics. The leading edge
model was elliptic in shape to accurately simulate a rotor air-
foil. Three rows of holes located near leading edge. One row of
holes was centered on the stagnation line, and the other two
rows were located 3.5 hole-diameter downstream, mirrored
about the stagnation line. Highly nonuniform coolant coverage
was seen downstream of the second row of holes, caused
mainly by interaction between the two rows of jets and by a
strong vortex that reduced the spread of coolant from the down-
stream row.
Near the blade leading edge, the flow field may be quite
variable, depending on local features of the real blade passage.
Thus, the realistic leading edge geometry, film cooling configu-
rations and flow conditions are very important for accurate pre-
diction of film cooling performances.
Garg and Gaugler [10] used an explicit N-S solver and one
million structured grid points to study the film cooling heat
transfer in the stagnation region. Their model is a real turbine,
but the plenum and holes were not included in the computa-
tional domain. Garg and Rigby [11] studied a film cooled blade
with three rows of holes near leading edge. They showed very
complex distributions of coolant temperature and velocity at the
hole exit. Heidmann et al [12] performed a three-dimensional
N-S simulation on a film cooled vane using the LeRC-HT code.
The computational domain included the coolant plenum and
film cooling channels. Bohn et al [13] performed a three-
dimensional flow analysis on AGTB blade with leading edge
ejection. Implicit finite volume method combined with a mul-
tiblock technique was employed. The blade model included
coolant plenum and two rows of holes placed at leading edge.
They indicated that complete discretization of the cooling
channels and the plenum was necessary to obtain good aerody-
namic results of the main flow, because the complex flow struc-
ture in the ejection channels and the plenum has a significant
influence on the aerodynamic behavior of the blades. Theo-
doridis et al [14] continued the study of AGTB blade with an
implicit N-S solver. Their results showed that the standard κ-ε
turbulence model with wall function is able to simulate the
complex flow field near leading edge. Garg [15] performed a
study on a film cooled rotating turbine blade with eight rows of
holes. He gave the heat transfer coefficient and film cooling
effectiveness on the blade surface. Cutbirth and Bogard [16]
employed flow visualization, thermal field, and velocity field
measurements to study how the shower-head blowing on a tur-
bine vane leading edge affected the performance of film cool-
ing jets farther downstream.
Recently, the models used by 3D numerical investigations
about leading edge film cooling become more complex [17-19].
Although the numerical accuracy always needs to be improved,
film cooling numerical simulations with complex and realistic
2 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 geometry will not only help greatly to understand the 3D flow let are denoted. The H/B and the t/B of the vane is 1.1 and 1.6
of leading edge film cooling but also provide a design tool to respectively. Fig.2 shows the film cooling configuration on the
guide the film cooling improvement for the real engine. leading edge. The zoomed figure shows that six rows of holes
In this paper, an investigation on leading edge film cooling are located at the vane leading edge and connect to a common
under realistic geometrical configurations is presented. Two interior coolant plenum. The rows of holes are labeled as Row1
film cooling configurations of the vane, named original design to Row6 from the pressure side to the suction side. The Row3
and modified design, are simulated. Based on the 3D flow and Row4 intercross each other spatially. The holes in the same
analysis for the original design, an improved film cooling de- row have the same circumferential angle α.
sign is brought forward. Through the analysis and comparison Fig.3 gives the detailed geometry of the leading edge
between the two leading edge film cooling configurations, the shower-head holes. All the 131 holes in 6 rows are of cylindri-
film cooling characteristics on the leading edge are further un- cal shape. The numbers of holes in Row1 to Row6 are 25, 22,
derstood. 21, 22, 21 and 20, respectively. The holes in Row1 and Row6
have the same radial angle β=0o. The holes in Row2 to Row5
VANE MODEL AND FILM COOLING CONFIGURA- have the same radial angle β=45o mostly except that a few
TION OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN holes near the top wall have radial angle β=0o. Except Row1
The computational domain for the present simulation in- and Row6, the holes in Row2 to Row5 have different diameters
cludes one vane passage, 131 shower-head cooling holes in 6 even for those in the same row. The holes near the shroud and
staggered rows located at the vane leading edge, and a coolant the hub have relative smaller diameter. The spanwise spacing
supply plenum. of the holes in Row1 to Row6 is different. The range of S/D
Shroud Contour varies from about 4 to 6. Besides, the holes in Row2 to Row5
are geometrical staggered among the neighboring rows along
Mainstream
Inlet the axial direction.
Leading Edge
Vane Outlet
Hub Contour NUMERICAL METHOD
The 3D fully implicit coupled N-S solver, CFX5, is em-
Coolant Plenum
ployed to obtain the numerical solution. This solver is based on
finite-volume method and incorporated with unstructured
mixed grid and standard κ-ε turbulence model with scalable
Coolant Inlet
wall function. The chosen discretization scheme is second-
Fig.1 Meridional view of the computational domain order accurate for the present simulation.
PS The scalable wall function approach is to assume that the
surface coincides with the edge of the viscous sublayer, which
is defined to be at y+=11. The computed y+ is not allowed to
Row1 fall below this limit. Therefore, all grid points are outside the
Row2 viscous sublayer and all fine grid inconsistencies are avoided.
Scalable wall function approach is an extension of the method
Row3 of Launder and Spalding [20]. This approach overcomes the
Row4 drawbacks of the standard wall function approach in which it
can be applied on arbitrarily fine grids and allows one to per-
Row5 form a consistent grid refinement independent of the Reynolds
Row6
number of the application. If the boundary layer is not fully
resolved, one will be relying on the logarithmic wall function
SS approximation to model the boundary layer without affecting
Fig.2 Airfoil and leading edge film cooling configuration the validity of the scalable wall function approach.
Grid generation is accomplished with CFX5 Build. Fig.4a
β=0o
shows the grid distribution of the entire computational domain
except the periodic boundary. The grid for this simulation con-
sists of total about 6M grid elements. Fig.4b shows the discreti-
zation of the leading edge including the coolant plenum and the
shower-head holes. Near the wall, 5 layers of prisms are em-
β=45o ployed as shown in Fig.4c. Total number of grid elements is
extremely large for the present simulation because of the length
scale variation from cooling hole to vane passage. Dense distri-
bution of the grid is mainly concentrated on the vane leading
edge, vane passage walls, cooling holes, and the coolant supply
plenum.
Row2
Mass flow rate, total temperature and flow angles are
Fig.3 Detailed geometry of the leading edge shower-head specified at inlet plane of the mainstream and the coolant, and
holes averaged static pressure is specified at outlet plane. The turbu-
The meridional view of the computational domain is lence intensity is set to Tu=5% for the mainstream and Tu=1%
showed in Fig.1. Mainstream inlet, coolant inlet, and vane out- for the coolant. All the walls except the periodic boundary are

3 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 set to be adiabatic. For the simulation of the original design, gion is at both sides of the Row2. This region leaves a large
blowing ratio is M=1.98, density ratio is DR=2.15, inlet Mach area uncovered. In the real turbine, it is a crucial region for
number is about Ma=0.127. vane cooling and so the analysis focused on this region.

Plane 6
Row2

a) Grid distributions of the computational domain

Plane 5

Plane 4
Plane 3

Plane 2

Plane 1

Fig.5 Predicted contours of adiabatic effectiveness on the

leading edge of original design
b) Grid discretization of the vane leading edge,
shower-head holes, and the coolant plenum
Attachment
node

PS SS

Typical grid distributions

inside the holes

c) Grid distributions inside the holes and near the wall

Fig.4 Computational grid for the leading edge film cooling
configuration
In the present simulation, normalized RMS (root mean a) Velocity vector and streamline distributions
square) values of the equation residuals are chosen for the con- near the leading edge wall
vergence criteria (less than 1E-4). The simulation is carried out
on a computer with 2 CPUs and 8GB RAM. It takes about 24
hours, or 150 iterations, to obtain a converged solution.

RESULT ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN

Film cooling near the stagnation line
Predicted contours of adiabatic effectiveness on the lead-
ing edge viewing from X-direction are shown in Fig.5. The
overall film cooling effect of the leading edge is seen under six
rows of shower-head jets. Two large regions have low adiabatic
effectiveness or no coolant coverage obviously. One region is b) Velocity vector and streamline distributions on
close to hub. This region can not be cooled at the current con- Y-direction plane close to the stagnation line
figuration because of the position of the holes closest to the hub Fig.6 3D flow characteristics on the leading edge without
and their radial angle (β=45o) in Row2 to Row5. Another re- film cooling

4 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 To understand the basic flow characteristics around the
leading edge of the present vane geometry, the numerical simu-
lation without film cooling is also performed. The velocity vec-
tor and streamline distributions on leading edge without film
cooling are shown in Fig.6. On the stagnation line, the velocity
component in circumferential direction should be zero. Based
on this, the stagnation line is clearly shown in Fig.6a. It has a
little declining to the Z-direction. Away from the stagnation
line, the flow is declining downwards, then, turns to pressure
side and suction side quickly. However, near the vane top, the
curvature of the meridional shroud contour causes a small re-
circulation region in front of the leading edge, as seen in
Fig.6b. This recirculation leads to an attachment node appear-
ing near the top of the stagnation line, so the fluid disperses to
all directions from the point distinctly as shown in Fig.6a.
According to the results without film cooling, the stagna-
tion line is near the Row2, denoted as the highlight white line
in Fig.5. The holes of Row2 are the closest holes to the line.
The mainstream stagnation influences the film cooling charac-
teristics of Row2 greatly. It is easy to find that each hole in
Row2 has different circumferential distance to the stagnation
line visibly, so each hole in Row2 behaves with different film
cooling characteristics.
PS
SS
Plane 1 Plane 2 Plane 3
Plane 4 Plane 5 Plane 6
a) Velocity vector and streamline distributions
Plane 1 Plane 2 Plane 3
Plane 4 Plane 5 Plane 6
b) Contours of dimensionless temperature
Fig.7 Film cooling around Row2 at six Z-direction cutting
planes
Six typical cutting planes in the Z-direction are given as
follows to analyze the film cooling flow in circumferential di-
rection. The plane locations are indicated in Fig.5. The planes
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
traverse the exit centerline of the local hole 1，4，7，8，13，
21 counted from hub in Row2.
Fig.7 shows the velocity vector, streamline distributions,
and temperature contours around Row2 at plane 1 to plane 6. It
is clearly seen the relative circumferential position of the local
stagnation point varying with the local hole. Three cases appear
for the local hole. The case one is the holes locating at the suc-
tion side close to the stagnation line as the plane 1, only the
suction surface can be cooled for this case. At the downstream
of the hole exit, flow separation occurs due to the opposite
circumferential angle to mainstream. Because the holes at this
plane has radial angle β=45o, so the jets can not provide better
coolant coverage at downstream.
The second case is the holes locating at the pressure side
close to the stagnation line as the plane 4 to plane 6. Fig.7b
shows that the jets point to the pressure side. However at this
case, the stagnation point is very close to the jet bodies. Low
mainstream velocity, relative larger jet angle, and surface cur-
vature cause all these jets leaving the pressure surface at close
downstream as shown in Fig.5. The plane 6 in Fig.7b illumi-
nates this phenomenon immediately because the hole at this
plane has radial angle β=0o. For all jets in this case, reattach-
ment occurs at slight far downstream. At the plane 4 and plane
5 in Fig.7b, the higher adiabatic effectiveness is seen at the
downstream of the holes. But it is not due to the effect of the
local jet, it is the reattaching coolant from its underlying hole
because of the radial angle β=45o. Observing Fig.5 we can find
that the reattaching distance varies with the stagnation point
position. With the stagnation point moving far from the jet bod-
ies, the reattaching distance is increased gradually.
The third case is that the holes just right locate on the
stagnation line. Fig.7b shows obvious better adiabatic effec-
tiveness distribution at the stagnation line and both sides of it as
plane 2 and plane 3. In fact, the mainstream stagnates on the jet
bodies but not on the wall. As a consequence, the coolant is
separated to two parts. Considering the effects of the circum-
ferential angle, the branch of the suction side forms recircula-
tion at its exit downstream, the branch of the pressure side
keeps close to the wall because of the mainstream impinge-
ment. Fig.7b shows that the higher adiabatic effectiveness re-
gion is forced into a small range enclosing the hole. At the
downstream of the pressure side, whereas the coolant almost
travels to the neighboring row, however the thickness of the
film is very thin. At the downstream of the suction side, be-
cause of the opposite jets, the branch of the suction side obvi-
ously has smaller coolant mass flow than the branch of the
pressure side, so it provides poor cooling effect. For this case,
the mainstream has low velocity component in the circumferen-
tial direction, low momentum mainstream and high stagnation
pressure, which restrict the movement and spread of the coolant
along the circumferential direction. The radial movement at this
case is stronger than the first case and the second case.
The radial flows of the coolant are obviously different
when the holes locate on the stagnation line or alongside the
stagnation line. Fig.8 gives the velocity vector and streamline
distributions at Y-direction plane which traverses the hole exit
of the Row2. The jet 4, 15, 16 represent the coolant jet of the
hole 4, 15, and 16 in Row2 respectively.
When the holes locate on the stagnation line like the jet 4,
the opposite mainstream cannot prevent the jets from maintain-
ing their radial direction, the momentum of the coolant is
5 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 dominating. The coolant travels upwards and close to the wall.
In the shear layer of the jets and the mainstream, the main-
stream direction is changed to be consistent with the jets by
creating the vortex. Because of the influence of the circumfer-
ential direction stagnation described previously, the high pres-
sure region occurs at the pressure side near the holes as shown
in Fig.9, the high pressure regions restrain the coolant move-
ment along the circumferential direction. At the pressure side
close to the Row2, the coolant travels upwards a long distance
as shown in Fig.10a. But at the suction side close to the Row2,
the radial movement of the coolant is extremely weakened by
strong mainstream accelerating.
Jet 16
Fig.10b. Corresponding to the attachment nodes, the alternated
local high pressure regions are seen in Fig.9b between adjacent
spanwise holes. The radial movement of the coolant is re-
stricted greatly. At the top of the stagnation line, the attachment
node created by meridional shroud profile separation causes a
large high pressure region. Because the holes at this region
have slight far distance to the stagnation line, the jets behave
obvious ‘jet-in-crossflow’ characteristics like in Fig.10c. It in-
dicates that the great influence of the radial flow of mainstream
on the jets can only take place at the “vicinity” of the stagnation
line. The mainstream flow direction turns quickly from radial
direction to circumferential direction within a very narrow area
at both sides of the stagnation line. The influences of strong
radial flow on the jets only exist in this narrow region.

Attachment
nodes
Jet 4

Jet 20
Jet 15
Jet 13

Leading
edge wall
Leading
edge wall Jet 4
Fig.8 Velocity vector and streamline distributions at Y-
direction plane traversing the hole exits of Row2

Row2 17 a) Root region b) Middle region c) Top region

Fig.10 Velocity vectors near the wall around Row2 and 3D
streamlines of typical jet of Row2
16 7
Film cooling around the leading edge
6 The other rows of holes except Row2 behave typical ‘jet-
15
in-crossflow’ characteristics. At the suction side, the jets of
5 Row3 contribute a little to leading edge cooling. The Row3
14
locates too close to the Row4. Because the holes of Row3 have
4 radial angle β=45o, the jets are against local mainstream. Fig.11
gives the flows near the wall, adiabatic effectiveness distribu-
3 tions, and normalized static pressure distributions surrounding
Row3 and Row4. For the Row3, the coolant turns direction just
2 after leaving the hole exit. At the downstream close to the bot-
tom edge of the holes, the vortex forms and low pressure region
1 is created. And then the coolant encounters the head of the
holes in Row4 which is a relative high pressure region. The jets
Fig.9 Contours of the local normalized static pressure on of Row3 continue turning and form a very small cooled area
leading edge around Row2 like comma-shape between the Row3 and Row4.
When the holes locate alongside the stagnation line like The jets of the Row4 to Row6 behave typical convex sur-
the jet 15 and jet 16 in Fig.8, the coolant movement along the face film cooling characteristic. Because the flow is accelerat-
radial direction is obvious weak. Because the mainstream stag- ing, the coolant attaches the wall excellently and isolated high
nates at the suction side near the holes, the local high pressure adiabatic effectiveness regions are created in particular the
region occurs at the suction side close to the holes in circumfer- Row4 as seen in Fig.11. The coolant spreading along the span-
ential direction. The jets are deflected from their radial direc- wise direction is weak. Therefore, the regions between two
tion toward the mainstream as shown in Fig.10b. The momen- spanwise holes have poor adiabatic effectiveness. Because the
tum component of the jets in radial direction decreases, the radial angle of most holes in Row4 and Row5 is β=45o, so the
momentum component of the mainstream in radial direction jets tilt upwards and the staggered cooling holes do not form
becomes dominating. In the shear layer of the jet and the main- staggered high adiabatic effectiveness regions，especially for
stream, the separation vortices are created by the interaction Row4 and Row5. At the downstream of Row6, the adiabatic
between jets and mainstream. With the forming of the vortices, effectiveness becomes uniform along the spanwise direction.
a series of almost regular attachment nodes occur as shown in Cooling effect on this region can be improved by adjusting the

6 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 hole radial positions between two adjacent rows to obtain better
coolant coverage and staggered cooling effects.
Fig.11 Velocity vector near the wall, contours of adiabatic
effectiveness, and contours of the local normalized static
pressure around Row3 and Row4
Although the film cooling near the leading edge is of in-
terest in the present investigation, it is worth noticing that the
high adiabatic cooling effectiveness can maintain for a long
distance on the suction surface as shown in Fig.12. After about
50% axial chord length, the adiabatic effectiveness starts de-
scending obviously. At the upper and lower corner of the suc-
tion surface, the coolant cannot access to the two regions iso-
lated by the passage vortex 3D separation lines. The corner
areas can be cooled by introducing coolant from the holes
placed at hub and casing endwalls.
3D separation lines of
the passage vortices
Fig.12 Contours of adiabatic effectiveness on suction sur-
face and pressure surface
At the pressure side, the holes of Row1 provide better
adiabatic effectiveness at its close downstream. The jets behave
concave surface film cooling characteristic. With the develop-
ing along the axial direction, the film becomes thick and
spreads strongly along the spanwise direction. Although only
one row of holes cools the pressure surface, the coolant pro-
vides uniform spanwise adiabatic effectiveness at close down-
stream. Because the film dissipation on pressure surface is very
intense, adiabatic effectiveness drops rapidly far from the holes.
FILM COOLING CONFIGURATION IMPROVEMENT
According to the analysis on the original design, the basic
problems on the leading edge film cooling are as following: ①
Some areas on both sides of the stagnation line have no coolant
coverage. The analysis above indicates that only the holes lo-
cated on the stagnation line can provide better cooling effects
on the stagnation line and both sides of it. So it is necessary to
place all the holes along the stagnation line and assure that the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
stagnation line traverses the exits of the holes. ② The holes of
Row2 and Row3 have obvious unreasonable radial angle.
Fig.6a and Fig.10 show that the jets near stagnation line have
opposite direction with the local mainstream. Although the
coolant momentum in Row2 dominates when the mainstream
stagnates on the jet bodies, the locations of the holes are strictly
restricted. A slight position change of the hole to the stagnation
line can bring great influence on the film cooling because of the
opposite radial momentum of the mainstream. The holes of
Row3 have wrong radial angle design. Furthermore, the
circumferential angle of the holes in Row3 needs to be ad-
justed. ③ The holes of Row3 to Row6 do not form effective
staggered jets. On the suction surface, the effective staggered
jet is important for obtaining better spanwise cooling effects.
④ The number of the row of holes needs to be added on the
pressure side. Considering the location of the stagnation line,
only Row1 and part of the Row2 jets cool the pressure surface
in the original design. For obtaining better cooling effects at the
far downstream and balancing the temperature of the two side-
wall of the airfoil, the amount of the holes on the pressure side
should be added. ⑤ Cooling design around the “attachment
node” should be modified. The attachment nodes shown in
Fig.10b can be removed if locating the holes right on the stag-
nation line. But the attachment node shown in Fig.6a can not be
removed because it is not caused by the jets. Based on the
analysis above, if locating the hole exits too close to the at-
tachment node, the jets will lead to higher local blowing ratio
and make the jets detach the wall in particular the pressure side.
Increasing the circumferential distance to the attachment node
properly is essential. On the other hand, dispersion flow around
the attachment node can weaken the spanwise cooling effects.
In addition, the spanwise distance between two adjacent holes
near the attachment node should be decreased.
The principles for modifying the present film cooling con-
figuration are keeping general configuration no change, i.e.,
keeping the amount of the rows and the holes the same as the
original design, only changing the row location, arrangement
and the jet angle of the holes. Besides, the improvement of the
film cooling configuration is only for the leading edge area.
Whole vane cooling is not the main aspect of the present work.
Based on forementioned basic problems, principles and 3D
flow features of the present vane geometry, following im-
provements are applied to the original design.
Firstly, the Row3 is moved to the new location
intercrossing with the Row2 as shown in Fig.13a. This change
avoids the opposite jets of Row3 in the circumferential direc-
tion to the mainstream.
Secondly, the holes of Row2 and Row3 are placed along
the stagnation line as shown in Fig.13b. The exits of all holes in
Row2 and Row3 overlap slightly viewing from radial direction.
The stagnation line traverses the exit edge of each hole in Row2
and Row3 to assure the radial flow of the coolant on the stagna-
tion line. At the same time, the radial angle of the holes in
Row2 and Row3 is modified from β=45o to β=-45o to avoid
opposite radial jets. Then, a few top holes in Row2 and Row3
are rotated a little far from the stagnation line along the circum-
ferential direction as shown in Fig.13b to decrease local
circumferential jet angle. The spanwise spacing at this region is
decreased to about S/D=3. In addition, the radial angle of the
top holes in Row2 and Row3 is adjusted from β=45o to β=30o
and β=15o as shown in Fig.13b to fit the flow of the attachment
7 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 node.
Thirdly, the radial angle of the Row4 and Row5 are modi-
fied from β=45o to β=0o. Besides, the relative radial positions
of the holes between two adjacent rows on the suction side are
slight adjusted to obtain better staggered jets effects.
Original Modified
Design Design
a) Location changing of Row3
Stagnation line
X Z
b) The orientation and radial angle of
Row2 and Row3 in the modified design
Original Modified
Design Design
c) Detailed view of the leading edge surface
Fig.13 Comparison of the film cooling configurations be-
tween the original design and the modified design
The final configurations of the modified design and the
comparison with the original design are shown in Fig.13c.
VERIFICATION OF THE MODIFIED DESIGN
Film cooling effect comparisons under three blowing ratios
and near wall flow analysis
The modified design is verified under three blowing ratios.
The highest blowing ratio is M=1.98, just the same as that of
the original design. The other two blowing ratios, M=1.584 and
M=1.188, are obtained by reducing mass flow at the coolant
inlet to 80% and 60% of the highest blowing ratio. Fig.14
shows the film cooling effects of the modified design at above
three blowing ratios. Adiabatic effectiveness on the leading
edge is improved obviously compared with original design at
any blowing ratio. The uncovered areas in the original design
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
are almost eliminated, but it is difficult to obtain full coolant
coverage for the region surrounding the attachment node
caused by meridional shroud contour separation.
Fig.14 shows, at the lowest blowing ratio, the attachment
node region has the best cooling effect. The jets attach the wall
at both sides of the attachment node region. With the increase
of blowing ratio, the jets leave the wall, especially on the pres-
sure surface. Low blowing ratio produces better cooling effects
at this region. At three blowing ratios, the spanwise space be-
tween two adjacent holes in this region can not be covered well
because of the flow characteristics of the attachment node.
The regions below the attachment node show opposite be-
haviors. At the lowest blowing ratio, the trace of each jet can be
distinguished clearly. At the highest blowing ratio, high adia-
batic effectiveness region enlarges and overlaps. High blowing
ratio produces better cooling effects on the stagnation line and
on both sides of it than low blowing ratio. In a word, the lowest
blowing ratio M=1.188 consumes the smallest amount of cool-
ant, and can obtain almost full coverage on the leading edge.
a) M=1.188 b) M=1.584 c) M=1.98
Fig.14 Contours of adiabatic effectiveness on the leading
edge of the modified design under three blowing ratios
PS SS PS SS
Attachment
node
a) Top region b) Middle region
Fig.15 Velocity vectors near the wall of the holes of Row2
and Row3 at blowing ratio M=1.188
Fig.15 shows the near wall flow of the modified design.
The attachment node is seen distinctly at the top of the stagna-
tion line, as shown in Fig.15a. The position of the attachment
node is the same as that in Fig.6a. The attachment nodes seen in
Fig.10 are removed because the opposite jets are replaced by
consistent jets. The typical near wall flow pattern is shown in
8 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 Fig.15b. The cooling at the stagnation line is accomplished by
the radial flow of Row2 mostly, because the Row2 locates on
the pressure side close to the stagnation line. The jets have
strong radial flow based on the analysis for the original design.
Adiabatic effectiveness comparisons between the original
design and the modified design
The modified design has obvious better cooling effects on
both sides of the Row2 than the original design. So the com-
parisons are performed on the downstream of the Row1, Row4,
Row5, and Row6. Adiabatic effectiveness distribution curves
are given at the cutting positions shown in Fig.16. The modi-
fied design adopts the lowest blowing ratio (M=1.188) case, the
coolant mass flow is 60% of the original design.
Fig.16 shows, at any cutting position, the modified design
has better adiabatic effectiveness than the original design. This
result benefits from the improved jets on the stagnating region.
Position of the
Cutting Planes
1 1
1 [2] Mehendale, A. B., and Han, J. C., 1992. “Influence of
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Cut2 Cut3
-
H
-
H
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
η η
━━original design, ━━modified design M=1.188
Fig.16 Adiabatic effectiveness distributions along vane
height
CONCLUSIONS
Numerical investigations on the leading edge film cooling
are carried out for an inlet guide vane. The vane model has
complex film cooling configuration and 6 rows 131 shower-
head holes and the coolant supply plenum are included in the
computational domain. The numerical simulations consider the
real geometry and include the meridional endwall contour ef-
fects on the leading edge flow and film cooling. Based on the
detailed 3D analysis for the original design, the modified de-
sign is brought forward by reassigning the position and jet an-
gle of the corresponding rows of holes. The following conclu-
sions can be drawn from the present investigation:
z When the holes just locate on the stagnation line, the ra-
dial movement of the coolant is dominating only at the
pressure side close to the holes. At the suction side close
to the holes, the radial movement is weakened by main-
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
stream accelerating.
z When the holes locate alongside the stagnation line, the
circumferential movement of the coolant dominates. If the
jets have opposite radial angle to the local mainstream, a
series of attachment nodes will be created between two
adjacent spanwise holes.
z Better cooling effects at the stagnation line and both sides
of the line can be obtained by locating two intercross rows
of holes at both sides of the stagnation line and assuring
that the stagnation line traverses the exit of each hole. It is
essential to avoid opposite jets occurring in the radial di-
rection.
z It is difficult to obtain full coolant coverage near the at-
tachment node that is created on the stagnation line by
passage meridional contour separation, especially at the
pressure side. Adopting lower blowing ratio and adding
the circumferential distance to the attachment node can
1
obtain better cooling effects.
0.8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support
0.6 from “Hi-Tech Research and Development Program of China
Cut1 (National 863 Program)”.
-
H
0.4
REFERENCES
0.2 [1] Mick, W. J., and Mayle, R. E., 1988. “Stagnation Film
Cooling and Heat Transfer Including Its Effect within the
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Hole Pattern.” ASME Journal of Turbomanchinery, Vol.
η
110, n1, pp.66-72.
High Mainstream Turbulence on Leading Edge Film
0.8
Cooling Heat Transfer: Effect of Film Hole Spacing.” In-
ternational Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol,35,
0.6
n10, pp.2593-2604.
Cut4 [3] Ekkad, S. V., Han, J. C., and Du, H., 1998. “Detailed Film
-
H
0.4 Cooling Measurements on a Cylindrical Leading Edge
Model: Effect of Free-Stream Turbulence and Coolant
0.2 Density.” ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 120, n4,
pp. 799-807.
0.6 0.8 1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
[4] Ou, S., Mehendale, A. B., and Han, J.C., 1990. “Influence
η of High Mainstream Turbulence on Leading Edge Film
Cooling Heat Transfer: Effect of Film Hole Row Loca-
tion.” ASME Paper, 90-WA/HT-5.
[5] Cruse, M. W., Yuki, U. M., and Bogard, D. G., 1997. “In-
vestigation of Various Parametric Influences on Leading
Edge Film Cooling.” ASME Paper 97-GT-296.
[6] Chernobrovkin, A. A., Lakshminarayana, B., 1998. “Nu-
merical Simulation and Aerothermal Physics of Leading
Edge Film Cooling.” ASME Paper 98-GT-504.
[7] Lin, Y.-L., Shih, T. I-P., 2001. “Film-Cooling of a Cylin-
drical Leading Edge with Injection through Rows of
Compound-Angle Holes.” Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.
123, n4, pp.645-654.
[8] Lakehal, D., Theodoridis, G. S., and Rodi, W., 2001.
“Three-Dimensional Flow and Heat Transfer Calculations
of Film Cooling at the Leading Edge of a Symmetrical
Turbine Blade Model.” International Journal of Heat and
Fluid Flow, Vol. 22, n2, pp.113-122.
[9] York, William D., and Leylek, James H., 2002. “Leading-
Edge Film-Cooling Physics: Part I – Adiabatic Effective-
ness.” ASME Paper, GT-2002-30166.
9 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 [10] Garg, V.K. and Gaugler, R.E., 1996. “Leading Edge Film-
Cooling Effects on Turbine Blade Heat Transfer.” Nu-
merical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications, Vol.30, n2,
pp.165-187.
[11] Garg, V.K., and Rigby, D.L., 1999. “Heat Transfer on a
Film-Cooled Blade – Effect of Hole Physics” Interna-
tional Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol.20, n1, pp.10-
25.
[12] Heidmann, J. D., Rigby, D. L., Ameri, A.A., 2000.
“Three-Dimensional Coupled Internal/External Simulation
of a Film-Cooled Turbine Vane.” ASME Journal of Tur-
bomachinery, Vol. 122, n2, pp.348-359.
[13] Bohn, D., Becker, V., and Kusterer, K., et al., 2000.
“Three-Dimensional Flow Analysis of Turbine Blade
Cascade with Leading-Edge Ejection.” Journal of Propul-
sion and Power, Vol.16, n1, pp.49-56.
[14] Theodoridis, G. S., Lakehal, D., Rodi, W., 2001. “Three -
Dimensional Calculations of the Flow Field around a Tur-
bine Blade with Film Cooling Injection near the Leading
Edge.” Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, Vol.66, n1,
pp.57-83.
[15] Garg, V.K., 2001. “Modeling Film Coolant Flow Charac-
teristics at the Exit of Shower Head Holes.” International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol.22, n2, pp.134-142.
[16] Cutbirth, J. M., and Bogard, D. G., 2002. “Evaluation of
Pressure Side Film Cooling with Flow and Thermal Field
Measurements, Part I: Shower-head Effects.” ASME Pa-
per GT-2002-30174.
[17] Adami, P., Chana, K. S., Martelli, F., and Montomoli, F.,
2003. “Numerical Predictions of Film Cooled NGV
Blades.” ASME Paper GT2003-38861.
[18] Yang, Huitao., Chen, Hamn-Ching., Han, Je-Chin., and
Moon, Hee-Koo., 2005. “Numerical Prediction of Film
Cooling and Heat Transfer on the Leading Edge of a Ro-
tating Blade with Two Rows Holes in a 1-½ Turbine Stage
At Design and Off Design Conditions.” ASME Paper
GT2005-68335.
[19] Kusterer, K., Hagedorn, T., Bohn, D., et al., 2005. “Im-
provement of a Film-Cooled Blade by Application of the
Conjugate Calculation Technique.” ASME Paper
GT2005-68555.
[20] Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B., 1974. “The numerical
computation of turbulent flows.” Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol.3, n2, pp.269-
289.

10 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2006/70952/ on 05/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or