Development of temperature measurement method for gas turbine cooling application
Temperature measurement are one of the essential part in gas turbine cooling research. The resulting heat transfer coefficient and adiabatic wall temperature are two of the important information analysed from the temperature data. One dimensional semi-infinite heat transfer solution is widely use...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97775/1/FK%202021%2065%20UPMIR.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Temperature measurement are one of the essential part in gas turbine cooling
research. The resulting heat transfer coefficient and adiabatic wall temperature
are two of the important information analysed from the temperature data. One
dimensional semi-infinite heat transfer solution is widely used to solve for the
heat transfer coefficient and adiabatic wall temperature. However, the
experimental time for this solution was limited resulting in less temperature data
for analysis. There is an issue regarding longer experimental time is needed to
accurately calculate the heat transfer coefficient and the adiabatic wall
temperature. A temperature measurement method was investigated to solve this
issue. A test rig was designed to have similar test area to the wheel space area
for a representative single stage gas turbine rig. Crank Nicolson finite difference
method was proposed to solve for the internal temperatures of the test plate. In
this work, the solution was designed to have two different back face boundary
condition. First, an adiabatic back face boundary condition to simulate the one
dimensional semi-infinite heat transfer condition. Second, a conductionconvection
back face boundary condition to solve the time limitation issue. The
resultant heat transfer coefficient from adiabatic back face boundary condition
had an average of 2.5% difference and the adiabatic wall temperature had an
average of 2% difference when compared to reference values. Duration for heat
transfer experiments were longer for the conduction-convection back face
boundary condition, at Fo = 0.7 rather than Fo = 0.1. This results in an increase
of 40% more temperature data range for the heat transfer analysis. For these
experiments, the conduction-convection back face boundary condition had an
average of 5% difference in heat transfer coefficient and 3.5% difference in
adiabatic wall temperature. Meanwhile, the adiabatic back face boundary
condition had an average of 11.3% difference in heat transfer coefficient and
4.9% difference in adiabatic wall temperature when compared to reference
values. Crank Nicolson solution method with conduction-convection back face
boundary condition allowed more temperature data for analysis and provide
more accurate heat transfer coefficient and adiabatic wall temperature values. |
|---|