No abstract

A double-sided, high-frequency response heat-flux gauge has been developed which allows measurement of heat flux from dc to 100 kHz. The instrument is designed for heat-flux magnitudes ranging from one to several hundred kW/m2 at temperatures up to 400 °C and is independent of the test article material. The gauges consist of a metal film (1500 Å) resistance thermometers sputtered on both sides of a thin (25 μm) polyimide sheet. The sheet, which can contain many gauges, is then adhesively bonded to a test article. The temperature difference across the polyimide is a direct measure of the heat flux at low frequencies, while a quasi-1D analysis is used to infer the high-frequency heat flux from the upper surface temperature history. The design criteria, construction and application techniques, and a novel, ratiometric calibration procedure are discussed in detail.

Time-resolved turbine rotor blade heat transfer data are compared with ab initio numerical calculations. The data was taken on a transonic, 4-to-1 pressure ratio, uncooled, single-stage turbine in a short duration turbine test facility. The data consists of the time history of the heat transfer distribution about the rotor chord at midspan. The numerical calculation is a time accurate, 2-D, thin shear layer, multiblade row code known as UNSFLO. UNSFLO uses Ni’s Lax-Wendroff algorithm, conservative boundary conditions, and a time tilting algorithm to facilitate the calculation of the flow in multiple blade rows of arbitrary pitch ratio with relatively little computer time. The version used for this work had a simple algebraic Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model. The code is shown to do a good job of predicting the quantitative time history of the heat flux distribution. The wake/boundary layer and transonic interaction regions for suction and pressure surfaces are identified and the shortcomings of the current algebraic turbulence modelling in the code are discussed. The influence of hardware manufacturing tolerance on rotor heat transfer variation is discussed. A physical reasoning explaining the discrepancies between the unsteady measurement and the calculations for both the suction and pressure surfaces are given, which may be of use in improving future calculations and design procedures.

No abstract