跨音速槽道流中绝热气膜冷却效率的求解方法  

Determination of Adiabatic Film Cooling Effectiveness in Transonic Channel Flow

作　　者：刘一粟 曾伟 戴思明 李家宁 马海腾 LIU Yisu;ZENG Wei;DAI Siming;LI Jianing;MA Haiteng(School of Mechanical Engineering,Shanghai Jiao Tong University,Shanghai 200240,China)

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学机械与动力工程学院,上海200240

出　　处：《动力工程学报》2023年第12期1577-1584,共8页Journal of Chinese Society of Power Engineering

基　　金：国家自然科学基金资助项目(52106050);上海市自然科学基金资助项目(21ZR1431800);上海市青年科技英才扬帆计划资助项目(20YF1419100);中国航天科技集团公司第八研究院产学研合作基金资助项目。

摘　　要：跨音速流中绝热气膜冷却效率定义式中恢复温度的2种求解方法存在争议:物理法认为恢复温度为无冷实验的绝热壁温,而统计法则认为恢复温度应由2组仅冷气温度不同的实验共同确定。为研究2种方法的区别,搭建了跨音速槽道流实验台。在主流马赫数为0.85的条件下,开展了无冷和有冷的瞬态红外传热实验,其中主流总温为330 K和345 K,有冷实验中冷气温度为282 K、287 K和291 K,吹风比为1.0。结果表明:物理法与统计法所得对流传热系数基本相同;然而2种方法得到的恢复温度存在差异,使得绝热气膜冷却效率存在定性不同。In transonic flow,the derivation of recovery temperature in adiabatic film cooling effectiveness is still controversial.There are two different kinds of methods,namely,liner regression method(LRM)and dual liner regression technique(DLRT).LRM believes that the recovery temperature equals to adiabatic wall temperature for the uncooled model.But DLRT determines the recovery temperature from two cooled experiments which only differ in coolant temperature.To explore the difference between LRM and DLRT,experimental rig of transonic channel flow with a mainstream Mach number of 0.85 was built.Transient thermal measurements by infrared thermography were conducted for the uncooled and cooled cases.The mainstream total temperatures of experiments were 330 K and 345 K respectively.For cooled experiments,the blowing ratios was 1.0 and the coolant temperatures were 282 K,287 K and 291 K respectively.Results show that the convective heat transfer coefficients processed by two methods are basically the same.However,the adiabatic film cooling effectiveness obtained by the two methods is qualitatively different,due to the difference of recovery temperatures.

关 键 词：跨音速流动 槽道流 瞬态传热测试 对流传热系数 绝热气膜冷却效率 

分 类 号：TK471[动力工程及工程热物理—动力机械及工程]