Popp Thesis

Steady and Unsteady Heat Transfer in a Film
Cooled Transonic Turbine Cascade
by
Oliver Popp, Dipl.-Ing.
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Mechanical Engineering
Approved:
Dr. Wing F. Ng, Chair
Dr. Thomas E. Diller, Co-Chair Dr. Joseph A. Schetz
Dr. Clinton L. Dancey Dr. Alfred L. Wicks
June 1999
Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: Unsteady Heat Transfer, Turbine, Film Cooling, Transonic Cascade

Steady and Unsteady Heat Transfer in a Film
Cooled Transonic Turbine Cascade
Oliver Popp, Ph.D.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1999
Advisor: Dr. Wing F. Ng, Chair
Abstract
The unsteady interaction of shock waves emerging from the trailing edge of modern
turbine nozzle guide vanes and impinging on downstream rotor blades is modeled
in a linear cascade. The Reynolds number based on blade chord and exit conditions
(5·106 ) and the exit Mach number (1.2) are representative of modern engine operating
conditions. The relative motion of shocks and blades is simulated by sending a shock
wave along the leading edges of the linear cascade instead of moving the blades
through an array of stationary shock waves. The blade geometry is a generic version
of a modern high turning rotor blade with transonic exit conditions. The blade is
equipped with a showerhead film cooling scheme. Heat flux, surface pressure and
surface temperature are measured at six locations on the suction side of the central
blade. Pressure measurements are taken with Kulite XCQ-062-50a high frequency
pressure transducers. Heat flux data is obtained with Vatell HFM-7/L high speed
heat flux sensors. High speed heat flux and pressure data are recorded during the time
of the shock impact with and without film cooling. The data is analyzed in detail
to find the relative magnitudes of the shock effect on the heat transfer coefficient
and the recovery temperature or adiabatic wall temperature (in the presence of film
cooling). It is shown that the variations of the heat transfer coefficient and the film
ii
effectiveness are less significant than the variations of recovery temperature. The
effect of the shock is found to be similar in the cases with and without film cooling.
In both cases the variation of recovery temperature induced by the shock is shown to
be the main contribution to the overall unsteady heat flux.
The unsteady heat flux is compared to results from different prediction models
published in the literature. The best agreement of data and prediction is found for a
model that assumes a constant heat transfer coefficient and a temperature difference
calculated from the unsteady surface pressure assuming an isentropic compression.
iii
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
under grant F08671-9601062, monitored by Dr. Jim M. McMichael, Dr. Mark Glaus-
er and Dr. Tom Beunter. I would like to thank Mr. Scott Hunter, Mr. Monty Shelton
and Mr. Mark Pearson of General Electric Aircraft Engines for their collaboration
on this project.
I would like to express my gratitude to the members of my committee. Dr. Ng

has taught me economical thinking which will be invaluable for my future career. Dr.
Diller has given me great insight in convective heat transfer and the measurement
thereof. He has shown me how to stay focused on a long term goal and not to give
in to the temptations of short-lived mood-swings. Dr. Schetz has always helped me
out with practical suggestions from his immense vault of real-world experience. Dr.
Wicks knowledge of the issue of gauge frequency response and signal processing has
helped me greatly in achieving confidence in my measurements.
My particular appreciation goes to the graduate students directly involved with

this project. Dwight Smith, Hank Grabowski and Jim Bubb have made this project
not only successful but also very enjoyable. Thank you for the hard work and the fun
we had. Also, I would like to thank the entire team of Dr. Ng’s graduate students
for their suggestions and discussions. Especially, Nikhil Rao and John Watts deserve
my gratitude for their help with practical and theoretical matters.
iv
For the first year of this project the Mechanical Engineering workshop was
booked solid with bits and pieces of the new setup. I thank Johnny Cox for handling
this overwhelming amount of work. A special thanks goes to James Dowdy for his
advice, quality of work and selfless support.
The guys from the Aerospace and Ocean Engineering machine shop did some-
thing unbelievable. Throughout this project they supported me generously with hard-
ware and advice even though there was no reason for them to do so. Thanks a lot.
None of this would have happened without the loving support of my wife
Kerstin. She sacrificed a lot for this to come to a successful ending. Most importantly,
I want to thank her for giving birth to our son Sebastian Boris. His presence is all
the motivation I need.
Oliver Popp

June 1999
v
Contents
Abstract ii
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii
Nomenclature xix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Problem Statement: Turbine Blade Heat
Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Research at Texas A & M University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.2 Research at Iwate University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.3 Research at NASA Lewis Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.4 Research at Calspan-UB Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.5 Research at MIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.6 Research at Oxford University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.7 Research at Virginia Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3 This Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 2 Steady Heat Transfer 19
vi
2.1 Introduction and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Experimental Setup for Steady Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 Data Reduction Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.1 Analysis of Uncooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.2 Results from Uncooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.3 Analysis of Cooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.4 Results from Cooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Chapter 3 Unsteady Heat Transfer 38

3.1 Experimental Setup for Investigation of Unsteady Heat Flux . . . . . 38
3.1.1 Shock Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Test Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition for
Unsteady Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.1 Unsteady Pressure Measurements for Test Series “Unsteady De-
composition” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.2 Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements for Test Series “Unsteady
Decomposition” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.3 Unsteady Pressure Measurements for “Direct Comparison” . . 53
3.3.4 Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements for “Direct Comparison” . 55
3.3.5 Shadowgraph Flow Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4 Signal Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4.1 Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4.2 Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.5 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.5.1 General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5.2 “Unsteady Decomposition” of Heat Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.5.2.1 Analytical Model without Film Cooling . . . . . . . 72
3.5.2.2 Effect of Shock Passing without Film Cooling . . . . 75
3.5.2.3 Analytical Model with Film Cooling . . . . . . . . . 88
vii
3.5.2.4 Effect of Shock Passing with Film Cooling . . . . . . 91
3.5.2.5 Conclusion from the Unsteady Decomposition Tech-
nique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.5.3 “Direct Comparison” of Predicted and Measured Heat Flux . 114
3.5.3.1 Moss’ Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.5.3.2 Johnson’s Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.5.3.3 Rigby’s Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.5.4 Comparison with Reid’s Numerical Model . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Chapter 4 Conclusions from the Investigation of Unsteady Heat Flux149

4.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.2 Application to Turbine Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.3 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Bibliography 153
References 153
Appendix A Shock Progression Details 158
Appendix B Investigation of the Transfer Function of Different Kulite

Pressure Transducers 163
B.1 Problem Statement and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
B.2 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
B.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
B.3.1 Determination of Transfer Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
B.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Appendix C Investigation of the Transfer Function of a Vatell HFM-

7/L Heat Flux Sensor 180
C.1 Problem Statement and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
C.2 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
C.3 Theoretical Heat Flux and Gauge Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
viii
C.4 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Appendix D Transfer Functions of the Measurements Group 2310

Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier at Different Gain
Settings 188
Appendix E Measurement Error 195

E.1 Measurement Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
E.2 Measurement Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Appendix F Discussion of the Surface Heat Flux Equations and their

Discretization 204
F.1 Derivation of the Basic Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
F.2 Comparison of Different Ways to Obtain Heat Flux from Discrete Tem-
perature Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Appendix G Steady and Unsteady Heat Transfer in a Transonic Film

Cooled Turbine Cascade 224
Appendix H Comparison of Radiation versus Convection Calibration

of Thin-Film Heat Flux Gauges 234
Vita 241
ix
List of Tables
2.1 Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients for all Gauges and All Uncooled Ex-
periments for “Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.2) 29
2.2 Td = Tt − Tr for all Gauges and All Uncooled Experiments for “Un-
steady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.2) . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 h and Td = Tt − Tr for Gauges 1 and 2. Uncooled Run # 3 for “Direct
Comparison” (Sections 3.5.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4 Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients for all Gauges and All Cooled Exper-
iments for “Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.4) . . 35
2.5 Mean Film Cooling Effectiveness for all Gauges and All Cooled Exper-
iments for “Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.4) . . 36
2.6 hc and η for Gauges 1 and 2. Cooled Runs # 1 and #2 for “Direct
Comparison” (Sections 3.5.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1 Shock Strength and Total Temperatures at Shock Impact for All Un-
cooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.2 Recovery Temperatures at Shock Impact for All Gauges and All Un-
cooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3 Wall Temperatures at Shock Impact for All Gauges and All Uncooled
Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.4 Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients for all Gauges and All Uncooled Ex-
periments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.5 Test Matrix, Total Temperature and Coolant Temperature Before Shock
Impact for All Cooled Experimnts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
x
3.6 Recovery Temperature Before Shock Impact for All Gauges and All
Cooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.7 Adiabatic Wall Temperature Before Shock Impact for All Gauges and
All Cooled Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.8 Wall Temperature Before Shock Impact for All Gauges and All Cooled
Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.9 Heat Transfer Coefficient for All Gauges and All Cooled Experiments 94
3.10 Film Effectiveness for All Gauges and All Cooled Experiments . . . . 94
3.11 Test Matrix and Parameters for All Runs and Gauges 1 and 2 for
“Direct Comparison” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.12 Conditions at Shock Impact for All Runs and Gauges 1 and 2 for
“Direct Comparison” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
B.1 Coefficients Ai and Bi Describing the Transfer Function of the Kulite

Pressure Transducer XCQ-062-50a with B-screen . . . . . . . . . . . 178
D.1 Coefficients Ai and Bi Describing the Transfer Function of the Mea-

surements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier
according to Equation D.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
E.1 HFM Gauge Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

E.2 Precision Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
E.3 Measurement Repeatability For Uncooled Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
E.4 Measurement Repeatability for Cooled Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
F.1 Corresponding Variables in Equations F.12 and F.15 . . . . . . . . . 209
xi
List of Figures
1.1 Advance of Materials and Cooling Technology. Source: Royal Aero-

nautical Society / Aerospace - 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Schematical Depiction of the Non-Uniformity of the Flowfield Down-
stream of a Modern NGV Row. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Transonic Blowdown Windtunnel at Virginia Tech, from Smith (1999). 20

2.2 Instrumented Film Cooled Blade, from Bubb (1999). . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Coolant Supply Schematic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4 Time History From Uncooled Experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Determination of h and Td . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6 Time History From Experiment with Film Cooling. . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7 Determination of hc and η. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1 Overview of the Shock Apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.2 Shock Shaper Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3 Test Matrix for Experiments With and Without Film Cooling for Test
Series “Unsteady Decomposition”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4 Test Matrix for Experiments With and Without Film Cooling for Test
Series “Direct Comparison”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5 Measurement Chain for Unsteady Pressure Measurements for Test Se-
ries “Unsteady Decomposition” in Section 3.5.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.6 Measurement Chain for Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements for Test
Series “Unsteady Decomposition” in Section 3.5.2. . . . . . . . . . . . 51
xii
3.7 Measurement Chain for Unsteady Pressure Measurements for “Direct
Comparison.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.8 Measurement Chain for Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements for “Direct
Comparison”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.9 Optical Setup for Shadowgraph Flow Visualization . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.10 Sample Shadowgraph of Shock Passing Event with Film Cooling. . . . 65
3.11 Sample Time Histories of Pressure Ratio for Gauges 2,3,4,5 from one
of the Experiments without Film Cooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.12 Sample Time Histories of Unsteady Heat Flux for Gauges 1,2,3,4,5
from one of the Experiments without Film Cooling. . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.13 Schematic Depiction of Shock Expansion Process. States 1, 2 and 3
Represent the Shock At Different Successive Times. . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.14 Sample Time Histories of Pressure Ratio for Gauges 2,4,5,6 from Ex-
periment with Film Cooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.15 Sample Time Histories of Unsteady Heat Flux for Gauges 1,2,3,4,5
from Experiment with Film Cooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.16 Shock Passing Events for Gauge # 2 at Increased Shock Strength with-
out Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Initial Heat
Flux. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed. Converted to Temperature
Variation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.19 Shock Passing Events for Gauge # 1 at Different Shock Conditions
without Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Initial
Heat Flux for Each Shock Strength. Top Graphs: Absolute Values.
Bottom Graph: Initial Value Subtracted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
xiii
3.24 Shock Passing Events for Gauge # 1 at Increased Shock Strength with
Strong Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Initial
Heat Flux. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Strong Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Initial
Heat Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Strong Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Ini-
tial Heat Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed. Converted to
Temperature Variation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.27 Shock Passing Events for Gauge # 1 at Different Shock Conditions with
Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Initial Heat
Flux for Each Shock and Cooling Strength. Top Graphs: Absolute
Values. Bottom Graph: Initial Value Subtracted. . . . . . . . . . . . 100
xiv
0
3.32 Comparison of Taw from Run #2 Gauge #1 with Film Cooling and
Tr0 · (1 − η) from Run #2 Gauge #1 without Film Cooling. . . . . . . 107
0
3.33 Comparison between Taw and Tr0 ·(1 − η) for all Experiments with Film
Cooling. Results from Gauge #1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
0
0
0
0
3.38 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 2 from Uncooled Run #3. Raw
Signals of Pressure Ratio and Unsteady Heat Flux. . . . . . . . . . . 117
xv
3.39 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 2 from Uncooled Run #3. Processed
Signals of Pressure Ratio and Unsteady Heat Flux. . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.40 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 2 from Uncooled Run #3. Predicted
and Measured Unsteady Heat Flux. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.41 Shock Passing Event from Run #1 with Film Cooling. Moss’ Model
And Comparison with Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.42 Shock Passing Event from Run #2 with Film Cooling. Moss’ Model
3.43 Shock Passing Event from Run #3 without Film Cooling. Moss’ Model
3.44 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 1 from Uncooled Run #3. Pressure
Ratios and Isentropic Gas Temperature. Pressure Signal Corrected
According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.45 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 1 from Uncooled Run #3. qu Accord-
ing to Johnson et al. (1988). Heat Flux Signal Corrected According
to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.46 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 1 from Uncooled Run #3. qm Ac-
cording to Johnson et al. (1988). Heat Flux Signal Corrected Accord-
ing to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.47 Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 1 from Uncooled Run #3. Compar-
ison Between qu + qm and q 0 . Heat Flux Signal Corrected According to
Section “Signal Processing” 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.48 Shock Passing Event from Run #1 With Film Cooling. Johnson’s
Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals
Corrected According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4. . . . . . . . . 131
3.49 Shock Passing Event from Run #2 With Film Cooling. Johnson’s
xvi
3.50 Shock Passing Event from Run #3 Without Film Cooling. Johnson’s
3.51 Change in Laminar Sublayer Temperature Profile from To to T Due to
Compression and Heating Induced by Pressure Change. From Rigby
et al. (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.52 Shock Passing Event from Run #1 With Film Cooling. Rigby’s Model
And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals Corrected
3.53 Shock Passing Event from Run #2 With Film Cooling. Rigby’s Model
And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals Corrected
3.54 Shock Passing Event from Run #3 Without Film Cooling. Rigby’s
3.55 Reid’s and Johnson’s Simplified Depictions of the Shock Impingement
Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
A.1 Shock Progression: Still # 1, time≈ 450µs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

B.1 Shock Tube with Kulite Pressure Sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

B.2 Transfer Function of the Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Con-
ditioner and Signal Amplifier at a gain of 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
xvii
B.3 Transfer Function of the Ithaco 4302 low-pass filter at a cut-off fre-
quency of 1 MHz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
B.4 Combined Transfer Function of Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge
Conditioner and Signal Amplifier at a gain of 1 and the Ithaco 4302
low-pass filter at a cut-off frequency of 1 MHz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
B.5 Raw Data from Both Transducers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
B.6 Traces after Truncation, Padding of Downslope, Zeroing of Initial Val-
ue. Also Shown is the “Ideal” Step Input. Upper Graph a): Entire
Traces. Lower Graph b): Time Window Around Shock Event. . . . . 172
B.7 Data Corrected for the Influence of the Amplifier and the Filter. Upper
Graph a): Unscreened Sensor: Raw Signal, Corrected Signal and Ideal
Step. Lower Graph b): Sensor with B-Screen: Raw Signal, Corrected
Signal and Ideal Step. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
B.8 Bode Plot of Fourier Transforms of the Ideal Step Input, the Un-
screened Sensor and the Sensor with the B-Screen. . . . . . . . . . . . 174
B.9 Bode Plot of Transfer Function of Unscreened Sensor. . . . . . . . . . 176
B.10 Bode Plot of Transfer Function of Sensor with B-Screen. . . . . . . . 177
C.1 Shock Tube with Vatell Heat Flux Sensor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

C.2 Comparison of theoretical heat flux, theoretical gauge response and
experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
D.1 Experimental and Approximated Transfer Function of the 2310 Am-

plifier at a Gain of 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
plifier at a Gain of 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
plifier at a Gain of 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
plifier at a Gain of 1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
xviii
E.1 Measurement Repeatability of Heat Transfer Coefficient at PR=1.04. 201
E.2 Measurement Repeatability of Effectiveness at PR=1.04. . . . . . . . 202
xix
Nomenclature
Symbols
A Constant in Solution for Th (y, s), Section 3.5.3.3
B Constant in Solution for Th (y, s), Section 3.5.3.3
cp Specific heat at constant pressure of air in Section 3.5.3.2
d Thickness of Laminar Sublayer, Section 3.5.3.3
h Heat transfer coefficient, mean value of heat transfer coefficient before

shock impact
H2310 Transfer Function of the Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Condi-
tioner and Signal Amplifier , see equation (3.2), page 59
hc Heat transfer coefficient with film cooling, mean value of heat transfer
coefficient before shock impact with film cooling
hc1 . . . hc6 Mean value of heat transfer coefficient before shock impact for gauges 1
through 6
h0c Unsteady component of heat flux with film cooling
h1 . . . h6 Mean value of heat transfer coefficient before shock impact for gauges 1
through 6
xx
HKulite Transfer function of Kulite XCQ-062-50a pressure transducer, see Ap-
pendix B, see equation (3.3), page 60
h0 Unsteady component of heat transfer coefficient

√
j −1 , see equation (3.4), page 62
k Thermal conductivity of air in Section 3.5.3.2
x Laplace transform of x
m Counter for time step tm , see equation (3.36), page 124
N Number of data points in trace, see equation (3.1), page 58
n Counting variable, see equation (3.1), page 58
p Mean value of static freestream pressure before shock impact
p1 , p2 Two arbitrary pressure traces, see equation (3.1), page 58
pav Static pressure before shock impact in Section 3.5.1
Pcorr2310 Fourier Transform of Pressure Signal Corrected for the Amplifier Transfer
Function, see equation (3.2), page 59
Pf inal Fourier transform of pressure signal after all corrections , see equation (3.3),
page 60
p∞ Freestream total pressure
p0 Unsteady component of static freestream pressure, in Sections 3.5.3.1 and

3.5.3.2
Praw Fourier Transform of Pressure Signal, see equation (3.2), page 59
q Heat flux, mean heat flux before shock impact
qc Surface Heat Flux Due to Compression Heating, Section 3.5.3.3
xxi
qcorr n n-th value of corrected heat flux, see equation (3.5), page 62
Qf inal Fourier transform of the corrected heat flux signal , see equation (3.4),
page 62
qh Heat Flux Due to Transient Conduction, Section 3.5.3.3
qm Unsteady component of heat flux in Section 3.5.3.2, see equation (3.42),

page 128
q0 Unsteady component of heat flux
qraw n n-th value of raw heat flux data, see equation (3.5), page 62
Qraw Fourier transform of the raw heat flux signal , see equation (3.4), page 62
qu Unsteady component of heat flux in Section 3.5.3.2
r Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, see equation (3.1), page 58
s Variable in Laplace domain
Taw Adiabatic wall temperature, mean value of adiabatic wall temperature

before shock impact
0
Taw Unsteady component of adiabatic wall temperature
Taw1 . . . Taw6 Mean value of adiabatic wall temperature before shock impact for gauges
1 through 6
Tc Coolant temperature
Tc (y, t) Temperature Induced by Compression, Section 3.5.3.3
Tg Unsteady component of freestream temperature, see equation (3.33), page 123
Th (y, t) Temperature Induced by Transient Conduction, Section 3.5.3.3
To (y) Temperature Distribution in the Laminar Sublayer, Section 3.5.3.3
xxii
Tr Recovery temperature, mean value of recovery temperature before shock
impact
Tr1 . . . Tr6 Mean value of recovery temperature before shock impact for gauges 1
through 6
Tr0 Unsteady component of recovery temperature
Ts Mean value of static freestream temperature before shock impact, in Sec-

tion 3.5.3.1
Ts0 Unsteady component of static freestream temperature in Section 3.5.3.1
Tt Freestream total temperature
Tw Wall temperature
Tw1 . . . Tw6 Mean value of wall temperature before shock impact for gauges 1 through
6
Tw0 Unsteady component of wall temperature
v Vertical Velocity, Section 3.5.3.3
y Boundary Layer Coordinate, Section3.5.3.3
yo Boundary Layer Coordinate Prior to Disturbance, Section 3.5.3.3
Greek Symbols
p
βg k · ρ · cp , thermal product of air
∆t Sampling period, see equation (3.1), page 58
∆T Step change of gas temperature induced by incoming and reflected shock,

see equation (3.73), page 146
γ Ratio of specific heats
xxiii
η Film effectiveness, mean value of film effectiveness before shock impact,
see equation (3.19), page 89
η1 . . . η6 Mean value of film effectiveness before shock impact for gauges 1 through
6
η0 Unsteady component of film effectiveness, see equation (3.20), page 90
Π Isentropic Compression Coefficient, Section 3.5.3.3
ρ Density of air in Section 3.5.3.2
ρ0 Varying Component of Density, Section 3.5.3.3
τ Time constant of heat flux gauge
ω 2 · π frequency in Section 3.4.2
xxiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement: Turbine Blade Heat

Transfer
Economic as well as ecological demands have driven the progress in gas turbine
development over the past 60 years. The two goals most relevant to the aero-thermal
designer have always been:
1. Higher cycle efficiencies
2. Higher thrust to weight ratios
A simple analysis of a standard Brayton cycle reveals the two most influential pa-
rameters in the quest for higher efficiencies:
1
Figure 1.1: Advance of Materials and Cooling Technology. Source: Royal
Aeronautical Society / Aerospace - 1994.
γ−1

Θ · 1 − ηt · 1 − Π− γ −1
η = 1− γ−1 (1.1)
Π γ −1+η
Θ− ηc
c
Besides the turbine and compressor efficiency ηt and ηc respectively, the two governing
parameters are the ratio of highest to lowest cycle temperature Θ and the compression
ratio Π. An increase in both will increase the overall efficiency η. Consequently,
turbine inlet temperatures and compression ratios have increased dramatically in
the last decades. Until the early sixties the limiting factor for a further increase
of turbine inlet temperature was the availability of materials that could withstand
the thermal and mechanical loads. The improvement in cooling techniques, such
as internal cooling using impinging jets or simple convective cooling, continuously
extended the range of feasible turbine inlet temperatures (see Figure 1.1). A quantum
leap was achieved when external cooling techniques such as transpiration cooling,
evaporation cooling and film cooling were introduced in the late sixties and early
seventies. Of all the external cooling techniques only film cooling found a broad
2
acceptance. The best definition of film cooling was given by Goldstein (1976) as the
“introduction of a secondary fluid (coolant) at one or more discrete locations along a
surface exposed to a high temperature environment to protect that surface not only
in the immediate region of injection but also in the downstream region.” Film cooling
today is very commonly used in engines in a wide variety of applications.
While a high pressure ratio is a desirable goal for the design of high efficiency
engines, its side effects are high Reynolds Numbers in the turbine and larger over-
all engine size and weight. The higher Reynolds numbers translate into high heat
transfer coefficients and, therefore, higher heat transfer rates. With the reduction of
adiabatic wall temperature by film cooling the increase in heat transfer coefficient is
of secondary significance. The increase of weight, on the other hand, is undesirable.
This leads to the demand for higher thrust to weight ratios. The same amount of work
is to be added to or extracted from the flow with the smallest number of stages and
the smallest overall size possible. While it has been known for a long time that the
extraction or addition of work in the engine is inherently related to the unsteadiness
of the flow in the engine (Dean (1959)), it has also been shown that higher loading
causes higher levels of unsteadiness in the engine (Greitzer (1979)). To increase the
amount of work extracted from the flow in an axial turbine three relevant parame-
ters have to be increased: radius, rotational speed and circumferential flow velocity
components. The choice of radius and rotational speed are governed by mechanical
constraints and overall design decisions (number of spools, overall engine size, radial
stresses, etc.). Flow velocities, on the other hand, are a parameter to be decided upon
by the aerodynamic designer. To increase the circumferential velocity components,
the turning angles in stators and rotors have been increased significantly. Also, the
absolute velocities have exceeded the sonic limit. The flow then features trailing edge
shocks emerging from the trailing edge of the stators and/or rotors. On the other
hand, the requirement for small dimensions has decreased the spacing between blade
rows. The flowfield upstream of the rotor blade row has, therefore, become very
non-uniform: It features trailing edge shocks, distinct wakes (little spacing between
3
blade rows) and strong pressure gradients (due to the high turning in the nozzle guide
vanes). The situation is depicted schematically in Figure 1.2. For a rotor blade row
passing through a flow field of this kind, the non-uniformity presents itself in the
form of high frequency unsteadiness. The concern has since then been the predic-
tion of heat transfer under these unsteady conditions. Analytical, computational and
experimental efforts have been made to approach this task.
The work presented in this dissertation is an experimental attempt to assess

the heat transfer effect of a shock wave passing over a blade with and without film
cooling. Of all the unsteady events, the shock wave is expected to have the strongest
effect on the turbine blade heat transfer since it presents a distinct discontinuity of
all flow parameters (velocity, temperature and, most importantly, pressure).
4
NGV
Rotor
Blade
Rotation
Wakes Trailing Edge

Shocks
Figure 1.2: Schematical Depiction of the Non-Uniformity of the Flowfield

Downstream of a Modern NGV Row.
5
1.2 Literature Review
Unsteady phenomena in gas turbines have been under investigation since the
early fifties. The focus of these early efforts was to determine the effects of unsteady
phenomena on the time-averaged profile losses and the overall effect on gas turbine
operation. The problem of unsteady heat transfer in a turbine due to the interaction
between NGV shocks and wakes and the rotor blade boundary layer has been under
detailed investigation approximately since the mid-eighties and was initiated by the
work of Doorly et al. (1985) at the University of Oxford. Since then, a wide variety of
research institutes have contributed to the understanding and prediction of unsteady
heat flux on a rotor blade. These activities do not present a well concerted effort in
terms of their chronological succession. It is for this reason that an overview over
the last fifteen years of research will not be given in a chronological order. Instead,
a paragraph will be dedicated to each institute that has contributed significantly to
the topic. The order of these paragraphs will be in accordance with their degree of
relevance to the work presented in this dissertation.
In the discussion two physical parameters will be of primary interest. The heat
transfer coefficient h defined as:
q = h · (Taw − Tw ) (1.2)
In this Equation q is the heat flux, (Taw − Tw ) is the driving temperature difference.
The second parameter of importance is the film effectiveness η defined as:
Taw − Tc
η= (1.3)
Tr − Tc
6
Here Tc is the temperature of the coolant and Tr is the recovery temperature of the
freestream.
1.2.1 Research at Texas A & M University
Ou et al. (1994) and Mehendale et al. (1994) first published results from a low
speed linear turbine cascade with and without film cooling. They produced wakes
using a spoked wheel rotating in front of the cascade. Air and CO2 at freestream
temperatures were used by Ou et al. (1994) to vary the density ratio between 0.97
(Air) and 1.48 (CO2 ). The increase in heat transfer coefficient observed when intro-
ducing the wake disturbances on a blade without film cooling was very significant on
the downstream suction side. It was attributed to an earlier transition and a longer
transition length caused by the wake passing on the suction side. On a film cooled
blade this effect could not be observed. The introduction of film cooling increased the
heat transfer coefficient significantly when compared to the case without film cooling,
probably due to the early tripping of the boundary layer. The additional introduction
of the wake disturbances did not affect the heat transfer coefficient severely. Mehen-
dale et al. (1994) investigated the film effectiveness under the same conditions. The
influence of the wake passing on the film effectiveness was small (largest values around
±5 percent) and not easily explicable.
Du et al. (1997) used liquid crystals instead of surface thermocouples to de-

termine the film effectiveness and heat transfer coefficients for the same conditions
and were able to replicate the results. The conclusion from the experiments seems to
be that the main mechanism for the wakes to influence the heat transfer coefficient
is by affecting the transitional behaviour of the suction side boundary layer. In areas
free of transitional features the effects of the passing wakes were rather small.
7
1.2.2 Research at Iwate University
Funazaki et al. (1996) investigated the effect of wake passing on the time and
span averaged film effectiveness on a film cooled blunt body model in a low speed wind
tunnel. The wakes were again generated by a rotating bar mechanism. The effect of
wake passing on the time and span averaged film effectiveness was miniscule except
for the lowest blowing rate condition, where the presence of wakes decreased the film
effectiveness on the downstream part of the suction side by about eight percent. It is
unclear what the motivation behind the research could have been since actually it is a
further simplification compared to the experiments done at Texas A & M three years
earlier. The use of liquid crystals for the determination of film effectiveness may have
been an incentive. Texas A & M used this technique one year later on their setup.
1.2.3 Research at NASA Lewis Research Center
Heidmann et al. (1997) presented experimental work on a somewhat more

realistic model. An annular stationary cascade with an inlet Mach Number of 0.27
was used to investigate the effect of wake passing on a film cooled turbine blade.
The wakes were generated using a rotating bar mechanism rotating upstream of the
cascade annulus. Showerhead film cooling was applied through two rows of holes on
both the pressure and suction side and one row in the stagnation line. There was no
transition on the suction side with or without wake passing. The effects produced
by the wake generator were twofold. On the one hand, the presence of the wakes
generally increased mixing and therefore decreased the film cooling effectiveness all
along the blade. On the other hand, the wake generator also generated flow swirl.
This flow swirl caused the stagnation line on the rotor blades to move toward the
suction side, thereby causing the amount of coolant flow to decrease on the suction
side and to increase on the pressure side. This effect attenuated the effect of increased
8
mixing on the pressure side. The decrease of film effectiveness was therefore smaller
on the pressure side. On the suction side the decrease was more pronounced due to
this shift of coolant flow. Neglecting the effect of the swirl introduced by the wake
generator, the decrease of film effectiveness was not very significant. The effects of
the wake passing on the time averaged heat transfer were not reported. It can be
expected, though, that the effect will be minor since the wakes do not affect transition
on the suction side.
1.2.4 Research at Calspan-UB Research Center
In the late seventies, M.G. Dunn and other researchers at the Calspan-UB
Research Center began a long series of experiments in a full-stage rotating turbine
driven by a shock tube. An extensive list of publications has resulted from these
experiments. Film cooling has so far not been implemented. Also, no shocks were
present in the flowfield since the turbine stage was designed for a relatively low overall
pressure drop. In 1982, Dunn et al. (1982) reported on time averaged heat transfer
data obtained on the stator vane and rotor blade. After comparison with predictions
for a stand alone stator vane, they found that the presence of the rotor increases the
heat transfer on the stator vane. With increasing frequency response of the thin-
film heat flux gauges, it became possible for them to obtain time-resolved heat flux
measurements. A first attempt of analyzing this high-speed data was published in
Dunn et al. (1986). It was found that the magnitudes of the unsteady heat flux
variations decrease towards the trailing edge of the rotor blade. In 1989 Dunn et al.
(1989) finally published fully phase-locked heat transfer data taken on the rotor blade
and the shroud. For the shroud measurements it was shown that pressure and heat
flux time histories are in phase and similar in shape. The presence of trailing-edge
cooling ejection from the NGV had a major impact on the unsteady heat transfer
in the stagnation region of the rotor blade in that it increased the magnitudes of
the fluctuations by a large factor. Unfortunately, no attempts were made to model
9
or explain the unsteady heat transfer. The fact that no pressure measurements were
done on the rotor makes it hard to correlate the heat transfer data to flowfield features.
1.2.5 Research at MIT
In 1984, Epstein et al. (1984) presented the new MIT Blowdown Turbine
Facility. In 1989, Guenette et al. (1989) published a first set of on rotor time-
resolved heat transfer data. The mid span section of this rotor was tested in a linear
cascade at the University of Oxford (see Section 1.2.6). Steady as well as unsteady
pressure and heat flux data from the full scale MIT turbine and the Oxford linear
cascade were compared with reasonable success. While the flow field of the turbine
inherently featured shock waves and wakes, these had to be modeled with a rotating
bar mechanism in the cascade experiments (see Section 1.2.6). The conclusion from
this early work was that data from the full stage turbine is comparable to results from
the linear cascade with modeled unsteadiness. At this point there was no film cooling
involved with either the cascade or the rotating rig. Film cooling was introduced in
Oxford in 1990 (Rigby et al. (1990)) and at MIT in 1992 by Abhari et al. (1994). A
time averaged pressure distribution over the blade was used to numerically calculate
the steady-state heat flux to the blade. The time averaged heat flux measured on the
suction side was 12 % lower than the one calculated with the steady code. On the
pressure side the measured heat flux was 5% higher than predicted. Specifically, the
decrease of heat transfer on the suction side is a surprising finding. The effects of
unsteady phenomena were linked to the time history of the blowing ratio affected by
the varying static pressure at the coolant exits.
Abhari (1996) later developed an injection model to be implemented with a

numerical solver for time-accurate resolution of the stator-rotor interaction process.
The code was validated with steady-state film cooled cascade data obtained at the
VKI and unsteady data obtained by Abhari et al. (1994). Then a direct comparison
10
between a steady calculation and an unsteady calculation was done. It showed that
the time mean heat transfer on the suction side did not change considerably with the
introduction of unsteady phenomena. On the pressure side, on the other hand, the
film effectiveness decreased by as much as 64%. A reduction of time mean coolant
massflow due to pulsations and strong interactions with the freestream flow were
identified as the primary causes for this decrease of film effectiveness on the pressure
side.
1.2.6 Research at Oxford University
The most comprehensive body of research on the unsteady heat transfer on a

rotor blade due to shock waves and wakes has been established at the University of
Oxford. It spans from early cascade experiments with a rotating bar and without
film cooling (Doorly et al. (1985)) to full scale experiments in a rotating rig (Moss et
al. (1997)).
Doorly et al. (1985) were the first to report on high speed heat transfer data
in the linear cascade blowdown windtunnel on a rotor blade without film cooling. A
combination of shocks and wakes was created with a rotating bar mechanism rotating
upstream of the cascade at transonic speeds relative to the freestream flow. Each bar
created a small bow shock wave, a recompression shock wave and a wake impinging
on the rotor blades in the cascade. The weak bow shock and the recompression shock
wave showed almost no signature in the heat flux recorded on the suction side because
of their very low strength. The recompression shock wave created a small separation
bubble that traveled downstream along the suction side. It caused a large spike of
heat flux on its path. The second contribution to unsteady heat flux was the wake
influence on the boundary layer. The turbulence associated with this wake rendered
large portions of the boundary layer transitional, if not turbulent, for the duration of
the wake interaction. It was speculated that these turbulent patches may eventually
11
merge and that finally, the entire boundary layer may become turbulent. The way the
shock wake combination influences the heat transfer is by affecting the transitional
behavior of the boundary layer. Even though the shock strength was very low and
the effects of shocks and wakes were strongly interrelated, the study showed that the
modeling of the unsteady effects of shocks and wakes was possible in a linear cascade.
In 1988 Johnson et al. (1988) published data acquired with the same setup
but different blades and higher speeds of the rotating bar. The blades were a cas-
cade model of the midspan section used in the full scale turbine experiments done by
Guenette et al. (1989) at MIT (see Section 1.2.5). The speed of the rotating bars was
increased from M = 0.98 to M = 1.23 relative to the freestream flow. This increased
the strength of the bow shock and the recompression shock significantly. The heat
transfer due to the actual shock impingement now became the major contribution to
the overall unsteady heat transfer. The effects of the separation bubble were not dis-
cussed any further. In this paper a model is developed for the unsteady heat transfer.
The basic equation of this model — derived from the boundary layer energy equa-
tion — is identical to the one-dimensional unsteady heat conduction equation. The
gas temperature change is calculated from the static surface pressure measurement
assuming an isentropic compression. This temperature history is used in the solution
of the 1-D unsteady heat conduction equation to obtain the heat flux on the surface.
The heat transfer predicted by this method and the measured heat transfer matched
fairly well.
In 1989 Rigby et al. (1989) published a modified version of the model first
presented in Johnson et al. (1988). In this publication they also provide a detailed
derivation of the model equation. The basic assumptions behind Rigby et al. (1989)
and Johnson et al. (1988) are identical, and the results of the predictions are similar.
The experiments used for comparison were done in the same cascade.
In 1990 Johnson et al. (1990) extended their investigation to the pressure
12
side of the same cascade. Although the agreement between the model developed in
Johnson et al. (1988) in 1988 matched the measured data fairly well on the suction
side, it underpredicted heat transfer on the pressure side. The phenomenon found to
explain this discrepancy was a “Vortical Bubble” traveling down the pressure side.
It is the same phenomenon that Doorly et al. (1985) had described as a “Separation
Bubble” found to travel down the suction side.
Rigby et al. (1990) first included film cooling in the research done in the linear
cascade at Oxford University. The effects of shocks and wakes on the heat transfer
with film cooling was investigated. The values of film effectiveness obtained with
the different cooling configurations were so low that the actual heat flux increased
in some regions on the blade with the introduction of film cooling. The heat flux
signatures of both shocks and wakes that are visibly different with and without film
cooling are implying the presence of heat transfer modes different than assumed in
the compression/unsteady conduction model.
After this last attempt to model the unsteady heat transfer in a linear cascade
a new transonic turbine stage was put in service. In 1995 Moss et al. (1995) reported
the first set of unsteady heat transfer and pressure data measured on the rotor of this
facility. No film cooling was used at that time and no time average data was presented.
The NGV exit velocity of the new facility was slightly subsonic so that no shocks are
present in the flowfield. The unsteady heat flux data was compared to the heat flux
predicted using Johnson’s compression/unsteady conduction model. The agreement
was relatively poor. Assuming a constant heat transfer coefficient and calculating a
temperature change from the surface pressure data using an isentropic compression
model resulted in a predicted unsteady heat transfer that compared far better with
the measured heat flux data. The time mean heat transfer with and without the
presence of unsteady phenomena was then expected to be similar since the unsteady
heat transfer was shown to be mostly driven by a variation in temperature, which in
the presence of unsteady phenomena will vary around its mean.
13
In 1997 Moss et al. (1997) provided the proof for this argument by presenting
time averaged heat transfer data with and without the presence of wakes. The way
the “clean” inlet flowfield was established was by removing the NGV’s and spinning
the rotor in the direction opposite to its design turning direction. The time averaged
heat flux data was nearly identical for both cases. This was highly unexpected given
the wide variety of different observations mentioned above.
1.2.7 Research at Virginia Tech
At Virginia Tech, research began to focus on unsteady phenomena in turbines

around 1992. The intention was to separate the effects of shock waves and wakes
for detailed analysis. Doughty et al. (1994) developed a system to expose a linear
turbine rotor cascade to multiple incident shock waves. The work was then published
in Doughty et al. (1995). Nix et al. (1997) measured in detail the pressure and heat
flux signature of a single passing shock wave on several locations on the blade. It
became clear that unsteady pressure and heat flux correlated in strength and shape
on all measurement locations. Reid (1998) developed a numerical code to apply the
quasi-2D Navier-Stokes equations to the problem of a normal shock wave impinging
normally on a surface with boundary layer. He compared his numerical results with
experimental data from Nix et al. (1997) and found good agreement for the case of
air at rest. The agreement between data taken with the crossflow present and the
numerical results was somewhat less satisfactory.
In Popp et al. (1999) film cooling was introduced in a similar setup with large
scale blades. In an attempt to determine the influence of variations of heat transfer
coefficient and film effectiveness during shock impingement, it was found that neither
of them seemed to contribute significantly to the unsteady heat transfer. The heat
transfer was found to be driven mostly by a variation of temperature. The origin of
this temperature variation was not explained.
14
1.3 This Work
While the experimental researchers mentioned above are forced to investigate

either only wakes or a combination of wakes and shocks, the setup at Virginia Tech
allows for the investigation of the shock interaction in isolation. Therefore, it can
be seen as a necessary completion of the research efforts described in Section 1.2.
The possibility of measuring heat flux directly using Vatell HFM-7/L high speed
heat flux transducers allows a very detailed and accurate analysis of the effects of
the shock-blade interaction. In combination with Kulite XCQ-062-50a high speed
pressure transducers it is possible to link the unsteady heat flux to aerodynamic flow
field phenomena. With the introduction of film cooling the size of the blades had
to be increased from earlier experiments to accommodate all the sensors necessary.
Other advantages of this up-scaling were the reduction of the relative footprint of the
heat flux and pressure sensors and a more realistic Reynolds Number level. It was
decided to only investigate the suction side of the blade since the effect of the shock
wave was expected to be most significant at this location. Preliminary results were
obtained with only one set of gauges on the suction side. They are not reported here
but are summarized in Popp et al. (1999) in Appendix G. The conclusions from
this set of experiments were surprising. The heat transfer coefficient and the film
effectiveness were not significantly affected by the shock impact. In order to validate
this conclusion, more measurement locations and different physical parameters had
to be investigated.
In order to be able to investigate the unsteady heat transfer, some physical

parameters from a steady analysis had to be known. Section 2 refers to the Mas-
ter’s Theses by Bubb (1999) and Smith (1999) for an in-depth description of the
steady state experiments without shock interference. Only the very basic information
necessary to the understanding of the unsteady investigation will be given.
15
Section 3 presents in detail the investigation of the unsteady heat transfer due
to shock passing.
16
1.4 Overview
This thesis is divided into two major parts: “Steady Heat Transfer” (Section 2)
and “Unsteady Heat Transfer” (Section 3). The Section on “Steady Heat Transfer”
has been added for completeness; the focus of this work is clearly on the unsteady heat
transfer. In the Section “Unsteady Heat Transfer”, two different ways of analyzing
the unsteady heat transfer due to shock passing are presented. They are referred to
as “Unsteady Decomposition” and “Direct Comparison”.
The basic idea behind the analysis of unsteady heat transfer according to the
technique labeled “Unsteady Decomposition” is the comparison of heat flux traces
initiated at different levels of heat flux. This comparison combined with a mathemat-
ical decomposition of all physical parameters involved provides insight in the relative
magnitude of different contributions to the overall unsteady heat flux. This method
does not require the measurement of static surface pressure on the blade, since only
heat flux traces are needed. The pressure data was used only as a redundant monitor
of the shock passing event. Using this technique, a wide variety of experiments were
analyzed. The level of heat flux before shock impingement was varied in three steps,
the strength of the passing shock wave in two steps and the ratio of the total pressure
of the coolant and the freestream total pressure in two steps as well. This resulted in
twelve overall experiments with film cooling and six experiments without film cooling.
Heat flux data from five heat flux sensors was used in the analysis.
The method labeled “Direct Comparison” was applied only to two different
sets of experiments. Two experiments with and one without film cooling. Only one
shock strength and one level of initial heat flux were chosen for this type of analysis.
Also, only data from two measurement locations was used. The models for predicting
unsteady heat flux evaluated in this direct comparison all use static surface pressure
to predict the heat flux. Therefore, more care had to be applied in acquiring and
17
processing pressure and heat flux data.
Each of these methods required different sets of experiments, different instru-

mentation and data acquisition and different strategies of signal processing. There-
fore, Sections “Steady Heat Transfer” 2, “Instrumentation and Data Acquisition” 3.3
and “Signal Processing” 3.4 refer to the two different analytical methods even though
they will not be introduced in detail before Section “Results and Discussion” 3.5.
18
Chapter 2
Steady Heat Transfer
2.1 Introduction and Problem Statement
The analysis of the unsteady heat transfer due to the shock passing event
required the establishment of a cascade with well defined heat transfer characteristics
with and without film cooling. In order to analyze the unsteady heat transfer due to
shock impingement, the following parameters had to be known:
• The heat transfer coefficient before the shock impact without film cooling.
• The heat transfer coefficient and the film effectiveness before shock impact for
the case with the film cooled blade.
In this Chapter the experimental setup and the procedure used to determine these
parameters will be described briefly. For more detailed information the reader is
referred to Bubb (1999) and Smith (1999).
19
2.2 Experimental Setup for Steady Experiments
The transonic blowdown windtunnel of Virginia Tech is shown in Figure 2.1.

A four stage reciprocating compressor is loading outside storage tanks with high
pressure air. Upon opening of the on/off valve, the air is allowed through the system
of pipes and the test section and exhausted to the atmosphere. The heater loop is
used to heat up a stack of copper tubes in the main flow path prior to the tunnel run.
During the tunnel run the air takes this stored heat from the copper tubes which act
like a passive heat exchanger. This way the air will be significantly hotter than the
blades in the test section. This temperature difference is needed to obtain reasonably
high heat flux readings on the blade. The instrumented blade is shown in Figure 2.2.
High Scale
Pressure Air
1ft.
Flapper Valve Test Section

Heat Exchanger
Circulation
Valve
Heater Exhaust
Figure 2.1: Transonic Blowdown Windtunnel at Virginia Tech, from Smith

(1999).
Six measurement locations are staggered chordwise and spanwise along the suction
side (1 through 6 in the upper right figure). The reasons for this arrangement are
twofold:
1. The measurement locations were chosen to be on the suction side because the
20
passing shock was expected to have the most significant impact there.
2. The gauges were staggered in the spanwise direction to avoid the gauges from af-
fecting the reading of the downstream sensors by disturbing the boundary layer.
It was determined by oil flow visualization that the flow over the instrumented
area is two-dimensional (see Bubb (1999)).
As seen in the Figure, each measurement location consists of three sensors: A Kulite
XCQ-062-50a pressure transducer ((a) in lower right schematic), a surface thermo-
couple built in house ((c) in lower right schematic) and a Vatell HFM-7/L heat flux
microsensor consisting of a heat flux sensor and a surface temperature thermistor ((b)
in lower right schematic). The Kulite XCQ-062-50a pressure transducers provide low
and high speed measurements of static surface pressure. The dynamic characteristic
of these transducers was investigated in detail and is presented in Appendix B. The
Vatell HFM-7/L heat flux microsensor consists of two independent sensors. One of
them provides a direct reading of surface heat flux up to high frequencies. The dynam-
ic behavior of this sensor was investigated. Details of the investigation are shown in
Appendix C. The second part of the sensor is a surface resistance temperature device
(RTD). The surface thermocouple is used as a backup and calibration device for this
RTD. The outputs from the thin-film RTD’s were zeroed before a set of experiments
when the blade was considered to be at thermal equilibrium. A mean temperature
reading from the surface thermocouples before the experiments was used as the ref-
erence temperature for the determination of the RTD temperature during the run.
The difference between the temperature readings of the RTDs and the thermocou-
ples at one location can be as large as 2◦ C for certain experiments, which has to be
attributed to drift in the amplifier and a difference between the actual thermocouple
reading and the average thermocouple reading before the experiments. The transient
temperature histories of the surface thermocouple and the RTD during the tunnel
run are similar in shape and magnitude. The difference in the transient component of
the temperature histories is usually less than 0.8◦ C . The temperature difference be-
21
tween the thermocouples and the RTDs is caused by the difference in thickness of the
two surface temperature measurements. Since the surface thermocouple penetrates
deeper into the surface it lags behind the surface temperature history as measured
by the RTD.
The cooling scheme consists of six rows of cooling holes (7 through 12 in upper
left figure). Their diameter is 0.041 in. and the ratio of hole spacing to diameter is
about nine. The rows are staggered half the pitch with respect to the neighboring
rows. Only three rows of cooling holes actually provide cooling to the suction side
(7,8,9). Rows 8 and 9 are inclined 30◦ from the spanwise direction and are normal to
the chordwise tangent. Row 7 is in the chordwise plane and forms an angle of 30◦ with
the chordwise tangent. For a more detailed explanation see Smith (1999). The holes
labeled (a) in the lower left schematic are used for surface pressure measurements
at the exit location of each row. The next column labeled (b) is equipped with a
thermocouple to measure the coolant exit temperature for each row of cooling holes.
For a more detailed description of the instrumentation around the showerhead see
Bubb (1999).
The blade was supplied with coolant air by the system depicted schematically
in Figure 2.3. A 5 horse power Ingersoll-Rand compressor in combination with a filter
and dryer supplies clean and dry (less than 5% relative humidity) air to a large (2.92
m3 ) storage tank. A control valve lowers the pressure in order to maintain a preset
pressure difference between the coolant plenum in the blade and the freestream in
the cascade. The coolant mass flow is then metered by an orifice plate. It is chilled
in a simple heat exchanger. The heat exchanger consists of copper coils immersed
in liquid nitrogen. The coolant then enters the coolant plenum in the blade. A
differential pressure transducer measures the difference between the total pressure in
the plenum and the total pressure in the cascade. The voltage from this transducer
is compared to a voltage set by the user. The difference between the two voltages is
integrated with respect to time in an analog circuit. The resulting output voltage is
22
fed to a electro-pneumatic converter which outputs a pressure signal to the control
valve, thereby closing the control loop. This control loop will keep the difference
between total pressure in the coolant plenum and the freestream total pressure in the
cascade constant. A pressure difference set by means of the objective voltage prior to
the run will be maintained during the run and under changing freestream conditions.
For more details on the pressure control, the reader is referred to Bubb (1999).
23
7
8 12
9 6 5 4 3 2 1
10 11
a
a
b b
Coolant Exit Enlargement Triplet Location Enlargement
Figure 2.2: Instrumented Film Cooled Blade, from Bubb (1999).
24
Filter Dryer Valve
Compressor
Tank
Plenum Pressure
Mass Flow Tunnel

Meter Pressure Pressure
Control
Chiller
Figure 2.3: Coolant Supply Schematic.
25
2.3 Data Reduction Technique
2.3.1 Analysis of Uncooled Experiments
Figure 2.4 shows the time history of a tunnel run without film cooling. Shown
are the traces of upstream total temperature and the heat flux and surface tempera-
ture measured on gauge location 3. It is clear that the experiments are not “steady”
110 5
100
4
90 Tt
Tw3
q3
80 3
Heat Flux [ W/cm² ]

Temperature [ °C ]
70
2
60
50 1
40
0
30
20 −1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [ s ]
Figure 2.4: Time History From Uncooled Experiment.
in the true sense. The temperature and heat flux levels vary significantly with time.
The reason these experiments are referred to as “steady” lies in the fact that the
changes are so slow that each data point can be considered a steady state. Any time
26
scale related to the boundary layer or core flow will be orders of magnitude smaller
than the rate of change of the properties shown in Figure 2.4.
The basic Equation defining the heat transfer coefficient can be stated as fol-
lows:
q = h · (Taw − Tw ) (2.1)
Without film cooling, the adiabatic wall temperature Taw can be replaced by the
recovery temperature for high speed flows Tr :
q = h · (Tr − Tw ) (2.2)
The difference between freestream total temperature Tt and recovery temperature Tr

is a constant according to:
u2
Td ≡ Tt − Tr = (1 − r) · (2.3)
2 · cp
where u is the local freestream velocity and r is the local recovery factor. Replacing
Tr in Equation 2.2 yields after rearrangement:
q = h · ((Tt − Tw ) − Td ) (2.4)
27
Assuming that the heat transfer coefficient h is a constant throughout the run, this
Equation is a linear relationship between q as the dependent variable and (Tt − Tw )
as the independent variable. The heat transfer coefficient h is the slope and Td is
the x-axis intercept. Plotting the data shown in Figure 2.4 with q on the y-axis and
(Tt − Tw ) on the x-axis, the value of h can be found as the slope of the resulting curve
and Td as the x-axis intercept. The result is shown in Figure 2.5. This illustrates how
3.5
2.5
2 Slope=h
q [ W/cm² ]
h= 581.2021 W/(m² °C) Td= 6.1233

1.5
3
0.5
−0.5
0 T 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
d (T − T ) [ °C ]
t w3
Figure 2.5: Determination of h and Td .
Td (difference between total freestream temperature and recovery temperature) and

the heat transfer coefficient without film cooling were determined. All of them need
to be known for all gauges and experiments in the investigation of heat transfer due
to shock passing. For more detailed information on this technique see Smith (1999)
and Bubb (1999).
28
Table 2.1: Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients for all Gauges and All Un-
cooled Experiments for “Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section
3.5.2.2)
Run # h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6
[ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ mW
W W W W W
2 ·K ]
1 1085.9 787.5 702.6 904.3 871.1 1069.1

2 1103.2 795.4 712.0 917.8 901.3 1131.0
3 1104.5 804.1 707.1 901.7 881.0 1112.3
4 1126.8 818.7 724.0 933.8 911.9 1143.6
5 1097.5 797.7 708.4 914.4 894.8 1119.3
6 1100.5 798.7 707.5 914.4 896.0 1131.5
2.3.2 Results from Uncooled Experiments
The results from these experiments are the heat transfer coefficient without
film cooling and the difference between total temperature and recovery temperature
Td needed in both experiments with and without film cooling. They are listed in this
Section for completeness.
Steady Data for Experiments without Film Cooling and “Unsteady De-
composition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.2)
The results for heat transfer coefficients are listed in Table 2.1. For a discussion
of bias, precision and uncertainty estimates see Appendix E taken from Bubb (1999).
The values obtained for the difference between freestream total temperature
and recovery temperature Td are listed in Table 2.2. For the calculation of recovery
temperature in the experiments with and without film cooling the mean Tdi will be
used for consistency. Uncertainties on Tdi are discussed in Appendix E.
29
Table 2.2: Td = Tt − Tr for all Gauges and All Uncooled Experiments for
“Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.2)
Run # Td1 Td2 Td3 Td4 Td5 Td6
[ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ ◦C ]
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
1 5.0 4.4 5.5 8.8 10.0 16.5

2 5.7 5.0 5.8 8.6 9.7 16.2
3 6.2 5.3 5.9 9.4 10.5 16.5
4 7.1 6.1 6.3 9.3 10.5 16.8
5 5.1 4.4 5.1 8.8 9.9 15.4
6 6.6 5.7 6.1 9.3 10.5 16.6
mean 5.95 5.15 5.78 9.03 10.18 16.33
30
Table 2.3: h and Td = Tt − Tr for Gauges 1 and 2. Uncooled Run # 3 for
“Direct Comparison” (Sections 3.5.3)
Gauge# hi Tdi
[ m2 ·K ] [ ◦ C ]
W
1 660.0 6.7
2 680.0 6.2
Steady Data for Experiments without Film Cooling and “Direct Compar-
ison”(Section 3.5.3)
Only three experiments were done for the test series compared to analytical
models by Moss et al. (1995), Johnson et al. (1988) and Rigby et al. (1989). The
first two runs were with film cooling and only the last experiment was uncooled. Also
only gauge locations 1 and 2 were used. The results for h and Td are listed in Table
2.3. For consistency, the mean values of Td were used for the calculation of Tr for
both the cooled experiments Run #1 and Run #2 as well as the uncooled Run # 3.
31
2.3.3 Analysis of Cooled Experiments
Figure 2.6 shows a sample time history for an experiment with film cooling.
The traces shown are freestream total temperature, coolant temperature (mass aver-
aged over the three rows of coolant affecting the suction side) and surface temperature
as well as heat flux measured at location # 3. The basic quation defining the heat
100 3
T
t
Tw3
2.5
Tc
q3
2
50
Heat Flux [ W/cm² ]

Temperature [ °C ]
1.5
0.5
0
−0.5
−50 −1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [ s ]
Figure 2.6: Time History From Experiment with Film Cooling.
transfer coefficient is again:
q = hc · (Taw − Tw ) (2.5)
32
The adiabatic wall temperature is usually expressed in terms of the non-dimensional
film effectiveness:
Taw − Tr
η= (2.6)
Tc − Tr
Rearranging and substituting into the first Equation yields:
q = hc · ((Tr − Tw ) − η · (Tr − Tc )) (2.7)
Dividing by (Tr − Tw ) yields:

q Tr − Tw
= hc · −η (2.8)
Tr − Tc Tr − Tc
Assuming that hc and η are constant throughout the run this Equation is a linear
Tr −Tw q
relation between the independent variable Tr −Tc
and the dependent variable Tr −Tc
.
Plotting the data shown in Figure 2.6 in this manner one obtains the heat transfer
coefficient hc as the slope of the curve and the film effectiveness η as the x-axis
intercept. This is shown in Figure 2.7. Note that the recovery temperature Tr was
calculated from Tt by subtracting Td determined from uncooled runs as described in
Section 2.3.1. The values of film effectiveness η and heat transfer coefficient hc are
necessary for the analysis of the unsteady heat transfer due to shock passing. For
more detailed information on this technique and an uncertainty analysis the reader
is referred to Bubb (1999).
33
0.02
0.015
0.01 hc= 617.4271 W/m² °C η= 0.27429 Slope=h

c
q/(T − T ) [ W/cm² °C ]
0.005
c
0
r
−0.005
−0.01
η
−0.015
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(T − T )/(T − T ) [ − ]
r w3 r c
Figure 2.7: Determination of hc and η.
2.3.4 Results from Cooled Experiments
The results from these experiments are the heat transfer coefficient with film
cooling hc and the film effectiveness η. They are listed in this Section for completeness.
Steady Data for Experiments with Film Cooling and “Unsteady Decom-
position” Technique
The results for heat transfer coefficients are listed in Table 2.4. The results for
the film effectiveness are listed in Table 2.5. The values for Run # 8 could not be
34
Table 2.4: Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients for all Gauges and All Cooled
Experiments for “Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.4)
Run # hc1 hc2 hc3 hc4 hc5 hc6
[ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ mW
W W W W W
2 ·K ]
1 1512.5 956.7 755.2 1014.4 1028.2 1373.0

2 1403.3 940.2 752.9 997.7 969.9 1341.9
3 1302.0 859.1 784.2 1022.1 983.7 1203.4
4 1375.2 887.5 776.5 1021.3 1014.8 1256.7
5 1354.4 920.1 768.2 914.6 969.1 1248.2
6 1374.0 919.6 752.2 965.3 953.9 1254.6
7 867.8 875.8 654.9 1098.2 988.5 1200.0
8 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
9 1332.9 919.5 718.1 984.1 954.9 1329.1
10 1318.3 899.3 770.4 989.7 979.7 1312.5
11 1218.8 869.1 763.0 993.9 998.1 1251.9
12 1318.9 844.8 762.6 952.9 988.3 1245.4
obtained since the low speed data acquisition failed to write to file. For an uncertainty
analysis on the heat transfer coefficient and film cooling effectiveness see Appendix E.
Runs 1,2,5,6,9,10 were done at a lower blowing rate ( pp∞c = 1.04) and runs 3,4,7,8,11,12
were done at a higher blowing rate ( pp∞c = 1.20). This contributes to the differences
in hc and η.
35
Table 2.5: Mean Film Cooling Effectiveness for all Gauges and All Cooled
Experiments for “Unsteady Decomposition” Technique (Section 3.5.2.4)
Run # η1 η2 η3 η4 η5 η6
[−] [−] [−] [−] [−] [−]
1 0.309 0.181 0.347 0.226 0.188 0.269
2 0.296 0.184 0.327 0.223 0.176 0.279
3 0.174 0.154 0.194 0.235 0.159 0.188
4 0.231 0.176 0.200 0.237 0.172 0.216
5 0.332 0.184 0.353 0.221 0.204 0.274
6 0.310 0.190 0.341 0.221 0.193 0.274
7 0.256 0.201 0.190 0.215 0.178 0.247
9 0.289 0.164 0.325 0.210 0.179 0.293
10 0.331 0.181 0.345 0.225 0.198 0.278
11 0.201 0.177 0.209 0.220 0.167 0.217
12 0.151 0.148 0.188 0.204 0.145 0.219
36
Steady Data for Experiments with Film Cooling and “Direct Comparison”
The first two experimets done for the analysis by comparison with analytical
models were with film cooling. Only data from gauge locations 1 and 2 are available.
The steady-state values for hc and η for these experiments and gauges are listed in
pc
Table 2.6. Both runs were done at a blowing pressure of p∞
= 1.04.
Table 2.6: hc and η for Gauges 1 and 2. Cooled Runs # 1 and #2 for
“Direct Comparison” (Sections 3.5.3)
Run # hc1 hc2 η1 η2
W W
[ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [−] [−]
1 862 795 0.30 0.18
2 775 800 0.33 0.19
37
Chapter 3
Unsteady Heat Transfer
3.1 Experimental Setup for Investigation of Un-

steady Heat Flux
Without the opportunity for performing experiments in a rotating cascade a

method has to be found to model the relative motion of the shock wave and the blades
in the cascade. A rotating bar mechanism was not an option since the effects of the
shock wave were to be investigated separately. A rotating bar mechanism as designed
and built by the University of Oxford is disadvantageous because it is problematic to
separate the effects of wakes and shocks. The first successful attempt at creating an
isolated shock wave to pass over a linear cascade was reported on by Collie (1991)
from Virginia Tech. A shotgun was used to create a shock wave of desired strength.
Doughty (1994) replaced the shotgun by a normal shock tube. This shock tube
produces a normal shock wave that is guided it into the test section. As the normal
shock wave expands into the open space of the cascade it transforms into a cylindrical
detonation or blast wave. This blast wave represents the flow relative to the rotor
38
passage better than a normal shock would. The characteristics of the shock wave
were calculated and described in detail in Doughty (1994). The shock apparatus used
in the present investigation is essentially identical to the one developed by Doughty
(1994)
3.1.1 Shock Apparatus
An overview over the entire shock apparatus is shown in Figure 3.1. The
elements of the apparatus will be described in detail in the following paragraphs.
Pneumatic Valve to Operate the Shocktube
A pneumatic valve controls the flow of driver gas into the driven section of
the shocktube. This control valve is actuated from a pneumatic switch mounted
on the tunnel control desk. The valve will be in the open position as long as the
switch is pressed down. After the release of the switch it will turn off. This setup is
advantageous over a manual control of the driver fluid since the shock can be triggered
by the person in charge of the tunnel control.
Shock Tube
The shock tube was originally designed and hydro-tested by Doughty. The
mechanical details of the shock tube can be found in Doughty (1994) in Section 3.3.
The strength of the shock arriving at the instrumented blade depends directly
on the strength of the normal shock wave created in the shock tube (see the cal-
39
Damping "Shock Shaper"
Shock Foam
3/4" ID Flexible Tubing (1500 psi)

Propogation
Direction
Helium or
Air Bottle
Pneumatic
Valve
Operate from
Tunnel Control
Desk
Shock Tube Driver Section Shock Tube Driven Section

Diaphragm:
3 or 4 Disks of
7/1000" Thickness
Figure 3.1: Overview of the Shock Apparatus.
40
culations in Doughty (1994)) for details). This strength is controlled by the overall
thickness of diaphragms inserted between the flanges separating the driver section and
the driven section. For the present study, two cases were investigated: 3 diaphragms
(approximate shock strength on the blade is 1.23 in terms of static pressure ratio) and
4 diaphragms (resulting in shock strength of about 1.32). The diaphragms are cut
from clear Mylar sheets of 0.007 in. thickness. Helium was used to create a stronger
shock without higher driver pressure (see Chapman (1971) for a good descripion of
shock tube fluid mechanics). The burst pressure in the driver section was around 350
psig for the experiments with three diaphragms (nominal shock strength) and slightly
higher for the experiments with four diaphragms (higher shock strength).
Flexible Tubing
In the original setup used by Doughty, the distance between the shock shaper
and the instrumented blade was significantly shorter than in the present setup. The
shock strength at arrival on the test blade, therefore, was higher than observed in the
preliminary experiments with the present setup. Increasing the number of diaphragms
beyond six (0.042 in. overall thickness) was not feasible since the pressure induced
by the shock wave reflected off the endcap would have exceeded the rating of the
shock tube. Therefore, a larger diameter flexible tube had to be used to increase
the overall energy passing into the test section. The original diameter was 1/2 in.
nominal ID. It was replaced with a 3/4 in. flexible tube rated up to 1500 psi. The
resulting shock strength was indeed significantly higher than the one measured when
using the smaller diameter tubing.
41
Shock Shaper
The purpose of the shock shaper is to transition from the circular normal shock
wave coming out of the flexible tube to a cylindrical blast wave stretching over the
entire width of the test section. Doughty did extensive work on the design of the
shock shaper as reported in Section 3.5 in Doughty (1994). A new shock shaper had
to be built, because the diameter of the flexible tube was increased. The design for
the new shock shaper is shown in Figure 3.2. Except for the height of the diverging
duct, all dimensions were kept the same.
Damping Foam
It became clear after some preliminary tests that the shock emerging from
the shock shaper creates a strong reflection off the upper surface of the cascade.
The reflection then travels after the primary shock wave, slowly catching up to it.
So instead of one shock wave two shock waves impinge on the blade. After several
attempts to solve the problem a 1/2 in. layer of foam glued to the upper surface
successfully decreased the strength of the reflected shock (see Figure 3.1).
42
Shock Shaper
3.00
3/4 in Sch. 40
Black Iron Pipe
Pipe Welded to Cone

12˚
11.76
Material:
1/16 Mild Steel
1.00
A
6.00
Cowl for Shock Shaper
9.00
Material:
1/16 Mild Steel
6.00 1.875
B
2.30
A
6.00
4.00
B
C C
7.00
Figure 3.2: Shock Shaper Design.
43
3.2 Test Matrix
In Section 3.5 “Results and Discussion” two entirely different ways of analyz-
ing the unsteady heat transfer data are presented. The first one is referred to as
“Unsteady Decomposition” and the second one “Direct Comparison”. The former
was developed at Virginia Tech and will be of primary interest in the analysis. A
wide variety of parameters were varied in order to generalize the conclusions. The
three parameters varied are the initial level of heat flux, the shock strength and —
for the case with film cooling — the ratio of total pressure of the coolant to the total
pressure of the freestream. The schematic in Figure 3.3 shows the parameters and
their corresponding values. The shock strength is expressed as the ratio of the peak
static pressure over the static pressure before shock impact. The shock of the lower
strength was created using three diaphragms of 0.007 in. thickness in the shock tube.
For the higher shock strength four diaphragms of the same thickness were used.
Without Film Cooling With Film Cooling
Parameter Values Parameter Values
Level of Heat Flux Low Level of Heat Flux Low

Before Schock Passing Medium Before Schock Passing Medium
High High
Shock Strength 1.23 (nominal) Shock Strength 1.23 (nominal)

(pmax/p) 1.32 (high) (pmax/p) 1.32 (high)
Total Pressure Ratio 1.04 (nominal)

ptc/ptf 1.20 (high)
Number of Tests = 6 Number of Tests = 12
Heat Flux Gauges Used: Gauges #1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Pressure Sensors Used: Gauges #2, 4, 5, 6
Figure 3.3: Test Matrix for Experiments With and Without Film Cooling
for Test Series “Unsteady Decomposition”.
44
The second test series labeled “Direct Comparison” compares the results from
predictive models published in the literature to actual heat flux data. It was not
necessary or of interest to perform this comparison at different conditions. Therefore,
only one value was chosen for each parameter and three experiments were performed,
two with and one without film cooling. Also only pressure and heat flux data from
gauge locations # 1 and #2 were analyzed. The short test matrix for this set of
experiments is shown in Figure 3.4. The value of shock strength in terms of the static
pressure ratio is higher in this figure than the number in Figure 3.3. The reason for
this is that the pressure signal was recorded and processed differently for the two test
series as explained in detail in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. The actual shock was of the
same strength as the stronger shock in test matrix 3.3. Both were created using four
diaphragms of 0.007 in. thickness in the shock tube.
Without Film Cooling With Film Cooling
Parameter Values Parameter Values
Level of Heat Flux Level of Heat Flux

Before Schock Passing Medium Before Schock Passing Medium
Shock Strength 1.5 (high) Shock Strength 1.5 (high)

(pmax/p) (pmax/p)
Total Pressure Ratio 1.04 (nominal)

ptc/ptf
Number of Tests = 1 Number of Tests = 2 (one repeat)
Heat Flux Gauges Used: Gauges #1, 2

Pressure Sensors Used: Gauges #1, 2
Figure 3.4: Test Matrix for Experiments With and Without Film Cooling
for Test Series “Direct Comparison”.
The instrumentation, data acquisition and signal processing procedure for both
the “Unsteady Decomposition” and the “Direct Comparison” will be described in
45
detail in the following Sections.
46
3.3 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition for
Unsteady Measurements
In measuring high speed events like a passing shock, the dynamic behavior of
the entire measurement chain is of utmost importance. The dynamic characteristics
of each and every component has to be known in order to clearly establish how well
a measurement represents the real event. Theoretically, it is impossible to obtain a
“correct” representation of a shock wave. A shock wave is represented mathematically
by a discontinuity. The frequency content of a discontinuity is infinitely wide. It can
only be the goal in this investigation to obtain as wide a frequency range as possible
and be content with the representation of the real event in this frequency band. The
effort has to be to obtain the best possible representation of the event in this frequency
band.
3.3.1 Unsteady Pressure Measurements for Test Series “Un-

steady Decomposition”
In the test series for the “Unsteady Decomposition” technique presented in

Section 3.5.2 the pressure measurement is not crucial in terms of the analysis. The
data is analyzed by mere comparison of heat flux traces from different runs. Still, it
was desired to have a second measurement to monitor the unsteady shock event. As
a result the Kulite XCQ-062-50a pressure sensors were used in the frequency range
below 25 kHz where the sensors show little phase shift and signal attenuation.
The entire measurement chain for the unsteady pressure measurements in this
particular test series is shown in Figure 3.5.
47
Vref=0.095V
VTrigger (+5V,-5V)
Gauge Gauge
Location Serial #
1 147 Trigger
2 148 In
3 149
4 150
5 151
6 109
Kulite Transducers Measurements Group Frequency Devices LeCroy Waveform
XCQ-062-50a, 6029-5A- 2310 Strain Gauge Model 9064 Recorder 6810
Conditioner and Signal Low-Pass Filter: Sampling Period=2µs
Amplifier: Cut-Off Frequency= FSV=1V (±0.5V)
Gain=10 25.2 kHz olli1.set
Filter=Wide Band
Zeroed at Ambient
Pressure
Figure 3.5: Measurement Chain for Unsteady Pressure Measurements for

Test Series “Unsteady Decomposition” in Section 3.5.2.
Kulite XCQ-062-50a Pressure Transducers
The dynamic behaviour of the Kulite XCQ-062-50a pressure transducers is

studied in detail in Appendix B. The fact that the transducers are protected by a
B-Screen reduces the frequency response significantly. In the frequency range up to
25 kHz the transfer function is relatively flat in terms of magnitude and phase.
Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Am-

plifier
The “wide band” setting on the amplifier provides the widest range of usable
frequency band. Nevertheless, the transfer function of this device is still dependent
on the gain setting. The transfer functions of the Measurements Group 2310 Strain
Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier at different gain settings is shown in Ap-
pendix D. Since the pressure transducers will only be used up to 25 kHz, the amplifier
48
is not going to interfere with the signal content at a gain of 10 (see appendix D).
Frequency Devices Model 9064 Low-Pass Filter
The 8-Pole Butterworth Low-Pass filters were set to a cut-off frequency of

25.2 kHz in order to avoid a misrepresentation of the shock due to the strong phase
shift and signal attenuation by the pressure transducers. This frequency range is
not wide enough to provide a good approximation of the actual event. Since the
pressure measurements were not used in the analysis other than for timing purposes,
no realistic measurements were needed.
LeCroy Waveform Recorder 6810
Two Le Croy systems had to be used for the data acquisition since 12 channels
had to be recorded (six heat flux signals and six pressure signals). A new version
of the driver software had to be installed to run both modules at the same time
(E:\catlyst\catlst). The sampling frequency for this particular set of tests was set
to 500 kHz. The data acquisition was triggered by a very simple comparator circuit
shown in Figure 3.5. The trigger was dc coupled at a level of 0.196 Volts and set to a
delay of -1/8 (about 500µs). The full scale voltage was set to 1 V (±0.5 V, resolution
of 0.2 mV) to ensure good resolution with the 12-bit acquisition system.
49
3.3.2 Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements for Test Series “Un-
steady Decomposition”
For the data and analysis presented in Section 3.5.2 the heat flux measurements
were of higher importance than the pressure measurements. Mainly, it was necessary
to obtain data from different experiments and gauges recorded with a sufficiently
wide frequency band to gather enough information about the shock passing process.
It was also necessary to record all gauges and experiments the same way in order to
compare different traces.
The dynamic behaviour of the VaTell HFM-7 Heat Flux was assumed to be a
first order system with a time constant of about 6µs. However, later this assumption
appeared to be not quite correct (see Appendix C). For the direct comparison of two
different heat flux time histories this does not present a major drawback. Basically,
it is still possible to compare two representations of an event which are inadequate in
the same way.
The entire measurement chain for the unsteady heat flux measurements in this
particular test series is shown in Figure 3.6.
Vatell HFM-7/L Heat Flux Sensors
The dynamic behavior of the Vatell HFM-7/L heat flux sensors was studied
in detail in Appendix C. Unfortunately, this work was done after the test series for
the “Unsteady Decomposition” analysis was completed. It showed that the gauge
responded like a first order system with a time constant of about 17µs. Since in
this investigation the direct comparison between different runs was important, no
correction for this first order characteristic was done.
50
Trigger from Kulite #4
Gauge Gauge or Second LeCroy Module
Location Serial #
1 387
2 388
3 389
4 391
5 397
6 390
Vatell Heat Flux Vatell Amplifier 6 Frequency Devices LeCroy Waveform
Microsensor HFM-7/L Gain=100 Model 9064 Recorder 6810
Low-Pass Filter: Sampling Period=2µs
Cut-Off Frequency= FSV=1V (±0.5V)
102 kHz olli1.set
Figure 3.6: Measurement Chain for Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements

for Test Series “Unsteady Decomposition” in Section 3.5.2.
Vatell Amplifier 6
The Gain-Bandwidth Product of the Analog Devices Op-Amp used in the

Vatell Amplifier 6 is given as 25 MHz. It was therefore decided that at a gain setting
of 100 the frequency band of the amplifier would not interfere with the gauge response
up to the cut-off frequency of 102 kHz.
Frequency Devices Model 9064 Low-Pass Filter
The 8-Pole Butterworth Low-Pass filters were set to a cut-off frequency of

102 kHz. The magnitude of the gauge transfer function has already reached a very
low value at this frequency (0.25 for τ = 6µs, 0.09 for τ = 17µs) so no significant
information will be lost. But aliassing and noise will be suppressed by this filter
setting.
51
LeCroy Waveform Recorder 6810
The settings on the LeCroy Waveform Recorder were identical to the settings
described in Section 3.3.1.
52
3.3.3 Unsteady Pressure Measurements for “Direct Compar-
ison”
In Sections 3.5.3.1, 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 the unsteady heat transfer is predicted
from the static pressure measured on the blade. This means that an accurate repre-
sentation of the shock event in terms of pressure and heat flux is absolutely necessary.
The matter is very complex since the Kulite XCQ-062-50a transducers and the Vatell
HFM-7/L heat flux sensors show very different dynamic characteristics. Also, the
influence of the measurement chains have to be known in order to avoid interference
from different transfer functions. All components of the pressure measurement chain
were investigated thoroughly and the setup shown in Figure 3.7 was found to be ad-
equate for the goals of the investigation according to Moss’ Model. The two main
Vref=0.095V
VTrigger (+5V,-5V)
Gauge Gauge
Location Serial #
1 147 Trigger
2 148 In
4 150
Kulite Transducers Measurements Group Frequency Devices LeCroy Waveform

XCQ-062-50a, 6029-5A- 2310 Strain Gauge Model 9064 Recorder 6810
Conditioner and Signal Low-Pass Filter: Sampling Period=2µs
Amplifier: Cut-Off Frequency= FSV=1V (±0.5V)
Gain=10 102 kHz olli1.set
Filter=Wide Band
Zeroed at Ambient
Pressure
Figure 3.7: Measurement Chain for Unsteady Pressure Measurements for

“Direct Comparison.”
differences between this setup and the one shown in Figure 3.5 in Section 3.3.1 are
that only data from the first two locations are recorded and that the cut-off frequency
on the Frequency Devices Model 9064 Low-Pass Filters is set to 102 kHz instead of
53
25 kHz in the test series for the “Unsteady Decomposition” analysis. It was neces-
sary to extend the frequency range acquired with the pressure sensors in order to
obtain a better representation of the physical event since a direct comparison with
the results from the heat flux sensors was to be accomplished. The transfer function
of the Kulite XCQ-062-50a pressure sensors shown in Appendix B show very strong
signal attenuations and phase shifts in the frequency range of up to 102 kHz. Also
the Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier shows
some influence in the frequency range measured (see Appendix D). The signal from
the pressure sensors will have to be corrected for these characteristics. This process
is presented in Section 3.4.1.
54
3.3.4 Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements for “Direct Com-
parison”
The measurement of unsteady heat flux for the investigation according to the
models by Moss, Johnson and Rigby (sections 3.5.3.1, 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 respectively)
was essentially identical to the setup used in the analysis according to the “Unsteady
Decomposition” technique. The measurement chain is shown in Figure 3.8. The
Trigger from Kulite #4

Gauge Gauge or Second LeCroy Module
Location Serial #
1 387
2 388
Vatell Heat Flux Vatell Amplifier 6 Frequency Devices LeCroy Waveform

Microsensor HFM-7/L Gain=100 Model 9064 Recorder 6810
Low-Pass Filter: Sampling Period=2µs
Cut-Off Frequency= FSV=1V (±0.5V)
102 kHz olli1.set
Figure 3.8: Measurement Chain for Unsteady Heat Flux Measurements

for “Direct Comparison”.
sampling frequency and most importantly the cut-off frequency are identical to the
the settings for the pressure transducers. The dynamic characteristics of the Vatell
HFM-7/L heat flux sensors are investigated in detail in Appendix C. According to
the transfer function determined there, the signals will be corrected. Only then is it
possible to compare signals from the pressure and the heat flux sensors.
55
3.3.5 Shadowgraph Flow Visualization
In order to optically analyze the shock passing process a Shadowgraph setup

was used (see Figure 3.9). The light source was a 15 mW Helium-Neon Laser. The
High-Speed Camera was a Hadland Photonics high speed digital camera with four
CCD receptors. It is capable of taking pictures at a frequency of up tp 8 MHz. All
pictures shown in Sections 3.5.1 and A were taken with this setup. The camera was
triggered by an upstream Kulite pressure transducer and the timing for the camera
was set in the control software.
Figure 3.9: Optical Setup for Shadowgraph Flow Visualization
56
3.4 Signal Processing
This Section explains the post-processing procedure for the pressure and heat
flux data after processing. Section 3.4.1 shows the data processing for the pressure
measurements and different test series. The manipulation of the heat flux data for
the different test series is demonstrated in Section 3.4.2.
3.4.1 Pressure
Signal Processing for Pressure Measurements for “Unsteady Decomposi-

tion”
Section 3.5.2 presents an analysis of the unsteady data referred to as “Unsteady

Decomposition.” The very core of this technique consists of a comparison of heat flux
traces representing the shock impact initiated at different levels of heat flux before the
shock event. This comparison provides understanding of the relative magnitudes of
different contributions to the overall unsteady heat transfer. The pressure traces are
only needed for a consistency check and for alignment of traces recorded in different
experiments. It would also be impossible to expect a reasonable representation of the
shock since the pressure data was recorded with a cut-off frequency of only 25 kHz
(see Section 3.3.1). This cut-off frequency was chosen in order to avoid recording the
frequency range in which the Kulite Pressure Transducer XCQ-062-50a shows strong
phase shifts and begins to attenuate the signal (see Appendix B).
The alignment of traces recorded in different experiments was done in the

following way:
Since the pressure data is much less affected by noise (fluctuations of tempera-
57
ture and mixing do affect the heat flux measurements but not the pressure data), all
the traces of heat flux and pressure were aligned by shifting them by a certain time
obtained from an analysis of the pressure traces. To illustrate this technique, the data
from one heat flux sensor and one pressure transducer recorded during two different
experiments will be used. The result will be two pairs of traces each consisting of a
heat flux and a pressure time history referred to as q1 , p1 (from first experiment) and
q2 , p2 (from second experiment). q1 and p1 are aligned with respect to time since they
were recorded over the same sampling time. So are q2 and p2 . On the other hand, the
two pairs do not necessarily have the same relation to the physical event. The trigger
setting or the overall sampling time may have been different, and so the same physical
event does not necessarily happen at the same point in the sampling time. In order to
compare the two heat flux traces their relative position with respect to the physical
event needs to be known. Since the pressure histories have the same time reference
as the corresponding heat flux traces and are less affected by noise, this time shift
can be obtained by comparison of the pressure traces. To obtain the “delay” between
the two traces the following procedure was applied. One of the pressure traces (say
p2 )is shifted in time by a certain number of sampling periods n · ∆t. Now the Pearson
product moment correlation coefficient, r, is calculated for p1 and the shifted time
history p2 :
P P
N · (p1 · p2 ) − p1 · p2
r(n · ∆t) = q P P (3.1)
N · (p1 · p1 ) − p1 2 · N · (p2 · p2 ) − p2 2
The products of time histories are the vector products of the vectors with time being
the index. This correlation coefficient reflects the extent of a linear relationship
between two data sets. This coefficient is calculated for a large range of n-values.
The n-value at which r(n · ∆T ) shows a maximum was then used to shift q2 and p2
for comparison with q1 and p1 . Since all experiments were done with nearly identical
data acquisition settings, these n-values were usually very small (on the order of
58
±4). All the traces shown in Sections 3.5.2.2 and 3.5.2.4 were aligned in the manner
described here.
Signal Processing for Pressure Measurements for “Direct Comparison”
In Sections 3.5.3.1, 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3, unsteady heat flux due to shock passing
is predicted in different ways from the static pressure measurement. Therefore, it was
necessary to:
1. Record both signals at the same high cut-off frequency. The settings of the data
acquisition chain are shown in Section 3.3.3.
2. Correct both pressure and heat flux readings to obtain comparable readings
The way the pressure data was corrected is presented in this paragraph. The raw data
was first corrected for the influence of the Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge
Conditioner and Signal Amplifier at a gain setting of 10 (see Figure 3.7). The transfer
functions of this amplifier and the way they were obtained are shown in Appendix D.
Praw (ω)
Pcorr2310 (ω) = (3.2)
H2310 (ω)
In this Equation Pcorr2310 is the corrected signal before the amplifier, Praw is the signal
as recorded and H2310 is the transfer function of the amplifier as shown in Appendix
D. Capital letters indicate the Fourier Transform of the signal or transfer function.
This improved signal was then corrected for the dynamic behavior of the Kulite
Pressure Transducer XCQ-062-50a. The transfer function of these sensors was deter-
59
mined in a shock tube experiment presented in Appendix B.
Pcorr2310 (ω)
Pf inal (ω) = (3.3)
HKulite (ω)
This way it was possible to obtain a better estimate of the “real” frequency and phase
information up to the cut-off frequency.
60
3.4.2 Heat Transfer
Signal Processing for Heat Transfer Measurements for “Unsteady Decom-

position”
Section 3.5.2 presents an analysis of the unsteady data referred to as “Unsteady

Decomposition.” The very core of this technique consists of a comparison of heat flux
traces representing the shock impact initiated at different levels of heat flux before
the shock event. The heat flux traces are different from the “real” heat flux histo-
ries, since the gauges have a certain dynamic behavior. It can be expected, though,
that all gauges have the same transfer function. Therefore, each trace of unsteady
heat flux has the same relation to the “real” time history of unsteady heat flux. A
comparison between different traces is, therefore, possible even without a correction
for the dynamic behavior of the gauges. Still, it has to be acknowledged that the
time histories analyzed in Section 3.5.2 are not the best possible representations of
the physical event.
Since heat flux time histories from different experiments had to be compared,
the data had to be aligned with respect to the shock passing event. The procedure
used to align the data was explained in Section 3.4.1. The settings of the data
acquisition chain are shown in Section 3.3.2.
Signal Processing for Heat Flux Measurements for “Direct Comparison”
In Sections 3.5.3.1, 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 a direct comparison is presented between

heat flux predicted from pressure measurements and measured unsteady heat flux due
to shock impingement. In order to be able to make this comparison it was necessary
to obtain a realistic representation of the shock event in terms of pressure and heat
61
flux. The way the pressure data was processed is explained in Section 3.4.1. This
Section explains the data reduction of the heat flux signals.
The dynamic behavior of the heat flux gauges was investigated in order to
determine its transfer function (see Appendix C). It was shown that the Vatell Heat
Flux Microsensor HFM-7/L could be modeled as a first order system with a time
constant of about 17µs. The amplifiers were set to a gain of 100 and were expected
not to have a significant influence on the transfer function of the measurement chain
(see Section 3.3.2). Therefore the only correction to be applied to the data was the
transfer function of the heat flux gauge itself. This could be done in one of two ways.
The first option is to use the transfer function itself:
Qraw (ω)
Qf inal (ω) = (3.4)
jω · τ + 1
In this Equation τ is the time constant of the sensor. In the case of the specific
sensors used here it equals about 17µs. Another way to correct for the characteristic
dynamic behavior of the sensor would be to apply it point by point:
τ
qcorr n = qraw n + · (qraw n−1 − 2 · qraw n + qraw n+1 ) (3.5)
∆t
Here ∆t is the sampling period and n is the time index. The results of the two
procedures are nearly identical.
After applying the corrections to the pressure traces (Section 3.4.1) and the
heat flux traces the comparisons presented in Sections 3.5.3.1, 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 are
possible.
62
It needs to be stated that the physical size of the active surface of the heat flux
microsensor (about 4 mm) has an effect on the frequency response of the gauge. Heat
flux fluctuations caused by any perturbation passing tangentially over the gauge will
be smoothed out because the gauge is spatially integrating over the sensing surface.
The shock waves produced by the shock apparatus shown in Section 2.2 pass nearly
tangentially over the gauges on the upstream suction side. It takes the shock front
approximately 10 µs to pass tangentially over a sensor. This is not a negligible amount
of time compared to the time scales measured. No attempt was made in the frame of
the work presented to correct for this spatial averaging.
63
3.5 Results and Discussion
The results of the shock passing experiments will be presented and analyzed
in this Section. Different analytical methods will be applied and comparison will be
made with the data.
To introduce the reader to the experimental results, Section 3.5.1 will show the
data taken in a qualitative way. Some general observations will be made to lead into
a more in depth analysis. Section 3.5.2 analyzes the results using a decomposition
technique. The different contributions to the unsteady heat transfer will be identified
by an analytical separation of the physical parameters involved.
Three different attempts to predict the unsteady heat flux from surface pressure
measurements will be applied to the data in Section 3.5.3:
1. A model recently developed by Moss et al. (1995) at the University of Oxford

will be compared with the experimental data in Section 3.5.3.1.
2. An earlier analytical approach to unsteady heat transfer developed by Johnson

et al. (1988) at the same institute will be compared with the data and discussed
in detail in Section 3.5.3.2.
3. Rigby et al. (1989) published a modified version of this model in 1989 and
added a thorough derivation. The model will be presented and compared to the
data in Section 3.5.3.3.
A numerical approach to the problem stated by Johnson et al. (1988) was

recently developed by Reid (1998) at Virginia Tech. The conclusions from his research
will be discussed in the context of Johnson’s and Moss’ model and the data presented
here (Section 3.5.4).
64
3.5.1 General Observations
In this Section, the data will be presented in a qualitative way. This will also
serve to help the reader physically understand the flow to be analyzed.
Figure 3.10 shows a shadowgraph of the shock passing. It was taken with a high
speed digital camera. The attached cooling film is visible on the blade surface. The
direction of the flow and the progression of the shock are shown schematically. Also
shown are the locations of the gauges # 1 through 3 counting in the flow direction.
A whole series of eight such shadowgraphs were taken (all of them are shown in
Appendix A). The surprising conclusion from these shadowgraphs is that there is
Flow Direction
Cooling film
Moving Shock
Heat Flux
Film
Holes
Sensors
Figure 3.10: Sample Shadowgraph of Shock Passing Event with Film Cool-
ing.
no strong interaction between the cooling film and the shock. No film separation
or detachment nor a “Separation Bubble” (as reported by Doorly et al. (1985) and
Johnson et al. (1988)) behind the shock can be detected.
65
In Figure 3.11, all available pressure traces from one of the uncooled experi-
ment are shown. The pressure sensors in locations 1 and 3 did not work properly,
therefore they did not provide useful time histories. In Figure 3.12, the heat flux
data corresponding to the pressure traces shown in Figure 3.11 are plotted. In both
figures, the time axes are identical to illustrate the shock propagation along the suc-
tion surface of the blade toward the leading edge. Also, the y-axes are identical for
all graphs on the figures for a better comparison of the relative magnitudes of pres-
sure and heat flux histories respectively. The pressure histories are normalized with
the steady pressure before shock impact pav to show the shock strength rather than
absolute values. Only the unsteady component of heat flux is shown. The absolute
value of heat flux before shock impact was removed for ease of comparison.
1.3 1.3 1.3

p/pav [ − ]
[−]
p/pav [ − ]
1.2 1.2 1.2
av
1.1 1.1 1.1

p/p
1 1 1
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ]
1.3
p/pav [ − ]
1.2
1.1
1
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ]
Figure 3.11: Sample Time Histories of Pressure Ratio for Gauges 2,3,4,5
from one of the Experiments without Film Cooling.
66
3 3 3 3
q´ [ W/cm2 ]
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ]
q´ [ W/cm2 ]
2
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ]
Figure 3.12: Sample Time Histories of Unsteady Heat Flux for Gauges
1,2,3,4,5 from one of the Experiments without Film Cooling.
The shape of the pressure traces observed in Figure 3.11 show the typical
features of blast waves as described and calculated in Doughty (1994). It becomes
clear from Figures 3.11 and 3.12 that the gauges further downstream see a weaker
shock in terms of pressure ratio and unsteady heat flux than the upstream gauges.
The reason for this is qualitatively depicted in Figure 3.13. The shock wave has to
expand into the passage after passing over the upper blade. Since energy has to be
preserved, this expansion leads to a weakening of the shock. The relation between
the shock pressure ratio and heat flux due to shock impingement was expected and
is demonstrated experimentally in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. A more in-depth analysis
of this correlation will be presented in the following Sections.
67
1
2
3
Figure 3.13: Schematic Depiction of Shock Expansion Process. States 1,

2 and 3 Represent the Shock At Different Successive Times.
68
For completeness, a sample time history of pressure ratio for gauges 2,4,5 and 6
from an experiment with film cooling is shown in Figure 3.14. The corresponding time
histories of unsteady heat flux are shown in Figure 3.15. The same conclusions that
were drawn from the Figures without film cooling can be drawn from these figures
with film cooling. The major difference between the two sets of Figures is the fact
that the heat flux traces with film cooling contain significantly more noise than the
corresponding time histories without film cooling. The reason lies in the presence
of inherently unsteady mixing processes in the boundary layer in the case with film
cooling. The pressure traces with and without film cooling are nearly identical. Even
the heat flux traces in Figures 3.12 and 3.15 are remarkably similar. That indicates
that the core flow field is not affected significantly by the presence of the cooling film.
69
1.3 1.3 1.3
p/pav [ − ]
[−]
p/pav [ − ]
1.2 1.2 1.2
av
1.1 1.1 1.1
p/p
1 1 1
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ]
1.3
p/pav [ − ]
1.2
1.1
1
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ]
Figure 3.14: Sample Time Histories of Pressure Ratio for Gauges 2,4,5,6
from Experiment with Film Cooling.
70
3 3 3 3
q´ [ W/cm2 ]
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ] Time [ ms ]
q´ [ W/cm2 ]
2
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Time [ ms ]
Figure 3.15: Sample Time Histories of Unsteady Heat Flux for Gauges
1,2,3,4,5 from Experiment with Film Cooling.
71
3.5.2 “Unsteady Decomposition” of Heat Flux
The underlying idea in this Section is the mathematical and physical decom-
position of the heat flux due to the passing shock. This decomposition will be the
instrument for the analysis of the contributions of different physical parameters dur-
ing the shock passing event. Since the analytical model looks somewhat different
for cooled and uncooled cases, this Section will be divided into two major parts. In
the first part, the analytical model for the uncooled case will be developed (Section
3.5.2.1) and compared to the measured results (Section 3.5.2.2). In the second part
the analogous model is derived for the case with film cooling (Section 3.5.2.3) and
compared to actual data (Section 3.5.2.4). The qualitative conclusions derived using
the unsteady decomposition technique will be given in Section 3.5.2.5.
3.5.2.1 Analytical Model without Film Cooling
In this Section, the concept of the unsteady decomposition of heat flux will
be introduced. In order to analyze the contributions of different physical parameters
during the shock impact, these parameters will be split up into their time mean
component before the shock impact (no superscript) and the unsteady component
during the shock impact (superscript 0 ). From the basic definition of the heat transfer
coefficient
q = h · (Taw − Tw ) (3.6)
follows the definition of the heat transfer coefficient in the uncooled case by replacing
Taw by the recovery temperature Tr . In the conventional notation:
72
q = h · (Tr − Tw ) (3.7)
Now all the properties will be replaced by the sum of their time mean value before
shock impact and their unsteady component during shock impact:
q + q 0 = (h + h0 ) · (Tr + Tr0 − Tw − Tw0 ) (3.8)
The wall temperature Tw does not vary during the short time of the shock impact,
therefore, Tw0 is set to zero in Equation 3.8. The basic Equation that is going to be
used in this Section and Section 3.5.2.4 can then be written as:
q + q 0 = (h + h0 ) · (Tr + Tr0 − Tw ) (3.9)
In order to separate the different contributions of unsteady parameters, the right

hand side of Equation 3.9 can be expanded to:
q + q 0 = h · (Tr − Tw ) + h0 · (Tr − Tw ) + h · Tr0 + h0 · Tr0 (3.10)
The first term on the right hand side of this Equation, h · (Tr − Tw ), represents the
steady value of heat flux before the shock impact, or q. Subtracting this time mean
component from both sides yields:
73
q 0 = h0 · (Tr − Tw ) + h · Tr0 + h0 · Tr0 (3.11)
The result is an expression for the unsteady component of heat flux as a function of
all time-varying components. The first term on the right hand side of Equation 3.11,
h0 · (Tr − Tw ), represents the first order contribution of the time-varying heat transfer
coefficient to the unsteady heat transfer. The second term, h · Tr0 , is the first order
contribution of the time-varying recovery temperature to q 0 . The last term on the
right hand side of Equation 3.11 is the combined effect of the fluctuating components
of the heat transfer coefficient and recovery temperature.
The purpose of this decomposition is to identify the relative magnitudes of

the three terms on the right hand side of Equation 3.11 or, more specifically, the
contribution of h0 and Tr0 to the unsteady heat transfer. The importance of this
analysis will be explained in detail in Section 3.5.2.2.
74
3.5.2.2 Effect of Shock Passing without Film Cooling
In this Section, a comparison will be made between the model developed in

Section 3.5.2.1 and measured heat flux data. This comparison will yield the relative
magnitudes of the different contributions to the unsteady heat flux. More specifi-
cally, the analysis will show how much the variation in heat transfer and recovery
temperature add to the overall unsteady heat flux.
The experiments that this analysis refers to and all important properties before
shock impact are listed in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. The values for recovery tempera-
tures are calculated from the freestream total temperature before the shock impact by
subtracting the local Td value determined in the steady state experiments (see Section
2.3.1). Since several values of Td were determined — one from each experiment —
a mean value of Td was used for every gauge. The recovery temperatures listed in
Table 3.2 are then calculated according to:
Tri = Tt − Tdi (3.12)
The index i refers to the six gauge locations. The mean heat transfer coefficient in
Table 3.4 is evaluated over the entire run as explained in detail in Section 2.3.1.
75
Table 3.1: Shock Strength and Total Temperatures at Shock Impact for
All Uncooled Experiments
Run # Shock Tt
◦
Strength [ C ]
p+p0max
p
1 1.23 71.7
2 1.32 71.7
3 1.23 69.9
4 1.32 55.9
5 1.23 61.4
6 1.32 53.2
Table 3.2: Recovery Temperatures at Shock Impact for All Gauges and
All Uncooled Experiments
Run # Tr1 Tr2 Tr3 Tr4 Tr5 Tr6
[ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ ◦C ]
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
1 65.8 66.6 65.9 62.7 61.5 55.4

2 65.8 66.6 65.9 62.7 61.5 55.4
3 63.9 64.7 64.0 60.8 59.6 53.5
4 49.9 50.7 50.0 46.8 45.6 39.5
5 55.4 56.2 55.5 52.3 51.1 45.0
6 47.2 48.0 47.3 44.1 42.9 36.8
Table 3.3: Wall Temperatures at Shock Impact for All Gauges and All
Uncooled Experiments
Run # Tw1 Tw2 Tw3 Tw4 Tw5 Tw6
[ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ ◦C ]
◦ ◦ ◦
[ ◦C ] [ ◦C ]
1 29.7 31.2 30.5 30.5 30.2 27.1
2 35.2 36.7 36.2 36.2 35.9 33.0
3 26.2 27.8 27.1 27.1 26.7 23.7
4 34.4 36.0 35.4 35.4 35.1 32.1
5 26.5 28.1 27.4 27.4 27.1 24.0
6 34.4 35.8 35.3 35.3 34.9 31.9
76
Table 3.4: Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients for all Gauges and All Un-
cooled Experiments
Run # h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6
[ mW
2 ·K ] [ W
m2 ·K
] [ W
m2 ·K
] [ W
m2 ·K
] [ W
m2 ·K
] [ W
m2 ·K
]
1 1085.9 787.5 702.6 904.3 871.1 1069.1
2 1103.2 795.4 712.0 917.8 901.3 1131.0
3 1104.5 804.1 707.1 901.7 881.0 1112.3
4 1126.8 818.7 724.0 933.8 911.9 1143.6
5 1097.5 797.7 708.4 914.4 894.8 1119.3
6 1100.5 798.7 707.5 914.4 896.0 1131.5
77
The governing Equation for the following comparison was developed in Section
3.5.2.1:
q 0 = h0 · (Tr − Tw ) + h · Tr0 + h0 · Tr0 (3.13)
The unsteady variation of heat transfer coefficient h0 is multiplied by the overall

temperature difference before the shock impact (Tr − Tw ) to yield the first order
contribution of the time varying heat transfer coefficient to the unsteady heat flux.
This overall temperature difference is equivalent to the time mean heat flux level
before the shock impact. This implies that the contribution of the fluctuating heat
transfer coefficient should depend on the heat flux level before the shock passing. In
order to quantify this component, it was, therefore, necessary to initiate the shock
at different levels of heat flux. According to the time histories of heat flux described
in detail in Section 2.3.1, this is possible by triggering the shock at different times
during the tunnel run. Early triggering will provide a high initial level of heat flux.
The later the shock is released the lower the level of heat flux will be.
Figure 3.16 shows the data from runs 2,4 and 6 at the higher shock strength as
listed in Table 3.1. For the argument about to be proposed, only results from gauge
# 2 will be presented at these conditions (Run # 2, Run #4, Run #6). At the end
of this Section, Figures 3.19 to 3.22 will include all test results without film cooling
from all available gauges and different shock conditions. It can be seen that the
three traces of heat flux shown in Figure 3.16 start from different levels of heat flux
W W W
before shock impact (Run #2: 2 cm 2 , Run #4: 1 cm2 , Run #6: 0.7 cm2 ). Analogous to
Equation 3.13, the mean heat flux before shock impact will be removed to obtain only
the unsteady component of heat flux: Figure 3.17 shows very clearly that the three
time histories of unsteady heat transfer are very much alike in terms of magnitude
and general shape even though the initial levels of heat flux were quite different. This
78
4 Run #2: High q
Run #4: Med q
3.5 Run #6: Low q
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
2
3
2.5
1.5
1100 1200 1300 1400

Time [ µs ]
Figure 3.16: Shock Passing Events for Gauge # 2 at Increased Shock

Strength without Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of
Initial Heat Flux.
will lead to a far-reaching conclusion.
The first term on the right hand side of Equation 3.13 states that the first order
contribution of the variation of heat transfer coefficient h0 to the overall unsteady heat
flux is scaled by the driving temperature difference before shock impact (Tr − Tw ).
This temperature difference is proportional to the initial level of heat flux before shock
impact. The unsteady heat transfer was shown to be independent of this heat flux
level (see Figure 3.17). This means that the unsteady component of the heat transfer
coefficient is not contributing significantly to the overall unsteady heat flux. If h0 was
of the same order of magnitude as h, the unsteady contribution of h0 would have to
be of the same order as the initial heat flux level. For all experiments it can be shown
that the unsteady component of heat flux does not scale with this initial value of heat
flux. Therefore, it can be concluded that the order of h0 is much smaller than the
79
2.5
Run #2: High q
Run #4: Med q
2 Run #6: Low q
q’ [ W/cm ]
2
1.5
0.5
0
1100 1200 1300 1400
Time [ µs ]

Strength without Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of
Initial Heat Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed.
order of h. Neglecting all terms containing h0 and rearranging Equation 3.13, yields
an expression for the unsteady variation of recovery temperature Tr0 :
q0
Tr0 = (3.14)
h
This expression states that the variation of the recovery temperature is proportional
to the unsteady variation of heat transfer. Therefore, the traces of Tr0 will look
exactly like the traces in Figure 3.17 scaled by the steady heat transfer coefficient.
For completeness these traces are shown in Figure 3.18. Based on the traces of Tr0 in
Figure 3.18 one can make an order of magnitude argument to estimate the relative
magnitude of h0 . Tr0 in Figure 3.18 takes values up to about 35◦ . Tr − Tw takes on
80
30
Run #2: High q
Run #4: Med q
25 Run #6: Low q
20
Tr’ [ K ]
15
10
0
1100 1200 1300 1400
Time [ µs ]

Strength without Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels
of Initial Heat Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed. Converted to
Temperature Variation.
similar values as seen in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. Then h0 · (Tr − Tw ) should take on similar
values as h · (Tr − Tw ) or q if h0 was of the same order of magnitude as h. The traces of
W
unsteady heat flux would then have to differ by about 1 cm 2 since the initial values of
heat flux differ by that amount. Such differences can not be observed in Figure 3.17.
The significance of this observation will be pointed out more specifically in Section
3.5.2.5.
Figures 3.19 through 3.23 show all experiments from gauges 1 through 5 in
comparison. An inspection of these Figures provides convincing evidence that the
observations made in this Section are repeatable for all gauges and conditions. The
results from gauge #6 are erroneous due to a problem with the amplifier and are
not shown here. The two plots on the left hand side show the heat flux at nominal
81
conditions while the two plots on the right show the results for a higher shock strength.
The top graphs show the absolute values while the bottom graphs show the same
traces with the initial value of heat flux removed.
82
pmax/p=1.23 pmax/p=1.32
4 4
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400
40 40
4 Run #1 4 Run #2
Run #3 Run #4
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
Run #5 30 Tr’ [ K ] Run #6 30
Tr’ [ K ]
3 3
2 20 2 20
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400
Time [ µs ] Time [ µs ]
Figure 3.19: Shock Passing Events for Gauge # 1 at Different Shock Con-
ditions without Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of
Initial Heat Flux for Each Shock Strength. Top Graphs: Absolute Values.
Bottom Graph: Initial Value Subtracted.
83
4 4
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400
4 50 4 50
Run #1 Run #2
Run #3 40 Run #4 40
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
3 Run #5 3 Run #6
Tr’ [ K ]
Tr’ [ K ]
30 30
2 2
20 20
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400
84
3 3
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
2 2
1 1
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
3 3 40
Run #1 40 Run #2
Run #3 Run #4
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
Run #5 Run #6
Tr’ [ K ]
Tr’ [ K ]
2 30 2 30
20 20
1 1
10 10
0 0 0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
85
3 3
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
2 2
1 1
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
40
3 Run #1 3 Run #2
Run #3 30 Run #4 30
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
Run #5 Run #6
Tr’ [ K ]
Tr’ [ K ]
2 2 20
20
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
86
3 3
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
2 2
1 1
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
40 40
3 Run #1 3 Run #2
Run #3 30 Run #4 30
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
Run #5 Run #6
Tr’ [ K ]
Tr’ [ K ]
2 2
20 20
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
87
3.5.2.3 Analytical Model with Film Cooling
The decomposition of heat flux for the case with film cooling is somewhat
different from the analysis without film cooling. That is why a separate Section is
dedicated to the derivation. The definition of heat transfer coefficient is the same for
the cooled case as it was in the case without film cooling (in the old notation):
q = hc · (Taw − Tw ) (3.15)
Analogous to the derivation in Section 3.5.2.1, the physical variables are now replaced
by the sum of the time mean value before shock impact and a fluctuating component
during the shock passing:
q + q 0 = (hc + h0c ) · (Taw + Taw

0
− Tw ) (3.16)
Equation 3.16 considers the fact that the wall temperature does not vary during the
short time period of the shock passing event. Again the right hand side of Equation
3.16 is multiplied out to obtain:
q + q 0 = hc · (Taw − Tw ) + h0c · (Taw − Tw ) + hc · Taw

0
+ h0c · Taw
0
(3.17)
The first term on the right hand side of Equation 3.17, hc · (Taw − Tw ), represents
the time mean value of heat transfer before the shock impact, q. After subtracting
88
these time mean values on both sides of Equation 3.17, an expression for the unsteady
component of heat flux is obtained:
q 0 = h0c · (Taw − Tw ) + hc · Taw

0
+ h0c · Taw
0
(3.18)
The first term on the right hand side of Equation 3.18, h0c · (Taw − Tw ), constitutes
the first order contribution of the fluctuating heat transfer coefficient to the overall
0
unsteady heat transfer. The second term on the right hand side, hc · Taw , describes
the first order contribution of the time varying component of the adiabatic wall tem-
perature to the overall heat flux. The combined effect of the two varying properties,
heat transfer coefficient and adiabatic wall temperature, is represented by the last
term on the right hand side of Equation 3.18.
The first step of the analysis will be to determine the relative magnitudes of
these three terms or, more specifically, the relative magnitude of the contributions of
h0 and Taw
0
to the unsteady heat flux. A second step for further analysis is the decom-
position of the adiabatic wall temperature expressed in terms of the film effectiveness
(in the conventional notation):
Taw = Tr − η · (Tr − Tc ) (3.19)
Again, all the variables involved are replaced by the sum of their time mean value
before shock impact and their unsteady component during the shock passing:
0
Taw + Taw = Tr + Tr0 − (η + η 0 ) · (Tr + Tr0 − Tc ) (3.20)
89
In Equation 3.20 it is assumed that the coolant exit temperature does not change
during the short time of the shock impact. It is arguable, though, whether the
coolant exit temperature will change sometime later as the shock travels upstream
and reaches the coolant exit locations. This hypothesis will be investigated in a future
effort.
The right hand side of Equation 3.20 is multiplied out and rearranged for
convenient analysis to yield:
0
Taw + Taw = Tr − η · (Tr − Tc ) + Tr0 · (1 − η) − η 0 · (Tr − Tc ) − η 0 · Tr0 (3.21)
The time mean value of adiabatic wall temperature is found as the first term on the
right hand side of Equation 3.21, Tr − η · (Tr − Tc ). After subtracting the time mean
value of heat transfer from both sides of Equation 3.21, an expression for the unsteady
variation of adiabatic wall temperature is obtained:
0
Taw = Tr0 · (1 − η) − η 0 · (Tr − Tc ) − η 0 · Tr0 (3.22)
The contributions of the unsteady variation of recovery temperature Tr0 , the varying
film effectiveness η 0 and their combined effect are found in the respective order on the
right hand side of Equation 3.22. It is of interest to analyze the relative magnitudes
of these contributions to the overall fluctuation of the adiabatic wall temperature.
90
3.5.2.4 Effect of Shock Passing with Film Cooling
The first step in the analysis will be the comparison of actual heat flux data
to the model developed in 3.5.2.3. The goal is to determine the contributions of the
unsteady component of heat transfer coefficient h0 and adiabatic wall temperature Taw
0
to the overall unsteady heat transfer q 0 . The method will be similar to the analysis
of the heat transfer without film cooling in Section 3.5.2.2. The observations will
be verified for different conditions. The parameters varied were the shock strength,
the ratio of coolant to freestream total pressure, and the heat flux levels (or overall
temperature difference (Taw − Tw )) before shock impact. Two values were chosen for
p+pmax
the shock strength: the nominal value of p
= 1.23 and a higher value of 1.32.
For the coolant to freestream total pressure ratio the design value of 1.04 and a much
higher value of 1.2 were chosen for the parameter variation. As described in Section
3.5.2.2, it was attempted to achieve three different levels of initial heat flux. This
test matrix resulted in twelve experiments overall. The conditions at shock impact
are listed in Tables 3.5 through 3.10 for all twelve experiments with film cooling and
all gauges. All values from run #8 were lost due to a problem with the low speed
data acquisition system. The recovery temperatures listed in Table 3.6 were calculated
from the total temperature by subtracting the mean Td as determined from the steady
state experiments described in Section 2.3.1. The adiabatic wall temperatures listed
in Table 3.7 were calculated using this recovery temperature and the film effectiveness
determined using low speed data from the entire run as described in Section 2.3.3 and
listed in Table 3.10:
Tawi = Tri − ηi · (Tri − Tc ) (3.23)
The index i refers to the gauges 1 through 6.
91
Table 3.5: Test Matrix, Total Temperature and Coolant Temperature Be-
fore Shock Impact for All Cooled Experimnts
pc
Run # Shock p∞
Tt Tc
◦ ◦
Strength [−] [ C ] [ C ]
p+p0max
p
1 1.23 1.04 71.7 -118.7
2 1.32 1.04 79.1 -99.4
3 1.23 1.20 83.7 -68.5
4 1.32 1.20 77.3 -80.9
5 1.23 1.04 60.1 -127.8
6 1.32 1.04 59.6 -95.4
7 1.23 1.20 58.2 -99.7
8 1.32 1.20 NaN NaN
9 1.23 1.04 45.3 -67.0
10 1.32 1.04 40.9 -122.8
11 1.23 1.20 42.1 -67.1
12 1.32 1.20 41.5 -37.1
Table 3.6: Recovery Temperature Before Shock Impact for All Gauges and
All Cooled Experiments
Run # Tr1 Tr2 Tr3 Tr4 Tr5 Tr6
[ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ ◦C ]
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
1 65.8 66.6 65.9 62.7 61.5 55.4

2 73.2 74.0 73.3 70.1 68.9 62.8
3 77.8 78.6 77.9 74.7 73.5 67.4
4 71.4 72.2 71.5 68.3 67.1 61.0
5 54.2 55.0 54.3 51.1 49.9 43.8
6 53.7 54.5 53.8 50.6 49.4 43.3
7 52.3 53.1 52.4 49.2 48.0 41.9
9 39.4 40.2 39.5 36.3 35.1 29.0
10 35.0 35.8 35.1 31.9 30.7 24.6
11 36.2 37.0 36.3 33.1 31.9 25.8
12 35.6 36.4 35.7 32.5 31.3 25.2
92
Table 3.7: Adiabatic Wall Temperature Before Shock Impact for All
Gauges and All Cooled Experiments
Run # Taw1 Taw2 Taw3 Taw4 Taw5 Taw6
[ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ]
1 8.75 33.02 1.85 21.68 27.64 8.54
2 22.08 42.05 16.84 32.28 39.29 17.52
3 52.30 55.90 49.51 41.02 50.94 41.82
4 36.18 45.21 41.03 32.91 41.66 30.32
5 -6.26 21.32 -9.97 11.54 13.66 -3.24
6 7.44 25.98 2.93 18.31 21.47 5.27
7 13.35 22.35 23.51 17.16 21.72 6.90
9 8.61 22.58 4.90 14.58 16.84 0.85
10 -17.27 7.05 -19.36 -2.93 0.32 -16.40
11 15.40 18.53 14.70 11.03 15.38 5.61
12 24.58 25.48 22.03 18.28 21.40 11.53
Table 3.8: Wall Temperature Before Shock Impact for All Gauges and All
Cooled Experiments
Run # Tw1 Tw2 Tw3 Tw4 Tw5 Tw6
[ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ] [ ◦C ]
1 1.7 3.8 4.3 4.3 4.5 2.5
2 -1.1 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 -1.1
3 -4.1 -2.3 -2.1 -2.1 -1.9 -4.2
4 3.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.2 2.7
5 3.2 5.0 5.7 5.7 6.1 4.2
6 2.5 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.9 2.5
7 -1.0 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 -0.1
9 6.1 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 5.5
10 -1.8 -0.1 0.3 0.3 0.9 -0.8
11 9.0 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.5 8.6
12 11.8 13.6 13.1 13.1 12.8 10.2
93
Table 3.9: Heat Transfer Coefficient for All Gauges and All Cooled Ex-
periments
Run # hc1 hc2 hc3 hc4 hc5 hc6
[ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [ mW
W W W
2 ·K ] [ W
m2 ·K
] [ mW
2 ·K ]
1 1512.5 956.7 755.2 1014.4 1028.2 1373.0

2 1403.3 940.2 752.9 997.7 969.9 1341.9
3 1302.0 859.1 784.2 1022.1 983.7 1203.4
4 1375.2 887.5 776.5 1021.3 1014.8 1256.7
5 1354.4 920.1 768.2 914.6 969.1 1248.2
6 1374.0 919.6 752.2 965.3 953.9 1254.6
7 867.8 875.8 654.9 1098.2 988.5 1200.0
9 1332.9 919.5 718.1 984.1 954.9 1329.1
10 1318.3 899.3 770.4 989.7 979.7 1312.5
11 1218.8 869.1 763.0 993.9 998.1 1251.9
12 1318.9 844.8 762.6 952.9 988.3 1245.4
Table 3.10: Film Effectiveness for All Gauges and All Cooled Experiments
Run # η1 η2 η3 η4 η5 η6
[−] [−] [−] [−] [−] [−]
1 0.309 0.181 0.347 0.226 0.188 0.269
2 0.296 0.184 0.327 0.223 0.176 0.279
3 0.174 0.154 0.194 0.235 0.159 0.188
4 0.231 0.176 0.200 0.237 0.172 0.216
5 0.332 0.184 0.353 0.221 0.204 0.274
6 0.310 0.190 0.341 0.221 0.193 0.274
7 0.256 0.201 0.190 0.215 0.178 0.247
9 0.289 0.164 0.325 0.210 0.179 0.293
10 0.331 0.181 0.345 0.225 0.198 0.278
11 0.201 0.177 0.209 0.220 0.167 0.217
12 0.151 0.148 0.188 0.204 0.145 0.219
94
The basic Equation for the analysis is Equation 3.18 from Section 3.5.2.3 which
is repeated here:
q 0 = h0c · (Taw − Tw ) + hc · Taw

0
+ h0c · Taw
0
(3.24)
The contribution of the unsteady component of the heat transfer coefficient h0c to the
overall unsteady heat flux due to shock impingement is the first term on the right
hand side of Equation 3.24. It is multiplied by the overall temperature difference
before the shock impact. This means that its contribution is proportional to the heat
flux level before shock impact. To analyze its relative magnitude the experiments
were done at three different levels of initial heat flux.
For the argument about to be suggested, data from gauge # 1 and runs # 4,
#8 and #12 will be used. This set of data illustrates the conclusions to be drawn rela-
tively well. In the concluding Figures 3.27 through 3.31 all data from all experiments
will be shown. In Figure 3.24 the three traces of heat transfer are shown prior to any
manipulation. The traces before the shock impact show a very unsteady behavior.
This is true for all experiments with film cooling. The unsteadiness is introduced
by the presence of inherently unsteady film mixing processes and the motion of the
cooling jets. This poses two problems:
1. A point in time or a window of time before the the shock impact has to be
chosen to find the mean value of heat flux before shock impact q. This choice
is necessarily arbitrary. To best capture the effect of the passing shock a time
window of 5µs just before the shock impact was used for the determination of
q. This problem was not present in the analysis without film cooling. For the
case without film cooling the heat transfer before the shock impact was a steady
value without significant fluctuations.
95
5 Run #4
Run #8
Run #12
4
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
3
500 600 700 800

Time [ µs ]

Strength with Strong Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels
of Initial Heat Flux.
2. The fluctuations due to the presence of the film cooling superimpose with the
unsteady heat transfer caused by the passing shock. This superimposed random
signal blurs the effect of the passing shock somewhat. Still the effect of the
passing shock is distinctly visible and an analysis is possible.
Figure 3.25 shows the traces with the “mean” heat flux level before shock
impact removed. The three traces do not coincide as closely as was the case in Section
3.5.2.2. Also, there is more variation between the traces before and after the shock
impact. Still, it can be observed that the magnitudes of the unsteady heat transfer
do not correlate with the initial level of heat flux. This observation is essentially
true for all experiments. Even though the variations in unsteady heat transfer from
experiment to experiment are significant, they do not correlate with the initial level
96
Run #4: q=2.6
2.5 Run #8: q=0.3
Run #12: q=0.9
2
q’ [ W/cm ] 2
1.5
0.5
0
500 600 700 800
Time [ µs ]

of Initial Heat Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed.
of heat flux before shock impact.
The unsteady variation of heat transfer coefficient is multiplied by the over-

all temperature difference before shock impact to yield the contribution of h0 to the
unsteady heat transfer. This implies that the unsteady component of heat transfer
would depend on the heat flux before shock impact which is equivalent to the overall
temperature difference before shock impact. Figure 3.25 shows that there is no cor-
relation between the unsteady component of heat flux and the initial heat flux level.
This can only be the case if h0c is not significantly large. So it can be concluded that
the variation of heat transfer coefficient h0c is of minor importance in the heat transfer
due to shock impact. Based on this conclusion, all terms containing h0c in Equation
3.24 will be dropped. After rearranging, this yields an expression for the variation of
adiabatic wall temperature:
97
0 q0
Taw = (3.25)
hc
The traces of the variation of adiabatic wall temperature obtained from this expression
are scaled images of the traces of q 0 of Figure 3.25. For completeness they are shown
in Figure 3.26. To convert q 0 from run #8 to temperature a mean heat transfer
20 Run #4: q=2.6

Run #8: q=0.3
Run #12: q=0.9
15
Taw’ [ K ]
10
500 600 700 800

Time [ µs ]

of Initial Heat Flux. Initial Level of Heat Flux Removed. Converted to
Temperature Variation.
coefficient of 1347W/(m2 K) was used.
With the traces of adiabatic wall temperature in Figure 3.26, another sup-
porting argument for the conclusion that h0c is negligible can be found. The order of
0
magnitude of Taw is about the same as (Taw − Tw ). Then, if h0c was of the same order
98
of magnitude as hc , the contribution of h0c · (Taw − Tw ) would have to be of the same
order as the initial heat flux level q. This cannot be observed from the data in figure
3.25. It has to be concluded that h0c hc .
This observation is essentially true for all experiments. A comparative sum-

mary of all these experiments is given in Figures 3.27 through 3.31. To convert q 0 in
0
these Figures to Taw a mean heat transfer coefficient from each set of three runs was
used. Since the variation of heat transfer coefficient within those sets is relatively
small (see Table 3.9), this procedure is justified. Compared to the data without film
cooling this data shows more imperfections. For example, run #1 appears erroneous
on gauges 1 and 2 while it seems absolutely reasonable on gauges 3, 4 and 5. Another
“bad” example is run #2. A spike of sorts appears at a time around 580µs, and
the data of gauge 3 from this run is unusable. Apart from these glitches, the data
supports the conclusions drawn above.
99
pmax/p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.04 pmax/p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.2
2 6
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
2
2
4
1
2
0
0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 20 3
Run #1 Run #3
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #5 Run #7 20
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2
2 Run #9 15 2 Run #11
10
10
aw
aw
1 1
5
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
4
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
4
2
0 2
−2
0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 3
Run #2 20 Run #4 20
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #6 Run #8
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2 Run #10 15 2 Run #12 15

10 10
aw
aw
1 1
5 5
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
ditions with Film Cooling. Three Experiments at Different Levels of Initial
Heat Flux for Each Shock and Cooling Strength. Top Graphs: Absolute
Values. Bottom Graph: Initial Value Subtracted.
100
3.5
6
q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
3
2
2.5 4
2
2
1.5
1 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 30 3
Run #1 Run #3 30
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #5 Run #7
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2
2 Run #9 20 2 Run #11
20
aw
aw
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
6
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
4
2
4
2
2
0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 3
Run #2 30 Run #4 30
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #6 Run #8
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2 Run #10 20 2 Run #12

20
aw
aw
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
101
1 6
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
2
2
0 4
−1 2
−2 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 40 3
Run #1 Run #3 40
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #5 30 Run #7 30
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2
2 Run #9 2 Run #11
20 20
aw
aw
1 1
10 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
4
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
3
2
2 2
1
1
0
0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 40 3 40
Run #2 Run #4
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #6 30 Run #8 30
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2 Run #10 2 Run #12

20 20
aw
aw
1 1
10 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
102
3 6
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
2
2
2 4
1 2
0
0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 3 30
Run #1 30 Run #3
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #5 Run #7
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2
2 Run #9 20 2 Run #11 20
aw
aw
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
4
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
3 3
2
2
2
1
1
0
−1 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
3 30 3 30
Run #2 Run #4
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #6 Run #8
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2 Run #10 20 2 Run #12 20

aw
aw
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800
103
6
3
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
2
2
4
2
1 2
0 0
500 600 700 500 600 700
3 30 3 30
Run #1 Run #3
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #5 Run #7
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2
2 Run #9 20 2 Run #11 20
aw
aw
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 500 600 700
5
4
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
q+q’ [ W/cm ]
4
2
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
500 600 700 500 600 700
3 30 3 30
Run #2 Run #4
q’ [ W/cm ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
Run #6 Run #8
T ’ [K]
T ’ [K]
2
2 Run #10 20 2 Run #12 20

aw
aw
1 10 1 10
0 0 0 0
500 600 700 500 600 700
104
To complete the investigation of unsteady heat flux due to shock passing, the
relative magnitude of the unsteady variation of film effectiveness will be investigated
according to the decomposition technique layed out in Section 3.5.2.3. To illustrate
the argument, results from only one set of data will be used. In the concluding Section
all data will be shown subjected to the same analysis.
The unsteady variation of adiabatic wall temperature was analytically decom-

posed in Equation 3.22 in Section 3.5.2.3:
0
Taw = Tr0 · (1 − η) − η 0 · (Tr − Tc ) − η 0 · Tr0 (3.26)
Basically, this Equation states that the fluctuation of adiabatic wall temperature is
composed of three contributions. The first term on the right hand side contains the
first order contribution of the fluctuation of the recovery temperature Tr0 . Its influence
is attenuated by the film effectiveness before shock impact (1 − η). The second term
on the right hand side contains the first order contribution of the fluctuation of film
effectiveness scaled by the temperature difference before shock impact η 0 · (Tr − Tc ).
The fluctuation of adiabatic wall temperature was determined in the first part
of this Section to be proportional to the unsteady heat flux since the variation in heat
transfer coefficient was shown to be small.
0 q0
Taw = (3.27)
hc
The fluctuation of recovery temperature can be assumed to be the one determined in

Section 3.5.2.2 from the uncooled experiments. There is no reason to suggest that the
105
recovery temperature would behave differently for a film cooled or an uncooled blade
when exposed to the same physical phenomenon. Therefore, it can be expressed by
Equation 3.14 from Section 3.5.2.2:
q0
Tr0 = (3.28)
h
For the purpose of the argument about to be made, all except the first term on the
right hand side of 3.26 will be dropped. Then the fluctuating component of adiabatic
wall temperature is expressed by:
0
Taw = Tr0 · (1 − η) (3.29)
A comparison is shown in Figure 3.32 between the fluctuating component of the

adiabatic wall temperature from the cooled run #2 gauge #1 and the fluctuating
component of the recovery temperature from the uncooled run #2 gauge #1 multi-
plied by (1 − η), which takes on the value of 0.704. The good agreement of the traces
in Figure 3.32 suggests that the correlation between the fluctuating component of the
adiabatic wall temperature and the fluctuating component of recovery temperature
is well predicted by Equation 3.29. Qualitatively, one may conclude that the fluctu-
ation of the adiabatic wall temperature is related mostly to the variation of recovery
temperature. Figures 3.33 through 3.37 show all data from all gauges treated the
same way as in figure 3.32.
To back up the conclusion drawn above, one may also consider an order of
magnitude argument. (Tr − Tc ) in Equation 3.22 takes on values between 70◦ C and
106
Taw’ (cooled)
15 Tr’⋅ (1−η ) (uncooled)
T’ [ K ]
10
0
600 700 800 900
Time [ µs ]
0
Figure 3.32: Comparison of Taw from Run #2 Gauge #1 with Film Cooling
0
and Tr · (1 − η) from Run #2 Gauge #1 without Film Cooling.
190◦ C (as can be obtained from Tables 3.5 through 3.10). If the variation of film
effectiveness η 0 was of the same order of magnitude as η, the variations of adiabatic
wall temperature would have to be of the order of 10◦ C to 60◦ C above or below
Tr0 · (1 − η). That is clearly not the case as can be seen from Figures 3.32 and 3.33
0
through 3.37. The variation of Taw from Tr0 ·(1 − η) does not exceed about 5◦ C . Also,
the difference does not show any specific pattern comparing different runs. It can be
concluded that the variation of film effectiveness does not contribute significantly to
the variation in unsteady heat transfer. It is significantly smaller in magnitude than
the steady value of film effectiveness.
107
p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.04 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.04
max max
Taw’, Run #1 Taw’, Run #2

30 30
T ’, Run #5 T ’, Run #6
aw aw
T ’, Run #9 T ’, Run #10
aw aw
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
600 700 800 900 600 700 800 900

p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.2 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.2
max max

30 30
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
600 700 800 900 600 700 800 900

0
Figure 3.33: Comparison between Taw and Tr0 · (1 − η) for all Experiments
with Film Cooling. Results from Gauge #1.
108
p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.04 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.04
max max

30 30
T ’, Run #5 T ’, Run #6
aw aw
T ’, Run #9 T ’, Run #10
aw aw
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
600 700 800 600 700 800

p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.2 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.2
max max

30 30
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
600 700 800 600 700 800

0
109
p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.04 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.04
max max

30 30
T ’, Run #5 T ’, Run #6
aw aw
T ’, Run #9 T ’, Run #10
aw aw
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800

p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.2 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.2
max max

30 30
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800

0
110
p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.04 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.04
max max

30 30
T ’, Run #5 T ’, Run #6
aw aw
T ’, Run #9 T ’, Run #10
aw aw
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800

p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.2 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.2
max max

30 30
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
500 600 700 800 500 600 700 800

0
111
p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.04 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.04
max max

30 30
T ’, Run #5 T ’, Run #6
aw aw
T ’, Run #9 T ’, Run #10
aw aw
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
500 600 700 500 600 700

p /p=1.23, pc/p∞=1.2 p /p=1.32, pc/p∞=1.2
max max

30 30
20 Tr’⋅ (1−η) 20 Tr’⋅ (1−η)
T’ [ K ]
T’ [ K ]
10 10
0 0
500 600 700 500 600 700

0
112
3.5.2.5 Conclusion from the Unsteady Decomposition Technique
The conclusion from the four preceding Sections must be that the unsteady
heat transfer with and without film cooling is driven mainly by a temperature vari-
ation induced by the compression associated with the passing shock wave. In the
experiment, this temperature variation causes a very visible increase of heat transfer
over a period of time of the same order of magnitude as the blade passing period. The
shock adds energy to the flow field over this amount of time. In the engine, the situa-
tion is fundamentally different. The temperature field seen by the rotor blades varies
periodically around its mean value. As the discussion of the unsteady decomposition
technique indicated, the unsteady heat flux is primarily caused by temperature fluc-
tuations. Since these vary around a mean value the heat flux will also. In other words,
the time mean heat flux for a rotor blade that interacts with upstream shock waves
will not be significantly different from the time mean heat flux the blade experiences
with a uniform inlet flowfield.
This extrapolation of the experimental results has to be considered with care

though. Several parameters that were not included in the parameter variation may
affect the validity of the conclusions. For example it is possible that a turbulence level
different than the one in these experiments (about 1%) will influence the reaction of
the boundary to the shock impingement. Another influential parameter may be the
state of the boundary layer in the experiments without film cooling. A completely
turbulent or especially a transitional boundary layer might show different degrees of
sensitivity to disturbances.
113
3.5.3 “Direct Comparison” of Predicted and Measured Heat
Flux
3.5.3.1 Moss’ Model
In this Chapter the data taken with and without film cooling will be compared
to a model suggested by Moss et al. (1995) and in Moss et al. (1997). From heat
transfer and static pressure measurements on the surface of rotor blades in a rotating
turbine rig, Moss deduced that the unsteady component of heat flux could be predict-
ed very well by simply assuming a constant heat transfer coefficient and isentropically
predicting a temperature variation from the pressure variation. In those experiments,
there were no shocks present, so only the effects of the wake on the rotor surface heat
transfer were modeled. Also, the experiments did not involve film cooling. Here, the
same procedure is going to be applied to the data taken with film cooling and shock
passing in a stationary linear cascade. The predicted and the measured heat flux will
be compared and conclusions will be drawn from this comparison.
When comparing measurements from different transducers directly, one has to

know the dynamic behaviour of each of these transducers. It was because of this
necessity that the dynamic behavior of both gauges was investigated in depth as
reported in Appendices C and B.
From these investigations, it became clear that both signals (heat transfer and
surface pressure) had to be recorded at the same sampling and cut-off frequency
and that both signals had to be corrected for their dynamic behaviour in order to
compare both signals directly. Because of the requirement for equal sampling and
cut-off frequencies, it was not possible to use the data presented in Section 3.5.2 for
the purpose of this investigation. The only way to use it would have been to digitally
filter the heat flux signals to the cut-off frequency of the Kulite transducers (25 kHz)
114
and perform the comparison at this low level of frequency content. Since the frequency
band from 0 to 25 kHz is not nearly adequate to obtain a good representation of the
shock event, that procedure was decided against. Instead, a much shorter series of
tests with less gauges was performed to verify Moss’ conclusions with film cooling and
shock passing. All signals were acquired at a sampling rate of 500 kHz and a cut-off
frequency of 100 kHz. The gain setting on the 2310 Measurement Group strain gauge
amplifier and signal conditioner was set to a value of 10 to avoid strong interference
in the frequency range up to 100 kHz. The gain setting of the Vatell Amplifiers 6 was
100 and was assumed not to have any significant influence in this frequency range.
The data was treated according to the procedure presented in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.1.
Only signals from gauges 1 and 2 were recorded. Three experiments were
done, run #1 and #2 with film cooling at nominal conditions and run #3 without
film cooling. The conditions for the different runs are shown in Table 3.11 and the
conditions at shock impact are shown in Table 3.12.
Table 3.11: Test Matrix and Parameters for All Runs and Gauges 1 and
2 for “Direct Comparison”
pc
Run # Shock p∞
h1 h2 η1 η2
W W
Strength [−] [ m2 ·K ] [ m2 ·K ] [−] [−]
p+p0max
p
1 1.32 1.04 862 795 0.30 0.18
2 1.32 1.04 775 800 0.33 0.19
3 1.32 na 666 690 na na
Table 3.12: Conditions at Shock Impact for All Runs and Gauges 1 and 2
for “Direct Comparison”
Run # Tt Tc Tr1 Tr2 Taw1 Taw2 Tw1 Tw2 Ts1 Ts2
[ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ C ] [ ◦C ]
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
[ ◦C ]
1 70.0 -103.0 64.1 64.9 14.0 34.7 8.2 10.5 58.1 56.1
2 75.1 -139.0 69.2 70.0 0.5 30.3 -4.3 -1.0 60.0 58.5
3 79.3 na 73.4 74.2 73.4 74.2 27.4 27.1 64.2 62.5
If Moss’ conclusion holds true for heat transfer with shock passing and film
cooling, the following procedure should provide a good prediction of the unsteady
115
heat transfer:
1. From the ratio of unsteady static pressure over mean static pressure before shock
impact, calculate a variation of unsteady temperature, assuming an isentropic
compression. The temperature that this compression is applied to has to be the
static freestream temperature (see in Table 3.12). Even though Moss does not
specifically elaborate as to which temperature he is applying the compression
to, it surely has to be the static temperature, since it is calculated using the
static pressure.
γ−1
Ts + Ts0 p + p0 γ
= (3.30)
Ts p
Or rearranged:
γ−1 !
p + p0 γ
Ts0 = Ts · −1 (3.31)
p
2. So the static freestream temperature is calculated from the freestream total

temperature and the Mach Number derived from the ratio of mean local static
pressure and freestream total pressure. Then the unsteady variation of static
temperature is known.
3. This unsteady temperature variation is multiplied by the steady heat transfer

coefficient to yield the predicted unsteady heat flux according to Moss’ conclu-
sion.
γ−1 !
p + p0 γ
q 0 = h · Ts · −1 (3.32)
p
116
In a sense, this method can be looked at as an extension of the decomposition
technique layed out in Section 3.5.2. There, the unsteady heat flux was decomposed
into its different components, and it was concluded that all components containing h0
were negligible. Then, Equations 3.11 and 3.18 were used to calculate the unsteady
variation of temperature from the measured heat flux. No explanation was given for
these temperature variations. Moss’ conclusion leading to Equation 3.32 is an attempt
to explain the temperature variation and predict the the unsteady heat transfer.
This technique will be illustrated using data from gauge # 2 and uncooled run
# 3. The data from all three runs and two gauges will be presented in Figures 3.41
through 3.43. The raw traces of pressure and heat flux before any signal processing
are shown in Figure 3.38. Both traces are shown in the same graph to facilitate
comparison. In this graph, it seems that both traces are similar in shape, and a
5 1.6
1.5
4
Heat Flux 1.4

3 Pressure Ratio
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
1.3
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
2
1.2
1
1.1
0 1
0.9
−1
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
Figure 3.38: Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 2 from Uncooled Run #3.
Raw Signals of Pressure Ratio and Unsteady Heat Flux.
prediction of heat flux from pressure may easily be possible. The data needs to
117
be treated according to the procedure explained in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.1. The
influence of the transfer functions of both transducers is too significant to be ignored
in this analysis. The traces after the correction are shown in Figure 3.39. The scales
5 1.6
1.5
4
Heat Flux 1.4

3 Pressure Ratio
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
1.3
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
2
1.2
1
1.1
0 1
0.9
−1
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
Processed Signals of Pressure Ratio and Unsteady Heat Flux.
in Figures 3.38 and 3.39 are identical in order to illustrate the significance of the
data correction applied. The magnitudes and shapes differ strongly between the two
figures. Still, the general shapes of the two curves seem comparable.
In Figure 3.40 the corrected measured heat flux and the predicted heat flux
according to Equation 3.32 are compared. The order of magnitude of heat trans-
fer is well predicted as is the general trend. On the other hand, the match is not
close enough to attribute all the unsteady heat transfer to the temperature variation
shown here. Figures 3.41 through 3.43 show different degrees of agreement between
the prediction and the actual heat flux. The model works with varying degrees of
success. This is certainly due in part to remaining uncertainties in the dynamic
118
5
Heat Flux Measured
q’ [ W/cm2 ] 3 Heat Flux Predicted
−1
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
Predicted and Measured Unsteady Heat Flux.
characterization of the sensors.
Generally speaking, the model provides a good prediction of heat flux taking
into account its simplicity. It is, therefore, valid to say that it supports the conclusions
drawn in Section 3.5.2 in that it assumes a constant heat transfer coefficient. This
coincides with the conclusion that h0 is negligible.
119
Gauge #1, Raw Data Gauge #2, Raw Data
6 6
Heat Flux 1.6 Heat Flux 1.6
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
4 Pressure Ratio 4 Pressure Ratio
2
1.4 1.4
2 1.2 2 1.2
0 1 0 1
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Gauge #1, Corrected Gauge #2, Corrected
6 6
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
4 Pressure Ratio 2 4 Pressure Ratio
1.4 1.4
2 1.2 2 1.2
0 1 0 1
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Gauge #1, Comparison Gauge #2, Comparison
6 6
Heat Flux Heat Flux
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
4 Prediction 4 Prediction
2
2 2
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.41: Shock Passing Event from Run #1 with Film Cooling. Moss’
Model And Comparison with Data.
120
6 6
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
2
1.4 1.4
2 1.2 2 1.2
0 1 0 1
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

6 6
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
1.4 1.4
2 1.2 2 1.2
0 1 0 1
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

6 6
Heat Flux Heat Flux
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
2
2 2
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.42: Shock Passing Event from Run #2 with Film Cooling. Moss’
Model And Comparison with Data.
121
6 6
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
2
1.4 1.4
2 1.2 2 1.2
0 1 0 1
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

6 6
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
1.4 1.4
2 1.2 2 1.2
0 1 0 1
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

6 6
Heat Flux Heat Flux
q’ [ W/cm2 ]
q’ [ W/cm ]
2
2 2
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.43: Shock Passing Event from Run #3 without Film Cooling.
Moss’ Model And Comparison with Data.
122
3.5.3.2 Johnson’s Model
A large amount of work has been published by A.B. Johnson’s team at Oxford
University. They approached similar issues to the ones presented in this dissertation,
but they do so in a quite different manner. Instead of the shock tube arrangement
used here, they built a rotating bar mechanism to produce shock waves and wakes to
interact with the rotor blades in a linear cascade. They measured the unsteady heat
transfer and surface pressure. In Johnson et al. (1988) they published a theoretical
model of the unsteady heat transfer and compared it to their data. This model will
be applied to the data taken for this work. Even though the experiments done in
Oxford did not involve film cooling, the model should still be applicable because of
its many simplifications.
The data used for this comparison is the same that was used in Section 3.5.3.1
for comparison with Moss’ Model and was treated the same way before use in the
analysis.
After simplifying the energy equation including first order perturbations down
to the one-dimensional heat conduction equation, Johnson finds the general solution
of the surface heat flux in the Laplace domain to be:
p √
qu = ρ · cp · k equiv · Tg · s (3.33)
This is Equation (14) in Johnson et al. (1988). The overline over a function denotes
its Laplace transform, Tg denotes some kind of unsteady near wall temperature history
p
and s is the Laplace variable. The term ρ · cp · k equiv refers to a weighted product
taking into account the thermal product, β, of the gas and the surface material.
123
√ p
p ρ · c · ks · ρ · cp · k g
ρ · c · k equiv = √ p (3.34)
ρ · c · k s + ρ · cp · k g
The subscript “g” describes the gas properties (βg = 6.98 K·skg2·√s ). The subscript “s”
refers to the material of the surface that the heat flux is transferred to, in our case
the Vatell HFM-7/L heat flux sensor (βs = 21551.4 K·skg2·√s ). Therefore, βequiv = βg
without any significant error. The gas temperature fluctuation is then calculated from
the surface static pressure data assuming an isentropic compression. The assumption
of an isentropic compression is valid for relatively weak shocks as the ones used in
Johnson et al. (1988) and in this investigation. As the base temperature for the
calculation of Tg , the freestream static temperature Ts will be used as determined in
Section 3.5.3.1:
γ−1 !
p + p0 γ
Tg = Ts · −1 (3.35)
p
The method will be presented using the data from gauge #1 and uncooled run #3
according to Tables 3.11 and 3.12 in Section 3.5.3.1. The pressure trace from this
experiment and gauge are shown again in Figure 3.44 along with the gas temperature
calculated using the isentropic assumption. The discrete temperature history shown
in Figure 3.44 can now be decomposed into linear components according to:
X
m
Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2
T (t) = · (t − tn−1 ) with: tm−1 < t (3.36)
n=3
∆t
Here, it is assumed that the time series starts at n = 1 and t1 = 0. It is also

assumed that the first two values of gas temperature are zero. Tg was replaced by T
124
1.6 60
1.5 50
1.4 Pressure Ratio 40

(p+p’)/p [ − ] Gas Temperature
Tg [ °C ]
1.3 30
1.2 20
1.1 10
1 0
0.9 −10
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
Figure 3.44: Shock Passing Event for Gauge # 1 from Uncooled Run
#3. Pressure Ratios and Isentropic Gas Temperature. Pressure Signal
Corrected According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4.
for simplicity. ∆t is the time interval between two data points. Equation 3.36 can be
transformed into the Laplace domain:
X
m
Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2 1 −tn−1 ·s
T (t) = · ·e with: tm−1 < t (3.37)
n=3
∆t s2
By replacing Tg in Equation 3.33 by T (t) from Equation 3.37 an expression for the
heat flux in the Laplace domain is found:
X
m
Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2 1
q u = βg · · √ · e−tn−1 ·s (3.38)
n=3
∆t s· s
125
p
ρ · cp · k g was replaced by βg for simplicity. Retransformation into the time domain
yields the following expression for the heat flux:
r
X
m
Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2 t − tn−1
qu (t) = 2 · βg · · with: tm−1 < t (3.39)
n=3
∆t π
Or discretized:
r
X
m
Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2 tm − tn−1
qu (tm ) = 2 · βg · · (3.40)
n=3
∆t π
And simplified:
2 · βg X √
m
qu (tm ) = √ (Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2 ) · m − n + 1 (3.41)
π · ∆t n=3
This Equation is similar to Equation (18) of Johnson et al. (1988). The difference
is that in Johnson’s approach Ti+1 is predicted from Ti and Ti−1 while in the model
developed here Ti is predicted from Ti−1 and Ti−2 . This slight change makes it easier
to use with Matlab or Mathematica and gives the exact same results. For a more
complete discussion of the different discretization schemes for Equation 3.33, refer to
Appendix F.
Treating the data shown in Figure 3.44 according to Equation 3.41 and using
βg = 6.98 K·skg2·√s yields the trace of heat flux qu shown in Figure 3.45. The two traces
126
12
10
8 qu (Johnson)
qu, q’ [ W/cm2 ] Measured q’
6
−2
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
#3. qu According to Johnson et al. (1988). Heat Flux Signal Corrected
According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4.
do not compare well.
Johnson derives a second component of unsteady heat flux which is due to the
change of thickness of the boundary layer. Even though this second component of
unsteady heat flux was derived for a shock impinging normally to the surface, Johnson
applied the method to locations on the blade where the shock passes tangentially
rather than impinging normally. That justifies the use of this model in the present
situation.
The second component of unsteady heat flux due to boundary layer compres-
sion is calculated according to Equation (16) of Johnson et al. (1988).
127
γ1
p + p0
qm = q · (3.42)
p
The underlying idea is that the thickness of the boundary layer scales proportionally
with the change of density. Figure 3.46 shows the trace of qm for the experiment
presented here. qm depends on the mean level of heat flux before the shock impact
8
q (Johnson)
7 m
qm, q’ [ W/cm2 ]
Measured q’
6
2
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
#3. qm According to Johnson et al. (1988). Heat Flux Signal Corrected
According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4.
q. The magnitudes of the unsteady component of qm are small compared to the

measured unsteady heat flux or compared to the heat flux due to the temperature
change qu . The reason for this lies in the fact that the boundary layer does not change
significantly because the density does not vary much.
According to Johnson, the overall unsteady heat flux can be predicted by

the sum of qu and qm . In Figure 3.47 this predicted heat flux and the measured
128
16
14
qu+qm (Johnson)
qu+qm, q’ [ W/cm2 ]
12
Measured q’
10
2
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time [ µs ]
Comparison Between qu +qm and q 0 . Heat Flux Signal Corrected According
to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4
heat flux are shown on the same axis for comparison. Figure 3.47 shows that the
prediction according to Johnson does not represent the measured data well. The
prediction according to Moss et al. (1997) presented in Section 3.5.3.1 shows much
better agreement. It must be stated that the agreement was not overwhelming even
in the original publication by Johnson et al. (1988). Also, the data compared in
Johnson et al. (1988) was filtered at 30 kHz, which brings with it a considerable loss
of information and makes the comparison somewhat difficult.
The results of Johnson’s prediction can be compared with the decomposition

technique developed in Section 3.5.2. The pressure traces for each gauge are very
much alike for all run conditions with the same shock strength. That means that qu
will look similar for all runs at a certain shock strength. The only scaling factor will
be the freestream temperature. Since this temperature does not vary significantly on
the Kelvin scale, the influence will be minor. In other words qu represents the fraction
129
of unsteady heat flux not related to the initial level of heat flux, or:
qu ≈ h · Tr0 (3.43)
The component of predicted heat flux that does scale with the heat flux before shock
impact is qm . Therefore, it can be compared to h0 · (Tr − Tw ) from the decomposition
technique:
qm ≈ q + h0 · (Tr − Tw ) (3.44)
Figure 3.46 shows that this component is relatively small compared to the overall
unsteady heat flux and compared to the initial level of heat flux. This indicates that
h0 is relatively small and the unsteady component of qm can be neglected. In this
case, qu is the prediction for q 0 . According to Equation 3.43 this unsteady heat flux
is linearly related to a variation of recovery temperature Tr0 . Then Tr0 would have to
take the shape of qu in Figure 3.45. It is not very likely that any temperature would
vary in this way under the influence of a shock wave as seen in Figure 3.44. Therefore,
it can be suggested that Johnson’s Model does not reflect the physical event. Moss’
model, on the other hand, does describe the physics of the shock passing with the
assumption (and conclusion) that h0 is negligible. The resulting traces of Tr0 seemed
physically reasonable.
Figures 3.48 through 3.50 present all data from all gauges and experiments
treated according to the method presented in this Section. The comparison is similar
for all the data taken and the same conclusions can be drawn.
130
Gauge #1 Gauge #2
2 2
Pressure Ratio 40 Pressure Ratio 40
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
Temperature Temperature
Tg [ ºC ]
Tg [ ºC ]
1.5 1.5
20 20
1 0 1 0
1100 1200 1300 1100 1200 1300

15
qu (Johnson) q (Johnson)
qu, qm [ W/cm2 ]
qu, qm [ W/cm ]
10 u
2
q (Johnson) qm (Johnson)
m 10
5
5
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1100 1200 1300

15
qu+qm, q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
qu+qm, q+q’ [ W/cm ]

2
q +q (Johnson) qu+qm (Johnson)

10 u m
q+q’ Measured 10 q+q’ Measured
5
5
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.48: Shock Passing Event from Run #1 With Film Cooling. John-
son’s Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals
131
Gauge #1 Gauge #2
2 2
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
Tg [ ºC ]
Tg [ ºC ]
1.5 1.5
20 20
1 0 1 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

15
qu (Johnson) q (Johnson)
qu, qm [ W/cm2 ]
qu, qm [ W/cm ]
10 u
2
q (Johnson) qm (Johnson)
m 10
5
5
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

15

2
q +q (Johnson) qu+qm (Johnson)

10 u m
5
5
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.49: Shock Passing Event from Run #2 With Film Cooling. John-
son’s Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals
132
Gauge #1 Gauge #2
2 2
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
Tg [ ºC ]
Tg [ ºC ]
1.5 1.5
20 20
1 0 1 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

15 15
q (Johnson)
qu, qm [ W/cm2 ]
qu, qm [ W/cm ]
qu (Johnson) u
2
qm (Johnson)
q (Johnson) 10
10 m
5
5
0
0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
15
15
2
qu+qm (Johnson)
qu+qm (Johnson)
10 q+q’ Measured
10 q+q’ Measured
5
5
0
0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
Figure 3.50: Shock Passing Event from Run #3 Without Film Cooling.
Johnson’s Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux
Signals Corrected According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4.
133
3.5.3.3 Rigby’s Model
In 1989 Rigby et al. (1989) published a modified version of Johnson’s Model.

In this publication, they provide a more thorough derivation of the equations. The
final equations are slightly different from the ones published in Johnson et al. (1988).
This model will be presented here and compared to the data. The derivation given
in Rigby et al. (1989) will be presented for completeness.
The derivation refers to the situation depicted in Figure 3.51. The situation
To
Before After
po p(t)
T
do
yo
d Sublayer
y
Tw
Figure 3.51: Change in Laminar Sublayer Temperature Profile from To to

T Due to Compression and Heating Induced by Pressure Change. From
Rigby et al. (1989).
“Before” depicts an undisturbed flow field with a steady state boundary layer. The
situation “After” shows an arbitrary point in time after the flow field has been dis-
turbed by a pressure variation. The boundary layer thickness varies with the pressure
and so is the position of any portion of fluid with respect to the wall (do → d and
yo → y). The temperature profile is changed from To to T (y, t). The derivation
is restricted to the laminar sub-layer shown in this Figure. The pressure fluctua-
tions depicted in Figure 3.51 act simultaneously throughout the sub-layer. A linear
134
temperature profile is assumed prior to any perturbations:
q
To (y) = Tw + ·y (3.45)
k
The wall temperature is assumed to be constant. The temperature profile after a

pressure perturbation p(t) is now decomposed in two contributions:
T (y, t) = Tc (y, t) + Th (y, t) (3.46)
Tc (y, t) is a temperature time history that is the result of the pressure fluctuation
only. The pressure variation acts in the entire flow field as an isentropic compression.
γ−1
p + p0 γ
Tc (y, t) = To (y) · (3.47)
p
The density in the sublayer changes according to:
γ1
ρ + ρ0 p + p0
= (3.48)
ρ p
Therefore, the gas that is in a location y after the compression was originally at a
position yo :
135
γ1
p + p0
yo = y · (3.49)
p
Replacing 3.49 in 3.45 and substituting the result in 3.47 yields for Tc :
γ−1
p + p0 γ
q p + p0
Tc = Tw · + ·y· (3.50)
p k p
Therefore:

∂Tc p + p0
qc = k · =q· (3.51)
∂y y=0 p
Th (y, t) is the part of the temperature time history that is only due to transient
conduction in the fluid. It is only significant close to the wall, where the conduction
becomes important since the wall temperature stays constant. Outside of the sublayer,
Th (y > d, t) = 0. In order to determine the solution for this part of the temperature
profile, Rigby et al. (1989) derive a differential temperature boundary layer equation
from the unsteady Navier-Stokes viscous energy equation for the situation depicted
in 3.51. They assume k to be constant and neglect viscous terms to arrive at:
∂T ∂T ∂2T ∂p0
ρ · cp · v · + ρ · cp · =k· 2 + (3.52)
∂y ∂t ∂y ∂t
The velocity in the y-direction v is derived using Equation 3.49:
136
∂y 1 y ∂p0
v= =− · · (3.53)
∂t γ p + p0 ∂t
Substituting v and using the relations for a thermally and calorically perfect gas they
arrive at:

∂T 1 ∂2T 1 ∂p0 ∂T
= · + · · y· + (γ − 1) · T (3.54)
∂t α ∂y 2 γ · (p + p0 ) ∂t ∂y
The first term on the right hand side of Equation 3.54 is of the order of y −2 and
outweighs the second term which is on the oder of y 0 close to the wall. Then the
second term may be dropped when stating the differential equation for Th (y, t) only
(Tc (y, t) and Th (y, t) superimpose linearily so each of them has to be a solution to the
differential equation):
∂ 2 Th (y, t) 1 ∂Th (y, t)

2 = · (3.55)
∂y α ∂t
This Equation is identical to the one-dimensional heat conduction equation (see dis-
cussion in Appendix F). Transforming 3.55 into the Laplace domain yields:
∂ 2 T h (y, s) s
2 = · T h (y, s) (3.56)
∂y α
The general solution to 3.56 is:
137
√s √s
T h (y, s) = A · e α ·y + B · e− α ·y (3.57)
The first boundary condition is that Th (y, t) becomes zero far away from the wall.
Therefore A in Equation 3.57 has to be zero. The second boundary condition comes
from Equation 3.46 at the wall:
T (0, t) = Tc (0, t) + Th (0, t)
Tw = Tw · Π(t) + Th (0, t) (3.58)
Where:
γ−1
p + p0 γ
Π(t) = (3.59)
p
Then:
Th (0, t) = Tw · (1 − Π(t)) (3.60)
or in the Laplace domain:
T h (0, s) = Tw · (1 − Π(t)) (3.61)
138
Using this boundary condition and expressing Equation 3.57 at y = 0 leads to an
equation for B (noting that A = 0):
T h (0, s) = Tw · (1 − Π(t)) = B (3.62)
Now the constants in Equation 3.57 are known and so is the solution for T h (y, s):
√s
T h (y, s) = Tw · (1 − Π(t)) · e− α
·y
(3.63)
The surface heat flux caused by this temperature variation can be expressed as:
∂Th (y, s)
qh (t) = −k · (3.64)
∂y y=0
Or in the Laplace domain:
∂T h (y, s)
q h (s) = −k · (3.65)
∂y y=0
Taking the derivative of T h (y, s) at y = 0 and substituting into Equation 3.65 yields:
p √
q h (s) = k · ρ · cp · Tw · (1 − Π(t)) · s (3.66)
139
With the following redefinition
√
g(s) ≡ (1 − Π(t)) · s (3.67)
Equation 3.66 can be restated:
p
q h (s) = k · ρ · cp · Tw · g(s) (3.68)
The heat flux at the wall can now be calculated according to:
0 p + p0 p
q + q = qc + qh = qo · + k · ρ · c · Tw · g(t) (3.69)
p
The differences between this Equation and Johnson’s equation, shown in the last
Section, are subtle. The first term on the right hand side of Equation 3.69, qc , is very
similar to the expression for qm given by Johnson:
p + p0
Rigby: qc = q ·
p
1
p + p0 γ
Johnson: qm = q · (3.70)
p
The second term on the right hand side of Equation 3.69, qh , closely resembles qu from
Johnson’s analysis. The only difference here is that while Johnson did not specify the
140
base temperature for the calculation of Tg , Rigby’s model clearly specifies the use of
the wall temperature for the calculation of Tg . In the analysis according to Johnson’s
model in Section 3.5.3.2, the freestream static temperature was used for lack of a
better choice.
The model developed by Rigby will be compared with the data presented in
the two preceding Sections 3.5.3.1 and 3.5.3.2. The parameters for the different
experiments and the conditions before shock impact were shown in Section 3.5.3.1.
The same discretization scheme used in Section 3.5.3.2 will be used to calculate the
heat flux due to transient conduction qh :
2 · βg X √
m
qc (tm ) = √ · (Tn − 2 · Tn−1 + Tn−2 ) · m − n + 1 (3.71)
π · ∆t n=3
The temperature history Ti is calculated from:
γ−1
p + p0 γ
T = Twi · (3.72)
p
The index i refers to gauge 1 or 2. The comparison between the prediction and the
measured data is similar for Johnson’s and Rigby’s model. The shape and the mag-
nitude of the measured data is not predicted nearly as well as with Moss’ assumption
of a constant heat transfer coefficient.
141
Gauge #1 Gauge #2
2 2
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
T [ ºC ]
T [ ºC ]
1.5 1.5
20 20
1 0 1 0
1100 1200 1300 1100 1200 1300

15
qh (Rigby) q (Rigby)
qh, qc [ W/cm2 ]
qh, qc [ W/cm ]
10 h
2
q (Rigby) qc (Rigby)
c 10
5
5
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1100 1200 1300

15
qh+qc, q+q’ [ W/cm2 ]
qh+qc, q+q’ [ W/cm ]

2
q +q (Rigby) qh+qc (Rigby)

10 h c
5
5
0 0
1100 1200 1300 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.52: Shock Passing Event from Run #1 With Film Cooling. Rig-
by’s Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals
142
Gauge #1 Gauge #2
2 2
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
T [ ºC ]
T [ ºC ]
1.5 1.5
20 20
1 0 1 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

15
qh (Rigby) q (Rigby)
qh, qc [ W/cm2 ]
qh, qc [ W/cm ]
10 h
2
q (Rigby) qc (Rigby)
c 10
5
5
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

15

2
q +q (Rigby) qh+qc (Rigby)

10 h c
5
5
0 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

Figure 3.53: Shock Passing Event from Run #2 With Film Cooling. Rig-
by’s Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Signals
143
Gauge #1 Gauge #2
2 2
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
(p+p’)/p [ − ]
T [ ºC ]
T [ ºC ]
1.5 1.5
20 20
1 0 1 0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300

15 15
q (Rigby)
qh, qc [ W/cm2 ]
qh, qc [ W/cm ]
h
2
qc (Rigby)
qh (Rigby) 10
10
qc (Rigby)
5
5
0
0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
15 15

2
qh+qc (Rigby)
qh+qc (Rigby) 10 q+q’ Measured
10
q+q’ Measured
5
5
0
0
1000 1100 1200 1300 1000 1100 1200 1300
Figure 3.54: Shock Passing Event from Run #3 Without Film Cooling.
Rigby’s Model And Comparison with Data. Pressure and Heat Flux Sig-
nals Corrected According to Section “Signal Processing” 3.4.
144
3.5.4 Comparison with Reid’s Numerical Model
In his Ph.D. thesis, Reid (1998) developed a numerical model for the unsteady
heat transfer in the turbine cascade used in this investigation. He simplified the sit-
uation to the very same abstract model that Johnson et al. (1988) used to derive
his equations described in Section 3.5.3.2 (see Figure 3.55). While Johnson simplifies
Incident Shock Wave

Incident Normal
Shock Wave
Velocity or
Temperature Boundary
Profile Layer
P, T
Computational
Domain
P'
T'
Johnson's Simplified Depiction Reid's Computational Domain

of Shock Impingement Process and Simplified Depiction of Shock
(from Johnson et al) Impingement Process
(from Reid)
Figure 3.55: Reid’s and Johnson’s Simplified Depictions of the Shock Im-
pingement Process.
the first order perturbation equations down to the one-dimensional heat conduction
equation to obtain equations for the unsteady heat flux, Reid solves the problem nu-
merically using the quasi-2D Navier-Stokes equation. And, while Johnson extends the
model from a normal shock wave impinging normally to the surface to any fluctuat-
ing temperature history due to shocks, wakes and expansion waves, Reid numerically
simulates only the case of the normal shock impinging normally on the surface.
Reid’s numerical simulation yielded results virtually identical to the solution
145
of Johnson’s simplified equations for the case of the normally impacting normal shock
wave. In this way, Reid delivers proof that Johnson’s simplifications in the simplified
situation are valid. Reid’s results for normal shock impingement with a preexisting
thermal boundary layer can be summarized as follows:
γ1
βg · ∆T p + p0
q0 = √ + h · (Tt − Tw + ∆T ) · − h · (Tt − Tw ) (3.73)
π·t p
Or simplified for better comparison with Johnson’s results:
" γ1 # γ1
βg · ∆T p + p0 p + p0
q0 = √ +q· −1 +h· · ∆T (3.74)
π·t p p
∆T is the step in temperature induced by the normal shock and its reflection. p0
in this case is the unsteady pressure seen on the surface and includes the pressure
rise due to the impinging normal shock and its reflection. The equation for qu + qm
developed by Johnson applied to this special case yields:
" γ1 #
βg · ∆T p + p0
q0 = √ +q· −1 (3.75)
π·t p
The first term on the right hand side of Equations 3.74 and 3.75 is the solution
of the one-dimensional heat conduction equation with a step input of temperature.
The second term in both Equations represents the increase of heat flux due to the
thinning of the boundary layer. This term will only contribute significantly to the
overall unsteady heat transfer a long time after the shock impact. For short times
146
after shock impact, the heat flux expressed by the first terms is significantly higher.
Reid’s result contains an additional term on the right hand side, which contains the
heat transfer due to both boundary layer thinning and the increase of temperature
due to the shock. Johnson’s Model does not include this component of heat transfer.
Like the effect of the boundary layer thinning, this component of heat transfer will
only be significant a long time after shock impact. It is also specific to the solution of
the problem of a normal shock wave impacting normally on the surface. Since Johnson
did not intend to model this particular problem but to establish a prediction model
for a general pressure and time history, his model does not include this component of
heat flux.
Despite this slight difference, the degree of agreement between the numerical
and analytical model applied to this simplified situation is surprisingly high. In both
models, the heat flux for short times after the shock impact is dominated by the
solution to the one-dimensional heat conduction equation. Only long times after the
shock impact do slight differences between the models show. Both models agree that
most of the energy transfer is by one-dimensional conduction in the fluid which is
relatively slow in air. The presence of the boundary layer does not change the heat
transfer significantly. This is in contradiction with the results from this investigation.
It was shown in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3.1 that the heat transfer coefficient is not
affected severely by the passing shock. The boundary layer reestablishes its original
non-dimensional shape much faster than predicted with the one-dimensional conduc-
tion model. It was also shown that Johnson’s model does not predict the unsteady
heat transfer well (see Section 3.5.3.2).
One reason why Johnson’s and Reid’s models mutually agree but disagree
with experimental data might be the fact that the reaction of the boundary layer to a
sudden change in temperature includes not only conduction but also energy transport
by convection in the boundary layer. It seems that the boundary layer reestablishes its
original non-dimensional shape much quicker than predicted by the conduction-only
147
models. That is probably why the assumption of the time invariant heat transfer
coefficient (Moss’ model) yields so much better agreement with experimental data
than Johnson’s conduction model.
While Johnson’s conduction model and Reid’s numerical model predict that the
boundary layer will never reestablish its original non-dimensional shape (and therefore
heat transfer coefficient) once met with a sudden temperature change, Moss’ model
implies that the boundary layer never even changes its original shape, and the heat
transfer coefficient stays constant. The experimental data suggests that Moss’ model
describes the boundary layer behavior far better than Johnson’s and Reid’s model.
Since Rigby’s model is almost identical to Johnson’s model, it will not be compared
to the numerical results separately.
148
Chapter 4
Conclusions from the Investigation

of Unsteady Heat Flux
4.1 Summary
In Section 3.5.2 the unsteady heat transfer due to shock passing was investi-
gated by use of the decomposition technique. By splitting all physical parameters
into their time mean component before shock impact and their unsteady component
during shock impact, a detailed analysis of the different contributions of different
parameters was possible. The general conclusion was that neither the heat transfer
coefficient nor the film effectiveness vary enough to significantly enhance or reduce
unsteady heat transfer due to shock impingement. The major part of the unsteady
heat transfer could be attributed to the increase in temperature induced by the pass-
ing shock wave. Considering the fact that in an engine the temperature is actually
varying around a mean value, it was predicted that the time average heat transfer
with and without passing shocks would have to be similar.
149
This prediction is exactly the result of the experimental work done by Moss et
al. (1997). From these experiments it was concluded that the heat transfer coefficient
is not affected strongly by pressure variations due to unsteady phenomena but that the
heat transfer was driven mainly by an isentropic compression of the freestream air. By
applying this assumption to the data, relatively good agreement between this model
and the measurements could be obtained. This implies that the non-dimensional
shape of the boundary layer is basically constant during the shock impact. The largest
discrepancy between this model and the data is in the initial rise of heat flux. While
Moss’ Model is underpredicting the measured data in this time window, a model
developed by Johnson et al. (1988) and Rigby et al. (1989) strongly overpredicts
the initial rise. That could imply that the heat transfer coefficient is reacting to
some extent short times after the shock impact. It has been mentioned that the
physical gauge size influences the gauge frequency response. The shock rise times
would probably be shorter and the peak levels of unsteady heat flux higher with a
hypothetical point sensor. This would make the initial rise of the unsteady heat flux
due to shock passing more similar to the prediction according to Rigby et al. (1989)
and Johnson et al. (1988). Still, it can not be denied that the model by Moss et al.
(1995) is closer to the data than the model by Johnson et al. (1988) and Rigby et al.
(1989).
The overall conclusion to be drawn from the experimental observations and the
comparison with existing models is the following: The variation of the heat transfer
coefficient was shown to be of secondary significance in the unsteady heat transfer
due to shock passing. This holds true for a film cooled blade and a blade without film
cooling. Also, the film effectiveness could be proven to vary only insignificantly. The
unsteady heat transfer is mainly due to a change in gas temperature induced by the
passing shock wave. Since the gas temperature seen by the rotor blade in an actual
engine varies around its mean, the time averaged heat transfer with the presence
of shocks will not differ significantly from the time averaged heat flux without this
flowfield disturbance.
150
4.2 Application to Turbine Design
Extrapolating from the above conclusion, recommendations for future turbine

design applications are as follows:
1. The development of improved codes for the determination of steady state heat
transfer data on blades with and without film cooling should be encouraged.
According to the conclusions from Section 4.1, an accurate steady state pre-
diction will provide a good estimate for the heat transfer in the presence of
unsteady phenomena.
2. Convection has more influence on the unsteady behavior of the turbine blade
boundary layer than assumed by conduction/unsteady compression models. It is
not sufficient to reduce the problem of unsteady heat flux to a purely conductive
phenomenon.
4.3 Outlook
Since the present investigation focused on the first part of the suction side of
the blade, it is not certain that the conclusions will hold for other regions on the blade
even though the investigation by Moss et al. (1997) indicates that an extrapolation
to the entire blade surface is possible.
The freestream turbulence level is known to influence the boundary layer on

the blade. In the present study the turbulence level was very low compared to engine
conditions (about 1%). The effect of higher turbulence levels on the conclusions
from this investigation will be interesting. The research done by Moss et al. (1997)
was done at similar low turbulence levels, so an extrapolation to higher values of
151
turbulence cannot be done using their results.
Since the main mode of interaction between unsteady phenomena and the heat
transfer coefficient seems to be the effect on the transitional behavior of the boundary
layer on the suction side, it would be important to investigate the effect of a passing
shock wave on the heat transfer on the later part of a turbine blade with transitional
features. The cascade investigated here did not show any transitional behavior. The
boundary layer is laminar all the way down to the passage shock where it immediately
transitions to turbulent flow (shown in schlieren pictures presented in Bubb (1999)).
To summarize, recommendations for further research are as follows:
1. More locations on the blade should be investigated, especially on the down-

stream suction side.
2. The experiments should be repeated at higher turbulent intensities more repre-

sentative of engine conditions.
3. Similar experiments should be done on a blade with a transitional suction side

boundary layer.
4. It can be expected that a much higher pressure ratios there will be an effect
of the shock on heat transfer coefficient and film effectiveness. Increasing the
shock strength may, therefore, lead to different conclusions.
5. When modeling the passing shock wave with a shock tube setup or a rotating
bar mechanism, the shock strength and speed are linked. It may well be that
a shock of certain strength will have different effects when interacting with the
surface at a different speed (see steady shock boundary layer interaction). An
entirely different setup would have to be devised to make such an investigation
possible.
152
References
Abhari, R.S. 1996. Impact of Stator-Rotor Interaction on Turbine Blade Film Cooling.
Pages 123–133 of: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 118.
Abhari, R.S., et al. 1994. An Experimental Study of Film Cooling in a Rotating

Transonic Turbine. Pages 63–70 of: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol.
116.
Bubb, J.V. 1999. The Influence of Pressure Ratio on Film Cooling Performance
of a Turbine Blade. M.Phil. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Chapman, A.J., et al. 1971. Introductory Gas Dynamics. First edn. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.
Collie, J. C. 1991. Unsteady Shock Wave Effects on Transonic Turbine Cascade

Performance. M.Phil. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Cook, W.J. 1970. Determination of Heat-Transfer Rates from Transient Surface Tem-
perature Measurements. Pages 1366–1368 of: AIAA Journal, vol. 8.
Cook, W.J., et al. 1966. Reduction of Data from Thin-Film Heat-Transfer Gauges:
A Concise Numerical Technique. Pages 561–562 of: AIAA Journal, vol. 4.
Dean, R. C. 1959. On the Necessity of Unsteady Flow in Fluid Machines. Pages

24–28 of: Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 1.
153
Diller, T.E. 1996. Methods of Determining Heat Flux from Temperature Measure-
ments. Pages 251–262 of: Proceedings of the 42nd International Instrumentation
Symposium, vol. 1.
Doorly, D.J., et al. 1985. Simulation of the Effects of Shock Wave Passing on a
Turbine Rotor Blade. In: International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Conference
and Exhibit.
Doughty, R.L., et al. 1995. Multiple Shock wave Generation for Cascade Testing. In:
33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.
Doughty, Roger L. 1994. Effects of Shock Waves on the Flow in a Transonic Turbine
Cascade. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Du, H., et al. 1997. Effect of Unsteady Wake on Detailed Heat Transfer Coefficient
and Film Effectiveness Distributions for a Gas Turbine Blade. In: International
Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition.
Dunn, M.G. 1982. Measurement of Heat Flux and Pressure in a Turbine Stage. In:
ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 104.
Dunn, M.G. 1986. Heat-Flux Measurements for the Rotor of a Full-Stage Turbine:
Part 2 - Description of Analysis Technique and Typical Time-Resolved Measure-
ments. In: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 108.
Dunn, M.G. 1989. Phase and Time-Resolved Measurements of Unsteady heat Transfer
and Pressure in a Full-Stage Rotating Turbine.
Epstein, A.H., et al. 1984. Th MIT Blowdown Turbine Facility. In: International
Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition.
Funazaki, K., et al. 1996. Effect of Periodic Wake Passing on Film Effectiveness of
Inclined Discrete Cooling Holes Around the Leading Edge of a Blunt Body. In:
International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition.
154
Goldstein, R.J. 1976. Measurements in Heat Transfer. Second edn. Hemisphere Pub.
Corp.
Greitzer, E. M. 1979. Introduction to Unsteady Flows in Turbomachines. Pages 1–43

of: VKI Lecture Series 1979-3, Unsteady Flow in Turbomachines.
Guenette, G.R., et al. 1989. Fully Scaled Transonic Turbine Rotor Heat Transfer
Measurements. Pages 1–7 of: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 111.
Heidmann, J.D., et al. 1997. An Experimental Study of the Effect of wake Passing
on Turbine Blade Film Cooling. In: International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine
Congress and Exposition.
Johnson, A.B., et al. 1988. Surface Heat Transfer Fluctuations on a Turbine Rotor
Blade Due to Upstream Shock Wave Passing. In: ASME Journal of Turboma-
chinery.
Johnson, A.B., et al. 1990. Nozzle Guide Vane Shock Wave Propagation and Bifur-
cation in a Transonic Turbine Rotor. In: Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress
and Exposition.
Mehendale, A.B., et al. 1994. Unsteady Wake over a Linear Turbine Blade Cascade
with Air and CO2 Film Injection: Part 2- Effect on Film Effectiveness and Heat
Transfer Distributions. Pages 730–737 of: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery,
vol. 116.
Moffat, R. J. 1988. Describing Uncertainties in Experimental Results. In: Experi-

mental Thermal and Fluid Science. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.
Moss, R.W., et al. 1995. Unsteady Pressure and Heat Transfer Measurements on a
Rotating Blade Surface in a Transient Flow Facility. Pages 22.1–22.9 of: AGARD
Conference Proceedings CP-571.
Moss, R.W., et al. 1997. Effect of rotation on blade surface heat transfer: an experi-
mental investigation. In: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery.
155
Nix, A.C. 1997. Effect of Shock Wave Passing on Turbine Blade Heat Transfer in a
Transonic Turbine Cascade. M.Phil. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Nix, A.C., et al. 1997. Effects of Shock Wave Passing on Turbine Blade Heat Transfer
in a Transonic Cascade. In: 35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.
Oldfield, M.L.G., et al. 1978. On-Line Computer for Transient Turbine Cascade
Instrumentation. Pages 669–679 of: IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Elec-
tronic Systems, vol. AES-14 No. 5.
Ou, S., et al. 1994. Unsteady Wake over a Linear Turbine Blade Cascade with Air
and CO2 Film Injection: Part 1- Effect on Heat Transfer Coefficients. Pages
721–729 of: ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 116.
Popp, O., et al. 1999. Steady and Unsteady Heat Transfer in a Transonic Film Cooled
Turbine Cascade. In: International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and
Exhibition.
Reid, Terry Vincent. 1998. A Computational Approach for Investigating Unsteady

Turbine Heat Transfer Due to Shock Wave Impact. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State University.
Rigby, M.J., et al. 1989. Temperature Scaling of Turbine Blade Heat Transfer with
and without Shock Wave Passing. Pages 669–679 of: International Symposium
on Air Breathing Engines, vol. 9.
Rigby, M.J., et al. 1990. Gas Turbine Rotor Blade Film Cooling with and without
Simulated NGV Shock Waves and Wakes. In: Gas Turbine and Aeroengine
Congress and Exposition.
Schultz, D.L., et al. 1973. Heat Transfer Measurements in Short-duration Hypersonic

Facilities AGARD-AG-165. In: AGARD-AGARDOGRAPH-165.
156
Smith, D.E. 1999. Investigation of Heat Transfer Coefficient and Film Cooling Ef-
fectiveness in a Transonic Turbine Cascade. M.Phil. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Smith, Dwight, et al. 1999. A Comparison of Radiation Versus Convection Calibration

of Thin-Film Heat Flux Gauges. In: The ASME Ad-Hoc Committee on Heat Flux
Measurement.
Vidall, R.J. 1962. Transient Surface Temperature Measurements. Pages 90–99 of:
Symposium on Measurement in Unsteady Flow, vol. 1.
157
Appendix A
Shock Progression Details
Shown here are eight shadowgraph images of the shock passing process. The
eight pictures are composed of two sets of four pictures taken with the high speed
camera. The timing shown in the captions must be considered with care. They are
calculated from the camera settings but do not seem to accurately represent the time
history of the event. As pointed out in Section 3.5.1 the interaction of the shock and
the cooling film layer is not clearly visible. No film detachment or significant thinning
or thickening is observed.
158
Figure A.1: Shock Progression: Still # 1, time≈ 450µs.
159
160
161
162
Appendix B
Investigation of the Transfer

Function of Different Kulite
Pressure Transducers
B.1 Problem Statement and Approach
In Experimental High Speed Aerodynamics one is often faced with the task of
obtaining a good representation of moving shock waves in terms of pressure, temper-
ature, velocity, etc. Since shock waves are represented mathematically by discontinu-
ities, their frequency content is theoretically infinitely wide. The problem is then to
decide on transducers that are capable of tracing “adequately” high frequencies. This
investigation is aimed at helping with this decision. The dynamic behavior of two
Kulite transducers XCQ-062-50a is investigated. The sensing surface of one of them
is exposed to the flow while the second sensor is protected by a “B-Screen” supplied
by Kulite. Both of them are exposed to a “known” input of pressure in a modified
163
shock tube in order to determine their transfer functions.
B.2 Experimental Setup
Modified Shock Tube
Figure B.1 shows the shock tube design. A 3/4 inch test pipe is connected to
the end of the driven section of a 3 inch shock tube. The shock is triggered by the
burst of a plastic diaphragm between driven section and driver section. As the shock
reaches the end of the driven section, it propagates into the test tube, growing in
strength in the transition. Two Kulite XCQ-062-50a transducers are flush mounted
to the wall in the middle of the test pipe. While the sensing surface of one of them
is exposed to the passing shock, the second transducer is protected by a “B-Screen.”
The passing shock will be assumed to be an ideal step of pressure in this investigation.
Measurement Chain
Transducer Excitation and Amplification
In order to excite the Kulite sensors and to amplify the signals two Measure-
ments Group 2310 Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifiers were used. The
transfer function of these amplifiers was determined by simple sine sweeps for dif-
ferent gain settings. It became clear that significant roll-offs in the frequency range
of interest had to be taken into account. Even at a nominal gain of 1, the signal is
diminished and phase shifted in the frequency range below 1 MHz as can be seen in
164
Instrumented
Section Test Tube
Ambient
Shock Tube
Driven Section
Kulite
XCQ-062-50a
Transducers
Figure B.1: Shock Tube with Kulite Pressure Sensors.
165
0
−3
20 ⋅ log(Aout/Ain)
−10
−20
Real Filter
Model Filter
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−50
−100
Phase [ deg ]
−150
−200
−250
Real Filter
−300 Model Filter
−350
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
Figure B.2: Transfer Function of the Measurements Group 2310 Strain

Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier at a gain of 1.
Figure B.2. The measured transfer function was modeled as a filter with one zero and
4 poles using a Matlab routine. The experimental and modeled transfer functions are
shown on the same axes in Figure B.2.
Anti-Aliassing Filter
In this investigation it was desirable to obtain data over the widest possible
range of frequencies. The limiting factor was the cut-off frequency of the filters
166
0
−3
−10
−20
Real Filter
Model Filter
−27
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−50
−100
Phase [ deg ]
−150
−200
−250
Real Filter
−300 Model Filter
−350
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
Figure B.3: Transfer Function of the Ithaco 4302 low-pass filter at a cut-off
frequency of 1 MHz.
available. Two Ithaco 4302 filters were used at a cut-off frequency of 1 MHz. They
show a Butterworth characteristic with a 24 dB/octave roll-off as shown in Figure
B.3. The filter was modeled assuming 4 zeroes and 4 poles. The measured and
modeled filter characteristics are shown on the same axes in Figure B.3. Combining
the two transfer functions of the amplifier and the filter, one obtains the measured and
modeled transfer function of the measurement chain without the actual transducer,
shown in Figure B.4.
167
0
−3
−10
−20
Combined Filter
Approximation
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−100
−200
Phase [ deg ]
−300
−400
−500
Combined Filter
−600 Approximation
−700
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
Figure B.4: Combined Transfer Function of Measurements Group 2310

Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier at a gain of 1 and the
Ithaco 4302 low-pass filter at a cut-off frequency of 1 MHz.
168
Data Acquisition
The data from the two transducers was acquired using a LeCroy 6810 Wave-
form Analyzer at a sampling frequency of 2 MHz. The system is controlled by a PC
using the software catalyst via a GPIB interface.
B.3 Results and Discussion
The chosen method to obtain the transfer functions will be presented using
only one experiment as an example. The raw data will be prepared for treatment in
the frequency domain. Then it will be corrected for the influence of the measurement
chain. The transfer functions of both transducers will finally be determined in the
frequency domain.
Preparation of Data in the Time Domain
A typical result from a shock passing is shown in Figure B.5. Three observa-
tions:
• The “real” forcing function is not an ideal step input. There are pressure
fluctuations present after the initial shock impact
• There is more data than needed for the determination of the transfer function.
• The signal is not periodic.
Therefore, the signal will be conditioned in the following manner:
169
4.5
3.5
[−]
3
amb
p/p
2.5
2
Unscreened Sensor
Sensor w/ B−Screen
1.5
1
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time [ µs ]
Figure B.5: Raw Data from Both Transducers.
170
• The data will be truncated very shortly after the initial shock impact to reduce
the effect of the shock not being an ideal step input.
• A very slow downslope will be padded at the end of the time window chosen
for data analysis. The goal is to make the data periodic without changing the
dynamic characteristics of the system.
• An ideal step input is created. This ideal forcing function will be assumed to
be the real input for the purpose of the analysis.
• The initial value will be set to zero to make the numerical analysis simpler
The result of these manipulations is shown in Figure B.6. The upper graph in Figure
B.6 shows the entire trace. The lower graph shows the time window around the
actual shock impact. As the last step in the signal preparation, the time histories are
corrected for the influence of the amplifier and filter. The combined transfer function
of these instruments was described in Section B.2 and shown in Figure B.4. The
signals are corrected according to:
S(ω)
Sc (ω) = (B.1)
Hc (ω)
Where S is the measured signal, Sc is the corrected signal and H is the combined
transfer function of the amplifier and filter up to 1 MHz. Capital letters refer to
the Fourier Transforms of the signal. The result of this operation is shown in the
time domain in Figure B.7. The upper graph in Figure B.7 shows the original and
corrected signal from the unscreened sensor while the lower graph shows the effect
of the correction on the sensor with the B-Screen. The data resulting from the
manipulations described in this Section will be used for the determination of the
transfer functions.
171
a)
3 Unscreened Sensor
Sensor w/ B−Screen
[−]
2 Ideal Step
amb
p/p
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time [ µs ]
b)
3
p/pamb [ − ]
2
Unscreened Sensor
1 Sensor w/ B−Screen
Ideal Step
0
240 260 280 300 320 340
Time [ µs ]
Figure B.6: Traces after Truncation, Padding of Downslope, Zeroing of

Initial Value. Also Shown is the “Ideal” Step Input. Upper Graph a):
Entire Traces. Lower Graph b): Time Window Around Shock Event.
172
a)
3
p/pamb [ − ]
Unscreened Sensor
1 Corrected
Ideal Step
0
250 255 260 265 270 275 280
Time [ µs ]
b)
3
p/pamb [ − ]
w/ B−Screen
1 Corrected
Ideal Step
0
250 255 260 265 270 275 280
Time [ µs ]
Figure B.7: Data Corrected for the Influence of the Amplifier and the
Filter. Upper Graph a): Unscreened Sensor: Raw Signal, Corrected Signal
and Ideal Step. Lower Graph b): Sensor with B-Screen: Raw Signal,
Corrected Signal and Ideal Step.
173
2
10
Amplitude
0
10
Ideal Step
Unscreened
w/ B−Screen
−2
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency [ Hz ] 5
x 10
0
Ideal Step
−500 Unscreened
Phase [ rad ]
w/ B−Screen
−1000
−1500
−2000
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency [ Hz ] 5
x 10
Figure B.8: Bode Plot of Fourier Transforms of the Ideal Step Input, the
Unscreened Sensor and the Sensor with the B-Screen.
B.3.1 Determination of Transfer Functions
The signals prepared in the manner described in Section B.3 are now trans-
formed into the frequency domain. The results are shown in Figure B.8 It seems clear
from Figure B.8 that the noise level of the signals lies below the 100 line in the upper
graph in Figure B.8. The amplitude of the FFT of the sensor with B-Screen drops
rapidly to this level and does not change for higher frequencies. The input level of
the ideal step reaches the noise level at frequencies higher than about 600 kHz. This
implies that it is not possible to extract the transfer functions beyond that frequency
since the signal to noise ratio becomes too small. The amplitude of the DFT of the
174
screened Kulite sensor shows a very strong roll-off reaching the noise level around 100
kHz. Beyond this point the amplitude seems to stay in the noise level. Therefore,
the transfer function of the screened sensor will only be determined up to 100 kHz.
The unscreened sensor shows two significant dips in the amplitude below 500
kHz. The reason for this lies in the fact that the sensor cannot be mounted perfectly
flush to the wall. A small cavity of about 6/1000 in. remains in front of the sensing
surface due to the geometry of the sensor provided by Kulite. Several tests were
performed with the sensor mounted recessed from the wall. The frequency range and
the magnitude of the dip correspond to different depths of the recess. The transfer
function of the unscreened sensor shows a strong peak at about 500 kHz. Kulite
reports the natural frequency of the sensing element at this frequency.
The transfer functions of the two sensors can now be calculated according to:
Sout (ω)
H(ω) = (B.2)
Sin (ω)
In this Equation H is the transfer function of either one of the Kulite transducers.
Sout is the sensor signal and Sin is the ideal step input.
The transfer functions will be modeled as a second-order system, in the hope to

capture the physical behaviour better than with a purely numerical fit. The results
are plotted in Figures B.9 and B.10. Along with the data presented in this paper
and the second order approximation, another original transfer function from another
experiment is added to demonstrate the degree of repeatability in these experiments.
The transfer function of the unscreened Kulite can only be modeled poorly by
175
30
Unscreened
20 2nd Order Model
gain [ dB ]
Additional Data
10
−10
−20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
frequency [ Hz ] 5
x 10
4
Unscreened
2 2nd Order Model
Phase [ rad ]
Additional Data
−2
−4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
frequency [ Hz ] 5
x 10
Figure B.9: Bode Plot of Transfer Function of Unscreened Sensor.
176
0 w/ B−Screen
2nd Order Model
gain [ dB ]
Additional Data
−10
−20
−30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency [ Hz ] 4
x 10
4
w/ B−Screen
2 2nd Order Model
Phase [ rad ]
Additional Data
0
−2
−4
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency [ Hz ] 4
x 10
Figure B.10: Bode Plot of Transfer Function of Sensor with B-Screen.
177
the second order system for two reasons:
• The effect of the cavity seriously degenerates the transfer function in the fre-
quency range below the natural frequency
• The signal to noise ratio decreases strongly in the frequency range beyond the
natural frequency
The transfer function of the Sensor with the B-Screen can be modeled with
very good agreement up to about 60 kHz. Beyond this frequency the signal seems to
consist primarily of noise.
The influence of the B-Screen on the signal phase is unexpectedly strong, es-
pecially at rather low frequencies. When modeling the sensor with the B-screen as a
second order system and approximating the experimental data up to about 60 kHz
shown in Figure B.10, one obtains the coefficients of the transfer function expressed
in the frequency domain:
B1
H(jω) = 2 (B.3)
A1 · (jω) + A2 · jω + A3
The coefficients B1 and A1 through A3 obtained from the two experiments are listed
in Table B.1.
Table B.1: Coefficients Ai and Bi Describing the Transfer Function of the

Kulite Pressure Transducer XCQ-062-50a with B-screen
B1 A2 A3
Test 1010
A1 105 1010
1 2.2097 1.0000 2.4773 2.1879
2 2.1739 1.0000 2.3290 2.1690
178
B.4 Conclusions
Two Kulite pressure sensors XCQ-062-50a were investigated. Their dynamic

behavior was determined in terms of their transfer functions. The transfer functions
were approximated using a second-order model. The influence of the B-Screen on the
frequency response of the Kulite sensors is very strong even at rather low frequencies.
It is recommended not to use the screened Kulite sensors above a frequency of

60 to 80 kHz. Also, they should not be used in high speed measurements without an
appropriate correction, e.g. the second order model proposed in this report.
179
Appendix C
Investigation of the Transfer

Function of a Vatell HFM-7/L
Heat Flux Sensor
C.1 Problem Statement and Approach
The transfer function of a Vatell Heat Flux Microsensor HFM-7/L is to be

determined. The gauge is exposed to a “known” input of heat flux in a shock tube.
The gauge is modeled as a first order system. The theoretical response of a first order
system and the actual gauge response are compared to find the time constant.
180
Driven Section
Test Tube Kulite Ports End Cap
Heat Flux
Microsensor
Vatell HFM 7
Figure C.1: Shock Tube with Vatell Heat Flux Sensor.
C.2 Experimental Setup
Modified Shock Tube
Figure C.1 shows the shock tube design. A 3/4 inch test pipe is connected to
the end of the driven section of a 3 inch shock tube. The shock is triggered by the
burst of a plastic diaphragm between driven section and driver section. As the shock
reaches the end of the driven section, it propagates into the test tube, growing in
strength in the transition. The shock then reaches the endcap of the test tube and is
reflected. Flush mounted in the end cap is a Vatell HFM 7 Heat Flux Sensor (serial
# 588).
181
Measurement Chain
Vatell Amplifier
The Analog Devices Operational Amplifiers used to amplify the signal voltage
from the heat flux sensor are specified to have a -3dB gain at 1 MHz for a gain
setting of unity. For the preliminary results presented in this investigation this gain
was chosen to get a good idea of the order of the time constant before any further
experiments were conducted.
Filtering
A first test that included an anti-aliassing filter showed that the gauge has
a time constant of the order of 20µ sec. It was therefore determined that with a
sampling frequency of 5 MHz it was not necessary to filter to obtain clean data in the
range up to 1MHz since the gauge itself acts as a strong filter. The frequency content
above the Nyquist frequency is so small that aliassing can be neglected, and no filter
was used.
C.3 Theoretical Heat Flux and Gauge Response
As the shock travels through the test tube it increases the temperature and the
pressure according to the normal shock relations. The shock strength of the shock
traveling toward the endcap has been measured by Kulite pressure transducers to be
about 3.4 in terms of the ratio of static pressures before and after the shock (see the
Kulite locations in Figure C.1). With the shock strength known, the strength of the
182
shock reflected off the endcap that is housing the heat flux sensor can be calculated.
The combination of the impacting and the reflected shock determines the temperature
increase from the fluid at rest to the temperature of the fluid after the passing of the
reflected shock to be about 313◦ C .
The following assumptions will be made:
1. The fluid and the surrounding walls of the test tube are at thermal equilibrium
before the shock comes by.
2. The fluid just after the reflection of the shock is at rest.
3. The fluid just after the reflection of the shock is at a constant temperature
corresponding to the temperature increase due to the normal shock.
Accepting these assumptions, the situation can viewed as follows:

A fluid at rest at a high temperature level (the level corresponding to the temperature
after the shock reflection) is exposed to a sudden change of its boundary tempera-
ture, which is the test tube wall temperature. Instead of rapidly changing the fluid
temperature by a traveling shock wave, it is assumed that the fluid was always at the
higher temperature, and the wall temperature is suddenly dropped to the level before
the shock interaction. Assuming the fluid to be a semi-infinite continuum with the
test tube axis going into the medium and the end cap wall with the sensor to be its
limit, one finds the heat flux at that boundary from the Greens function solution for
a shock impact at time t = 0:
βa · ∆T
qt = √ (C.1)
π·t
183
W
In Equation C.1 qt is the heat flux in m2
, βa is the square root of the product of thermal
conductivity, density and specific heat of air or the thermal product evaluated at the
conditions after the reflected shock. The following conditions were calculated from
the knowledge of the incoming shock strength:
W
k = 0.05
m·K
kg
ρ = 5.17 3
m
J
cp = 1005
kg · K
kg
βa = 16.13 2.5
s ·K
∆T = 312.4K (C.2)
From this point on, Equation C.1 with the numerical values shown in this Table will
be considered the theoretical heat flux.
The response of the gauge to this theoretical heat flux will be determined next.
It has been determined from earlier experiments that the HFM-7/L behaves like a
first order system with the transfer function in the Laplace Domain:
1
τ
Hg = 1 (C.3)
τ
+s
The s in Equation C.3 is the variable in the Laplace Domain. The time constant τ
is the time constant of the gauge. It determines the frequency response and is the
parameter looked for in this investigation.
The theoretical heat flux in the Laplace Domain can be expressed as:
184
1
q t = βa · ∆T · √ (C.4)
s
With Equation C.3 and Equation C.4 one can express the gauge response as:
1
q g = β · ∆T · √ (C.5)
τ · s · s + τ1
One can transform Equation C.5 into the time domain to obtain:
Z √t
2 · β · ∆T − t τ 2
qg = √ ·e τ · ea · da (C.6)
π·τ 0
Unfortunately, Equation C.6 cannot be further simplified and has to be integrated

numerically. From this point on this time function will be referred to as the theoretical
gauge response.
C.4 Results and Discussion
In this preliminary study the objective is to find a good estimate of the time
constant τ in order to characterize the transfer function of the gauge. This is accom-
plished by varying τ in Equation C.6 until good agreement with the experimental
data is obtained. Figure C.2 shows very good agreement between the theoretical and
the measured gauge response for a time constant of 17 µs. Even though the agree-
185
5
x 10
5
q [W/m ]
2
2
theoretical
1 theo. gauge
experiment
0
180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Time [ µs ]
Figure C.2: Comparison of theoretical heat flux, theoretical gauge re-

sponse and experimental data.
186
ment is very good for the rising portion of the trace, there seems to be some kind of
disturbance after the peak. The reasons for this are being considered and possible
modifications to the test setup will be implemented as needed.
187
Appendix D
Transfer Functions of the

Measurements Group 2310 Strain
Gauge Conditioner and Signal
Amplifier at Different Gain
Settings
The Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal Amplifier
has been used widely at Virginia Tech as a power supply and signal amplifier in
connection with different Kulite transducers. The built-in filter unit is usually set
to “Wide-Band”. The gain settings, however, varied for different experiments. The
only information given by the manufacturer concerning the transfer function of the
amplifier at this setting is that it supposedly shows -3dB at 75 kHz. There is no
mention of the dependency of this Figure on the gain setting.
188
For the present study this dynamic behavior had to be known in detail in order
to obtain realistic representations of the very high frequency shock passing event.
Therefore, the transfer functions were determined experimentally using the method
called “sine sweep”. A sine wave of known frequency and amplitude is fed into the
input port of the amplifier. The resulting output signal is compared to the input
signal in terms of phase shift and signal attenuation and/or gain. This is repeated for
different frequencies and for different gain settings. The experimental data was then
approximated assuming a “one zero, four pole” system. This combination seemed to
represent the data best. The amplifier can then be treated mathematically in the
following way:
B1 · jω + B2
H(jω) = (D.1)
A1 · (jω) + A2 · (jω)3 + A3 · (jω)2 + A2 · (jω) + A1
4
This Equation describes the transfer function H(jω) in the frequency domain. The
coefficients Ai and Bi are shown for the different gain settings in Table D.1. The
Table D.1: Coefficients Ai and Bi Describing the Transfer Function of

the Measurements Group 2310 Strain Gauge Conditioner and Signal
Amplifier according to Equation D.1
B1 B2 A2 A3 A4 A5
Gain 1020 1027
A1 107 1014 1020 1027
1 -1.4586 1.7702 1.0000 1.2607 1.9082 8.6212 1.7666
10 -2.5731 2.6934 1.0000 1.4670 1.6318 5.3787 0.2690
100 -5.8882 5.0545 1.0000 0.8025 0.5753 1.1604 0.0500
1000 -4.2997 4.3428 1.0000 0.5264 0.2098 0.1738 0.0042
experimental data is shown along with the approximation according to Equation D.1
and Table D.1 in Figure D.1 through D.4.
These graphs show that the transfer function of the amplifier is strongly depen-
dent on the gain setting. Great care has to be taken when setting up a measurement
189
0
−3
−10
−20
Real Filter
Model Filter
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−50
−100
Phase [ deg ]
−150
−200
−250
Real Filter
−300 Model Filter
−350
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
Figure D.1: Experimental and Approximated Transfer Function of the

2310 Amplifier at a Gain of 1.
190
2310 Transfer Function (Wide Band), gain = 10
0
−3
20 ⋅ log(Aout/Ain)−20
−10
−20
Real Filter
Model Filter
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−50
−100
Phase [ deg ]
−150
−200
−250
Real Filter
−300 Model Filter
−350
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]

191
0
−3
−10
−20
Real Filter
Model Filter
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−50
−100
Phase [ deg ]
−150
−200
−250
Real Filter
−300 Model Filter
−350
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]

192
0
−3
−10
−20
Real Filter
Model Filter
−30
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]
−50
−100
Phase [ deg ]
−150
−200
−250
Real Filter
−300 Model Filter
−350
4 5 6
10 10 10
frequency [ Hz ]

193
chain for high speed measurements. A wrong setting of the amplifier will significantly
deteriorate the quality and credibility of the data.
194
Appendix E
Measurement Error
There are two issues in measurement error that are important to consider:
measurement uncertainty and measurement repeatability. Measurement uncertainty
refers to how close the measurements are to the true physical properties. Measurement
repeatability, on the other hand, is a measure of how repeatable the tests can be
reproduced from run to run and day to day. The first of these obstacles to tackle is
measurement uncertainty.
E.1 Measurement Uncertainty
Within measurement uncertainty there are two categories, bias uncertainty

and precision. A bias uncertainty refers to an error that is made consistently from
measurement to measurement. These sorts of errors are typically associated with
calibration of the transducers or consistent errors in an acquisition scheme. The
precision uncertainty is associated with random errors that vary from measurement
to measurement. The first area of uncertainty to address is the bias uncertainty.
195
Bias Uncertainty
For these experiments, The HFM sensors are the main component of bias un-
certainty. Reliable measurements of heat flux are directly dependent on the calibrated
sensitivity of each sensor. The sensors went through an extensive calibration proce-
dure summarized by Smith et al. (1999). In this study, the gauges were calibrated
with both convective and radiative heat flux. At the conclusion of the study, values
for the uncertainty for each of the gauges sensitivities are given. These uncertainties
are specific for each of the gauges installed in the blade, and are based on several of
the convective tests and a 90% confidence interval assuming a Student-t distribution.
These uncertainties are listed in Table E.1. The next question to answer is how do
Gauge Uncertainty
1 17.0%
2 3.7%
3 5.2%
4 15.2%
5 8.8%
6 10.7%
Table E.1: HFM Gauge Uncertainties
these bias errors in heat flux measurements affect the bias of h, hc , Td and η.
Uncooled Runs: Bias Errors in h and Td
The heat transfer coefficient is the slope of a linear fit to the independent
variable, (Tt − Tw ), and the dependent variable q. Therefore, the bias error in q
will directly translate into the heat transfer coefficient. The difference between total
temperature and recovery temperature Td is determined from the x-axis intercept,
where q = 0. The bias error in q is a scaling factor and not an offset. Therefore, Td
is not affected by the bias error in q.
196
Cooled Runs: Bias Errors in hc and η
Since the value of hc is the slope of the linearized data, and q is plotted on the
y-axis, these q uncertainties go directly into the hc values, so that the values in Table
E.1 can be understood directly as bias uncertainties in hc . Also, the uncertainty of
η is unaffected by uncertainties in the scale of q since η is derived from the x-axis
intercept of the linearized data. The value of η is solely dependent upon temperature
measurements and is unbiased using this data reduction method.
Precision Uncertainty
The next area of uncertainty is the precision uncertainty. The thermocouple

measurements constitute this type of uncertainty. The kinds of errors that go into
precision uncertainty are thermocouple wire difference from junction to junction, ac-
quisition inconsistencies from channel to channel, or a wandering electronic ice point.
Uncooled Runs: Precision of h and Td
Any uncertainty in the measurements of Tt and Tw cannot affect the slope

of the linear fit for q and Tt − Tw , but will only shift the curve in the direction
of the x-axis. The heat transfer coefficient is, therefore, free of precision error. The
precision in the difference between Tt and Tw , on the other hand, will directly translate
in a precision error in the result of Td . Temperature measurements are made with
K-Type thermocouples and the AMUX-64T multiplexer board. From the National
Instruments literature the uncertainty of any individual temperature measurement
is estimated to be ±1.1◦ C with respect to the “true” temperature recorded on the
same data acquisition system with a perfect thermocouple. Therefore, the precision
197
√
on a temperature difference is 2 · ±1.1◦ C = ±1.56◦ C. This is at the same time the
precision in the result for Td .
Cooled Runs: Precision of hc and η
The three thermocouple measurements that go into the hc and η calculations

are Tw , Tc , and Tr . For Tw and Tc the value of ±1.1◦ C was used as the precision (see
paragraph above). The value used for Tr is 1.56◦ C since it is a derived value from
two thermocouple measurements (square root of the sum of the squares).
In order to translate the individual thermocouple precision uncertainties to

hc and η precision uncertainties, a method was taken similar to that suggested by
Moffat (1988). The first step of this approach is re-apply the hc and η analysis using
the nominal values of two of the temperature measurements and an “errored” third
temperature measurement consisting of the measurement added to its uncertainty.
The addition or subtraction of this individual uncertainty is done such that it has the
greatest influence on the hc and η values. Next, this procedure is repeated for each
of the other two measurements individually and the influence of each measurement
is computed. Knowing each individual contribution, the total uncertainty, δ, can be
calculated as the sum of the squares of all three uncertainties,
q
δ= δT2r + δT2w + δT2c (E.1)
The results vary slightly from gauge to gauge and from run to run. A number of runs
over different operating ranges were subjected to this uncertainty analysis and the
maximum uncertainty for each gauge is listed in Table E.2.
198
Gauge hc Precision η Precision
[ W / m2 ◦ C ], [%] [ - ], [%]
1 43.5, 5.9% 0.040, 18.5%
2 49.2, 6.1% 0.041, 21.0%
3 35.0, 5.6% 0.036, 13.9%
4 42.5, 5.9% 0.040, 21.3%
5 48.3, 6.0% 0.040, 17.0%
6 49.4, 5.7% 0.034, 11.5%
Table E.2: Precision Uncertainties
199
E.2 Measurement Repeatability
Another indication of measurement error is measurement repeatability. This

refers to the repeatability of runs conditions from run to run. Measurement repeata-
bility is an experimental number that reflects the same ideas contained in the more
theoretical value of precision uncertainty (from Sec. E.1). Measurement repeatability,
however, also takes into account the real variations from run to run (e.g. variation of
aerodynamic conditions, variations of humidity levels, coolant supply leakage, etc.).
These sorts of errors have not been accounted for in the data reduction scheme and
perhaps some of the sources of variation probably have not been even conceived.
Because of this, it is important to get this experimental value of measurement re-
peatability.
Repeatability for Uncooled Runs
Using the six uncooled experiments used in this dissertation (see Tables in
Section 2.3.1) one can obtain the repeatabilities listed in Table E.3 using a 90%
confidence interval from a Student-t distribution with six degrees of freedom:
Gauge h 90% Confidence Interval Td 90% Confidence Interval

[ W / m2 ◦ C ], [%] [ ◦C ]
1 ± 26.0, ± 2.4% ± 1.48
2 ± 20.4, ± 2.6% ± 1.22
3 ± 14.3, ± 2.0% ± 0.76
4 ± 22.2, ± 2.4% ± 0.60
5 ± 28.3, ± 3.2% ± 0.64
6 ± 50.9, ± 4.6% ± 0.88
Table E.3: Measurement Repeatability For Uncooled Runs
200
Repeatability for Cooled Runs
In order to quantify the measurement repeatability, a number of runs at ap-

proximately the same conditions were compared. There were the greatest number of
runs performed near the cooling design point of a pressure ratio of 1.04. All of the
runs for this pressure ratio were compared in Figure E.1 and E.2.
1000 1000
Gauge 1 Gauge 2
h [ W / m °C ]
h [ W / m2 °C ]
2
800 800
600 600
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
Pressure Ratio [ − ] Pressure Ratio [ − ]
1000 1000
Gauge 3 Gauge 4
h [ W / m °C ]
h [ W / m2 °C ]
2
800 800
600 600
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
1000 1000
Gauge 5 Gauge 6
h [ W / m °C ]
h [ W / m2 °C ]
2
800 800
600 600
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
Figure E.1: Measurement Repeatability of Heat Transfer Coefficient at

PR=1.04.
These measurements were taken from eight different runs on two different days.
There was considerable variation noticed from day to day. The different day’s runs
are shown with different symbols. With these runs, a Student-t distribution with a
201
0.35 Gauge 1 0.35 Gauge 2
η[−] 0.3 0.3
η[−]
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
0.3 0.3
η[−]
η[−]
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
0.3 0.3
η[−]
η[−]
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
Figure E.2: Measurement Repeatability of Effectiveness at PR=1.04.
90% confidence interval is used. These confidence intervals are shown in Table E.4.
A consistency check can be observed that the observed measurement repeata-

bility is of approximately the same size as at theoretical precision uncertainty. Gauge
one is an exception to this generalization as its observed repeatability is higher than
its predicted precision. I believe this is due to the fact that the flow physics around
gauge one are extremely unstable as it is so close to the last coolant exit.
202
Gauge hc 90% Confidence Interval η 90% Confidence Interval
[ W / m2 ◦ C ], [%] [ - ], [%]
1 ± 90, ± 11.1% ± 0.049, ± 16.4%
2 ± 32, ± 4.0% ± 0.015 ± 8.2%
3 ± 34, ± 5.5% ± 0.024, ± 7.1%
4 ± 38, ± 5.1% ± 0.034, ± 15.8%
5 ± 51, ± 6.7% ± 0.023, ± 12.1%
6 ± 63, ± 7.3% ± 0.034, ± 11.4%
Table E.4: Measurement Repeatability for Cooled Runs
203
Appendix F
Discussion of the Surface Heat

Flux Equations and their
Discretization
It is often of interest to predict the heat flux to a surface from the surface
temperature history recorded digitally in discretized form. Cook and Feldermann
(1966) and Cook (1970) as well as Oldfield et al. (1978) and Diller (1996) developed
numerical methods to perform this evaluation.
Johnson et al. (1988) and Rigby et al. (1989) showed that the same basic
equation applies to the problem of heat transfer between a fluid and a surface in the
presence of pressure perturbations in the flowfield. They used a numerical method
developed by Oldfield et al. (1978)to obtain the heat flux to the surface.
In this Section the basic equation will be derived for the case of the semi-
infinite solid. The same basic equation was derived in Section 3.5.3.3 for the case
of pressure disturbances in the flow over a surface. Different discretization schemes
204
will be reported or developed in order to give an overview of the different options
available.
F.1 Derivation of the Basic Equation
Semi-infinite Solid
Let x denote the distance into a semi-infinite solid with the surface at x = 0.
T (x, t) be the temperature at a certain depth and time. Let α be:
k
α= (F.1)
ρ·c
k be the thermal conductivity of the solid, ρ its density and c the specific heat. The
differential heat conduction equation for one-dimensional heat transfer is then:
∂ 2 T (x, t) 1 ∂T (x, t)
2 = · (F.2)
∂x α ∂t
Transforming from the time domain into the Laplace domain:
∂ 2 T (x, s) s
2 = · T (x, s) (F.3)
∂x α
205
∂T (x,t)
Use was made of the fact that ∂t
= s · T (x, s). The symbol x denotes the Laplace
transformed function of x. s is the Laplace variable. Equation F.3 is a differential
equation in only one variable (x). The general solution of this equation is:
√s √s
T (x, s) = A · e α ·x + B · e− α ·x (F.4)
The first boundary condition is that at infinite depth the temperature change will
always be zero:
T (∞, t) = 0 (F.5)
Or transformed into the Laplace domain:
T (∞, s) = 0 (F.6)
Therefore, A in Equation F.4 has to be zero. The second boundary condition is the
heat flux on the surface:
∂T (x, t)
−k · = qs (F.7)
∂x x=0
qs is the heat flux per unit surface area at the surface of the solid. Transforming F.7
into the Laplace domain yields:
206
∂T (x, s)
−k · = qs (F.8)
∂x x=0
Taking the derivative of Equation F.4 with respect to x at x = 0 (noting that A is

zero) and replacing in F.8 yields the solution for B. After rearranging:
q
B=√ √s (F.9)
s· k·ρ·c
Replacing this solution into Equation F.4 yields the general solution of the tempera-
ture in a semi-infinite solid with a heat flux boundary condition:
qs √s
− α ·x
T (x, s) = √ √ ·e (F.10)
s· k·ρ·c
For the surface temperature at x = 0:
q
T (0, s) = √ √s (F.11)
s· k·ρ·c
And rearranged to yield the surface heat flux as a function of the surface temperature:
p √
qs = k · ρ · c · s · T (0, s) (F.12)
207
This Equation is useful in many applications that involve surface temperature mea-
surements on a thick substrate or a substrate of low conductivity, where the assump-
tion of a semi-infinite assumption is valid over a sufficiently long time.
The same equation can also be applied to a very different problem (Johnson
et al. (1988) and Rigby et al. (1989)) as shown in the next paragraph.
Flow over a Surface with Pressure Perturbations
Rigby et al. (1989) derived equations to predict the heat transfer caused by
pressure disturbances in the flow over a surface (see Section 3.5.3.3. One component of
the unsteady heat flux due was attributed to the transient one-dimensional conduction
in the fluid. The equation expressing this component of heat flux was shown to be:
F.12:
p √
q h (s) = k · ρ · cp · Tw · (1 − Π(t)) · s (F.13)
With the following definition
Tg (t) ≡ Tw · (1 − Π(t)) (F.14)
Equation F.13 can be restated:
p √
q h (s) = k · ρ · cp · T g (s) · s (F.15)
208
This Equation is similar to Equation F.12. The following parameters correspond to
each other: Both equations are derived from very different assumptions and for very
Table F.1: Corresponding Variables in Equations F.12 and F.15

Eq. F.12 Eq. F.15
q s =surface heat flux p q h (s) =surface heat flux
√
k · ρ · c = Substrate Properties k · ρ · cp = Fluid Properties
T (0, s) = Substrate Surface Temperature T g (s) = Induced Fluid Temperature
different situations. For both problems (surface heat flux from surface temperature
and surface heat flux from fluid temperature variation) the respective equation usually
has to be evaluated numerically since the temperature data is recorded digitally.
While some researchers use Equation F.12 or Equation F.15 to implement a numerical
scheme others first invert to the time domain. For the purpose of this overview the
basic equation is stated in the most general way:
p √
q(s) = k · ρ · c · T (s) · s (F.16)
Expanding yields:
p 1
q(s) = k · ρ · c · T (s) · s · √ (F.17)
s
Note that s · T (s) = ∂T

∂t
. Replacing into the above Equation yields:
p ∂T 1
q(s) = k·ρ·c· ·√ (F.18)
∂t s
209
From the rules of Laplace transforms:
Z t
f1 (t − τ ) · f2 (τ ) · dτ = f1 (t) · f2 (t) (F.19)
0
The following replacement will be done:
1 1
√ = f1 (t) ⇒ f1 (t) = √ (F.20)
s π·t
∂T ∂T
= f2 (t) ⇒ f2 (t) = (F.21)
∂t ∂t
Replacing this substitution in F.16 yields:
√ Z
k·ρ·c t
1 ∂T
q= √ · √ · · dτ (F.22)
π 0 t − τ ∂τ
This can easily be transformed into the time domain:
√ Z t ∂T
k · ρc
q= √ · √ ∂τ · dτ (F.23)
π 0 t−τ
The following substitution will simplify the integration and eliminate the temperature
derivative:
210
∂z ∂T
z = T (t) − T (τ ) =− (F.24)
∂τ ∂τ
With this substitution one can integrate F.23 by parts to obtain:
√ " t Z t #
k·ρ·c −z 1 z
q(t) = √ √ + · 3 · dτ (F.25)
π t − τ 0 2 0 (t − τ ) 2
And resubstituting z = T (t) − T (τ ) into Equation F.25 with T (0) = 0 finally yields:
√ " Z t #
k · ρ · c T (t) 1 T (t) − T (τ )
q(t) = √ √ + · · dτ (F.26)
π t 2 0 (t − τ ) 32
This is the second form of Equation F.16 that is often used as the starting point for a
numerical analysis. A third form was used by Vidall (1962). It will not be discussed
here but only stated for completeness:
√ Z
k·ρ·c ∂ t
T (τ )
q(t) = · · √ · dτ (F.27)
π ∂t 0 t−τ
He uses an integrated form of Equation F.27:
" Z t√ √ #
1 p T (t) 1 τ · T (t) − t · T (τ )
q(t) = · k · ρ · c · π · √ + √ · 3 · dτ (F.28)
2 t π· t 0 (t − τ ) 2
211
F.2 Comparison of Different Ways to Obtain Heat
Flux from Discrete Temperature Data
Since temperature data is usually recorded digitally, only discrete data points
are available. Therefore, Equation F.16 or F.26 have to be evaluated numerically. To
do this, one has to interpolate the temperature data between the discrete samples.
In the literature three different interpolation schemes have been used:
1. The temperature between two samples is constant. The change from Ti−1 to
Ti takes places at time ti . This method will be denoted “Late Step” in the
discussion to follow.
2. The temperature between two samples is constant. The change from Ti to Ti+1
takes place at time ti . This interpolation will be denoted “Early Step” for
further discussion.
3. The temperature history between two samples is linear:
Ti − Ti−1
T (τ ) = Ti−1 + · (τ − ti−1 ) ti−1 ≤ τ ≤ ti (F.29)
∆t
This interpolation will be referred to as “Linear Interpolation”.
Each of these interpolation schemes will be used with each of the two basic equations:
1. The original Equation in the Laplace domain F.16
p √
q(s) = k · ρ · c · T (s) · s (F.30)
212
will be referred to as “Laplace-Equation”.
2. The integrated Equation F.26
√ " Z t #
k · ρ · c T (t) 1 T (t) − T (τ )
q(t) = √ √ + · · dτ (F.31)
π t 2 0 (t − τ ) 32
will be referred to as “Integral Equation”.
The three different interpolation schemes combined with the two equations result in
six different combinations. These combinations will be developed in the following six
paragraphs.
The following form of the time series will be assumed:
ti = t1 , t2 , . . . , tN t1 = 0
Ti = T1 , T2 , . . . , TN T1 = T2 = 0
∆t = time step between two samples (F.32)
With N being the overall number of samples.
“Late Step” into “Laplace Equation”
The interpolated temperature time history for the case of the “Late Step” is:
X
n
T (t) = (Ti − Ti−1 ) · ht − ti i0 n : tn < t (F.33)
i=2
213
Here hxi are the Lagrange operators. Transformed into the Laplace Domain:
X
n
1 −ti ·s
T (t) = (Ti − Ti−1 ) · ·e n : tn < t (F.34)
i=2
s
Substituted into the “Laplace-Equation”:
p Xn
1
q(t) = k·ρ·c· (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ · e−ti ·s n : tn < t (F.35)
i=2
s
Transformed into the time domain:
√
k·ρ·c X
n
1
q(t) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ n : tn < t (F.36)
π i=2
t − ti
Applied to discrete time steps:
√
k·ρ·c X
m−1
1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ (F.37)
π i=2
tm − ti
And simplified:
√
k·ρ·c X
m−1
1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ (F.38)
π · ∆t i=2 m−i
214
For m = 1 and m = 2 no values of q(tm ) are found. Note that the summation stops
at m − 1. The reason lies in the way the steps were defined. At the time step m the
temperature is still Tm−1 . Assumed the temperature history would have been defined
as such:
X
n
T (t) = (Ti − Ti−1 ) · ht − ti i0 n : tn ≤ t (F.39)
i=2
Then the final equation for q(tm ) would have been:
√
k·ρ·c X
m
1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ (F.40)
π · ∆t i=2 m−i
The last term of this series is indeterminate. The last element would have to be fixed
by somehow assuming a different interpolation, e.g. a linear ramp.
“Early Step” into “Laplace-Equation”
For the case of an “Early Step” the interpolation for temperature is the fol-
lowing:
X
n
T (t) = (Ti − Ti−1 ) · ht − ti−1 i0 n : tn−1 < t (F.41)
i=2
Transformed into the Laplace domain:
215
X
n
1 −ti−1 ·s
T (t) = (Ti − Ti−1 ) · ·e n : tn−1 < t (F.42)
i=2
s
p X
n
1
q(t) = k·ρ·c· (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ · e−ti−1 ·s n : tn−1 < t (F.43)
i=2
s
√
k·ρ·c X
n
1
q(t) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ n : tn−1 < t (F.44)
π i=2
t − ti−1
√
k·ρ·c X
m
1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ (F.45)
π i=2
tm − ti−1
And simplified:
√
k·ρ·c X
m
1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ (F.46)
π · ∆t i=2 m−i+1
216
For m = 1 no value of q(tm ) can be found. This time history is identical to Equation
F.38 shifted one time step to the left. This equation was first published and compared
to other schemes by Diller (1996). Note again that the definition of the time history
is crucial for the stability of the scheme. Assume the time history was defined as:
X
n
T (t) = (Ti − Ti−1 ) · ht − ti−1 i0 n : tn−1 ≤ t (F.47)
i=2
Then the equation for q(tm ) would have been:
√
k·ρ·c X
m+1
1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · √ (F.48)
π · ∆t i=2 m−i+1
The last term of this series is indeterminate. A different interpolation needs to be

used for the last time interval.
“Linear Interpolation” into “Laplace-Equation”
The time function of temperature is composed of linear ramps between data

points:
X
n
Ti+1 − 2 · Ti + Ti−1
T (t) = · (t − ti ) n : tn < t (F.49)
i=2
∆t
Transformed into the Laplace domain:
217
X
n
Ti+1 − 2 · Ti + Ti−1 1 −ti ·s
T (t) = · ·e (F.50)
i=2
∆t s2
p X
n
Ti+1 − 2 · Ti + Ti−1 1
q(t) = k·ρ·c· · √ · e−ti ·s (F.51)
i=2
∆t s· s
√
k · ρ · c X Ti+1 − 2 · Ti + Ti−1 √
n
2·
q(t) = √ · · t − ti n : tn < t (F.52)
π i=2
∆t
√
k · ρ · c X Ti+1 − 2 · Ti + Ti−1 √
m−1
2·
q(tm ) = √ · · tm − ti n : tn < t (F.53)
π i=2
∆t
And simplified:
√
2· k·ρ·c X √
m−1
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti+1 − 2 · Ti + Ti−1 ) · m − i (F.54)
π · ∆t i=2
218
Note that for m = 1 and m = 2 no values q(tm ) are found. This Equation was first
published by Oldfield et al. (1978) and used by Johnson et al. (1988). An alternative
form of Equation F.54 can be obtained by defining the temperature history as follows:
X
n
Ti − 2 · Ti−1 + Ti−2
T (t) = · (t − ti−1 ) n : tn < t (F.55)
i=3
∆t
This results in the following solution for q(tm ) which gives the exact same result but
is slightly easier to program:
√
2· k·ρ·c X √
m
q(tm ) = √ · (Ti − 2 · Ti−1 + Ti−2 ) · m − i + 1 (F.56)
π · ∆t i=3
“Late Step” into “Integral Equation”
The temperature history for the “Late Step” can be defined as:
T (t) = Ti−1 for ti−1 < t < ti (F.57)
Replacing this interpolation into the “Integral Equation” and performing the integra-
tion over each element results in:
√ " m Z
#
k·ρ·c Tm 1 X ti Tm − Ti−1
q(tm ) = √ · √ + · · dτ (F.58)
π tm 2 i=2 ti−1 (tm − τ ) 32
219
Performing the integration yields:
 " #ti 
√ X Tm − Ti−1
m
k · ρ · c  Tm 
q(tm ) = √ · √ + (F.59)
π tm i=2 (tm − τ ) 12
ti−1
And using the limits of integration:
√ " " ##
k·ρ·c Tm Xm
1 1
q(tm ) = √ · √ + (Tm − Ti−1 ) · 1 − 1 (F.60)
π tm i=2 (tm − ti ) 2 (tm − ti−1 ) 2
The last element of this series is indeterminate. One way to overcome this problem
is to use a linear interpolation for the last time step. This yields the following result:
√
k·ρ·c
q(tm ) = √ ·
π
" " # #
Tm X
m−1
1 1 Tm − Tm−1
√ + (Tm − Ti−1 ) · 1 − 1 + √
tm i=2 (tm − ti ) 2 (tm − ti−1 ) 2 ∆t
(F.61)
“Early Step” into “Integral Equation”
The temperature time history for the assumption of an “Early Step” can be
defined as such:
T (t) = Ti for ti−1 < t < ti (F.62)
220
The integration is the same as in the previous Section only Ti is used instead of Ti−1 .
The result of the integration is:
√ " " ##
k·ρ·c Tm Xm
1 1
q(tm ) = √ · √ + (Tm − Ti ) · 1 − 1 (F.63)
π tm i=2 (tm − ti ) 2 (tm − ti−1 ) 2
The last term of the summation is again indeterminate. Using a linear interpolation
for the last element yields:
√
k·ρ·c
q(tm ) = √ ·
π
" " # # (F.64)
Tm X
m−1
1 1 Tm − Tm−1
√ + (Tm − Ti ) · 1 − 1 + √
tm i=2 (tm − ti ) 2 (tm − ti−1 ) 2 ∆t
“Linear Interpolation” into “Integral Equation”
The linear temperature time history over a sample interval can be written as:
Ti − Ti−1
T (t) = Ti−1 + · (t − ti−1 ) for ti−1 < t < ti (F.65)
∆t
221
The piecewise integration and summation was done in detail in Schultz et al. (1973).
It is not going to be repeated here. The result of the integration is:
√
k·ρ·c Tm Tm − Tm−1
q(tm ) = √ · √ + √ +
π tm ∆t
√
k·ρ·c
√ · (F.66)
π
X Tm − Ti
m−1
Tm − Ti−1 Ti − Ti−1

1 − 1 + 2 · 1 1
i=2 (tm − ti ) 2 (tm − ti−1 ) 2 (tm − ti ) 2 + (tm − ti−1 ) 2
This expression was first presented by Cook et al. (1966). A simplified form of this
equation was given by Schultz et al. (1973) and Cook (1970) without derivation (The
factor of 2 was omitted by mistake in Schultz et al. (1973)):
√ X
m
2· k·ρ·c Ti − Ti−1
q(tm ) = √ · 1 1
π i=2 (tm − ti ) 2 + (tm − ti−1 ) 2
√ Xm (F.67)
2· k·ρ·c Ti − Ti−1
= √ · 1 1
π · ∆t i=2 (m − i) 2 + (m − i + 1) 2
For values m = 1 and m = 2 no values of q(tm ) are obtained.
One Additional Equation
The linear interpolation gives a constant slope of temperature for each time
interval:
Ti − Ti−1
T (t) =Ti−1 + ·t ti−1 < t < ti
∆t
∂T Ti − Ti−1
= (F.68)
∂τ ∆t
222
Replacing this constant derivative in F.23 and integrating piecewise:
√ m Z
k · ρ · c X ti Ti − Ti−1
q(tm ) = √ · √
π · ∆t i=2 ti−1 tm − τ
√
−2 · k · ρ · c X √ ti
m
= √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · tm − τ ti−1 (F.69)
π · ∆t i=2
√ X √
2· k·ρ·c
m
√
= √ · (Ti − Ti−1 ) · m−i+1− m−i
π · ∆t i=2
Unlike any other scheme employing the linear interpolation, this Equation gives a
result for q(tm ) at m = 2. This numerical scheme was first shown by Diller (1996).
223
Appendix G
Steady and Unsteady Heat

Transfer in a Transonic Film
Cooled Turbine Cascade
Presented at the 44th ASME Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Technical Congress,
Exposition and Users Symposium as Paper Number ASME 99-GT-259.
224
STEADY AND UNSTEADY HEAT TRANSFER IN A TRANSONIC
FILM COOLED TURBINE CASCADE
O. Popp, D. E. Smith, J. V. Bubb, H. C. Grabowski III, T.E. Diller, J. A. Schetz, Wing-Fai Ng

Blacksburg, VA 24061
ABSTRACT qε bias in heat flux measurement (Eq.(8))

This paper reports on an investigation of the heat transfer on the r recovery factor in Eq.(3) and Eq.(6)
suction side of a transonic film cooled turbine rotor blade in a linear Taw local adiabatic wall temperature
cascade. Heat transfer coefficient and film effectiveness are first Tc coolant exit temperature
determined for steady conditions. The unsteady effects of a passing Td Tt-Tr Eq.(3)
shock on the heat transfer are then investigated. The film cooling Td* real value of measured Td
pattern used is a showerhead design with three rows on the suction Tp coolant temperature in the cooling plenum
side, one row at the stagnation point and two rows on the pressure Tr local recovery temperature
side. The experiments were performed at engine representative Tt freestream total temperature
temperature and pressure ratios using air as coolant. Heat transfer Tw local wall or blade temperature
measurements are obtained using a Heat Flux Microsensor, and Tε bias in temperature measurement (Tr-Tw) (Eq.(5))
surface temperature is monitored with a surface thermocouple. Static u local freestream velocity in Eq.(3)
pressure is monitored with a Kulite pressure transducer. The shock η film effectiveness defined in Eq.(7)
emerging from the trailing edge of the NGV and impinging on the Superscripts
rotor blades is modeled by passing a shock wave along the leading ´ unsteady variation
edges of the cascade blades. The steady-state heat transfer coefficient Subscripts
is 8% higher with film cooling than without film cooling. Shock c coolant or w/ film cooling
heating of the freestream flow is determined to be the major f freestream
contribution to the unsteady variation of heat flux, leading to an
increase of about 30°C to 35°C in recovery temperature and adiabatic INTRODUCTION
wall temperature. The efficiency of a gas turbine engine increases with turbine inlet
temperature. In the ongoing effort to raise the turbine inlet temperature
NOMENCLATURE the gas stream temperature is made to greatly exceed the operating
Symbols temperatures of blade materials, requiring elaborate blade cooling
B blowing ratio (ρu)c/(ρu)f techniques to be developed. One of these methods is to spread a thin
d cooling hole diameter (1 mm ) layer of cold air between the hot gas and the surface to be protected,
cp specific heat of air, 1005 J/(kg K) in Eq.(3) referred to as film cooling. The quest for higher thrust to weight ratios
h heat transfer coefficient w/o film cooling in the development of aero-engines has led to the design of nozzle
hc heat transfer coefficient w/ film cooling guide vanes (NGV) with supersonic exit velocities. The rotor blades
I momentum ratio (ρu2)c/(ρu2)f consequently are not only subject to wake but also shock impingement
M density ratio ρc/ρf as they pass behind the NGV’s at very high speed. The effect of this
p static pressure unsteady process on the heat transfer to the rotor blade has been the
Pr Prandtl Number (0.71 in Eq.(9)) topic of a variety of research programs.
q heat flux per unit area The vast majority of results have been presented by the research
q´max peak value of the unsteady component of heat flux team led by Schultz and Jones at the University of Oxford. Johnson et
al. (1990) investigated the unsteady heat flux on rotor blades in a shock wave which is sent along the leading edges of the cascade (see
linear cascade simulating the wake and shock with a rotating bar Fig. 2). The shock strength can be varied to obtain realistic pressure
mechanism upstream of the cascade. They found a turbulent spot ratios. For the present investigation a shock strength of 1.08 (ratio of
forming on the leading edge produced after the collapse of the shock local static pressure behind shock and local static pressure before
induced separation. Travelling along the suction side, this turbulent shock impact) was chosen. Accordingly, the shock Mach number is
spot increases the heat transfer. Boundary layer transition due to wake about 1.03 relative to the freestream flow.
impingement was observed to further enhance unsteady heat flux.
Moss et al. (1997) performed tests in a rotating annular cascade High
indicating that the unsteady disturbances caused by the NGV’s have Pressure Air
little influence on the heat transfer coefficient and the time averaged Scale
heat flux. They indicate that the unsteady heat flux is caused mostly by 1ft.
the time variation in relative total temperature. The mean heat transfer
Test Section
level therefore is not strongly affected by the presence of the NGV’s. Heat Exchanger
None of these experiments involved rotor blade film cooling. Film
cooling experiments have been done on the same blade geometry
(Horton et al. 1985) but did not include unsteady effects.
Hilditch et al. (1995) performed time resolved heat transfer Heater Exhaust
measurements on an axial turbine rotor and compared his results with
data from the University of Oxford and MIT. The rotor blades were
not cooled and no analysis was done to discriminate shock and wake
effects. Figure 1: Wind Tunnel Facility
Similarly, Abhari and Epstein (1992) measured unsteady heat
flux on a film cooled rotor in a rotating transonic turbine stage. They Shock From
observed large fluctuations of heat transfer over a blade passing period Shock Tube
but did not distinguish between the effects of shocks and wakes.
Heidmann et al. (1997) experimentally and numerically
investigated the effect of wake passing on the time-averaged heat flux
in a film cooled annular cascade, modeling the wake using a rotating
bar mechanism. Shock
Hale et al. (1997) modeled the effect of wake passing in a quasi- Flow In
Direction
steady way using a stationary strut. Increases in heat transfer M=0.3
coefficient were measured for a number of locations on the blade,
particularly on the pressure side.
Nix et al. (1997) analyzed in detail the progression of a shock M=1.2
through the same cascade and its effect on the unsteady heat transfer.
When averaged over a 200µs blade passing event, a maximum
increase of heat flux of 60% was measured due to shock passing.
The intent in the present study is to measure and interpret the Flow Out
unsteady heat transfer due to an isolated shock, as opposed to a
combination of wake and shock. The focus of the research has been
extended to film cooled blades.
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS Figure 2: Cascade and Shock Apparatus

Cooling Pattern
Wind Tunnel Facility, Cascade and Shock Apparatus
A schematic of the showerhead film cooling design is shown in
The experiments necessary for this investigation were performed
Fig. 3. All coolant holes are cylindrical and straight. The pressure and
in the transonic blowdown wind tunnel at Virginia Tech. A passive
suction side gill holes form angles with the local chordwise tangent of
heating device is available to achieve high (120°C) inlet temperatures
45° and 30°, respectively, and have no inclination in the radial
to the cascade. It consists of many copper tubes that are preheated
direction. All other rows of holes are normal to the local chordwise
prior to running the tunnel. Fig. 1 shows the wind tunnel with the
tangent but angled 60° in the radial direction. Each row consists of 14
heating loop. With the present cascade, the facility allows run times of
holes with a diameter of 1.04 mm (0.041”) and a spacing of 9.14 mm
up to 35 seconds with the inlet pressure controlled. The test-section
(0.360”). The rows are staggered half the spacing with respect to the
and cascade built for this investigation are shown in Fig. 2. The
neighboring rows, yielding an overall pitch/diameter ratio of 4.39.
cascade consists of four full and two half blades forming five passages
Length/diameter ratios vary from 11.5 for the suction side gills to 4.4
(see Fig. 2). The blade design is a generic, high-turning, first stage
for the suction side nose #2 row. Only the suction side gills and the
rotor geometry. It is scaled up three times to accommodate the cooling
suction side rows #1 and #2 actually affect the suction side heat
scheme and instrumentation. The span is 15.3 cm (6”) and the
transfer. The coolant ejected through the stagnation point row actually
aerodynamic chord is 13.6 cm (5.4”). Pitch and axial chord are 11.4
flows along the pressure side as observed from shadowgraph pictures.
cm (4.5”). The Reynolds Number based on aerodynamic chord and
That means that in spite of pressure measurements locating the
exit conditions is about 6·106. The Mach Number distribution was
stagnation point right at the stagnation point row exit, it must be
shown to correspond to design conditions. To simulate the shock
shifted towards the suction side.
emerging from the trailing edge of a NGV, a shock tube creates a
2
In order to control the difference between coolant and freestream
Suction Side total pressure, an air relay is used with the freestream total pressure as
Suction Side Gill
Nose Hole #2 the signal and an adjustable bias. The chiller is a copper tube heat
Sensor exchanger immersed in liquid nitrogen. It provides coolant
Suction Side Location temperatures down to –100°C in the plenum.
Nose Hole#1
Sensors
Stagnation
Plenum The measurement location in this investigation is indicated in Fig.
Hole Insulation 5. Three different sensors are placed staggered in the spanwise
Pressure direction. A surface thermocouple monitors the local blade
Side Nose temperature. It was designed to have thermal properties similar to the
surrounding blade material (aluminum), and it is press fit to provide
good thermal contact. The surface static pressure is measured with a
Pressure Side Gill Kulite pressure transducer, so that pressure variations due to the shock
passing can be captured. Heat flux is measured using a heat flux
microsensor. This sensor is described in detail in Diller (1993).
10 20 30 40 x/d along
suction side
Figure 3: Blade Cooling Scheme
Surface
The nominal ratio of coolant to freestream total pressure for these
Thermocouple
experiments is 1.04. Therefore, the Momentum Ratio for each row of
holes is kept constant while Density Ratio and Blowing Ratio vary Stagnation Heat Flux
with coolant temperature as shown later in section ‘Steady-State Data Line
Analysis and Results, With Film Cooling’. The temperature ratio Tt/Tc Sensor
decreases from about 1.9 early in the experiment to about 1.5 late in
the run. Homogeneous blowing through the cooling holes was checked Pressure
by traversing a total and static pressure probe along the centerline of Transducer
the cooling plenum. The resulting linear velocity distribution indicated
uniform blowing. Coolant exit temperatures are measured with very
small exposed junction thermocouples protruding into the exit of the
last set of cooling holes. Conduction errors in those measurements Figure 5: Plan View of a Section of the Suction Side Showing Sensor
were investigated experimentally. It was determined that these errors Locations and Coolant Exits
were negligible for the application in the blade. For the experiments
without film cooling the plenum is fully plugged with a tightly fitting It behaves similar to a first-order system with a time constant of
Nylon rod. The coolant supply is shown in Fig. 4. The two stage about 6µs. Therefore, it is capable of tracing rapid changes like a
reciprocating compressor provides pressurized air at 12 bar (160 psig) shock passing with sufficient accuracy. The substrate material of the
to the storage tank. The dryer lowers the humidity to below three sensor is aluminum nitride which has thermal properties similar to
percent relative humidity. aluminum but is electrically insulating. Consequently, the temperature
history of the gauge should closely follow the local blade temperature.
The active diameter of the gage is 5.3 mm (0.21”). Accordingly the
gauge extends from 10 to 15 cooling hole diameters downstream of the
suction side gills. The relative size and location of the sensor are
expected to provide a spatially averaged value of heat flux. For the
steady-state investigation, all signals are sampled at 100 Hz and
filtered at 50 Hz. Both pressure and heat flux signal are sampled at 1
MHz and filtered at 40 kHz for the unsteady investigation.
Optical Access
To monitor the state of the cooling film and to visualize the shock
passing process, shadowgraph pictures were taken either using
Polaroid film (steady-state) or a high speed digital camera (shock
passing). The digital camera is capable of taking four successive
pictures with a frequency of up to 1 MHz. The high speed capability is
necessary to investigate in detail the effect of the passing shock.
Figure 4: Coolant Supply
3
STEADY-STATE DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Without Film Cooling

The general definition of the heat transfer coefficient used here is
q = h ⋅ (Taw − Tw ) (1)
With no cooling film present, the adiabatic wall temperature is the

recovery temperature. Therefore
q = h ⋅ (Tr − Tw ) (2)
The difference between the freestream total temperature and the

recovery temperature is a function of the freestream velocity and the
recovery factor
u2
Td = Tt − Tr = (1 − r )⋅ (3)
2 ⋅ cp
This difference Td is a constant throughout the run. Therefore Eq. (2)
can be written as
q = h ⋅ (Tt − Tw ) − h ⋅ Td (4)
Eq. (4) is a linear equation with the independent variable (Tt-Tw) and
the dependent variable q. The slope is the heat transfer coefficient h,
and Td is the intercept at q=0 as illustrated in Fig. 6. The temperatures
Tt, Tw, and the heat flux q vary during the experiment, since the
passive heating device is cooling down as the freestream air is drawing
heat from the copper tubes. The blade temperature is increasing during
the tunnel run, so the overall temperature difference (Tt-Tw) and the
heat flux q decrease (see Fig. 7). Assuming that h is not a function of
the temperatures involved, one can obtain the heat transfer coefficient
and Td by fitting Eq. (4) to the data. A typical graph illustrating this
technique is shown in Fig. 6. The data shows linear behavior as
expected. The difference between the freestream total and wall
temperatures never actually reaches zero. It typically spans the range
from 70°C down to 10°C. The intercept at q=0 is, therefore, an
extrapolation which seems justified. The corresponding time history of
Figure 7: Time History of Tt, Tr, Tw, h, q (Uncooled Run #6)
heat transfer coefficient (h) and recovery temperature obtained using
(Dashed Lines Indicate Range of Useful Data)
the calculated Td is shown in Fig. 7 along with the total temperature
(Tt), the blade temperature (Tw), and the heat flux (q) during a run.
An error analysis shows that bias errors in both the heat flux and
the temperature measurement do not affect the resulting heat transfer
coefficient. This is because an offset of the data in either the x or y-
direction ((Tr-Tw) and q respectively) does not change the slope of the
curve. Accordingly, the experimental scatter for the heat transfer
coefficient is small. Td on the other hand is more severely affected by
measurement uncertainty. A bias error in both temperature and heat
flux measurement transfers directly into an error in recovery
temperature
qε
Td = Td* − Tε + (5)
h
Therefore, the scatter is larger. The experimental results for several

repeating runs are shown in Table 1. The difference between total and
recovery temperature based on
r = Pr (6)
and the local Mach Number of 0.6 would yield a value of Td of 4.2°C,
Figure 6: Interpolation for h and Td (Uncooled Run #6)
assuming an average Tt. Shadowgraph and Schlieren pictures had
4
shown that the boundary layer at the blade location of interest is The recovery temperature is calculated by subtracting the average Td
laminar. It needs to be stated that all the experimental results of Td are of 6.9°C from the freestream total temperature. The coolant
higher than the ones based on isothermal flat plate calculations. The temperature is determined using the mass flow averaged exit coolant
reason for this is either in the measurement accuracy (Eq.(5)) or in the temperatures from the three rows of cooling holes affecting the suction
steep pressure gradient. side. A representative example is shown in Fig. 9. Since the data
follows the linear interpolation closely, it can be stated that the
Run # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 assumptions leading up to this interpretation of the data are correct.
h Specifically, the heat transfer coefficient and the film effectiveness do
635 620 639 654 664 613 625 623 637 not vary significantly throughout the run.
[W/m2°C]
Td
6.9 8.6 7.0 7.7 8.8 5.0 6.9 7.3 4.7
[ °C ]
Table 1: Run-to-Run Variation of h and Td
With Film Cooling

To indicate the state of the cooling film, shadowgraphs and
Schlieren pictures are taken both with Polaroid film and the high-
speed digital camera. The shadowgraph in Fig. 8 shows that the film is
attached to the surface showing turbulent structures. The pressure side
is hidden by instrumentation outside of the cascade.
Figure 9: Interpolation for hc and η (Run #5)
Fig. 10 a) shows the time history of the heat transfer coefficient

calculated using the film effectiveness in Fig. 9. The heat transfer
coefficient determined this way is very uniform throughout the time
window used for the data analysis. In Fig. 10 b) all temperatures
involved during this particular experiment are shown. Taw is based on
the film effectiveness determined in Fig. 9. It is evident that the
coolant exit temperature is significantly higher than the coolant total
temperature in the plenum indicating high heat transfer rates in the
Figure 8: Shadowgraph Showing Attached Film cooling holes. Fig. 10 c) gives the Density Ratio, Blowing Ratios and
Momentum Ratios for all three cooling hole locations of interest. Since
With film cooling, the adiabatic wall temperature is usually expressed the Density Ratio is not a function of the local freestream Mach
in terms of the film effectiveness. Number it is the same for all coolant exit locations. Since the total
pressure ratio is kept relatively constant throughout the run, the
Momentum Ratios are close to uniform. Even though the Momentum
Taw − Tr
η= or Taw = Tr − η ⋅ (Tr − Tc ) (7) Ratios are repeatable, the coolant total temperature varies somewhat
Tc − Tr from run to run, since there was no physical control for this parameter.
As shown in Fig. 10 b) the freestream total temperature changes with
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (1) yields time. That causes the decrease of Density Ratio and Blowing Ratio
q = h c ⋅ (Tr − Tw − η ⋅ (Tr − Tc ))
shown in Fig. 10 c). All Ratios are based on isentropic flow through
(8)
the holes. Realistically, it would be hard to analyze the flow through
the cooling holes since not only frictional effects but also high heat
Dividing by (Tr-Tc) yields transfer rates (see Fig. 10 b)) would have to be taken into account.
Based on coolant mass flow measurements an average discharge
q T − Tw coefficient of 0.66 for all cooling holes was determined.
= hc ⋅ r − hc ⋅ η (9)
Tr − Tc Tr − Tc The average heat transfer coefficient with film cooling (686
W/(m2°C)) is 8% higher than h without film cooling (634 W/(m2°C)).
Since the temperatures and heat flux levels change considerably during Using a thermal conductivity of 0.030 W/mK and the axial chord
the experiment, a wide range of values is obtained, as illustrated in (0.114 m) to obtain the Nusselt number, yields values of 2410 and
Fig. 9. Assuming that hc and η are not functions of temperatures, Eq. 2610 for the experiments without and with film cooling, respectively.
(9) is a linear relation between the fraction on the left hand side and The average film effectiveness of 15.3% appears to be rather low.
the temperature ratio on the right hand side. The slope is the heat
transfer coefficient, and the intercept at q=0 is the film effectiveness.
5
Ratios and gauge locations. Values between about 4% and 17% are
found for gauge locations between x/D=10 and x/D=15 and
a) Momentum Ratios between 1.0 and 2.3.
An error analysis for the method presented shows that the heat
transfer coefficient is sensitive to bias errors in temperature and heat
transfer measurement. Therefore, a larger scatter in the experimental
results can be expected. The film effectiveness is also subject to higher
scatter, as it is calculated from the intercept and the heat transfer
coefficient. Results for heat transfer coefficient and film effectiveness
are shown in Table 2. If the theoretical value for Td (4.2°C) was used
instead of the experimental value (6.9°C) the results for hc and η
would be a few percent higher.
Run # 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
hc
709 623 672 715 708 704 685 675
[W/m2°C]
η
16.6 12.0 17.0 16.6 16.8 14.6 15.1 13.5
[%]
b) Table 2: Run-to-Run Variation of hc and η
SHOCK PASSING DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Shock Passing without Film cooling

For the analysis of the passing shock event Eq. (2) will be
rewritten in such a way that all properties that are a function of time
will be broken down into a mean value before shock impact (no
superscript) and a time varying component (superscript ´). The
unsteady heat flux during the event of a passing shock can then be
expressed in terms of mean and fluctuating components:
q + q ′ = (h + h ′) ⋅ (Tr + Tr′ − Tw ) (10)
The wall temperature does not change during the short duration of the
shock passing. Expanding the right hand side of Eq. (10) yields:
q + q ′ = h ⋅ (Tr − Tw ) + h ′ ⋅ (Tr − Tw ) + h ⋅ Tr′ + h ′ ⋅ Tr′ (11)

c)
Subtracting the mean heat flux on both sides yields the fluctuating
component of heat transfer:
q ′ = h ′ ⋅ (Tr − Tw ) + h ⋅ Tr′ + h ′ ⋅ Tr′ (12)
The goal of this investigation is to determine the time variation of

heat transfer coefficient (h´) and recovery temperature (Tr´) during the
shock event which constitute the three components of unsteady heat
transfer on the right hand side of Eq. (12). In Fig. 11, the traces of
heat flux during a shock passing event are shown for different runs.
The numbering corresponds to the run numbers in the steady state
experiments (Table 1). The different levels of heat flux before the run
are due to the fact that the shock is purposely initiated at different
times during the run, i.e. at different temperature levels. Run #10 is not
listed in Table 1 since the temperature differences were intentionally
kept very small for this particular experiment. Therefore h and Td
Figure 10: Time Histories from Cooled Run #5 could not be determined from this run. The time history of heat flux
a) Heat Transfer and Heat Transfer Coefficient for times later than about 400 µs is of no interest since it is dominated
b) All Relevant Temperatures by the interaction of shock reflections and later the contact surface
c) Density Ratio, Blowing Ratio, Momentum Ratio emerging from the shock tube. These phenomena are not observed in
(Dashed Lines Indicate Range of Useful Data) the engine. Therefore, this investigation focuses on the impact of the
first shock front primarily.
In low speed cascade tests with one closely spaced row of holes
on the suction side of a large scale blade model, Ito et al. (1978) found
comparably low values for film effectiveness for similar Momentum
6
Figure 11: Heat Flux Traces from all Uncooled Experiments Figure 13: Peak Heat Flux vs. (Tr-Tw) from all Uncooled Experiments
In Fig. 12, the mean components of heat flux have been removed, There is no clear correlation between the two variables. Hence, q´max
leaving the traces of q´ indicated on the left y-axis. Apparently, all the does not strongly dependent on (Tr-Tw). This can only be the case if h´
fluctuating components of heat flux are similar. is much smaller than h. Assuming h´ to be negligible and dropping all
the terms containing h´ on the right hand side of Eq. (12), leaves an
equation for the unsteady change of recovery temperature
q′
Tr′ = (13)
h
Fig. 12 shows the time histories of this temperature variation indicated
on the right y-axis. The heat transfer coefficient used here is the mean
of the results of all the steady experiments. Since the scatter is
relatively small, an average time variation of recovery temperature is
used in the analysis of the experiments with film cooling.
Shock Passing with Film cooling

When film cooling is present, Eq. (12) still applies with the
recovery temperature now replaced by the adiabatic wall temperature
q ′ = h ′c ⋅ (Taw − Tw ) + h c ⋅ Taw
′ + h ′c ⋅ Taw
′ (14)
Analogous to the analysis for the uncooled case, it is the aim of this
Figure 12: Unsteady Heat Flux and Recovery Temperature from all investigation to quantify the contribution of Táw and hć to the overall
Uncooled Experiments variation of heat flux. Táw can be expressed in terms of fluctuating
components of recovery temperature (T´r) and film effectiveness (η´)
The first term on the right hand side of Eq. (12), h´·(Tr-Tw),
indicates that the unsteady heat flux (q´) is a function of the overall ′ = Tr′ ⋅ (1 − η) − η′ ⋅ (Tr − Tc ) − η′ ⋅ Tr′
Taw (15)
temperature difference (Tr-Tw) if h´ is significant. If q´ is a function of
(Tr-Tw), then the maximum or peak heat flux (q´max) would also have A further question of interest is how much the change in recovery
to be a function of this temperature difference. In Fig. 13 the peak heat temperature and film effectiveness affect the variation of Taw. The time
flux q´max is plotted versus (Tr-Tw). variation of recovery temperature is one of the results of the uncooled
unsteady investigation. It is the goal of this investigation to determine
the contributions of T´r, hć, and η´ to the unsteady heat transfer. The
coolant temperature is considered to be a constant.
Fig. 14 shows the pressure traces recorded by the blade mounted
Kulite pressure transducer for representative experiments with and
without film cooling. All the time histories of static pressure are very
repeatable, asserting that the comparison of different runs is possible.
7
Figure 14: Pressure Traces from Representative Experiments Figure 16: Variation of Heat Flux and Adiabatic Wall Temperature
with and without Film cooling from all Cooled Experiments
In Fig. 15, all the heat flux traces at shock impact are shown. Again, The unsteady heat flux as expressed in Eq. (14) contains the term
the differences in heat flux level are due to different temperature levels hć·(Taw-Tw). It represents the first-order term of the contribution of hć
at the time of the shock release. Run #19 is not listed in Table 2. to the unsteady heat flux. If hć is significant, the unsteady heat flux
Intentionally, the temperature differences were kept very small and and the peak unsteady heat flux q´max should correlate with (Taw-Tw).
neither heat transfer coefficient nor film effectiveness could be In Fig. 17 the peak heat flux is plotted against (Taw-Tw).
determined from this experiment.
Figure 17: Peak Heat Flux vs. (Taw-Tw) from all Cooled Experiments
Figure 15: Heat Flux Traces from all Cooled Experiments
There is no strong dependency between q´max and (Taw-Tw) evident.
This can only be the case if hć is of minor significance. Neglecting all
In Fig. 16, the same traces are shown after their mean values before
the terms containing hć in Eq. (14) yields a relation between the
shock impact have been removed. The traces of unsteady heat flux
fluctuating components of Taw and q
with and without film cooling (Figs. 16 and 12, respectively) are very
similar in terms of magnitude and shape. Hence, the modes of heat
q′
transfer for both cases must be similar. The shock does not seem to ′ =
Taw (16)
influence the heat transfer coefficient or the mixing in the boundary hc
layer (η) in any significant manner, otherwise these time histories
would have to appear different for the cases with and without film The traces of adiabatic wall temperature calculated from Eq. (16) for
cooling. Furthermore, pictures taken with the high-speed camera all the runs are shown in Fig. 16 scaled on the right y-axis. The
indicate that the cooling-film is not severely affected by the passing similarity of the fluctuations seems to allow for an ensemble averaging
shock. of the different runs, shown in Fig. 18. Eq. (15) contains an expression
for the contribution of T´r to the variation of the adiabatic wall
temperature
′ = Tr′ ⋅ (1 − η) − η′ ⋅ (Tr − Tc ) − η′ ⋅ Tr′

Taw (15)
8
The averaged time variation of Taw and the first term on the right side Messrs. Scott Hunter, Monty Shelton and Mark Pearson of General
of Eq. (14) (Tr´·(1-η)) are shown in Fig. 18. For the time variation of Electric Aircraft Engines for their collaboration on this project.
recovery temperature, the ensemble average from the uncooled tests
are used. The film effectiveness used is the averaged result from the REFERENCES
steady film cooled experiments. Johnson, A.B., Oldfield, M.L.G., Rigby, M.J., Giles, M.B., 1990,
“Nozzle Guide Vane Shock Propagation and Bifurcation in a
Transonic Turbine Rotor”, ASME 90-GT-310
Moss, R.W., Sheldrake, C.D., Ainsworth, R.W., Smith, A.D., Dancer,
S.N., 1995, “Unsteady Pressure and Heat Transfer Measurements
on a Rotating Blade Surface in a Transient Flow Facility”,
AGARD CP-571 pp. 22.1-22.9
Moss, R.W., Ainsworth, R.W., Garside, T., 1997, “Effects of Rotation
on Blade Surface Heat Transfer: An Experimental Investigation”,
ASME 97-GT-188
Horton, F.G., Schultz, D.L., Forest A.E., 1985, “Heat Transfer
Measurements With Film Cooling on a Turbine Blade Profile
Cascade”, ASME 85-GT-117
Hilditch, M.A., Smith, G.C., Anderson, S.J., Chana, K.S., Jones, T.V.,
Ainsworth, R.W., Oldfield, M.L.G., 1995, “Unsteady
Measurements in an Axial Flow Turbine” AGARD CP-571 pp.
24.1-24.8
Abhari, R.S., Epstein, A.H., 1992, “An Experimental Study of Film
Cooling in a Rotating Transonic Turbine”, ASME 92-GT-201
Figure 18: Variation of Taw and the Contribution of Tr Heidmann, J.D., Lucci, B.L., Reshotko, E., 1997, “An Experimental
Study of the Effect of Wake Passing on Turbine Blade Film
The two traces are of very similar magnitude and shape. This Cooling”, ASME 97-GT-255
Hale, J.H., Diller, T.E., Ng, W.F., 1997, “Effects of Wake on Turbine
suggests that the remaining terms on the right side of Eq. (14) (η´·(Tr-
Blade Heat Transfer in a Transonic Cascade”, ASME 97-GT-130
Tc) and η´·Tr´) are small and consequently η´ is small. It has to be
Nix, A.C., Reid, T., Peabody, H., Ng, W.F., Diller, T.E., Schetz, J.A.,
concluded that the major contribution to the unsteady heat flux is the
1997, “Effects of Shock Wave Passing on Turbine Blade Heat
change of recovery temperature. The variations of h, hc, and η have to Transfer in a Transonic Cascade”, AIAA-97-0160
be considered secondary effects. For the uncooled case this has been Diller, T.E., 1993, “Advances in Heat Flux Measurement”, Advances
stated before by Moss et al. (1995). They performed on-rotor in Heat Transfer, Vol. 23, Ads, J.P., Hartnett et al., Academic
measurements of pressure and heat flux. Calculating the change of Press, Boston, 1993, pp. 279-368
relative total temperature from the pressure measurement and Ito, S., Goldstein, R.J., Eckert, E.R.G.,”Film Cooling on a Gas Turbine
assuming a constant heat transfer coefficient to calculate heat transfer, Blade”, Journal of Engineering for Power, 1978, Vol. 100, pp.
they found very good agreement between this calculation and the 476-481
actual measurement. The present study suggests that this observation
is also true for film cooled blades. Extrapolating to engine application,
this implies that the time-averaged increase of heat transfer caused by
passing shocks is small, since the relative total temperature is by
definition varying around its mean value.
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental setup for the investigation of steady and
unsteady heat transfer on film cooled transonic turbine blades was
designed and built. For uncooled blades, one experiment in the
transient facility was shown to be sufficient for the determination of
heat transfer coefficient and recovery temperature. For film cooled
blades, a method was presented to obtain heat transfer coefficient and
film effectiveness from one experiment.
An analysis of the time resolved shock passing event with and
without film cooling showed that the major contribution to the
unsteady heat transfer is due to the fluctuation of recovery temperature
caused by the shock. Heat transfer coefficient and film effectiveness
were shown not to vary significantly during the interaction of the
shock with the blade surface.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR) under grant F08671-9601062, monitored by Dr.
Jim M. McMichael and Dr. Mark Glauser. We would like to thank
9
Appendix H
Comparison of Radiation versus

Convection Calibration of
Thin-Film Heat Flux Gauges
Submitted to the ASME ad-hoc Committee on Heat Transfer
234
A COMPARISON OF RADIATION VERSUS CONVECTION CALIBRATION
OF THIN-FILM HEAT FLUX GAUGES
D. E. Smith, J. V. Bubb, O. Popp, T.E. Diller

Blacksburg, VA 24061
Stephen J. Hevey
Vatell Corporation
Christiansburg, VA 24073
ABSTRACT Sconv convection tests gauge sensitivity (µV/W/cm2 )

A transient, in-situ method was examined for calibrating thin-film Ssub standard substitution gauge sensitivity (µV/W/cm2 )
heat flux gauges using experimental data generated from both Srad,blade radiation tests gauge sensitivity (µV/W/cm2 )
convection and radiation tests. Also, a comparison is made between
this transient method and the standard radiation substitution calibration Srad,bench transient tests gauge sensitivity (µV/W/cm2 )
technique. Six Vatell Corporation HFM-7 type heat flux gauges were Sjet impinging jet tests gauge sensitivity (µV/W/cm2 )
mounted on the surface of a 2-D, first-stage turbine rotor blade. These Sin-situ in-situ tests gauge sensitivity (µV/W/cm2 )
gauges were subjected to radiation from a heat lamp and in a separate Tcalc calculated temperature (°C)
experiment to a convective heat flux generated by flow in a transonic Texp experimental temperature (°C)
cascade wind tunnel. A second set of convective tests were performed k thermal conductivity of substrate (W/m·°C)
using jets of cooled air impinging on the surface of the gauges. Direct qcalc calculated heat flux (W/cm2)
measurements were simultaneously taken of both the time-resolved qexp experimental heat flux (W/cm2)
heat flux and surface temperature on the blade. The heat flux input t time (s)
was used to predict a surface temperature response using a one- ε emissivity of coating applied to gauges
dimensional, semi-infinite conduction model into a substrate with ρ density of the substrate (kg/m3)
known thermal properties. The sensitivities of the gauges were τ time allowance for semi-infinite assumption (s)
determined by correlating the semi-infinite predicted temperature
response to the measured temperature response. A finite-difference INTRODUCTION
code was used to model the penetration of the heat flux into the The accurate measurement of heat flux into a surface is very
substrate in order to estimate the time for which the semi-infinite important to researchers concerned with thermal systems. For
assumption was valid. The results from these tests showed that the example, information about the steady and unsteady heat transfer into
gauges accurately record both the convection and radiation modes of turbine blades is in high demand by the turbine industry and its
heat transfer. The radiation and convection tests yielded gauge thermal designers. However, the difficulties involved in measuring
sensitivities which agreed to within ±11%. high-speed thermal phenomena limit the available information.
Another area where heat flux measurements are necessary is in the
NOMENCLATURE determination of material properties. If the incident heat flux on a
Symbols material and the corresponding temperature rise are known, the
C specific heat of substrate (J/kg·°C) thermal properties of that material may be determined. These are only
HFM heat flux microsensor (temperature and heat flux) two of the many areas in which heat flux measurements are critical.
HFS heat flux sensor The accurate measurement of heat flux is usually a challenge,
RTS resistance temperature sensor however.
One difficulty is that the installation of a gauge on a surface will The six HFM gauges were all mounted on the suction side surface
always result in a disturbance to the thermal system being investigated. of a generic two-dimensional, high-turning, first-stage turbine rotor
This disturbance can be minimized if the thermal resistance of the blade. The gauges were staggered along the chord of the blade as well
gauge is similar to that of the material in which it is embedded, and if as along its span. Each of the gauges was press-fitted flush with the
the area to thickness ratio of the gauge is large enough to promote one- surface of the blade. The curvature of the blade made using the
dimensional conduction through the gauge. Another difficulty in substitution technique extremely difficult and the press-fit meant that
measuring heat flux is the calibration of the gauges. Moffatt (1995) the gauges could not be removed from the blade without a very high
said that errors in the estimate of gauge sensitivities on the order of possibility of incurring damage to the gauges. Therefore, the transient
±10% are reasonable due to the difficulties involved with calibration. technique was used in-situ to calibrate the six HFM's embedded in the
Moreover, it is often difficult or impossible to calibrate a gauge once it blade.
has been mounted in an experimental setup.
One of the present methods for calibrating heat flux gauges SUBSTITUTION CALIBRATIONS OF UNMOUNTED GAUGES
consists of a substitution technique where a reference gauge is
subjected to an incident radiation heat flux. The gauge to be calibrated The substitution calibration is widely used in research and
is then put in its place and subjected to matched conditions and a industry for the calibration of heat flux gauges. Its use in the
calibration is made by comparison with the known gauge. In addition calibration of HFM’s was documented by Hager et al. (1994). The
to the substitution calibration, a transient in-situ technique can be used known heat flux is applied to the gauge and the voltage output can be
with gauges which have a fast response time provided the temperature directly calibrated using equation (1).
is known as well [Hager et al., 1994]. It has been shown (Baker and V
Diller, 1993) that the surface temperature time history can be SHFS = HFS (1)
Q REF
calculated from the time history of the measured heat flux. This
calculated temperature can then be compared with the transient The reference gauge, a circular-foil gauge, was calibrated by
measured surface temperature to calibrate the heat flux gauges. Vatell Corp. using a primary standard gauge which was calibrated by
For this study, six heat flux microsensor (HFM) thin-film gauges, Nist. After calibration, the reference gauge has an expanded
produced by Vatell, Inc., were mounted on the surface of a first-stage uncertainty (95% confidence level) quoted as ± 3%.
turbine rotor blade made of aluminum. The gauges were used to The substitution technique is a steady-state calibration which uses
measure, simultaneously, the local time-resolved heat flux and surface a reference heat flux gauge to measure the incident flux from a heat
temperature. Because it is difficult to use the substitution technique on lamp and then substitutes an un-calibrated gauge for the known
these gauges while they are in the blade, the transient calibration assuming the conditions are the same. An accurate calibration using
method was used. A different set of free-standing gauges were the substitution method cannot be made with the six gauges that were
exposed to a radiative flux and the data was used to perform already embedded in the blade. The curvature of the blade makes it
calibrations using both the substitution and the transient techniques. A difficult to position the heat lamp the same with respect to both the
comparison was then made between the two calibration methods for reference gauge and the embedded HFM. Small changes in the
both convection and radiation. relative positions of the two gauges to the lamp can result in large
calibration errors, since the incident heat flux differs with the exact
orientation of the lamp. Therefore, five HFM gauges which had not
INSTRUMENTATION
been mounted in the blade were tested instead (G7/1-2 and G6/1-3).
The sensitivities of three of these gauges (G6/1-3) was smaller due to
Heat Flux Microsensors the different materials used to make the thermocouple pairs for the
The HFM is composed of two separate sensors, a resistance HFS and RTS, but the accuracy of the sensitivity estimate was
temperature sensor (RTS) and a heat flux sensor (HFS). The HFS uses unaffected.
a passive differential thermopile made up of 280 thermocouple pairs to The reference gauge, a circular-foil heat flux gauge painted with a
generate a voltage proportional to the incident heat flux. The active high emissivity coating (0.94), was exposed to a heat lamp to
area of the HFM is 4mm in diameter, two microns thick, and is determine the amount of heat flux generated by the lamp. Typical heat
deposited on an aluminum-nitride substrate, an electrically insulating flux levels were on the order of 14 W/cm2. Both the lamp and the
material with thermal properties close to those of the aluminum blade. circular-foil gauge were mounted in a fixture that maintained their
The heat flux gauge has been shown to have a time response on the relative orientation and positioning. The five HFM gauges were also
order of 10µs [Holmberg, 1995]. The small thickness-to-area ratio and coated, mounted in the fixture, and then exposed to the heat lamp as is
the thermal properties of the substrate ensure that the thermal shown in Fig. 1. Six tests were performed on each gauge. The data
disruption caused by the gauge will be minimal. generated by each HFM were recorded at 2000Hz. Sensitivities
Two different types of HFM's were used in this work: HFM-7's determined using data from this test will be referred to as Ssub.
and HFM-6's. The difference between the two types is in the material Because all gauges, including the reference gauge, were coated with
which is used to form the thermocouple pairs. The HFM-6 gauge uses the same paint, the value of the emissivity did not affect the
a Nichrome/Platinum thermocouple pair and has a lower sensitivity calibrations.
(S≈30µV/W/cm2) than the HFM-7 which uses a Nichrome/Constantan
pair (S≈150µV/W/cm2). All of the gauges use the same material for
the substrate, however. The six gauges mounted in the aluminum
blade are all HFM-7's and will hereafter be referred to as gauges B1
through B6. Of the five gauges used in the substitution experiments,
two are HFM-7's and three are HFM-6's. These gauges will hereafter
be referred to as gauges G7/1, G7/2, and G6/1 through G6/3,
respectively.
Blade Instrumentation
2
Heat maximum time, τ , for which the one-dimensional, semi-infinite
Lamp
assumption was valid.
Alignment The parameters used in the code are shown in Fig. 2. The heat
Fixture flux step input of 105 W/m2 used is typical of the levels measured
during heated runs in the transonic blowdown wind tunnel and of the
Insulated gauge
enclosure
heat lamp used in the radiation bench tests. The step input was applied
to a circular area with a diameter approximately four times that of the
HFM gauge. This area is the same size as that of the heat lamp, which
HFM gauge is the limiting case in this study since the wind tunnel provides a flux
over a larger area and two-dimensional heat transfer effects are felt
much later in time. The code used cylindrical coordinates to
accurately model the gauge, and the thermal properties shown in the
figure were used for both the gauge and the surrounding material. The
code was discretized in time as well as space; a mesh size of 0.4mm
Figure 1: Radiation Tests for Substitution Method and a time step of 0.005s were chosen.
5 2
q=10 W/m
TRANSIENT CALIBRATIONS
Mathematical Model
The transient method of calibrating heat flux gauges was used to Aluminum Sensor
Blade
analyze the data generated by all of the tests described earlier, Semi-Infinite
including the substitution bench tests. The transient calibration makes Semi-Infinite
RTS location
use of the fact that for very short time periods, the surface heat flux
can be easily calculated from the surface temperature if a one- 4 mm dia
dimensional, semi-infinite model is assumed [Diller, 1993]. The time
period is usually a fraction of a second, and so time-resolved Semi-Infinite
temperature measurements must be taken in order to use this method Rotation Axis
for Radial
of calibration. The time response of the HFM gauge is on the order of
10µs, so it is capable of providing these time-resolved measurements
k aluminum ≈ k sensor = 165 W / m K
for both the surface temperature and the heat flux simultaneously. Cp aluminum ≈ Cp sensor = 713 J / kg K
3
Baker and Diller (1993) developed a method of determining surface ρ aluminum ≈ ρ sensor = 3290 kg / m
temperature from heat flux using a Green’s function approach. By
assuming the substrate to be initially at a uniform temperature, To , and Figure 2: Finite Difference Model
treating the series of heat flux data points, qj , as impulses, the surface
temperature time history can be reconstructed using equation (2), The time history of the RTS surface temperature along with the
solution of the one-dimensional, semi-infinite conduction model can
∑ q j[ ]
n −1
2
Tcalc ( t n ) − To = t n − t j − t n − t j+1 (2) be seen in Fig. 3. As time progresses, two-dimensional effects (radial
π kρC j= 0 heat transfer) are seen to become more important as the RTS
Equation (2) shows that the transient technique requires that the temperature diverges from the one-dimensional model. A time, τ, was
thermal properties of the substrate be known. An algorithm was chosen such that the error in calculated heat flux from the one-
written to determine the sensitivity of the HFS by minimizing the dimensional, semi-infinite model was less than 5%. For the
temperature difference between the measured and calculated parameters shown in Fig. 2., τ was found to be 125ms.
temperature histories, Texp - Tcalc.
Validity of 1-D, Semi-infinite Assumption

The use of the transient method is dependent upon the validity of
the one-dimensional, semi-infinite conduction model. Therefore, it is
necessary to determine how long this assumption may be considered
valid. The active area of the HFM gauge is a circle 4mm in diameter;
the HFS (heat flux sensor) occupies the center of that area and the RTS
(resistance temperature sensor) is laid down in a ring surrounding it.
The HFS and the RTS are located close enough to each other that it
might be assumed that they measure the same thermal phenomena.
The two-dimensional heat transfer effects, however, are felt first at the
edge of the sensor. Therefore, the difference of the temperature at this
location from the one-dimensional model is the limiting case for the
transient calibration technique. A two-dimensional finite difference
conduction code was written to model the penetration of a step input
of heat flux into the substrate. The code was used to determine the
Figure 3: Determination of Time Allowance, τ
3
Experiments (-100°C) air was used to provide a large negative incident heat flux to
the gauges. These experiments required that the blade be taken out of
In-situ Transonic Convection Tests the cascade test section. The jet was 0.5 inches in diameter and was
The mounted HFM’s were used to investigate the convective heat mounted eight diameters from the blade as is shown in Fig 6. A large
transfer into a turbine blade, using the convection experiments tank was loaded to 150 psi and used to supply pressurized air for the
performed in the transonic blowdown wind tunnel at Virginia Tech. A impinging jet. For the transient technique, the incident heat flux need
set of resistance heaters are used to preheat copper tubes located in the not be known if it is assumed to be uniform, so it was not necessary to
path of the main flow upstream of the test section. The tubes act as a measure the velocity of the jets. For each test, a shutter placed
passive heat exchanger and allow the flow to be heated to higher between the gauge and the jet was manually removed to provide a
(120°C) temperatures before entering the cascade. Figure 4 shows the quick increase in the level of heat flux. The response of the HFM to
wind tunnel with the heating loop and the cascade test section. The the jet was recorded at 1000Hz and filtered at 50Hz. Separate tests
cascade test section contains four full blades and two half blades, or were performed for each gauge. Sensitivities determined using data
five flow passages. Figure 5 shows the location of the instrumented from this test will be referred to as Sjet.
blade in the cascade test section. The heated flow passing over the
instrumented blade provides a large convective heat flux to the gauges.
Six tunnel runs were made and the data generated by each gauge was Pressurized
recorded simultaneously. The HFM's were sampled at 100Hz and Tank
filtered using a low-pass, one-pole filter. The wind tunnel is capable HFM gauges
of running for up to 35s with the inlet total pressure controlled, but
only a very small fraction of the data recorded by the HFM's is needed
for the transient calibration. An important point to note is that the Air Jet
transient calibration technique can be used to perform an in-situ
calibration each time a tunnel experiment is performed. The
calibration performed at the beginning of an experiment can then be
compared to the manufacturer’s calibration to determine if the gauge's Blade
calibration has drifted. Sensitivities determined using data from this
test will be referred to as Sin-situ.
Liquid N2 Shutter
High
Pressure Air Chiller
Scale
1ft. Figure 6: Jet Impingement on Blade
Test Section Radiation Bench Tests of Gauges in Blade

Heat Exchanger Another set of radiation bench tests was performed on the gauges
in the instrumented blade after it had been removed from the cascade
test section. All of the gauges were painted with a high emissivity
Heater Exhaust coating (ε = 0.94), and a heat lamp was used to subject each gauge to
an incident heat flux as shown in Fig. 7. The heat lamp was positioned
directly over each gauge and the radiative heat flux was made to
simulate a step input by using a manual shuttering mechanism; once
the lamp had reached its full illumination, the shutter was quickly
Figure 4: Wind Tunnel Facility removed and the gauge was exposed to the incident flux. Again, it
should be noted that when using the transient calibration, the incident
heat flux does not need to be a known value. It is therefore not
necessary to position the lamp in the exact same orientation over each
M = 0.3 gauge as was required with the substitution method. This test was
Flow In T = 120C performed once on each gauge and the data generated by each HFM
was recorded at 2000Hz, unfiltered. Sensitivities determined using
data from this test will be referred to as S rad.
M = 1.2
Flow Out
Figure 5: Cascade Test Section
Impinging Jet Bench Tests

In addition to the transonic convection experiments, which were
performed in the blowdown wind tunnel, an impinging jet with cold
4
Heat Lamp test. All three sets of tests were performed on the HFM's embedded in
the blade. One set of tests was performed in the Virginia Tech
transonic cascade wind tunnel. The blade was then removed from the
test section and the two bench tests, convection using a cold impinging
Shutter jet and radiation using a heat lamp, were performed. The data from all
three sets of tests were analyzed according to the transient calibration
outlined earlier. Figure 8 is a plot of the measured heat flux and
surface temperature along with the calculated surface temperature for a
Aluminum Blade sample radiation bench test. The calculated temperature history is a
smooth curve underlying the noisier history of the measured surface
temperature. The calculated temperature has less noise due to the
integration process used to construct it (Baker and Diller, 1993).
HFM Gauges Figure 8 shows the strength of the transient calibration method; the
time histories of the measured surface temperature and the calculated
Figure 7: Transient Radiation Tests temperature are in excellent agreement, which they should be if an
accurate calibration is done.
Radiation Bench Tests of Unmounted Gauges 4
x 10 HFM Output
The data generated by applying radiative heat flux to the
unmounted gauges as described earlier in the substitution experiments 2.5
HFM Voltage (V)

section can also be analyzed using the transient method. To do this, 2
data was sampled at 2000Hz, unfiltered, in order to record the initial 1.5
response of the HFM to the incident heat flux. Sensitivities determined
1
using data from this test will be referred to as Strans.
0.5
0
0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
RESULTS T and T
calc exp
2
Change in Temperature ( C)
A comparison of the substitution calibration method with the

o
T
calc
transient method was done first to determine if the transient method is 1.5
viable as a calibration technique. The data generated in the substitution
experiments were analyzed using both the substitution technique and 1
the transient technique. The material properties ([k·ρ·C]1/2 = 19,670 in T
exp
0.5
SI units) used in the transient technique are 10% higher than those
shown in Fig. 2 due to a change in the aluminum nitride supplier. Six 0
tests were performed for each gauge. The calibration results for both 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
Time (s)
methods can be seen in Table 1. As mentioned earlier, gauges G6-1
through G6-3 are of a different HFM type and so the magnitude of
Figure 8: Results of Transient Calibration
their sensitivities are smaller than those of the other gauges. The
difference in the magnitude of sensitivity between HFM-7's and HFM- The results of the calibrations performed on all three sets of tests
6's is solely a function of the thermocouple materials used. The can be seen in Table 2. The results for Srad, Sin-situ, and Sjet are the
percentage difference between the substitution and the transient mean values over all tests for each gauge. A comprehensive method
sensitivities were all less than 13%. Experimental uncertainty for each of determining the uncertainty for both the transient radiation and
gauge was calculated by establishing a 90% confidence interval convection calibration was sought. In order to remove the effects of
around the mean of the six tests performed using a student-t the variations in mean sensitivities of the six gauges, the entire data set
distribution. for each gauge (Srad, Sin-situ, and Sjet [µV/W·cm2]) was divided by the
Table 1: Results of Radiation Calibrations common mean in order to obtain a percentage. This procedure was
performed on all six gauges. A normal distribution was assumed, and
Gauge Number Ssub (µV/W·cm2) Strans (µV/W·cm2) the uncertainty in the transient calibration at the 95% level of
G6-1 18.01 17.91 ±1.3% confidence was found to be ± 11%.
G6-2 15.33 16.58 ±7.3%
G6-3 25.50 28.72 ±5.1% Table 2: Results of Transient Calibration
G7-1 108.6 111.33 ±9.7%
G7-2 189.05 191 ±9.2% Gauge Srad Sin-situ Sjet
B1 264 233 274
These results show that the transient calibration technique is in B2 114 105 102
excellent agreement with the substitution technique used in most B3 148 147 146
calibrations of heat flux gauges. B4 150 129 152
Since the transient method is a viable calibration method, the B5 177 176 177
suitability of convection tests, as opposed to the radiation tests B6 155 153 143
commonly used, was investigated. To do this, two different sets of
convection tests were performed and compared to a radiation bench
5
CONCLUSIONS
Accurate calibrations are necessary in order to investigate the

thermal phenomena reported by heat flux gauges. These calibrations
are difficult to make and often impossible to repeat once the gauge has
been installed in an experimental setup. A transient method of
calibrating thin-film heat flux gauges with fast time responses has
been shown to be a viable calibration technique. The strengths of the
transient calibration technique are that it can be performed in-situ, the
incident heat flux need not be known, and that gauge calibrations can
be performed at the start of each run if an appropriate level of heat flux
is present. It has been shown that the transient method is capable of
using either radiation or convection as the mode of heat transfer.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR) under grant F08671-9601062, monitored by Dr.
Jim M. McMichael and Dr. Mark Glauser. We would like to thank
Messrs. Scott Hunter, Monty Shelton and Mark Pearson of General
Electric Aircraft Engines for their collaboration on this project.
REFERENCES
Baker, K.I., and Diller, T.E., 1993, "Unsteady Surface Heat Flux and
Temperature Measurements." ASME 93-HT-33.
Diller, T.E., 1996, “Methods of Determining Heat Flux From
Temperature Measurements”, ISA 0227-7576.
Hager, J.M., Terrell, J.P., Silverston, E., Diller, T.E., 1994, “In-Situ
Calibration of a Heat Flux Microsensor Using Surface
Temperature Measurements”, ISA 94-1034.
Holmberg, D.G., Diller, T.E., 1996, “High-Frequency Heat Flux
Sensor Calibration and Modeling”, ASME Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 117, pp. 659-664.
Johnson, L.P., Diller, T.E., 1995, “Measurements With a Heat Flux
Microsensor Deposited on a Transonic Turbine Blade,” IEEE
95CH3482-7.
Moffat, R.J., and Danek, C., 1995, "Calibrating Heat Flux Gauges for
Convection Applications", NIST/NSF Workshop on Heat Flux
Transducer Calibration.
Schultz, D.L. and Jones, T.V., 1973, "Heat-Transfer Measurements in
Short-Duration Hypersonic Facilities", AGARD AG-165.
6
Vita
Oliver Popp was born in Offenbach/Main, Germany in 1970. He graduated

from high school (Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany) in 1990. He received his undergra-
duate degree and his graduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Technical
University of Darmstadt (Darmstadt, Germany). Fascinated with Fluid Mechanics
and Turbomachinery he joined the Von Kármán Institute for Fluid Dynamics in
Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium for the 95/96 Diploma Course from which he grad-
uated salutatorian. In the course of his research work there he became aware of
the outstanding research done by Dr. Wing-Fai Ng. After consulting with him he
joined his research team at Virginia Tech in 1996. Since then he has been pursuing
his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and raising son Sebastian Boris with his wife
Kerstin. Upon completing his degree Oliver will begin his career with ABB Corpo-
rate Research Ltd. in Switzerland as a research engineer in the field of gas turbine
cooling.
241

Popp Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Popp Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Popp Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steady and Unsteady Heat Transfer in a Film

Cooled Transonic Turbine Cascade

Oliver Popp, Dipl.-Ing.

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

Dr. Wing F. Ng, Chair

Dr. Thomas E. Diller, Co-Chair Dr. Joseph A. Schetz

Dr. Clinton L. Dancey Dr. Alfred L. Wicks

Keywords: Unsteady Heat Transfer, Turbine, Film Cooling, Transonic Cascade

Oliver Popp, Ph.D.

I would like to express my gratitude to the members of my committee. Dr. Ng

My particular appreciation goes to the graduate students directly involved with

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

List of Figures xii

Chapter 2 Steady Heat Transfer 19

Chapter 3 Unsteady Heat Transfer 38

Chapter 4 Conclusions from the Investigation of Unsteady Heat Flux149

Appendix A Shock Progression Details 158

Appendix B Investigation of the Transfer Function of Different Kulite

Appendix C Investigation of the Transfer Function of a Vatell HFM-

Appendix D Transfer Functions of the Measurements Group 2310

Appendix E Measurement Error 195

Appendix F Discussion of the Surface Heat Flux Equations and their

Appendix G Steady and Unsteady Heat Transfer in a Transonic Film

Appendix H Comparison of Radiation versus Convection Calibration

B.1 Coefficients Ai and Bi Describing the Transfer Function of the Kulite

D.1 Coefficients Ai and Bi Describing the Transfer Function of the Mea-

E.1 HFM Gauge Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

F.1 Corresponding Variables in Equations F.12 and F.15 . . . . . . . . . 209

1.1 Advance of Materials and Cooling Technology. Source: Royal Aero-

2.1 Transonic Blowdown Windtunnel at Virginia Tech, from Smith (1999). 20

3.1 Overview of the Shock Apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

A.1 Shock Progression: Still # 1, time≈ 450µs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

B.1 Shock Tube with Kulite Pressure Sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

C.1 Shock Tube with Vatell Heat Flux Sensor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

D.1 Experimental and Approximated Transfer Function of the 2310 Am-

A Constant in Solution for Th (y, s), Section 3.5.3.3

B Constant in Solution for Th (y, s), Section 3.5.3.3

cp Specific heat at constant pressure of air in Section 3.5.3.2

d Thickness of Laminar Sublayer, Section 3.5.3.3

h Heat transfer coefficient, mean value of heat transfer coefficient before

h0c Unsteady component of heat flux with film cooling

h0 Unsteady component of heat transfer coefficient

k Thermal conductivity of air in Section 3.5.3.2

m Counter for time step tm , see equation (3.36), page 124

N Number of data points in trace, see equation (3.1), page 58

n Counting variable, see equation (3.1), page 58

p Mean value of static freestream pressure before shock impact

p1 , p2 Two arbitrary pressure traces, see equation (3.1), page 58

pav Static pressure before shock impact in Section 3.5.1

p∞ Freestream total pressure

p0 Unsteady component of static freestream pressure, in Sections 3.5.3.1 and

Praw Fourier Transform of Pressure Signal, see equation (3.2), page 59

q Heat flux, mean heat flux before shock impact

qc Surface Heat Flux Due to Compression Heating, Section 3.5.3.3

qh Heat Flux Due to Transient Conduction, Section 3.5.3.3

qm Unsteady component of heat flux in Section 3.5.3.2, see equation (3.42),

q0 Unsteady component of heat flux

qu Unsteady component of heat flux in Section 3.5.3.2