aerospace

Article
Discharge Coefficients of Ports with Stepped Inlets
Adrian Spencer
Department Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK; [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1509-227-254




Received: 13 August 2018; Accepted: 16 September 2018; Published: 19 September 2018


Abstract: Components of aeronautical gas turbines are increasingly being constructed from two
layers, including a pressure containing skin, which is then protected by a thermal tile. Between
them, pedestals and/or other heat transfer enhancing features are often employed. This results in
air admission ports through the dual skin having a step feature at the inlet. Experimental data have
been captured for stepped ports with a cross flow approach, which show a marked increase of 20% to
25% in discharge coefficient due to inlet step sizes typical of combustion chamber configurations.
In this respect, the step behaves in a fashion comparable to ports with inlet chamfering or radiusing;
the discharge coefficient is increased as a result of a reduction in the size of the vena contracta brought
about by changes to the flow at inlet to the port. Radiused and chamfered ports have been the subject
of previous studies, and empirical correlations exist to predict their discharge coefficient as used in
many one-dimensional flow network tools. A method to predict the discharge coefficient change due
to a step is suggested: converting the effect of the step into an equivalent radius to diameter ratio
available in existing correlation approaches. An additional factor of eccentricity between the hole
in the two skins is also considered. Eccentricity is shown to reduce discharge coefficient by up to
10% for some configurations, which is more pronounced at higher port mass flow ingestion fraction.

Keywords: discharge coefficient; air admission port; orifice; tolerance; eccentricity; step inlet;
counterbore; crossflow

1. Introduction
Ports for metering gas flow are used extensively in gas turbines, for example, in the internal
air system, for blade cooling, and for combustor walls (and of course, there are many none gas
turbine related examples). Despite an increased use of CFD in the design stages of combustors, good
quality experimental data on discharge coefficients is still essential for validating and determining
flow splits between the numerous ports. This is true in the initial design stage where one-dimensional
flow network calculations are most appropriate, because these methods rely heavily on empirical
correlations, and also in complex networks where hundreds of flow paths are possible. Rubini [1]
describes such a network methodology for combustor preliminary design and these methods continue
to be used. With more complex cooling strategies in cooling tiles or turbine blades, similar approaches
are used in cooling circuits, such as within turbine blades as in Kukutla and Prasad [2], for example,
where several hundred discharge coefficients are required to determine the network flow solution.
Even in the detailed design phases, the CFD model requires at least some validation because air
admission ports present their own difficulties to performing accurate predictions with a wide range of
flow scales that require capturing. This is particularly true when sharp edges are present that result
in significant separation and vena contracta formation. Moreover, the ports are often at a small scale
compared with typical CFD grid cell sizes when full systems are modelled, and thus require significant
grid distortion or local refinement to accurately define them. This is even worse if port inlet features
such as radiusing, chamfering, or—as considered here—sharp steps are present, which are usually

Aerospace 2018, 5, 97; doi:10.3390/aerospace5030097 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97   22 of 16 
of 16

present,  which  are  usually  another  order  of  magnitude  smaller  in  scale  than  the  port  itself.  The 
another order of magnitude smaller
predicted discharge coefficient, C in scale than the port itself. The predicted discharge coefficient, Cd ,
d, is also found to be sensitive to approach flow conditions that may 
is also found to be sensitive to approach flow conditions that may not be well predicted or may be only
not be well predicted or may be only crudely defined as a boundary condition to the calculation, as 
crudely defined as a boundary condition to the calculation, as discussed by McGuirk and Spencer [3].
discussed by McGuirk and Spencer [3]. 
Improving engine efficiency requires reducing parasitic losses. Cooling tiles have thus become
Improving engine efficiency requires reducing parasitic losses. Cooling tiles have thus become 
desirable in modern
desirable  in  modern  engine combustors
engine  combustors because they require
because  less air for
they  require  wall
less  cooling
air  thancooling 
for  wall  conventional
than 
cooling methods such as z-rings, as outlined in the literature [4]. This has led to a two-skin combustor
conventional cooling methods such as z‐rings, as outlined in the literature [4]. This has led to a two‐
wall construction shown schematically in Figure 1, see the work of [5] for an example of a patent
skin combustor wall construction shown schematically in Figure 1, see the work of [5] for an example 
application of this nature. The outer ‘cold’ skin provides the structural integrity of the combustor.
of a patent application of this nature. The outer ‘cold’ skin provides the structural integrity of the 
The inner ‘hot’
combustor.  The  skin, or ‘cooling
inner  tile’ provides
‘hot’  skin,  the tile’ 
or  ‘cooling  thermal barrierthe 
provides  andthermal 
wall cooling mechanisms
barrier  and  wall between
cooling 
the flame and the cold skin. A primary air admission port thus must penetrate
mechanisms between the flame and the cold skin. A primary air admission port thus must penetrate  two skins. The outer
skin hole is made larger than the inner skin hole to account for manufacturing and assembly tolerances,
two skins. The outer skin hole is made larger than the inner skin hole to account for manufacturing 
as well as differential
and  assembly  thermal
tolerances,  as expansion. Without this
well  as  differential  provision,
thermal  an inadvertent
expansion.  reduction
Without  in open area
this  provision,  an 
could result as the layers become misaligned—leading to a reduction in required
inadvertent  reduction  in  open  area  could  result  as  the  layers  become  misaligned—leading  flow rate. Of more
to  a 
concern could be the regions of hot gas recirculation behind the resulting ‘fence’ that could occur,
reduction in required flow rate. Of more concern could be the regions of hot gas recirculation behind 
leading to premature failure of the cooling tile.
the resulting ‘fence’ that could occur, leading to premature failure of the cooling tile.   

Figure 1. Cross-section through typical two skin air admission port.

 
Figure 1. Cross‐section through typical two skin air admission port. 
Cold skin thickness for a combustor liner tends to be of the order 1 mm and the cooling tile
Cold 
effective skin  thickness 
thickness for  a  combustor 
can be around 5 times thisliner  tends 
value. to  be 
Much of of 
thethe 
hotorder  1  mm  and 
skin thickness the result
is the cooling  tile 
of the
effective thickness can be around 5 times this value. Much of the hot skin thickness is the result of the 
pedestals and similar features usually employed between the two skins, but a ‘boss’ feature provides a
pedestals and similar features usually employed between the two skins, but a ‘boss’ feature provides 
sealing land between the port flow and the cooling feature flow paths. The outer skin hole is typically
a  sealing 
larger thanland  between 
the inner skinthe  port 
hole flow 
by at and 
least the  cooling 
a similar feature 
magnitude asflow  paths. 
the cold skinThe  outer  skin 
thickness. hole at
A chute is 
typically larger than the inner skin hole by at least a similar magnitude as the cold skin thickness. A 
exit from the cooling tile may be required to direct the resulting jet in a desired direction, typically
chute at exit from the cooling tile may be required to direct the resulting jet in a desired direction, 
these are half a port diameter in length. With typical port diameters of 10 to 25 mm in size using
typically these are half a port diameter in length. With typical port diameters of 10 to 25 mm in size 
such construction, the main geometric parameter ranges of the port of interest in this study can be
using such construction, the main geometric parameter ranges of the port of interest in this study can 
determined. Described here as stepped inlets, they could also be called shallow counterbore holes.
be determined. Described here as stepped inlets, they could also be called shallow counterbore holes. 
It is well known that small features at the inlet of a port can have a large effect on the discharge
It is well known that small features at the inlet of a port can have a large effect on the discharge 
coefficient of a port. Ports with inlet radiusing have been the focus of many studies (for example, [6,7]),
coefficient of a port. Ports with inlet radiusing have been the focus of many studies (for example, 
and it is found that as the inlet radius is increased, as is the discharge coefficient. The rate of increase is
[6,7]), and it is found that as the inlet radius is increased, as is the discharge coefficient. The rate of 
large initially, but the coefficient asymptotes towards a value close to 1 as the inlet radius exceeds the
increase is large initially, but the coefficient asymptotes towards a value close to 1 as the inlet radius 
port diameter. These findings have been codified as empirical correlations, such as McGreehan and
exceeds  the 
Schotsch port more
[8] and, diameter.  These 
recently, findings 
Feseker et al.have  been  codified 
[9]. Chamfered portsas areempirical  correlations, 
also investigated in thesuch 
worksas 
McGreehan 
of [6,7], but thereand  are
Schotsch  [8]  examples.
few other and,  more Itrecently, 
is found Feseker 
for a given et  chamfering
al.  [9].  Chamfered 
angle that ports  are  also 
a significant
investigated in the works of [6,7], but there are few other examples. It is found for a given chamfering 
increase in discharge coefficient is achieved very quickly with chamfer depth to port diameter ratio of
angle that a significant increase in discharge coefficient is achieved very quickly with chamfer depth 
only 0.08. Beyond this depth to diameter ratio, little or no further increase in Cd is found. The discharge
to port diameter ratio of only 0.08. Beyond this depth to diameter ratio, little or no further increase in 
coefficient of chamfered ports is found to be less sensitive to the flow conditions than radiused ports.
Cd  is  found. 
Empirical The  discharge 
correlation coefficient 
for chamfer effectsof  chamfered 
have ports  is infound 
been presented to  be  less 
the literature [9]sensitive 
for holes to  the 
that flow 
have a
chamfer ◦
conditions than radiused ports. Empirical correlation for chamfer effects have been presented in the 
angle of 45 , but otherwise empirical relationships are not available for chamfering because of
literature [9] for holes that have a chamfer angle of 45°, but otherwise empirical relationships are not 
the limited data available to calibrate them. Naturally, the increase in discharge coefficient brought
available 
about for  chamfering 
by chamfering because upon
is dependent of  the 
thelimited 
chamferdata  available 
angle to  calibrate 
with a maximum them. 
found at a Naturally, 
chamfer anglethe 
of ◦
increase in discharge coefficient brought about by chamfering is dependent upon the chamfer angle 
around 30 . Once a given depth of chamfer is achieved, the discharge coefficient is found to be
with a maximum found at a chamfer angle of around 30°. Once a given depth of chamfer is achieved, 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 3 of 16

fairly insensitive to chamfer depth [6] and chamfer tooling mis-alignment [10], making them attractive
because of the lower manufacturing tolerances required to produce them.
Other parameters, such as port length to diameter ratio, Reynolds number, and proximity to other
ports, also influence the discharge coefficient. These effects have been the subject of previous research
and several empirical correlations exist, but are not investigated in detail here. Interdependence
between the port inlet shape and these other parameters is found to be small, provided that the inlet
feature is small compared with the port diameter and length. The first of these criteria is easily met
within the context of this work, with step sizes typically being an order of magnitude smaller than that
of the port diameter. Port length could be important in terms of the reattachment of flow within the
port. Separation of the flow from a sharp-edged port takes around half a port diameter to reattach.
Once this occurs, pressure recovery within the port leads to an increase in the discharge coefficient.
With inlet shaping, the resulting increase in discharge coefficient implies a reduction in the size of flow
separation at inlet, thus reattachment will occur much sooner. For the stepped ports described without
chutes, it is probable that the flow is marginally reattached and further comment will be given on this.
All these geometrical and crossflow effects on discharge coefficient discussed above have been
summarized by various empirical correlations. Notable ones and those relevant here are McGreehan
and Schotsch [7], Chin et al. [11], Adkins and Gueroui [12], and more recently Fesker et al. [9],
which allow prediction (within typical experimental uncertainty) of a port discharge coefficient to be
determined. Each uses a different methodology and base flow parameters and each has their own
limits of applicability. The effect of stepped inlets on discharge coefficients is currently not reported
in open literature and not included in any available correlation methodology. It is thus difficult to
predict combustor pressure loss without an indication of their effect. Indeed, a recent full-scale test of
a combustor with stepped ports performed very differently than expected because sharp-edged port
discharge coefficients had been assumed. Without hindsight, this is perhaps a reasonable assumption.
The combustor total pressure loss was close to 20% lower than its design value and had weaker jet
penetration than required.
The objective of this work is thus to test stepped holes with crossflow feed for port ingestion
fractions of 30% to 100% (i.e., annulus bleed ratios, α, 0–70%). This will include investigating the effect
of changing the port diameter to feed annulus height and step angle, for example. Benchmarking
the stepped port against plain port data is useful to determine the influence of the step and provide
validation of the experimental techniques. An initial indication of how to include the effect of the inlet
step on the Cd can then be made.
These tests do not consider the effects of compressibility or explore full ranges of geometrical
parameters that are already well captured by existing Cd correlations (such as length to diameter ratio
(L/D), for example). Instead, only two or three values of other main parameters are studied to ensure
stepped port behavior is consistent with these existing correlations and exhibits no significant coupling
between the step feature geometry and other parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

A water flow rig has been used for most measurements in which a single row of multiple ports is
fed by an annular crossflow and the jets issue into a crossflow, as in a combustor, this also allows for a
bleed flow stream, where the port only receives a fraction of the approaching cross flow. Flow through
the ports are at supercritical jet Reynolds numbers above which it is found that there is little variation
in Cd , quoted in various works to be between 1.8 × 104 and 3.5 × 104 [13,14]. Reynolds number
variation in Cd has been tested in this work in the range 5 × 104 to 2 × 105 , which has agreed with these
previous works and all results presented are for jet Reynolds numbers above 5 × 104 . Results from
both rigs agree with previous studies, within experimental uncertainty. Other numerous parameters
affecting discharge coefficients have been studied previously and several empirical correlations exist
to describe each of their behaviors.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 4 of 16

Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    4 of 16 
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    4 of 16 
2.1. Water Flow Facility
2.1. Water Flow Facility 
2.1. Water Flow Facility 
The test rig is an isothermal, vertically flowing, constant head, water flow rig. Figure 2 shows a
The test rig is an isothermal, vertically flowing, constant head, water flow rig. Figure 2 shows a 
schematic of the rig, and it is described in detail in McGuirk and Spencer [15]. The test section has two
The test rig is an isothermal, vertically flowing, constant head, water flow rig. Figure 2 shows a 
schematic of the rig, and it is described in detail in McGuirk and Spencer [15]. The test section has 
schematic of the rig, and it is described in detail in McGuirk and Spencer [15]. The test section has 
inlet flows and two outlet flows that can be controlled by two return flow valves and one inlet valve
two inlet flows and two outlet flows that can be controlled by two return flow valves and one inlet 
to two inlet flows and two outlet flows that can be controlled by two return flow valves and one inlet 
provide a range of jet Reynolds numbers, jet to downstream cross flow ratios, and annulus bypass
valve to provide a range of jet Reynolds numbers, jet to downstream cross flow ratios, and annulus 
flowvalve to provide a range of jet Reynolds numbers, jet to downstream cross flow ratios, and annulus 
ratios independently. Setting these three parameters effectively defines the mass flows through
bypass flow ratios independently. Setting these three parameters effectively defines the mass flows 
eachbypass flow ratios independently. Setting these three parameters effectively defines the mass flows 
path of the test section.
through each path of the test section. 
through each path of the test section. 

 
Figure 2. Water flow rig: constant head closed circuit system.  
Figure 2. Water flow rig: constant head closed circuit system. 
Figure 2. Water flow rig: constant head closed circuit system. 
The
The working
working section
section shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 33 isis comprised
comprised ofof two
two  circular 600-mm
circular  600‐mm  long
long pipes, the
pipes,  inner
the 
one The 
being working 
held section 
concentric shown 
with the in  Figure 
outer at 3 
eachis  comprised 
end via a of 
set two 
of circular 
six NACA 600‐mm 
0015
inner one being held concentric with the outer at each end via a set of six NACA 0015 struts. The  long 
struts.pipes, 
The the 
inner
inner one being held concentric with the outer at each end via a set of six NACA 0015 struts. The 
pipe contains the ports approximately half way along its length. Wall static pressure
inner pipe contains the ports approximately half way along its length. Wall static pressure tappings  tappings were
inner pipe contains the ports approximately half way along its length. Wall static pressure tappings 
positioned 70 mm upstream of the ports on the inner and outer surface of the liner to monitor the wall
were positioned 70 mm upstream of the ports on the inner and outer surface of the liner to monitor 
were positioned 70 mm upstream of the ports on the inner and outer surface of the liner to monitor 
static pressure drop.
the wall static pressure drop.   
the wall static pressure drop.   
5 mm thick
a) 5 mm thick b)
a) Centrelines of n equi‐spaced ports
b)
20 mm
Centrelines of n equi‐spaced ports
20 mm
100 mm dia.
100 mm dia.

Rig centreline 
Rig centreline 

Static pressure tappings
Static pressure tappings

   
   
Figure 3. Waterflow test section. (a) schematic and (b) photo of inner liner with stepped ports. 
Figure 3. Waterflow test section. (a) schematic and (b) photo of inner liner with stepped ports. 
Figure 3. Waterflow test section. (a) schematic and (b) photo of inner liner with stepped ports.
 
 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 5 of 16
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    5 of 16 

The liner pressure tappings are seen in Figure 3 embedded in the Perspex wall of the inner
The liner pressure tappings are seen in Figure 3 embedded in the Perspex wall of the inner liner, 
liner, which has been removed from the test rig in the right-hand photograph. The tapping location
which has been removed from the test rig in the right‐hand photograph. The tapping location was 
was positioned upstream to avoid regions of recirculation within the core pipe induced when low
positioned upstream to avoid regions of recirculation within the core pipe induced when low internal 
internal crossflow
crossflow  to jet velocities
to  jet  velocities  are used.
are  used.  It has
It  has  previously
previously  been
been  investigatedif ifthe 
investigated  the jet 
jet to 
to downstream
downstream 
crossflow velocity ratio has any effect on discharge coefficients and findings have shown
crossflow velocity ratio has any effect on discharge coefficients and findings have shown the effect to  the effect to
be less than 1%, provided the measurement of liner pressure drop is not influenced by the tapping
be less than 1%, provided the measurement of liner pressure drop is not influenced by the tapping 
location. The inner liner can be rotated, and this had no effect on the pressure measurements, giving
location. The inner liner can be rotated, and this had no effect on the pressure measurements, giving 
confidence in the axisymmetric nature of the approach flows. More details on these aspects can be
confidence in the axisymmetric nature of the approach flows. More details on these aspects can be 
found in Spencer [16]. Using water as an essentially incompressible media implies the findings can be
found in Spencer [16]. Using water as an essentially incompressible media implies the findings can 
equated to port
be  equated  to  behavior in air in 
port  behavior  at low pressure
air  at  ratios. The
low  pressure  behavior
ratios.  of compressibility
The  behavior  is well captured
of  compressibility  is  well 
by existing by 
captured  discharge
existing coefficient
discharge  correlations
coefficient through compressibility
correlations  corrections, for example,
through  compressibility  in the
corrections,  for 
works of [7,9,11], and is thus not considered further.
example, in the works of [7,9,11], and is thus not considered further. 

2.2. Airflow Facility

2.2. Airflow Facility 
Shown in Figure 4 is the open circuit air flow rig that was used to compliment the main body of
Shown in Figure 4 is the open circuit air flow rig that was used to compliment the main body of 
work. In the final results section, a short study is presented on axis-symmetric flow through ports with
work. In the final results section, a short study is presented on axis‐symmetric flow through ports 
stepped inlets, and compares this with ports of similar chamfered dimensions. A centrifugal fan draws
with stepped inlets, and compares this with ports of similar chamfered dimensions. A centrifugal fan 
air through the stepped port by creating a low-pressure region behind it. A bypass flow is allowed
draws air through the stepped port by creating a low‐pressure region behind it. A bypass flow is 
into the fan to ensure the fan operates in a stable, non-stalled condition that would occur otherwise.
allowed into the fan to ensure the fan operates in a stable, non‐stalled condition that would occur 
The stepped port is fed by a 2.5-m long, 90-mm internal diameter pipe downstream of a 30-mm
otherwise. The stepped port is fed by a 2.5‐m long, 90‐mm internal diameter pipe downstream of a 
diameter venturi meter,
30‐mm  diameter  which
venturi  measures
meter,  which the mass flow
measures  through
the  the stepped
mass  flow  through  port.
the Static pressure
stepped  port. ports
Static 
are positioned 50 mm upstream downstream of the stepped port to determine the pressure
pressure  ports  are  positioned  50  mm  upstream  downstream  of  the  stepped  port  to  determine  drop across
the 
it. Equipment, methods of instrumentation, and data reduction are all in line with simplified
pressure drop across it. Equipment, methods of instrumentation, and data reduction are all in line  versions
of what is presented for the water flow results.
with simplified versions of what is presented for the water flow results.   

Exhaust
Fan

Stepped port Venturi meter

Bypass flow  
Figure 4. Airflow rig schematic: axisymmetric testing.
Figure 4. Airflow rig schematic: axisymmetric testing. 

2.3. Instrumentation
2.3. Instrumentation 
It was important to know actual port mass flow and port pressure drops to determine the port
It was important to know actual port mass flow and port pressure drops to determine the port 
discharge coefficient. Temperature is recorded to determine viscosity for Reynolds number and density
discharge  coefficient.  Temperature  is  recorded  to  determine  viscosity  for  Reynolds  number  and 
of water is taken as a 1000 kg/m3 .
density of water is taken as a 1000 kg/m3. 
Three types of instrumentation were used for this study: orifice plates were used to measure the
Three types of instrumentation were used for this study: orifice plates were used to measure the 
flow rates exiting the test section (core and annulus), a 1D laser Doppler anemometer was used to
flow rates exiting the test section (core and annulus), a 1D laser Doppler anemometer was used to 
measure the velocity profiles entering the test section (again, core, and annulus), and finally a pressure
measure  the  velocity  profiles  entering  the  test  section  (again,  core,  and  annulus),  and  finally  a 
transducer was used to measure the liner pressure drop. With these measurements, the discharge
pressure  transducer  was  used  to  measure  the  liner  pressure  drop.  With  these  measurements,  the 
coefficient could be calculated, as will be described in the next section. These devices are described in
discharge coefficient could be calculated, as will be described in the next section. These devices are 
a little detail below and summarized in Table 1, but for a fuller description, refer to Spencer [16].
described  in  a  little  detail  below  and  summarized  in  Table  1,  but  for  a  fuller  description,  refer  to 
Orifice plates were used to measure the return flow from the annulus and core passages of the test
Spencer [16]. 
section. Designed and made to BS 1042, the uncertainty in the orifice plate’s Cd obtained from the Stolz
Orifice plates were used to measure the return flow from the annulus and core passages of the 
equation was always below 2.0% (refer to the standard for further details). The pressure drop across
test section. Designed and made to BS 1042, the uncertainty in the orifice plate’s Cd obtained from the 
Stolz equation was always below 2.0% (refer to the standard for further details). The pressure drop 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 6 of 16

each plate was monitored using an inverted water manometer connected to D and D/2 static pressure
tappings. Typically, each return mass flow rate could be measured to better than ±2.5% over the flow
conditions used for these tests. This has been verified by checking the measured outlet mass flows
against the mass flows obtained by integrating the Laser Doppler Anemometer (LDA) determined
diametral velocity profiles through the annulus and core of a blank test section (i.e., with no ports).
A 1D LDA system was used to measure the axial velocity profiles 150 mm upstream of the ports
in both the annulus and core inflow streams. By assuming the flow at inlet is axis-symmetric, the mass
flow rate into the core and annulus may be obtained by integration of the measured axial velocity
profiles. Within the core, the assumption of axis-symmetry has been shown to be good. However, in the
annulus, a circumferential variation is found because of the six struts used to hold the liner concentric
to the outer casing. It has been established that the effect of the wakes is that the actual mass flow rate
is about 2% lower than if axis-symmetry is assumed. Only three mass flow rates are required to specify
the flow split through the rig, as if the two exit and one of the inlet mass flow rates are known, then by
mass continuity, the unknown inlet mass flow may be calculated. Because the annulus inlet mass flow
rate was determined to have the highest error associated with its measurement, it was decided to use
this purely as a check on the mass flow balance through the test section. It was considered acceptable if
the inferred and measured annulus inlet mass flows agreed to within 3%. Considering the other three
mass flows were measured to within 2.5%, this could be considered a stringent condition, however,
all measurements reported were within this limit. Subsequent calculations requiring knowledge of the
annulus mass flow rate used the value inferred from the other three measured values for consistency.

Table 1. Measurement uncertainty of key parameters.

Parameter Measurement Device & Uncertainty

Port pressure drop Furness, ±(1 Pa + 0.5%∆p)
. . .
Port mass flow m p = mo − mc , ±3.0%
Velocity: annulus in, core in LDA, TSI IFA550, ±0.02 m/s
Mass flow: annulus out, core out BS1044 Orifice plate, ±2.5%
Temperature k-Type thermocouple, ±0.5 K

2.4. Data Reduction

Discharge coefficient is evaluated here by dividing the actual mass flow passing through the ports
by the ideal mass flow, defined as follows:
. . .
m p = mo − mc

.
q
m p,ideal = A p 2ρ(( p a − pc ) + q a )
. .
Cd = m p /m p,ideal

and the port to annulus inlet mass flow ratio, α, calculated via the following:
. . .
mp mo − mc
α= . = . . .
ma mo − mc + m a

noting that the annulus inlet mass flow is not used in any calculation to keep the uncertainty associated
with Cd and α minimised for the current experimental setup. Inputs to this calculation were the
inlet axial velocity profiles, the exit orifice plate pressure drops, and the pressure transducer voltage.
Calibration coefficients for each of these then allows the respective inlet, exit, and ideal mass flow rates
to be calculated in kg/s.
Direct comparison was made between the inferred and measured value of annulus inlet mass
flow rate of around 1% to 2% was found, which was typical of most tests, and for all measurements,
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 7 of 16

the accepted maximum difference between measured and calculated annulus inlet mass flow rate was
3%, as previously stated.
Uncertainties were determined from the contributions from the individual measured value
uncertainties for all measured conditions. In combining the sources of uncertainty, the overall absolute
uncertainty in the discharge coefficient of 4% is calculated with 95% confidence for conditions with
α > 0.5. This is typical of most measurements though, with the highest annulus bleed ratios (i.e., low α,
of less than 0.4), the uncertainty rises to around 6% because of compounding the effect of port mass
flow being derived from the decreasing difference of two mass flows. Taking into account only the
systematic errors indicates that the repeatability of a typical test should be within 2.5%. The level of
scatter within data supports these findings.
The port pressure ratio of the airflow tests was typically around 1.02 to obtain sufficiently high
Reynolds numbers, but stay comfortably within an incompressible regime that has been assumed
within the analysis. Peak through port velocities of the order 50 m/s were obtained. Again, Cd is
defined as the actual to ideal mass flow ratio and assuming constant density locally and using the
calibrated venturi meter (Cd ,v = 0.994) as the reference (actual mass flow), the port Cd was calculated
using the following:
∆pv 1/2
   
ρv Av
Cd = Cd,v · · ·
ρp Ap ∆p p
Airflow rig results are also at sufficiently high Reynolds numbers (the Cd is quoted as an average
of the tests over the range 6 × 104 and 3 × 105 ) and uncertainty analysis shows the Cd is reported at
better than 3% with 95% certainty.

2.5. Test Configurations

Several test sections were used for this study, one with plain sharp edged (s = 0, or no step)
circular port inlets for reference purposes, and the rest were representative of stepped ports, either full
scale ports or two-thirds scale (based on a nominal port diameter, D, of 18 mm). A typical test section
as shown in Figure 4 for the water flow rig will have several of these ports with a curvature in the
through page direction as a result of the walls through which the port passes being cylindrical.
The dimensions of each test port can be seen parametrically in Figure 5. This figure shows a
cross section through the centreline of one port. It is clear to see how the step is formed by the two
joined walls with holes of slightly differing diameters. A dimension not shown in Figure 5 is the hole
pitch spacing, Z, for the waterflow measurements. This is the distance between port centres measured
around the circumference—which will decrease as the number of ports increases. As shown in Figure 3,
the outer radius of the liner (outer wall) was fixed at 50 mm, and the annulus height, H, was 20 mm,
giving an outer annulus diameter of 70 mm. Some plain port validation work also included annulus
heights of 5 mm.
Plain port measurement configurations are used to verify the measurement set taken and to
benchmark against both Cd correlation methods and the stepped port results are listed in Table 2.
Stepped port configurations are given in Table 3. The 12-mm diameter stepped ports are able to
closely match all of the important geometric ratios found typically on an engine. Four step length, s,
(hence four angles, θ) are considered for the 12 mm ports (cases A to D). At around two-thirds scale,
it would be difficult to manufacture a test section with accurate eccentricity between the cold skin and
tile ports. Approximately full-scale ports (diameter 18 mm) were thus employed to explore the effect
of eccentricity in three directions, in which the outer sleeve could be moved relative to the inner ring to
create the eccentricity (cases ε1, ε2, and ε3 have the cold skin upstream, downstream, and to one side
of the smaller port, respectively). These are benchmarked against case E, which had no eccentricity
but otherwise matched all other geometric parameters. To compare the effects of the step inlet to
inlet chamfering, some airflow tests were also performed for single ports in axisymmetric flow with a
range of step inlet angles comparable to the chamfering angles that had been considered in previous
studies [6]. These are reported separately at the end of the results section.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 8 of 16
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    8 of 16 

 
Figure 5. Parametric stepped port definition.
Figure 5. Parametric stepped port definition. 
Table 2. Plain port test configurations, waterflow rig with crossflow.
Table 2. Plain port test configurations, waterflow rig with crossflow. 
Dimension Symbol Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain
PortDimension 
Diameter (mm) Symbol 
D Plain 
20 Plain 
20 Plain 
20 Plain 
20 Plain 
20
Port Diameter (mm) 
Number of Holes nD  620  320  620  320  220 
Pitch to Diameter
Number of Holes  Z/Dn  2.626  5.243  2.626  5.243  7.852 
Annulus Height/D
Pitch to Diameter  H/D
Z/D  1.00
2.62  1.00
5.24  0.25
2.62  0.25
5.24  0.257.85 
Port Length/D L/D 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Annulus Height/D 
Port/Annulus Area H/D 
β 1.00 
0.250 1.00  1.143
0.125 0.25  0.571
0.25  0.381
0.25 
Port Length/D  L/D  0.25  0.25  0.25  0.25  0.25 
Port/Annulus Area  β  0.250  0.125  1.143  0.571  0.381 
Table 3. Stepped port test configurations, waterflow rig with crossflow.

Dimension Symbol A B C D E ε1,2,3

Table 3. Stepped port test configurations, waterflow rig with crossflow.  Typical
Port
Dimension  D
Diameter (mm) Symbol  12
A  12
B  12
C  12
D  18
E  18
ε1,2,3  18
Typical 
Number of Holes n 10 10 10 10 7 7 -
Port Diameter (mm)  D  12  12  12  12  18  18  18 
Pitch to Diameter Z/D 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.47 2.47 2.5
Number of Holes  n  10  10  10  10  7  7  ‐ 
Annulus Height/D H/D 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.1 1.1 1.9
Pitch to Diameter 
Port Length/D Z/D 
L/D 2.62 
0.28 2.62 
0.28 2.62 
0.28 2.62 
0.28 2.47 
0.27 2.47 
0.27 0.28 2.5 
Annulus Height/D 
Step Height/D H/D 
t/D 1.67 
0.0708 1.67  1.67 
0.0708 0.0733 1.67 
0.0683 1.1 
0.0601 1.1 
0.0601 0.0561.9 
Port Length/D 
Step Length/D L/D 
s/D 0.28 
0.0890 0.28  0.28 
0.104 0.1708 0.28 
0.25 0.27 
0.0972 0.27 
0.0972 0.097 0.28 
Step Height/D 
Step Angle t/D 
θ 51.5◦ 0.0708 
0.0708  55.6◦ 0.0733 
66.8◦ 0.0683 
74.7◦ 0.0601 
58.3◦ ◦
0.0601 
58.3 ◦
600.056 
Eccentricity/D
Step Length/D  ε/D
s/D  0
0.0890  0
0.104  0
0.1708  0
0.25  0
0.0972  0.083 ×3
0.0972  - 0.097 
Port/Annulus
Step Angle  Area θβ 0.15
51.5°  0.15
55.6°  0.15
66.8°  0.15
74.7°  0.24
58.3°  0.24
58.3°  0.1660° 
Eccentricity/D  ε/D 0  0  0  0  0  0.083 × 3  ‐ 
Port/Annulus Area  β  0.15  0.15  0.15  0.15  0.24  0.24  0.16 
The port Reynolds number determines the port velocity for both the water flow and air flow tests,
and hence for a given port size, also the port mass flow. This fully defines the airflow test condition.
The port Reynolds number determines the port velocity for both the water flow and air flow 
Two additional parameters are required to determine the crossflow conditions. (1) The proportion of
tests,  and  hence  for  a  given  port  size,  also  the  port  mass  flow.  This  fully  defines  the  airflow  test 
the annulus inlet flow that is ingested by the port, α. This, combined with the absolute port mass flow,
condition.  Two  additional  parameters  are  required  to  determine  the  crossflow  conditions.  (1)  The 
sets both the annulus inlet and outlet mass flow rates. The area ratio of the port to the annulus, β,
proportion of the annulus inlet flow that is ingested by the port, α. This, combined with the absolute 
then determines the annulus approach velocity. (2) Similarly, the core inlet mass flow is determined
port mass flow, sets both the annulus inlet and outlet mass flow rates. The area ratio of the port to 
by the port to cross flow velocity ratio, Vp /Vc . Discharge coefficients are known to be insensitive to
the annulus, β, then determines the annulus approach velocity. (2) Similarly, the core inlet mass flow 
this parameter and no correlations feature in Cd as a result. In these tests, the port jet to cross flow
is determined by the port to cross flow velocity ratio, Vp/Vc. Discharge coefficients are known to be 
velocity ratio was kept in the range 2 < Vp /Vc < 5. Experience on the facility used here has shown
insensitive to this parameter and no correlations feature in Cd as a result. In these tests, the port jet to 
no measurable change in Cd in this range. However, exceeding a value of 5 for Vp /Vc can cause
cross flow velocity ratio was kept in the range 2 < Vp/Vc < 5. Experience on the facility used here has 
problems because the jet impingement becomes very strong and forms a recirculation large enough
shown no measurable change in Cd in this range. However, exceeding a value of 5 for Vp/Vc can cause 
to give unsteady pressure measurements in the core, and was thus avoided. These flow conditions
problems because the jet impingement becomes very strong and forms a recirculation large enough 
are summarized in Table 4. Readers interested in further details, such as the approach flow velocity
to give unsteady pressure measurements in the core, and was thus avoided. These flow conditions 
profiles, may see references [3,16].
are summarized in Table 4. Readers interested in further details, such as the approach flow velocity 
profiles, may see references [3,16]. 
Table 4. Range of flow conditions tested.

Property Symbol Minimum

Table 4. Range of flow conditions tested.  Maximum
Port Reynolds Number Rep 5× 104 2 × 105
Property  Symbol  Minimum  Maximum 
Port/Annulus Mass Flow ratio α 0.3 1.0
Port Reynolds Number 
Port/Core Velocity ratio Recp 
Vp /V 5 × 10
2.0
4  2 × 105 
5.0
Port/Annulus Mass Flow ratio  α 0.3  1.0 
Port/Core Velocity ratio  Vp/Vc  2.0  5.0 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    99 of 16 
of 16

3. Results 
3. Results
3.1. Plain Port 
3.1. Plain Port
A  collection  of 
A collection discharge  coefficient 
of discharge data  measured
coefficient data measured  for  plain  ports
for plain ports  (including
(including  repeat 
repeat tests) 
tests) is 
is
shown in Figure 6. Two configurations (with the lowest H/D values) show variability of C
shown in Figure 6. Two configurations (with the lowest H/D values) show variability of Cd at high α, d at high α, 

which is thought to be because of the formation of an unsteady vortex over a variable number of the 
which is thought to be because of the formation of an unsteady vortex over a variable number of the
ports at this high ingestion fraction with low port to annulus area ratio. Otherwise, the scatter of the 
ports at this high ingestion fraction with low port to annulus area ratio. Otherwise, the scatter of the
measured C
measured Cdd is generally reasonable and within ±3% as expected from the uncertainty analysis. 
is generally reasonable and within ±3% as expected from the uncertainty analysis.  
Values 
Values ofof 
CdCpredicted
d  predicted  by  the  correlation  of  Chin  et  al.  [11]  for  the  plain  circular  port 
by the correlation of Chin et al. [11] for the plain circular port configurations
configurations  are 
are also shown in Figurealso 6shown  in  Figure 
by the solid 6  by 
lines (the the  solid  lines 
configuration they(the 
haveconfiguration 
been calculatedthey 
for ishave  been 
indicated
calculated for is indicated by unfilled versions of the respective symbol for the experimental data). 
by unfilled versions of the respective symbol for the experimental data). The correlation has been
The  correlation 
further modifiedhas  been 
to also further the
consider modified 
L/D ofto  thealso  consider 
ports using thethe method
L/D  of  the  ports by
outlined using  the  method 
McGreehan and
outlined by McGreehan and Schotsch [8]. 
Schotsch [8].  

 
Figure 6. Plain port C Variation with alpha, experimental data and empirical correlation.
Figure 6. Plain port Cdd Variation with alpha, experimental data and empirical correlation. 
Reasonable but not perfect agreement between the correlations and the measurements can be seen.
Reasonable but not perfect agreement between the correlations and the measurements can be 
Two main factors are suspected to account for the discrepancy. Firstly, in the range 0 < L/D < 1, the Cd
seen. Two main factors are suspected to account for the discrepancy. Firstly, in the range 0 < L/D < 1, 
of a port is very sensitive to the port’s length. Significant scatter can be seen in the measured Cd ’s of
the Cd of a port is very sensitive to the port’s length. Significant scatter can be seen in the measured 
different workers in this range because of the L/D sensitivity (Lichtarowicz [13]). This effect could be
Cd’s of different workers in this range because of the L/D sensitivity (Lichtarowicz [13]). This effect 
further compounded by the crossflow inducing non-axisymmetric flow. Secondly, and more important
could be further compounded by the crossflow inducing non‐axisymmetric flow. Secondly, and more 
to consider here, is that from experience, some doubt may be cast on Cd correlations as the annulus
important to consider here, is that from experience, some doubt may be cast on Cd correlations as the 
height is reduced in comparison to the port diameter. For the plain port geometry, this ratio, H/D,
annulus height is reduced in comparison to the port diameter. For the plain port geometry, this ratio, 
was 1.0, and it has been seen for this geometry that unsteady through-port vortices can be formed at
H/D,  was  1.0,  and  it  has  been  seen  for  this  geometry  that  unsteady  through‐port  vortices  can  be 
high α (Spencer [16]). The higher levels of scatter in the measurements for α > 0.9 seen in Figure 7
formed at high α (Spencer [16]). The higher levels of scatter in the measurements for α > 0.9 seen in 
are thought to be caused by these vortices. To avoid this problem in the subsequent stepped port
Figure 7 are thought to be caused by these vortices. To avoid this problem in the subsequent stepped 
measurements, it was decided to scale the ports so that H/D (and all other geometrical ratios) were
port measurements, it was decided to scale the ports so that H/D (and all other geometrical ratios) 
higher and more representative of the engine configuration. This was indeed seen to reduce scatter in
were higher and more representative of the engine configuration. This was indeed seen to reduce 
subsequent data.
scatter in subsequent data. 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 10 of 16
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    10 of 16 

 
Figure 7. Stepped port Cdd for cases A to E. Chin et al. [11] correlation best fit by adjusting r/D. 
Figure 7. Stepped port C for cases A to E. Chin et al. [11] correlation best fit by adjusting r/D.

3.2. Stepped Ports, with Crossflow

3.2. Stepped Ports, with Crossflow 
Variation of Cdd with alpha is shown in Figure 7 for stepped inlet port configurations A to E. Cases 
Variation of C with alpha is shown in Figure 7 for stepped inlet port configurations A to E. Cases
A and E are highlighted with filled symbols, cases B, C, and D use the respective character to indicate
A and E are highlighted with filled symbols, cases B, C, and D use the respective character to indicate 
measurement points. Each set has a best fit correlation line plotted through it. It can be seen that there
measurement points. Each set has a best fit correlation line plotted through it. It can be seen that there 
is
is aa significant increase
significant  in Cin 
increase  d compared
Cd  compared withwith 
the plain
the  ports
plain of the previous
ports  section. Here,
of  the  previous  the Here, 
section.  discharge
the 
coefficients reach up to 0.83 at high alpha compared with around 0.62 to 0.64 for plain ports. Principally,
discharge  coefficients  reach  up  to  0.83  at  high  alpha  compared  with  around  0.62  to  0.64  for  plain 
this significant increase is because the size of the vena contracta has been increased by the presence of
ports. Principally, this significant increase is because the size of the vena contracta has been increased 
the step, which in of 
by  the  presence  turn has
the  increased
step,  which the in coefficient of contraction.
turn  has  increased  With no empirical
the  coefficient  data available
of  contraction.  With forno 
stepped ports, correlations for its effect are not available. Here, the correlation of Chin
empirical  data  available  for  stepped  ports,  correlations  for  its  effect  are  not  available.  Here,  et al. [11]the 
is
fitted to the data, with modifications for L/D as described earlier using McGreehan and Schotsch [8]
correlation of Chin et al. [11] is fitted to the data, with modifications for L/D as described earlier using 
for plain ports. An additional correction is added by increasing r/D also using the method of the
McGreehan and Schotsch [8] for plain ports. An additional correction is added by increasing r/D also 
authors of [8] until the correlation best fits the experimental data available here, see Appendix A.
using the method of the authors of [8] until the correlation best fits the experimental data available 
In total, five step configurations with varying step angles are considered and this process has been
here, see Appendix A. In total, five step configurations with varying step angles are considered and 
repeated for each. At lower values of alpha, it can be seen that the correlation appears to increasingly
this process has been repeated for each. At lower values of alpha, it can be seen that the correlation 
overpredict the discharge coefficient. This suggests that the directionality of the flow can be important
appears to increasingly overpredict the discharge coefficient. This suggests that the directionality of 
to
the  flow  can  be  coefficient,
the discharge important  to  as the 
might be expected,
discharge  but stepped
coefficient,  port
as  might  be Cexpected, 
d appears but 
to fall more rapidly
stepped  port  Cd 
compared with expectation from this correlation with reducing α at lower values (α < 0.5).
appears  to  fall  more  rapidly  compared  with  expectation  from  this  correlation  with  reducing  α  at 
The effective r/D determined for the five cases above is conveniently summarized in Figure 8.
lower values (α < 0.5). 
the value of r/D that produces the best correlation fit to the test configuration is plotted against
Here,The effective r/D determined for the five cases above is conveniently summarized in Figure 8. 
step angle for each of cases A to E. For typically employed step angles of around 60◦ , it would appear
Here, the value of r/D that produces the best correlation fit to the test configuration is plotted against 
that an effective inlet radiusing of r/D of 0.1 could be used in existing correlation techniques to
step angle for each of cases A to E. For typically employed step angles of around 60°, it would appear 
reproduce the equivalent changeof  Cd . of 
in r/D  To0.1 
predict Cdbe 
for stepped ports in the rangetechniques 
50 < θ < 90to  ◦,
that  an  effective  inlet  radiusing  could  used  in  existing  correlation 
areproduce the equivalent change in C
linear distribution maybe acceptable das indicated. d for stepped ports in the range 50 < θ < 90°, a 
. To predict C
linear distribution maybe acceptable as indicated. 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    11 of 16 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    1111 of 16 
of 16

 
 
Figure 8. Effective r/D value to produce best fit correlation with varying step angle. 
8. Effective r/D value to produce best fit correlation with varying step angle.
Figure 8. Effective r/D value to produce best fit correlation with varying step angle. 
Figure
3.3. Stepped Ports, Eccentricity 
3.3. Stepped Ports, Eccentricity
3.3. Stepped Ports, Eccentricity 
It was seen in the previous section that with inlet step features, the variation in Cd with alpha 
was seen in the previous section that with inlet step features, the variation in Cd with
ItIt was seen in the previous section that with inlet step features, the variation in C alpha was
d with alpha 
was  not  well  captured  by  empirical  correlations  at  low  α,  suggesting  a  different  flow  direction 
not well captured by empirical correlations at low α, suggesting a different flow direction sensitivity
was  not  well  captured  by  empirical  correlations  at  low  α,  suggesting  a  different  flow  direction 
sensitivity of stepped ports compared with plain or radiused ports. As a result, it was considered 
of stepped ports compared with plain or radiused ports. As a result, it was considered sensible to
sensitivity of stepped ports compared with plain or radiused ports. As a result, it was considered 
sensible  to investigate  if  eccentricity  of  the  holes  in the  hot  and  cold  skins  had  an  effect.  A single 
investigate if eccentricity
sensible  to investigate  if of the holes in
eccentricity  of the
the hot andin the 
holes  cold skins hadcold 
hot  and  an effect. A single
skins  had  magnitude
an  effect.  of
A single 
magnitude of eccentricity was considered of ε/D = 0.083, but in three directions, as indicated in the 
eccentricity was considered of ε/D = 0.083, but in three directions, as indicated in the bottom right of
magnitude of eccentricity was considered of ε/D = 0.083, but in three directions, as indicated in the 
bottom right of Figure 9. The correlation of the work of [11] did not fit this data very well in variation 
Figure 9. The correlation of the work of [11] did not fit this data very well in variation with α, therefore,
bottom right of Figure 9. The correlation of the work of [11] did not fit this data very well in variation 
with α, therefore, to compare the change in C d between the configurations, a best fit quadratic was 
to compare the change in Cd between the configurations,
with α, therefore, to compare the change in C a best fit quadratic was fitted to the measured
d between the configurations, a best fit quadratic was 
fitted to the measured data. The percentage difference between these smoothed curves and the datum 
data. The percentage difference between these smoothed curves and the datum (concentric) case is
fitted to the measured data. The percentage difference between these smoothed curves and the datum 
(concentric) case is then shown in Figure 10. 
then shown in Figure 10.
(concentric) case is then shown in Figure 10. 

 
Figure 9. Affect of step concentricity with main port on discharge coefficient.  
Figure 9. Affect of step concentricity with main port on discharge coefficient. 
Figure 9. Affect of step concentricity with main port on discharge coefficient. 

 
 
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    12 of 16 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 12 of 16
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    12 of 16 

 
Figure 10. Sensitivity of change in Cd with alpha for eccentric cases ε1, ε2, and ε3.   
Figure 10. Sensitivity of change in Cdd with alpha for eccentric cases ε1, ε2, and ε3. 
Figure 10. Sensitivity of change in C with alpha for eccentric cases ε1, ε2, and ε3.
Moving the cold skin upstream has the largest effect on Cd, reducing by 7% to 10% across the 
Moving
range  the cold skinAt 
of  α  considered.  upstream hasmass 
high  port  the largest effect(α), 
ingestion  Cd , reducing
on moving  by 7%skin 
the  cold  to 10% across the range
downstream  has  a 
Moving the cold skin upstream has the largest effect on C d, reducing by 7% to 10% across the 
of α considered. At high port mass ingestion (α), moving the cold skin downstream has
reduced effect, from −7% (ecc.1) down to −2% (ecc.2) at α = 1.0. At lower α, both eccentricity directions  a reduced
range  of  α  considered.  At  high  port  mass  ingestion  (α),  moving  the  cold  skin  downstream  has  a 
effect, from −7% (ecc.1) down to −2% (ecc.2) at α = 1.0. At lower α, both eccentricity directions have a
have a similar effect of a 10% reduction. Sideways eccentricity does not appear to be too detrimental 
reduced effect, from −7% (ecc.1) down to −2% (ecc.2) at α = 1.0. At lower α, both eccentricity directions 
similar effect of a 10% dreduction.
to Cd at high α, but C Sideways eccentricity does not appear to be too detrimental to Cd at
 is reduced by 5% at α = 0.4. These figures should be seen in the context of a 
have a similar effect of a 10% reduction. Sideways eccentricity does not appear to be too detrimental 
high α, but C is reduced
systematic uncertainty in C
d by 5% at α = 0.4. These figures should be seen in the context of a systematic
d of around 2.5%, relevant when considering ratios to the concentric datum 
to Cd at high α, but Cd is reduced by 5% at α = 0.4. These figures should be seen in the context of a 
uncertainty
case Cd0.  in C d of around 2.5%, relevant when considering ratios to the concentric datum case Cd0 .
systematic uncertainty in C d of around 2.5%, relevant when considering ratios to the concentric datum 
Cooling tiles are often constructed using additive manufacturing techniques to allow complex
Cooling tiles are often constructed using additive manufacturing techniques to allow complex 
case C d0. 
features
features  to
to  be introduced.
be One approach 
introduced.  One  approach to 
to avoid
avoid  eccentricity effects outlined
eccentricity  effects  outlined  above
above  would
would  be
be  to
to 
Cooling tiles are often constructed using additive manufacturing techniques to allow complex 
introduce a raised feature to eliminate the effects of the step. This is sketched in Figure 11 with the
introduce a raised feature to eliminate the effects of the step. This is sketched in Figure 11 with the 
features  to  be  introduced.  One  approach  to  avoid  eccentricity  effects  outlined  above  would  be  to 
inclusion of an inlet chamfer to help increase the discharge coefficient and help jet directionality.
inclusion of an inlet chamfer to help increase the discharge coefficient and help jet directionality. 
introduce a raised feature to eliminate the effects of the step. This is sketched in Figure 11 with the 
inclusion of an inlet chamfer to help increase the discharge coefficient and help jet directionality. 

 
Figure 11. Method to avoid inlet step effects on discharge coefficient.  
Figure 11. Method to avoid inlet step effects on discharge coefficient. 
3.4. Axisymmetric Stepped Ports, Low Step Angles
Figure 11. Method to avoid inlet step effects on discharge coefficient. 
3.4. Axisymmetric Stepped Ports, Low Step Angles 
To compliment the work described so far, a study was undertaken to compare the effect of a
3.4. Axisymmetric Stepped Ports, Low Step Angles 
To compliment the work described so far, a study was undertaken to compare the effect of a step 
step inlet feature to a chamfer of similar size. The step angle range, shown in Table 5, was chosen to
inlet feature to a chamfer of similar size. The step angle range, shown in Table 5, was chosen to align 
alignTo compliment the work described so far, a study was undertaken to compare the effect of a step 
with values typically used when chamfering ports where previous data exists, e.g., [6]. Common
with  values angles
typically 
areused  when 
45◦ due chamfering 
to ease ports 
of tooling, or where 
30◦ as itprevious 
is known data 
thatexists,  e.g.,  [6]. 
inlet feature to a chamfer of similar size. The step angle range, shown in Table 5, was chosen to align 
chamfering this value Common 
produces the
chamfering angles are 45° due to ease of tooling, or 30° as it is known that this value produces the 
with 
highestvalues  typically 
Cd value, whichused 
thewhen 
resultschamfering 
here have ports  where The
confirmed. previous  data  exists, ports
Cd of chamfered e.g.,  [6].  Common 
is maximised
highest C
theird value, which the results here have confirmed. The C
depth exceeds ~0.08D, beyond this value, increasingd of chamfered ports is maximised once 
chamfering angles are 45° due to ease of tooling, or 30° as it is known that this value produces the 
once the size of the chamfer has little effect.
their depth exceeds ~0.08D, beyond this value, increasing the size of the chamfer has little effect. Thus, 
Thus, in Figure 12, the high Cd values of just above 0.95 at a chamfer angle of 30◦ are constant with t/D.
highest C d value, which the results here have confirmed. The C d  of chamfered ports is maximised once 
in Figure 12, the high C d values of just above 0.95 at a chamfer angle of 30° are constant with t/D. 
from a sharp edge (0◦ ) to 45◦ , a steady increase in Cd is seen for L/D
their depth exceeds ~0.08D, beyond this value, increasing the size of the chamfer has little effect. Thus, 
As the step angle increases  
As the step angle increases from a sharp edge (0°) to 45°, a steady increase in C
in Figure 12, the high C
of both 0.12 and 0.2. The d is seen for L/D 
d values of just above 0.95 at a chamfer angle of 30° are constant with t/D. 
shorter port sees a larger percentage increase than the longer port (~25%  cf.
of both 0.12 and 0.2. The shorter port sees a larger percentage increase than the longer port (~25% cf. 
~10%) As the step angle increases from a sharp edge (0°) to 45°, a steady increase in C
in discharge coefficient compared with the sharp-edged ports (Cd0 ), and the maximum d is seen for L/D 
value in
~10%) in discharge coefficient compared with the sharp‐edged ports (Cd0), and the maximum value 
of both 0.12 and 0.2. The shorter port sees a larger percentage increase than the longer port (~25% cf. 
~10%) in discharge coefficient compared with the sharp‐edged ports (C
  d0), and the maximum value 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    13 of 16 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 13 of 16
in this range occurs at 45°. Insensitivity to increased step height of t/D = 0.16 for an L/D of 2.0 is also 
seen for two points that map closely to the t/D = 0.08 curve. It would appear the Cd is increased using 
this range occurs at 45◦ . Insensitivity to increased step height of t/D = 0.16 for an L/D of 2.0 is also
stepped inlets, with the peak value (at θ = 45°) being about half of the increase obtained by chamfering 
seen for two points that map closely to the t/D = 0.08 curve. It would appear the Cd is increased using
at θ = 30°. However, it does appear from this and the previous sections that there is limited sensitivity 
stepped inlets, with the peak value (at θ = 45◦ ) being about half of the increase obtained by chamfering
of Cd to step height, as is the case for chamfer depth. 
at θ = 30◦ . However, it does appear from this and the previous sections that there is limited sensitivity
of Cd to step height, as is the case for chamfer depth.
Table 5. Axis‐symmetric chamfered and stepped port flow testing configurations, airflow rig. 

Dimension 
Table Symbol  and stepped
5. Axis-symmetric chamfered Chamfer  Step configurations,
port flow testing Step  airflow Step 
rig.
Port Diameter (mm)  D  25  25  25  25 
Dimension Symbol Chamfer Step Step Step
Port Length/D  L/D  2.00  2.00  0.24  2.08 
Port Diameter (mm)
Step Height/D  t/D D 25
0.08  250.08  25
0.08  25
0.16 
Port Length/D L/D 2.00 2.00 0.24 2.08
Step Length/D  s/D  0, 0.029, 0.037, 0.046, 0.056, 0.067, 0.080  0.046, 0.080 
Step Height/D t/D 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16
Step Angle θ = tan
Step Length/D(s/t) 
−1 θs/D 0°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 35°,40°, 45° 
0, 0.029, 0.037, 0.046, 0.056, 0.067, 0.080 30°, 45° 
0.046, 0.080
  Step Angle θ = tan−1 (s/t) θ 0◦ , 20◦ , 25◦ , 30◦ , 35◦ ,40◦ , 45◦ 30◦ , 45◦

Chamfer 
 
 
      Steps   

   
(a) Absolute values  (b) Fractional change compared to sharp edged 

Figure 12. Stepped inlet and chamfered inlet comparison for a range of step/chamfer angles. 
Figure 12. Stepped inlet and chamfered inlet comparison for a range of step/chamfer angles.

The differences in increase of Cdd in cases in Figure 12 highlight some coupling between L/D and 

The differences in increase of C in cases in Figure 12 highlight some coupling between L/D and
t/D that exist for short ports (low L/D). Coupling of this nature is compensated for in Cdd correlations 
t/D that exist for short ports (low L/D). Coupling of this nature is compensated for in C correlations
for
for inlet
inlet radiusing.
radiusing.  Radiusing,
Radiusing,  unlike chamfering
unlike  andand 
chamfering  stepped inlets,
stepped  continues
inlets,  to increase
continues  Cd to values
to  increase  Cd  to 
close to 1.0, which is obtained once r/D is ~0.82. Thus, the data in Figure 12 can also be presented
values very close to 1.0, which is obtained once r/D is ~0.82. Thus, the data in Figure 12 can also be 
very
the form of an equivalent r/D value by best fitting a correlation to the data using the best r/D
presented in the form of an equivalent r/D value by best fitting a correlation to the data using the best 
in
r/D to replicate the measured value. In this way, the t/D to L/D coupling can be deconvolved by the 
to replicate the measured value. In this way, the t/D to L/D coupling can be deconvolved by the
empirical data
empirical data that
that 
hashas  trained 
trained correlations, 
correlations, where where 
here, wehere, 
usewe  use  McGreehan 
McGreehan and  Schotsch 
and Schotsch [8] 
[8] approach
approach as briefly outlined in Appendix A. 
as briefly outlined in Appendix A.
Stepped inlet results of the effective r/D for the axisymmetric and crossflow cases are brought 
Stepped inlet results of the effective r/D for the axisymmetric and crossflow cases are brought
together  in
together in in
in Figure
Figure 1313 and
and compared
compared withwith the
the chamfered
chamfered port port evidence.
evidence.  These
These  data
data compactly
compactly 
indicate the best way to implement the effect of stepped ports in C
indicate the best way to implement the effect of stepped ports in Cdd correlation based on the evidence 
correlation based on the evidence
from this study. Provided t/D > 0.07 and t < 0.75L, the effective r/D in existing correlations can be 
from this study. Provided t/D > 0.07 and t < 0.75L, the effective r/D in existing correlations can be
chosen from
chosen from Figure
Figure 1313 for
for the
the appropriate
appropriate value
value ofof step
step angle.
angle. This
This should
should provide
provide aa CCdd estimate
estimate 
within typical measurement accuracy. 
within typical measurement accuracy.  
50–90◦ portion of the curve in Figure 13 was determined first, and it was anticipated that a
The 50–90° portion of the curve in Figure 13 was determined first, and it was anticipated that a 
The
would appear at around 30◦ comparable to chamfering, but perhaps with a lower peak value.
peak would appear at around 30° comparable to chamfering, but perhaps with a lower peak value. 
peak
This motivated the axisymmetric study, which was conducted at a later point. It can be seen that the 
This motivated the axisymmetric study, which was conducted at a later point. It can be seen that the
evidence suggests a peak C
evidence increase in the 45–50◦ region with an equivalent r/D of around 0.15, with
suggests a peak Cdd increase in the 45–50° region with an equivalent r/D of around 0.15, with 
angles below ~25 and above ~80–85◦ , the step has no discernable effect on Cdd. .
◦
step angles below ~25° and above ~80–85°, the step has no discernable effect on C
step

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 14 of 16
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW    14 of 16 

 
Figure 13. Effective r/D for all stepped inlet cases and chamfered inlet comparison.
Figure 13. Effective r/D for all stepped inlet cases and chamfered inlet comparison. 
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions 
A range of port configurations with stepped inlets have been tested with and without approach
crossA range of port configurations with stepped inlets have been tested with and without approach 
flow. Discharge coefficients have been measured and compared to plain port benchmark tests for
cross flow. Discharge coefficients have been measured and compared to plain port benchmark tests 
validation purposes.
for validation purposes. 
Stepped inlets at entrance to ports produce a significant increase of the port discharge coefficient.
Stepped inlets at entrance to ports produce a significant increase of the port discharge coefficient. 
For a stepped port geometry similar to a typical engine combustor primary port, an increase in Cd
For a stepped port geometry similar to a typical engine combustor primary port, an increase in 
of 25% over the equivalent sharp-edged port was found (L/D = 0.25, t/D = 0.08).
Cd of 25% over the equivalent sharp‐edged port was found (L/D = 0.25, t/D = 0.08). 
To include the effect of the step in empirical correlations, an equivalent r/d factor may be used.
To include the effect of the step in empirical correlations, an equivalent r/d factor may be used. 
The equivalent r/d depends primarily on the port step angle (arctan of ratio of step length to height).
The equivalent r/d depends primarily on the port step angle (arctan of ratio of step length to height). 
Step height to diameter ratios in the range 0.06 to 0.2 had an insignificant effect on discharge coefficient
Step  height  to compared
in comparison diameter  with
ratios step
in  the  range 
angle, and 0.06  to  0.2  had for
is compensated an in
insignificant  effect  on  discharge 
existing correlations.
coefficient in comparison compared with step angle, and is compensated for in existing correlations. 
Eccentricity of the two diameters that define the stepped port is a significant factor influencing the
Eccentricity of the two diameters that define the stepped port is a significant factor influencing 
overall discharge coefficient. Cd was reduced by up to 10% for the orientations of eccentricity tested
the 
andoverall 
approachdischarge  coefficient. behavior
flow directionality Cd  was  reduced  by  up compared
was changed to  10%  for  the concentric
with orientations  of features.
inlet eccentricity 
tested  and  approach  flow  directionality 
◦ ◦ behavior  was  changed  compared  with  concentric 
Step angles of around 45 to 50 appear to produce the highest Cd , though further work is required inlet 
features.   
to verify this because this value fell between the two testing configurations.
Step  angles  of  around  45°  to  50°  appear  to  produce  the  highest  Cd,  though  further  work  is 
Funding: This research was funded in part by Rolls Royce plc.
required to verify this because this value fell between the two testing configurations. 
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Funding: This research was funded in part by Rolls Royce plc. 
Nomenclature
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.   
Symbol
Nomenclature 
A Area
Cd Discharge Coefficient
.Symbol 
m Mass flow rate
A  Area 
pCd  Static pressure
Discharge Coefficient 
q   Dynamic pressure
Mass flow rate 
Vp  Velocity
Static pressure 
αq  Port ingestion fraction
Dynamic pressure 
V  Velocity 

 
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 15 of 16

β Port to annulus area ratio

ρ Density
Subscript
a Annulus inflow
b Bleed (Annulus outflow)
c Core inflow
o Core outflow
p Port
v Venturi
:l Length corrected value
:r Radius corrected value
0 Base value (no inlet step)
Symbols for the geometrical descriptions of ports are defined in Figure 5 and Tables 2–4.

Appendix A
The correlations of Chin et al. [11] have been fitted to the experimental data presented in this
paper in most figures associated with the crossflow approach cases. This correlation accounts for
crossflow effects, compressibility, and annulus to port area ratios, among other parameters. Interested
readers may refer to this paper for further details of the full correlation. To compensate for length
to diameter ratio (L/D) and effective radius to diameter ratio (r/D), the method of McGreehan and
Schotsch [8] has been used. Here, the baseline (sharp edged, thin port) discharge coefficient (Cd0 ) is
corrected for inlet radiusing via the following:

Cd:r = 1 − f (1 − Cd0 )

where
r r 2
f = 0.008 + 0.992e−5.5( D )−3.5( D )

A similar relationship is available for L/D effects:

Cd:l = 1 − g(1 − Cd:r )

where
L 2 L
g = [1 + 1.3e−1.606( D ) ](0.435 + 0.021 )
D
When both L/D and r/D effects are taken into account, compensation is made by reducing the
effective L/D by the r/D value used, and making a cross compensation for Cd:r , not explained fully
here for brevity. These formulae have been used to calculate an effective r/D that best matches the
stepped or chamfered port behavior. ‘r/D’ in the f equation has thus been changed to minimize the
rms error in fitting the correlation of the literature [11] (taken as the baseline ‘Cd0 ’ value) to the data for
cross flow cases. For axis-symmetric flow, Cd0 has been taken to be the sharp-edged value (no step/no
chamfer case) for the same L/D port. ‘r/D’ has then been changed to obtain the best fit to experimental
values of Cd .

References
1. Stuttaford, P.J.; Rubini, P.A. Preliminary Gas Turbine Design Using a Network Approach. ASME J. Eng. Gas
Turbines Power 1997, 119, 546–552. [CrossRef]
2. Kukutla, P.R.K.; Prasad, B.V.S.S.S. Network analysis of a coolant flow performance for the combined
impingement and film cooled first-stage of high pressure gas turbine nozzle guide vane. Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part G 2018. [CrossRef]
3. McGuirk, J.J.; Spencer, A. Coupled and Uncoupled CFD Prediction of the Characteristics of Jets from
Combustor Air Admission Ports. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2001, 123, 327–332. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2018, 5, 97 16 of 16

4. Lefebvre, A.H. Gas Turbine Combustion, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; ISBN 9781420086058.
5. Pidcock, A.; Close, D. Double Wall Combustor Tile Arrangement. U.S. Patent 2003/0145604 A1, 7 August 2003.
6. Hay, N.; Spencer, A. Discharge Coefficients of Cooling Holes with Radiused and Chamfered Inlets.
J. Turbomach. 1992, 114, 701–706. [CrossRef]
7. Dittmann, M.; Dullenkopf, K.; Wittig, S. Discharge Coefficient of Rotating Short Orifices with Radiused and
Chamfered Inlets; ASME Paper No. GT2003-38314; ASME: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
8. McGreehan, W.F.; Schotsch, M.J. Flow Characteristics of Long Orifices with Rotation and Corner Radiusing.
ASME J. Turbomach. 1988, 110, 213–217. [CrossRef]
9. Feseker, D.; Kinell, M.; Neef, M. Experimental Study on Pressure Losses in Circular Orifices with Inlet Cross
Flow. ASME J. Turbomach. 2018, 140. [CrossRef]
10. Chernukha, P.; Spencer, A.; Colwill, J.A. The Effect of Manufacturing Tolerances on the Performance of Gas
Turbine Air System Metering Holes with Chamfered Inlets. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2018:
Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, Oslo, Norway, 11–15 June 2018.
11. Chin, J.; Shi, X.; Zhou, K. Analysis and Experimental Study on the Discharge Coefficient of Liner Holes. Int. J.
Turbo Jet Engines 1993, 10, 97–106. [CrossRef]
12. Adkins, R.C.; Gueroui, D.D. An Improved Method for Accurate Prediction of Mass Flows through Combustor
Liner Holes. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 1986, 108, 491–497. [CrossRef]
13. Lichtarowicz, A.; Duggins, R.K.; Markland, E. Discharge Coefficients for Incompressible Non-Cavitating
Flow through Long Orifices. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 1965, 7, 210–219. [CrossRef]
14. Deckker, B.E.L.; Chang, Y.F. An Investigation of Steady Compressible Flow through Thick Orifices. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. 1965, 180, 312–323. [CrossRef]
15. Spencer, A.; McGuirk, J.J. LDA Measurements of Feed Annulus Effects on Combustor Liner Port Flows.
ASME J. Fluids Eng. 2001, 123, 219–227. [CrossRef]
16. Spencer, A. Gas Turbine Combustor Port Flows. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough,
UK, 1998.

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).