0
RESEARCH PAPERS

# A Study of Acoustic Resonance in a Staggered Tube Array

[+] Author and Article Information
P. A. Feenstra

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7

D. S. Weaver1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7weaverds@mcmaster.ca

Frantisek L. Eisinger

Foster Wheeler Power Group, Inc., Perryville Corporate Park, Clinton, NJ, 08809-4000

1

Corresponding author.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 128(4), 533-540 (Feb 02, 2006) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2349563 History: Received December 20, 2005; Revised February 02, 2006

## Abstract

Experimental laboratory research was performed to study the effect of test section width on the magnitude of acoustic resonance generated in a small pitch ratio staggered tube bank. Three different test section widths were studied: $505mm$, $714mm$, and $953mm$. The results for acoustic resonance were compared to the tube bank data of Blevins and Bressler (1993, J. Sound Vib., 164(3), pp. 503–533), Ziada, Bolleter, and Chen (1984, ASME Symposium on Flow-Induced Vibrations, ASME, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 227–242); Ziada, Oengören, and Buhlmann (1989, J. Fluids and Struct., 3, pp. 293–324), and Fitzpatrick and Donaldson (1977, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 99, pp. 681–686). The present study showed that test-section width may be a significant factor in determining the maximum acoustic pressures generated by the flow. In particular, the simple relationship between maximum acoustic pressure and input energy parameter derived by Blevins and Bressler was not a reliable predictor for the array studied and will likely underpredict the maximum acoustic pressures in the lower modes of practical heat exchangers.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Unit cell of tube pattern for model tube array

Figure 2

Top view of tube array for case 3 (953mm wide test section)

Figure 3

Acoustic noise level and frequency measurements for case 1 (narrow duct): - - - - frequency prediction by Parker (18); ●, dominant frequency; 엯, secondary frequency

Figure 4

Acoustic noise level and frequency measurements for case 2 (middle width duct): - - - - frequency prediction by Parker (18); ●, dominant frequency; 엯, secondary frequency

Figure 5

Acoustic noise level and frequency measurements for case 3 (wide duct): - - - - frequency prediction by Parker (18); ●, dominant frequency; 엯, secondary frequency

Figure 6

Strouhal number distributions of flow periodicities in normal triangular tube arrays as functions of the spacing ratio: +, present data; ●,엯 data cited in Oengören and Ziada (9)

Figure 7

(a) Maximum acoustic pressure versus input energy parameter (MdP) for the present study and Blevins and Bressler (14)(W=457mm). Each data point is labeled according to the acoustic mode. Note that the Mach number, M, corresponds to flow in the gap between tubes. (b) Maximum acoustic pressure versus input energy parameter (MdP) for the present study and other data from the literature.

Figure 8

Relationship between measured sound frequency, f, at the onset of acoustic resonance normalized by the theoretical empty duct acoustic frequency, fi, versus the longitudinal array depth normalized by the modal acoustic wavelength. Note that each data point is indicated by the transverse acoustic mode, i.

Figure 9

Pressure drop measurements across the tube bank for cases 1 and 3

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections