0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Time Domain Models for Damping-Controlled Fluidelastic Instability Forces in Tubes With Loose Supports

[+] Author and Article Information
Marwan Hassan, Achraf Hossen

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 132(4), 041302 (Jul 21, 2010) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001700 History: Received October 23, 2009; Revised April 24, 2010; Published July 21, 2010; Online July 21, 2010

This paper presents simulations of a loosely supported cantilever tube subjected to turbulence and fluidelastic instability forces. Several time domain fluid force models are presented to simulate the damping-controlled fluidelastic instability mechanism in tube arrays. These models include a negative damping model based on the Connors equation, fluid force coefficient-based models (Chen, 1983, “Instability Mechanisms and Stability Criteria of a Group of Cylinders Subjected to Cross-Flow. Part 1: Theory,” Trans. ASME, J. Vib., Acoust., Stress, Reliab. Des., 105, pp. 51–58; Tanaka and Takahara, 1981, “Fluid Elastic Vibration of Tube Array in Cross Flow,” J. Sound Vib., 77, pp. 19–37), and two semi-analytical models (Price and Païdoussis, 1984, “An Improved Mathematical Model for the Stability of Cylinder Rows Subjected to Cross-Flow,” J. Sound Vib., 97(4), pp. 615–640; Lever and Weaver, 1982, “A Theoretical Model for the Fluidelastic Instability in Heat Exchanger Tube Bundles,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 104, pp. 104–147). Time domain modeling and implementation challenges for each of these theories were discussed. For each model, the flow velocity and the support clearance were varied. Special attention was paid to the tube/support interaction parameters that affect wear, such as impact forces and normal work rate. As the prediction of the linear threshold varies depending on the model utilized, the nonlinear response also differs. The investigated models exhibit similar response characteristics for the lift response. The greatest differences were seen in the prediction of the drag response, the impact force level, and the normal work rate. Simulation results show that the Connors-based model consistently underestimates the response and the tube/support interaction parameters for the loose support case.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Flow cell concept for the fluidelastic instability model (5)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Tube/support modeling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Overall tube-fluid model proposed for Chen's and Price and Païdoussis’ models

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Overall tube-fluid model using Lever and Weaver Model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Fluid-force coefficients for inline tube array with P/D of 1.46 (32): (a) α11′; (b) α11″; (c) β11′; (d) β11″

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of linear simulations of the four FEI models with experimental data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Tube response for a clearance of 0.1 mm at various reduced velocities: tip trajectory (a) 9, (b) 101, and (c) 375; impact force (d) 9, (e) 101, and (f) 375

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Tube response versus the reduced flow velocity for a support clearance of 0.1 mm: (a) midspan drag; (b) midspan lift; (c) tip drag; (d) tip lift

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Tube response versus the flow velocity ratio for a support clearance of 0.1 mm: (a) midspan drag; (b) midspan lift; (c) tip drag; (d) tip lift

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Impact force and work rate versus the flow velocity ratio for a support clearance of 0.1 mm: (a,c) contact with the horizontal flat bars; (b,d) contact with the vertical flat bars

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Tube response versus the flow velocity ratio for a support clearance of 1.0 mm: (a) midspan drag; (b) midspan lift; (c) tip drag; (d) tip lift

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Impact force and work rate versus the flow velocity ratio for a support clearance of 1.0 mm: (a,c) contact with the horizontal flat bars; (b,d) contact with the vertical flat bars

Tables

Errata

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 eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In