0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Numerical Estimation of Fluidelastic Instability in Tube Arrays

[+] Author and Article Information
Marwan Hassan1

Mechanical Engineering Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canadahassanm@unb.ca

Andrew Gerber

Mechanical Engineering Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canadaagerber@unb.ca

Hossin Omar

Mechanical Engineering Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canadahossin.omar@unb.ca

1

Corresponding author.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 132(4), 041307 (Jul 29, 2010) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002112 History: Received November 02, 2009; Revised May 27, 2010; Published July 29, 2010; Online July 29, 2010

This study investigates unsteady flow in tube bundles and fluid forces, which can lead to large tube vibration amplitudes, in particular, amplitudes associated with fluidelastic instability (FEI). The fluidelastic forces are approximated by the coupling of the unsteady flow model (UFM) with computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The CFD model employed solves the Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations for unsteady turbulent flow and is cast in an arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian form to handle any motion associated with tubes. The CFD solution provides time domain forces that are used to calculate added damping and stiffness coefficients employed with the UFM. The investigation demonstrates that the UFM utilized in conjunction with CFD is a viable approach for calculating the stability map for a given tube array. The FEI was predicted for in-line square and normal triangle tube arrays over a mass damping parameter range of 0.1– 100. The effect of the P/d ratio and the Reynolds number on the FEI threshold was also investigated.

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

Schematic of tube array geometry: ((a) and (b)) in-line square tube array (P/d=1.33) and ((c) and (d)) normal triangle tube array (P/d=1.35)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Tube array model for stability analysis: (a) in-line square array and (b) normal triangle array

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Flow structure behind the tube array at two time instants: (a) 0.5T and (b) 1T

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Fluid force spectra for various reduced flow velocities for an in-line square tube array with a P/d ratio of 1.33 (fe=excitation frequency): (a) Ur=3, (b) Ur=4, (c) Ur=5, (d) Ur=7, (e) Ur=8, and (f) flow periodicity frequency via shedding frequency (fs) versus gap velocity-to-diameter ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Sensitivity to simulation parameters: (a) mesh topology, (b) effect of mesh density, and (c) effect of time step resolution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of the predicted damping and stiffness coefficients with experimental data (37): ((a) and (b)) in-line square array and ((c) and (d)) normal triangle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of the predicted critical flow velocity with the experimental data for the in-line array case: ○, Tanaka (43); ◁, Connors (46); ◀, Elkashlan (47); +, Chen and Jendrzejczyk (48); ◻, Gross (49); ▽, Hartlen (50); △, Pettigrew (51); ◼, Soper (52); ●, Price and Païdoussis (53); ▼, Blevins (54); and −, simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of the predicted critical flow velocity with the experimental data for the normal triangle array case: ○, Austermann and Popp (44); ⋆, Andjelic and Popp (55); ◆, Connors (46); ▲, Price and Zahn (56); ◇, Teh and Goyder (57); ∗, Weaver and Yeung (58); ×, Scott (59); ▶, Elkashlan (47); ▼, Gorman (60); ▷, Zukauskas and Kathinas (61); ◁, Chen and Jendrzejczyk (48); ◀, Gross (49); ●, Hartlen (50); ▽, Pettigrew (51); and −, simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of the predicted critical flow velocity with the experimental data: (a) in-line square array and (b) normal triangle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Variation in lift force coefficient with P/d ratio: (a) lift coefficient CL, (b) phase ϕL, and (c) damping coefficient α11′

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Effect of the P/d ratio on the stability threshold

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Variation in lift force coefficient with Reynolds number: (a) lift coefficient CL, (b) phase ϕL, and (c) damping coefficient α11′

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Effect of Reynolds number on the stability threshold

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