0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Fluidelastic Instability in a Normal Triangular Tube Bundle Subjected to Air-Water Cross-Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
G. Ricciardi1

CEA Cadarache DEN/DTN/STRI/LHC, 13108 Saint Paul-Lez-Durance Cedex, Franceguillaume.ricciardi@cea.fr

M. J. Pettigrew, N. W. Mureithi

BWC/AECL/NSERC Chair of Fluid-Structure Interaction, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique, Montréal, QC, H3C 3A7, Canada

1

Corresponding author.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 133(6), 061301 (Oct 03, 2011) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004562 History: Received February 01, 2011; Revised April 27, 2011; Published October 03, 2011; Online October 03, 2011

This paper presents the results of tests on the vibration of a normal triangular tube bundle subjected to air–water cross-flow. The pitch-to-diameter ratio of the bundle is 1.5, and the tube diameter is 38 mm. The tubes were preferentially flexible in one direction. Both the lift and the drag direction were tested. A wide range of void fractions and fluid velocities was tested. Fluidelastic instabilities and tube resonances were observed. The resonances induced significant vibration amplitudes at high void fractions in the lift direction. The results are compared with those obtained with a rotated triangular tube bundle. They show that the normal triangular configuration is more stable than the rotated triangular configuration.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

RMS vibration amplitude in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 10% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

RMS vibration amplitude in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 40% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

RMS vibration amplitude in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 60% void fraction; (a) upstream (Tube 3), center (Tube 7) and down-stream (Tube 1); (b) central row (Tubes 2, 5 and 7); and (c) all tubes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Vibration response spectra of Tube 1 in the lift direction versus frequency and flow velocity, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Vibration frequency of the tubes in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Coherence between Tube 7 displacement and the other tube displacements at the oscillation frequency in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 60% void fraction; (a) upstream (Tube 3), center (Tube 2) and down-stream (Tube 1); and (b) all tubes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Tube 1 displacement versus time at 2.4 m/s, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Tube 1 displacement versus time at 5.0 m/s, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

RMS vibration amplitude in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 70% void fraction; (a) upstream (Tube 3), center (Tube 7) and down-stream (Tube 1); (b) central row (Tubes 2, 5, and 7); and (c) all tubes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

RMS vibration amplitude in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 90% void fraction; (a) upstream (Tube 3), center (Tube 7) and down-stream (Tube 1); (b) central row (Tubes 2, 5, and 7); and (c) all tubes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Vibration response spectra of Tube 1 in the lift direction versus frequency and flow velocity, for 90% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Vibration frequency of the tubes in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 90% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Coherence between Tube 7 displacement and the other tubes displacements at the oscillation frequency in the lift direction versus flow velocity, for 90% void fraction; (a) upstream (Tube 3), center (Tube 2) and down-stream (Tube 1); and (b) all tubes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Flow regime map for rotated triangular tube bundle in two-phase cross-flow, developed by Noghrekar [22], with superficial liquid velocity jL and superficial gas velocity jG

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Tube 1 displacement versus time at 3.8 m/s, for 90% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

RMS vibration amplitude in the drag direction versus flow velocity, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Vibration response spectra of Tube 1 in the drag direction versus frequency and flow velocity, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Vibration response spectra of Tube 1 in the drag direction versus frequency at 2.4 m/s and 4.0 m/s, for 60% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

RMS vibration amplitude in the drag direction versus flow velocity, for 90% void fraction.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Vibration response spectra of Tube 1 in the drag direction versus frequency and flow velocity, for 90% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Vibration response spectrum of Tube 1 in the drag direction versus frequency at 3.8 m/s, for 90% void fraction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Fluidelastic instability data in two-phase flow compared to data from Pettigrew and Taylor [15]

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