0
Technical Briefs

Acoustic Vibration Behavior of Full Size Steam Generator and Tubular Heat Exchanger In-Line Tube Banks: A Brief Note

[+] Author and Article Information
Frantisek L. Eisinger, Robert E. Sullivan

 Foster Wheeler North American Inc., Perryville Corporate Park, Clinton, NJ 08809

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 130(3), 034501 (Jun 03, 2008) (4 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2938398 History: Received January 09, 2006; Revised February 09, 2007; Published June 03, 2008

Based on recent laboratory experimental data by Feenstra (2004, “The Effects of Duct Width and Baffles on Acoustic Resonance in a Staggered Tube Array  ,” in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Flow-Induced Vibration FIV 2004, E.de Langre and F.Axisa, eds., Paris France, Jul. 6–9, pp. 459–464; 2006, “A Study of Acoustic Resonance in a Staggered Tube Array  ,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 128, pp. 533–540), it has been determined that for larger test section widths, the maximum acoustic pressures generated during acoustic resonance were greater by more than a factor of 4 than those predicted by Blevins and Bressler (1993, “Experiments on Acoustic Resonance in Heat Exchanger Tube Bundles  ,” J. Sound Vib.,164, 503–533). We have evaluated a great number of resonant and nonresonant cases from in-service experience of full size steam generator and tubular heat exchanger tube banks in order to see the general vibratory behavior of the full size units. Fifteen vibrating and twenty-seven nonvibrating cases were evaluated and compared to the Feenstra et al. relationship. It is shown that on average the results from the full size units correlate well with the relationship of Feenstra et al. A gap exists between the vibratory and the nonvibratory cases. The nonvibratory cases produce acoustic pressures, which are at or below the Blevins and Bressler relationship. From the results, it can be concluded that the full size units, regardless of their size and also acoustic mode, produce high acoustic pressures at resonance, with the maximum acoustic pressure on average more than 50–75 times higher than the input energy parameter defined by the product of Mach number and pressure drop through the tube bank. The results are tabulated and plotted for comparison.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Maximum acoustic pressure versus input energy parameter (MΔp) for laboratory experimental data using different test section widths. Note that the Mach number, M, corresponds to flow in the gap between tubes. Graph taken from Feenstra (2).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Maximum acoustic pressure versus input energy parameter (MΔp) for full size vibrating (Table 1) and nonvibrating (Table 2) steam generator and tubular heat exchanger tube banks. Note that the nonvibrating units are below the Blevins and Bressler relationship while the vibrating units are well above it and generally congregate around the relationship of Feenstra

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.

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