0
Research Papers: Technical Forum

On the Damping in Tube Arrays Subjected to Two-Phase Cross-Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
J. E. Moran

Hatch Ltd.
Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 7J7
e-mail: jmoran@hatch.ca

D. S. Weaver

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McMaster University,
Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L7, Canada
e-mail: weaverds@mcmaster.ca

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Manuscript received February 21, 2012; final manuscript received November 30, 2012; published online May 21, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Njuki W. Mureithi.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(3), 030906 (May 21, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: PVT-12-1021; doi: 10.1115/1.4023421 History: Received February 21, 2012; Revised November 30, 2012

An experimental study was conducted to investigate the mechanism of damping in tube arrays subjected to two-phase cross-flow, mainly focusing on the influence of void fraction and flow regime. The model tube bundle had a parallel-triangular configuration, with a pitch ratio of 1.49. The two-phase flow loop used in this research utilized Refrigerant 11 as the working fluid, which better models steam-water than air-water mixtures in terms of vapour-liquid mass ratio as well as permitting phase changes due to pressure fluctuations. The void fraction was measured using a gamma densitometer, introducing an improvement over the homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM). Three different damping measurement methodologies were implemented and compared in order to obtain a more reliable damping estimate: the traditionally used half-power bandwidth, the logarithmic decrement and an exponential fitting to the tube decay response. The experiments showed that the half-power bandwidth produces higher damping values than the other two methods, due to the tube frequency shifting triggered by fluctuations in the added mass and coupling between the tubes, which depend on void fraction and flow regime. The exponential fitting proved to be the more consistent and reliable approach to estimating damping. A dimensional analysis was carried out to investigate the relationship between damping and two-phase flow related parameters. As a result, the inclusion of surface tension in the form of the capillary number appears to be useful when combined with the two-phase component of the damping ratio (interfacial damping). A strong dependence of damping on flow regime was observed when plotting the interfacial damping versus the void fraction, introducing an improvement over the previous results obtained by normalizing the two-phase damping, which does not exhibit this behavior.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Pettigrew, M. J., Tromp, J. H., Taylor, C. E., and Kim, B. S., 1989, “Vibration of Tube Bundles in Two-Phase Cross-Flow—Part 11: Fluidelastic Instability,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 11, pp. 478–487. [CrossRef]
Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E., 1994, “Two-Phase Flow-Induced Vibration: An Overview,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.116, pp. 233–253. [CrossRef]
Pettigrew, M. J., Taylor, C. E., and Kim, B. S., 1989, “Vibration of Tube Bundles in Two-Phase Cross Flow—Part 1: Hydrodynamic Mass and Damping,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 111, pp. 466–477. [CrossRef]
Hassan, M. A., Weaver, D. S., and Dokainish, M. A., 2002, “A Simulation of the Turbulence Response of Heat Exchanger Tubes in Lattice-Bar Supports,” J. Fluids Struct., 16(8), pp. 1145–1176. [CrossRef]
Hassan, M. A., Weaver, D. S., and Dokainish, M. A., 2005, “A New Tube/Support Impact Model for Heat Exchanger Tubes,” J. Fluids Struct., 21, pp. 561–577. [CrossRef]
Weaver, D. S., and El-Kashlan, M., 1981, “The Effect of Damping and Tube Mass Ratio on the Stability of a Tube Bank,” J. Sound Vib., 76(2), pp. 283–294. [CrossRef]
Blevins, R. D., 1979, “Fluid Damping and the Whirling Instability of Tube Arrays,” 3rd National Congress of Pressure Vessel and Piping Technology ASME, San Francisco.
Price, S. J., 1995, “A Review of the Theoretical Models for Fluidelastic Instability of Cylinder Arrays in Cross-Flow,” J. Fluids Struct., 9, pp. 463–518. [CrossRef]
Carlucci, L. N., 1980, “Damping and Hydrodynamic Mass of a Cylinder in Simulated Two-Phase Flow,” J. Mech. Des., 102, pp. 597–602. [CrossRef]
Carlucci, L. N., and Brown, J. D., 1983, “Experimental Studies of Damping and Hydrodynamic Mass of a Cylinder in Confined Two-Phase Flow,” ASME J. Vib., Acoust., Stress, Reliab. Des., 105, pp. 83–89. [CrossRef]
Rogers, R. G., Taylor, C. E., and Pettigrew, M. J., 1984, “Fluid Effects on Multi-Span Heat Exchanger Tube Vibration,” ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Technology No. H00316, San Antonio, TX.
Pettigrew, M. J., and Knowles, G. D., 1997, “Some Aspects of Heat-Exchanger Tube Damping in Two-Phase Mixtures,” J. Fluids Struct., 11, pp. 929–945. [CrossRef]
Hara, F., 1987, “Vibrations of Circular Cylindrical Structures subjects to Two-Phase Cross-Flows,” JSME Int. J., 30(263), pp. 711–722. [CrossRef]
Axisa, F., Wullschleger, M., and Villard, B., 1988, “Two-Phase Cross-Flow Damping in Tube Arrays,” ASME PVP Conference, ASME Publications, Pittsburgh, Vol. 133, pp. 9–15.
Nakamura, T., Hirota, K., Wanatabe, Y., Mureithi, N. W., Kusanabe, T., and Takamatsu, H., 2002, “Dynamics of an In-Line Tube Array Subjected to Steam-Water Cross-Flow—Part 1: Two-Phase Damping and Added Mass,” J. Fluids Struct., 16(2), pp. 123–136. [CrossRef]
Anscutter, F., Béguin, C., Ross, A., Pettigrew, M., and Mureithi, N., 2006, “Two-Phase Damping and Interface Surface Area in Tubes With Internal Flow,” ASME PVP Conference PVP, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Vol. 4A, Paper No. 93878.
Pettigrew, M. J., Taylor, C. E., Fisher, N. J., Yetisir, M., and Smith, B. A. W., 1998, “Flow-Induced Vibration: Recent Findings and Open Questions,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 185, pp. 249–276. [CrossRef]
Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E., 2003, “Vibration Analysis of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers: An Overview—Part 1: Flow, Damping, Fluidelastic Instability,” J. Fluids Struct., 18, pp. 469–483. [CrossRef]
Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E., 2004, “Damping of Heat Exchanger Tubes in Two-Phase Flow: Review and Design Guidelines,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 126, pp. 523–533. [CrossRef]
Baj, F., and de. Langre, E., 2003, “Scaling of Damping Induced by Bubbly Flow Across Tubes,” J. Fluids Struct., 17, pp. 351–364. [CrossRef]
Collier, J. G., and Thome, J. R., 1996, Convective Boiling and Condensation, 3rd ed., Clarendon, Oxford.
Janzen, V. P., Han, Y., Smith, B. A., and Fluit, S. M., 2005, “Vibration Damping of Stabilized Steam Generator Tubes,” ASME PVP Conference, Denver, Paper No. 71666.
Chandler, C., 2005, “Methods of Determining a Damping Ratio From a Single Impact Test,” ASME PVP Conference, Denver, Paper No. 71041.
Feenstra, P. A., Weaver, D. S., and Judd, R. L., 2002, “Modelling Two-Phase Flow Excited Damping and Fluidelastic Instability in Tube Arrays,” J. Fluids Struct., 16(6), pp. 811–840. [CrossRef]
Feentra, P. A., Weaver, D. S., and Nakamura, T., 2003, “Vortex Shedding and Fluidelastic Instability in a Normal Square Tube Array Excited by Two-Phase Cross-Flow,” J. Fluids Struct.17, pp. 793–811. [CrossRef]
Moran, J. E., Weaver, D. S., and Feenstra, P. A., 2005, “A New Method for Measuring Damping in Two-Phase Flows,” 20th Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics (CANCAM), Montreal, Canada.
Chan, A. M., and Banerjee, S., 1981, “Design Aspects of Gamma Densitometers for Void Fraction Measurements in Small Scale Two-Phase Flows,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods, 190, pp. 135–148. [CrossRef]
Feenstra, P. A., Weaver, D. S., and Judd, R. L., 2000, “An Improved Void Fraction Model for Two-Phase Cross Flow in Horizontal Tube Bundles,” Int J. Multiphase Flow, 26, pp. 1851–1873. [CrossRef]
Ulbrich, R., and Mewes, D., 1994, “Vertical, Upward Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow Across a Tube Bundle,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 20(2), pp. 249–272. [CrossRef]
de Langre, E., 2006, private communication.
Pettigrew, M. J., Taylor, C. E., Jong, J. H., and Currie, I. G., 1995, “Vibration of Tube Bundles in Two-Phase Freon Cross-Flow,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 117, pp. 321–329. [CrossRef]
Consolini, L., Robinson, D., and Thome, J. R., 2006, “Void Fraction and Two-Phase Pressure Drops for Evaporating Flow Over Horizontal Tube Bundles,” Heat Transfer Eng., 27(3), pp. 5–21. [CrossRef]
Cleveland, W. S., 1994, The Elements of Graphing Data, revised Edition, Hobart Press, Summit, NJ.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Aerodynamic component of damping as a function of pitch velocity. Adapted from Weaver and El-Kashlan [6].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Variation of the components of the total fluid damping with void fraction [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison between design guideline and available damping data, Pettigrew and Taylor [19]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Diagram of the two-phase flow loop and tube array geometry: (1) main pump, (2) orifice plates for mass flux measurement, (3) flow control valves, (4) heaters, (5) test section, (6) shell-and-tube condenser, and (7) gamma densitometer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Side-view of the test section, showing a schematic diagram of the model tube bundle, the location of the strain gauges and the electromagnets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Half-power bandwidth method for calculating the damping ratio. The plot shows the fitting performed on actual data recorded during this research.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Exponential fitting to the decay trace. At point (a), the electromagnets are shut-off. The interval between (b) and (c) is used for the fitting, avoiding the turbulent excitation seen at point (d).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Flow regime data for the test series A based on the map by Ulbrich and Mewes [29]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Total damping ratio, ζT, versus RAD void fraction. The mass fluxes and flow regimes observed are indicated in each plot.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normalized two-phase damping ratio versus HEM void fraction. The continuous line shows the design guideline suggested by Pettigrew and Taylor [19] (see Fig. 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison between the void fractions predicted by the HEM and the gamma densitometer measurements, as a function of HEM pitch velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison between the exponential fitting and the logarithmic decrement methods for a mass flux of 250 kg/m2s. The bubbly, intermittent, and dispersed flow regions are indicated.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Damping based on the half-power bandwidth and exponential fitting methods versus the HEM void fraction for a pitch mass flux of 250 kg/m2s. The areas labeled I, II, and III represent the bubbly, intermittent, and dispersed flow regimes, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Damping based on the half-power bandwidth and exponential fitting methods versus the RAD void fraction. The pitch mass flux was 250 kg/m2s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Hydrodynamic mass ratio versus void fraction for a mass flux of 250 kg/m2s. The continuous line represents the theoretical hydrodynamic mass ratio.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Histogram of frequency (100 samples) showing the magnitude of the shifting phenomenon for different void fractions. The mass flux was 200 kg/m2s. The dashed lines representing a Gaussian approximation to the data are shown only as a reference.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Interfacial damping as a function of void fraction for all mass fluxes studied. Solid line is based on the LOESS methodology. The shaded bands indicate the change of flow regime zones for the different mass fluxes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Approximation of the interfacial damping behavior based on the LOESS. The shaded bands indicate the change of flow regime zones for the different mass fluxes.

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