0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

A Simple Empirical Model for Tube–Support Normal Impact Interaction

[+] Author and Article Information
Reza Azizian

BWC/AECL/NSERC Chair of
Fluid–Structure Interaction,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
École Polytechnique de Montréal,
Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada
e-mail: reza.azizian@polymtl.ca

Njuki Mureithi

BWC/AECL/NSERC Chair of
Fluid–Structure,
Interaction Department of
Mechanical Engineering,
École Polytechnique de Montréal,
Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada
e-mail: njuki.mureithi@polymtl.ca

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 11, 2012; final manuscript received May 16, 2014; published online August 19, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Samir Ziada.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 136(5), 051303 (Aug 19, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: PVT-12-1168; doi: 10.1115/1.4027797 History: Received November 11, 2012; Revised May 16, 2014

Flow-induced vibration in a steam generator may cause tube–support interaction. This long term interaction is a challenging problem as it may lead to tube fretting-wear and possibly tube failure. An estimation of the normal impact force during tube–support interaction is important to precisely quantify material removal. A precise study of the interaction presents several challenges as a result of the many parameters involved during the interaction, including fluid forces, number and type of supports, and geometry of contact. The present study investigates tube–support interaction using a simple experimental rig, consisting of a tube interacting with a flat support positioned at the tube midspan. The work investigates the normal force–displacement relationship and arrives at an estimation of empirical parameters, associated with the nonlinearity in this relationship. The resulting empirical model is used to simulate tube–support interaction for various gap sizes and excitation forces. Comparison with experiments indicates that using the nonlinear spring–damper model significantly reduces the predicted impact force error, to less than 20%, when compared to experimental tests. Various energy dissipation mechanisms during tube–support interaction, including impact and structural damping are also studied. The effect of impact damping on the tube response is investigated, using the Hunt and Crossley model. Investigation on structural damping suggests that using a higher effective structural damping during tube–support contact, depending upon tube–support gap size, improves the accuracy of the estimation of the tube response, at least for moderate gap sizes.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Rogers, R. J., and Pick, R. J., 1977, “Factors Associated With Support Plate Forces Due to Heat-Exchanger Tube Vibratory Contact,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 44(2), pp. 247–253. [CrossRef]
Sauve, R. G., and Teper, W. W., 1987, “Impact Simulation of Process Equipment Tubes and Support Plates: A Numerical Algorithm,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 109(1), pp. 70–79. [CrossRef]
Tan, X., and Rogers, R., 1996, “Dynamic Friction Modelling in Heat Exchanger Tube Simulations,” Flow-Induced Vib., 328, pp. 347–358.
Hassan, M., 2000, “Dynamics of Loosely Supported Heat Exchanger Tubes,” Ph.D. thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
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., 2003, “The Effects of Support Geometry on the Turbulence Response of Loosely Supported Heat Exchanger Tubes,” J. Fluids Struct., 18(5), pp. 529–554. [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(5–7), pp. 561–577. [CrossRef]
Hassan, M., and Hayder, M., 2008, “Modelling of Fluidelastic Vibrations of Heat Exchanger Tubes With Loose Supports,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 238(10), pp. 2507–2520. [CrossRef]
Tariku, F. A., and Rogers, R. J., 2001, “Improved Dynamic Friction Models for Simulation of One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Stick-Slip Motion,” ASME J. Tribol., 123(4), pp. 661–669. [CrossRef]
Azizian, R., and Muriethi, N. W., 2014, “Numerical Analysis of Fretting-Wear With a Hybrid Elastoplastic Friction Model,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 136(3), p. 031303. [CrossRef]
Axisa, F., Anunes, J., and Villard, B., 1988, “Overview of Numerical Methods for Predicting Flow-Induced Vibration and Wear of Heat-Exchanger Tubes,” Flow-Induced Vibration, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 110(1), pp. 6–14. [CrossRef]
Toorani, M., Pan, L., Li, R., Idvorian, N., and Vincent, B., 2009, “Advanced Nonlinear Flow-Induced Vibration and Fretting-Wear Analysis Capabilities,” 6th CNS International Steam Generator Conference, Toronto, Canada, Nov. 8–11.
Rubiolo, P. R., 2006, “Probabilistic Prediction of Fretting-Wear Damage of Nuclear Fuel Rods,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 236(14–16), pp. 1628–1640. [CrossRef]
Bathe, K. J., 1982, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Subbaraj, K., and Dokainish, M. A., 1989, “A Survey of Direct Time-Integration Methods in Computational Structural Dynamics II. Implicit Methods,” Comput. Struct., 32(6), pp. 1387–1401. [CrossRef]
Antunes, J., Axisa, F., Beaufils, B., and Guilbaud, D., 1990, “Coulomb Friction Modelling in Numerical Simulations of Vibration and Wear Work Rate of Multispan Tube Bundles,” J. Fluids Struct., 4(3), pp. 287–304. [CrossRef]
Davies, H. G., and Rogers, R. J., 1979, “The Vibration of Structures Elastically Constrained at Discrete Points,” J. Sound Vib., 63(3), pp. 437–447. [CrossRef]
Goyal, S., Pinson, E. N., and Sinden, F. W., 1994, “Simulation of Dynamics of Interacting Rigid Bodies Including Friction I: General Problem and Contact Model,” Eng. Comput., 10(3), pp. 162–174. [CrossRef]
Goldsmith, W., 1960, The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids, Edward Arnold Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk.
Johnson, K. L., 1985, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Axisa, F., Desseaux, A., and Gibert, R. J., 1984, “Experimental Study of Tube/Support Impact Forces in Multi-Span PWR Steam Generator Tubes,” Symposium on Flow-Induced Vibrations, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 9–13, Vol. 6, pp. 139–148.
Hunt, K. H., and Crossley, F. R. E., 1975, “Coefficient of Restitution Interpreted as Damping in Vibroimpact,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 42(2), pp. 440–445. [CrossRef]
Werner, S., and Robert, S., 2008, “Impacts on Beams,” Computational Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Taylor & Francis, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 137–148.
Stronge, W. J., 2000, Impact Mechanics, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Thomson, M. G., Bishop, S. R., and Foale, S., 1994, “An Experimental Study of Low Velocity Impact,” Mach. Vib., 3, pp. 10–17.
de Weger, J., Binks, D., Molenaar, J., and van de Water, W., 1996, “Generic Behavior of Grazing Impact Oscillators,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 76(21), pp. 3951–3954. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wagg, D. J., and Bishop, S. R., 2000, “A Note on Modeling Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Vibro-Impact Systems Using Coefficient of Restitution Models,” J. Sound Vib., 236(1), pp. 176–184. [CrossRef]
Bao, Z., Goyal, S., Leu, L.-J., and Mukherjee, S., 2004, “The Role of Beam Flexibility and Ground Contact Model in the Clattering of Deformable Beams,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Contr., 126(2), pp. 421–425. [CrossRef]
Stoianovici, D., and Hurmuzlu, Y., 1996, “A Critical Study of the Applicability of Rigid-Body Collision Theory,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 63(2), pp. 307–316. [CrossRef]
Weaver, D. S., and Schneider, W., 1983, “The Effect of Flat Bar Supports on the Crossflow Induced Response of Heat Exchanger U-Tubes,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 105(4), pp. 775–781. [CrossRef]
Chen, S., Jendrzjczyk, J., and Wambsganss, M., 1985, “Dynamics of Tubes in Fluid With Tube–Baffle Interaction,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 107(1), pp. 7–17. [CrossRef]
Yetisir, M., and Fisher, N. J., 1997, “Prediction of Pressure Tube Fretting-Wear Damage due to Fuel Vibration,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 176(3), pp. 261–271. [CrossRef]
Haslinger, K. H., and Steininger, D. A., 1995, “Experimental Characterization of Sliding and Impact Friction Coefficients Between Steam Generator Tubes and Avb Supports,” J. Sound Vib., 181(5), pp. 851–871. [CrossRef]
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(2–3), 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(5), pp. 469–483. [CrossRef]
Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E., 2003, “Vibration Analysis of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers: An Overview–Part 2: Vibration Response, Fretting-Wear, Guidelines,” J. Fluids Struct., 18(5), pp. 485–500. [CrossRef]
Azizian, R., Mureithi, N. W., and Sawadogo, T. P., 2009, “Dynamic Modeling of Heat Exchanger Tube-to-Support Interaction,” 6th CNS International Steam Generator Conference, Toronto, Canada, Nov. 8–11.
Nowlan, I., Ross, A., and Pettigrew, M. J., 2009, “Dynamic Interaction Between a Straight Tube and an Anti-Vibration Bar,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77804. [CrossRef]
Fisher, N. J., Olesen, M. J., Rogers, R. J., and Ko, P. L., 1989, “Simulation of Tube-to-Support Dynamic Interaction in Heat Exchange Equipment,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 111(4), pp. 378–384. [CrossRef]
Hassan, M. A., and Rogers, R. J., 2005, “Friction Modelling of Preloaded Tube Contact Dynamics,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 235(22), pp. 2349–2357. [CrossRef]
Delaune, X., Antunes, J., Debut, V., Piteau, P., and Borsoi, L., 2010, “Modal Techniques for Remote Identification of Nonlinear Reactions at Gap-Supported Tubes Under Turbulent Excitation,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 132(3), p. 031801. [CrossRef]
Babistky, V. I., 1998, Theory of Vibro-Impact Systems and Applications, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Axisa, F., Antunes, J., and Villard, B., 1988, “Overview of Numerical Methods for Predicting Flow-Induced Vibration,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 110(1), pp. 6–14. [CrossRef]
Morley, L. S. D., 1960, “The Thin-Walled Circular Cylinder Subjected to Concentrated Radial Loads,” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 13(1), pp. 24–37. [CrossRef]
Lesieutre, G. A., 2009, “How Membrane Loads Influence the Modal Damping of Flexural Structures,” AIAA J., 47(7), pp. 1642–1646. [CrossRef]
Au Yang, M. K., and Burgess, J. A., 2007, “Critical Velocity of a Nonlinearly Supported Multispan Tube Bundle,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 129(3), pp. 535–540. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Tube–support experimental rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental rig including tube, support, fixture, and shaker

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental rig with measuring instruments including force transducers and laser displacement sensors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Tube–support impact model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Experimental measurement of the tube structural damping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Tube midspan displacement comparisons experiments and numerical simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Average peak impact forces comparison between simulations and experiments. (a) gap-0 mm, (b) gap-0.25 mm, and (c) gap-0.5 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Impact force time history for the experimental test and numerical simulation using (a) m = infinity and (b) m = 1.67

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Closeup of a tube–support multiple impacts during one interaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Experimental test and numerical simulation of the tube midspan motion in the horizontal plane normal to the support

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Average peak impact force comparisons experiments and simulations for m = ∞ and m = 1.67

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Midspan displacements and average peak impact forces for the experimental tests and numerical simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The differences between the experimental measurements and numerical simulations: (a) average peak impact forces and (b) midspan displacements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Average peak impact force and midspan displacement between the experimental measurements and numerical simulations (a) 0.25 mm gap size and (b) 0.75 mm gap size

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Tube–support response comparison between simulation and experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Experimental and numerical simulation of tube–support interaction for ε = 1 and ε = 20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Ranges of the optimum parameter ε for different gap sizes

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