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

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