Fluid-Elastic Instability in a Tube

Array Subjected to Uniform and

Paul Feenstra
e-mail: feenstpa@mcmaster.ca
McMaster University,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7
David S. Weaver
e-mail: weaverds@mcmaster.ca
McMaster University,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7
Zia Abdullah
e-mail: zia.abdullah@weyerhaeuser.com
Weyerhaeuser Technical Center,
WTC 2H22, P.O. Box 9777,
Federal Way, WA, U.S.A. 98063-9777
Jet Flow
A wind tunnel study was carried out to investigate the fluidelastic stability of a model heat
exchanger tube array subjected to a uniform cross-flow of air and a concentrated jet flow
of air directed down a tube lane. The latter experiments were intended to simulate the
effects of a soot blower on the dynamic response of tubes which had apparently been the
cause of catastrophic tube failure in a heat exchanger. The experimental results showed
that the model tube array experienced fluidelastic instability when subjected to a uniform
cross-flow beyond a dimensionless pitch flow velocity which was substantially above the
maximum design flow velocity of the heat exchanger. These experiments established that
normal operating conditions could not have been responsible for the tube failures. Addi-
tional experiments showed that a continuously translating nozzle dispensing a jet of air at
the tubes caused some static deflection of the tubes but no serious vibrations were ob-
served. However, when the nozzle was fixed at one location, whereby the jet of air issued
directly down a tube lane, fluidelastic instability occurred in the first few tube rows. A
simplified analysis showed that the jet could cause fluidelastic instability. It can be in-
ferred that, for heat exchangers equipped with steam soot blowers, normal soot blower
operation should not cause fluidelastic instability but that a parked soot blower can cause
fatigue failure of the tubes adjacent to the impinging jet in a relatively short period of
time. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1689356兴

Introduction
It is well known that bundles of tubes, such as those used in
boilers and heat exchangers, can be excited to vibrate excessively
when exposed to a fluid cross-flow. At relatively low cross-flow
velocities, small amplitude random vibrations occur due to turbu-
lence, and these are usually of little concern from the point of
view of tube life. At sufficiently high flow velocities, these ran-
dom vibrations give way to large amplitude periodic vibrations at
the natural frequencies of the tubes. This phenomenon is known as
‘‘fluidelastic instability’’ and it is of great concern to plant opera-
tors since it may cause rapid failure of the tubes through fatigue or
fretting wear at points of contact between adjacent tubes or be-
tween tubes and their supports. The onset of the large amplitude
vibrations is usually quite abrupt when the cross-flow velocity
through the tube bundle is increased above the so-called ‘‘critical
velocity.’’ Since tube failures due to fatigue or fretting wear com-
monly occur at flow velocities exceeding the critical velocity, ac-
ceptance criteria for tubular heat exchangers require that the flow
velocities never exceed the critical velocity for a particular tube
bundle. There are a number of excellent references which discuss
flow-induced vibrations in heat exchanger tube arrays and specifi-
cally fluidelastic instability, such as by Au-Yang 关1兴, Blevins 关2兴,
Chen 关3兴, Paı̈doussis 关4兴, Pettigrew and Taylor 关5兴, Price 关6兴, and
Weaver and Fitzpatrick 关7兴.
The present study was motivated by the catastrophic failure of
tubes in a large heat exchanger. A second row tube parted com-
pletely from its header while several neighboring tubes suffered
fatigue cracks. Visual observations indicated tube scouring at the
location of a soot blower which had become parked for several
hours. Figure 1 shows a schematic illustration of a steam soot
blower and its normal path through the heat exchanger. From
photographs of the failed tubes, the scouring indicated that the jet
from the soot blower was directed normal to the tube axes, mid-
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the PVP
Division September 29, 2003; revision received November 11, 2003. Associate Edi-
tor: M. J. Pettigrew.
way between tube rows. This heat exchanger had an in-line tube
pattern with a transverse pitch ratio of 1.8 and a streamwise pitch
ratio of 2.2. It was speculated that the jet from the soot blower
caused fluidelastic instability with amplitudes sufficient to cause
fatigue failures in a matter of a few hours. However, to the au-
thors’ knowledge, no study is available in the open literature
which indicates the effect of a localized jet on the fluidelastic
instability of a tube array. The vast majority of the fluidelastic
instability data in the literature has been determined using labora-
tory models of single span tubes subjected to a uniform flow ve-
locity across their spans. Some work has been done on multiple
span tube arrays and the effects of partial admission 共i.e., nonuni-
form velocity distribution兲. See for example, Weaver and Goyder
关8兴 and the references in that paper. However, none of these can be
related directly to the effects of a localized jet issuing down a tube
lane where the flow is essentially over one side of the tubes.
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a study
designed to explain the observed tube failures. A wind tunnel
model was developed with a tube array geometry that scaled the
heat exchanger array geometry in question exactly. Two series of
tests were conducted. In the first test, the tube bundle was sub-
jected to a uniform cross-flow of air, while the tube response was
monitored with a dynamic signal analyzer. This initial test was
designed to establish a datum case of tube vibration response un-
der ‘‘uniform flow’’ conditions, which would be used as a basis
for comparing with the subsequent tests where the tube bundle
was subjected to a concentrated ‘‘jet-flow’’ of air. By considering
the jet velocity profile and the partial admission factor, the flu-
idelastic threshold of tubes subjected to the jet flow could be
predicted reasonably well. While the results have obvious value in
terms of explaining the case history in question, they are also of
generic interest in that they bring to light an hitherto unknown and
potentially dangerous phenomenon.
Apparatus
A model tube bundle and test section was designed and built for
McMaster University’s 2 ft wind tunnel. The tube layout geometry
and the mass-damping parameter were in the range of heat ex-

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2004 by ASME MAY 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 269

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 Path of steam soot blower lance
changers with gas cross-flows and the reduced velocity could be
varied over the range from about 10 to about 70.
The test section was designed for 78 tubes in total, 13 rows
wide by 6 rows deep in an in-line pattern. The layout of the tube
bundle is shown schematically in Fig. 2. This arrangement is an
exact geometric scaling of the heat exchanger array experiencing
the tube failures. The central 7 rows of tubes, shown in the dashed
box of Fig. 2, were cantilever mounted on threaded rod supports,
which permitted the required scaling of the tube natural frequency
and reduced velocity well within the capacity of the wind tunnel.
Tubes labeled D1, D2, D3, and C2 were instrumented with strain
gauges so that their flow-excited response in the transverse and
streamwise directions could be monitored with a dynamic ana-
lyzer. These upstream tubes were monitored because they were
the ones which experienced failure in the heat exchanger being
simulated. The flexible tubes were tuned to a first mode natural
frequency of 12.5 Hz⫾2%. A schematic diagram of a typical
flexible tube assembly is shown in Fig. 3. The various details for
dimensions and other measured parameters of the model tube
bundle are summarized in Table 1. The remaining tubes in the test
section were effectively rigid.
The wind tunnel has a uniform and flat flow velocity distribu-
tion within 2% outside of the boundary layers and a turbulence
intensity less than 1%. The flow velocity was measured using a
pitot-static probe coupled with a precision calibrated differential
pressure transducer. The velocity measurement error is estimated
to be about 2% at 5 m/s and decreases to negligible values above
24 m/s. Velocities below 5 m/s were difficult to measure reliably
Fig. 2 Tube bundle layout and nozzle location
270 Õ Vol. 126, MAY 2004
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 3 Typical support arrangement for a flexible tube
and the estimated error at 2 m/s could be as high as 10 percent.
The gap flow velocity, V g , used in the analysis is the mean flow
velocity in the minimum gap between tubes in a transverse tube
row and is computed from the measured upstream flow velocity,
V u , using continuity, V g ⫽( P T /( P T ⫺D)) V u , where P T is the
transverse pitch 共45.7 mm兲 and D is the tube diameter 共25.4 mm兲.
The test section was equipped with a full cone air spray nozzle,
with a 15° diffusing angle, that was supplied with a 100 p.s.i. air
line coupled with a control valve and a quick closing valve. The
nozzle was mounted in the test section on a slider device so that it
could be translated up to 100 mm in both the streamwise and
transverse directions. The initial position of the nozzle tip was 200
mm from the face of the first row tubes and was aimed perpen-
dicular to the tube axis near the tube free ends as illustrated in
Figs. 2 and 3. This arrangement produced a jet whose core diam-
eter was approximately equal to the transverse pitch of the tube
bundle at the first tube row. The vibration response of the tube
array was also recorded visually using a VHS video camera lo-
cated outside the wind tunnel such that the tube tip vibrations
could be observed.
Procedure
Procedure for Uniform Flow Tests. The strain gauges were
carefully calibrated so that the free-end tube displacement could
be determined with the necessary sensitivity and recorded as a
percentage of the tube diameter. The strain gauge signals were
Table 1 Summary of experimental tube bundle details and
fluidelastic instability data
Parameter Quantity
tube diameter, D 0.0254 m 共1⬙兲
tube length1兲, L 0.619 m 共24.25⬙兲
tube natural frequency2兲 共1 st mode兲, f 12.6 Hz
effective tube lineal mass, m 0.161 kg/m
tube damping ratio 共tube D3兲, ␨ 1.1%
air density, ␳ 1.19 kg/m3
critical gap flow velocity, V g 7.8 m/s
mass damping parameter, m ␦ / ␳ D 2 14.4
critical reduced gap flow velocity, V red 24.3
Connor’s constant, K 6.4
Notes:
1兲
Portion of tubes exposed to the uniform flow of the wind tunnel.
2兲
To achieve the desired stiffness, tubes are mounted on cantilever support rods 共see
Fig. 3兲.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 4 Amplitude response of a 2 nd row tube „tube D2… sub-
jected to uniform cross-flow of air
analyzed using an FFT spectrum analyzer. The r.m.s. amplitude
response of the tubes was determined using at least 30 sample
averages over a frequency range of 0 to 25 Hz and with a resolu-
tion of 0.125 Hz. The flow velocity was determined using a pitot-
static probe positioned just upstream of the test section and
coupled with a calibrated pressure transducer as noted above.
The experiments were conducted by setting the wind tunnel
velocity at the desired level and allowing sufficient time for steady
state conditions to be reached. Measurements were then taken of
the flow velocity and the vibration response of the instrumented
tubes. The flow velocity was then incremented and the process
repeated until the vibrations reached a high enough level that tube
clashing was imminent.
Procedure for Jet Flow Tests. The purpose of the jet-flow
tests was to determine if fluidelastic instability could be produced
locally by a concentrated jet of air, similar to that produced by a
steam soot blower that is used in many boilers for cleaning pur-
poses. In this case, the experimental results were intended to be
more qualitative rather than quantitative, so that most of the re-
sults were captured on VHS video.
The separation distance between the nozzle and the front face
of the first row tubes was set at about 200 mm, at which distance
the jet expanded to a diameter of about 46 mm. The core velocity
of the jet was measured at that distance 共200 mm兲 using a pitot-
static probe and the velocity was correlated with a pressure gauge
located in the air line just upstream of the nozzle. In this case,
only two jet flows were tested: a sub-critical flow of about 53 m/s
and a post-critical flow of about 60 m/s. The uncertainty in these
core-flow velocities was about ⫾10%. The transient vibration re-
sponse of tube D2 was captured using a computer based data
acquisition system and plotted as a function of time to illustrate
the transient response of the tube when subjected to a jet flow.
For the bulk of these tests, the tube vibration was captured on
VHS video tape. In this case, the nozzle was translated from side
to side continuously for about 10 s and then stopped in a position
where the jet issued down a tube lane. This was designed to simu-
late the action of a steam soot blower that suddenly becomes stuck
in one position but continues to blow steam at the tubes.
Test Results for Fluidelastic Instability
Uniform Flow. The amplitude response of the tube bundle
when subjected to uniform flow in the wind tunnel is shown in
Fig. 4 for tube D2 in the bundle. The vibration amplitude was
monitored in the lift and drag directions separately. The point at
which tube D2 became fluidelastic unstable was at a gap flow
velocity of about V g ⫽7.8 m/s, which was the same for tube D3. It
is often observed that the first one or two tube rows are more
stable and have higher stability thresholds than tubes deeper in the
bundle. The vibration amplitudes generally increased for tubes
deeper in the bundle. The fluidelastic threshold is the point at
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 5 Stability diagram for heat exchanger tube arrays „ASME
Boiler Code, 1998…
which there was a sudden rise in the slope of the amplitude versus
flow velocity curve. At the FEI threshold, the frequency spectra of
the tube D2 revealed that the tubes oscillated with most of their
energy at their natural frequency of about 12.6 Hz. This indicates
strong fluid coupling, typical of fluidelastic instability rather than
turbulent buffeting. There was a second, more significant change
in slope at about 9.2 m/s which might also be interpreted as the
critical flow velocity for these tubes. However, visual observation
of the entire bundle indicated that other tubes deeper in the bundle
共noninstrumented兲 vibrated with greater amplitude than the moni-
tored tubes when the flow was just above V g ⫽7.8 m/s. As stated
above, this is typical so it is appropriate to take the critical gap
flow velocity, (V g ) cr ⫽7.8 m/s as the threshold for fluidelastic in-
stability of the tube bundle.
Comparing the fluidelastic threshold flow velocities for various
tube bundles is commonly performed by plotting the data on a
stability diagram as shown in Fig. 5. This figure is drawn from the
ASME Boiler Code 关9兴 and it gives conservative guidelines to
prevent fluidelastic instability in heat exchanger tube bundles. The
abscissa is the mass damping parameter given by
mass damping parameter⫽m 共 2 ␲␨ 兲 / 共 ␳ D 2 兲 , (1)
where m is the mass per unit length including internal and external
fluid added mass, ␨ is the damping ratio, ␳ is the fluid density, and
D is the outside tube diameter. Note that the symbol used in Fig.
5 for damping is that of the logarithmic decrement, ␦, where, for
light damping, ␦ ⫽2 ␲␨ . The ordinate in Fig. 5 is the critical re-
duced 共gap兲 velocity given by
critical reduced gap velocity⫽V g / 共 f D 兲 , (2)
where V g is the gap flow velocity at the fluidelastic instability
threshold and f is the vibration frequency. For the present model
study, the mass damping parameter is 14.5 and the critical reduced
flow velocity is 24.4. This data point is plotted in Fig. 5 as the
large open circle. In comparison with the other data around the
same mass-damping parameter, the present results are slightly
higher. This is understandable because the present array has a
pitch ratio larger than most of the data, the bulk of which corre-
spond to laboratory studies performed on scale model arrays with
pitch ratios around 1.5 or less which are commonly used in the
nuclear industry. It has been observed that tube bundles with
smaller pitch ratios generally have lower stability thresholds than
those with larger pitch ratios.
The straight lines in Fig. 5 are given by the so-called Connors’
equation
冑
Vg 共 2 ␲␨ 兲 m
⫽K , (3)
fD ␳D2
MAY 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 271
 Fig. 6 Illustration of tube vibration due to jet flow of air
where the constant of proportionality, K, is called the Connors’
constant. The ASME Boiler Code recommendation does not dis-
tinguish between tube array geometric patterns or pitch ratios and
suggests a lower bound value of K⫽2.4 for all heat exchangers.
As can be seen, there is a lot of scatter in the data and this ASME
recommendation may be quite conservative for some arrays such
as the one considered in the present study. Indeed, the recommen-
dation is conservative by a factor of 6.4/2.4⬇2.7 for the present
array. Since the heat exchanger being simulated operated
well below the ASME recommendation, it is clear that the tube
failures observed could not have been caused by normal operating
conditions.
Jet Flow. The tests with the jet flow revealed that localized
fluidelastic instability could also occur due to a concentrated jet of
air issuing down a tube lane. It was determined that the minimum
jet flow velocity to initiate fluidelastic instability in the model tube
array was about 55 m/s 共as measured in the core of the jet at a
distance of 200 mm from the nozzle tip兲. Figure 6 shows a sketch
of the tube bundle response and relative vibration amplitudes
when being subjected to an air jet with a core velocity of about 60
m/s directed down the tube lane between row C and D. The tubes
in the 1 st, 2 nd, and 3 rd rows adjacent to the jet flow lane undergo
limit cycle oscillations, where the vibration amplitude exceeded
50% of a tube diameter in some cases. Deeper into the bundle,
共i.e., 4 th to 6 th row兲 the tubes vibrated with much smaller ampli-
tudes. In general, the tubes were most susceptible to vibration
when the air jet was directed down the middle of a tube lane,
rather than directly at a tube. There was some time delay before
the high amplitude vibrations commenced, which varied depend-
ing primarily upon the jet velocity. Figure 7 shows a sample time
trace of the transverse motion of tube D2 when subjected to the air
jet 共at the same core velocity as in the previous figure兲. In this
time trace, the time delay between the starting of the jet and the
onset of large tube vibrations was about 18 s. The time delay
between the start of the air jet and the onset of the large vibrations
generally ranged from about 20 s down to about 6 s. It was found
that this time delay became shorter as the jet velocity was raised.
The time trace for the streamwise direction was very similar to the
transverse direction shown in Fig. 7. In order to preserve the life
of the model tube bundle, the tubes were only allowed to vibrate
Fig. 7 Time trace of tube tip displacement while subjected to a
stationary jet flow of air
272 Õ Vol. 126, MAY 2004
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 8 Radial velocity profile of axisymmetric jet of air
for a few seconds and then the air jet was switched off, which
explains why the large amplitude vibrations are short-lived in this
figure.
In the present study, the jet flow velocity required was many
times that of the uniform critical flow velocity but much less that
the sonic or supersonic velocities expected from an actual soot
blower. The tests showed that a second row tube often vibrated
with significantly larger amplitudes than the 1 st or 3 rd row tubes.
This is consistent with the tube failures which motivated the
present study. It was also observed that some time is required to
produce fluidelastic instability after the tubes are exposed to a
high velocity jet-flow. This is the result of the nature of fluidelas-
tic instability. The forces generating instability depend upon tube
motions becoming coupled systematically with the flow and only
a small amount of energy is transferred from the flow to the tube
at each oscillation cycle. The initial tube motion is random as it is
buffeted by the jet, which also explains why the transient time
between jet impingement and the onset of large amplitude vibra-
tions is random. Thus, the transient passage of a soot blower jet is
very unlikely to produce fluidelastic instability while a parked
soot blower certainly will. It follows that normal soot blower op-
eration should not cause fatigue failures of the tubes. On the other
hand, soot blowers should never be operated at a fixed location
while impinging on a tube bank.
Estimation of Fluidelastic Instability Threshold of a
Concentrated Jet Flow
In cases where it is likely that a steam soot blower might be-
come parked, it is desirable to determine if the jet flow will cause
the tubes to vibrate excessively. It is possible to estimate the
equivalent uniform velocity of the jet for comparison with the
critical velocity for a particular tube array. The steps are 共i兲 deter-
mine the radial jet velocity profile at the location where it im-
pinges on the tubes; 共ii兲 determine a nominal jet diameter at the
point of impingement with the first tube row; 共iii兲 calculate the
average jet flow velocity by continuity within the nominal jet area;
and 共iv兲 model the jet flow area as a partial admission flow and
calculate the equivalent uniform flow velocity. According to Ap-
pel et al. 关10兴, the nondimensional radial velocity profile of a jet,
û(r), can be closely approximated as a Gaussian curve where,
û(r)⫽exp(⫺r2/2␴ 2 ), where ␴ ⫽Cx, C⫽0.0806, and x
⫽203 mm 共distance from nozzle to the front row of tubes兲. This
radial velocity profile is illustrated in Fig. 8, where it is scaled to
the tube diameter. Since the Gaussian curve extends radially with
no bound, a nominal core diameter of the jet needs to be specified
in order to calculate the average jet velocity. In this case, we use
the criteria that the core jet will reside within the transverse pitch
of the tubes, so that 2R o ⫽46 mm. This is shown in Fig. 8 as the
dashed circle.
The average jet velocity is calculated based upon the volume
flux in the core area
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 9 Average jet velocity distribution over the tube span
concentrated jet flow of air. These experiments were designed to
simulate a heat exchanger tube bank under normal operating con-
ditions and with a soot blower parked while blowing steam down
a tube lane. The primary conclusions derived are as follows:
1. When subjected to the uniform flow of air in the wind tun-
nel, the model tube array experienced fluidelastic instability at a
critical threshold flow velocity of (V g ) cr ⫽7.8 m/s. The mass
damping parameter of this model tube array was 14.5 and the
critical reduced flow velocity was 24.4. The Connor’s constant
was found to be K⫽6.4. This compared well with previous data in
the literature but the stability constant was higher than recom-
mended by ASME, likely due to the relatively large pitch ratio and
the geometric pattern of this bundle. The results showed un-

û avg⫽
2
R 2o
冕 0
Ro
û 共 r 兲 rdr⫽0.635.
The approximate mode shape for the lowest transverse mode of
the flexibly mounted tube is, ␺ (z)⫽z/L, where z is the axial
coordinate and L is the tube length. This arises from the fact that
most of the bending occurs in the threaded rod support while the
acrylic tube remains relatively straight due to its greater rigidity.
The equivalent nondimensional uniform velocity of the jet flow
can be calculated by integrating the average jet flow velocity
times the tube mode shape as follows:
(4)
equivocally that the tube failures experienced in the heat ex-
changer being simulated could not have been caused by normal
operating conditions.
2. When the tube bundle was subjected to the concentrated jet
of air issuing down a tube lane, fluidelastic instability occurred for
the 1 st, 2 nd, and 3 rd row tubes adjacent to the jet. This occurred
when the jet flow velocity was sufficiently high and when it was
parked in one position for some time. However, if the air jet was
continuously translated from side to side, so that it did not issue
continuously down a single tube lane, then fluidelastic instability
did not occur. Thus, normal soot blower operation is not expected

冋冕 册
to cause fatigue failure of the tubes due to fluidelastic instability

1
冕 0.96L

0.88L
û 2avg␺ 共 z 兲 2 dz
0.5 but soot blowers should never be operated continuously at a fixed
location in a tube bank.
3. The fluidelastic threshold of a transversely impinging jet
V pn ⫽ L
⫽0.143 (5) flow was estimated by considering the concentrated jet as a partial
2
␺ 共 z 兲 dz
2 admission flow, and determining an equivalent uniform flow. In
0 this case, the equivalent uniform flow velocity at the onset of
fluidelastic instability was determined to be somewhere in be-
The expression in Eq. 共5兲 is essentially the partial admission fac- tween 7.6 and 8.6 m/s, which brackets the critical velocity mea-
tor, but in this case the 1/2 term is necessary because the jet flow sured in the uniform flow tests.
acts only on one side of the tube as opposed to both sides as
occurs under uniform flow conditions 共see Lever and Weaver
关11兴兲. The integrand in the numerator of Eq. 共5兲 is taken from 0.88 Nomenclature
L to 0.96 L 共i.e., from a to b shown in Fig. 9兲 which corresponds C ⫽ coefficient of air jet velocity profile 兵—其
to the nominal diameter of the jet acting near the free end of the D ⫽ tube diameter 兵m其
flexible tube. Finally, the equivalent uniform velocity of the jet f ⫽ frequency of vibration 兵Hz其
can be calculated by multiplying the measured core velocity times L ⫽ tube length 兵m其
the partial admission factor, V pn . This calculation is performed K ⫽ Connors’ constant 兵—其
below for two cases: the measured sub-critical jet flow of 53 m/s m ⫽ tube lineal mass including added fluid mass 兵kg/m其
and the measured post critical jet flow of 60 m/s, mt ⫽ tube lineal mass 兵kg/m其
PT ⫽ transverse pitch ratio 兵—其
sub-critical flow velocity: V eq ⫽53 m/s⫻V pn ⫽7.6 m/s r ⫽ radial coordinate of air jet 兵m其
Ro ⫽ nominal core radius of air jet 兵m其
post-critical flow velocity: V eq ⫽60 m/s⫻V pn ⫽8.6 m/s V avg ⫽ average flow velocity in the gap between tubes 兵m/s其
(6) V eq ⫽ equivalent uniform flow velocity for the onset of flu-
idelastic instability for a jet flow 兵m/s其
The results of Eq. 共6兲 agree fairly well with the critical velocity Vg ⫽ flow velocity in the gap between tubes 兵m/s其
measured from the uniform flow tests as shown in Fig. 4. The Vu ⫽ upstream flow velocity 兵m/s其
estimated sub-critical jet flow corresponds to an equivalent flow V pn ⫽ equivalent non-dimensional uniform velocity of jet
velocity of about 7.6 m/s, which resides in the stable vibration 兵—其
region of Fig. 4, while that of the post-critical jet corresponds to û(r) ⫽ non-dimensional radial jet velocity profile 兵—其
8.6 m/s which is above the critical velocity shown in Fig. 4. It û avg ⫽ non-dimensional average jet velocity in the core area
should be noted that there is an estimated error of ⫾10% in the 兵—其
measured centerline jet velocity. Moreover, some of the flow in x ⫽ axial distance from tip of air nozzle to tube 兵m其
the jet core overlaps the tube surface, and this flow would neces- z ⫽ axial coordinate of tube 兵m其
sarily pass through the tube gap thereby increasing the average ␦ ⫽ logarithmic decrement damping 兵—其
flow velocity, V pn , by a small amount. This effect has not been ␨ ⫽ damping ratio 兵—其
accounted for in this analysis, but it would serve to increase the ␳ ⫽ fluid density 兵kg/m3其
velocities calculated in Eqs. 共6兲 slightly. ␺ (z) ⫽ transverse mode shape of tube 兵—其
␴ ⫽ standard deviation of velocity profile of air jet 兵—其
Conclusions ␩ ⫽ dimensionless radius of air jet, r/x 兵—其
Flow-induced vibration experiments were conducted in a wind
tunnel to determine the critical flow velocity and Connors’ con- Subscripts
stant of a model heat exchanger tube array. Experiments were also cr ⫽ critical value at the fluidelastic threshold
performed on the model bundle to test the tube stability against a g ⫽ quantity measured in the gap between tubes

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology MAY 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 273

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 u ⫽ upstream quantity
avg ⫽ average velocity of air jet
eq ⫽ equivalent uniform velocity of air jet 兵m/s其
References
关1兴 Au-Yang, M. K., 2001, Flow-Induced Vibration of Power and Process Plant
Components, A Practical Workbook, ASME Press, New York.
关2兴 Blevins, R. D., 1990, Flow-Induced Vibration, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
关3兴 Chen, S. S., 1984, ‘‘Guidelines for the Instability Flow Velocity of Tube Arrays
in Cross-Flow,’’ J. Sound Vib., 93共3兲, pp. 439– 455.
关4兴 Paı̈doussis, M. P., 1982, ‘‘A Review of Flow Induced Vibrations in Reactors
and Reactor Components,’’ Nucl. Eng. Des., 74, pp. 31– 60.
关5兴 Pettigrew, M. J., and Taylor, C. E., 1991, ‘‘Fluidelastic Instability of Heat
Exchanger Tube Bundles: Review and Design Recommendations,’’ ASME J.
Pressure Vessel Technol., 113, pp. 242–256.
关6兴 Price, S. J., 1995, ‘‘A Review of Theoretical Models for Fluidelastic Instability
of Cylinder Arrays in Cross-Flow,’’ J. Fluids Struct., 9, pp. 463–518.
关7兴 Weaver, D. S., and Fitzpatrick, J. A., 1988, ‘‘A Review of Cross-Flow Induced
Vibrations in Heat Exchanger Tube Arrays,’’ J. Fluids Struct., 2, pp. 73–93.
关8兴 Weaver, D. S., and Goyder, H. G. D., 1990, ‘‘An Experimental Study of Flu-
idelastic Instability in a Three-Span Tube Array,’’ J. Fluids Struct., 4, pp.
429– 442.
关9兴 ASME, 1998, Boiler Code, Section III, Appendix N-1300 Series, ASME, New
York.
关10兴 Appel, D. W. et al., 1959, Advanced Mechanics of Fluids, John Wiley and
Sons.
关11兴 Lever, J. H., and Weaver, D. S., 1986, ‘‘On the Stability Behavior of Heat
Exchanger Tube Bundles: Part 1—Modified Theoretical Model,’’ J. Sound
Vib., 107, pp. 375– 410.

274 Õ Vol. 126, MAY 2004 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 05/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use