Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Marilize van der Hoven Promoters : Prof. P.S. Heyns Prof. K.J. Craig
Layout of Presentation
Introduction Background HTRI analyses CFD analyses Experimental results Comparison of results Conclusion and Recommendations
Introduction
Flow induced vibration can course premature failure in Shell and Tube heat exchangers There are more than 2000 shell-and-tube heat exchangers at SSF If Sasol wants to increase the production they need to increase the flow velocities Large margins of uncertainty associated with existing software (HTFS/HTRI)
fns
2 P L = f n 1 + a 2 EI
0.5
1 1 ' Fxj = U 2 DCDj + U 2 DCDj sin( Dj + Dj ) + g 'j 2 2 1 1 ' Fyj = U 2 DC Lj + U 2 DC Lj sin( Lj + Lj ) + h 'j 2 2
Vortex Shedding
Vortex shedding is the principal excitation mechanism for flow-induced vibration in cross flow, producing alternating forces, which occur more frequently if the flow velocity is increased
Sru f vs = Do
Acoustic Resonance
Acoustic vibration only occurs when the shell-side fluid is a vapor or a gas Two types of frequencies can be associated with acoustic vibration: Acoustic frequency of the heat exchanger and the acoustic wake shedding frequency of the tube bundles
fa 0.8 < < 1.2 fs
Acoustic resonance
and
0.8 <
fn < 1.2 fs
Tube vibration
Turbulence Buffeting
Turbulent flow contains a wide spectrum of frequencies distributed around a central dominant frequency. This frequency increases as the cross flow velocity increases.
2 Do u c Do 3.05 1 + 0.28 f tb = pl pt pt
The forces associated with turbulence buffeting is motion dependent (Fluid Structure Interaction problem)
T2 1630
S2 3720
Shell-side 1 Shell pass I.D 1020mm Tailgas (density 21kg/m) Inlet temperature 55C Outlet temperature 47C
Tube-side 6 Tube pass (1100 tubes) O.D 19mm / pitch 26mm Square tube configuration Water Inlet temperature 30C Outlet temperature 43C
HTRI analysis
HTRI analysis calculated:
f n = 28.58 Hz f a = 174.75 Hz
Margin of uncertainty
The following factors that influence the margin of uncertainty in the prediction of flow induced vibration: The temperature and pressure variation at the shell-side inlet of the heat exchanger The tube support assumptions that are used The clearance between the baffle hole and tube as well as tube and baffle corrosion The correlation values used in calculating the natural frequencies of the tubes The flow patterns through the heat exchanger.
CFD Analysis
Simulate middle section of the heat exchanger with periodic boundaries. Create an equivalent porous model Simulate inlet section with porous model to obtain the necessary back pressure and flow patterns at the outlet boundary
CFD Analysis
Middle section Gambit was used to generate and mesh the model. Mesh was adopted and solved in Fluent using a two-equation turbulent energy and dissipation model
CFD Analysis
CFD Analysis
CFD Analysis
CFD Analysis
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
x-position
v bottom = 14656 .1 & 8 & & & & m m m m m x 33836 .3 x 7 + 30566 .5 x 6 13615 .9 x5 + 3105 .82 x 4 4 4 4 4 4 & & & m m m 354.814 x3 + 22.3272 x 2 0.654188 x1 + 0.0132422 4 4 4
Experimental Results
To test whether the predicted vibration actually occurred, vibration measurements were done on the Tail gas heat exchanger at different flow rates.
Vibration Measurements
A record length of 1024 samples was used and twenty averages were taken for every set of measurements. The sampling frequency was 256 Hz and PSDs were calculated for each measurement set.
x 10 6
-7
Amplitude
2 12 10 15 20 8 25 6 30 35 4 40 45 2 50 0
0 10
Frequency (Hz)
Sets
Waterfall plot
Contour plot
Support measurements
Contour plot
40 30 10 20
10 0 -10
Frequency (Hz)
Inlet measurements
Measurements were taken with 500mV/g accelerometers. Vibration measured at frequency of 36 Hz
Comparison on Results
Comparison of the HTRI and CFD flow velocities Comparison of natural frequencies for the experimental results and HTRI analyses
75 kg/s
CFD analyses calculated that mass flow rates between 8 kg/s and 75 kg/s in the inlet section, can cause flow-induced vibration due to vortex shedding. This is a very wide range compared to the HTRI predicted range between 6.95 kg/s and 9.72 kg/s In the middle section of the heat exchanger, flow-induced vibration due to vortex shedding can occur from a mass flow rate of 32 kg/s and upwards.
Frequency (Hz)
50 kg/s
6
32 kg/s
4
16 kg/s
2
8 kg/s
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
y-position
Turbulence buffeting
At the inlet section, the CFD analyses predicted a mass flow range between 9.3 kg/s and 77 kg/s where vibration may occur. The HTRI analyses predicted a flow range between 8.7 kg/s and 11.3 kg/s (using a 20 percent margin of uncertainty)
HTRI ftb range Frequency (Hz)
At the middle section the CFD analyses predicted that vibration, due to turbulence buffeting, would occur from a mass flow rate of 37 kg/s and upwards
Fluid-elastic instability
The HTRI analyses predicts vibration due to fluid-elastic instability from a mass flow rate of 11.4 kg/s and upwards. The CFD analyses predicted a mass flow range from 14 kg/s and upwards.
tvs range Frequency (Hz)
ttb range
cr (FEI)
IF the CFD predicted mass flow ranges calculated for fluid-elastic instability, turbulence buffeting and vortex shedding are combined, flow induced vibration will occur from a mass flow rate of 8 kg/s and upwards. The HTRI analyses predicted what vibration will occur in the heat exchanger from a mass flow rate of 6.95 kg/s and upwards
If the vortex shedding, turbulence buffeting and fluid elastic-instability regions do not overlap, safe operating zones are predicted by the HTRI analyses. The CFD analyses however do not predict safe operating zones after a certain minimum mass flow rate
Frequency (Hz)
cr (FEI)
Conclusion/Future work
By determining the correlation between the inlet velocity and the velocity distribution through the heat exchanger for different tube to pitch ratios, tube configurations, heat exchanger configurations and baffle configurations, more accurate vibration predictions can be made without the use of numerous expensive CFD analyses. In the CFD analyses, the challenging task of simulating the flow in a structure with multiple tubes was tackled through the use of porous sections (calibrated through detail analysis) together with detail resolution of parts of the flow domain. To determine if the forces on the tubes are sufficiently large to cause premature failure of the heat exchanger, fluid-structure interaction analyses and fatigue analyses should be performed. The strain gauge measurements provided good results at lower frequencies, with the added advantage that strain gauges are inexpensive in comparison with accelerometers. Strain gauge measurements can therefore be used to monitor the vibration levels of a heat exchanger.
Conclusion/Future work
To quantify the margin of uncertainty in the prediction of Flow-induced vibration, better correlation values for different tube configurations and heat exchanger configurations are needed. For large and more expensive heat exchangers or where modifications to heat exchangers are required, a CFD analyses provides valuable information to verify vibration problems.