Discussion of “Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonance Excitation Mechanism, Design Guidelines and Counter Measures,” (Ziada, S., and Lafon, P., 2014, ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 66(1), p. 010802)

[+] Author and Article Information
Frederick J. Moody

827 Larkspur Lane,
Murphys, CA 95247

Reply to author's response concerning F. Moody's commentary: Samir Ziada has addressed the points raised in my review, and in so doing, he has clarified the contribution of his own work. By addressing the scaling issue and possible resonance effects, he has illuminated the value of the study he has presented, and brought out points of understanding that I believe were not easily discernable from the paper itself. The discussion has served well to bring out a more detailed description of the work for a fuller appreciation of this publication.

Manuscript received June 20, 2013; final manuscript received November 16, 2013; published online December 6, 2013. Editor: Harry Dankowicz.

Appl. Mech. Rev 66(1), 015501 (Dec 06, 2013) (6 pages) Paper No: AMR-13-1042; doi: 10.1115/1.4026066 History: Received June 20, 2013; Revised November 16, 2013

The authors have done extensive research in gathering historical background on the subject of flow excited acoustic resonance. They have provided extensive discussion to justify creative formulations for predicting the onset of resonance and estimating the associated maximum pressure amplitudes. Their approach makes use of reported experimental studies plus some of their own to make charts that should be useful for some common industrial problems. An independent scaling approach is offered in this review to verify the dominant parameters and variables employed by the authors in their predictive methods. It was found that for low Mach number flows, a specific Reynolds number (Re) dependence was missing. However, since it is known that the Strouhal dependence is very weak on Reynolds numbers up to about 105, the absence of specific Re dependence is probably inconsequential. Another concern was that interaction between the acoustics and vortex shedding or shear layer instabilities could affect the eigenfrequencies. A simple model showed that this is possible, but Quad Cities experience cited by the authors indicated one case where it was not important. The Rolls-Royce Vertical Lift System example with coaxial closed side-branches could have had a significant interaction with the annular liquid mass on eigenmodes. The mass effect resulting from the annular space connecting both branches could act less like an oscillating shear layer and more like a Helmholtz resonator. This could have a significant effect on the natural frequency of either or both branch pipes. Although that effect is not specifically considered here, if it was significant, it would be naturally embraced in a scale model based on the scaling laws presented in this review.

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



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Side branch with arbitrary exciter source

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Example interactive resonance eigenvalues





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