Journal of Sound and Vibration (1994) 169(5), 577-599 THE NON-LINEAR EQUATIONS OF MOTION OF PIPES CONVEYING FLUID C. Semuer, G. X. Li aND M. P, Paiboussis Department of Mechanicat Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6 (Received 3 January 1992, and in final form 27 July 1992) ‘The non-linear equations of motion of pipes conveying fluid are derived in simple and accessible terms, by energy and Newtonian methods. Different derivations are made for cantilevered pipes, where the centreline is assumed inextensible, and for pipes with both ends fixed; itis shown that the derivations, the origin of the various terms and the structure of the equations are distinctly different in these two cases. The equations of motion are then compared with those already in existence, e.g., by Holmes, Rousselet and Herrmann, and Lundgren, Sethna and Bajaj, at the same time clarifying the derivations and assumptions made, and discussing the validity and completeness of the final equations. Some of the ‘equations are found to be fully correct, indeed superior to those derived here, while others are found to be deficient, because of assumptions made or inconsistencies in the derivations; for pipes with both ends fixed, the equations given in this paper are considered to be the ‘most complete and correct. 1. INTRODUCTION The dynamics of pipes conveying fluid have been studied very extensively in the past few decades. The conclusion of a recent survey of the subject [1J, involving more than 200 references, was that this topic has now become a new paradigm of dynamics, superseding the classical problem of a column subjected to various types of end load, because its dynamics are much richer and because of a very distinct advantage: experiments with a pipe conveying fluid are relatively simple in all cases, whereas the non-conservative system ‘of a column subjected to a follower load, for instance, is rather difficult to realize. ‘The linear dynamics of the system have been understood for quite some time; see, for instance, Paidoussis and Issid’s [2] review of work up to 1974. Thus, a pipe with supported ends loses stability by divergence at sufficiently high flow velocity, and its non-conservative cantilevered counterpart by single-degree-of-freedom flutter, i.e., via a Hopf bifurcation giving rise to limit-cycle motion. Agreement between theoretical and experimental values of the critical flow velocities is quite good; see for instance, references [3-5]. In recent years, more and more effort has been devoted to the study of the non-linear dynamics of the system, starting with Holmes’ [6] benchmark paper on the subject. Among, many notable papers in this area, those by Holmes [7], Ch’ng and Dowell (8], Rousselet and Herrmann [9], Lundgren et al. [10], Bajaj et al, [11} and Bajaj and Sethna [12] might be mentioned. With the help of the modern tools of dynamical theory (e.g., centre manifold reduction, bifurcation-unfolding techniques, the Lyapunov-Schmidt method, and so on), extremely rich bifurcational sets, illustrating a veritable kaleidoscope of phenomena, have been revealed for the basic system and its many variants: a pipe with pulsating flow, cantilevered pipes with an end-mass, pipes with unequal stiffness in two perpendicular planes, and so on. 577 (0022-460X94/050577 + 23 $08.00/0 © 1994 Academic Press Limited578 C. SEMLER ET AL. In many of the early papers on non-linear dynamics, the equations of motion were derived ab initio. As a result, several sets of different or different-looking equations came into existence. To the authors’ knowledge, no systematic comparison of these equations was ever made. This, incidentally, is not a trivial task, in view of the different approaches adopted and assumptions made, the different notations and final form of the equations, as well as the relative obscurity of some of the derivations. The current situation is that a number of “schools” may be identified, each group and their followers using a different set of basic equations. At the time of writing the aforementioned survey paper [I], it occurred to the senior author that a thorough discussion, comparison and demystification of the various equations of motion would be a useful service to the research community. This, in fact, is the goal of the present paper. In the first part of the paper, the equations of motion are derived, using a simple set of assumptions and a very accessible level of derivation. Since both cnergy and Newtonian approaches have been used in the past, the equations are derived in both ways and are shown to be identical. In the second part of the paper (section 6), previous derivations and the resulting equations are discussed, together with their validity, completeness, added sophistication, and their similarities and differences to one another and to the equations derived here. Thus, it is shown that not all of the available equations are correct: some are correct and consistent with the assumptions made but less complete than others, and so on. It is also shown that the equations of motion of pipes with both ends fixed and of cantilevered pipes are fundamentally different, in terms of assumptions made, their derivation and their final structure. This and several other important points on this subject are clarified in this paper. 2. SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCEPTS: The system under consideration consists of a tubular beam of length Z, internal cross-sectional area 4, mass per unit length m and flexural rigidity EY, conveying a fluid of mass M per unit length with an axial velocity U, which may vary with time (Figure 1). The pipe is assumed to be initially lying along the X-axis (in the direction of gravity) and to oscillate in the (X, Y) plane. The basic assumptions made for the pipe and the fluid are as follows: (i) the fluid is incompressible; (ii) the velocity profile of the fluid is uniform (plug-flow approximation for a turbulent-flow profile): (ii) the diameter of the pipe is small compared to its length, x Figure 1. Schematic of the system.PIPES CONVEYING FLUIDS 579 Figure 2. Co-ordinate systems for the physical system, so that the pipe behaves like an Euler-Bernoulli beam; (iv) the motion is planar; (v) the deflections of the pipe are large, but the strains are small; (vi) rotatory inertia and shear deformation are neglected; (vii) in the case of a cantilevered pipe, the pipe centerline is 2.1, NOTATION AND CO-ORDINATE SYSTEMS. In order correctly to define some intermediate physical quantities, essential for deriving the non-linear governing equations (non-linear curvature, for example) some words concerning the choice of the co-ordinates may be useful. In continuum mechanics, to describe the position of material points, one usually has the choice between two sets of co-ordinate systems: one for the undeformed body (Lagrangian co-ordinates) and the other for the deformed body (Eulerian co-ordinates). The deformation of a point is described by the relation of the co-ordinates of the same material point in the undeformed and deformed states [13]. Let (X, ¥,Z) represent the position of a material point P in its original state, and (x, y, 2) the position of the same material point in the deformed state. Then, the displacement of that material point is defined as w =x —X, v =y — ¥ and w =z —Z (Figure 2); these may be expressed wholly in either set of co-ordinates. Other quantities, such as the deformation gradients and strain tensors, can also be expressed in either set of co-ordinates, and hence the problem may be formulated in terms of one or the other co-ordinate system. In infinitesimal deformation theory, the distinction between. the Lagrangian and Eulerian strain disappears [13]; however, this distinction must absolutely be made when non-linear relationships are sought. For a slender pipe with its initially undeformed state along the X-axis and undergoing motions in the (X, ¥) plane, we have Y =0, so that y is identical to the displacement v. Here, the Lagrangian representation is chosen, so that the co-ordinate of a point always refers to the undeformed body which is represented by X. However, when the pipe is inextensible, it is customary to introduce a curvilinear co-ordinate, s, along the centreline of the pipe (see Figure 2). In such a case, all other physical quantities and the final governing equation can be expressed in terms of (s, ¢). 2.2, INEXTENSIBILITY CONDITION In the case of a cantilevered pipe, one may assume the pipe to be inextensible. This condition of inextensibility is very important and will thus be discussed in some detail. Let P and Q be two distinct points in an elastic body, and P’ and Q’ be the same two material points after deformation. Denoting by ds the distance between P and Q, and by 4s that between P” and Q’, then, by definition, (65) = (EX + (GY, (6s) = (xP + ys hence the relative change of this distance is obtained from (6s¥ — (6s)? = (x + y)’ — (OX — YY. a)580 C, SEMLER ET AL. For a pipe system initially lying along the X-axis and undergoing planar motions in the (X, ¥) plane, equation (1) becomes (6s¥ — (65 F = (a) + (8) - | (xy. Q The pipe is inextensible, ds = 6s» by definition, and 5X can be identified with ds, as they both represent an infinitesimal displacement of the undeformed body; hence, (ax[0X + (Gy /OXP = 1. @ The inextensibility condition can also be expressed in terms of the displacement com- ponents (u,v), as follows: 14%) 4 (BY ax)” \ax, For a pipe fixed at both ends, however, 6X and és are no longer identically equal; by using equation (2) and defining ¢ as the axial strain along the centerline of the pipe, one may nevertheless still relate one to the other through the condition OX/as = (+2), ©) @ with ou 1+e(X)= (1+ ix Hence, ¢ = 0 for an inextensible pipe and, generally, ¢ #0 for a pipe fixed at both ends. 2.3. EXPRESSION FOR CURVATURE An exact expression for the curvature, x, is useful in the derivations that follow, and is thus presented here. Depending on the choice of the co-ordinate system and the assumptions concerning the inextensibility of the pipe, the expression for x varies. Let 6 be the angle between the position of the pipe and the X-axis (Figure 2), and s the curvitinear co-ordinate along the pipe. For a pipe undergoing a planar motion, extensible or inextensible, the curvature is given by = 20 /as. 6) For simply supported pipes, 6 is defined by a l+dW/dX gg __A0/0X cos 6 = T+e(X)” “Trex @ In terms of the X co-ordinate, equation (6) becomes aoax_ 1 2 = @) Was Tee The derivative in the above expression may be obtained from equation (7), 20 av ou dv Ou ae [ie(+ 5) - dese] ates ® thus, yielding the curvature (8) for pipes the centreline of which may be extensible.‘PIPES CONVEYING FLUIDS. 581 On the other hand, for cantilevered pipes the centretine of which is assumed inextensible, expressions (6) and (7) still hold, except that ¢ =0. In this case, s = X, and hence 26/2X becomes ae (10) Application of the inextensibility condition (3) leads to the following expression of the curvature; ay /as? “i= Gio Alternatively, the curvature may also be defined as a vector, b=0%/as?= Kn, where n is the normal unit vector, which is always perpendicular to the tangent direction of the pipe, and r= (x, y) is the position vector along the pipe. Hence, «ay as If the inextensibility condition is once again applied to the expression above, one obtains an expression identical to equation (11). Note that for a curve defined by y(x) (Eulerian description) rather than y(s), one has the familiar expression of curvature: na eet (1 + @y/axyp?" Care must be taken as to which expression of x is used, depending on the physical problem. (12) 3. EQUATIONS OF MOTION BASED ON THE ENERGY METHOD 3.1. INTRODUCTION 3.1.1. Hamilton's principle The energy method is based on Hamilton’s principle, written usually as n a af vas bw dt =0, (13) a 5 where Y is the Lagrangian of the system (= F;+Fp—¥;—Vp. Tp and ¥, being the kinetic and potential energies associated with the pipe, and ¥, and ¥; the corresponding quantities for the enclosed fluid), and 5% is the virtual work due to non-conservative forces not included in the Lagrangian. Even if there are no explicit external forces applied to the pipe conveying fluid, 6” in equation (13) would not vanish if one or both ends of the pipe were not fixed. For example, for a cantilevered pipe which discharges fluid at its free end, the fluid does transfer energy to the pipe due to motion at the free end. The virtual work done by the discharged fluid is, thus, equal to the product of the virtual displacement and the change of momentum of the fluid. In this case, statement (13) may be written as 3 fare [au (Fe +us)-40 Jan (4)582 C. SEMLER ET AL. where r, and t, represent, respectively, the position vector and the tangential unit vector at the end of the pipe. This was done by Benjamin {14] for an Euler-Bernoulli beam conveying fluid. It was also re-derived in a more general way by Mclver [15] who considered, more generally, systems of changing mass. ‘As was elucidated by Benjamin [14], the right-hand term of equation (14) is also directly related to the mechanism of instability; indeed, he proved that 1 av=—{ MUG} + Uti.) de jo represents the energy gained by the pipe in a period T. If the pipe is fixed at both ends, then AW =0, and the system is conservative; however, if one end is free to move, then AW #0 and the system becomes non-conservative [4]. In the latter case, when U is small enough, itis clear that 4” < 0, which means that the system is stable (effect of the Coriolis force). However, for positive and sufficiently large U, 4W could become positive, ie., energy might be extracted from the flow, and the system would thus become unstable. As discussed by Benjamin [14], the operative force responsible for loss of stability (by divergence) of a pipe, with both ends supported, is the centrifugal (or compressive) force, proportional to MU?. On the other hand, for cantilevered pipes, which lose stability by flutter (Hopf bifurcation), both centrifugal and Coriolis forces, the latter proportional to MU, are involved. In what follows, special attention is paid to the provenance of the centrifugal terms. 3.1.2. Order of magnitude considerations Although the deflection of the pipe can be considered to be large, only cubic-non-linear terms will be retained in the final equations; thus, an order of magnitude analysis will be useful. For planar motions, the lateral displacement may be supposed to be “small”, relative to the length of the pipe, i.e., yao~ Oe), (15) where ¢ <1. Large motions imply that terms of higher order than the linear ones have to be kept in the equation. Consequently, and because of the symmetry of the system itself, the non-linear equations will necessarily be of odd order, which means that terms of O(¢*) have to be present in the equations. However, the variational technique always requires ‘one order higher than the one sought, so that all expressions under the integrand in statement (14) have to be at least of O(c). Therefore, the various expressions, ¥ and J for example, have to be exact to 6(c*) before any simplification is undertaken. By applying the inextensibility condition, one can easily see that the longitudinal displacement w is u~ Oe, (16) i.e., one order higher than v. 3.1.3. Kinetic and potential energies The total kinetic energy of the system is the sum of the kinetic energy of the pipe, 7, plus the kinetic energy of the fluid, 7, defined by FHT AF = (m2) f veer samy |" vax ay 0 oPIPES CONVEYING FLUIDS 583 The potential energy comprises gravitational and strain energy components. In general, the gravitational energy depends on the distribution of mass [16], and is written as a= {oscar, where ¢ is the gravitational potential per unit mass; in a uniform gravitational field, it becomes am [oe dv. where g is the gravitational acceleration and € is a distance measured from a reference plane ina direction opposite to the gravitational field, Consequently, with the notation used in this paper, . a= tn ane [ xdX, (18) 0 It is very important to define an exact form of the strain energy in the case of large deflections, correct to G(e4). This problem was solved by Stoker [17], with only one major (but not drastic) assumption: the strain is small even though the deflection can be large. His analysis finally led to L ¥ =(E/2) { [4e? +1 + eye dX, (9) o where X represents the Lagrangian co-ordinate, A the cross-sectional area, the moment of inertia and ¢ the axial strain. 3.1.4. Relationship between 5x and by Finally, a relationship between the virtual displacements 6x and dy is derived, which is necessary in the process of carrying out the variational analysis in the case of a cantilevered pipe. By applying the variational operator 6 to the inextensibility condition, one obtains yoy ox’ = W(t iy Py’ + O49, where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to s; hence, en f Ly’y’ + by sy "Jas. (20) 0 After integrating the right side of equation (20) by parts and noting that éy = Oats =0, one obtains dx = —(y +3y)y +[ ("+ iy 2y Woy ds + 0%). ev eo One can also prove quite easily that [18] [Feea( [tom 4s) ds = CF gs) ase by ds. (22) Equation (22) is important, since terms of that form will arise from equations (21) in the process of relating dx to dy 3.2, THE EQUATION OF MOTION FOR A CANTILEVERED PIPE In this subsection, kinetic and potential energies are first derived for a cantilevered pipe conveying fluid. Then, variational procedures are employed in conjunction with equation (14) to yield the governing differential equation of motion584 C. SEMLER ET AL, 3.2.1, Kinetic energy Consider a small segment of the pipe and the fluid. By definition, the velocity of the pipe element is V>=drjat and the velocity of the fluid element is Vp= Vet Ut, where Ur is the relative velocity of the fluid element with respect to the pipe element, t being the unit vector along s. For the cantilevered pipe, where the inextensibility condition is assumed to hold true, + has the form xi+ Ph (23) ax ay, reZitzi Consequently, a8 Dr vin ($+03) ote =pt. (24) where D/Dr is the material derivative of the fluid element. By analogy, the accelerations of the pipe and of the fluid are, respectively, ap= 87/0, ap = D*e/DP?. (25) Hence, the total kinetic energy, 7, may be written as 1 F =(m2) f (+P) ds +02) i E+ UXP ++ UyFld, 0H) 5 5 where the dots and primes denote @()/ét and A()/ds, respectively. One important remark that ought to be made is that no variable term proportional to U? arises from the above expression since, by expanding the integrand and by virtue of the inextensibility condition, one obtains only a constant term: Ux? 4 U2 =V This illustrates the importance of the right side of statement (14), which will provide both linear and non-linear components of the centrifugal force proportional to MU?, The variational operations on J leads to 6 f Fuam ffesse + Oy)ds de-+ M fe + Ux )(3% + Udx’) + (9 + Uy’) + Udy’) ds de. Integrating by parts and noting that x’éx’ + y’dy’ = 0, one obtains 6 [ire = ~ | fw + Mi + MUx’ + 2MUS'Ix ds dt - J fee + M)j + MUy’ + 2MUy’ Joy ds de 4 +a f [dx + Hedy] de, enPIPES CONVEYING FLUIDS 585 where x, = x(L) and y, = y(L) are the displacements of the free end of the pipe. The limits for the double integrals, although not explicitly written, are understood to be from 0 to L for s, and from t, to % for 1. 3.2.2. Potential energy In this case, two components have to be derived. Considering first the strain energy expression (19) with ¢ =0, one can write é f Vda cei { [atsas dt ns Utilization of the curvature expression (11) leads to EI 3 { va=s [feore +y"))ds dt + (C4) =H fe: ty'y?y' — (yy) Wy ds dt + Of) =El ffur + A4y’y"y" ty yy Oy ds dt + O(€°). (28) Similarly, by the use of equations (21) and (22), the variational of the gravitational energy (18), 3 [ise =m + Me ffi-o tm +(L—a ly" + by'yDy]ds dt +00), ‘ @9) is obtained. 3.2.3. The non-conservative forces Application of the variational procedure to the right side (r.h.s.) of Hamilton’s principle leads to rhs. = MU i [a + Uxt)dx, + i+ Ur oy.) dt =U f " GinOx. + Judy, )dt + MU? [roien yidy.) de =AtB 30) The first term, A, cancels the last term in equation (27), while, with the use of equations (3) and (21), B is found to be aeme | [yay —y [uy ds fds a, BD and, hence, contributes all the centrifugal force terms.586 C. SEMLER ET AL. 3.2.4. The final equation of motion After many transformations and manipulations, the general equation of motion is found to be (m+ M)j + 2MUP( + 9?) + (mn + Mgy' +497) + y"[MUL + y2) + (MU —(m + M)g)(L —8)(1 +3] FEY + y2) + ayy" $y") 1 + { Moy 4 2MUy 9 +My | +y [otmotsrsar