Figure 1.
Fabricating process of a folded MPFT Multi-port flat tubes (MPFTs): (a) aluminum clad strip, (b) folding process, and (c) seam welded folded tube after brazing.
Figure 1.
Fabricating process of a folded MPFT Multi-port flat tubes (MPFTs): (a) aluminum clad strip, (b) folding process, and (c) seam welded folded tube after brazing.
Figure 2.
Dimensional parameter definition and material distribution of the folded MPFT with 8 ports.
Figure 2.
Dimensional parameter definition and material distribution of the folded MPFT with 8 ports.
Figure 3.
Tensile test of the materials: (a) equipment, and (b) specimens for tensile tests.
Figure 3.
Tensile test of the materials: (a) equipment, and (b) specimens for tensile tests.
Figure 4.
In-plane bending test: (a) bending device at initial position; (b) bending position at 90°, (c) bending radius control plate and, (d) bent specimens with different bending radius.
Figure 4.
In-plane bending test: (a) bending device at initial position; (b) bending position at 90°, (c) bending radius control plate and, (d) bent specimens with different bending radius.
Figure 5.
Pressure bearing test: (a) test device for straight specimen, (b) test device for bent specimen, (c) straight specimen after failure and, (d) bent specimens after failure.
Figure 5.
Pressure bearing test: (a) test device for straight specimen, (b) test device for bent specimen, (c) straight specimen after failure and, (d) bent specimens after failure.
Figure 6.
FE simulation of pressure bearing test: (a) geometry of the MPFT section, (b) boundary condition of the pressure bearing test.
Figure 6.
FE simulation of pressure bearing test: (a) geometry of the MPFT section, (b) boundary condition of the pressure bearing test.
Figure 7.
Uniaxial stress–strain curves of (a) clad specimen and (b) AA4343 specimen.
Figure 7.
Uniaxial stress–strain curves of (a) clad specimen and (b) AA4343 specimen.
Figure 8.
Comparison of the experimental and predicted deformed configurations at (a,b) certain inner pressures (17.5 MPa for experiment and 18 MPa for simulation) and (c,d) ultimate failure.
Figure 8.
Comparison of the experimental and predicted deformed configurations at (a,b) certain inner pressures (17.5 MPa for experiment and 18 MPa for simulation) and (c,d) ultimate failure.
Figure 9.
Predicted (a) bulging ratio and (b) failure pressure as a function of the folding angle, folding radius and wall thickness.
Figure 9.
Predicted (a) bulging ratio and (b) failure pressure as a function of the folding angle, folding radius and wall thickness.
Figure 10.
FE simulations of burst pressure tests: (a) FE model, (b) von Mises stress with different bending radius, (c) details associated with wall thinning.
Figure 10.
FE simulations of burst pressure tests: (a) FE model, (b) von Mises stress with different bending radius, (c) details associated with wall thinning.
Figure 11.
FE simulation on the in-plane bending of folded MPFTs: (a) von Mises stress and (b) Wall thinning ratio as a function of the bending angle.
Figure 11.
FE simulation on the in-plane bending of folded MPFTs: (a) von Mises stress and (b) Wall thinning ratio as a function of the bending angle.
Table 1.
Dimensional parameters of the folded MPFT.
Table 1.
Dimensional parameters of the folded MPFT.
W/mm | H/mm | L/mm | α/° | R/mm | t/mm |
---|
16 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 72 | 0.50 | 0.23 |
Table 2.
Material parameters used in the FE simulations.
Table 2.
Material parameters used in the FE simulations.
Material | E/GPa | K/MPa | n | Critical Strain |
---|
Clad sheet | 5.40 | 183.60 | 0.32 | 0.162 |
Solder Material | 15.26 | 165.35 | 0.28 | 0.151 |
Table 3.
Experimental and simulated bulging ratio and failure pressure.
Table 3.
Experimental and simulated bulging ratio and failure pressure.
- | Experiment | Simulation | Relative Error |
---|
Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Average |
---|
Bulging ratio at service pressure | 4.06 | 4.46 | 3.84 | 4.12 | 4.33 | 5.1% |
Bulging ratio at pressure close to failure | 21.36 | 23.20 | 22.35 | 22.30 | 23.3 | 4.5% |
Failure pressure/MPa | 17.70 | 18.20 | 18.00 | 17.97 | 18.28 | 1.7% |
Table 4.
Orthogonal experiment among the parameters under optimization.
Table 4.
Orthogonal experiment among the parameters under optimization.
/° | R/mm | t/mm |
---|
60, 75, 90 | 0.4, 0.45, 0.5 | 0.23, 0.245, 0.26 |
Table 5.
Comparison between the original and optimized MPFTs.
Table 5.
Comparison between the original and optimized MPFTs.
Factors | α/° | t/mm | R/mm | Failure Pressure/MPa | Bulging Ratio at 17.5 MPa |
---|
Original | 72 | 0.23 | 0.5 | 18.28 | 23.3% |
Optimized | 75 | 0.26 | 0.4 | 20.9 | 19.8% |
Table 6.
Failure pressure of MPFT with different radius from experiments.
Table 6.
Failure pressure of MPFT with different radius from experiments.
Bending Radius | 50 mm | 60 mm | 70 mm | 80 mm | 90 mm | (Straight)
|
---|
Failure pressure (Exp.) | 16.1 MPa | 16.6 MPa | 17.1 MPa | 17.5 MPa | 17.8 MPa | 17.97 MPa |