Random Excitation Forces in Heat Exchanger Tube Bundles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random excitation forces can cause low-amplitude tube motion that will result in long-term fretting-wear or fatigue. To prevent these tube failures in heat exchangers, designers and troubleshooters must have guidelines that incorporate random or turbulent fluid forces. Experiments designed to measure fluid forces were conducted at the Chalk River Laboratories and at other laboratories worldwide. The data from these experiments were studied and collated, to determine suitable guidelines for random excitation forces. In this paper, a guideline for random excitation forces in single-phase cross flow is presented in the form of normalized spectra that are applicable to a wide range of flow conditions and tube frequencies. In particular, the experimental results used in this study were conducted over the full range of flow conditions found in the liquid region of a nuclear steam generator. The proposed guidelines are applicable to steam generators, condensers, reheaters and other shell-and-tube heat exchangers. They may be used for flow-induced vibration analysis of new or existing components, as input to vibration analysis computer codes and as specifications in procurement documents. [S0094-9930(00)00603-X]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".