MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999606891 · doi:10.1115/1.4023426

Time Domain Simulation of the Vibration of a Steam Generator Tube Subjected to Fluidelastic Forces Induced by Two-Phase Cross-Flow

2013· article· en· W1999606891 on OpenAlexafffund
Téguewindé Sawadogo, Njuki Mureithi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMechanicsInstabilityDragTwo-phase flowBoiler (water heating)Materials scienceFlow (mathematics)PhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having previously verified the quasi-steady model under two-phase flow laboratory conditions, the present work investigates the feasibility of practical application of the model to a prototypical steam generator (SG) tube subjected to a nonuniform two-phase flow. The SG tube vibration response and normal work-rate induced by tube-support interaction are computed for a range of flow conditions. Similar computations are performed using the Connors model as a reference case. In the quasi-steady model, the fluid forces are expressed in terms of the quasi-static drag and lift force coefficients and their derivatives. These forces have been measured in two-phase flow over a wide range of void fractions making it possible to model the effect of void fraction variation along the tube span. A full steam generator tube subjected to a nonuniform two-phase flow was considered in the simulations. The nonuniform flow distribution corresponds to that along a prototypical steam-generator tube based on thermal-hydraulic computations. Computation results show significant and important differences between the Connors model and the two-phase flow based quasi-steady model. While both models predict the occurrence of fluidelastic instability, the predicted pre-instability and post instability behavior is very different in the two models. The Connors model underestimates the flow-induced negative damping in the pre-instability regime and vastly overestimates it in the post instability velocity range. As a result the Connors model is found to underestimate the work-rate used in the fretting wear assessment at normal operating velocities, rendering the model potentially nonconservative under these practically important conditions. Above the critical velocity, this model largely overestimates the work-rate. The quasi-steady model on the other hand predicts a more moderately increasing work-rate with the flow velocity. The work-rates predicted by the model are found to be within the range of experimental results, giving further confidence to the predictive ability of the model. Finally, the two-phase flow based quasi-steady model shows that fluidelastic forces may reduce the effective tube damping in the pre-instability regime, leading to higher than expected work-rates at prototypical operating velocities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207