MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flutter of Long Flexible Cylinders in Axial Flow

2006· article· en· W2016752956 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel de Langre, Michael P. Paı̈doussis, Yahya Modarres‐Sadeghi, Olivier Doaré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterCylinderGalerkin methodFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMathematicsBending stiffnessPhysicsBeam (structure)Finite element methodGeometryAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the stability of a thin flexible cylinder considered as a beam, when subjected to axial flow and fixed at the up-stream end only. A linear stability analysis of transverse motion aims at determining the risk of flutter as a function of the governing control parameters such as the flow velocity or the length of the cylinder. Stability is analysed applying a finite difference scheme in space to the equation of motion expressed in the frequency domain. It is found that, contrary to previous predictions based on simplified theories, flutter may exist for very long cylinders, provided that the free downstream end of the cylinder is well-streamlined. More generally, a limit regime is found where the length of the cylinder does not affect the characteristics of the instability, and the deformation is confined to a finite region close to the downstream end. These results are found complementary to solutions derived for shorter cylinders and are confirmed by linear computations using a Galerkin method. A link is established to similar results on long hanging cantilevered systems with internal or external flow. The limit case of vanishing bending stiffness, where the cylinder is modelled as a string, is analysed and related to previous results. A simple model for the behaviour of long cylinders is proposed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207