MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021949001 · doi:10.1115/1.4002181

Effect of Preferential Flexibility Direction on Fluidelastic Instability of a Rotated Triangular Tube Bundle

2010· article· en· W2021949001 on OpenAlexaff
A. Khalvatti, Njuki Mureithi, M. J. Pettigrew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBundleInstabilityMechanicsTube (container)Flow (mathematics)Flexibility (engineering)Work (physics)Structural engineeringPhysicsMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In operating shell-and-tube heat exchangers, tube vibration induced by cross-flow can be a serious problem. The region of concern in steam generators is the upper most U-bend region where the flow crosses a large number of tubes, which also cause significant hydraulic resistance. This hydraulic resistance forces the flow to change direction. From a fluidelastic instability point of view, the tube bundle is excited by oblique cross-flow. A secondary consequence of change in flow direction is a change in the flexibility direction of the tubes relative to the oncoming flow direction at different locations within the U-bend region. It is this somewhat simpler problem that is studied in this work. The effect of array flexibility direction on the fluidelastic instability phenomenon in a rotated-triangular tube bundle is investigated for single phase flow as a starting point. The study consists of both experiments and theoretical analysis of a simplified single-flexible-tube array. Experimental tests are conducted in a wind tunnel on a reconfigurable tube bundle. The results show that fluidelastic instability is strongly dependent on the flexibility angle. The results also show that, generally, the elimination of bundle flexibility in the direction transverse to the flow has a strong stabilizing effect on the tube bundle. The effect is, however, nonlinearly related to flexibility angle. In the second part of this work, the quasi-steady fluidelastic analysis is adapted for a single tube (within a rigid array), flexible in a single but arbitrary direction relative to the flow and subjected to cross-flow. The fluid-force expressions are rewritten to account for an arbitrary tube flexibility direction relative to the approaching flow. In the process, a simplified, flexibility direction dependent, one degree-of-freedom equation is obtained. The model is then evaluated against measured experimental data. This evaluation shows that the predicted critical flow velocity for fluidelastic instability is in qualitative agreement with experimental results, at least in the trend on the effect of varying the flexibility angle. At the same time, the model sheds some light on the role played by the flexibility angle in determining the overall fluid-structure damping underlying the observed stability behavior.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207