Simulation of Fluidelastic Vibrations of Heat Exchanger Tubes With Loose Supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluidelastic instability is regarded as the most complex and destructive flow excitation mechanism in heat exchanger tube arrays subjected to cross fluid flow. Several attempts have been made for modelling fluidelastic instability in tube arrays in order to predict the stability threshold. However, fretting wear prediction requires a nonlinear computation of the tube dynamics in which proper modelling of the fluid forcing function is essential. In this paper, a time domain simulation of fluidelastic instability is presented for a single flexible tube in an otherwise rigid array subjected to cross fluid flow. The model is based on the unsteady flow theory proposed by Lever and Weaver [1] and Yetisir and Weaver [2]. The developed model has been implemented in INDAP (Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Program), an in-house finite element code. Numerical investigations were performed for two linear tube-array geometries and compared with published experimental data. A reasonable agreement between the numerical simulation and the experimental results was obtained. The fluidelastic force model was also coupled with a tube/support interaction model. The developed numerical model was utilized to study a loosely-supported cantilever tube subjected to air flow. Tube-to-support clearance, random excitation level, and flow velocity were then varied. The results indicated that the loose support has a stabilizing effect on the tube response. Both rms impact force and normal work rate increased as a result of increasing the flow velocity or the support radial clearance. Contact ratio exhibited a sharp increase at a flow velocity higher than the instability threshold of the first unsupported mode. In addition, an interesting behaviour has been observed, namely the change of tube’s equilibrium position due to fluid forces. This causes a single-sided impact. At a higher turbulence level, double-sided impact conditions were dominant. The influence of these dynamic regimes on the tube/support parameters was also addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".