MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032704666 · doi:10.1115/pvp2014-28783

Implementation in VIBIC of an Improved Time-Domain Simulation Model for Fluidelastic Instability in Tube Arrays

2014· article· en· W2032704666 on OpenAlexaffabout
Téguewindé Sawadogo, Yingke Han, Njuki Mureithi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Polytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstabilityMechanicsNonlinear systemTime domainVibrationVortex sheddingExcitationPhysicsTurbulenceComputer scienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VIBIC (Vibration of Beams with Intermittent Contacts) is a non-linear dynamics computer code developed and maintained by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited over the past 40 years in collaboration with universities. Its main application is the assessment of possible vibration damage to steam-generator and heat exchanger tubes. This assessment is done by performing simulations of the vibration response of beam-like structures to various flow-induced excitation mechanisms, such as turbulence buffeting, vortex shedding, and fluidelastic excitation. Fluidelastic excitation is potentially the most damaging flow-induced excitation mechanism. The fluidelastic effect has, until now, been incorporated in VIBIC using the frequency-based Connors model. To properly perform a time-domain simulation of fluidelastic-induced vibration, a time-domain fluidelastic force model is needed. In the present work, a time-domain formulation of the fluidelastic forces based on the quasi-steady model is implemented in VIBIC. The time delay inherent to the quasi-steady model is taken into account by using a delayed displacement in the expression of the fluidelastic forces. The resulting modal equations are delay differential equations that are solved using a continuous extension of the Runge-Kutta method. Both linear and nonlinear fluid force models are incorporated. The fluidelastic instability results predicted by the models are compared to known theoretical and experimental results for validation. The predictions of the models are in good agreement with those results. The results given by the nonlinear quasi-steady fluidelastic forces are found to be more realistic than those of the linear quasi-steady fluidelastic forces. A realistic simulation of the post-instability behaviour is made possible through the use of the nonlinear fluidelastic forces.

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 score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207