Axial Strength of Tube-to-Tubesheet Joints: Finite Element and Experimental Evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of their importance for the integrity of heat exchangers, the strength of tube-to-tubesheet joints, and particularly their axial strength, is of special interest. A finite element model of an expanded tube-to-tubesheet joint is proposed and examined experimentally with the objective of determining numerically its axial strength. Simplified analytical methods that were previously proposed by many authors to predict the joint axial strength are also used in this investigation. Experimental testing shows that the finite element model is highly accurate for calculating the joint axial strength. The experimental investigation also proves that the pull-out strength is overestimated when calculated using a simple analytical solution. A parametric analysis using the finite element results indicates that the pull-out force is normally lower than the push-out load and that both are lower than the estimations of the analytical solution. The results indicate that the pull-out force as given by the finite element model is generally 35 percent lower than that evaluated by the analytical solution. A difference of as much as 10 percent is also found between the push-out and pull-out loads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".