A Study of Acoustic Resonance in a Staggered Tube Array
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental laboratory research was performed to study the effect of test section width on the magnitude of acoustic resonance generated in a small pitch ratio staggered tube bank. Three different test section widths were studied: 505mm, 714mm, and 953mm. The results for acoustic resonance were compared to the tube bank data of Blevins and Bressler (1993, J. Sound Vib., 164(3), pp. 503–533), Ziada, Bolleter, and Chen (1984, ASME Symposium on Flow-Induced Vibrations, ASME, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 227–242); Ziada, Oengören, and Buhlmann (1989, J. Fluids and Struct., 3, pp. 293–324), and Fitzpatrick and Donaldson (1977, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 99, pp. 681–686). The present study showed that test-section width may be a significant factor in determining the maximum acoustic pressures generated by the flow. In particular, the simple relationship between maximum acoustic pressure and input energy parameter derived by Blevins and Bressler was not a reliable predictor for the array studied and will likely underpredict the maximum acoustic pressures in the lower modes of practical heat exchangers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".