Flow-Induced Vibration Model for Steam Generator Tubes in Two-Phase Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While steam generators operate in two-phase flow, the complex nature of the flow makes the prediction of flow-induced fluidelastic instability of steam generator tubes a challenging problem yet to be solved. In the work reported here, the quasi-static fluid force-field, which is the important unknown for two-phase flows, is measured in a rotated-triangle tube bundle for a series of void fractions and flow velocities. The forces are shown to be strongly dependent on void fraction, flow rates and relative tube positions. The fluid force field is then employed along with quasi-steady vibration stability models, originally developed for single phase flows, to model the two-phase flow problem and predict the critical instability velocity. The results are compared with dynamic vibration stability tests and are shown to be in good agreement. The present work uncovers some of the complexities of the fluid force field in two-phase flows. The database provides new potential to designers to estimate expected fluid dynamic loads under operating conditions. The force field data may also be applied in dynamic computations for tube wear simulations, replacing the simple Connors’ model which is currently used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".