MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050994314 · doi:10.1115/imece2002-32762

Two-Phase Cross-Flow Excitation of a Normal Square Tube Array: Experiments and Analysis

2002· article· en· W2050994314 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Feenstra, David S. Weaver, Tomomichi Nakamura

Bibliographic record

Venue5th International Symposium on Fluid Structure Interaction, Aeroelasticity, and Flow Induced Vibration and Noise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsVortex sheddingBundlePressure dropTwo-phase flowHeat exchangerMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)VibrationInstabilityVortex-induced vibrationAmplitudeVortexThermodynamicsPhysicsReynolds numberAcousticsTurbulenceOpticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratory experiments were conducted to determine the flow-induced vibration response and fluidelastic stability threshold of a model heat exchanger tube bundle subjected to a cross-flow of refrigerant 11 (R-11). The tube bundle consisted of a normal square array of 12 tubes with outer tube diameters of 7.11 mm and a pitch over diameter ratio of 1.485. The experiments were conducted in a flow loop that was capable of generating single-phase and two-phase cross-flows over a variety of mass fluxes and void fractions. The primary intent of the research was to improve our understanding of the flow-induced vibrations of heat exchanger tube arrays subjected to two-phase cross-flow. Of particular concern was the effect of array pattern geometry on fluidelastic instability. The experimental results are analysed and compared with existing data from the literature using various methods of parameter definition. Comparison of amplitude response in liquid flow with previous results shows a similar occurrence of symmetric vortex shedding that validates the scale model approach in single-phase flow. It was found that the introduction of a small amount of bubbles in the flow disrupted the vortex shedding and thereby caused a significant reduction in streamwise vibration amplitude. The fluidelastic stability thresholds for the present array agree well with results from previous studies. Furthermore, a good collapse of the stability data from various investigations is obtained when the fluid density is defined using the slip model of Feenstra et al. [1] and when an effective two-phase flow velocity is defined using the interfacial velocity model of Nakamura et al. [2].

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue5th International Symposium on Fluid Structure Interaction, Aeroelasticity, and Flow Induced Vibration and NoiseSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207