Fluidelastic Instability of an Array of Tubes Preferentially Flexible in the Flow Direction Subjected to Two-Phase Cross Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all the available data about fluidelastic instability of heat exchanger tube bundles concerns tubes that are axisymmetrically flexible. In those cases, the instability is found to be mostly in the direction transverse to the flow. Thus, the direction parallel to the flow has raised less concern in terms of bundle stability. However, the flat bar supports used in steam generator for preventing U-tube vibration may not be as effective in the in-plane direction than in the out-of-plane direction. The possibility that fluidelastic instability can develop in the flow direction must then be assessed. In the present work, tests were done to study the fluidelastic instability of a cluster of seven tubes much more flexible in the flow direction than in the lift direction. The array configuration is rotated triangular with a pitch to diameter ratio of 1.5. The array was subjected to two-phase (air-water) cross flow. Fluidelastic instability was observed when the flexible tubes were located at the center of the test section and also when the seven flexible tubes were placed over two adjacent columns. No instability was found for a single flexible tube in a rigid array, nor for the case where the seven flexible tubes were placed in a single column. Tests were also done with tubes that are axisymmetrically flexible for comparison purposes. It was found that fluidelastic instability occurs at higher velocities when the tubes are flexible only in the flow direction. These results and additional wind tunnel results are compared to existing data on fluidelastic instability. Two-phase flow damping results are also presented in this paper.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".