Two-Way Fluid-Structure Coupling in Vibration and Damping Analysis of an Oscillating Hydrofoil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) and unavoidable vibrations are important characteristics in the operation of hydropower structures and must be taken into account in the analysis and design of such equipment. Hydrodynamic damping influences the amplitude of vibrations and is directly related to fatigue problems in hydraulic machines which are of great importance. The aim of this study is to investigate the coupled effects of flowing fluid on a simplified hydrofoil by using three-dimensional two-way fluid-structure interaction modeling, in order to determine its importance in predicting vibration amplitudes and damping. The effect of considering different flow velocities is also investigated in the present study. The results of this research are compared with those obtained from experiments done by ANDRITZ [1]. The influences of mesh size and time step are also studied. Our results indicate that considering FSI in predicting the frequencies of the fluctuating fluid forces in practical problems might be ignored if the main concern of the analysis is to check the possibility of resonance. However, FSI must be included in the modeling when we aim to predict the influence of the fluid on the damping behavior in the hydrofoil vibration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".