Fluidelastic Instability in Normal and Parallel Triangular Arrays of Finned Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was carried out to investigate fluidelastic instability in finned tube bundles in normal and parallel triangular arrays. Three arrays of each geometry type were studied experimentally: two arrays with serrated, helically wound finned tubes of different fin densities, and a bare tube array with the same base diameter as the finned tubes. All six tube arrays studied had the same tube pitch. The finned tubes under consideration were commercial finned tubes typically used in the fossil and process industries. For the purpose of the present investigation, the concept of “effective diameter” of a finned tube, as previously used to predict vortex shedding, was used to compare the finned tube results with other finned tube results as well as the existing bare tube world data. The experimental results for the triangular arrays show that the fin’s structure strongly influences the fluidelastic stability of finned tube bundles and the fin pitch is demonstrated to reduce the difference in the stability threshold between the tube array geometries as the fin density increases. Overall, the effect of serrated fins on fluidelastic instability is very complex and array geometry dependent, stabilizing some arrays and destabilizing others. Clearly, the effect of fins cannot be accounted for by the simple use of an effective diameter of an equivalent bare tube. An earlier version of this paper appeared at the ASME 2010 FSI Conference, FEDSM-ICNMM2010-30223.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".