Validation of Flow-Induced Vibration Prediction Codes: PIPO-FE and VIBIC Versus Experimental Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The PIPO-FE and VIBIC finite-element computer codes, developed and updated over the past 30 years, are used to calculate heat exchanger tube flow-induced vibration (FIV) response. PIPO-FE includes a linear forced-vibration analysis of heat exchanger tubes subjected to all major flow-induced excitation mechanisms, namely fluidelastic instability, random turbulence-induced excitation and periodic wake shedding. VIBIC is for both linear and non-linear transient dynamic simulations of heat exchanger tubes. When used to simulate a tube with clearance supports (non-linear case), VIBIC calculates tube wear work-rates to aid in the prediction of tube fretting-wear damage. All the excitation mechanisms included in PIPO-FE analyses can be simulated in VIBIC. In addition, VIBIC can model friction forces between a tube and its supports, squeeze film forces produced by the resistance of the fluid opposing the relative motion of the tube and supports, and constant loads. An important application of these codes is the analysis of the susceptibility of a heat exchanger tube to vibration damage. These codes may be used at the design stage to assess a new heat exchanger, or during the operational stage to investigate a tube failure and determine if the damage was caused by vibration. If a vibration problem exists, then the codes can be used to assess the effectiveness of any proposed design modifications. To properly assess tube vibration damage, the codes must predict vibration response accurately. This paper documents the validation process of code predictions against measurements from three flow-induced vibration experiments conducted at Chalk River Laboratories: 1. A single-span cantilever tube bundle subjected to two-phase air-water cross flow; 2. A single-span cantilever tube bundle subjected to single- and two-phase Freon cross flow; and 3. A single-span U-bend tube bundle subjected to single-phase water and two-phase air-water partial cross flow. PIPO-FE and VIBIC code predictions for fluidelastic instability ratio and the response to random turbulence-induced excitation are compared to each other for each of these three experiments. The predictions from the two codes are in good agreement. In addition, the predictions for frequency, damping ratio, fluidelastic instability ratio and the response to random turbulence-induced excitation from both codes are in reasonable agreement with the experimental results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".