An Experimental Investigation of the Dynamics of a Loosely Supported Tube Array
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integrity of tube bundles is very important especially when dealing with high-risk applications such as nuclear steam generators. A major issue to system integrity is the flow-induced vibration (FIV). FIV is manifested through several mechanisms including the most severe mechanism; fluidelastic instability (FEI). Tube vibration can be constrained by using tube supports. However, clearances between the tube and their support are required to allow for thermal expansion and for other manufacturing considerations. The clearance between tubes may allow frequent impact and friction between tube and support. This in turn may cause fatigue and wear at support and potential for catastrophic tube failure. This study aims to investigate the dynamics of loosely supported tube array subjected to cross-flow. The work is performed experimentally in an open-loop wind tunnel to address this issue. A loosely-supported single flexible tube in both triangle and square arrays subjected to cross-flow with a pitch-to-diameter ratio of 1.5 and 1.733, respectively were considered. The effect of the flow approach angle, as well as the support clearance on the tube response, are investigated. In addition, the parameters that affect tube wear such as impact force level are presented.
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) | 0.002 | 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".