MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920815207 · doi:10.1115/1.4043187

Fluidelastic Vibration Analysis of Normal Square Finned Tube Arrays in Water Cross Flow

2019· article· en· W2920815207 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sandeep R. Desai, Aslam A. Maniyar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAll India Council for Technical EducationMcMaster University
KeywordsInstabilitySquare (algebra)Tube (container)Vortex sheddingWater tunnelVibrationAspect ratio (aeronautics)MechanicsFinMaterials scienceVortex-induced vibrationFlow (mathematics)VortexPhysicsAcousticsGeometryMathematicsTurbulenceComposite materialReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program was carried out by subjecting normal square finned tube arrays to gradually increasing water cross flows. In all, total six tube arrays were tested—three having pitch ratio 2.1 and remaining three of pitch ratio 2.6. Under each category, three arrays tested were: plain array, coarse finned array, and fine finned array. The objective of the research was to determine the fluid velocity at which each of the six arrays becomes fluidelastically unstable. The experiments were started with tests on plain arrays to establish them as a datum case by comparing their test results with published results on plain arrays having lower pitch ratios. This was then followed by testing of finned arrays to study the effect of fins on the instability threshold. The tubes were subjected to a gradually increasing flow rate of water from 10 m3/h to the point where instability was reached. The results of the present work are compared with author's earlier published results for parallel triangular arrays in water. The research outcomes help to study the effect of pitch ratio, tube array pattern, and fin density on the instability threshold. The results show that instability is delayed due to the addition of the fins. It is also concluded that normal square arrays should be preferred over parallel triangular arrays to avoid fluidelastic vibrations. The vortex shedding behavior studied for all the arrays shows that small peaks before fluidelastic instability are due to vortex shedding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207