Impact of Grooves in Hydraulically Expanded Tube-to-Tubesheet Joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stress corrosion cracking of tube-to-tubesheet joints is one of the major faults causing heat exchanger failure. After the expansion process, the stresses are developed in a plastically deformed tube around the tube-to-tubesheet joint. These residual stressed joints, exposed to tube and shell side fluids, are the main crack initiation sites. Adequate contact pressure at the tube-to-tubesheet interface is required to produce a quality joint. Insufficient tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure leads to insufficient joint strength. Therefore, a study on the residual stress and contact pressure that have a great significance on the quality of the tube-to-tubesheet joint is highly demanded. In this research, a 2D axisymmetric numerical analysis is performed to study the effect of the presence of grooves in the tubesheet and the expansion pressure length on the distribution of contact pressure and stress during loading and unloading of 400 MPa expansion pressure. The results show that the maximum contact pressure is independent of the expansion pressure length. However, the presence of grooves significantly increased the maximum contact pressure. It is proven that the presence of grooves in the tubesheet is distinguishable from the maximum contact pressure and residual von mises equivalent stress. The tube pull-out strength increases with the expansion pressure and the number of grooves. In conclusion, the presence of the grooves affects the tube-to-tubesheet joints.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".