Implementation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Prediction of Fluidelastic Instability in Tube Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fluidelastic instability (FEI) in tube arrays has been studied extensively experimentally and theoretically for the last 50 years, due to its potential to cause significant damage in short periods. Incidents similar to those observed at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station indicate that the problem is not yet fully understood, probably due to the large number of factors affecting the phenomenon. In this study, a new approach for the analysis and interpretation of FEI data using machine learning (ML) algorithms is explored. FEI data for both single and two-phase flows have been collected from the literature and utilized for training a machine learning algorithm in order to either provide estimates of the reduced velocity (single and two-phase) or indicate if the bundle is stable or unstable under certain conditions (two-phase). The analysis included the use of logistic regression as a classification algorithm for two-phase flow problems to determine if specific conditions produce a stable or unstable response. The results of this study provide some insight into the capability and potential of logistic regression models to analyze FEI if appropriate quantities of experimental data are available.
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) | 0.000 | 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".