MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195295310 · doi:10.1115/1.4052209

A Coupled Two-Way Fluid–Structure Interaction Analysis for the Dynamics of a Partially Confined Cantilevered Pipe Under Simultaneous Internal and External Axial Flow in Opposite Directions

2021· article· en· W3195295310 on OpenAlexafffund
Farhang Daneshmand, Tahereh Liaghat, Michael P. Paı̈doussis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsFluid–structure interactionMechanicsAnnulus (botany)Finite element methodFlutterCantileverFluid dynamicsDisplacement (psychology)Internal flowInstabilityStructural engineeringFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceEngineeringPhysicsAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the results of a coupled two-way fluid–structure interaction (FSI) analysis of a slender flexible vertical cantilevered pipe hanging concentrically within a shorter rigid tube forming an annulus. The pipe is subjected to internal and annular flows simultaneously. This system has applications in brine production and salt-cavern hydrocarbon storage. In this study, the fluid–structure problem is solved with a finite volume based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code for the fluid domain coupled to a finite element based computational solid mechanics code for the structural domain. The numerical results obtained for the free-end displacement of the central pipe versus the annular/internal flow velocity ratio Uo/Ui are presented and compared with those obtained from experiment. The capability of the numerical model to predict the onset of the experimentally observed flutter instability in the system is also examined. This study provides a better insight into the dynamics of the system.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207