MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220955367 · doi:10.1115/1.4053996

Equivalent Theodorsen Function for Fluidelastic Excitation in a Normal Triangular Array

2022· article· en· W4220955367 on OpenAlexaff
Loay Alyaldin, Njuki Mureithi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstabilityMechanicsFlow (mathematics)VibrationPhysicsNormal modeClassical mechanicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fluidelastic instability (FEI) remains the most important mechanism of flow-induced vibrations that can potentially cause large amplitude vibrations and early failure of nuclear steam generator tubes. In the present work, experimental tests are conducted to measure the unsteady and quasi-steady fluid forces acting on a normal triangular tube array of P/D=1.5 subjected to single-phase (water) cross-flow. The quasi-steady forces together with unsteady fluid forces are then used to estimate the time delay between the central tube motion and fluid forces on the tube itself. The time delay effect for the quasi-steady fluidelastic instability model is derived in the frequency domain in the form of an Equivalent Theodorsen Function. The results are compared to the first Equivalent Theodorsen function developed for rotated triangular array by Li and Mureithi [1]. Using the Equivalent Theodorsen Function, a stability analysis is carried out to predict the critical velocity for fluidelastic instability in a normal triangular array subjected to single-phase flow. The predicted stability threshold is consistent with previous published experimental data. The results show that the normal triangular array is more stable than the rotated triangular array.

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 score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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