Static performance of the aerostatic journal bearing with grooves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerostatic bearings are widely employed in precision machines due to their properties of low friction, low heat conduction, and long-life operation. In this work, static performance of the journal bearing with rectangular grooves is investigated numerically. The effect of geometrical parameters such as axial groove length [Formula: see text], circumferential groove length [Formula: see text], orifice diameter d f , groove depth g h , misalignment angles [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] on the load capacity [Formula: see text], stiffness [Formula: see text], and gas flow rate [Formula: see text] are analyzed systematically. The resistance network method (RNM) is utilized to solve the Reynolds equation required in the analysis. Performance parameters including pressure distribution P, load force [Formula: see text], stiffness [Formula: see text], and gas flow rate [Formula: see text] are examined in the simulations. It is revealed from the simulations that the proper value of axial groove length [Formula: see text] to obtain a better static performance varies from 1/8 to 1/2 when d f varies between 0.11 and 0.29 mm, respectively. Therefore, a larger load force and stiffness can be obtained if [Formula: see text] is chosen to be 1/4, when diameter of the bearing orifice d f equals 0.17 mm. It is also suggested that [Formula: see text] be chosen from the range of 1/6 and 1/3 to obtain a better static performance and a smaller gas flow rate. [Formula: see text] decreases with an increase in d f when [Formula: see text] is set to be 1/8. However, the load force [Formula: see text] increases with an increase in d f when [Formula: see text] varies from 3/8 to 1/2. [Formula: see text] has a significant influence on the changes of [Formula: see text] with d f when [Formula: see text] is set to be constant. Therefore, d f should be selected according to [Formula: see text] for an optimal design. The increase of misalignment angle [Formula: see text] leads to an increase in the load force [Formula: see text]. [Formula: see text] has little influence on the load force [Formula: see text]. Misalignment angles [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] have little influence on stiffness [Formula: see text] and gas flow rate [Formula: see text]. Therefore, it is preferable if [Formula: see text] is larger than 0 rad.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".