Numerical investigation on the static performance of aerostatic journal bearings with different pocket shapes by the finite-element method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, to improve the static behavior of aerostatic journal bearings, we examine the effect of pockets with different shapes, including the square, rectangular 1, rectangular 2, and circular, manufactured on the surface of the aerostatic journal bearing. The effects of the pocket shapes, pocket area [Formula: see text], eccentricity ratio ɛ, orifice diameter d f , average gas film thickness h 0 , and misalignment angles [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] on the static performance are investigated using simulations. The Reynolds equation is solved by the finite-element method in this work. Simulations reveal that the pocket area [Formula: see text], eccentricity ratio ɛ, gas film thickness h 0 , orifice diameter d f , and misalignment angles [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] have a significant influence on the load force F and the stiffness K. In general, rectangular 2 pocket bearings are found to perform somewhat better than bearings with other pocket shapes, with the pocket depth set to one-half of h 0 , when the pocket area [Formula: see text] varies from one-twelfth to one. The pocket area [Formula: see text] should be set according to the average gas film thickness h 0 and the orifice diameter d f to achieve a better static performance for the bearings. For bearings operated with misalignment angles [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], different pocket areas [Formula: see text] should be set according to the pocket shapes for the optimal design.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".