An analytical model for open-ended squeeze film damper with a circumferential central groove
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the effect of a circumferential central groove on an open-ended squeeze film damper is analytically investigated. Flow equations in both the central groove and film land are solved by applying the technique of separation of variables. Model validation is presented by a rotor-squeeze film damper test rig using a recorded squeeze film damper film pressure, where a significant improvement from a classical squeeze film damper model is shown. It is found that the central groove has a high and stable pressure region while neglecting the groove effect that would over-estimate the damping force. Both simulation and experiment show that the increase of supply flow escalates the damper pressure and it could possibly avoid the film cavitation, thus raising the squeeze film damper reaction force. In addition, the effects of different groove cross-section shapes including rectangle, square, semi-circle, and semi-ellipse are evaluated. Model sensitivity shows that the size of the central groove has more impact on the damper performance than the shape of the groove.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".