Influence of Oil Conducting Ducts on Squeeze Film Damper Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Squeeze film dampers (SFDs) are critical components in rotating machinery, designed to reduce vibration amplitudes and improve rotor dynamic stability. During operation, oil is evacuated from the SFD to prevent excessive temperature rise, typically through slits in the end seals. To maintain system performance, a continuous oil supply is required. Therefore, an oil distribution duct channels the oil from the pump to an inlet orifice and then to several feeding orifices. Recently, industry has shown interest in an oil evacuation system that mirrors the design of the oil delivery system. The design consists of recovery orifices that extract oil from the SFD into a recovery duct, where it is then discharged through an exit orifice. Traditional models assume constant pressure within both feeding and recovery ducts. In this study, a model for the feeding and recovery duct flows is proposed and validated against computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results. The duct model is coupled with a bulk-flow (BF) solution for the flow in the SFD. Contrary to the constant pressure assumption, the model shows that the pressure within the ducts oscillates, following the whirling motion of the rotor. The amplitude of these oscillations increases with the orbit radius, the rotor angular speed, and the reduction of duct cross-sectional area. It is shown that under certain operating conditions these oscillations can have a non-negligible influence on the forces generated by the SFD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".