0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

A Comparison of Rotordynamic-Coefficient Predictions for Annular Honeycomb Gas Seals Using Three Different Friction-Factor Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Rohan J. D’Souza, Dara W. Childs

Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843

J. Tribol 124(3), 524-529 (May 31, 2002) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1456086 History: Received February 20, 2001; Revised August 15, 2001; Online May 31, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Honeycomb-Stator/Smooth-Rotor seal configuration, Childs 1
Grahic Jump Location
Friction-factor versus Reynolds number at varying clearances, cell width 1.57 mm, and cell depth 2.29 mm; friction-factor data, Ha and Childs 15
Grahic Jump Location
Comparisons of computed rotordynamic coefficients with different friction-factor models at 10, 200 rpm, 6.89 bar inlet pressure, 0.5 pressure ratio, and clearance 0.19 mm (b=1.57 mm,d=2.29 mm)
Grahic Jump Location
Comparisons of the k and c rotodynamic coefficients using reduced (constant exponent) friction-factor models at 10, 200 rpm, 6.89 bar inlet pressure, 0.5 pressure ratio, and clearance 0.19 mm (b=1.57 mm,d=2.29 mm)
Grahic Jump Location
Comparisons of the k and c rotodynamic coefficients using reduced (constant coefficient and exponent) friction-factor models at 10, 200 rpm, 6.89 bar inlet pressure, 0.5 pressure ratio, and clearance 0.19 mm (b=1.57 mm,d=2.29 mm)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In