0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Experimental Study of a Squeeze Film Damper With Eccentric Circular Orbits

[+] Author and Article Information
Giovanni Adiletta

DIME, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II,” Napoli, Italyadiletta@unina.it

Lelio Della Pietra

DIME, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II,” Napoli, Italy

J. Tribol 128(2), 365-377 (Oct 18, 2005) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2162555 History: Received November 17, 2004; Revised October 18, 2005

An experiment was carried out to investigate the distribution of oil pressure within a squeeze film damper. The damper was made so that its operation turned out to be as simple as possible, in order to highlight the main causes of practical deviation from theoretical prediction, with particular reference to cavitating mechanisms and regardless of inertia effects. The journal of the damper was given an eccentric orbital precession, with adoption of two distinct values of the offset. A groove placed laterally to the film secured the oil feeding. An outlet plenum at the opposite side of the film was operated with two different levels of exposure to the ambient air. Observation of the oil pressure was restricted to the film section midway between the inlet and outlet border, by means of three piezoelectric transducers plus a strain gauge sensor. Theoretical prediction with a simple isoviscous short bearing uncavitated model was shown to be a significant reference for the experimental data. Analysis of the pressure levels and shape of the pressure waves made it possible to recognize operating conditions with the presence of tensile stresses and rupture of the film. The latter conditions were chiefly due to vapor cavitation. In many circumstances, spikes with tensile strength preceded the ruptured region. Air entrainment and its effects proved to be restricted at high frequency regimes with very low supply pressures and coexisted with vapor cavitation. The influence of moderate orbital distortion on pressure signals was highlighted. Significant differences in the pressure behavior from one sensor location to the other, for the same operating conditions, were frequently observed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Schematic of the damper, (b) main geometric parameters in the middle plane of the damper (A indicates a generic location at the bearing wall)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Schematic of the experimental rig, (b) detail of the damper: 1 shaft, 2 eccentric, 3 side flanges, 4 inner ring-journal, 5 seal, 6 outer ring-bearing, 7 roller bearing, 8 inlet groove, 9 outlet groove, 10 squeeze film

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) Partial view of the damper equipped with sensors, (b) relative position of piezoelectric sensors with respect to the offset vector (exaggerated eccentricity, indicative offset direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Dynamic pressures from the I run: (a) and (b) waterfall plots of TP1 and TP2 signals, with pI varying from 0.2 barg (bottom) to 2.0 barg (top), (c) TP3 signal with pI=0.2 barg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Dynamic pressures from II run: (a), (c), and (e) waterfall plots of TP1, TP2, TP3 signals. (b), (d), and (f) comparison of signals at pI=0.2 barg and 2.0 barg.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a), (b), and (c) Comparison of absolute pressures from the II run, obtained with pI=0.2 barg and 2.0 barg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) Absolute pressure at TP3 from the III run. (b) Comparison at TP3 of absolute pressures from II and III run.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

(a), (b), and (c) Comparison of theoretical and experimental dynamic pressures (data from the II run)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Data with OF2-DS1 conditions: (a), (b), and (c) theoretical and experimental dynamic pressures from the IV run, (d) experimental dynamic pressures from the V run, (e) and (f) waterfall plots from the VI run

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

(a) Experimental orbits from the IV run. (b) Experimental dynamic pressures compared with theoretical ones at 1700c.p.m.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

(a) DP signals from the VII run. (b) DP signals from the VI run.

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.

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