| Zhang Yanqin (张艳芹),Kong Xiangbin,Guo Lili,Yu Xiaodong,Dai Chunxi,Shao Junpeng.[J].高技术通讯(英文),2017,23(3):298~305 |
|
| Simulation and experiment of starting transient flow field of the hydrostatic bearing based on dynamic mesh method |
| |
| DOI：10.3772/j.issn.1006-6748.2017.03.011 |
| 中文关键词: |
| 英文关键词: hydrostatic bearing, dynamic mesh, transient data, oil pad, UDF |
| 基金项目: |
| Author Name | Affiliation | | Zhang Yanqin (张艳芹) | | | Kong Xiangbin | | | Guo Lili | | | Yu Xiaodong | | | Dai Chunxi | | | Shao Junpeng | |
|
| Hits: 1253 |
| Download times: 1167 |
| 中文摘要: |
| |
| 英文摘要: |
| A new method is developed to assess and analyze the dynamic performance of hydrostatic bearing oil film by using an amulets-layer dynamic mesh technique. It is implemented using C Language to compile the UDF program of a single oil film of the hydrostatic bearing. The effects of key lubrication parameters of the hydrostatic bearing are evaluated and analyzed under various working conditions, i.e. under no-load, a load of 40t, a full load of 160t, and the rotation speed of 1r/min, 2r/min, 4r/min, 8r/min, 16r/min, 32r/min. The transient data of oil film bearing capacity under different load and rotation speed are acquired for a total of 18 working conditions during the oil film thickness changing. It allows the effective prediction of dynamic performance of large size hydrostatic bearing. Experiments on hydrostatic bearing oil film have been performed and the results were used to define the boundary conditions for the numerical simulations and validate the developed numerical model. The results showed that the oil film thickness became thinner with the increase of the operating time of the hydrostatic bearing, both the oil film rigidity and the oil cavity pressure increased significantly, and the increase of the bearing capacity was inversely proportional to the cube of the change of the film thickness. Meanwhile, the effect of the load condition on carrying capacity of large size static bearing was more important than the speed condition. The error between the simulation value and the experimental value was 4.25%. |
|
View Full Text
View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
