Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Two dynamic models of dual clearance squeeze film damper

and their verification
Hai Lun Zhou a,b,n, Gui Huo Luo c, Guo Chen b, Hai Tao Tian c
a
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Shenyang Aerospace University, Shenyang 110136, The People’s Republic of China
b
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, The People’s Republic of China
c
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, The People’s Republic of China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two dynamic models of the dual clearance squeeze film damper (DCSFD) were established. One model
Received 24 August 2012 was based on the general Reynolds equation and the other model was based on the Reynolds equation of
Received in revised form conventional squeeze film damper. To validate the two models, vibration responses of DCSFD were
28 April 2013
obtained with different exciting frequencies, elastic supports and exciting forces by experiments. Based
Accepted 15 May 2013
on the experiment, a dynamic model including DCSFD was established. Excellent consistency of
Available online 23 May 2013
numerical solution was achieved between two different DCSFD models. Good consistency was achieved
Keywords: between the experiment and simulation. These observations provide useful models for further
Squeeze film damper studying DCSFD.
Floating-ring
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reynolds equation

1. Introduction To improve the performance of SFD, various new design concepts

Squeeze film dampers (SFDs) are frequently used in rotor support
structures of aero-engines for the stabilization and vibration control
[1,2]. However, conventional SFDs are highly non-linear elements with
vibration amplitude-dependent stiffness and damping coefficients.
These will result in bistable and non-synchronous responses [3]. There
can exist bistable response possibilities with jump between high and
low eccentricity orbits. High orbits are associated with high vibration
forces, and in such cases, the presence of the damper is ineffective and
damaging. The non-synchronous vibrations can result in cyclic rotor
stresses with associated problems of fatigue [4]. Zhao [5] investigated
the jump phenomenon by using the collocation method, the arc-
length continuation algorithm and the Levenberg–Marquardt non-
linear least squares method. Chu and Holmes [6] introduced three
numerical methods, which were the fast integration method, the
harmonic balance method and the simple iteration method, to predict
the non-linear dynamic response of the rotor system with SFD. Bonello
[7] proposed a receptance harmonic balance method used in the non-
linear analysis of a rotor system with SFD. Zhu [1] studied the jump
phenomenon by the synchronous circular centered-orbit motion
solution, the numerical integration method and the slow acceleration
method. Inayat-Hussain [8,9] investigated the effects of the various
parameters on bifurcations in the response of a rotor supported on
SFD with and without retainer springs.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 15850555101.
E-mail address: hlzhou@nuaa.edu.cn (H.L. Zhou).
had been proposed. Zhao and Hahn [3] proposed a novel SFD, an outer
ring of which was elastically connected to the rigid frame. The results
showed that the improved SFD was effective in preventing bistable
operation, sub-synchronous and non-synchronous operation at the
expense of increased vibration at the first critical speed. Fleming [10]
proposed a dual clearance SFD which could better sustain high
unbalance loadings. Moraru and Fleming [11–13] developed a rotor
dynamic model with the dual clearance SFD (DCSFD) and studied the
behaviour of the damper with the numerical method. However, the
translation components of the speed were neglected in the dynamic
model. The DCSFD is essentially a combination of two SFD separated
by a ring. It is schematically shown in Fig. 1. Zhou [14] studied the
dynamic response of a rotor supported on DCSFD, and the experi-
mental results showed that the bistable characteristics of a rotor
supported on DCSFD can be effectively restrained.
The non-rotating test rig had been widely used for investigat-
ing the characteristics of SFD. Siew [2] investigated three different
SFD models to guide for designing a shallow or deep grooved SFD
by using the non-rotating test rig. Andres and Delgado [15–19]
studied the identification of SFD force coefficients on the condition
of different mechanical seals by using non-rotating test rig.
To study the characteristics of DCSFD, two dynamic models of
DCSFD were established in this paper. One model was based on
the general Reynolds equation, and the other one was based on the
Reynolds equation of conventional SFD. To validate the two
models, a non-rotating test rig including DCSFD was excited by
two orthogonally placed shakers. Based on the experiment, a
dynamic model including DCSFD was established. Then the finite

0301-679X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2013.05.010
188 H.L. Zhou et al. / Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193

Inner oil film Housing

Outer oil film

Floating ring
x

Journal
Elastic support

Fig. 1. Schematic model of DCSFD.

difference and the Runge–Kutta method were applied to solve the

hydrodynamics equation and differential equations. Excellent
consistency of the numerical solution was achieved between two
different DCSFD models. Good consistency was also achieved
between the experiment and simulation.
Fig. 2. Position variables of DCSFD.

2. DCSFD model

Two kinds of DCSFD models were built. Outer film of one model
was based on the Reynolds equation of conventional SFD; inner
film was based on the general incompressible Reynolds equation.
It was named as model I. Outer and inner films of the other model
were all based on the Reynolds equation of conventional SFD.
It was named as model II. Therefore, model I and II were different
in inner film modelling.

2.1. Model I: based on the general incompressible Reynolds equation

Fig. 2 shows the position variables and some parameters that

exist in the model of DCSFD. A rotational coordinate system is
Fig. 3. Central position of journal, floating-ring and bearing housing.
built: origin O is located at the surface of the journal, where the
maximum value of h1 exists. rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1− eR32 sin 2 θ−R1 þ e3 cos θ. In practical e3 =R2 is
2
The general incompressible Reynolds equation can be written Thus h1 ¼ R2
about 10−3, so
2
as follows:
! " #
∂ h1 ∂p
3 3
∂ h1 ∂p ∂h1 h1 ¼ R2 −R1 þ e3 cos θ:
þ ¼ 6ðU 1 −U 2 Þ þ 12ðV 2 −V 1 Þ ð1Þ
∂X μ ∂X ∂Z μ ∂Z ∂X
Putting R2 −R1 ¼ C 1 gives the following expression for h1 :
where the sub-indices “1” and “2” express the bottom and top
h1 ¼ C 1 þ e3 cos θ
surfaces of the oil film.
In order to solve the Eq. (1), it is required to obtain an
The motion of DCSFD can be expressed with U in X and V in Y
expression for the varying distance h1, which exists between the
direction, which are the tangential and the radial translation
surfaces of the journal and the floating-ring at a location given by
components, in rotational coordinate system. Let U1 and V1
the angle θ The angle is measured anticlockwise to OjM′ from the
express the tangential and the radial translation components at
line OjY. The eccentricity between the shaft and the bearing
M, and U2 and V2 express the tangential and the radial translation
housing is represented by distance, e1, between the centre of the
components at M′. To describe the motion of DCSFD clearly, the
journal Oj and the centre of the bearing housing Ob; the eccen-
tangential and the radial translation components at M and M′ are
tricity between the floating ring and the bearing housing is
respectively moved to the centre of the journal Oj and the centre of
represented by distance, e2, between the centre of the floating
the floating ring Of shown as Fig. 3.
ring Of and the centre of the bearing housing Ob; the eccentricity !
According to Fig. 3, four vectors are defined, which are Oj Ob ,
between the floating ring and the bearing housing is represented ! ! 
!
Oj Of , Of Oj and Of Ob . Five angles are defined, which are α1 , α2 , θ, β1
by distance, e3, between the centre of the journal Oj and the centre !
and β2 . α1 is measured anticlockwise to vector Oj Of from vector
of the floating ring Of. ! !
Oj Ob ; α2 is measured anticlockwise to vector Of Ob from
According to the position of Of, h1, M and M′, the expressions ! !
vectorOf Oj ;θ is measured anticlockwise to vector Oj Of from vector
can be obtained as follows: ! !
Oj Of ; β1 is measured anticlockwise to X axis from vector Oj Ob ; β2 is
( 
!
e3 cos θ þ R2 cos γ 1 ¼ R1 þ h1 measured anticlockwise to Y axis from vectorOf Ob .
Let the translation speeds of journal and floating ring be Ω1 and
sin γ 1 ¼ e3 sin θ=R2
Ω2 respectively. According to Fig. 3, the expressions can be
 H.L. Zhou et al. / Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193 189

Z where Ωj is the angular velocity of the journal relative to the

floating ring, Ωj ¼ ½ðy_ j −y_ Þðxj −xf Þ−ðyj −yf Þðx_ j −x_ f Þ=½ðxj −xf Þ2 þ ðyj −yf Þ2 .
L/2
The instantaneous pressure distribution p of inner film for DCSFD
can be obtained by solving the Eq. (4). Similarly, substituting
. x ¼ xf , y ¼ yf , x_ ¼ x_ f , and y_ ¼ y_ f into the Reynolds equation of
. ...
. conventional SFD, instantaneous pressure distribution p of outer
film for DCSFD can be obtained.
-L/2
0 2π θ
3. Solution
Fig. 4. The discrete mesh.
The Eqs. (3) and (4) are non-linear partial differential equa-
obtained as follows: tions, so the finite difference method can be employed for its
solution. By converting partial derivatives into central difference
U 1 ¼ e1 Ω1 sin β1 þ e_ 1 cos β1 ; V 1 ¼ −e1 Ω1 cos β1 formulas, the Eqs. (3) and (4) can be discretized using the central
þe_ 1 sin β1 ; where β1 ¼ α1 þ θ−π=2 difference scheme in the θ and Z directions, which are discretized
into 100 and 20 shares respectively. The discrete mesh is schema-
! ! ! !
Based on cos α1 ¼ Oj Ob  Oj Of =ðjOj Ob jjOj Of jÞ and the product of tically shown in Fig. 4.
! ! Eq. (3) can be expressed in finite difference format as follows:
vectors Oj Of and Oj Ob , α1 can be obtained.  
Similarly, U 2 ¼ e2 Ω2 cos β2 −e_ 2 sin β2 , V 2 ¼ e2 Ω2 sin β2 þ e_ 2 cos β2 , 1 2 hiþ1;j −hi−1;j piþ1;j −pi−1;j 3 piþ1;j −2pi;j þ pi−1;j
3h þ h
!  ! !  ! R1 2
1
2Δθ 2Δθ
1
Δθ2
where, β2 ¼ θ−α2 . Based on cos α2 ¼ Of Oj  Of Ob =ðjOf Oj jjOf Ob jÞ and  

! ! h
2 i;jþ1 −h p
i;j−1 i;jþ1 −p i;j−1 3 i;jþ1 −2pi;j þ pi;j−1
p
the product of vector Of Ob and Of Oj , α2 can be obtained. þ 3h1 þ h1
2Δz 2Δz Δz2
Let X ¼ R1 θ, substituting it into expression (1) gives the following
¼ 6μðe1 Ω1 sin β1 þ e_ 1 cos β1 −e2 Ω2 cos β2
expression:
1
! " # þ e_ 2 sin β2 Þ e3 sin θ þ 12μðe2 Ω2 sin β2 þ e_ 2 cos β2
1 ∂ h1 ∂p
3 3
∂ h1 ∂p 1 ∂h1 R1
þ ¼ 6ðU 1 −U 2 Þ þ 12ðV 2 −V 1 Þ ð2Þ þe1 Ω1 cos β1 −e_ 1 sin β1 Þ
R1 2 ∂θ μ ∂θ ∂Z μ ∂Z R1 ∂θ
Eq. (4) can be expressed in finite difference format as follow:
Substituting U 1 , V 1 , U 2 and V 2 into expression (2) gives the  
following expression: 1 2 hiþ1;j −hi−1;j piþ1;j −pi−1;j 3 piþ1;j −2pi;j þ pi−1;j
3h 1 þ h1
! " # R2 2Δθ 2Δθ Δθ2
1 ∂ h1 ∂p
3
∂ h1 ∂p
3  
þ h
2 i;jþ1 −h p
i;j−1 i;jþ1 −p i;j−1 3 i;jþ1 −2pi;j þ pi;j−1
p
R1 2 ∂θ μ ∂θ ∂Z μ ∂Z þ 3h1 þ h1
2Δz 2Δz Δz2
¼ 6ðe1 Ω1 sin β1 þ e_ 1 cos β1 −e2 Ω2 cos β2 ¼ −12Ωj e3 sin θ þ 12e_ 3 cos θ
1 ∂h1  where subscripts i and j refer to discrete locations in the θ and Z
þe_ 2 sin β2 Þ þ 12 e2 Ω2 sin β2 þ e_ 2 cos β2 þ e1 Ω1 cos β1
R1 ∂θ directions respectively, hi;j ¼ hðθi ; Z j Þ and pi;j ¼ pðθi ; Z j Þ. Then the
 pressure distribution can be obtained by using the Gauss–Seidel
−e_ 1 sin β1 ð3Þ
and SOR–Newton iterative calculation process.
This is the hydrodynamics equation of inner film of DCSFD. The Much research has been performed to study effects of cavita-
hydrodynamics equation of the outer film is based on the Reynolds tion, air entrainment and bubbly mixture operation; however, the
equation of conventional SFD. The force of inner and outer films phenomena are not yet fully understood [10]. Therefore, the short
can be obtained by solving the hydrodynamics equations for inner bearing approximation and the Reynolds boundary condition were
and outer films synchronously. adopted, when the numerical scheme and analytical formulation
were employed in this paper.
The numerical scheme cost much more computation time than
2.2. Model II: based on the Reynolds equation of conventional SFD
analytical formulation method. But it is hard to get the analytical
formulation of the inner film force by Eq. (3). Therefore, the
Let ðxj ; yj Þ denote the centre of the journal Oj and ðxf ; yf Þ denote
numerical scheme was employed to get the force of inner film of
the centre of the floating ring Of. xj, yj, xf, and yf are the
model I; the analytical formulation method was employed to get
displacements of the journal and floating-ring in the x- and
the outer film force of model I, inner and outer film forces of
y-directions, where, the sub-indices “j” and “f” express the journal
model II.
and floating-ring respectively. (  ) denotes d/dt. The inner film
force is generated by journal and floating ring motion, while the
outer film force is only generated by floating ring motion. 4. Experimentation and validation
To utilize the Reynolds equation of conventional SFD, floating ring
is treated as static state relative to damper journal. Therefore, 4.1. Test rig description
substituting the displacement and speed of the journal relative to
the floating ring into the Reynolds equation of conventional SFD In order to validate the two DCSFD models built in the paper, a
gives for the hydrodynamics equation of inner film of DCSFD. test rig including DCSFD was built and shown as Fig. 5. It mainly
Namely, substituting x ¼ xj −xf , y ¼ yj −yf , x_ ¼ x_ j −x_ f , and y_ ¼ y_ j −y_ f consists of damper journal, elastic support, shakers, flexible links,
into the conventional Reynolds equation in Ref. [20], the expres- force sensors, transfer components, DCSFD, etc. The damper
sion can be obtained as follow: journal is embedded in elastic support, which can be used to
! " # centralize the damper journal and supply different support stiff-
3 3
1 ∂ h1 ∂p ∂ h1 ∂p
þ ¼ −12Ωj e3 sin θ þ 12e_ 3 cos θ ð4Þ ness. It is also compacted to elastic support by nut. Thereby, the
R1 2 ∂θ μ ∂θ ∂Z μ ∂Z
damper journal is integrated with elastic support. The end face of
190 H.L. Zhou et al. / Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193

Damper journal
DCSFD
Face A

Force sensor
Face B
Flexible link Transfer component
Damper journal

Shaker

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the test rig.

damper journal is square; the faces A and B are orthogonal; then

the two transfer components are compacted to faces A and B. The
exciting forces of shakers along the flexible link, force sensor and
transfer component are transferred to the damper journal. The
longitudinal stiffness of the flexible link is big, while the lateral
stiffness is small. Thereby, the flexible link can transfer the exciting
force to the damper journal along the certain direction. It can
reduce the bad influence caused by installation error. The force
sensor is to get the exciting force amplitude of each shaker. The
damper journal is subjected to a constant rotating force produced
by two orthogonally placed shakers to simulate the imbalance
force of a rotating system.
The principle diagram of the rig is shown as Fig. 6. Shakers are
fed with two signals which are 901 out of phase with each other
but have the same amplitude, from the frequency generator and
power amplifier. The combination of the two forces gives a Fig. 6. Mathematical model of the test rig.
constant force rotating at the frequency of the input signal. Thus,
orbits of damper journal should be circular, having a constant
F
dynamic eccentricity about the central axis [2].
mB
The first set of experiments consists of static and impact tests
conducted without lubricant in the test rig. These tests yield the
damper journal mass, floating-ring mass, elastic support stiffness,
viscous damping coefficient, etc. Subsequently, different frequency
loads were exerted on the test rig without and with DCSFD, and ka mF Cr
then the corresponding response can be obtained. In order to
confirm the validity of experimental results, each experiment was
repeated at least two times.
Based on the test rig, a mathematical model including DCSFD
was given as Fig. 7, where —∥— denoted the non-linear stiffness
Fig. 7. Test rig installed support A without DCSFD.
and damper of squeeze film. The dynamic equations of the model
can be obtained as follows:
8 In the experiment, the test rig can be installed on two different
>
> mB x€ B þ C r x_ B þ ka xB ¼ f SIx þ F cos ωt
>
> elastic supports, support A and B, respectively. Static and impact
< mB y€ B þ C r y_ B þ ka yB ¼ f SIy þ F sin ωt
tests were conducted on the test device to identify the system
ð5Þ
>
> mF x€ F ¼ −f SIx þ f SOx parameters [15,16]. Table 2 presents the system parameters.
>
>
: mF y€ F ¼ −f SIy þ f SOy

where mB is the mass of damper journal; mF is the mass of
floating-ring; ka is the stiffness of the elastic support; C r is the
viscous damping coefficient; (xB, yB) and (xF, yF) are the displace-
ments of damper journal and floating ring in the fixed coordinate
system; F is the amplitude of shaker forces applied to DCSFD; f SIx
and f SIy are the oil film forces generated by inner film in the x- and
y-directions, f SOx and f SOy are the oil film forces generated by outer
film in the x- and y-directions.
The lubrication system included a delivery pump which sup-
plied 32# hydraulic oil. The kinematic viscosities of oil were
measured in Ref. [21] with different temperatures; the test results
were listed in Table 1.
4.2. The test rig without DCSFD
The test rig without DCSFD was installed on two different
supporting A and B. In the experiment, the excitation loads were
5 N and 10 N with frequencies ranging from 10 to 100 Hz. Let f SIx
and f SIy equal to zero, the displacement response of the damper
journal can be obtained by solving the first two equations of
Eq. (5) with the Runge–Kutta method. Thus, the simulation results
of the test rig without DCSFD can be obtained.
Figs. 8 and 9 depict the displacement response of damper
journal with different excitation frequencies in x- and y-direction,
when the rig without DCSFD is installed on the supports A and B
 H.L. Zhou et al. / Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193 191

respectively, where the curves with dots denote the experimental
results; the curves with circles denote the simulation results.
As can be observed from Figs. 8 and 9, the experimental results
and simulation results are accordant. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that
there is a maximum of the displacement response in both
experimental and simulation results. The corresponding excitation
frequency is equal to 50 Hz, which is the resonance frequency of
the test rig installed on support A. It can also be seen from Fig. 9
that there is a maximum of the displacement response in both
experimental and simulation results. The corresponding excitation
frequency is equal to 80 Hz, which is the resonance frequency of
the test rig installed on support B.
For simplicity, the test rig can be seen as one degree of freedom
system. Therefore, the resonancepfrequency
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi of the system can be
obtained by the formula, ωn ¼ ka =mB =ð2πÞ. When the test rig
without DCSFD was installed on support A, ωn ¼ 47.094 7Hz. The
resonance frequency is close to 50 Hz, which is consistent with the
experimental and simulation result. Similarly, when the test rig
without DCSFD was installed on support B, ωn ¼ 82.6068 Hz. The
resonance frequency is near to 80 Hz, which is consistent with the
experimental and simulation results.
Therefore, the experimental results, simulation results and
simplified formula results are accordant.
4.3. The test rig with DCSFD
In order to validate the two DCSFD models built in the paper, a
test rig was installed on support A and B. Figs. 10 and 11(a, b)
depict the displacement responses of damper journal with differ-
ent excitation frequencies in simulation and experiment. Let E1
Table 1
Viscosity-temperature relationship of 32# hydraulic oil.
Temperatures 20 30 40 48 57 76 85 95
Viscosities 7.322 4.5702 2.7921 1.9002 1.3038 0.8385 0.7415 0.5715
(10−2 Pa s)
denote the error between the model I and model II, E1 ¼
jðmodel I−model IIÞ=model IIj100%; Let E2 denote the error
between the model I and experimental results, E2 ¼
jðexperiment−modelIÞ=modelIj100%; Let E3 denote the error
between the model II and experimental results, E3 ¼
jðexperiment−modelIIÞ=modelIIj100%. Figs. 10 and 11(c, d) depict
E1 , E2 and E3 .
It can be seen from Fig. 10(a, b) that the results calculated by
the model I and II are accordant. The maximal value of E1 is
3.8462%; the minimal value of E1 is close to zero. Thus, excellent
consistency of numerical solution is achieved between two differ-
ent DCSFD models. As can be observed from Fig. 10(a, b), there are
some differences between simulation and experimental results.
The maximal value of E2 is 27.7778%; the minimal value of E2 is
close to zero; the maximal value of E3 is 25%; minimal value of E3
is close to zero. The error may come from the simplified boundary
condition, machining error, etc. However, most of the values of E2
and E3 are small, and the general trends of simulation and
experiment are accordant. Thus, good consistency is also achieved
between experiment and simulation.
To further validate the Model I and II, support B, an elastic
support with greater stiffness, was adopted. As can be observed
from Fig. 11, the excellent consistency of the numerical solution is
achieved between model I and model II; good consistency is also
achieved between the experiment and simulation. Therefore, the
models established in the paper are further validated.
All calculations in the paper were performed in Matlab on a
standard desktop pc with a 2.83 GHz quad core processor. The
computation time of model I and II is listed in Table 3. It can be
seen that the computation time of model I is 10 times more than
the model II. Thus, model II can save more computation time.
However, the model II is based on the Reynolds equation of
conventional SFD. It is hard to consider the deformation of floating
ring in model II. Therefore, the model I provides the groundwork
to further perfect the model of DCSFD.

5. Conclusion

Table 2 In order to investigate the characteristics of DCSFD, two

Test rig parameters. dynamic models of DCSFD were established in the paper. Model
Parameter Test device installed Test device installed
I was based on the general Reynolds equation; model II was based
support A support B on the Reynolds equation of conventional SFD. A non-rotating test
rig was excited by two orthogonally placed shakers in the experi-
F(N) 5 10 ment. Based on the experiment, a dynamic model including DCSFD
mB (kg) 1.2774 1.4774
was established. Then the finite difference and Runge–Kutta
mF (kg) 0.022 0.025
ka (N/m) 111,848.7 398,006 method were employed. The conclusions of the study are as
C r (N s/m) 24.0688 83.5336 follows:
Journal radius (mm) 18 20
Radial clearance 0.075 0.075 (1) The calculation results of model I and II are accordant. The
(mm)
Land length (mm) 6.5 6.5
error value of two models is less than 4%. Excellent consistency
of numerical solution is achieved between two different

Fig. 8. Test rig installed support B without DCSFD (a) response of journal in x-direction and (b) response of journal in y-direction.
192 H.L. Zhou et al. / Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193

Fig. 9. Test rig installed support A (a) response of journal in x-direction and (b) response of journal in y-direction.

Fig. 10. Test rig installed support B (a) response of journal in x-direction, (b) response of journal in y-direction, (c) error analysis in x-direction and (d) error analysis in
y-direction.

Fig. 11. Test rig installed support B. (a) response of journal in x-direction, (b) response of journal in y-direction, (c) error analysis in x-direction and (d) error analysis in
y-direction.
 H.L. Zhou et al. / Tribology International 66 (2013) 187–193
Table 3
CPU time (units: s).
Model I Model II
Fig. 10(a, b) 6310.348923 525.616787
Fig. 11(a, b) 7186.565461 483.458963
DCSFD models. The correction of model I and II is also
mutually validated.
(2) There are some differences between simulation and experi-
mental results. However, good consistency is also achieved
between the experimental and simulation results. Two models
established in the paper are further validated.
(3) The model II of DCSFD can save more computation time than
the model I, while model I provide the groundwork to further
perfect the model of DCSFD, such as considering the deforma-
tion of the floating ring. Model I and II provide useful models
for investigating the characteristics of DCSFD.
References
[1] Zhu CS, Robb DA, Ewins DJ. Analysis of the multiple-solution response of a
flexible rotor supported on non-linear squeeze film dampers. Journal of Sound
and Vibration 2002;252:389–408.
[2] Siew CC, Hill M, Holmes R. Evaluation of various fluid-film models for use in
the analysis of squeeze film dampers with a central groove. Tribology
International 2002;35:533–47.
[3] Zhao JY, Hahn EJ. Eccentric operation and blade-loss simulation of a rigid rotor
supported by an improved squeeze film damper. ASME Journal of Tribology
1995;117:490–7.
[4] Rezvani MA, Hahn EJ. Floating ring film damper: theoretical analysis. Tribology
International 2000;33:249–58.
[5] Zhao JY, Linnett IW, McLean LJ. Stability and bifurcation of unbalanced
response of a squeeze film damped flexible rotor. ASME Journal Tribology
1994;116:361–8.
[6] Chu FL, Holmes R. Efficient computation on nonlinear responses of a rotating
assembly incorporating the squeeze-film damper. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1998;164:363–73.
193
[7] Bonello P, Brennan M, Holmes R. Non-linear modeling of rotor dynamic
systems with squeeze film dampers—an efficient integrated approach. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 2002;249:743–73.
[8] Inayat-Hussain JI. Bifurcations of a flexible rotor response in squeeze-film
dampers without centering springs. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 2005;24:
583–96.
[9] Inayat-Hussain JI. Bifurcations in the response of a flexible rotor in squeeze-
film dampers with retainer springs. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 2009;39:
519–32.
[10] Moraru L. Numerical predictions and measurements in the lubrication of
aeronautical engine and transmission components [PhD Thesis]. College of
Engineering, University of Toledo; May 2005.
[11] Moraru L, Keith TG, Dimofte F, Cioc S, Fleming DP. Dynamic modeling of a dual
clearance squeeze film damper—Part I: test rig and dynamic model with one
damper. Tribology Transactions 2003;46:170–8.
[12] Moraru L, Keith TG, Dimofte F, Cioc S, Fleming DP. Dynamic modeling of a dual
clearance squeeze film damper—Part II. Tribology Transactions 2006;49:
611–20.
[13] Moraru L, Keith TG, Dimofte F, Cioc S, Fleming DP. A dynamic analysis of a dual
clearance squeeze film damper. In: Proceedings of the ASME/STLE interna-
tional joint tribology conference. 2010 Oct 17–20, Washington, USA; 2005.
p. 1–2.
[14] Zhou HL, Luo GH, Feng GQ, Chen G. Dynamic response analysis of a rotor
supported on floating-ring squeeze film dampers. Journal of Aerospace Power
2012;27:644–50 (Chinese).
[15] San Andres LA, Delgado A. Identification of force coefficients in a squeeze film
damper with a mechanical seal, I: unidirectional load tests. ASME Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 2007;129:858–64.
[16] San Andres LA, Delgado A. Identification of force coefficients in a squeeze film
damper with a mechanical seal, centered circular orbit tests. ASME Journal of
Tribology 2007;129:660–8.
[17] San Andres LA, Delgado A. Squeeze film damper with a mechanical seal:
experimental force coefficients derived from circular centered orbits. ASME
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 2008;130:1–8.
[18] Delgado A, San Andres LA. Nonlinear Identification of Mechanical Parameters
on a Squeeze Film Damper with Integral Mechanical Seal. ASME Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 2009;131:1–7.
[19] Delgado A, San Andres LA. Identification of force coefficients in a squeeze film
damper with a mechanical seal: large contact force. ASME Journal of Tribology
2010;132:1–7.
[20] Groves KH, Bonello P. Improved identification of squeeze-film damper models
for aeroengine vibration analysis. Tribology International 2010;43:1639–49.
[21] Jiang JH, Ji TJ, Li Y, Zhang DQ. Research on viscosity-temperature relationship
of hydraulic oils. Lubrication Engineering 1998;5:35–7 (Chinese).