Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to improve the load capacity of gas foil thrust bearing (GFTB) and to introduce and study a novel bearing with stacked bump foils.Design/methodology/approachFor the proposed novel GFTB supported by stacked foils, some bump-type gaskets with several partial arches are inserted below the regular bump foil, and the height of each arch can be made differently. These features make the bump foil thickness and height gradually increase, which can bring enhanced support stiffness and convergent film at the trailing edge. Based on a new nonlinear bump stiffness model considering bump rounding and friction force, the finite element and finite difference method were used to solve the coupling Reynolds equation, energy equation and foil deformation equation. Finally, the structural stiffness and static characteristics of the novel GFTB were gained and compared with the traditional bearing.FindingsThe novel GFTB has an additional convergence effect in the parallel section, which improves the static performance of bearing. The bearing capacity, friction moment, power loss and temperature rise of the novel GFTB are all higher than those of the traditional bearing, and the static characteristics are related to the parameters of stacked bump foils.Originality/valueThe stacked bump foils bring a fundamental enhancement on the load capacity of GFTB. The results are expected to be helpful to bearing designers, researchers and academicians concerned.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/ILT-10-2019-0449/


Authors

Hu, Hongyang;  Feng, Ming;  Ren, Tianming

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2019/12/19

    19-Dec-2019

    Dear Hu, Hongyang; Feng, Ming; Ren, Tianming

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript ilt-10-2019-0449.R2, entitled "Study on the performance of gas foil thrust bearings with stacked bump foils" in its current form for publication in Industrial Lubrication and Tribology. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2019/12/19

    The concerns have been corrected.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2019/12/19

    Dear Editors and Reviewers:
    Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

    Reviewer 1:
    We are so sorry for the spelling mistakes existing in this manuscript, and ‘20 um’ has all been revised to ‘20 μm’ in the whole manuscript. As for our mistakes during the work causing you unconvinence, we give our sincerely apologies here.

    We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes. We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
    Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
    Sincerely,
    The authors



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2019/12/12

    12-Dec-2019

    Dear Feng:

    Manuscript ID ilt-10-2019-0449.R1 entitled "Study on the performance of gas foil thrust bearings with stacked bump foils" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 11-Jan-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    20 μm should be written as this one, rather than 20 um. This is the second time for the wrong spellings.
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    20 μm should be written as this one, rather than 20 um. This is the second time for the wrong spellings.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Maybe

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: No

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2019/12/12

    20 μm should be written as this one, rather than 20 um. This is the second time for the wrong spellings.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2019/12/12

    Dear Editors and Reviewers:
    Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

    Reviewer 1:
    (1)We are sorry for the writing problems and spelling mistakes existing in this manuscript. The whole manuscript has been checked carefully, and the spelling and grammatical mistakes have been revised.
    (2)The blank between a digit and its unit has been added in the revised manuscript, for example, “20um” has been corrected to “20 um”. The same error in the figures has also been corrected.
    (3)The proposed bump stiffness model is compared with the literature data, and the results error among different models is relatively little. The experiments on the novel GFTB with stacked bump foils needs large work and special test bench for thrust bearing, which will be completed in the following work. To verify the predicted results, an experiment data (Yong-Bok L. et al. (2011), Type 3, 25krpm) has been added in the revised manuscript.
    (4) The main purpose of this paper is to introduce and investigate a novel thrust foil bearing with stacked bump foils. The adopted nonlinear structural stiffness model can consider the effect of bump Coulomb friction, rounding radius between bridge and arch, increasing bump thickness, and different bump height, etc, which is very important for the accurate solution of GFTB performance. For example, the rounding brings fundamental difference in the structural stiffness and the performance of foil bearings, which is not considered and studied specifically in the previous models among literatures. Moreover, as the specially bump foil structure for the novel bearing with stacked bump foils, the simple linear spring or other stiffness can not be used to analyse the enhancement on the bearing performance. The related discussion has been added in the revised manuscript. And in Fig. 4(c), the calculated bearing power loss is verified by compared with the experimental data (Dickman (2010)).

    We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes. We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
    Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
    Sincerely,
    The authors



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2019/11/17

    17-Nov-2019

    Dear Feng:

    Manuscript ID ilt-10-2019-0449 entitled "Study on the performance of gas foil thrust bearings with stacked bump foils" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended major revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 15-Feb-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    This manuscript presents the simulated results of gas foil thrust bearing with stacked bump foils. The effects of rotating speeds on the load, torque, temperature and power loss are simulated. Follows should correct and revise.
    1. There are some spelling mistakes existing in this manuscript, which needs to be corrected thoroughly. For instance, “The the total thickness…”, “Where, tb and tb6 is the…”, etc.
    2. There should be a blank between a digit and its unit, which needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript. For example, “20um” should be corrected as “20 μm”.
    3. All the work in this manuscript has not been confirmed by experiments. However, they are compared with the experimental results in published literatures. If possible, it is better to do some experiments to verify the predicted results to convince the readers. If not, the results should be analyzed in detailed with those published.
    4. The authors need to analyze the accuracy of their simulated results with the results experimentally. What is the advantages for their simulated results compared with those simulated by other models? The simulated results in this work could be compared with those published by other models, which is useful to compare the predicted accuracy and decreased simulation time between this study and others. These comparisons are beneficial to highlight the accuracy of the predicted results in this work, which is also necessary to exhibit the advantages and novelty done in this study.
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments:
    This manuscript presents the simulated results of gas foil thrust bearing with stacked bump foils. The effects of rotating speeds on the load, torque, temperature and power loss are simulated. Follows should correct and revise.
    1. There are some spelling mistakes existing in this manuscript, which needs to be corrected thoroughly. For instance, “The the total thickness…”, “Where, tb and tb6 is the…”, etc.
    2. There should be a blank between a digit and its unit, which needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript. For example, “20um” should be corrected as “20 μm”.
    3. All the work in this manuscript has not been confirmed by experiments. However, they are compared with the experimental results in published literatures. If possible, it is better to do some experiments to verify the predicted results to convince the readers. If not, the results should be analyzed in detailed with those published.
    4. The authors need to analyze the accuracy of their simulated results with the results experimentally. What is the advantages for their simulated results compared with those simulated by other models? The simulated results in this work could be compared with those published by other models, which is useful to compare the predicted accuracy and decreased simulation time between this study and others. These comparisons are beneficial to highlight the accuracy of the predicted results in this work, which is also necessary to exhibit the advantages and novelty done in this study.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Not sure, because there is no experiments to verify the results.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2019/11/05

    This manuscript presents the simulated results of gas foil thrust bearing with stacked bump foils. The effects of rotating speeds on the load, torque, temperature and power loss are simulated. Follows should correct and revise.
    1. There are some spelling mistakes existing in this manuscript, which needs to be corrected thoroughly. For instance, “The the total thickness…”, “Where, tb and tb6 is the…”, etc.
    2. There should be a blank between a digit and its unit, which needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript. For example, “20um” should be corrected as “20 μm”.
    3. All the work in this manuscript has not been confirmed by experiments. However, they are compared with the experimental results in published literatures. If possible, it is better to do some experiments to verify the predicted results to convince the readers. If not, the results should be analyzed in detailed with those published.
    4. The authors need to analyze the accuracy of their simulated results with the results experimentally. What is the advantages for their simulated results compared with those simulated by other models? The simulated results in this work could be compared with those published by other models, which is useful to compare the predicted accuracy and decreased simulation time between this study and others. These comparisons are beneficial to highlight the accuracy of the predicted results in this work, which is also necessary to exhibit the advantages and novelty done in this study.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.