Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:40:00.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Highly transient squeeze-film flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2011

E. A. MOSS,
A. KRASSNOKUTSKI,
B. W. SKEWS and
R. T. PATON
E. A. MOSS*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, South Africa
A. KRASSNOKUTSKI
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, South Africa
B. W. SKEWS
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, South Africa
R. T. PATON
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, South Africa
*
†Email address for correspondence: edward.moss@wits.ac.za
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The aim of this work was to investigate the flow evolution with time of fluid between two parallel disks and the corresponding pressure variations at the centre of the lower disk that occur subsequent to an impact-loading situation arising from dropping a mass onto the upper disk from a chosen height. During the event a fixed amount of energy is dissipated in the fluid between the disks through the action of friction. Therefore, this fundamental system may be regarded as a constant energy one, as distinct from one in which the upper disk is moving at a constant velocity, or is acted upon by a constant force. A test cell was set up to conduct the investigation, for which the separation between the disks was monitored, together with the pressure at the centre of the lower disk, over the duration of the experiment (about 8–10 ms). Glycerine was used as the test fluid. The equation of motion, based on a self-similarity approach, was reduced to a simpler (quasi-steady linear or QSL) form. Measured values of disk separation, velocity and acceleration were substituted as inputs into the full QSL model and two limiting cases, namely an inviscid and a viscous model. The QSL model provided excellent comparisons between the pressure measurements and data generated by a commercial computational fluid dynamics software package, throughout the duration of a typical experiment. The inviscid and viscous models achieved good correlations with measurements for the initial impact (during which disk accelerations exceeding 2 km s−2 occurred) and towards the end of the event, that were characterized by a small and much larger pressure rise, respectively. The former feature appears not to have been previously reported and is likely to typify that which would be observed in impact systems involving squeeze films.

JFM classification

Mathematical Foundations: General fluid mechanicsLow-Reynolds-number flows: Lubrication theory

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 671 , 25 March 2011, pp. 384 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

References

REFERENCES

Berman, A. S. 1953 J. Appl. Phys. 24, 1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, J. F. 1984 Phys. Fluids 27, 1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, J. F. & Acrivos, A. 1981 J. Fluid Mech. 112, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G., Davies, J. M. & Walters, K. 1976 J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 1, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazin, P. G. & Riley, N. 2006 The Navier–Stokes Equations: A Classification of Flows and Exact Solutions. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engmann, J., Servais, C. & Burbidge, A. S. 2005 J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 132, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espin, L. & Papageorgiou, D. T. 2009 Phys. Fluids 21, 113601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamza, E. A. & MacDonald, D. A. 1981 J. Fluid Mech. 109, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishizawa, I. 1966 Japan Soc. Mech. Engng 9 (35), 533.Google Scholar
Jones, A. F. & Wilson, S. D. R. 1975 ASME J. Lubr. Technol. 97, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzma, D. C. 1967 Appl. Sci. Res. 18, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzma, D. C., Maki, E. R. & Donnelly, R. J. 1964 J. Fluid Mech. 19, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, C. J., Kuang, Y. & Weinbaum, S. 1985 J. Fluid Mech. 156, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oseen, C. W. 1927 Neuere Methoden und Ergebnisse in der Hydrodynamik Leipzig. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Phan-Thien, N., Dudek, J., Boger, D. V. & Tirtaatmadja, V. 1985 J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 18, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phan-Thien, N., Sugeng, F. & Tanner, R. I. 1987 J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 24, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashidi, M. M., Shahmohamadi, H. & Dinarvand, S. 2008 Math. Probl. Engng 2008, 935095.Google Scholar
Reynolds, O. 1886 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 177, 157.Google Scholar
Stefan, J. 1874 Kais. Akad. Wiss. Math. Nat. Wien 69 (2), 713.Google Scholar
Stuart, J. T., DiPrima, R. C., Eagles, P. & Davey, A. 1990 Math. Phys. Sci. 430 (1879), 347.Google Scholar
Tichy, J. A. 1981 Appl. Sci. Res. 37 (3–4), 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichy, J. A. & Modest, M. F. 1978 ASME J. Lubr. Technol. 100 (3), 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichy, J. A. & Winer, W. O. 1970 ASME J. Lubr. Technol. 92, 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C. Y. 1976 ASME J. Appl. Mech. 98, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinbaum, S., Lawrence, C. J. & Kuang, Y. 1985 J. Fluid Mech. 156, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar