Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02874-0

TECHNICAL PAPER

Numerical investigation of influence sensitivity of a gas foil bearing

parameters on the dynamic coefficients
Debanshu S. Khamari1 · Jitesh Kumar1 · Suraj K. Behera1

Received: 19 August 2020 / Accepted: 29 January 2021 / Published online: 26 February 2021
© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2021

Abstract
Most studies on dynamic coefficients of bearings are focused on evaluation using different analytical methods. Minimal
emphasis is given to the level of influence of each geometrical variable, the corresponding range of these variables for opti-
mum stiffness and damping and the measure of performance of the analytical method used. The objective of this paper was
to study the influence and sensitivity of length-to-diameter ratio, eccentricity ratio, bearing number, whirl ratio, and bearing
compliance on the stiffness and damping of gas foil bearing. A numerical model is developed by utilizing the finite differ-
ence method to evaluate the dynamic coefficients. The results reveal that the normalized stiffness increases with the bearing
number and decreases with increased bearing compliance whereas the normalized damping shows an opposite nature. Further,
the stiffness coefficients tend to increase and the damping coefficients tend to decrease corresponding to increase in speed
up to 240 krpm. The characteristic data sets obtained from the analysis is used to train an artificial neural network (ANN).
Performance of ANN network is evaluated though computation of root-mean-square error (RSME) and regression coefficient
(R2) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Utilizing the neural network results, a Sobol’s sensitivity test is carried out to identify
most effective parameters which have a significant influence on the dynamic coefficients of gas foil bearing. After that, an
adaptive neurofuzzy interface system (ANFIS) is established to determine the optimum range of data for which maximum
stiffness and damping can be obtained. The results deduce that the neural network shows high efficacy in predicting the
output variables correctly with a regression of more than 95%. It is also observed that the variation of dynamic coefficients
is the highest for eccentricity ratio whereas lowest for whirl ratio. The maximum stiffness and damping coefficients are also
obtained for a wide range of geometrical variables which can help in designing the gas foil bearing.

Keywords Dynamic coefficients · Artificial neural network · Sobol’s sensitivity test · Adaptive neurofuzzy interface
system · Gas foil journal bearing
List of symbols E Young’s modulus (N/m 2)
R Radius of the journal (mm) tb Bump foil thickness (mm)
h Film thickness (mm) p Non-dimensional pressure (p/p a)
hb Bump height (mm) C Nominal bearing clearance (mm)
Rb Bump radius (mm) h Non-dimensional film thickness (h/C)
C Radial clearance (mm) t Normalized time variable (ν t)
p Aerodynamic pressure (N/m 2) L/D Length-to-diameter ratio
s Pitch of bump (mm) h0,hx,hy,h0. ,hx. ,hy. Perturbation components of h
P Atmospheric pressure (N/m 2) Δ x, Δ y Normalized perturbations
2 l Length of bump (mm) p0, px, py, p0. , px. , py. Perturbation components of p
K mn Normalized stiffness of bearing
(cK mn ∕pa R2)
Technical Editor: Daniel Onofre de Almeida Cruz. Cmn Normalized damping of bearing
(c𝜔Cmn ∕pa R2)
* Debanshu S. Khamari k Normalized stiffness of the founda-
debanshushekhar@gmail.com
tion ( kc∕pa)
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Rourkela, u Normalized foil deflection (u/c)
Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India Fx,Fy Resultant forces in x and y directions

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
167 Page 2 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

W Normalized bearing load (W∕pa R2)
z Normalized axial coordinate
θ Circumferential coordinate
Greek symbols
Α Compliance number ( pa ∕ck)
γ Whirl frequency ratio (ν/ω)
Λ Bearing number (6𝜇𝜔R2 ∕pa c2)
Ε Eccentricity ratio
μ Lubricant viscosity
ν Whirl frequency
ω Rotor angular velocity
Acronyms
MLP Multi-layer perceptron
MF Membership function
MAE Mean absolute error
RMSE Root-mean-squared error
1 Introduction
Gas Foil Journal Bearings (GFJBs) are self-acting hydrody-
namic bearings which are used to overcome the limitations
of oil lubricated bearings like contamination of oil particles
and low stiffness and damping characteristics. There are also
several merits of GFJBs over conventional rigid bearings
such as high load carrying capacity, low friction at steady
operation, and endurance to foreign matter. GFJBs basically
contains a bump foil and top foil over it which creates an
elastic structure and behaves as a spring bed responsible for
increasing bearing stiffness as shown in Fig. 1. The dynamic
coefficients of GFJB rely on behavior of the gas film as well
as foil structure. Proper prediction of dynamic coefficients
of the GFJB accounts for the rotor stability and performance.
Both its structure and used material makes the prediction
process of these coefficients more complicated as there
are various parameters which influences the stiffness and
damping. So it is a matter of importance to identify the key
factors influencing the dynamic coefficients. Furthermore,
the optimum range of the design parameters for reliable stiff-
ness and damping of the GFJB must be identified.
There are many methods dealing with the dynamic coef-
ficients of GFJB. Perturbation analysis and Simpson’s rule
of integration are vastly utilized to decide the dynamic coef-
ficients of GFJB [1]. Equations of fluid model are generally
paired with the equations of structural model. The equations
of the model are finally resolved by using the SOR approach
(Successive Over Relaxation) [2]. Hydrodynamic behavior
of GFJB is estimated by utilizing this model because it takes
in to account both compressibility as well as compliance.
The performance is predicted by evaluating the pressure
and load [3]. One of the earliest attempt toward solving the
GFJB problem is done by Heshmat et al. [4]. The finite dif-
ference formulations are evaluated using Newton Raphson
approach for calculating both collinear as well as cross cou-
pled dynamic coefficients. Both single-pad and multipad
structure are used for the analysis to calculate the effect of
operating variables on bearing behavior. Later, Kim et al.
[5] considered the air foil bearing of four different types and
analyzed their stiffness and damping. The investigation leads
to the conclusion that stiffness variation of bump foil does
not significantly affect the load capacity. After that, Paulsen
et al. [6] determined the dynamic coefficients and load by
solving Reynold’s equation. The dynamic coefficients are
also evaluated.
Later, Howard et al. [7] tested foil bearing steady state
stiffness with increasing temperature and observed that
the stiffness is decreased by a factor of two with respect to
increasing temperature. Carpino et al. [8] modelled a finite
element approach in which the film thickness, foil deflection
and gas pressure are perturbed to evaluate the dynamic coef-
ficients. Further, Lamhar et al. [9] determined the dynamic
coefficients for certain frequency of excitation by using the
first-order perturbation. Outcomes reveal dependence of
excitation frequency rises with rise in dynamic coefficients.

Fig. 1  Geometrical parameters

of GFJB

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167
Later, Rao et al. [10] developed expressions for more sophis-
ticated calculation of stiffness and damping and studied the
effect of dynamic coefficients and speed for different ratios
of length and diameter. Feng et al. [11] presented numerical
model of a GFJB by taking in to account the dynamic forces
in the structure of the foil. Springs are used to replicate every
bump. Results show that the frequency and friction factor
are the major factors influencing the dynamic characteristics
of the GFJB. Recently, Larsen et al. [12] investigated the
mechanical bump foil behavior at different friction coeffi-
cients. The numerical model also showed that stiffness is
underestimated in analytical model. Moreover, Larsen et al.
[13] solved an equation of zeroth-order using Successive
under relaxation approach. The pressure profiles are ana-
lyzed by implicitly considering the deformations in the lay-
ers of the compliant foil. Further, Rubio et al. [14] deduced
that the structural stiffness obtained from two identical bear-
ings and found an increasing nature of the structural stiff-
ness with the increasing foil deflection. Later, Le Lez et al.
[15] developed the foil bearing model corresponding to set
of interacting bumps of multi-degree of freedom. Further,
effect of structure of the foil bearing on dynamic coefficients
is observed. Feng et al. [16] examined a number of param-
eters such as load capacity, flow rate, mid-plane pressure,
dynamic coefficients corresponding to the eccentricity ratio,
and speed. It is found that with increase in speed, the stiff-
ness increases whereas change in the damping is very mar-
ginal. Guo et al. [17] calculated the dynamic coefficients
of GFJB using the perturbation method corresponding to
certain nominal clearances. Nonlinear rotordynamic behav-
ior is also predicted by using a loss factor model. Recently,
Lai et al. [18] reviewed the performance of a high-speed
turboexpander. Influence of dynamic coefficients on the
rotor behavior are also presented for reliable operation of
the turbomachinery.
Good amount of work is done based upon various numer-
ical models but little importance is given to the use of neural
network in the field of bearings. Hasan et al. [19] reported
the training of a neural network to analyze the overall numer-
ical GFJB model. The model is subjected to different input
data sets over a wide range of speeds. It is found that the
neural network successfully identifies the numerical model
of the GFJB through different validation studies. Qin et al.
[20] demonstrated the training of neural network model and
studied the motion aspect of a rigid rotor. From the compu-
tational results, motion behavior of neural network is found
to be identical to that of numerical model. Manoj et al. [21]
recently have reported the use of ANN and ANFIS model
based on the geometrical data sets to predict and maximize
the efficiency of the turbine for a cryogenic turboexpander.
A detailed literature review reveals that there is huge
amount of work available on numerical methods to pre-
dict the dynamic coefficients, but none of them use neural
Page 3 of 19 167
network to predict the performance of the model. Numeri-
cal models used for gas bearings always require an efficient
iterative method to satisfy the order of accuracy and fast
convergence rate. As a result of which the analysis requires
a large quantity of accurate data which can never be deter-
mined with complete accuracy. Furthermore, the computa-
tional resources can hardly entertain the increasing refine-
ment and complexity of the numerical analysis. For the
studies on neural networks for gas bearings, the literature
is mainly focused on speed as output parameter. The cur-
rent work using ANN and ANFIS is focused on length-to-
diameter ratio, eccentricity ratio, bearing number, whirl ratio
and bearing compliance as input parameters and stiffness
and damping as output parameters. As neural networks cali-
brate a given random vector of inputs with corresponding
output, it is more of a data driven technique without neces-
sarily involving physics of the entire process. But such an
approach alone based entirely on data-driven pattern has
not received wide acknowledgement from the community
who traditionally believes in the physics-based approach. So
we have therefore tried to combine both numerical as well
as data driven techniques in this work for prediction of gas
bearing parameters for a wide range of variables. The range
of these parameters not only helps in improvement of design
of the bearing but also for fabrication aspects of the bearing
to carry out experimental investigation. This paper further
aims to clinch the literature gap by conducting a Sobol’s
sensitivity test to identify major non-dimensional variables
which influence the stiffness and damping of the gas bearing.
In this paper, the dynamic coefficients of the gas foil bear-
ing are predicted using a finite difference method. Behavior
of normalized stiffness and damping is observed with the
change in bearing number and bearing compliance. Further,
the effect on changing stiffness and damping coefficients
is estimated up to a speed of 240krpm. A neural network
is simulated to evaluated the performance of the model.
After that, a sensitivity test is conducted to estimate the
most sensitive parameters among the parameters length-
to-diameter ratio, eccentricity ratio, bearing number, whirl
ratio and bearing compliance. Then, a fuzzy interface system
is designed to determine the range of these parameters for
maximum stiffness and damping.
2 Artificial neural network (ANN)
ANN is a simulation and predicting tool designed on the
basis of biological neural network of human brain. The net-
work comprises of many interconnecting entities known as
neurons (nodes or processing units) connecting linear and
nonlinear functions. ANN is a type of modelling tool which
converts nonlinear functions into input and output during
training. The feed forward types multi-layer perceptron
13
167 Page 4 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

(MLP) network is selected with back propagation algorithm ∑N �

y
�
− yn,exp �
n=1 �� n,pred
for current study. Back propagation algorithm uses both for- MAE = � (4)
ward and backward pass to calculate the difference between N
the desired output and actual output. MLP of a network where N is the number of data points, yn,pred is the predicted
comprises of an input layer, hidden layer, and output layer. value, yn,exp is the actual value, ym is the average of the actual
MLP is the most widely used architecture as it gives the values and n is the index of data.
required complexity for neural network processing. There
are no restrictions on the number of hidden layers required
for training a network but it is well justified that at least one 3 Methodology
hidden layer is sufficient to train the network successfully.
Figure 2 represents the schematic diagram of a MLP with a A combined numerical-ANN model is established which is
single hidden layer. composed of a numerical model and an ANN. The numerical
There are several inputs in a network, say xi. Every input model takes into account various parameters to evaluate the
is multiplied by its corresponding hidden weight of neurons dynamic coefficients by utilizing the perturbation process.
(wi) and then summed up. The output of this represented in The ANN is not directly used to estimate the output of the
the form of activation function z as mentioned below. GFJB model but is utilized as a collaborator. The ANN takes
p
∑ into account the output of the numerical model as one of
z= wi xi + b (1) the inputs. While calibrating, a target space is defined based
i=1 upon the input parameters.
Here, b is known as bias and z will be used as an acti-
vation function f(z). The output of this function is neuron 3.1 The combined numerical‑ANN model
output. Output of the hidden layer is fed as an input to the
next layer and the process continues in a forward direction. The utilization of the combined model is carried out in two
Finally, the model is developed using three transfer func- steps: 1. establishing the numerical model and 2. establish-
tions, i.e., Losgig (logarithmic sigmoid), Purelin (pure lin- ing the ANN. Presentation of a flowchart is given in Fig. 3.
ear), and Tansig (tangent sigmoid) [22]. The training func- The numerical model is preliminarily tested and all the
tion required for training the network is selected as Trainlm results are determined to improve the accuracy of the model.
(Levenberg–Marquardt). The performance of the model is The solution of the combined model begins with identify-
verified by the three errors named: R-squared (R2), mean ing the operating parameters of GFJB. A simple and widely
absolute error (MAE) and root-mean-squared error (RMSE), used foil deformation model [1] is used for obtaining the
as it can predict accuracy of the developed model and are parametric data for the ANN and avoid the complexity of the
mentioned below. solution. Thereafter, the ANN model is constructed which
acts as a collaborator for the numerical model. A target space
�
∑N is defined based upon the input data sets.
(y − yn,exp )2
RSME =
n=1 n,pred (2) The numerical model is generated based upon the fol-
N lowing equations.
Zeroth-order equations
∑N
n=1
(yn,pred − yn,exp )2 ( )
(3)
2
R = 1 − ∑N ( ) ( )2 ( ) 𝜕 p h
3 𝜕p 3 𝜕p 0 0
n=1 (yn,exp − ym )2 𝜕
p0 h0 0 +
R 𝜕
p0 h0 0 = Λ (5)
𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝜃 L 𝜕z 𝜕z 𝜕𝜃

Fig. 2  Structure of MLP net-

work for ANN

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 5 of 19 167

Fig. 3  The flowchart for the

solution of the combined model

( ( ) )
h0 = 1 + 𝜀cos𝜃 + 𝛼p0 (6) 𝜕 3 𝜕 p0 py 𝜕p0
h + 3p0 h0 hy +
𝜕𝜃 0 𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝜃
First-order equations ( ( ) )
( ( ) ) ( )2 3 𝜕 p0 py 𝜕p0
R 𝜕
𝜕 3 𝜕 p0 px 𝜕p0 + h + 3p0 h0 hy +
h + 3p0 h0 hx + L 𝜕z 0 𝜕z 𝜕z
𝜕𝜃 0 𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝜃 ( )
( ( ) ) 𝜕 p0 hy + py h0 ( )
( )2 3 𝜕 p0 px 𝜕p0
R 𝜕 =Λ − 2Λ𝛾 p0 hẏ + pẏ h0
+ h + 3p0 h0 hx + 𝜕𝜃 (9)
L 𝜕z 0 𝜕z 𝜕z
( )
𝜕 p0 hx + px h0 ( ) hy = 𝛼py − cos𝜃 (10)
=Λ − 2Λ𝛾 p0 hẋ + pẋ h0
𝜕𝜃 (7)

hx = 𝛼px + sin𝜃 (8)

13
167 Page 6 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

Table 1  Details of ANN training process { } l{ 2𝜋 }

∫ ∫
Fx sin𝜃
Parameter Value =− p Rd𝜃dz (18)
Fy −cos𝜃
0 0
Network type MLP
Training function TRAINLM The stiffness and damping are given as:
Number of hidden layers 1 { } ( )
Number of hidden neurons 10 K xx K xy 1 Kxx Kxy
=
Training algorithm Back propagation K yx K yy pa L Kyx Kyy
Number of epochs 1000 ( ) (19)
1 2𝜋

R ∫0 ∫ 0
L px sin𝜃 py sin𝜃
=− d𝜃dz
−px cos𝜃 −py cos𝜃
( ( ) )
𝜕 3 𝜕 p0 pẋ 𝜕p0
h + 3p0 h0 hẋ + { } ( )
𝜕𝜃 0 𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝜃 Cxx Cxy 𝜔 Cxx Cxy
( ( ) ) =
( )2 3 𝜕 p0 pẋ 𝜕p0 Cyx Cyy pa L Cyx Cyy
R 𝜕
+ h + 3p0 h0 hẋ + 1 2𝜋 ( )
L 𝜕z 0 𝜕z
R ∫0 ∫0
𝜕z L pẋ sin𝜃 pẏ sin𝜃
( ) =− d𝜃dz
−pẋ cos𝜃 −pẏ cos𝜃 (20)
𝜕 p0 hẋ + pẋ h0 ( )
=Λ
𝜕𝜃
+ 2Λ𝛾 p0 hẋ + pẋ h0
(11) The numerical procedure begins after dividing the bear-
ing surface into number of grids (Δ θ × Δ z). MATLAB
programming tool is used to calculate the pressure at each
hẋ = 𝛼pẋ (12) point. The solution starts with solving the equations first by
( ) discretization then calculation begins with the use of itera-
( )
𝜕 3 𝜕 p0 pẏ 𝜕p0 tive method know as successive over relaxation method. The
h + 3p0 h0 hẏ + convergence found in order of accuracy is maintaining by
𝜕𝜃 0 𝜕𝜃 𝜕𝜃
( ( ) ) the 0.0001% of error. The perturbed pressures are found out
( )2
R 𝜕 3 𝜕 p0 pẏ 𝜕p0 at each grid point, the perturbed pressures are integrated
+ h + 3p0 h0 hẏ +
L 𝜕z 0 𝜕z 𝜕z using Simpson’s rule. The integration gives the values of
( ) dynamic coefficients.
𝜕 p0 hẏ + pẏ h0 ( ) The output data from the numerical model is given as
=Λ + 2Λ𝛾 p0 hẏ + pẏ h0 input to the ANN. A target space is generated for predicting
𝜕𝜃 (13)
the new dynamic coefficients.
The ANN model is developed using five input param-
hẏ = 𝛼pẏ (14) eters, i.e., L/D (length-to-diameter ratio), ε, Λ, γ & α and
The boundary conditions are given as: different output variables, i.e., normalized bearing stiffness
( K xx,K xy,K yx,K yy) and damping ( Cxx,Cxy,Cyx,Cyy). The results
( ) ( )
p0 z = 0 = p0 z = 1 = 1 obtained from the finite difference model is used to develop
px = py = pẋ = pẏ = 1 (15) the combined model. The neural network is created with the
training function as: Trainlm. The literature review suggests
( ) that single hidden layer is enough for ’universal approxima-
p0 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = 1
( ) tion property’, but requires a higher number of neurons [23].
h0 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = 1 + 𝜀cos𝜃1 So one hidden layer and ten neurons are taken. Typically,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
px 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = py 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = pẋ 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = pẏ 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = 1 many epochs in order of thousands at a time, are required
( ) ( ) to train the neural network efficiently. Also, three transfer
hx 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = sin𝜃1 hy 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = cos𝜃1 functions are used to compare predicted results, i.e., Losgig,
( ) ( )
hẋ 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = hẏ 𝜃 = 𝜃1 = 0 Purelin, and Tansig. The other details regarding training of
(16) neural network is shown in Table 1.
( ) ( )
p0 𝜃 = 𝜃1 + 2𝜋 = 1px 𝜃 = 𝜃1 + 2𝜋 = py 3.2 Preliminary testing of the numerical model
( ) ( ) ( )
𝜃 = 𝜃1 + 2𝜋 = pẋ 𝜃 = 𝜃1 + 2𝜋 = pẏ 𝜃 = 𝜃1 + 2𝜋 = 1
(17) The data presented in Table 2 is used to test the numerical
The bearing forces is found by integrating the pressure model and predict the behavior of the fluid film.
over the bearing surface and is given as:

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 7 of 19 167

Table 2  Geometrical, structural, Parameter Value Parameter Value

and operating parameters of
GFJB Length of bearing (L) 16 mm Eccentricity Ratio (ε) 0.8
The radius of the shaft (R) 8 mm Bump Length (2 l) 2.64 mm
Bump Foil Thickness (tb) 0.1 mm Speed of the shaft (N) 2,40,000 rpm
Radial Clearance (C) 25 μ m Viscosity of He (μ) 19.6 × 10 −12 N-s/mm2
Pitch of Bump (s) 4.20 mm Young’s Modulus (E) 210 GPa
Poisson’s Ratio (ν) 0.272

Fig. 4  Non-dimensional pressure profile of GFJB

Fig. 6  Mid-plane pressure distribution corresponding to the angular

location at different eccentricity ratios

Fig. 5  Non-dimensional film thickness profile of GFJB

The steady-state pressure distribution and the film thick-

ness is represented in the form of contour as shown in Fig. 4
and Fig. 5, respectively.
After obtaining the pressure profile and film thickness,
the pressure distribution and film thickness is calculated for
varying eccentricities. Figure 6 shows that with the rise of
ε, there is an increase in the pressure. Further from Fig. 7, it
is noted that there is a decrease in the film thickness value
as the eccentricity ratio rises. With the rise of ε, the clear-
ance between the journal and the top foil decreases and
thereby decreasing the film thickness. Further, the air gets
compressed at the angular location around 180° which is
Fig. 7  Mid-plane film thickness with respect to angular location at
various eccentricity ratios
the region of minimum film thickness. This results in an
increase in pressure at the region as shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 8 shows the influence of bearing compliance on
the stiffness of the bearing. It is observed that the normal-
ized stiffness for a foil bearing decreases with rising bearing

13
167 Page 8 of 19
compliance. This nature corresponds to the increase in the
deflection of the foil with the compliance. It is also seen that
the stiffness increase with the bearing number and attains a
steady value at higher bearing number. This trend is because
at low speeds or small bearing numbers, the compliance of
the bearing depends primarily on the lubricant film which is
relatively soft compared to the stiffness of the foil. So when
the bearing number is low, the stiffness tends to approach
the same value independent of the value of bearing compli-
ance, whereas, at high speeds or large bearing numbers, the
stiffness of the gas film is large compared to the stiffness
of the foil and the compliance of the bearing is primarily
dependent on the foil. This effect is observed as the values of
the bearing stiffness are relatively constant for larger bearing
compliances.
Figure 9 depicts that there is a decreasing trend in the
normalized damping as the bearing number rises. The trend
becomes constant for larger bearing number. Further the
damping values tend to increase with the increasing bear-
ing compliance. The results depict that for the cross-coupled
coefficients of damping are contradictory in nature. Cxy term
Fig. 8  Effect of bearing compliance on normalized bearing stiffness a K xx,b K yy,c K xy,d K yx for L/D = 1, ε = 0.5
13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167
is negative, i.e., the journal velocity in the y direction always
supplies energy, rather than dissipating energy, to the motion
in the x (loading) direction. The other three components of
the damping are positive, so they dissipate energy from the
system.
Figure 10 shows the change in stiffness coefficients cor-
responding to increase in speed up to 240 krpm. Here it
is observed that with the increase in speed, the stiffness
increases promptly owing to the larger film thickness. While,
rise of stiffness with the increase in speed decreases gradu-
ally. It may stabilize when the speed attains a higher value.
It can be described as with the increase in speed, the film
of the lubricant deliberately gets stiffer. Further, the bearing
compliance significantly depends on the bump foil acting as
the elastic foundation.
The damping coefficients are also calculated for the same
varying speeds as shown in Fig. 11. It depicts that as the
speed increases, all the coefficients of damping tends to
decline except Cxy . Stiffer lubricant restricts the dissipation
of energy in the film of the gas, and hence decreasing coef-
ficients of damping at greater speed of rotation.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 9 of 19 167

Fig. 9  Effect of bearing compliance on normalized bearing damping a Cxx,b Cyy,c Cxy,d Cyx for L/D = 1, ε = 0.5

Fig. 10  Variation of stiffness coefficients with rotational speed Fig. 11  Variation of damping coefficients with rotational speed

13
167 Page 10 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

4 Sobol’s sensitivity analysis N

∑ ∑
f (x) = fo + fi (xi ) + fij (xi , xj ) + … + f1,2,…,k (x1 , … xk )
i =1 1≤i≤j≤k
Sobol’s sensitivity test is basically used for estimating the (23)
extent of dependence of model output upon the input param-
eters. Not only single parameter, it also gives an insight in For Eq. 13 to hold, fo must be constant and integral of any
to the interaction between a number of parameters. The key summand must be zero [25].
points of Sobol’s sensitivity analysis include.
∫ (24)
fi1,… ,is (xi1 , … , xis )dxk = 0
• determination of the contribution of each input parameter
and their interactions to the overall model output vari- Because of this property, squaring Eq. 14 and integrating
ance. yield:
• more uniform distribution than the pseudorandom num- k
bers as it is a low-discrepancy sequence. ∑ ∑
D= Di + Dij + … + D1,2,… ,k (25)
• faster convergence and better accuracy [24]. i =1 1≤i≤j≤k

The present paper deals with Sobol’s sensitivity analysis where D is the total variance of the output functions. Hence,
for GFJB to distinguish the variables having larger influence the sensitivity indices are defined as:
on stiffness and damping. Di1,… is
With a view to interpret how the output variance be Si1,… is = (26)
D
attributed to individual input variables, sensitivity indi-
ces are calculated to accurately reflect the influence of the For instance, Si = Di is the first-order sensitivity index of
D

individual input parameter upon the output. To determine th D

i variable toward the output variance and Sij = Dij is used
sensitivity indices, consider an input parametric space as to compute the second-order sensitivity index between ith
x = x1 , x2 , … , xk and i = 1, 2, … , k . So, the output of the and jth parameters.
model whose sensitivity to the input parameters need to be The whole parametric data for calculation is taken from
predicted is a function of x, say f(x). The mean ( fo) and vari- the combined model. Here f (x1 ) represents K xx for the input
ance (D) of the output variable space can be mentioned as: parameter space x1 which consists of L/D, ε, Λ, γ and α.
N Here, four input parameter spaces are taken to consider a
1∑
∫ x
f0 = f dx = f (x ) (21) wide range of variations and f (x2 ), f (x3 ) and f (x4 ) are cal-
N k=1 k culated. Using these and Eqs. 21 and 22, variance D11 is cal-
culated. This concludes only one set of inputs which results
N in four outputs. Correspondingly, the input parameters are
1∑
∫
D= f (x)2 dx − f02 = f (x )2 − f02 (22) varied and four sets of inputs are used to calculate a total of
N k=1 k 16 outputs. Mean of D11,D12,D13 and D14 gives D1. Further
using the four sets of inputs, all the different permutations
The Sobol’s analysis is based on the decomposition of
and combinations are taken to calculate another 48 outputs
D in to contributions from single input parameters on the
of K xx . Using these outputs D2 , D3 and D4 are calculated.
output function as mentioned in Eq. 22. This is done by first
Mean of these four gives D. Then corresponding sensitivity
decomposing an output function as mentioned in Eq. 23.

Fig. 12   Layers of ANFIS

structure

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 11 of 19 167

Fig. 13   Structure of ANFIS

Table 3  ANFIS network design indices are calculated by dividing each with D as given in
Eq. 26. This concludes the sensitivity test for one output
MFs type of input parameter Gbell,
Gaussmf and K xx . Utilizing the same procedure, sensitivity analysis for
Gauss2mf stiffness ( K xy,K yx,K yy ) and damping ( Cxx,Cxy,Cyx,Cyy ) are
also evaluated.
MF type of output parameter Linear
While this test indicates the most influencing parameters,
Number of MFs 3
it is also important to calibrate the optimum range of these
Optimization method Hybrid
parameters for better performance of GFJB. The optimised
Error tolerance 0.0001
range of these parameters is evaluated by using artificial
Number of epochs 100

Fig. 14  Numerical model vs Combined model for L/D = 1, ε = 0.5 and α = 1

13
167 Page 12 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

Fig. 15  Predicted Data fits

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 13 of 19 167

Table 4  Results of the numerical model

Input parameters Output parameters
L/D ε Λ γ α K xx K xy K yx K yy Cxx Cxy Cyx Cyy

0.75 0.6 0.9 0.4 1 1.135313 0.157581 0.231555 0.974566 0.559593 − 0.288124 0.274568 0.574568
0.75 0.7 1.3 0.4 1 1.393524 0.131859 0.301246 1.084512 0.523298 − 0.275124 0.254685 0.551243
1 0.625 2.3 0.5 0.7 1.679026 0.269772 0.456489 1.594561 0.482398 − 0.254123 0.236598 0.478123
1 0.725 2.7 0.5 0.7 1.819124 0.247282 0.521345 1.591245 0.458581 − 0.214556 0.201325 0.484512
1.25 0.525 3.2 0.6 0.5 1.739304 0.427183 0.594623 1.645712 0.479065 − 0.224513 0.1912457 0.451236
1.25 0.8 4.3 0.6 0.5 2.136474 0.319473 0.631458 1.801246 0.418252 − 0.2014578 0.184523 0.443135
1.5 0.675 5.1 0.7 0.3 2.230287 0.462737 0.684663 1.858711 0.407005 − 0.175896 0.1336545 0.351247
1.5 0.7 5.2 0.7 0.3 2.261400 0.441717 0.6813466 1.869746 0.401848 − 0.165239 0.135213 0.39124
1.75 0.5 5.7 1 0.1 2.239615 0.619462 0.711253 2.17322 0.416539 − 0.155789 0.117268 0.354711
1.75 0.575 6 1 0.1 2.430642 0.591673 0.721345 2.214567 0.387169 − 0.145236 0.124623 0.294578

intelligence technique ANFIS. The construction of ANFIS f1 = p1 x + q1 y + r1

structure is described below.
5 ANFIS Methodology
5.1 Adaptive neurofuzzy interface system (ANFIS)
The fuzzy system is a type of computing framework consist-
ing: if–then rules and fuzzy reasoning. In association with
neural network, it has advantages of ANN and has utiliza-
tion similar to fuzzy inference. Also, the fuzzy logic has an
important part in modelling a network which will predict an
optimal range of the input variables for a GFJB. Hence, the
preference of membership functions (MFs), rules as well as
choice of input parameters is an important task to predict
desired output. Two learning algorithms are required for
ANFIS which are mentioned below.
• Structure learning algorithm: Needed to obtain fuzzy
rules.
• Parameter learning algorithm: Needed to modify the
MFs.
Fuzzy models basically work by assigning predictors
to fuzzy memberships instead of solid binary data unlike
other modeling methods. If–then rules of ANFIS are
incorporated to take into account the predominant uncer-
tainty and imprecision of real systems. Here, there are
two if–then rules which are needed to express the ANFIS
structure. These rules are derived from Takagi–Sugeno
(T-S) model. T-S model is used here as it is linguistically
understandable and possess an excellent interpretation for
static and dynamic process modelling. The rules can be
represented as:
Rule 1: if x = A1 and y = B1 then
Rule 2: if x = A2 and y = B2 then
f2 = p2 x + q2 y + r2
where, pi, qi and ri are the designed parameters which need
to be determined through training process of ANFIS. Ai and
Bi are the variables of the MFs. ANFIS model incorporates
five different neuron layers. Neuron in every single layer
behave as a processing element. It contains activation func-
tion to achieve desired result. Five different layers are shown
in Fig. 12 and are further discussed in detail.
The first layer of the structure has input variables in the
form of MFs. It has three adaptable parameters (say ai, bi and
ci) which are linked to MFs and transfers the output of first
layer as input to next layer. The second layer (also known as
membership layer). The input values from previous layer acts
as MFS of this layer. It basically examines the weights of the
MFs. The neurons of this layer are non-adaptive, multiplies the
incoming signal and in output shows the firing strength of the
rule. The third layer (known as fuzzy layer) is non adaptive and
calculates activation level for each rule. The weight of the neu-
rons is normalized and represented as a ratio of firing strength
of the rule to sum of firing strength of all the rules. The next
layer (known as defuzzification layer) generates the output.
The nodes in this layer are adaptive. The output is obtained by
the product of normalized firing strength and first order poly-
nomial function. While layer five is non adaptive which sums
all input signals and converts into single output.
5.2 ANFIS model development
The ANFIS model is developed by first selecting the appro-
priated MFs out of all available MFs. Out of all, three MFs

13
167 Page 14 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

Table 5  Predicted results of the TANSIG

combined model using different
transfer functions K xx K xy K yx K yy Cxx Cxy Cyx Cyy

1.140500 0.158469 0.246019 0.915796 0.559804 -0.287536 0.264599 0.547933

1.393247 0.132145 0.301701 1.057868 0.522972 -0.280076 0.260462 0.543709
1.678270 0.275598 0.462602 1.56028 0.482395 -0.245430 0.209268 0.481530
1.820869 0.248112 0.521588 1.595310 0.458705 -0.237799 0.213595 0.481848
1.739678 0.423806 0.586790 1.633745 0.478943 -0.221572 0.195047 0.457461
2.127833 0.324682 0.638037 1.785824 0.416522 -0.213391 0.183320 0.431559
2.231053 0.462073 0.679953 1.869706 0.405774 -0.1734762 0.133848 0.374795
2.264368 0.449830 0.685257 1.878752 0.397677 -0.174746 0.133316 0.370635
2.242004 0.609000 0.718432 2.199541 0.415763 -0.156214 0.107263 0.34269
2.425506 0.600931 0.724749 2.213015 0.38489 -0.134285 0.110898 0.312560
R2 0.99984 0.99918 0.99922 0.99787 0.99806 0.9869 0.97234 0.97384
MAE 0.002134 0.004470 0.005139 0.020883 0.014108 0.006865 0.011244 0.015646
RMSE 0.009578 0.006335 0.007045 0.030305 0.018754 0.009027 0.013733 0.019325
LOGSIG
1.136069 0.15866 0.24085 0.936900 0.561210 -0.278132 0.264500 0.539536
1.390130 0.133755 0.29531 1.047497 0.520305 -0.275459 0.258182 0.533941
1.679849 0.27352 0.45617 1.560897 0.484523 -0.248866 0.219190 0.4832438
1.823662 0.248433 0.519687 1.594609 0.456983 -0.237130 0.212548 0.487232
1.739213 0.418699 0.588203 1.641074 0.479089 -0.216420 0.195197 0.4553331
2.129789 0.319087 0.631862 1.787089 0.418571 -0.212344 0.17696 0.431848
2.227337 0.451103 0.681939 1.8662195 0.406272 -0.1748309 0.135928 0.379865
2.263210 0.443049 0.688085 1.9066528 0.399642 -0.175352 0.133496 0.37665
2.239035 0.602381 0.713776 2.19517 0.417716 -0.146301 0.114518 0.330910
2.431063 0.598277 0.726597 2.211380 0.389904 -0.134640 0.110641 0.321261
2
R 0.99971 0.9981 0.99937 0.99683 0.99878 0.9852 0.97265 0.97306
MAE 0.006687 0.006150 0.004665 0.022957 0.002660 0.007769 0.010378 0.016022
RMSE 0.02245 0.009528 0.0061032 0.037075 0.004150 0.009585 0.013761 0.019708
PURELIN
1.166439 0.15750 0.262017 0.963270 0.549135 -0.280907 0.265472 0.547128
1.330273 0.139704 0.287491 1.011372 0.527077 -0.278614 0.260633 0.537003
1.607847 0.26896 0.46449 1.473766 0.493285 -0.25460 0.227160 0.503264
1.823531 0.229981 0.514933 1.568921 0.461216 -0.249006 0.219364 0.488136
1.699714 0.4276211 0.548873 1.649991 0.485408 -0.225191 0.189605 0.458159
2.251947 0.301526 0.658101 1.913949 0.397874 -0.204098 0.16736 0.411320
2.281228 0.468751 0.695710 2.052919 0.397784 -0.171682 0.137964 0.371883
2.320477 0.45897 0.70092 2.073473 0.390849 -0.169976 0.136561 0.368472
2.227581 0.577690 0.713672 2.138938 0.412427 -0.148857 0.119909 0.346261
2.347132 0.5657865 0.724832 2.193517 0.390763 -0.145241 0.117224 0.338517
R2 0.98162 0.99473 0.99384 0.97117 0.98167 0.97433 0.97091 0.96067
MAE 0.081364 0.013990 0.014282 0.082121 0.010442 0.009290 0.011458 0.019884
RMSE 0.097410 0.017456 0.018779 0.109480 0.013778 0.012753 0.014108 0.023760

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 15 of 19 167

are selected: gbellmf, gaussmf and gauss2mf for input param-

eters. For output parameters, a linear MF is opted. The addi-
tional information for ANFIS structure and model is shown
in Fig. 13 and Table 3.

6 Results and discussion

The results include validation, performance and surface plots

of the combined model presented hereafter.

6.1 Validation of the combined model

The combined numerical-ANN is trained with the given

input parameters. The numerical model is validated with
Fig. 16  Sensitivity analysis of different parameters

Table 6  Predicted results for gbellmf

different MFs
L/D ε Λ γ α K xx K xy K yx K yy Cxx Cxy Cyx Cyy

0.75 0.6 0.9 0.4 1 1.14 0.16 0.259 0.903 0.552 −0.284 0.272 0.546
0.75 0.7 1.3 0.4 1 1.23 0.145 0.301 1.08 0.554 −0.294 0.264 0.559
1 0.625 2.3 0.5 0.7 1.55 0.272 0.463 1.6 0.488 −0.244 0.224 0.484
1 0.725 2.7 0.5 0.7 1.94 0.277 0.516 1.64 0.458 −0.241 0.21 0.466
1.25 0.525 3.2 0.6 0.5 1.81 0.381 0.577 1.7 0.442 −0.214 0.199 0.442
1.25 0.8 4.3 0.6 0.5 2.22 0.297 0.664 1.73 0.43 −0.221 0.189 0.454
1.5 0.675 5.1 0.7 0.3 2.19 0.492 0.697 1.91 0.416 −0.184 0.138 0.386
1.5 0.7 5.2 0.7 0.3 2.22 0.488 0.7 1.94 0.405 −0.183 0.136 0.379
1.75 0.5 5.7 1 0.1 2.39 0.591 0.748 2.1 0.41 −0.169 0.109 0.321
1.75 0.575 6 1 0.1 2.48 0.594 0.751 2.29 0.354 −0.158 0.11 0.291
gaussmf
0.75 0.6 0.9 0.4 1 1.11 0.158 0.255 0.9 0.557 −0.282 0.275 0.538
0.75 0.7 1.3 0.4 1 1.18 0.144 0.3 1.086 0.546 −0.296 0.266 0.553
1 0.625 2.3 0.5 0.7 1.53 0.27 0.465 1.62 0.484 −0.247 0.222 0.487
1 0.725 2.7 0.5 0.7 1.89 0.274 0.516 1.641 0.476 −0.231 0.215 0.463
1.25 0.525 3.2 0.6 0.5 1.82 0.38 0.574 1.701 0.454 −0.211 0.192 0.439
1.25 0.8 4.3 0.6 0.5 2.17 0.295 0.665 1.73 0.415 −0.228 0.175 0.448
1.5 0.675 5.1 0.7 0.3 2.2 0.496 0.692 1.912 0.408 −0.186 0.127 0.382
1.5 0.7 5.2 0.7 0.3 2.23 0.484 0.7 1.941 0.399 −0.173 0.135 0.377
1.75 0.5 5.7 1 0.1 2.39 0.59 0.741 2.15 0.408 −0.166 0.104 0.327
1.75 0.575 6 1 0.1 2.48 0.594 0.75 2.289 0.363 −0.154 0.115 0.295
gauss2mf
0.75 0.6 0.9 0.4 1 1.28 0.149 0.247 0.9 0.569 −0.278 0.288 0.55
0.75 0.7 1.3 0.4 1 1.43 0.141 0.3 1.078 0.52 −0.286 0.26 0.553
1 0.625 2.3 0.5 0.7 1.67 0.27 0.464 1.602 0.461 −0.245 0.23 0.487
1 0.725 2.7 0.5 0.7 1.87 0.276 0.515 1.641 0.405 −0.24 0.217 0.464
1.25 0.525 3.2 0.6 0.5 1.42 0.38 0.572 1.71 0.485 −0.213 0.196 0.44
1.25 0.8 4.3 0.6 0.5 1.95 0.297 0.664 1.729 0.464 −0.226 0.185 0.457
1.5 0.675 5.1 0.7 0.3 2.24 0.489 0.692 1.907 0.401 −0.175 0.133 0.386
1.5 0.7 5.2 0.7 0.3 2.26 0.482 0.701 1.942 0.393 −0.18 0.136 0.373
1.75 0.5 5.7 1 0.1 2.17 0.59 0.742 2.11 0.396 −0.165 0.109 0.32
1.75 0.575 6 1 0.1 2.48 0.596 0.749 2.288 0.369 −0.157 0.11 0.29

13
167 Page 16 of 19
Fig. 17  Effect of a L/D and ε, (b)L/D and Λ, (c)L/D and γ, (d)L/D and α
the combined model for stiffness and damping as shown in
Fig. 14.
It is observed that the data set of the combined model
shows a deviation when there is clear spike or decline in the
data set of the numerical model. Otherwise the combined
model is well in agreement with the numerical model.
6.2 Performance of the combined model
Hereafter, taking in to account different combinations, a
large amount of data sets is calibrated to get a clear picture
of the performance of the combined model. The results are
also compared with the numerical model. The regression
curves are drawn to estimate the curve fit between the input
and the output as shown in Fig. 15. The numerical model
results are given in Table 4. The data predicted through the
combined model using transfer functions Logsig, Purelin
and Tansig are shown in Table 5. Mean square error (RSME)
and regression coefficient (R2) and Mean Absolute Error
(MAE) are calibrated to estimate the performance of the
model.
13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167
The performance of the model is estimated from Table 5.
In all the transfer functions used, the R 2 is found to be more
than 95% which concludes the performance of the combined
model is satisfactory. Further the MAE and RMSE values
are found to be less than 0.1 which is generally considered
to be acceptable. It is also clear that the ‘Purelin’ transfer
function has the least amount of error.
6.3 Significant variables influencing stiffness
and damping
The sensitivity indices of all the input variables are calcu-
lated and shown in Fig. 16.
It is found that L/D, ε, Λ and α have significant effect on
the bearing stiffness and damping whereas γ has minimal
effect as compared to other parameters. Hence, it can be
concluded that change in γ does not result much change in
the dynamic coefficients. Further, it is observed that ε is the
most sensitive parameter among these. Change in a small
fraction of ε results in a significant change in the value of
dynamic coefficients.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 17 of 19 167

Fig. 18  Effect of a ε and Λ, b ε and γ,c ε and α

Fig. 19  Effect of a Λ and γ, b Λ and α

13
167 Page 18 of 19 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167

7 Conclusions

In this study, a combined model is developed by utilizing the

Fig. 20  Effect of γ and α
6.4 Optimum range of variables for maximum
stiffness and damping
The results from the ANFIS training are given in Table 6.
Different types of MFs (Gbell, Gauss, Gauss2) are used
throughout the training process. The decision surfaces
obtained from the ANFIS network gives insight into the
range of parametric data for maximization and minimiza-
tion of the bearing stiffness ( K xx,K xy,K yx,K yy ) and damping
( Cxx,Cxy,Cyx,Cyy).
The surface plots for K xx are shown hereafter.
Figure 17 illustrates that K xx reaches a maximum when
L/D is in the range of 1.2–1.4 and ε, Λ, γ and α are in the
range of 0.5–0.8, 6–7, 0.6–0.7 and 0.1–0.3 respectively.
Figure 18 shows that for any value of ε, K xx is higher for
6–7 of Λ, 0.6–0.7 of γ and 0.1–0.3 of α. Figure 19 depicts
that K xx is maximum when Λ is in the range of 6–7 and γ
and α are in the range of 0.6–0.7 and 0.1–0.3 respectively.
Figure 20 shows that for a range of 0.6–0.7 of γ, K xx is
higher for 0.1–0.3 of α. The results for maximization of
all the dynamic coefficients are found accordingly and are
given in Table 7.
numerical model and the neural network technique to predict
the stiffness and damping of the GFJB. The numerical model
is preliminarily tested to analyze the bearing behavior. It is
observed that the normalized stiffness increase with the rise in
bearing number and decrease with the rise in bearing compli-
ance. The damping shows an opposite trend to that of the stiff-
ness. Further, the stiffness coefficients tend to increase with
the speed whereas the damping coefficients tend to decrease.
Based on the data sets, different transfer functions such as
Losgig, Purelin and Tansig are used to develop the neural
network. The calibrated R2 error is found to be more than 95%
and both the MAE and RMSE values are found to be less than
0.1 which concludes the performance of the neural network is
satisfactory. Out of the various transfer functions used, ‘Pure-
lin’ transfer function is found to have the least amount of error.
Further, the regression curves are estimated to show a good
agreement between the numerical data and the predicted data
sets. It is found that, the combined model is well equipped to
predict the dynamic coefficients as the performance param-
eters of the model show appropriate results. Sobol’s sensitiv-
ity analysis suggests that L/D, ε, Λ and α have significant
effect on the bearing stiffness and damping whereas γ has the
least effect. Being the most effective parameter, change in a
small fraction of ε results in a significant change in the value
of dynamic coefficients. The neurofuzzy interface system is
utilized to investigate the optimal range of various param-
eters through different membership functions such as gbellmf,
gaussmf and gauss2mf. The maximum stiffness and damping
are obtained for length-to-diameter ratio, eccentricity ratio,
bearing number, whirl ratio and bearing compliance through
surface plots. Neural network technique can be used to predict
the parametric data and its range to design the gas foil journal
bearing.

Table 7  Predicted range of Parameter Predicted range

various parameters
K xx K xy K yx K yy Cxx Cxy Cyx Cyy

L/D 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4 1.2–1.4

ε 0.5–0.8 0.5–0.8 0.5–0.6 0.5–0.6 0.5–0.6 0.7–0.75 0.6–0.7 0.6–0.7
Λ 6–7 4–7 6–7 2–5 6–7 2–3 1–2 1–2
γ 0.6–0.7 0.6–0.7 0.6–0.7 0.6–0.7 0.4–0.5 0.5–0.6 0.6–0.7 0.5–0.6
α 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.3 0.5–0.6 0.2–0.4 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.3

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2021) 43:167 Page 19 of 19 167

Compliance with ethical standards 13. Larsen JS, Santos IF (2015) Efficient solution of the non-linear
Reynolds equation for compressible fluid using the finite element
method. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37(3):945–957
Conflict of interest The authors declared that there is no conflict of
14. Rubio D, Andrés LS (2006) Bump-type foil bearing structural
interest to any person or organisation.
stiffness: experiments and predictions. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
128(3):653–660
15. Lez Le Sb,Arghir M and Frene J (2007) A new bump-type foil
References bearing structure analytical model. in Turbo Expo: Power for
Land, Sea, and Air
16. Feng H, Jiang S, Ji A (2019) Investigations of the static and
1. Peng J-P, Carpino M (1993) Calculation of stiffness and damping
dynamic characteristics of water-lubricated hydrodynamic jour-
coefficients for elastically supported gas foil bearings. ASME J
nal bearing considering turbulent, thermohydrodynamic and mis-
Tribol 115(1):20–27
aligned effects. Tribol Int 130:245–260
2. Pletcher RH, Tannehill JC, Anderson D (2012) Computational
17. Guo Z et al (2018) Measurement and prediction of nonlinear
fluid mechanics and heat transfer. CRC press, pp 155–156
dynamics of a gas foil bearing supported rigid rotor system. Meas-
3. Peng Z-C, Khonsari M (2004) Hydrodynamic analysis of
urement 121:205–217
compliant foil bearings with compressible air flow. J Trib
18. Lai T et al (2018) Numerical and experimental studies on stability
126(3):542–546
of cryogenic turbo-expander with protuberant foil gas bearings.
4. Heshmat H, Walowit J, Pinkus O (1983) Analysis of gas-lubri-
Cryogenics 96:62–74
cated foil journal bearings. J Lubr Technol 105(4):647–655
19. Hassan MFB, Bonello P (2017) A neural network identifica-
5. Kim D (2007) Parametric studies on static and dynamic per-
tion technique for a foil-air bearing under variable speed condi-
formance of air foil bearings with different top foil geom-
tions and its application to unbalance response analysis. J Tribol
etries and bump stiffness distributions. J Trobol Trans ASME
139(2):021501
129(2):354–364
20. Qin P et al (2005) Dynamic analysis of hydrodynamic bear-
6. Paulsen BT, Morosi S, Santos IF (2011) Static, dynamic, and ther-
ing–rotor system based on neural network. Int J Eng Sci
mal properties of compressible fluid film journal bearings. Tribol
43(5–6):520–531
Trans 54(2):282–299
21. Kumar M et al (2019) Experimental investigation and perfor-
7. Howard SA et al (2001) Steady-state stiffness of foil air journal
mance prediction of a cryogenic turboexpander using artificial
bearings at elevated temperatures. Tribol Trans 44(3):489–493
intelligence techniques. Appl Therm Eng 162:114273
8. Carpino M, Talmage G (2006) Prediction of rotor dynamic coef-
22. Haykin S (2010) Neural networks and learning machines. Pearson
ficients in gas lubricated foil journal bearings with corrugated
Education, India
sub-foils. Tribol Trans 49(3):400–409
23. Kumar M et al (2019) Preliminary design, flow field, and ther-
9. Lahmar M, Ellagoune S, Bou-Saïd B (2010) Elastohydrodynamic
mal performance analysis of a helium turboexpander: a numerical
lubrication analysis of a compliant journal bearing considering
approach. SN Appl Sci 1(11):1482
static and dynamic deformations of the bearing liner. Tribol Trans
24. Zhang XY et al (2015) Sobol sensitivity analysis: a tool to guide
53(3):349–368
the development and evaluation of systems pharmacology models.
10. Rao T et al (2000) An analytical approach to evaluate dynamic
CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 4(2):69–79
coefficients and nonlinear transient analysis of a hydrodynamic
25. Sobol IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear math-
journal bearing. Tribol Trans 43(1):109–115
ematical models and their monte carlo estimates. Math Comput
11. Feng K, Guo Z (2014) Prediction of dynamic characteristics of a
Simul 55(1–3):271–280
bump-type foil bearing structure with consideration of dynamic
friction. Tribol Trans 57(2):230–241
12. Larsen JS, Varela AC, Santos IF (2014) Numerical and experi- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
mental investigation of bump foil mechanical behaviour. Tribol jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Int 74:46–56

13