4.6 Article

Effect of Graphite and Carbon Nanofiber Additives on the Performance Efficiency of a Gear Pump Driven Hydraulic Circuit Using Ethanol

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 22, 页码 11363-11368

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ie100872g

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Compact and Efficient Fluid Power
  2. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We show that fine graphite flake and carbon nanofiber dispersed ethanol solutions can potentially replace conventional hydraulic fluids in gear pump-driven hydraulic circuits operating below 1 MPa gauge pressure. Low-viscosity hydraulic fluids are generally detrimental to pump life. However, both graphite and carbon nanofiber dispersions in ethanol within a concentration range of 195-1500 ppm can sustain hydraulic circuits with increases in pump efficiency and without modifying the viscosity of ethanol. Pump inlet pressure, volumetric flow rate, and electric power consumption data were recorded over a range of pump discharge pressures. Pump power consumption at a given differential pump pressure was found to remain approximately constant for all suspensions. However, increases in both volumetric flow rate and overall pump efficiency were observed when pure ethanol was replaced by the nanostructured carbon/ethanol solutions. The presence of the additives can partially or collectively improve a number of lubrication mechanisms which exist in a gear pump such as boundary, hydrodynamic, hydrostatic, elastohydrodynamic, and mixed-film lubrication. Additionally, we observed that the additives deposited permanently on gear and enclosure surfaces creating. low shear strength films which can help reduce friction. Qualitative examination of environmental scanning electron microscope images of colloidal graphite and carbon nanofiber additive morphology before and after extended run periods indicated that graphite retained significant resilience, whereas carbon nanofibers appear to have undergone some scission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据