Aerostatic bearing design · rotor-system engineering
Design the bearing. Configure the spindle. Verify the rotor.
AURA Engineering Platform is professional engineering software for direct calculation and inverse synthesis of aerostatic bearing systems.
It connects journal, thrust, conical, adjustable-conical and combined supports to the drive unit, shaft, tool, load path and rotor-dynamic model.
Required performance → Bearing design → Drive Unit → Shaft → Tool → Supports → Critical speeds and response → Evidence status → Decision boundary.
AURA is calculation-first, but not calculation-only. Its engineering methods are grounded in theory → FEM comparison → experiment → manufactured aerostatic-bearing hardware, including a conical gas-static spindle development track.
Current access: expert-assisted AURA engineering pilots. Fixed-scope evidence reviews remain available as a separate Breshev Engineering service.
What AURA is
A professional engineering suite for aerostatic and gas-static bearing systems, high-speed spindles, precision rotors, microturbomachinery, and adjacent non-contact rotating systems. Its core is bearing calculation, synthesis and configuration; dynamics and evidence extend that core to the complete machine decision.
Where it comes from
A research lineage in aerostatic and gas-static bearing engineering spanning decades, carried through theory, FEM, experiment, and manufactured hardware — including conical gas-static support development. AURA formalizes that discipline into a workflow.
What AURA is not
AURA is not a general-purpose CAE replacement, and it is not only a validation layer. It is a specialist bearing-and-rotor engineering platform that can exchange evidence with broader CAD, CAE, metrology and test workflows.
Current product status
Current pilots are expert-assisted engineering engagements powered by the AURA workflow. AURA is not yet a self-serve SaaS.
Release evidence, not just coefficients
Most tools give coefficients. AURA tells you what those coefficients are allowed to prove after geometry, clearance, thermal state, balance process, rotor dynamics, validation scope, and decision limits are considered.
Open evidence surface
Registry anchors, residuals, applicability boundaries, technical notes, DOI records, and explicit claim boundaries remain public and inspectable.
Closed engineering engine
The solver implementation, perturbation-method core, coefficient engine, damping logic, and decision heuristics remain protected.
Hardware-grounded methodology
Built against the theory-to-hardware gap, not around it.
Practical gas-bearing work is not won by clean calculator output. Surface finish, geometry, clearance, manufacturing process, and system-level behaviour can dominate the final result. AURA is built from that reality: the workflow is designed to keep assumptions, coefficient evidence, dynamic screening, and claim boundaries visible before a result is trusted.
Conical gas-static support track
One internal credibility anchor behind the methodology is a spindle built around conical aerostatic supports — an uncommon, high-sensitivity configuration where the calculation-to-hardware loop is difficult to hide behind generic assumptions.
This does not mean every AURA output is a production-release claim. It means the platform is built from hardware-aware engineering discipline rather than calculator-only confidence.
Theory and FEM comparison
Analytical and perturbation-method calculations are treated as engineering evidence only when their assumptions and comparison basis are visible.
Experiment and manufactured parts
AURA's positioning explicitly respects the make-and-test loop: real geometry, surface finish, clearances, and manufacturing process can change performance.
Claim-bounded decisions
The workflow separates a clean calculation from a defensible result. PASS can still remain SCREENING ONLY until evidence maturity supports release.
AURA Preview · controlled product proof
From application fit to defensible gas-bearing rotor decisions.
AURA Preview is a locked, representative workflow demonstration. It shows how a gas-static rotor support decision moves from application fit and support architecture to bearing parameter synthesis, coefficient evidence, rotor-dynamic screening, and a claim-bounded decision.
Why this preview exists
AURA is not being exposed as a self-serve calculator. The preview communicates the product category: application fit → support synthesis → coefficient evidence → rotor dynamics → decision / freeze.
Full access
Full AURA workflows remain private and expert-assisted through scoped pilot projects.
The AURA Decision Stack
Nine steps from application fit to freeze authority
The market decision starts before bearing geometry is selected: should this application use non-contact gas-static support at all? Then the workflow carries evidence forward into synthesis, dynamics, and decision authority.
Is non-contact gas-static support justified by the application?
Spindle, wafer-inspection rotor, microturbomachinery shaft, or adjacent precision rotor.
External loads, moments, overhang, speed, support reactions, and uncertainty ranges.
Journal, thrust, conical, hybrid, radial / axial support topology.
Drive unit → shaft → tool, support placement, rotor span, and load path.
Radius, length, clearance, supply pressure, restrictors, rows, and feed-zone layout.
Load, stiffness, damping, cross-coupling, and flow with method provenance.
Critical-speed separation, Campbell behaviour, response, stability, and clearance margin.
PASS, REVIEW, Screening Freeze, Engineering-Freeze candidate, and claim boundary.
Locked preview case
Wafer inspection spindle · representative screening case
The case is fixed and illustrative. It demonstrates workflow traceability, not arbitrary geometry optimization or production validation. The numerical values are kept conservative in claim scope and should be treated as representative screening evidence.
Application & layout
Bearing candidate
Coefficient evidence
Dynamic screening
Decision
Damping provenance, coupling maturity, benchmark trace, and validation scope are not sufficient for engineering freeze. This is not a failure of the candidate; it is a claim boundary.
What this preview demonstrates
- ✓Application-fit framing before bearing selection
- ✓Requirement-to-support workflow structure
- ✓Coefficient provenance concept
- ✓Rotor-dynamic screening handoff
- ✓Separation of calculation pass from freeze authority
What this preview does not claim
- —Final bearing design release
- —Arbitrary geometry optimization
- —Full CFD or experimental validation
- —Production qualification
- —Replacement for scoped engineering review
Workflow demo
A short walkthrough of the AURA workflow: bearing calculation and configuration → rotor-dynamic screening → evidence status → decision boundary.
One engineering chain, five connected layers
AURA begins with the bearing calculation and ends at the release boundary. Direct analysis, inverse synthesis, machine configuration, rotor dynamics and evidence authority use the same configuration state instead of separate spreadsheets and disconnected model snapshots.
1 · Calculation Core
Direct calculation and inverse parameter synthesis for journal, thrust, conical, adjustable-conical and combined gas-static supports. Outputs include load capacity, flow, stiffness, damping, cross-coupling and operating state.
2 · Configuration Workflow
Drive Unit → Shaft → Tool → Supports. AURA records support placement, rotor span, overhang, reactions and the load path that the bearing and rotor models must represent.
3 · Rotor Dynamics
Critical speeds, Campbell behaviour, unbalance response, Bode traces, orbit, damping and stability indicators are evaluated from the connected support state.
4 · Evidence Layer
Coefficient provenance, geometry and clearance state, validation trace, balancing, assembly evidence and the operating envelope remain attached to the result.
5 · Decision Layer
PASS, REVIEW, SCREENING ONLY, TEST REQUIRED and HOLD state what the current engineering evidence can support and what must happen next.
Application fit
Non-contact support decision before bearing geometry is selected.
Machine + loads
Machine type, speed range, forces, moments, overhang, and support reactions.
Architecture + layout
Support topology, DU → shaft → tool chain, rotor span, and load path.
Bearing synthesis
Radius, length, clearance, pressure, restrictors, rows, and feed-zone layout.
Coefficient evidence
Load, stiffness, damping, cross-coupling, flow, confidence level, and provenance.
Rotor-dynamic screening
Critical-speed separation, Campbell behavior, Bode/orbit response, and stability flags.
Decision / freeze
Calculation PASS can still remain SCREENING ONLY if evidence is not release-grade.
Registry layer
Public anchors, residuals, lifecycle state, DOI, and applicability boundary.
Typical output
- Direct bearing calculation or constraint-driven synthesis result
- Load capacity, flow, stiffness, damping and cross-coupled coefficients
- Drive, shaft, tool, support and reaction configuration
- Campbell, Bode, orbit, and stability traces for rotor-dynamic screening
- Decision summary with PASS / REVIEW / SCREENING ONLY / TEST REQUIRED / HOLD rationale
- Validation provenance linked to public registry anchors
- Explicit limitations and applicability boundaries
- Reusable input template for follow-on cases in the same architecture class
Workflow principle: calculate the support, configure the machine, analyse the rotor, then state what the connected result is ready to prove.
Open Validation Registry
AURA is backed by a public evidence-gated registry. The registry exposes specific anchors, residuals, lifecycle states, and applicability boundaries instead of relying on asserted validation language.
Anchor 1 — Conical aerostatic bearing
Method-chain validation for a conical aerostatic bearing configuration: experimental measurement → FEM reference → AURA Perturbation Method.
Anchor 2 — Journal aerostatic bearing
Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficient identification validated against Kozánek 2009 and Fleming/NASA TN D-8270 holdout families.
This is not an arbitrary-geometry production release claim. It is benchmark-scope engineering confidence for documented benchmark families and scoped bearing-family evidence.
Technical notes
Short engineering notes that explain the AURA decision logic in public, without exposing the full solver.
Technical Note 01 — Static PASS is not Engineering Freeze
A gas-bearing support can pass load, stiffness, and clearance checks while still remaining screening-only once damping provenance, cross-coupling, rotor-bearing coupling, and benchmark trace are considered.
Technical Note 02 — From Application Fit to Gas-Bearing Support Architecture
Before bearing radius, clearance, or supply pressure are selected, the real decision is whether non-contact gas-static support is justified by the application — and what support architecture can carry the machine requirements.
Technical Note 03 — Geometry, Clearance, and Balance Are the First Validation Gates
A coefficient is not release evidence unless the manufactured geometry, clearance state, balance process, and vibration/orbit criteria behind it are known.
Technical Note 04 — Residual Imbalance Is Not Release Evidence
High-speed precision rotors need a balancing evidence trail: rotor regime, grade rationale, correction path, assembly state, balance-error sources, and vibration response.
Technical Note 05 — Release Evidence Has an Operating Envelope
A factory release decision remains authoritative only inside the speed, load, thermal, ambient, mounting, control, and duty-cycle envelope that produced its evidence.
A balancing result is not plane-free.
A residual-unbalance value becomes release evidence only when the tolerance planes, correction and measurement planes, machine/process capability, rotor-state repeatability, assembly state, and service-relevant speed path are preserved with it. A single U / U-limit ratio cannot carry that decision by itself.
Tolerance planes ≠ correction planes
The evidence record needs the permissible total, its allocation, the relevant plane coordinates, and the transformation used to judge the measured state in the tolerance planes.
Calibration ≠ demonstrated capability
Task-specific evidence includes minimum achievable residual unbalance, reduction ratio, plane separation, angular capability, correction resolution, and setup applicability.
Residual value ≠ release authority
Vector repeatability, assembly transfer, modal sensitivity, damping provenance, and the complete acceleration/deceleration path bound what the result is allowed to prove.
Balancing Evidence Review
A fixed-scope, one-week engineering review of the balancing evidence behind one high-speed rotor: tolerance-plane allocation, correction-plane mapping, grade rationale, machine/process capability, vector repeatability, assembly transfer, modal sensitivity, operating envelope, and what the residual imbalance number is actually allowed to prove.
One rotor · one week · €1,900 fixed
The output is a written evidence map and an explicit release-boundary statement. This is not a recalculation service and not a replacement for a balancing shop; it makes the evidence behind the existing balancing result reviewable.
Use-case pages
AURA is being expanded from a single landing page into a focused technical site. These pages describe where the workflow fits and what decision risks it exposes.
Precision spindles
Workflow for spindle gas-bearing decisions: support architecture, coefficient evidence, rotor-dynamic screening, and freeze boundary.
Semiconductor positioning
Application-fit framing for clean, low-friction, high-repeatability non-contact support systems.
Cryogenic turboexpanders
Scoped screening logic for high-speed gas-bearing rotor systems where coefficient provenance and dynamics matter.
Paid pilot model
AURA starts with a scoped paid pilot: a short expert-assisted engagement to test fit on a real architecture and produce a decision-ready package.
Pilot scope
- Duration: typically 2–4 weeks
- Investment anchor: typically €12K–€40K depending on scope and data readiness
- Fixed-fee where appropriate, with mutual success criteria
- Output: decision report, reusable input template, validation provenance package
Success criteria
- Clear feasibility verdict delivered
- Repeatable input template delivered
- Internal review pack quality sufficient for engineering leadership
- Explicit remediation discussion if criteria are not met
Continuity and delivery
Pilot delivery is remote-first. Inputs, assumptions, intermediate files, and final reports are versioned and backed up. If a force-majeure disruption affects schedule, the engagement pauses with the current evidence state preserved; delivery resumes or is re-scoped by written agreement.
Fit and scope
Good fit
- Aerostatic / gas-static journal, thrust, conical, or related bearing configurations
- Precision spindles, microturbomachinery, cryogenic turboexpanders, semiconductor positioning systems
- Pre-CAE sizing, architecture screening, qualification documentation, validation provenance
- Teams already using ANSYS / MSC Adams / SolidWorks / similar CAE tools
Not a fit
- Hydrodynamic-only bearing systems
- Magnetic bearings as the primary bearing physics
- General-purpose CAE replacement
- Post-design qualification after the architecture is already frozen
Who is behind AURA
Oleksii Breshev
Founder, lead developer, and technical architect. Mechanical engineering PhD; senior doctorate currently in progress at National University “Kyiv Aviation Institute”. Builds the AURA platform and conducts customer engineering work directly.
V. Breshev
Chief scientist and methodology co-author. 30+ years of original aerostatic bearing research and originator of the perturbation-method core used in AURA.
Two-generation engineering depth
The platform is built on continuity of work in the same physics specialty: analytical methods, CFD comparison, experimental evidence, and practical engineering judgment across many bearing cases.
FAQ
Is AURA only an air-bearing calculator?
No. Direct aerostatic-bearing calculation is part of the core, together with inverse parameter synthesis. AURA then connects the support result to the drive, shaft and tool layout, rotor-dynamic analysis, validation evidence and the release-decision boundary. The public website shows a controlled preview; current full workflows are expert-assisted.
Does AURA replace prototype testing?
No. AURA is designed to structure the pre-prototype and review workflow: assumptions, support synthesis, coefficient evidence, rotor-dynamic screening, and claim boundaries. Prototype measurement remains essential when manufacturing-sensitive variables such as clearance, surface finish, and geometry dominate performance.
What decision does AURA support?
AURA supports bearing sizing and synthesis, support-architecture comparison, high-speed spindle and rotor-system configuration, critical-speed and response screening, and evidence-controlled release decisions for gas-static bearing systems.
Does a calculation PASS mean engineering freeze?
No. A calculation can pass while freeze remains screening-only if damping provenance, coupling maturity, benchmark trace, tolerance basis, or validation scope are not sufficient for release.
What is the best first pilot case?
The best first case has a defined machine type, RPM range, support architecture, load or stiffness target, available geometry constraints, and a clear decision question.
Contact
Oleksii Breshev — Founder, AURA Engineering Platform
Email: aura@breshevengineering.com
- Best first message: machine type + RPM range + constraints
- For technical review: include architecture class and available validation data
Next step: we confirm fit in a short call and share a one-page pilot scope when the case is appropriate.