2020/12/16

19M18145 Josi Ayu Wulandari

Running-In Behavior in Mixed-Lubrication Contact using Load Sharing Method

1. Introduction In this research gear contact is replaced by two

roller contact which also simplified with one roller
Gear life time is still being concern due to
contact with flat surface (see figure 1).
the replacement of gear parts of vehicle needs
amount of time and high cost of maintenance.
Currently, gear failed mostly due to pitting fatigue at
contact area.
Pitting fatigue is the cumulative of several
micro pitting. Furthermore, micro pitting itself is Figure 1. Roller contact assumption used in research
believed to be initiated from micro crack that From the previous seminar, 3D wear roughness
happen during running in process. during running in has already performed. To more
During running-in process, wear process is understand the pressure distribution, by solving
also occurred. But along with surface roughness Reynold’s equation, the pressure distribution before
change due to wear on gear contact, some of micro and after running in is shown in figure 2.
crack seems to disappear. If micro crack can be
reduced during running-in process, gear life time
could be extended which mean the purpose of the
research could be achieved.
In the previous seminar, 3-dimensional
wear simulation was conducted and the surface
parameter was also evaluated. In this seminar,
hydraulic pressure changes before and after running
in is performed and analyze. Also, some parameters
change during running in will be evaluated using
Figure 2. Pressure distribution before and after
load sharing method in mixed-lubrication condition
running in along length of action
with also combined wear phenomena using modified
From figure 2, it can be seen that the maximum
Archad’s theory and asperity deformation in order to
pressure is in the same location and amount but the
obtained the relations of all respected parameters.
pressure distribution after running-in process
2. Evaluation Method
distributed flatter during length of action if
2.1 Pressure Comparation Before and After
compared with at before running-in which show
Running-in
more fluctuate pressure value.

1
 2020/12/16
19M18145 Josi Ayu Wulandari

2.2 Load Sharing Method kind based on the radius of the asperity which are
Still on investigating the parameter change during blunt asperity (asperity radius is 75 ) and sharp
running-in process, Base on Johnson [1], asperity (asperity radius is 35 ). Both surface
load-sharing concept can be applied in condition has the same surface roughness, which
mixed-lubrication contact where total load 𝐹𝑇 is the RMS is 0.34 .
total of combination from hydrodynamic film force 2.4 Asperity Deformation
𝐹𝐻 and asperity force 𝐹𝐶 , as equation below:
The amount of interference happen in contact
1) 𝐹𝑇 = 𝐹𝐻 + 𝐹𝐶
between asperity and the smooth plane will identify
The contribution of both hydrodynamic and asperity
the deformation regimes performed in each asperity
is represented by scaling factor 𝛾1 and 𝛾2 , so that
contact. Based on Zhao [2], the deformation will be
𝐹𝑇 𝐹𝑇 𝐹𝑇
2) 𝐹𝑇 = + , 𝐹𝐶 = classified based on critical initial yielding point,
𝛾1 𝛾2 𝛾2
which are:
Later on, scaling factor will be determined using
2
𝐻
load sharing method which will change during 4) 𝑤𝑒 = (0.94 ) 𝛽
𝐸𝑝
running-in process because the effect of both wear
Where 𝐻 is the hardness of softer material and 𝐸𝑝
surface and asperity deformation.
is the equivalent modulus of elasticity, also the
2.3 Asperity Contact Model beginning of plastic deformation is define with
𝑤𝑝 = 54𝑤𝑒 . From the all parameters, the asperity
deformation then classified with three regimes as
follow [3]:
1) Fully elastic, where 𝑤 is less than 𝑤𝑒
2) Elasto-plastic, where 𝑤 value is between 𝑤𝑒
and 𝑤𝑝

Figure 3. Schematic of contact of an asperity 3) Fully plastic, where 𝑤 value is greater than 𝑤𝑝

Figure 3 shows the schematic of contact of an Later on, the contact area and the contact force of

asperity with tip radius β with a rigid and smooth each asperity can be identified using following

plane. When the asperity is contacted with smooth equations [4]:

plane, there is interference (𝑤) define as follow: For an asperity in elastic regime

3) 𝑤 = 𝑧 − ℎ𝑐 + 𝑦𝑠 4
5) 𝐹𝑖𝑒 = 𝐸𝑝 𝛽𝑖0.5 𝑤𝑖0.5
3
where 𝑧 is asperity height, ℎ𝑐 is central film
For an asperity in elasto-plastic regime
thickness, and 𝑦𝑠 is difference between means
ln 𝑤𝑝 − ln 𝑤𝑖
asperity height and mean of surface height. 6) 𝐹𝑖𝑒𝑝 = (𝐻 − 0.6𝐻 )𝐴
ln 𝑤𝑝 − ln 𝑤𝑒 𝑖𝑒𝑝
In this research the asperity is classified into two

2
 2020/12/16
19M18145 Josi Ayu Wulandari

3 2 figure 4. First, various surface roughness is inputted

𝑤 −𝑤 𝑤 −𝑤
7) 𝐴𝑖𝑒𝑝 = 𝜋𝛽𝑖 𝑤𝑖 (1 − 2 (𝑤 𝑖 −𝑤𝑒 ) + 3 (𝑤 𝑖 −𝑤𝑒 ) )
𝑝 𝑒 𝑝 𝑒
(in this research surface in every 100 seconds after
For an asperity in plastic regime wear simulation using Modified Archard’s equation
8) 𝐹𝑖𝑝 = 𝐻𝐴𝑖𝑝
is used). Also set initial interference (𝑤0) for 1st
9) 𝐴𝑖𝑝 = 2𝜋𝛽𝑖 𝑤𝑖
iteration. Then calculate the interferences (𝑤)
Therefore, the total force surface contact for all which later is used to identify the deformation
asperities are: happened on each asperity. Next step is calculating
𝑛
10) 𝐹𝑐 = ∑ 𝐹𝑖𝑒 + 𝐹𝑖𝑒𝑝 + 𝐹𝑖𝑝 the total force by asperities (𝐹𝑐 , see equation 10)
𝑖=1
and the values should be equal with contact force in
2.5 Film Thickness
equation 2). By inputting various value of 𝛾2 from
In mixed lubrication contact, after calculating the 1, 𝛾2 value is obtained. After that calculate the film

force by asperity contact, lubrication film thickness
also needs to calculate so the lubrication force can
be obtained. See the dimensionless equations below
thickness (ℎ𝑐 ) and recalculate interferences (𝑤)
for each asperity using equation 3). Iteration will
stop if the contact force by equation 10) 𝐹𝑐1 and
contact force by equation 2) 𝐹𝑐2 is same (error <

to find the film thickness ℎ𝑐 0.00005).

11)

𝒔/𝟐 𝟕/𝟑 𝟏𝟒/𝟏𝟓 𝟕/𝟑 −𝒔/𝟐 −𝟕/𝟐

𝐻𝒄 = [𝛾𝟏 (𝐻𝑹𝑰 + 𝛾𝟏 𝐻𝑬𝑰 )𝟑𝒔/𝟕 + 𝛾𝟏 (𝐻𝑹𝑷 +

−𝟕/𝟐 𝟏/𝒔 𝒔/𝟐

𝐻𝑬𝑷 )−𝟐𝒔/𝟕 ] 𝛾𝟏

where,

2(𝛾1 )−2/5 𝐻𝐸𝐼

1 (− 𝐻𝑅𝐼 )
12) s = (7 + 8𝑒 )
5

−1 −0.2
13) 𝐻𝑅𝐼 = 3(𝑊𝑈Σ−0.5 ) ; 𝐻𝐸𝐼 = 2.621(𝑊𝑈Σ−0.5 )

2
14) 𝐻𝑅𝑃 = 1.287(𝐺𝑈Σ−0.25 )3 ;

1 3
15) 𝐻𝐸𝑃 = 1.311(𝑊𝑈Σ−0.5 )−8 (𝐺𝑈Σ−0.25 )4

𝐹𝑇 𝜂0 𝑢 𝒉𝒄
16) 𝑊 = ; 𝐺 = 𝛼𝐸𝑝 ; 𝑈Σ = ; 𝐻𝐶 = 𝑈Σ−0.5
𝐸𝑝 𝑅′𝐵 𝐸𝑝 𝑅′ 𝑅′

2.6 Simulation Method

To understand the parameter’s change during

running-in process, the simulation is conducted (see Figure 4. Simulation Flow Chart

3
 2020/12/16
19M18145 Josi Ayu Wulandari

2.7 Data and Parameter

See the parameter value used for simulation, in this
research two kind of asperity are investigated with
same initial roughness but varied by asperity radius
which are blunt and sharp.
Parameters Value
𝛽 (Asperity Radius, Blunt) 75
𝛽 (Asperity Radius, Sharp) 150 Figure 7. Contact force (Fie, Fiep, Fip) in sharp
Ep (Young’s Modulus) 200 GPa
asperity
H (Material Hardness) 1.3 GPa
From figure 6 and figure 7, for both blunt and sharp
Ft (Dead Load) 85 kN
asperity, the elastic force (Fie) and the elasto-plastic
R (Roller Radius 0.00968 m
U (Rotation Speed) 11.1 m/s force (Fiep) have linear trend along with

RMS (Initial Roughness) 0.34 interference height increases.

On the other hand, for the plastic force (Fip), it
Table 1. Parameter values use in simulation
seems to follow polynomial equation for both blunt
and sharp asperity case. But in sharp asperity, the
plastic deformation overlaps the total contact force
means that plastic deformation is more dominant in
sharp asperity compare with blunt asperity.

Figure 5. Sharp asperity and blunt asperity scheme

3. Results and Analysis

After simulation is conducted, some parameters on

both blunt and sharp asperity are evaluated.

Figure 8. Contact force during running-in

See figure 8 above, the figure shows that in blunt
asperity, total contact force is higher but decrease
rapidly during running-in process. Meanwhile in
sharp asperity, the total contact force is lower but

Figure 6. Contact force (Fie, Fiep, Fip) in blunt decrease slowly. Later on it shows that after wear

asperity finished, the amount of total contact force reach the

4
 2020/12/16
19M18145 Josi Ayu Wulandari

same value. It is happened because in the same

height of asperity and interference, the blunt asperity
will have larger area of asperity contact which
means that the contact force is larger in blunt
asperity.

Figure 10. Scaling factor for load ratio of blunt

asperity

Figure 9. Film thickness change by change of

surface roughness
Figure 9 is obtained by inputting RMS surface data
during running-in for every 100 seconds. The figure
shows rapid dot in the beginning which means that
RMS change on early seconds of running in process Figure 11. Scaling factor for load ratio of sharp

is slower than after 500 seconds. Also, if the blunt asperity

asperity and the sharp asperity is compared, the In the previous explanation about load ratio and

blunt asperity have higher film thickness at the scaling factor, from equation 2, following equation

beginning of running-in process and decrease is obtained

rapidly. On the other hand, the sharp asperity has 1 1

17) 1 = +
𝛾1 𝛾2
smaller film thickness at the beginning of running-in
Which means that when 𝛾1 reach value 1.00, the
process then decrease slightly. Both asperities will
mixed lubrication will move to full lubrication
reach same film thickness after running-in which is
contact. See figure 10 and figure 11, it can be seen
around 0.1 (blunt asperity 0.14 , sharp
that both blunt asperity and sharp asperity show the
asperity 0.12 )
similar trend. The figures also show that just before
𝛾1 reach 1.00, the scaling factor for 𝛾2 will increase
drastically which means that the mixed lubrication
contact move to full lubrication contact at that time.

5
 2020/12/16
19M18145 Josi Ayu Wulandari

4. Conclusion and Future Plan

4.1 Conclusion
From the research the conclusions are:
1) Pressure distribution along length of action of
3D surface before and after wear (running-in) is
obtained.
2) In contact force for both sharp and blunt asperity,
the plastic deformation regime is dominant than
elastic or elasto-plastic deformation.
3) During running-in process, it is proved that
contact force decreases not linearly during
running-in process, but follow second order of
polynomial equation.
4) Film thickness is decrease during running-in
process when both wear and deformation of
asperity is considered.

4.2 Future Plan

The future plan of this research is:

1) Based on the force contact defined from this
research, next step is the subsurface stress will
be analyzed and considered the wear during
running-in process.
5. References
[1] Johnson K.L, Greenwood J.A, Poon S.Y, 1972, “A
simple theory of asperity contact in
elastohydrodynamic lubrication,” Wear, 19, pp. 91–
108.
[2] Zhao, Y., Maietta, D. M., and Chang, L., 2000,”An
Asperity Microcontact Model Incorporating the
Transition from Elastic Deformation to Fully Plastic
Flow,” ASME Journal of Tribology, 122, pp. 86-93.
[3] Greenwood, J. A., and Williamson, J. B. P., 1966,
“Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London Series A, 295, pp. 300–
319.
[4] Faron, I. C., 2005, PhD Dissertation, “Mixed
Lubricated Line Contact,” University of Twente,
Enschede, The Netherlands