Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8403 PDF Ch11a
8403 PDF Ch11a
8403 PDF Ch11a
Hydrodynamic and
Elastohydrodynamic
Lubrication
The friction force generated when two bodies rub against each other can be drastically decreased, and
the subsequent wear almost entirely eliminated, if a lubricant is interposed between the surfaces in contact.
Lubricants are generally considered to be oils, particularly petroleum oils because we have so much
experience with them. However, almost any material can be a lubricant. As da Vinci observed 400 years
ago, “All things and anything whatsoever, however thin it be, which is interposed in the middle between
objects that rub together lighten the difficulty of this friction.” Nevertheless, in this chapter lubrication
with fluids, in particular incompressible fluids, is the only type of lubrication that will be discussed.
The equations that describe lubrication with continuous fluid films are derived from the basic equa-
tions of fluid dynamics through specialization to the particular geometry of the typical lubricant film;
lubricant films are distinguished by their small thickness relative to their lateral extent. If Ly and Lxz denote
the characteristic dimensions across the film thickness and the ‘plane’ of the film, respectively, as indicated
in Figure 11.1, then typical industrial bearings are characterized by (Ly /Lxz) = O(10–3). This fact alone,
and the assumption of laminar flow, allows us to combine the equations of motion and continuity into
a single equation in lubricant pressure, the so called the Reynolds equation. The theory of lubrication is
concerned with the solution of the Reynolds equation, sometimes in combination with the equation of
energy, under various lubricating conditions. When the surfaces are deformable, as in rolling contact
bearings or human and animal joints, the equations of elasticity and the pressure dependence of lubricant
viscosity must also be included in the solution of the problem.
∂v
∂t
(
)
ρ + v ⋅∇v = −∇p + µ∇ 2 v + ρf (11.1)
div v = 0 (11.2)
We render these equations dimensionless by normalizing the orthogonal Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z)
with the corresponding length scales and the velocities with the velocity scales, U* in the in the x-z plane
and V* perpendicular to it
x = L xz x , y = L y y , z = L xz z (11.3a)
We note that the characteristic velocity in the y direction, V*, cannot be chosen independent of U*, as
the terms in the equation of continuity must balance. Substitution of Equation 11.3 into Equation 11.2
yields
∂u V∗L xz ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 (11.4)
∂x U∗L y ∂y ∂z
indicating that the terms of the continuity equations will balance provided that
L
V∗L xz
U∗L y
=O 1 () or V∗ = y U∗
L xz
(11.5)
p
p = re , t = Ωt (11.6)
ρU∗2
–
The reduced Reynolds number, re, and the nondimensional frequency, Ω, have the definition
L LU
re = y y ∗
(
L L y L xz Ω
and Ω = y
)
L xz ν L xz ν
where Ω is the characteristic frequency of the system. For journal bearings, the characteristic frequency
is related to the rotational velocity of the journal. Taking the shaft surface speed as the characteristic
velocity, U* = Rω, and the journal radius as the characteristic length in the “plane” of the bearing, Lxz =
–
R, we have re ≈ Ω. Making use of this approximation, we write the equations of motion and continuity
in terms of the normalized quantities as
2
∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂p ∂2u L y ∂2u ∂2u
re +u +v +w = − + + + (11.7a)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂y 2 L xz ∂x 2 ∂z 2
Ly
2
2
r ∂v + u ∂v + v ∂v + w ∂v − ∂ v − L y ∂ v + ∂ v = − ∂p
2 2 2
e ∂t
L (11.7b)
xz ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y 2 L xz ∂x 2 ∂z 2 ∂y
2
∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w ∂p ∂2w L y ∂2w ∂2w
re +u +v +w = − + + + (11.7c)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂y 2 L xz ∂x 2 ∂z 2
∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 (11.8)
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂p
∂y
( )
= O 10 −6 while
∂p ∂p
≈
∂x ∂z
=O 1 () (11.9)
∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 (11.11)
∂x ∂y ∂z
1 ∂p 2
u= y + Ay + B (11.12a)
2µ ∂x
1 ∂p 2
w= y + Cy + D (11.12b)
2µ ∂z
The integration constants A, B, C, D are evaluated with the aid of the boundary conditions on velocity
(Figure 11.1),
u = U1, w = 0 at y = 0
(11.13)
u = U 2 , w = 0 at y = h
y
u=
1 ∂p 2
2µ ∂x
( y
)
y − yh + 1 − U1 + U 2
h h
(11.14)
w=
1 ∂p 2
2µ ∂z
y − yh ( )
The pressure distribution appearing in Equation 11.14 is not arbitrary but must be such that the equation
of continuity is satisfied. For this, we substitute Equation 11.14 into the averaged (across the film)
equation of continuity, which, upon interchanging the indicated differentiation and integration, becomes
( ) ( )
[v] ( ) ∂ 1 ∂p
∫ ( y − yh)dy − ∂z 2µ ∂z ∫ ( y − yh)dy
h x,t h x,t
∂ 1 ∂p h x,t
=−
2 2
0 ∂x 2µ ∂x 0 0
(11.15)
∂ ( )
h x,t
y y ∂h
−
∂x ∫
0
1 − U1 + U 2 dy + U 2
h h ∂x
Recognizing that
[v] ( )
( ) dh
h x,t
= − V1 − V2 = (11.16)
y =0 dt
∂ h 3 ∂p ∂ h 3 ∂p
+ (
= 6 U1 − U 2
∂h
)
+ 6h
∂ U1 + U 2( ) (
+ 12 V2 − V1 ) (11.17)
∂x µ ∂x ∂z µ ∂z ∂x ∂x
If the relative motion between the surfaces in contact is pure translation, as is in conventional thrust
bearings, Equation 11.17 can be cast in the form
∂ h 3 ∂p ∂ h 3 ∂p ∂h
+ = 6U 0 + 12V0 (11.18)
∂x µ ∂x ∂z µ ∂z ∂x
where
U 0 = U1 − U 2 , V0 = V2 − V1
∂ h 3 ∂p ∂ h 3 ∂p ∂h
+ = 6U 0 + 12V0 (11.19)
∂x µ ∂x ∂z µ ∂z ∂x
Here U0 = U1 + U2 and V0 = V2 – V1. Thus while in thrust bearings it is the difference in tangential
velocities that creates pressure, in journal bearings it is their sum; if journal and bearing rotate in opposite
directions but with the same speed, there is no pressure generated. However, for both journal and thrust
bearings positive pressures are generated only when the film is convergent, both in space and time.
∂h ∂h
U0 < 0, <0 (11.20)
∂x ∂t
∂ h 3 ∂P ∂ h 3 ∂P 1 ∂h
+ = U (11.21a)
∂x µk x ∂x ∂z µkz ∂z 2 0 ∂x
–
where P is the average value of p.
The weighting functions are related (in Constantinescu’s model) to the local Reynolds number as
( )
0.725
k x = 12 + 0.53 k 2 Re h (11.21b)
and the local Reynolds number, Reh = Rωh/v, is calculated from the reduced Reynolds number through
Reh = re(h/C)(R/C).
11.1.2.2 Surface Roughness
Surface roughness should be taken into account if it is excessive. This can be done by applying the
Patir–Cheng flow factors (Patir and Cheng, 1978), obtained by numerically solving the Reynolds equation
–
for microbearings possessing real, rough, surfaces (Figure 11.2). To calculate the pressure flow factors φx
–
and φz, the microbearing is subjected to mean pressure gradients (p1 – p2)/(x2 – x1) and (p1 – p2)/(z2 –
z1), respectively, where (x2 – x1)(z2 – z1) is the projected area of the microbearing. The pressure flow factor
φx, for example, is calculated from
∂p
φx = h
(
p −p
h 3 2 1
)
∂x (
x2 − x1 )
where the overscore bar indicates statistical averaging. In the next step, the flow factors themselves are
averaged, having been calculated for a large number of statistically identical microbearings. The Reynolds
equation for rough surfaces now takes the form
∂ h 3 ∂p ∂ h 3 ∂p U1 + U 2 ∂h U1 − U 2 ∂φs ∂h
φx + φ = + σ + (11.22)
∂x 12µ ∂x ∂z z 12µ ∂z
2 ∂x 2 ∂x ∂t
ρ
( ) = − pdiv v + µΦ + div (k gradT )
d c vT
(11.23)
dt
If the fluid is incompressible cv = cp = c and –pdivv = 0 by Equation 11.2. Assuming further that the
heat conductivity is constant, Equation 11.23 becomes
∂u 2 ∂v 2 ∂w 2 ∂u ∂v 2 ∂v ∂w 2 ∂w ∂u 2
Φ = 2 + + + + + + + + (11.24b)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂z
∂T ∂T ∂T 1 ∂2T ∂u 2 ∂w 2
u +v +w = + Λ µ + (11.25)
∂x ∂y ∂z Pe ∂y 2 ∂y ∂y
where the Peclet number and the dissipation number have the definition, respectively,
2
cµ µ ωL
Pe = ∗ re , Λ = ∗ xz
k ρcT∗ L y
–
the starred quantities are evaluate in the reference state, and T = UT/T*, µ– = µ/µ*.
The thermohydrodynamic (THD) theory of fluid film lubrication accounts for pointwise variation of
lubricant viscosity and relies on the simultaneous solution of Equation 11.25, the equation of heat
conduction in the bearing, and the extended form of the Reynolds equation that is written for variable
viscosity (Suganami and Szeri, 1979)
∂ Γh 3 ∂P ∂ Γh 3 ∂P
+ = U
∂
h −
ξ2 x , h, z (
+ V0
) (11.26)
∂x µ∗ ∂x ∂z µ∗ ∂z 0
∂x ξ1 x , h, z ( )
for journal bearings and
∂ Γh 3 ∂P ∂ Γh 3 ∂P
+ = U0
∂ ξ2 x , h, z (
+ V0
) (11.27)
∂x µ∗ ∂x ∂z µ∗ ∂z ∂x ξ1 x , h, z ( )
for slider bearings. Here we employed the notation
) (( ) (
1
ξ2 x , h, z
( ) ∫ (
Γ x , z = − ξ 2 x , y , z −
ξ1 x , h, z
ξ1 x , y , z
) ) dy
0
η η
( ) ∫ µ( x , y , z ) ,
ξ1 x , η, z =
dy
( ) ∫ µ(xydy, y, z )
ξ2 x , η, z =
0 0
[ (
∆t = H ρc Q − Qs 2 )] (11.28)
For typical petroleum oils ρc ≈ 1.39 MPa/C and ρc = 4.06 MPa/C for water.
∂2 p ∂2 p
+ =0 (11.29)
∂x 2 ∂z 2
FIGURE 11.3 Hydrostatic bearing schematics (a) before and (b) after lift-off. (From Szeri, A.Z. (1998). Fluid Film
Lubrication, Theory and Design, Cambridge University Press. With permission.)
p = pr on Γ1
(11.30)
p = pa on Γ2
where Γ1 and Γ2 represent inside (recess) and outside contours, respectively, of the pad. Equation 11.29,
subject to boundary conditions Equation 11.30, is easily solved in any of several orthogonal curvilinear
coordinate systems where Laplace’s equation separates, provided that Γ1, Γ2 are composed of coordinate
lines. Otherwise, though the solution is still elementary, it must be performed on the computer.
Irrespective of the method of solution, i.e., analytical or numerical, and the geometry and size of the
bearing pad, the performance of hydrostatic bearings can be written in terms of a set of dimensionless
parameters: the load factor af , the flow factor qf , and the loss factor hf . If W, Q, Hp , Hf represent the external
load, the lubricant flow, the pressure power loss, and the frictional power loss, respectively, then we can
write
W = a f Apr (11.31a)
h3
Q = qf p (11.31b)
µ r
h3
H p = qf p p (11.31c)
µ r s
µU M2 A
H f = hf (11.31d)
h
Here A is the combined area of pad and recess, ps is the supply pressure, pr is the recess pressure, and
UM is the maximum relative velocity between pad and runner.
and obtain
d dp
r = 0 (11.33a)
dr dr
in place of Equation 11.29, while the boundary conditions take the form
R1
p = 1 at r = , p = 0 at r = 1 (11.33b)
R2
Integrating of Equation 11.33a and enforcing the boundary conditions, Equation 11.33b, lead to
ln r
p= (11.34)
(
ln R1 R2 )
Having found the pressure distribution, we are ready to evaluate the performance of the pad.
Load capacity:
R2 2 1
R1
∫ ) ∫
2
W = πR pr + 2π rpdr = πR pr +
2 2
r ln rdr
1
R1
R2 ln R1 R2
2
( R1 R2
(11.35a)
( ) Ap
2
1 − R1 R2
=
2 ln( R R )
r
2 1
Flow rate:
h
π h 3 pr
∫
Q = 2πrur dy =
0
(
6 ln R2 R1 µ )
(11.35b)
where
ur =
1 dp
2µ dr
y y −h ( )
is the (radial) flow velocity, obtained as in Equation 11.14.
Pumping power:
H p = psQ
π h 3 ps pr (11.35c)
=
(
6 ln R2 R1 µ )
( )
4
R2 1 − R1 R2 µU M2 A
Hf =
∫ R1
rωτdA =
2 h
(11.35d)
( )
2
1 − R1 R2
af = (11.36a)
2 ln( R R )2 1
π
qf = (11.36b)
(
6 ln R2 R1 )
( )
4
1 − R1 R2
hf = (11.36c)
2
The total power loss is the sum of frictional loss and pumping power
h3 µU M2 A
HT = H p + H f = q f pr ps + h f (11.37)
µ h
11.2.2 Optimization
The curves of Figure 11.5 indicate the existence of optimum values hopt , µopt of the film thickness and the
viscosity, respectively, defined by the conditions
∂H T ∂H T
= 0, =0 (11.38)
∂h ∂µ
Substitution of HT from Equation 11.37 into Equation 11.38 yields the optimum film thickness at
constant viscosity and the optimum viscosity at constant film thickness, respectively (Szeri, 1998)
14 12
h µ 2U M2 A q h4 p p
hopt = f , µ opt = f 2r s (11.39a,b)
3q f pr ps hf U M A
Substituting Equation 11.39a into Equations 11.31c and 11.31d, we find that at constant viscosity the
total power loss is minimum when Hf /Hp = 3 and the total power consumption of the bearing is
4
(q h p p µ U A )
14
H T ,hopt = 34 f
3
f r s
2 6
M
3
(11.40a)
3
When Equation 11.39b is used, we find that Hf /Hp = 1 and the minimum power at constant film thickness
is
HT ,h
1≤ ≤ 1.1398
H T , hopt Hf
for 3 ≥ ≥1 (11.41)
HT , µ Hp
1.1547 ≥ ≥1
H T , µopt
Equation 11.41 shows that as long as we keep 1 ≤ Hf /Hp ≤ 3, the total power will not exceed its optimal
value by more than 16%. But this is not the full story, as we should also keep in mind the temperature
rise as the result of dissipation. Assuming that all heat generated is used for increasing the temperature
of the lubricant and that none is conducted away, a simple energy balance yields
1 h f µ 2U M2 A
∆T = + ps (11.42)
ρc q f h pr
4
Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that ps /pr = const., the condition ∂∆T/∂ps = 0 assures us that the
temperature rise is a minimum when Hf /Hp = 1, thus we do well to design for this condition.
RB 128µlC2
W = a f Aps , RB = µ q f h 3 , RC = (11.43)
RC + RB πdC4
W 1+ ξ
= (11.44)
W0 1 + ξX 3
where
RC h
ξ= and X =
RBo h0
and the ratio of supply pressure to recess pressure is given by ps /pr = 1+ ξ. The dimensionless bearing
stiffness is obtained by differentiating W/W0 with respect to h/h0
λ≡−
(
∂ W W0 ) = 3ξ(1 + ξ)X 2
( ) (1 + ξX )
(11.45)
∂ h h0 3
2
(1) (2 )
(1)
pr =
W
<
W (2 )
= pr
af A af A
At the start of operation the pump delivery pressure is increased from zero and reaches the lower of
the lift-off pressures pL(1) = W(1)/Ar, where Ar is the area of the recess. Now that the passage is open for
the lubricant, the delivery pressure will drop back to pr(1) and there it will stay. There is no way for the
pump to reach pL(2) = W(2)/Ar > pL(1) > pr1, the lift required by pad no. 2, i.e., pad no. 2 will not come
into operation at all.
(ii) Operation with capillary restrictor. The size of the restrictor to be installed in bearing no. 1 of the
previous example must be such that ∆p (1) + pr(1) > pL(2) at the required flowrate Q(1).
For this geometry Equation 11.36 yields af = 0.54 and qf = 0.755, so that
44500
pr = = 1.626 MPa
0.54 × 0.1272 π
We select a pump that delivers 6.309 cm3/sec. At this flowrate the film thickness is an acceptable
13
6.309 × 10−6 × 3.03 × 10−2
h= = 53.80 µm > 50.8 µm
0.755 × 1.626 × 10
6
We thus need a pump that delivers pL = 44,500/(0.0635)2 π = 3.5129 MPa at zero flow and 1.626 MPa at
Q = 6.31 cm3/s.
Assume a supply pressure ps = 2.0684 MPa at Q = 6.309 cm3/s, then from the Hagen–Poisseuille law
( )
lC cm =
(
π 2.0684 − 1.626 × 106 ) dC4 = 5.68 × 104 × dC4 cm( )
−2 −6
128 × 3.03 × 10 × 6.309 × 10
Using this last equation, for standard capillary inside diameters we construct Table 11.1.
Only capillaries with 0.084 < dC < 0.18 are satisfactory, and we choose dC = 0.12 cm and lC = 12.0 cm:
as lC/dC > 20, the required length is practical, and dC > 0.0635 cm (clogging).
The choice of flow restrictors will influence bearing performance under dynamic conditions. Table 11.2
lists advantages and disadvantages of flow restrictors (rating 1 is best or most desirable).
Initial cost 2 1 3
Cost to fabricate, install 2 3 1
Space requirement 2 1 3
Reliability 1 2 3
Useful life 1 2 3
Availability 2 3 1
Tendency to clog 1 2 3
Serviceability 2 1 3
Adjustability 3 2 1
(Figure 11.1). No outside agency is required to create and maintain a load-carrying film, provided that
adequate lubricant is made available. Hydrodynamic films are easy to obtain; in fact they often occur
even when their presence is deemed undesirable, e.g., in hydroplaning of automobile tires on wet
pavement.
Prototypes of conformal hydrodynamic bearings are journal bearings and thrust bearings; these bear-
ings might also be called “thick film” bearings. A journal bearing at load per projected bearing area of
1.36 MPa, speed 60 rps, and lubricated with an ASTM Grade 315 oil at 52°C would have a minimum
film thickness of the order of 88.4 µm. This film is thick in comparison to film found in counterformal
bearings, such as ball and roller bearings.
Journal bearings are designed to support radial loads on rotating shafts, while thrust bearings, as their
name implies, support axial or thrust loads. Although the mode of lubrication is identical in these two
bearing types, their geometry is sufficiently distinct for us to discuss them under separate headings; in
journal bearings, in general, the clearance geometry is convergent–divergent, and film rupture occurs in
the divergent part. Conventional thrust bearings, on the other hand, are purely convergent and their film
remains continuous throughout the clearance.
The third main heading of this section introduces the idea of lubricant film instability in the dynamic
sense; in most cases of application, the thermomechanical load on the bearing varies with time and, as
a result, the bearing surfaces undergo cyclic oscillation that can lead to catastrophic film failure.
FIGURE 11.7 Schematic of a full journal bearing. (From Szeri, A.Z. (1998), Fluid Film Lubrication, Theory and
Design, Cambridge University Press. With permission.)
isothermal operations, somewhat of a rarity in practice, the loading conditions on the shaft can be
characterized by a single dimensionless group, the Sommerfeld number S, defined by
2
µN R
S=
P C
where N is the rotation and R is the radius of the shaft, C is the radial clearance between bearing and
shaft, µ is the viscosity of the fluid, and P is the specific load. The specific load has the definition P =
W/LD, where L is the length and D is the diameter of the bearing; note that this definition of P is used
even for partial arc bearings, for which the projected bearing area might be less than LD.
For an unloaded bearing P → 0 and S → ∞, a weightless shaft runs concentric with its bearing. On
increasing the external load or decreasing the speed, i.e., on decreasing S, the journal will move away
from its concentric position, the journal trajectory approximating a semicircular arc (Figure 11.8). Under
extreme load or vanishing speed, S → 0, metal-to-metal contact occurs at the point where the load line
cuts the bearing.
In most applications there is considerable heat generation, and the viscosity of the lubricant does not
remain uniform throughout the film. In such cases we need more than a single dimensionless group to
characterize journal bearing operations. In fact, under nonisothermal conditions the number of charac-
terizing parameters is so large that tabulation of bearing performance becomes impractical.
Denote the radial clearance, i.e., the difference in radii between cylinder and shaft, by C as before, the
radius of the shaft by Rs and the radius of the cylinder by Rb , so that C = Rb – Rs , then in normal design
practice (C/R) = O(10–3). This signifies that the lubrication approximation to Equations 11.1 and 11.2
is valid, and we can employ the Reynolds equation for evaluating bearing performance. The small value
of C/R further signifies that the curvature of the film can be neglected to the same order, thus the analysis
may be performed in an orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system. The (x,z) plane of this coordinate
system lies in the surface of the bearing, so that x is the “circumferential” coordinate and z is parallel to
the axis of the shaft. The y coordinate is normal to the “plane” of the bearing, i.e., it points toward the
center of the bearing arc, yet to the approximation involved here the y arrays appear parallel to one
(
h = C + e cos θ = C 1 + ε cos θ ) (11.46)
where e is the eccentricity, h the film thickness, and θ the angle measured from the line of centers in the
direction of shaft rotation. When the load-line, and therefore the line of centers, is not fixed but oscillating,
as when there is a rotating out of balance force on the shaft, the film thickness relates to the fixed position
through the formula
[ (
h = C + e cos Ξ − φ + ψ )] (11.47)
Here φ is the angle between load-line and line of centers, the so-called attitude angle, and ψ defines the
load-line relative to the fixed position = 0. Equation 11.47 can be used to evaluate the right-hand side
of the Reynolds equation, Equation 11.19, to obtain (Szeri, 1998)
∂ h 3 ∂p ∂ h 3 ∂p
+
∂x µ ∂x ∂z µ ∂z
∂h
∂x [ ( )
= 6 Rω + 12 e˙ cos θ + e φ˙ + ω W sin θ ] (11.48)
Here ω and ωW = dψ/dt are the angular frequencies of the shaft and the load vector, respectively.
Equation 11.48 is only an approximation to the governing equations of lubricant flow, good to order C/R
·
· φ,
provided that e, and ωW are of the same order of magnitude as ω or smaller.
Though Equation 11.48 was arrived at through simplification of the full nonlinear equations,
Equations 11.1 and 11.2, its solution is still difficult to obtain except in numerical form. For this reason,
before the advent of high-speed computing Equation 11.48 was further simplified to make it amenable
to analytical solutions. These simplifications, known as the short-bearing and the long-bearing approxi-
mations to the Reynolds equation, must be used with great caution, however, as they may yield incorrect
performance parameter values. Before discussing these approximations to Equation 11.49 we shall make
the equation nondimensional.
The Reynolds equation is nondimensionalized via the substitutions
2
R
L
( )
x = Rθ, z = z , h = CH = C 1 + ε cos θ , p = µN p
2 C
(11.49)
·
Assuming that e· = φ = ωW = 0 in Equation 11.48, the nondimensional form of the Reynolds equation,
valid for journal bearings under static loading, is
2
∂ 3 ∂p D ∂ 3 ∂p ∂H
H + H = 12π (11.50)
∂θ ∂θ L ∂z ∂z ∂θ
2
∂ 3 ∂p D ∂ 3 ∂p
H and H
∂θ ∂θ L ∂z ∂z
∂H
12π
∂θ
By the normalizing transformation, Equation 11.49, each of the variable terms of Equation 11.50 are of
the same order of magnitude; thus for long-bearings for which (D/L)2 → 0 the following approximation
is acceptable
d 3 d p dH
H = 12π (11.51)
dθ dθ ∂θ
whereas for short-bearings (L/D)2 → 0, and we may approximate Equation 11.50 in the form
2
∂ 3 ∂p L ∂H
H = 12π (11.52)
∂z ∂z D ∂θ
When solved with zero pressure boundary conditions, the pressure distributions specified by
Equation 11.50 or its approximations, Equations 11.51 and 11.52, are 2π-periodic functions, antisym-
metric with respect to the position of minimum film thickness, θ = π. They yield negative pressures of
the same magnitude as positive pressures. However, unless special care is taken to remove all impurities,
liquids cannot withstand large negative pressures and the lubricant film will rupture within a short
distance downstream from the position of the minimum film thickness. Though the cavitation zone
might be preceded by a short range of subambient pressures, in most performance calculations this region
of subambient pressures is disregarded.
The boundary condition at film-cavity interface is complicated, particularly when dynamic loading
conditions prevail, and is still under investigation. Most computer calculations are based on the so-called
Swift–Stieber boundary conditions
∂p
p= = 0, at θ = θcav (11.53)
∂θ
that preserve flow continuity at the film-cavity interface. Here θcav = θcav (z)
–
denotes the angular position
–
of the film-cavity interface. Equation 11.50 also implies that p ≥ 0 everywhere in the film.
The Swift–Stieber boundary condition cannot be implemented in the short-bearing approximation,
–
as the latter is governed by a differential equation in z, and only with some difficulty in the long-bearing
approximation. The closest we can come to Equation 11.53 when using the short-bearing approximation
is to disregard negative (below ambient) pressures in calculating bearing performance, i.e., assume the
film to cavitate at the position of minimum film thickness. The conditions
()
p θ ≥ 0, 0≤θ≤π
(11.54)
p(θ) = 0, π ≤ θ ≤ 2π
are used extensively for performance calculations in both short-bearing and long-bearing approximations
and are known as the Gümbel boundary conditions. We will evaluate bearing performance, for both short-
bearing and long-bearing approximations, under the conditions specified in Equation 11.54, but for finite
bearings we use the Swift–Stieber conditions, Equation 11.35. Figure 11.9 displays pressure distribution
under Sommerfeld, Gümbel, and Swift–Stieber boundary conditions.
Bearing performance is calculated from the pressure distribution by substitution into the following
formulas
Load capacity:
The force balance (Figure 11.10)
W cos φ + FR = 0
(11.55)
−W sin φ + FT = 0
where FR and FT are the components of the pressure force along the line of centers and normal to it,
respectively, and W is the external load on the shaft, yield
Rθcav
( ) ∫ ∫
2 L 2
FR ≡ f R LDµN R C = p cosθdxdz (11.56a)
−L 2 0
Rθcav
( ) ∫ ∫
2 L 2
FT ≡ fT LDµN R C = p sinθdxdz (11.56b)
−L 2 0
Equations 11.56 define the he nondimensional force components fR , fT . The Sommerfeld number
reemerges here as the inverse of the nondimensional pressure force
2
µN R
( )
−1 2
S≡ = f R + fT
2 2
(11.57)
P C
Attitude angle:
The attitude angle, i.e., the angle between the load vector and the line of centers is given by
fT
φ = arctan (11.58)
fR
Friction variable:
The friction force exerted on the shaft is found from
L
C 2 πR
Fµ ≡ c µ W =
R ∫∫
0
0
τ xy h ( x ) dxdz (11.59)
where τxyh(x) is the shear stress on the shaft and cµ is the friction variable, which is the conventional
friction coefficient scaled with (C/R) to numerically convenient values.
Lubricant flow:
The rate of inflow can be calculated from
()
∫ ∫ u(0, y, z )dydz
2 πR h x
Qi ≡ qi NRLC = 2 (11.60)
0 0
2
∂p 3 dp L ∂H ∂ 3 dp ∂H
= 12π
–
Equation for pressure, p H = 12π H
∂z dz D ∂θ ∂θ dθ ∂θ
2
L 4πε 2 12πε 2
− −
(2 + ε )(1 − ε )
Radial force, fR
D 1− ε
( )
2 2 2
2
L
2
π 2ε 6π 2ε
Tangential force, fT
D (1 − ε )3 2 (2 + ε )(1 − ε )
12
2 2
2
π 1 − ε2 π 1 − ε2
Attitude angle, φ arctan arctan
4ε 2ε
D
2
1− ε ( 2
)
2
(2 + ε )(1 − ε )
2 2
Sommerfeld number, S
(
L πε π 2 1 − ε 2 + 16ε 2
) 6πε 4ε + π (1 − ε )
2 2 2
2 π 2S 4π 2 S
Friction variable, cµ ε sin φ +
(1 − ε ) 2
1 − ε2
Flow variable, qi 2πε —
Table 11.3 lists the performance characteristics for both short- and long-bearings. These calculations
are based on the Gümbel conditions, Equation 11.54.
As the cavitated film does not contribute to load capacity but only to unwanted friction, it serves no
useful purpose. This leads to the idea of employing partial arc pads instead of 360°, or full, bearings to
support the shaft. Different types of fixed pad partial journal bearings, each of arc β, are shown sche-
matically in Figure 11.11.
FIGURE 11.11 Fixed type journal bearings: (a) full 360° bearing, (b) centrally loaded partial bearing, (c) offset
loaded partial bearing (offset parameter α/β). (From Raimondi, A.A. and Szeri, A.Z. (1984), Journal and thrust
bearings, in CRC Handbook of Lubrication, Vol. 2, Booser, E.R., (Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. With permission.)
2
∂ 3 ∂p D ∂ 3 ∂p ∂H
H + H = 12π (11.61)
∂θ ∂θ L ∂z ∂z ∂θ
–
and the boundary conditions (considering p as gauge pressure)
p = 0 at z = ±1 (11.62a)
p = 0 at θ = θ1, θ1 + β (11.62b)
If (θ1 + β) > π, Equation 11.61 yields both positive and negative pressures, leading to film rupture as
previously discussed. At the film-cavity interface the Swift–Stieber conditions, Equation 11.35, are usually
applied.
Equation 11.61 and its boundary conditions, Equation 11.62, contain three parameters, (L/D), θ1, and
β. The only additional parameter of the problem, ε, appears in the definition of the lubricant film
geometry
x
H = 1 + ε cos θ = 1 + ε cos θ1 + , θ1 ≤ θ ≤ β (11.63)
R
Thus the journal bearing problem is uniquely characterized by the parameter set
{L D, β, ε, θ } 1 (11.64)
The first two parameters of this set define bearing geometry, while the last two characterize the geometry
of the film. Having selected parameter set (11.64), we can find the pressure by solving the system consisting
of Equations 11.61, 11.62, and 11.63. The nondimensional lubricant force components are obtained from
(note the limits of integration on z)
1 θcav
∫∫
1
fR = p cosθdθdz (11.65a)
2 0 θ1
1 θcav
∫∫
1
fT = p sinθdθdz (11.65b)
2 0 θ1
fT
φ = arctan (11.66)
fR
Knowledge of the force components {fR, fT } thus enables us to determine both the magnitude, f =
f R + f T , and the direction, φ, of the load the lubricant film will support under the specified conditions.
2 2
Instead of characterizing the oil-film force this way, however, it has been customary to employ an alternate
representation of the Sommerfeld number
α 1
[ (
= π − θ1 + φ
β β
)] (11.68)
where α is the position of the load-line relative to the leading edge of the pad (Figure 11.11).
As shown above, under isothermal conditions the computational problem is defined by the “design
parameters” {L/D, β, ε, θ1}, while the computations yield the “performance, parameters” {L/D, β, S, α/β}.
The designer, however, must proceed in an inverse manner, so to speak. (In the following, we drop the
parameters L/D and β from the list.)
What is known at the design stage are the pad geometry and the performance requirements, i.e., the
magnitude and direction of the external load, the shaft speed and the viscosity of the lubricant, and it
is easy for the designer to define the couple {S, α/β}; but the designer has no way of determining the
couple {ε, θ1} that is required in order to compute the minimum film thickness, often the controlling
parameter.
Let Ω(ε, θ1) and Ψ(ε, θ1) represent the Sommerfeld number and the offset parameter, respectively,
obtained by the analyst at some given {ε, θ1}, and let S and α/β be the values that are requested by the
designer. The task for the analyst is then to find that particular {ε, θ1} that yields
( )
S − Ω ε, θ1 = 0 (11.69a)
α
β
( )
− Ψ ε, θ1 = 0 (11.69b)
We can solve this pair of nonlinear equations for the unknowns {ε, θ1} by iteration, e.g., using Newton’s
method
∂Ω ∂Ω
∂ε ∂θ1 ε( ) − ε( ) Ω − S
n n −1
(n ) (n−1) = α , n = 1, 2, 3, … (11.70)
∂Ψ ∂Ψ θ − θ Ψ −
∂ε 1 β
∂θ1
1
The performance curves in Figure 11.12, taken from Raimondi and Szeri (1984), are for centrally
loaded fixed-pad partial bearings of L/D = 1, β = 160° and various values of the Reynolds number. The
turbulent data were obtained from Equation 11.21.
Example 2. Journal Bearing
Calculate the performance of a centrally loaded partial arc journal bearing given the following data
(
β = 2.79rad 160° ) (
N = 40 sec, ω = 251rad sec )
−3
C R = 2 × 10 ISO VG 32, ρ = 831kg m 3
D = L = 0.508 m W = 355.84 kN
The temperature rise across the bearing is calculated from a simple heat balance, Equation 11.28,
1.386 × 105
∆T = = 14.97 C
( )
1.39 × 106 8.39 − 3.46 2 × 10−3
Ts = Ti + 0.5 × ∆T = 52.5C
On Figure 11.13 plot the point A(52.5, 34.47). Note that 1 Pa · s = 1000 cP.
Assume another effective viscosity: µ = 6.8948 × 10–3 Pa · s, v = 0.083 cm2/s. The corresponding
performance parameters are
S = 0.05
Q = 8.39 × 10−3 m 3 s )
Q s = 4.93 × 10−3 m 3 s
H = 0.123 MW
∆T = 14.94 C
The operating temperature is Ts = 45 + 14.94/2 = 52.47 C, and we plot point B(52.5, 6.9) in Figure 11.13.
The line drawn from A to B intersects the ISO VG 32 line at
giving the effective temperature and effective viscosity that is consistent with the operating conditions
of the bearing under the assumption that a single viscosity can portray bearing performance. The final
Reynolds number, Sommerfeld number, and minimum film thickness are
pads are free to swivel and follow the motion of the rotor, maintaining, at all times of normal operation,
a load-carrying lubricant film between rotor and pad. Other advantages of pivoted-pad bearings are that
the clearance can be closely controlled by making the pivots adjust radially, thus enabling operation with
smaller clearances than considered appropriate for a plain journal bearing, and the pads can be preloaded
to achieve relatively high stiffness (important with a vertical rotor).
Figure 11.14 shows a pad machined to radius R + C (position 1). Assuming the pad does not tilt, the
film thickness is uniform and equal to C, and the pad develops no hydrodynamic force. If the pad is now
moved inward the distance (C – C′) into position 2, the film thickness will no longer be uniform; the
resulting hydrodynamic force preloads the pad. The degree of preload is indicated by the preload coefficient
m = (C – C′)/C, the value of which varies between m = 0 for no preload, to m = 1, for metal-to-metal
contact between pad and shaft.
Figure 11.15 is a schematic of the geometrical relationships in a pivoted-pad journal bearing. The
symbols OB and OJ mark the positions of the bearing center and the instantaneous position of the shaft
center. The center of the pad is at Ono when the pad is unloaded and moves to On when it is loaded. The
pivot point P is located at angle ψ relative to the vertical load line WB . The eccentricity of the journal
relative to the bearing center, OB , is e0 = C′ε0 and its attitude angle φ0. Relative to the instantaneous pad
center, OJ , the journal eccentricity is e = Cε and the attitude angle φ, the latter measured from the load
line that, by necessity, intersects the pivot P. The radii of journal, pad, and pivot circle are R, O n P , and
O B P , respectively. From geometric consideration we have (Lund, 1964)
C′
ε n cos φn = 1 −
C
( ) (
− ε 0 cos ψ n − φ0 = m − ε 0 cos ψ n − φ0 ) (11.71)
where m is the preload coefficient defined earlier, and the index n refers to the nth pad.
Once the position of the journal relative to the bearing is specified, i.e., (ε0,φ0) is given, Equation 11.71
together with the constraint that the load must pass through the pivot are sufficient to determine (εn,φn),
the position of the nth pad, n = 1,…,N, relative to the journal. Knowing (εn,φn) makes it possible to
calculate individual pad performance that can then be summed to yield the performance characteristics
of the bearing. Unfortunately (ε0,φ0) is not known at the design stage, and the best the designer can do
is assume ε0 and use the condition that WB is purely vertical to calculate the corresponding φ0. This
procedure is, at least, tedious. If, however, the pivots are arranged symmetrically with respect to the load-
line, the pads are centrally pivoted and are identical, the journal will move along the load line WB and
φ0 ≡ 0. Figure 11.16 plots performance data for a five-pad pivoted-pad journal bearing (ε′0 = ε0/max(ε0),
and for the five-pad bearing max(ε0) from geometry).
Example 3
Find the performance for a five-pad tilting-pad bearing for a horizontal rotor, given the following data
( )
β = 1.05 rad 60° W = 11.12 kN
D = 12.7 cm µ = 1.379 × 10 −2 Pa ⋅ s
L = 6.35 cm v = 0.1658 cm2 s
C = C ′ = 0.0127 cm N = 60 r sec
6.35 × 2π × 60 × 0.0127
Re =
0.1658
(
= 183 < 1000 laminar )
2
1.379 × 10 −2 × 60 6.35
S= = 0.15
1.3789 × 106 0.0127
The normalized bearing eccentricity ratio ε′0 = ε0/1.236 will be used to obtain stiffness and damping
coefficients.
FIGURE 11.17 Schematic of a plain slider. (From Szeri, A.Z. (1998), Fluid Film Lubrication, Theory and Design,
Cambridge University Press. With permission.)
2
∂ 3 ∂p B ∂ 3 ∂p
x + 4 x = −1 (11.72a)
∂x ∂x L ∂z ∂z
Source: Szeri, A.Z. and Powers, D. (1970), Pivoted plane pad bearings: a varia-
tional solution, ASME Trans., Ser. F., 92, 466-72.
(
p x, ±1 = 0 ) (11.72b)
( ) (
p x1, z = p x2 , z = 0 ) (11.72c)
Here
L 6µU
x = Bx , y = mBy , z = z, p = p (11.72d)
2 Bm2
x1 +1
Fh12
( )
1
f≡
µULB2
= 6 x12
∫∫
0 x1
p x , z dxdz (11.73)
Its values at various values of x– 1 and aspect ratio (L/B) are displayed in Table 11.4a.
The center of pressure, xp, is calculated from
∫ ∫ xp(x, z )dxdz
L 2 x2
Fx p = (11.74)
− L 2 x1
– –
Let xp = x1 + δ represent the dimensionless coordinate of the center of pressure, i.e., the location of the
pivot for a pivoted pad, then δ, the dimensionless distance between pad leading edge and pivot, is given by
x1 +1
6 x12
( )
1
δ = − x1 +
f ∫∫0 x1
xp x , z dx dz (11.75)
Table 11.4b lists pivot position δ at various values of x– 1 and aspect ratio (L/B). The nondimensional flow
variable at inlet, x2, is listed in Table 11.4c.
Source: Szeri, A.Z. and Powers, D. (1970), Pivoted plane pad bearings: a varia-
tional solution. ASME Trans., Ser. F, 92, 466-72.
Source: Szeri, A.Z. and Powers, D. (1970), Pivoted plane pad bearings: a variational
solution, ASME Trans., Ser. F, 92, 466-72.
U = 30.5 m s , µ = 0.04137 Pa ⋅ s
From Equation 11.73 we obtain the relationship between the external load and the dimensionless lubri-
cant force
16.013 × 10 3 × h12
f=
0.04137 × 30.5 × 0.2032 × 0.07622
= 1.0756 × 107 h12 m ( )
12
0.1238
h1 = 7
= 1.073 × 10 −4 m
1.0756 × 10
1.073 × 10 −4
m= = 0.00176
0.8 × 7.62 × 10 −2
The film thickness at inlet is h2 = 0.01073 + 0.00176 × 7.62 = 0.024 cm. The lubricant flow-rate at inlet
is Q = 0.7879 × 30.5 × 0.2032 × 1.073 × 10–4 = 524 × 10–6 m3/s and the optimum pivot position is xp –
x1 = 0.4161 × 7.62 = 3.12 cm from the trailing edge.
11.3.2.2 Annular Thrust Bearing
The fixed-pad slider bearing is the most basic configuration. If the pads are arranged in an annular
configuration with radial oil distribution grooves, a complete thrust bearing (Figure 11.18a) is achieved.
FIGURE 11.18 Fixed-pad thrust bearing: (a) arrangement of pads, (b) pad geometry. (From Raimondi, A.A. and
Szeri, A.Z. (1984) Journal and thrust bearings, in CRC Handbook of Lubrication, Vol. 2, Booser, E.R. (Ed.), CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL. With permission.)
Approximate performance calculations of this bearing can be made by relating the rectangular slider
bearing (width B, length L) to the sector configuration (Figure 11.18b).
The pads of pivoted-pad thrust bearings are supported on pivots (Figure 11.19). As the location of the
pivot fixes the location of the center of pressure, on loading a pad will swivel until it occupies a position
that places the center of pressure over the pivot. While performance of a pivoted pad is identical to that
of a fixed pad designed with the same surface slope, the pivoted-type bearing has the advantages of (a)
being self-aligning, (b) automatically adjusting pad inclination to optimally match the needs of varying
speed and load, and (c) having the capability of operating in either direction of rotation. Theoretically, the
pivoted pad can be optimized for all speeds and loads by judicious pivot positioning, whereas the fixed-
pad bearing can have optimum performance only for one operating condition. Although pivoted-pad
bearings involve somewhat greater complexity, standard designs are readily available for large machines.
The Reynolds equation, Equation 11.19, in cylindrical coordinates (r,θ) takes the form
∂ 3 ∂p 1 ∂ 3 ∂p ∂h
rh + h = 6µωr (11.76)
∂r ∂r r ∂θ ∂θ ∂θ
This equation can be solved numerically. The resulting performance charts (Figures 11.20a to 11.20f)
are conveniently entered on a trial basis with an assumed tangential slope parameter mθ and radial slope
parameter mr . Load capacity, minimum film thickness, power loss, flow and pivot location (if pivoted-
pad type) are then determined and the procedure, if necessary, repeated to find an optimum design.
Figures 11.20e and 11.20f provide pivot locations for tilting pad sectors.
The thrust bearing charts were prepared for a ratio of outside radius to inside radius of 2 and a sector
angular length of 40°. While this angle corresponds to seven sectors to form a full thrust bearing, the
results should generally give a preliminary indication of performance of other geometries with the same
surface area and mean radius. For other pad geometries see Pinkus and Sternlicht (1961).
Example 5. Sector Thrust Pad
Calculate thrust pad sector performance when given the following:
β = 40° (
γ r = 0 no radial tilt )
R2 = 13.97 cm γ θ = 5.82 × 10−4 rad
(
mθ = R1 hc ) ( )
γ θ = 6.985 × 10 −2 50.8 × 10 −6 × 5.82 × 10 −4 = 0.80
( ) (50.8 × 10 )
4 2
W = 0.058 × 6 × 1.379 × 10 −2 × 314 × 0.1397 − 0.06985 −6
= 13.9 kN