Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Item
Item
Item
by
Miles Zengeya
B.S.M.E University of Arkansas, U.S.A., 1988
M.Sc., Loughborough University of Tech., England, 1992
the Reynolds and energy equations is developed. The model uses the streamline upwind
Petrov-Galerkin (SUPG) method. Model results indicate that the peak temperature
location in slider bearing is on the mid-plane well as when pressure boundary conditions
are altered in such a way that the inlet/outlet pressure is higher than the side pressure. The
adiabatic temperature profiles of an infinite and square sliders are compared. The wider
slider shows a higher peak temperature. Side flow plays a major role in determining the
value and position of the peak temperature. Model results also indicate peak side flow at
is proposed.
The SUPG finite element method shows rapid convergence for slider and plain journal
bearings and requires no special treatment for backflow in slider bearings or special
boundary conditions for heat transfer in the rupture zone of journal bearings.
presented. The model is validated using experimental and analytical data in the literature.
Maximum deviation from measured temperatures is shown to be within 40 per cent. The
model needs no special treatment of boundary conditions in the rupture zone and shows
rapid and robust convergence which makes it quite suitable for use in design optimization
models and in obtaining closed relations for critical parameters in the design of journal
Empirically derived simulation models for temperature increase; leakage; and power loss
are proposed and validated using the developed finite element model and experimental
results from literature. Predictions of temperature increase, leakage, and power loss are
ii
better than those obtained for available relations in the literature. The derived simulation
models include five important design variables namely the radial clearance, length to
diameter ration, fluid viscosity, supply pressure and groove position. The derived model
optimal fronts. The latter method is recommended as preferable, and Pareto diagrams are
presented for common bearing speeds. Including the groove location in the optimization
model is shown to have a significant effect on the results. The lower bound of groove
location appears to result in preferred power loss/side leakage values. Significant power
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract…………...………………………………………………………………….……ii
Table of Contents…...………………………………………………………….…………iv
List of Tables………..………………………………………………………..………....viii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………..………..……......x
Acknowledgements…………………………………..……………………….…..……..xix
Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………..………………………..…….……1
2.1 Introduction……………………………………….……………………………...14
iv
2.2.1 Pressure Computations……………………….………………………….14
3.1 Introduction………….…………………………………………...……….……...35
4.1 Introduction…………………………….………………………………………...52
v
4.3.5.1 Standard Error and Goodness of Fit……………………………………...68
5.1 Introduction…………………………………...……………………………….....81
vi
5.4.3 Pareto Optimal Front Method………………………….…..……….….117
Bibliography……………………………………………………..……….…….……..144
Appendices……………………………………………………….…….…..….….…..157
Appendix D Tables….……………………………….………………………166
vii
List of Tables
Table 4.4 Effect of pressure gradients ∂p/∂x, and ∂p/∂z on temperature rise ΔT…...59
Table 5.6 Typical Pareto Table for Bearing at 4000 rpm, W=10kN…….…...…..125
viii
Table D.1 Input data from Dowson and Song bearings………………….….......…166
Table D.2 Input values for the bearing tested by Boncompain et al. ……….....….169
ix
List of Figures
Figure 2.4a Solution domain Ω showing boundary Γ1 and unit normal vector n…….26
x
Figure 4.1a Schematic representation of journal bearing……..……………………....53
Figure 4.4 Peak Pressure Prediction for Dowson’s exp. Value of 35MPa…………..57
Figure 4.7c Pressure map showing the rupture and reformation interfaces………..…62
Figure 4.8a Pressure gradient ∂p/∂x variation along the bearing z axis…………..…..63
Figure 4.8b Pressure gradients ∂p/∂x, ∂p/∂z variation along the bearing x axis……...63
Figure 4.12a,b Thermal profile in the inlet, cavity and bearing for Costa’s data….…...72
xi
Figure 4.16 Pressure prediction as a function of groove location θ………….…........78
Figure 4.17 Flow predictions: model, measured data and Martin’s formula…............79
Figure 5.11 ΔT(X) versus clearance ratio C, Dowson’s bearing, Ns=201 rps…….…106
Figure 5.12 Side leakage as a function of clearance and three different speeds….....106
Figure 5.17a Length to diameter ratio λ as function of speed for Song’s model…....113
xii
Figure 5.17b Length to diameter ratio λ as function of speed, current models…….....113
Figure 5.21 f(X) as function of α1/α2, scaling parameters: β1=1, β2=105 …..…........118
Figure 5.25 Pareto optimal front for speeds of (a)1500 rpm and (b) 2000 rpm…......123
Figure 5.26 Pareto optimal front for (a) 3000 rpm and (b) 4000 rpm…...…….....….124
Figure 5.27a Leakage flow prediction and data as function of supply pressure……...128
Figure 5.30 Leakage flow as function of speed, ps0= and 170 kPa, Dowson…….…130
Figure 5.37a,b Pareto optimal front for speed of 1500 rpm, W=10kN….………..…….139
xiii
Figure D1 Thermocouple location for pressure and temp. measurements…….…...168
xiv
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Parameters
e eccentricity, [m]
kf, kb, ks, kg thermal conductivities fluid, bush (pad), shaft (runner) and gas, [W/m.K]
xv
Pe Pecklet number, Pe = ρocpωC2/kf
R1, R2, R3 bush inner, shaft, and bush outer radii respectively, [m] (see figure 2.1b)
u velocity vector
xvi
ζ streamline upwind parameter
λ, λs length to diameter ratio for journal (L/D) and slider (L/B) bearings respectively
θ circumferential coordinate of angle from oil groove position (Fig. 1), [radians]
Subscript
Superscript
‘¯’ indicates a dimensionless parameter (note: ‘+’ is used for normalized temperature
T
T+ = (in °K) which is a ratio to show the magnitude of temperature increase.
Ti
xvii
se denotes number of integration points, surface element
u R v w x y z h
u = ; v= ; w= ; x= ; y= ; z= ; h =
U CU U πD h L C
T Ts
T+ = ; Ts = ; T = β (T − Ti ) ; β = β Ti ; δ = δTi
Ti Ti
ρ μ μ
ρ+ = ; ρ = 1 − δ (T + − 1) ; μ = exp[− T ]; μ= μ+ =
ρi μ eff ; μi
μ iU 2 C2 p ; pho2
Pr E c = ; p= (p= ) (for sliders)
k f Ti μR 2 N s μ iUB
H b R3 HsL
Bib = ; Bis =
kb ks
Q Tr ho W
(Q = ); ( Tr = ); (W = )
⎛ ho ⎞ μaUB2 ⎛ B3 ⎞
B U⎜ ⎟ μ iU ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟
2
⎝B⎠ ⎝ ho ⎠
, , , ,
xviii
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance, support and
Top on that list is my supervisor Professor Mohamed S. Gadala for his academic and
financial support. His guidance and encouragement have been crucial in finishing this
work.
Special mention goes to Dr Guus Segal whose sharp numerical modeling abilities were
invaluable in implementing the model in the finite element method. His proof reading of
the journal papers is much appreciated. Sabrina Crispo, a co-worker at Koerner’s Pub
I also would like to thank Professor Michel Fillon, Université de Poitiers, France for
difference in this work. And yes dad, you made such a difference in my life. You
continue to inspire me even when times are hard and quitting seems the only option.
Miles Zengeya
xix
Chapter 1
Slider and journal bearings are widely used in applications such as mechanical seals,
collar thrust bearings, machine tool ways, automotive engine crankshaft and connecting-
rods, steam turbines in power generating stations, railway wheels, piston rings, and many
others. They have high reliability, good load-carrying capacity, excellent stability and
durability and low coefficient of friction. Relative motion between two surfaces leads to
not only an increase in temperature due to friction and viscous energy dissipation but
thermal gradients that can develop on the surfaces. Almost all the frictional energy is
bearings and how complete loss of bearing clearance known as seizure can be avoided
[1].
thermal effects [2]. Isothermal models were used and adjusted for thermal effects and
these models were adequate for relatively slow machinery where viscous energy was not
very high. However, with modern machinery that runs at high speeds and loads thermal
effects become significant. Not only must the non-linear effects associated with material
property changes be addressed, the system thermal effects which couple the fluid film
1
with the overall mechanical system and its environment must be taken into account. The
thermo-hydrodynamic (THD) problem is not easy to deal with considering the difficulty
in extracting from the plethora of variables and boundary conditions those few
parameters which embody the essentials of the process. Another problem is the difficulty
in manipulating the complex set of governing differential equations – the Reynolds and
and coupled system. Lastly, the problem must be formulated such that solutions obtained
Temperature variations are due to several causes, one of which is the heat generated by
fluid properties, particularly its viscosity which lowers which in turn leads to lower load-
carrying capacity of the film; this might cause the two surfaces to come into contact and
eventually cause bearing seizure. A properly designed bearing will operate in the range
where fluid property variations are in a range that will not cause such severe effects. The
second mechanism is heat transfer to and from the fluid film which depends on material
properties of the shaft and bush as well as the fixtures that keep the two in place. The
shaft might be operating in high temperature environments that may result in heat transfer
to the film, or the bush may be surrounded by hot ambient conditions that influence heat
transfer at the interface. A third mechanism that affects the thermal map is the inlet
mixing conditions. The hot recycled oil mixes with a fresh stream at the supply groove.
Many mixing models appear in the literature with varying degrees of prediction accuracy
[3,4,5,6].
2
Thermal aspects in fluid film bearings are important due to [2]:
c) Effects of thermal gradients on the geometry of the fluid film (thermal distortion).
Although their importance may not be the same, consideration of the above aspects plays
performance and possible seizure due to degradation of the film, thermal gradients can
also cause failure of the bearing material by instigating cracking. It is generally believed
thermal effects. Thermal effects, however, are not the only focus of the work carried out
here. The bearing is viewed as a system and optimization of variables that designers have
control over will also be investigated. Literature review of the state of thermo-
examples include the work of Rodkiewicz [7], Schumack [8] and Kumar et al. [9,10].
lubrication whereas Kumar et al. [9] used two dimensional finite elements to numerically
analyze the load-carrying capacity of slider bearings under thermal influence by solving
the coupled nonlinear partial differential equations governing fluid film temperature field
3
with either isothermal or adiabatic boundary conditions. At high speeds convection
dominates the flow resulting in numerical oscillations due to the convective terms in the
energy equation. Kumar et al. [9] used a finite element numerical scheme with streamline
upwind Petrov-Galerkin (SUPG) as proposed by Brooks and Hughes [11] and Grygiel
[12] to formulate a two dimensional version. Zengeya and Gadala [13] used a control
volume finite difference (CVFD) scheme that recognizes location of the nodes with
respect to fluid flow and applies appropriate weighting to solve the 2D thermo-
hydrodynamic problem.
The models mentioned above mainly focus on the two dimensional solution of the
coupled equations. This works well for predicting the behavior of infinitely wide
bearings. One important aspect of the work to be considered is modeling bearings in three
dimensions and investigating the effect of aspect ratios L/B and L/D on leakage flow.
Both finite and infinite bearings would be analyzed. Although other workers used three-
dimensional models for slider bearings [14,15,16,17,18], the emphasis here would be on
formulating the thermo-hydrodynamic problem in a way that applies to both sliders and
plain journal bearings with little modification and to use the new template in deriving
automotive engines are two common examples; they are also used extensively in steam
turbines and railway wheels. Properly installed and maintained, journal bearings have
fields leads to a better understanding of the load-carrying capacity of the bearing and to
4
minimization of seizure. Higher temperatures affect bearing performance and reduce the
There are numerous studies on thermal effects in journal bearings. Khonsari [1] gave a
good review of much of the work up to 1992. The work edited by Pinkus [2] is also
valuable as a reference on this important area. Numerical solution of the thermal problem
in journal bearings can be broadly classified into the finite volume (FV), finite difference
(FD) and finite element (FE) methods. Significant contributions in the work done using
finite volume is presented by Paranjpe and Goenka [19], Paranjpe and Han [20,21].
Stachowiak and Batchelor [22] present a numerical CVFD model while Booker and
Huebner [23], Goenka [24], Labouff and Booker [25], Bayada et al. [26], and Kucinschi
et al. [27] use finite elements. An important consideration in journal bearing modeling is
cavitation, and some of the most significant contributions in this area were made by Elrod
[28], Kumar and Booker [29,30], and more recently by Optasanu and Bonneau [31].
upwinding whereby nodes upstream of the flow direction are assigned a higher weighting
than downstream ones is required. Gero and Ettles [16] solve the problem using a
backward difference Galerkin scheme. Colynuck and Medley [32] use a control volume
finite difference (FD) scheme that uses compass directions (east, west, north, south) to
enforce flow directionality into the controlling FD equations. Kumar et al. [9] use a
5
It should be emphasized that there should be a way to define upstream and downstream
positions in such algorithms. A method to account for possible backflow at the inlet must
also be included.
Tied to the thermal performance of journal bearings is the choice of variables a designer
may control. A designer may choose the type of oil and its initial viscosity for both slider
and journal bearings. Other parameters that are determined at the early stages of the
design process include the choice of materials for the two surfaces, general bearing
dimensions, the speed at which the bearing is expected to run, load and oil supply
referred to as performance parameters group, that the designer has no direct control
over, and these may include: the coefficient of friction f, temperature rise ΔT, volume
flow rate Q (which in turn affects leakage flow (QL), and the minimum film thickness
hmin.
ensure satisfactory performance. One can surmise the design of journal and slider
bearings as choosing the first group of variables such that limits on the second group are
not exceeded [33]. The second part of the thesis develops an optimization scheme to help
designers select the best possible set of design variables for a particular application. In
order to properly carry out the optimization procedure, certain relations of key parameters
must be established. In the work of the second part of the thesis such relations for leakage
rate and power loss are proposed, tested and verified. A brief review of literature on
6
1.2.5 Journal Bearings and Optimization
increase and side leakage as proposed by Hashimoto [34], Hashimoto and Matsumoto
[35] and used extensively by Song et al. [36], and Yang et al. [37] for high-speed, short
journal bearings (0.2<λ<0.6). Hashimoto uses weighting and scaling factors to combine
the two objective functions into one multi-objective function. However this has the
disadvantage that the designer must have prior knowledge about the relative importance
of each objective. Hirani and Suh [38] propose minimizing the leakage and power loss
since these two are ‘independent axioms’ [39]. Hirani [40,41] utilizes an alternative
uses a posterior articulation of the weights in that the designer initially generates a
number of non-inferior (a set of equally efficient) solutions from which a final decision is
made on any one solution. These two methods can be formally defined as [42]
utility measure.
made on any one solution. This approach is often referred to as Pareto optimal
approach. As a set of many trade-off solutions are already available with their
pros and cons, Pareto optimal approach helps high level qualitative decisions.
7
Many optimization solution techniques are available depending on the nature of the
functions with nonlinear constraints is the sequential quadratic programming (SQP). The
method uses a quasi-Newton updating procedure and approximates the Hessian matrix of
improve the calculation of the search direction and to control the step size. Also, various
modifications may be used to improve the identity matrix assumption of the Hessian
matrix. Based on the work of Powell [44] the method mimics Newton’s method for
Hessian which is based on knowledge from previous steps. The method requires an initial
Genetic and evolutionary algorithms are the current state of the art solution techniques
for optimization problems with discontinuous objective functions or those with many
local minima which make SQP unsuitable [44,45]. The term evolutionary suggests the
natural process associated with biological evolution, particularly the Darwinian rule of
selection of the fittest individuals in a population. Genetic algorithms (GA) were first
proposed by Holland [46] and extended further by DeJong [47] and Goldberg [45]. They
are an efficient search technique which apply the rules of natural genetics to explore a
given search space [48]. They are robust, adaptive and well behaving for problems with
maintain a population of encoded solutions, and guide the population towards the
optimum solution [47]. Thus they search the space of possible individuals and seek to
find the best fitness strings. Rather than start from a single point within the search space
8
as in SQP, GA’s start with an initial set of random solutions of population. The solutions
are represented by strings (chromosomes) which are coded as a series of zeros and ones
or a vector solution. GA’s are non-deterministic and do not require the evaluation of
methods [49] which require only function evaluation. Figure 1.1 shows a simple
flowchart for a genetic algorithm [50]. The process starts with the selection of a randomly
chosen population and evaluation of fitness values for the individuals. An iterative
process follows until satisfaction of the termination criteria. Within the reproduction
phase, each individual’s fitness is evaluated, genetic operators that include crossover and
mutation are applied to produce the next generation. The new individuals replace the
parent generation and re-evaluation of the fitness of new individuals performed. A new
set of chromosomes are produced at each generation using information from the previous
generation.
Related to the two main solution techniques is a group of ‘hybrid schemes’ that combine
the benefits of both SQP and GA to solve optimization problems. The genetic algorithm
is used to identify the area of the global minimum and SQP finds the exact location of the
minimum [51]. Hybrid schemes are popular for solving journal bearing problems where
the objective function has local peaks and valleys or is discontinuous and use of SQP
9
Start
Input:
SEEDING
Design variable coding
Initial population
Objective Function
Generation 1
Perform selection
REPRODUCTION
Perform mutation
Until temporary
population is full
Perform other
genetic operators
EVALUATION
Updating existing
generation
Evaluation
Termination Yes
Write final
criteria satisfied result
No
End
Generation = Generation + 1
10
1.3 Motivation For The Research
The THD models described in section 1.2.1-1.2.3 are generally specifically formulated
for slider or plain journal bearings. This approach obviously works well for dedicated
The need for a general thermo-hydrodynamic formulation applicable to both slider and
plain journal bearings with minimum modification gives motivation for the work. A
holistic approach is adopted whereby the theoretical equations are formulated, validated
to both slider and journal bearings, is robust, and converges rapidly to be used in
elements of the model include wide applicability, to be used for slider as well as
• The model should have minimal requirements for boundary conditions that are easy
and thermal fields in the rupture zone as explained in section 4.3 where pressure
• Is based on the streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin finite element formulation for its
accuracy in convection-dominated flows and its ability to account for backflow in the
groove region.
11
• The idea of a ‘thermo-hydrodynamic bearing template’ is proposed as a direct
outcome of the general formulation proposed. The template is easy to implement and
subsequent chapters.
• The template is implemented such that groove location θ can be changed which
requires generating a new mesh. This novel dynamic aspect of generating output
proved critical in validating the optimization model in the second part of the work.
contribution of this work. The equations are derived from first principles and
In the first part of the thesis, a robust thermo-hydrodynamic (THD) solution scheme
applicable to both slider and plain journal bearing is proposed. The scheme, developed in
the finite element method, has to be robust and exhibit rapid convergence characteristics
due to the iterative nature of the optimization procedures proposed in the second part.
Application of the scheme to slider bearing follows with analysis and discussion on
certain aspects of obtained results. Chapter 4 shows how the scheme can be applied to
plain journal bearings with minor adjustments. Application and discussion of results
The second major section of the work focuses on using the developed finite element
scheme to formulate optimization model for slider and journal bearings. New relations
for leakage rate and power loss are proposed, tested and verified. Data on journal
12
bearings from the literature is used to simulate and validate the optimization equations.
Two main optimization solution methods are compared and recommendations on the
13
Chapter 2
2.1 Introduction
optimization. This chapter develops the three-dimensional model that extends current
models. A general scheme that can be used for both slider and journal bearings is
developed. Governing equations for hydrodynamic lubrication and energy dissipation are
element method. The formulation represents the first contribution in this work [52,53].
The Reynolds equation describes pressure variations in thin film flow where the film
thickness h is very small compared to the size of the bearing. One can show by
dimensional analysis that the continuity and Navier-Stokes equations describing fluid
flow in this case may be approximated by the Reynolds equation for incompressible flow.
1. Pressure is invariant across the fluid film (in the y direction, see figure 2.1)
4. The lubricant behaves as a Newtonian fluid and there is no slip at the boundaries.
14
⎛ h3 ⎞
∇⎜⎜ − (∇p − γfb ) + h (U1 − U 2 ) ⎟⎟ + dh + k ( p − po ) = 0 (2.1)
⎝ 12μ 2 ⎠ dt
where ∇ denotes the divergence, h and dh/dt are the film thickness and rate of change of
the film thickness, μ the fluid viscosity (Pa.s), u the velocity vector of the runner and pad
(figure 2.1a), p and po the gauge and ambient pressure respectively, fb body forces, and γ
and k are constants. Figure 2.1 illustrates a slider and journal bearing with notations.
Dowson [54] derived a generalized form of the Reynolds equation which allows
variations in fluid properties along and across the film. Dowson further simplified the
∂ ⎧ ∂p ⎫ ∂ ⎧ ∂p ⎫ ∂ ⎡ ⎛ F1 ⎞ F1 ⎤ ∂h
⎨F2 ⎬ + ⎨ F2 ⎬ = ⎢U 2 ⎜⎜ h − ⎟⎟ + U 1 ⎥ − U 2 + (v 2 − v1 ) (2.2)
∂x ⎩ ∂x ⎭ ∂z ⎩ ∂z ⎭ ∂x ⎣ ⎝ F0 ⎠ F0 ⎦ ∂x
where x, y, and z coordinates in the flow direction, across the film, and axial direction
respectively (x, y, z in the equations refers to (xs,ys,zs) on fig 2.1a and b as the origins).
Note all reference to), v1 and v2 are the runner and pad velocities in the transverse y-
direction and
h 1 h y h y⎛ F ⎞
F0 = ∫ dy , F1 = ∫ dy F2 = ∫ ⎜⎜ y − 1 ⎟⎟ dy (2.3)
0
μ 0
μ 0
μ⎝ F0 ⎠
Slider Bearings: Applying the following dimensionless group for slider bearings (the bar
u B v w x
u= ; v= ; w= ; x=
U1 hi − ho U 1 U1 B
y z h p (hi − ho )
2
y= ; z= ; h= ; p= (2.4)
h L hi − ho μBU 1
15
and assuming U2 (stationary pad) and (v1-v2=0), the dimensionless form of the steady-
∂ ⎧ 3 ∂p ⎫ 4 ∂ ⎧ 3 ∂p ⎫ ∂ ⎡ F1 ⎤
⎨h F2 ⎬ + 2 ⎨h F2 ⎬ = ⎢h ⎥ (2.5)
∂x ⎩ ∂x ⎭ λ s ∂z ⎩ ∂z ⎭ ∂x ⎣ F0 ⎦
1 y y⎛ F ⎞
F2 = ∫
1
∫μ ∫μ ⎜⎜ y − 1 ⎟⎟dy
1 1
F0 = dy ; F1 = dy ; (2.6)
0 0 0
μ⎝ F0 ⎠
yp
zp
Stationary pad
xp U2=0
v(x,y)
hi v2
u(x,y) h
ys ho
zs v1
U1
xs
B
(a) Runner
z
x fxs
y fys
(b)
Figure 2.1(a) Slider bearing (b) Journal bearing and notation
16
and pressure boundary condition
p = p s at x = 0 ; p = 0 at z = 0 ; and ∂p ∂z = 0 z = ±1 / 2 (2.7)
at
Journal Bearings: Dimensionless parameters for journal bearings are
x y z
x= ; y= ; z=
2πR h L
u R v w h C 2P
u = ; v= ; w= ; h = ; P= (2.8)
U CU U C μi R 2 N s
These are substituted into the generalized Reynolds equation to give [55]
∂ ⎧ 3 ∂p ⎫ 1 ∂ ⎧ 3 ∂p ⎫ ∂ ⎡ ⎛ F1 ⎞⎤
⎨h F2 ⎬ + 2 ⎨h F2 ⎬ = ⎢ h ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ (2.9)
∂x ⎩ ∂x ⎭ λ ∂z ⎩ ∂z ⎭ ∂x ⎣ ⎜⎝ F0 ⎟⎠⎦
where λ is the aspect ratio L/D and F0 , F1 and F2 are defined in equation 2.6, In addition
Similarities in equations 2.5 and 2.8 for slider and journal bearings are clearly evident.
Only minor adjustments are required to specify the length in the flow direction as x=2πR
in journal bearings. The flow boundary condition on surface S1 (mid-plane) is zero which
h 3 ∂p h
− u ⋅n = 0 (2.10)
12 μ ∂x i 2
where xi takes the value of i=1,2 and corresponds to the coordinates, u is the velocity
vector, and n is unit normal vector. It must be emphasized, however, that some of the
gradient terms ⁄ are not zero at the mid-plane as noted in section 4.3.2.
17
2.2.2 Energy and Viscosity Variation
The three dimensional steady state energy equation is used to account for variations in
film temperature.
ρc f u ⋅ ∇T − ∇ (k f ∇T ) = ρδTu ⋅ ∇p + f s (2.11)
where the first term is convective, the second determines conduction, u is the velocity
vector, kf the fluid thermal conductivity, cf the fluid heat capacity, ρ the fluid density, δ
the compressibility, and fs represents source terms. Simplifying assumptions made are [2]
3. Velocity gradients in all but the transverse (y) direction are negligible.
The form of the equation used in the finite element formulation is [2]
⎛ ∂T ∂T ∂T ⎞ ⎛ ∂ 2T ⎞ ⎛ ∂p ∂p ⎞ ⎡⎛ ∂u ⎞ 2 ⎛ ∂w ⎞
2
⎤
ρc f ⎜⎜ u +v + w ⎟⎟ = k f ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ + ρδT ⎜ u + w ⎟ + μ ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ (2.12)
⎝ ∂x ∂y ∂z ⎠ ⎝ ∂y ⎠ ⎝ ∂x ∂z ⎠ ⎢⎣⎝ ∂y ⎠ ⎝ ∂y ⎠ ⎥⎦
in which the energy is expressed per unit volume. Dowson [54] and Ezzat and Rohde [57]
show how to compute the velocity profiles u, v and w from the momentum and continuity
equations (reproduced in Appendix A). (x, y, z in the equations refers to (xs,ys,zs) on fig
parameter group the Pecklet (Pe), Prandtl (Pr), and Eckert (Ec) numbers present one
U ρc f Uho2 μ iU 2
Ec = ; Pe = ; Pr E c = (2.13)
c f Ti kf L k f Ti
18
where the subscript i indicates an input’s value at the inlet. These are substituted into
⎛ ∂T + ∂T + ∂T + ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂ 2T + ⎞ Pr E c ⎛ ∂p ∂p ⎞
ρ ⎜⎜ u +v +w ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟
⎟+ ⎜⎜ u +v ⎟
⎝ ∂x ∂y ∂z ⎠ Pe ⎝ ∂y ⎠ Pe ⎝ ∂x ∂y ⎟⎠
Pr E c ⎡⎛ ∂u ⎞ ⎛ ∂w ⎞ ⎤
2 2
+ μ ⎢⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (2.14a)
Pe ⎣⎢⎝ ∂z ⎠ ⎝ ∂z ⎠ ⎦⎥
where T+=T/Ti indicates the extent of temperature increase from inlet conditions. This
formulation is applicable to both slider and journal bearing with little modification.
However Jang et al. [55] derive a closed form of the energy equation
2
∂T 1 ⎛ dh ⎞ ∂T κ1 1 ∂ 2T μ ⎛ ∂u ⎞
u + ⎜⎜ v − u y ⎟⎟ = 2 2 2 + κ1 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.14b)
∂x h ⎝ dx ⎠ ∂y κ 2 h ∂y h ⎝ ∂y ⎠
where two key parameters κ1 and κ2 referred to as temperature rise parameters appear and
μi β μi β
2
αμ i β U 2 ⎛ αμ i β U 2 ⎛ R ⎞
2
B ⎞
κ1 = ⎜
⎜h −h
⎟
⎟ , κ2 =U2 κ1 = ⎜ ⎟ ,κ2 =U2 (2.14c)
kfB ⎝ i o ⎠ kf kf R ⎝C ⎠ kf
All terms can be determined from inlet conditions. The first temperature rise parameter κ1
is associated with viscous dissipation while κ2 relates oil properties and velocity.
Slider Bearings: The heat flux at the oil film/pad interface is assumed equal
∂T ∂T p
kf = kp (2.15a)
∂y y b =1
∂y p
y p =0
∂ 2T p ∂ 2T p
+ =0
∂y p 2 ∂z p 2
(2.15b)
19
where kf and kp are the fluid and pad thermal conductivities, , and the non-
pad/ambient interface
∂T ⎛ ⎞ (2.16a)
= Bip ⎜ T p − To ⎟
∂y p ⎝ y p =1 ⎠
y p =1
where , are the pad surface and ambient temperatures respectively, and Bip, the biot
∂T ∂T s
kf = ks
∂y ys =0
∂y s ys =0
(2.16b)
∂ 2Ts ∂ 2Ts
+ =0
∂y s 2 ∂z s 2
(2.16c)
Journal Bearings: The energy equation as presented applies to journal bearings with
modifications to account for heat transfer in the rupture zone. The rupture zone presents
striations. Boncompain et al. [15] use two different energy equations in the rupture zone,
one for the fluid and another for the gas sections. Critical to any modeling attempt is the
identification of the rupture and reformation interfaces. It is expected that the shear rate
decreases whereas the heat convection increases in the rupture zone while the lubricant is
mixed with gas thus decreasing viscous dissipation significantly. Another approach to
account for thermal characteristics of lubricant in this zone is to use the ‘effective length’
20
1/ 2 ⎡ ⎤
∫ ∫
1
⎢h (x cav ) u (x , y , z )dy ⎥ dz
0 ⎣ ⎦
L (x ) =
0
1/ 2 ⎡
for xcav < x < 1 (2.17)
1 ⎤
0 ⎣ ∫ 0 ∫
⎢h (x ) u (x , y , z )dy ⎥ dz
⎦
where h(xcav) is the film thickness at the rupture interface and the other symbols have
their usual meanings. Effective values of fluid conductivity k 'f , specific heat c 'f or
Ψ’=ΨG+(ΨF-ΨG) L ( x ) (2.18)
where Ψ represents the property and the subscript denote gas (G) or fluid (F). Fluid film
properties are assumed constant in the continuous sections in the transverse (y) direction
∂T ∂Tb
kf = kb (2.19a)
∂y ys =1
∂yb yb =0
where kf and kb are the fluid and bush thermal conductivities and Tb = β (Tb − Ti ) the non-
∂ 2Tb ∂ 2Tb
+ =0
∂y b 2 ∂z b 2
(2.19b)
Convection applies at the outer surface of the bush and shaft. At the shaft end [15,75]
∂ Ts Hs
=− Bis ⎛⎜ Ts − To ⎞⎟ (2.20)
∂z s z s = ±1 / 2
ks ⎝ z s = ±1 / 2 ⎠
where Hs is the convective heat transfer coefficient at the shaft/ambient interface, Bis the
Biot number for the shaft, and To the dimensionless ambient temperature. At the bush
ends convection carries heat away from the shaft ends [15,75]
21
∂Tb
∂z
=−
Hb
kb
(
Bib Tb
z = ±1 / 2
− To ) (2.21)
z = ±1 / 2
Inlet temperature conditions present some challenges as the fresh oil mixes with
circulating oil in the bearing. The oil mixing model was verified inversely in that the oil
temperature at the supply hole was assumed to be Ti and the model determines how the
inlet conditions vary. A parabolic mixing model shown in Figure 2.2 for Dowson’s [59]
41.00
40.00
39.00
Temp (C)
Temp
38.00
T = -5E+08z2 + 6358.5z + 312.4
R2 = 0.9983
37.00
36.00
0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05
y-axis (m)
Figure 2.2 Inlet temperature variation for Dowson’s [59] bearing data.
al. [6] whereby the ratio of the oil groove width Lg to bearing width L determines the
particular method used. If Lg/L>0.5 the energy conservation principle is applied at the oil
groove whereas if Lg/L≤0.5 the energy conservation principle is applied to the section
immediately downstream of the supply groove, over the full bearing width. Film pressure
in the groove region for the case where oil groove is aligned with the load line as
indicated in figure 2.1b was shown to be equal to the supply pressure. Simplifications
22
Tag=Ts+Cms(Tin-Ts) for Lg/L>0.5
where Tag is the temperature of the oil coming out of the groove in the axial direction, Tig
is the temperature of the oil in the bearing clearance on the groove region, and Cms is an
empirical mixing coefficient between zero and one (0.5 was used as recommended by
Tup Qub + Ts Qs s
Ti = for a/b≤0.5 (2.23)
Qub + Qs
If the film reformation was over the groove region or downstream, the oil inlet
Tup Qre + Ts Qs
Ti = for a/b≤0.5 (2.24)
Qre + Qs
In equations 2.23 and 2.24 Tup is the average lubricant temperature of the re-circulating
oil flow, Trv is the average lubricant temperature of the reverse flow, Qs is the oil supplied
to the bearing, Qre is the re-circulating flow coming from the rupture region, Qup is the oil
flow calculated upstream of the groove for the groove axial extent, Qub is the oil flow
upstream of the groove calculated for the full bearing width, Qin the flow rate at the inlet
23
Viscosity and temperature equations form the final couple of equations in the set. They
μ = μi exp[− β (T − Ti )] (2.25a)
ρ = ρ o [1 − δ (T − Ti )] (2.25b)
where β is the temperature-viscosity coefficient and μi the inlet viscosity and δ the
temperature-density coefficient. The viscosity equation couples the Reynolds and energy
μ = exp[− T ] (2.26a)
ρ = 1 − δ (T − 1) (2.26b)
Equation 2.26a is based on the effective viscosity concept [55] (as defined in the List of
Pr Ec
Symbols) while 3.26b eminates from equation 2.14a δ = δTi (very small). The
Pe
variations on the order of a few tens of degrees – thus will not be applied to peak
The last two sections present literature review on methods of solving the thermo-
The slider in figure 2.3 is shown for reference (only half the bearing is used due to
24
symmetry). Mid-plane surface, S1 is shown hatched. Numerical solution of the pressure
denote the spatial coordinates of the outward unit vector of a generic point on Ω . Let a
h 3 1 ⎡⎛ ∂p ⎞ ⎛ ∂p ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ ∂p ∂p ⎞
2 2
solution. Some form of upwinding is needed, and the streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin
(SUPG) shows good stability in initial and boundary value problems and can handle
~ and
backflow at the inlet [61]. The energy equation is multiplied by a test function w
⎡ ⎛ ∂T ∂T ∂T ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂ 2T ⎞ Pr E c ⎛ ∂p ∂p ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ρ ⎜⎜ u +v +w ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ − ⎜u +w ⎟⎥
⎝ ∂ x ∂ y ∂ z ⎠ Pe ⎝ ∂y ⎠ Pe ⎝ ∂x ∂z ⎠ ⎥
~⎢
∫Ω w ⎢ ⎡ 2 2
⎤ ⎥dΩ = 0
(2.29)
⎢ − Pr E c μ ⎢⎛⎜ ∂u ⎞⎟ + ⎛⎜ ∂w ⎞⎟ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ Pe ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎢⎣⎝ ∂y ⎠ ⎝ ∂y ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎦
~ becomes w
parameter) which is added so that the weighting function w ~ = w + ζ . The
25
finite element weak formulation is solved by approximating the solution by a finite
number of basis functions and approximating the weighting function w by the same set.
L/2
Inlet B
yp
zp
xp S3
hi A
ys hp
zs S1
xs B
U Outlet
ho S5
Figure 2.3 Three dimensional slider bearing geometry. Surface S1 is the mid-plane, S2 and
S5 are the inlet and outlet surfaces.
n( x , y, z )
Γ
Ω
R3
R2
Γ1
R1 (a)
Projection of nodal
pressure values on Γ1 into Pressure calculated
volume domain Ω on bottom surface
(b)
Figure 2.4(a) Solution domain Ω showing boundary Γ1 and unit normal vector n.
(b) Domain Ω transformation (only a small part of the transformation is shown).
26
This results in the standard finite element interpolation or shape functions Ni which
doesn’t yet account for the extra part in the weighting function. The ζ-part of the basis
Δxξ u ⋅ ∇N i
ζe = (2.30)
2 u
where Δx is the size of the element in the direction of flow, ξ is a parameter defining the
type of upwinding (in the classical upwind scheme ξ=1), ∇Ni is the gradient of the
interpolation (shape) functions, and ||u|| is the square root of the inner product of u,
In the finite element method approach the lubrication problem is discretized into a finite
number of unknowns. This is achieved by dividing the solution domain Ω into hexahedral
(brick) elements and expressing the field variables (pressure, velocity and temperature) in
terms of approximating trial functions (Ni) within each element. The volumetric domain
Ω is divided into Nve linear hexahedral elements. The field variables (velocity and
temperature) are expressed in terms of approximating trial or shape functions (Ni) within
each element whereas the boundary surface Γ1 is discretized into Ns bilinear rectangular
Ω Ω, Ω (2.31a)
Γ Γ, Γ (2.31b)
where φ1 represents the volumetric solution field and φ2 the surface solution vector, and
and represent the union and intersect of the elements. The discretized field
27
N ne N ne N ne N se
u ≈
e
∑ N kv u k , v e ≈ ∑ N kv vk , Te ≈ ∑ N Tk Tk , and p e ≈ ∑ N kp pk (2.32)
k =1 k =1 k =1 k =1
where Nne=8 for the brick elements and Nse=4 for the bilinear rectangular elements and
, and are the shape functions for velocity, temperature and pressure
respectively. These elemental discretizations are introduced into equation 2.27 for the
pressure [52,53]
⎧ ⎡ ⎛ N se
2
⎞ ⎛ N se ⎞
2⎤
⎛ N se ⎞⎫⎪
⎪⎪ h
∑ ∑ ∑
⎢∂ ⎜ ⎥
∫
3
⎟ ∂ ⎜ ⎟ ∂ ⎜ ⎟⎪
⎨ ⎢ ⎜ p ej N jp ⎟ + ⎜ p ej N jp ⎟ ⎥−h ⎜ p ej N jp ⎟⎬dΓ1 = 0 (2.33)
Γ1e ⎪12μ ⎢ ∂x ⎜⎝ ⎟ ∂y ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ∂x ⎜ ⎟⎪
⎪⎩ ⎣
j =1 ⎠ ⎝ j =1 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ j =1 ⎠⎪⎭
Equation 2.33 is minimized with respect to the elemental field variable p ej and on
N se ⎡h 3 ⎛ ∂N jp ∂N p ∂N jp ∂N p ⎞⎤ ∂N ip
∑∫ ⎢
Γ1e ⎢ 6μ
⎜
⎜ ∂x ∂x
⎝
i
+ i ⎟⎥ e
∂z ∂z ⎟⎥
⎠⎦
pj −
∫Γ1e
h
∂x
dx = 0 (2.34)
j =1 ⎣
N ve ⎧ ⎛ ⎛ N ne ⎞ ⎞ ⎡⎛ N ne ⎞ v ⎛ N ne ⎞ v ⎛ N ne ⎞ v ⎤⎫
e v ⎟ ∂N j e v ⎟ ∂N j e v ⎟ ∂N j ⎥ ⎪
∑∫ ⎪~ ⎜
w
⎨ i⎜
Ωe ⎪ ⎜
1 − β ⎜
⎜ ∑ N v e
T
k k − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎢⎜
⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎢⎜
u ∑
k
N k⎟ + ⎜ v
∂x ⎜ k =1 k
N k⎟ ∑ + ⎜ w
∂y ⎜ k =1 k
N k⎟
∂z ⎥ ⎪
⎬∑
j =1 ⎩ ⎝ ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎠ ⎣⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦⎭
⎡⎛ ∂W ∂N v ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ N ne ⎞⎞⎞
~ Pr Ec ⎜ exp⎜ − ⎜ v e ⎟⎟⎟
∫ ∑
1
− ⎢⎜ i j ⎟
⎥T je = w N T
Pe ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
i k k
Pe ⎢⎜⎝ ∂y ∂y ⎟⎠ ⎥ Ωe
⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ k =1 ⎠⎠⎠
⎡ ⎛ ⎛ N ne 2
⎞ ⎛ N ne ⎞ ⎞⎤
2
⎢ ∂ ⎜⎜ e v ⎟ ⎟⎥
⎢ ∂y ⎜ ⎜
⎢ ⎜⎝ ⎝ k =1
∑ u e v⎟
k
N k⎟ + ⎜
⎜
w k∑N k ⎟ ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎠ ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎟⎠⎥⎦
⎡⎛ N ne ⎞⎛ ⎛ N ne ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ N ne ⎞⎛ ⎛ N ne ⎞ ⎞⎤
+ ⎢
⎢⎜
⎜
∑ e v ⎟⎜ d ⎜
u k Nk ⎜
⎟⎜ dx ⎜ ∑
v e ⎟⎟ ⎜
N k pk ⎟ +
⎟⎟ ⎜ ∑
e v ⎟⎜ d ⎜
wk Nk ⎜
⎟⎜ dz ⎜ ∑ ⎟
N kv pke ⎟ ⎟⎥
⎟ ⎟⎥
⎣⎢⎝ k =1 ⎠⎝ ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ k =1 ⎠⎝ ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎠⎦⎥
(2.35)
where Nne is the number of nodes for each elemental, N is the shape function of the kth v
k
and equation 2.26 has been substituted for ρ and μ while the subscript e represents a
variable at the elemental level. One important observation about the discretization in
28
equation 2.35 is that the gradient pressure vectors ∂p / ∂x and ∂p / ∂z on boundary Γ1 have
to be extended into the volume domain Ω in order to compute the velocity components u
and v (figure 2.4b). The governing equations are used to develop the model using the
finite element program Sepran [62], an FE program developed at Delft University. The
program is structured into ‘standard problems’ that mainly encompass solution to second-
order elliptic and parabolic differential equations. One advantage the program has is the
ease with which user subroutines are implemented in the Fortran programming language.
Performance parameters are the load capacity, frictional drag force, and side flow. The
non-dimensional load carrying capacity and frictional force for a slider are [9]
1 1⎡ ∂ ⎧ 3 ∂p ⎫ 4 ∂ ⎧ 3 ∂p ⎫ ∂ ⎡ F1 ⎤ ⎤
∫∫
0
⎢ ⎨h F2 ⎬ + 2
⎢ ∂x ⎩
0⎣
⎨h F2 ⎬ −
∂x ⎭ λ s ∂z ⎩
⎢h ⎥ ⎥ dx dz
∂z ⎭ ∂x ⎣ F0 ⎦ ⎥⎦
(2.36a)
(2.36b)
Shaft frictional torque Tfr in journal bearings is determined by integrating shear stresses
(2.37)
where velocity components and are presented in Appendix A. The first term is due
to film pressure and second due to velocity-induced shearing. Load capacity for journal
29
bearings is presented in section 2.4. Equations 2.36 and 2.37 were solved using user
(2.38)
where is determined in appendix A. Side flow in slider bearings can also be determined
by assuming conservation of mass flow and finding the difference between the inflow
and outflow, QL = Qi − Qo .
The equations presented in sections 2.2 and 2.3 form the core of the bearing template
developed. A flow chart of the implementation is shown in figure 2.5. Current values of
viscosity μ are used to compute the pressure field from Reynolds equations (2.5 and
2.8) with the boundary conditions equations 2.7 and 2.9. A conjugate gradient iteration
method is used. The pressure is used in the next step where the Reynolds equation is
solved with the Swift-Stieber boundary condition using an over-relaxation technique with
constraint p≥0. Two important forces on the bearing are the load capacity as determined
from the Reynolds equation Wd and the actual load W. A force balance must exist
between the applied load and load capacity. The procedure used to achieve this is
(normal range 0.5≤ε≤0.9) as well as attitude angle ϕ and compute the film
h(θ)=c(1+εcos(θ-ϕ)) (2.39a)
30
where c=(R1-R2) is the radial clearance, θ and ϕ the angle from the load line and
hmin=c(1-ε) (2.39b)
b. Solve the Reynolds equation for pressure and load-carrying capacity Wd.
c. For this capacity compute the reaction load fR=(fx,fz)T and attitude angle from
and fR (2.40c)
⎛ fy ⎞
ϕ = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ (2.40d)
⎝ fz ⎠
μeff N s DL ⎛ R ⎞
2
S= ⎜ ⎟
W ⎝C ⎠ (2.40e)
d. If fR<W increase the value of eccentricity ratio ε, if fR>W decrease its value.
e. Compute the attitude angle from equation 2.40d. If ϕ<ϕa (where ϕa is value from
step a) decrease value of ϕ (in step a), or if ϕ>ϕa increase value of ϕ (in step a).
g. When convergence is obtained on both eccentricity ratio and attitude angle, the
v, w.
31
h. modify the attitude angle until the direction of the calculated load from 5c is equal
v, w.
The equations for the velocity fields are numerically integrated in a user subroutine using
the trapezoidal rule. Velocity component w is determined from the continuity equation
A-7 (Appendix A). Once the velocity field is determined, the energy equation is solved
for temperature, which is used to compute new density and viscosity fields (note that
density variation is so small it may be ignored). Computation of the thermal field in the
rupture zone is achieved by considering effective length equation 2.17 and the linear
relationship in 2.18 for other physical properties (thermal conductivity and heat capacity).
New values of effective viscosity are determined with the thermal field and compared to
previous values. The effective viscosity is the average viscosity value over the film nodes
determined using equation 2.26a and dividing by the number of nodes. If this value is
more than a predetermined value εr (set to μ≤0.01 or if the number of iterations iter
exceeds a specified limit Lm (set to 100) in case of slow/no convergence) the iteration
repeats (outer loop in figure 2.5) otherwise the program proceeds to computing bearing
operating parameters , , .
ε r ≤ μ i − μ i −1 (2.42)
Jang and Khonsari [55] recommend an empirical equation for determination of ε that may
be used to verify equation 2.40 (note that this is used for verification purposes only and
32
− 0.20986 ln (S )
0.49737
ε = −0.36667 + for 0.5 ≤ L/D ≤ 1.5 (2.41)
L/D
Periodical boundary conditions are applied to surfaces S3 and S5 in figure 2.3. Similar
A typical run using data from Dowson et al. [59] is given below
c. W=11 000N, therefore W>fR increase ε to 0.64. Second iteration gave the results
horizontal component of load 7.05888E+03
vertical component of load 8.51415E+03
modulus of load 1.10598E+04
attitude angle 8.78576E-01
The modulus of load or fR=11 003 ≈ W; the iterations can be stopped. The
flowchart continues at stage 4 in figure 2.5.
The streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin finite element method is formulated for three-
boundary conditions in the critical areas of the groove and rupture zone are presented.
The model is used to simulate slider bearings thermal behavior in chapter 3 and journal
bearings in chapter 4.
33
Start. Input parameters Ti,
μa,, n, k,ρ, D, C
No Is |µnew-µold|≤εr
Or is
Iter>Lm
Yes
Yes Change
value of θ?
No
End
34
Chapter 3
3.1 Introduction
chapter 2 is chosen for its robust nature and rapid convergence in convection dominated
flows. The method is applied to slider bearings analysis and design in this chapter.
Slider bearings are widely used in applications such as mechanical seals, collar thrust
bearings, machine tool guides, and piston rings. They have good load-carrying capacity,
excellent stability and durability. A tilted pad slider bearing consists of two surfaces as
shown in figure 2.1a separated by a lubricant film. The direction of the runner motion and
inclination of the planes are such that a converging oil film is formed between the two
lubricant film. This enables the bearing to support a load. The flow is viscous, leading to
The test case presented by Lebeck [65] and used by Kumar [9] in a two-dimensional
model with input values in Table 3.1 is used. Mesh density sensitivity analysis was
performed with the thermo-hydrodynamic SUPG model; results appear in Table 3.2. The
(x-y-z) mesh is finally chosen. The length (x) and height (y) values are similar to those
used by Kumar [9] while an axial value of ten elements is a good compromise in
35
computation time and accuracy. The mesh size was chosen after trials with other densities
The iterative procedure in figure 2.5 showed convergence for load capacity computations
of less than ten iterations for L/B=10 and less than five for L/B=1 as shown in figure 3.1.
36
Table 3.3 has the limiting values for the outer loop in figure 2.5 and an indication of the
convergence values. The power and advantage of SUPG is evident in the finite bearing
case where, at L/B=1 convergence takes place after only three iterations. A similar
1.40E+06
1.20E+06
L/B=10
L/B=5
1.00E+06 L/B=3
L/B=2
L/B=1
2
Load Capacity, N/m
8.00E+05
6.00E+05
4.00E+05
2.00E+05
0.00E+00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of iterations
37
3.2.2 Predicted Pressure Values
The effect of the width to length ratio L/B on predicted pressures generally indicates
whether a bearing is infinite or finite. Initially adiabatic conditions on upper and lower
surfaces and an inlet temperature Ti=To are assumed. The 3-D SUPG model formulated
in section 2.5 is used to predict peak pressure and load capacity. Results appear in table
3.4 and figure 3.2. Values of peak pressure for L/B ratios of ∞ (2-D model), 20, 10, and 5
are coincident as expected [66]. Percent difference in table 3.4 indicates model
predictions for the infinitely wide (2-D) and 3-D sliders as a function of L/B ratio for both
peak pressure and load capacity. Both fall dramatically at L/B values less than 2. What is
significant here is the sudden drop in load carrying capacity from L/B of 2 to 1 (square
slider). A 3-D model should be used for L/B less than 3.
38
SUPG Predictions as function of L/B ratio
0.30
p_2D
0.25
p_20:1
p_10:1
p_5:1
0.20
p_2:1
p_1:1
p_0.5:1
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
x/L
Arnell [66] suggests sliders are considered finite when L/B<2 which corresponds to a
on peak pressure predictions as shown in Table 3.5 which indicates the difference
between isothermal and THD values for several L/B ratios. Consideration of the thermo-
hydrodynamic effect must be made at the bearing speed tested (20 m/s).
39
Table 3.5 THD peak pressure and load capacity comparisons
Peak Peak Load Load
Pressure Pressure Capacity, Capacity,
L/B ratio Isothermal THD Difference Isothermal THD Difference
(p) (p) W W
2D Model 0.2564 0.144 0.112 1.572 0.950 0.622
20 0.2564 0.144 0.112 1.572 0.895 0.677
10 0.2564 0.144 0.112 1.572 0.439 1.13
5 0.2562 0.144 0.112 1.571 0.208 1.36
2 0.2378 0.135 0.103 1.453 0.068 1.39
1 0.1669 0.096 0.071 0.9996 0.022 0.978
0.5 0.0806 0.045 0.036 0.4437 0.005 0.439
Thermal fields in the film from the two-dimensional [9] and SUPG models for L/B=10
are compared in figure 3.3. The isotherms follow a similar pattern in both for this aspect
ratio. The scale of the y axis representing the film thickness is magnified 1000 times since
it is much smaller than the other two dimensions (length L and width B). Adiabatic
conditions and an inlet temperature Ti=310°K and L/B=10 are used similar to Kumar’s
model for comparison. Peak temperature prediction for the two dimensional model is
75.4°C (normalized temperature T+=1.124) at the upper corner of the trailing edge while
that for the three dimensional model is 74.7°C (T+=1.121) at the same location. These
Figure 3.4 is a 3D model of the film showing the predicted thermal field. Maximum
temperatures occur at the trailing edge on the mid-plane surface (S1 in figure 2.3,
L/B=0.5 indicating the increased effect of heat carried out through leakage flow (figure
3.5). Peak temperature is at the mid-plane surface. Table 3.6 shows that the fraction of
40
More industrially applicable conditions, such as those used by Kumar [9]: p i = 1.0 ,
Ti + = 1.2(372 K ) , T p+ = 1.4(434K ) and Ts+ = 1.0(310K ) are used to run the model. These
normalized temperatures are relative to the inlet temperature in °K, all other variables are
in Table 3.1). Inflow boundary conditions were checked and updated as well as using a
finer grid mesh N=30x30x30 with improved results as shown in figure 3.6a. A clearer
picture emerges when predictions are compared to Kumar’s results by digitizing and
superimposing these onto figure 3.6a. Figure 3.6b shows a couple of isotherms. What is
evident from this is that although relatively close, it is difficult to reproduce Kumar’s
results exactly. Isotherms generally follow similar patterns in both cases although model
41
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.3(a) Normalized temperatures for 2-D and (b) 3-D SUPG models showing
general patterns of the isotherms.
42
1
0.8
0.6
Y+
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 3.4 Contour map of the thermal field, L/B=10 (hi=50μm). The arrow shows flow
direction.
43
1
0.8
0.6
Y+
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 3.5 Thermal field with L/B=0.5 (hi=50μm).
44
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.6(a) Model isotherms for Lebeck’s data [65] (b) Comparison of temperature
profiles from SUPG model (solid lines) and Kumar [9] (dashed lines).
45
3.2.4 Leakage Flow Pattern – Flow Gradient Method
The SUPG model is used to predict flow patterns as a function of L/B in more detail.
Table 3.6 shows the average side flow as a function of L/B, also shown in figure 3.7 for
0.1<k<0.9 and different L/B ratios. Flow is determined at k intervals of 0.1 and averaged
out. Boxed numbers represent the ratio of side leakage to inflow as a percentage. It
increases significantly for L/B ratios less than two. The values presented in table 3.6 and
figure 3.7 are for average dimensionless flow rates for the range 0.1<k<0.9 and represents the
general behavior of slider bearings as a function of aspect ratio L/B. Figure 3.8 follows from the
general observations evident from figure 3.7 and is applicable to slider bearings in general.
The gradient in figure 3.8 is determined manually at each point on figure 3.7. A
differencing technique is used to compute the change in tilt ratio d(L/B) and flow .
The gradient gives an indication of how the flow is changing as a function of length to
width ratio L/B. The minimum point IP represents, for a given tilt angle k, rate of change
of leakage flow as a function of L/B ratio is zero. This point is at L/B=2 in figure 3.8.
Lower values of the L/B give more leakage flow but far less load-carrying capacity
whereas higher L/B values give more load capacity but less leakage flow and
load capacity and leakage flow for optimum operating temperature. As pointed out earlier
The gradient of side flow ∂QL/∂(L/B) is high from zero to L/B=1, decreases rapidly
between L/B=1 and L/B=2 to almost zero, gradually increases from two to ten, then
becomes nearly constant above ten. It decreases rapidly from zero to one. It can be
argued that the influence of side flow is most significant between zero and two. Even
though load capacities are relatively low in this region, the beneficial effects of lower
46
operating temperatures are realized. Another interesting observation is that even at
L/B=60 the percentage of side flow to inlet flow is 4.9 although the slider is in the
infinite range.
Figure 3.8 illustrates the Flow Gradient Method of determining optimum leakage flow by
computing the gradient dQ / d (L / B) for 0.1<k<0.9. The graph bottoms out at a ratio of
two, increases up to a ratio of ten and remains nearly constant thereafter. To the best of
our knowledge this work represents the first definition of the Flow Gradient Method.
47
Dimens
sionless leakkage flow as function of L/B,
L 01<k<0..9
2..5
4.9
2..0
1..5 5.1
-
1..0
23.3 5.6
11.2
0..5 7.2
3
38.0
49.7
55.4
0..0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
gth to width ratio L/B
Leng
Figure 3.7 Diimensionlesss side leakagge Q L as a fuunction of L//B, 0.1<k<0.9. Boxed
numbeers represent the ratio of side leakagee to inflow asa a percentaage.
Flow Gradient
G a Functio
as on of L/B,, 0.1<k<0.9
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
dQ/d(L/B)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
1 16 18 20
0 22 24 26 28
2 30 32 34
4 36 38 40
L/B
Figgure 3.8 Flow
w gradient, 0.1<k<0.9.
48
In Figure 3.9 the non-dimensional side leakage pattern from point A to B in figure 2.3a is
shown as a function of L/B for k=0.4. Numbers in boxes indicate the width to length ratio
L/B. Side leakage increases from L/B=20 to a peak at L/B=1 and L/B=2 then declines as
0.20
L/B=20
L/B=10
Non-dimensional leakage flow
L/B=1
0.5 L/B=0.5
0.15 L/B=2
L/B=3
10
0.10
L/B=20
0.05
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Although the fact that finite sliders run at significantly lower temperatures than higher
width ones has been long established [67] the effect on the point of the most intense
viscous dissipation has not been widely reported. Peak temperature increase lowers
lubricant viscosity which leads to lower load carrying capacity. Slider geometry can be
49
adjusted or new geometries can be tried in order to reduce the effect of higher
The effect of tilt ratio k on peak temperatures and load carrying capacity are shown in
figure 3.10 for L/B of 20, 10, 5, and 1. All variables not specified are in Table 3.1. Boxed
numbers show peak temperature predictions at each k value. A high tilt angle (low k
value) results in high peak temperatures. The highest load capacity occurs at k=0.5 in
both cases. Even though high values of k have a lower peak temperature, load capacity is
less. A tilt ratio of 0.5 seems ideal for slider design, although slightly higher values
(k=0.6-0.7) are preferred for their lower peak temperatures. The high peak temperatures
at L/B=10 and 20 and tilt ratio k=0.1 suggest high risk of metal to metal contact for these
values.
0.70
82 C
0.60 58 C
0.50
69 C
64 C
NonDim Load Capacity
0.40 75 C
61 C
82 C 56 C
0.30 58 C
0.20 69 C 55 C
75 C 64 C 56 C
61 C
83 C
0.10 58 C
56 C
87 C 77 C 71 C 66 C 62 C 59 C 57C 56 C
0.00 49 C
50
3.3 Chapter Summary
slider bearing characteristics at different width to length and tilt ratios. Pressure
predictions for the non-isothermal case are significantly less than the isothermal case as
expected. Model predictions show square sliders running at lower temperatures than
wider ones. This is due to the higher side leakage; however their load carrying capacity is
significantly less. The significance of side leakage on peak temperature is evident. The
model also shows that side leakage peaks in the region L/B=1-2. The Flow Gradient
Method to predict optimum flow conditions is proposed. Even though high values of the
tilt ratio have a lower peak temperature, the load capacity is less and an tilt ratio of 0.5-
0.7 seems ideal for slider design. Lower peak temperatures are predicted if inlet pressure
51
Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
modeling is used for the analysis and design of journal bearings. Theoretical basis of the
model applicable to plain journal bearings with requirements to account for cavitation
effects was presented in chapter 2. A novel THD template for journal bearings in
Figure 4.1(a) shows the classical two-dimensional journal geometry while figure 4.1(b)
illustrates the model development whereby the bearing is unwrapped into regions that
correspond to the bush, fluid and shaft. The oil groove presents a good reference point
whereas attitude angle φ (fig 4.1(a)) depends on bearing load and speed among other
factors. The computational region for pressure is mapped onto a rectangle, the x-z plane
while the y axis represents the film thickness h as a function of angle θ from groove
position. The minimum film thickness hmin is at an angle ϕ from the groove position as
illustrated in figure 4.1a. Figure 4.2 shows the fluid region where film thickness h is a
function of the x-coordinate. The cutting plane splits the oil groove in half. Periodic
52
The film thickness h is determined from equation 2.39. The film thickness h(θ) from
equation 2.39 can be transformed to h(x) from the relation h(x)= h(θ)/(πD).
z
x fxs
y fys
Fluid region
(exaggerated) Shaft Bush
4.1(b) Journal bearing unwrapped. The cross-sectional areas of the two regions are equal
53
4.1(c) Isometric view of finite element mesh of the model
Side surface S5
End surface S4
C2
Y C3
X
C4
x
C1
Mid-plane surface S1
ps bc’s Side surface S3
Journal
(lower surface)
Figure 4.2 Cross section of the film region. Note that the origin is on line C3 and surfaces
S3 and S5 are defined on C4 and C3 respectively.
54
Film rupture and reformation effects have to be considered in journal bearing
computations. Cavitation algorithms fall into two main categories, the Swift-Stieber
(Reynolds) boundary condition which states that ∂p/∂ϕ=0 at ϕ=ϕcav, where ϕcav is the
rupture interface, and the mass conserving algorithms by Elrod [28] and Kumar and
Booker [29,30] among others. The Swift-Stieber condition has gained wide acceptance
for steady state stationary loaded journal bearings [55] even though it does not work as
The experimental data from Dowson [59] represents one of the landmark work in plain
journal bearings and is often used to validate many journal bearing models. Initial model
validation was performed on this data. Input parameters and thermocouple setup
information is given in table D.1 and section D1.1. The same problem is solved
analytically by Khonsari [68] using the Boyd and Raimondi tables and Yang and
Khonsari’s [55] proposed empirical equations. No data on the bush dimensions and
geometry of the oil supply groove thus a convective heat transfer coefficient for the
experimental. The published peak pressure of 3.5 MPa obtained by Dowson [59] is used
in convergence analysis. Table 4.1 shows the effect of varying grid size from N=10x10 to
N=80x80 for both linear and quadratic elements. The sequence N=10x10, 20x20 …is
convergence study. As expected quadratic elements converge faster although they are
55
computationally more expensive in terms of time. Figure 4.4 shows the convergence
performance of the model while figure 4.5 presents the predictions for each mesh
Linear Quadrilateral
Elements Elements
10x10 2.405E+06 2.747E+06 3.50E+06 0.3128 0.2152
20x20 3.074E+06 3.194E+06 0.1217 0.0876
40x40 3.418E+06 3.453E+06 0.0235 0.0134
80x80 3.468E+06 3.476E+06 0.0093 0.0067
Percentage Divation vs No. of Elements N
35.0
30.0 Linear
Quad
25.0
Percent Deviation
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
No. of Elements N
56
Pressure Predictions vs No. of Elements N
4.0
3.5
3.0
Pressure@N=80x80
Pressure, Mpa 2.5
Pressure@N=10x10
2.0 Pressure@N=20x20
1.5 Pressure@N=40x40
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 4.4 Peak pressure prediction for Dowson’s experimental value of 3.5 MPa
Quadratic element mesh achieves a deviation of only 1.3% with a 40x40 mesh size while
an 80x80 mesh is required for linear ones. Computation times as a function of mesh
density for linear elements are shown in table 4.2 (using a Pentium IV 3.25 GHz 1 GB
RAM). These are for a single iteration in figure 2.5. Considering that each cycle required
at least three iterations for convergence and that the process is repeated at Ns=2 rev/s
deviation of 1% was used which coincides with a mesh of N=80x80 elements (0.9%).
57
Model performance in predicting peak temperatures for Dowson’s data is shown figure
nodal temperatures are summed and divided by the number of nodes. Khonsari performs
six iterations in his computations as shown in figure 4.5 which also indicates Dowson’s
experimental value and the proposed SUPG model. The rapid convergence of the model
is evident; only three iterations produce stability in predictions. The average temperature
prediction of 48.4˚C from the model is 1.4˚C higher than experimental values; the peak
temperature prediction of 51.2˚C compares favorably with 51.6˚C from Dowson. The
Table D.1 (Appendix) has input parameters for the bearing while table 4.3 shows some of
the performance parameter predictions (input parameters not available from Dowson’s
data were estimated). These results are preliminary; more detailed analysis follow.
50.0
Temperature (C)
45.0
35.0
25.0
20.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. of Iterations
58
Table 4.3 Model predictions, analytical [68] and Dowson’s [59] experimental data.
The experimental data from Boncompain et al. [15] and Costa et al. [69] are used to
perform further validation of the model. The top surface is stationary (bush) and the
bottom is the shaft in figure 4.1(b); figure 4.1(c) shows the mesh model. Input parameters
The effect of pressure gradients ∂p/∂x and ∂p/∂z on the energy equation 2.12 is through
the compressibility term (second term on right hand side). This term is retained here even
though most researchers ignore it due to its relatively small contribution [1,2,55,74]. The
behavior of the two gradients near and in the rupture zone form a critical part of the
discussion to follow, hence the need to retain them. Table 4.4 shows the effect of
Table 4.4 Effect of pressure gradients ∂p/∂x and ∂p/∂y on temperature rise ΔT
ΔT, With
Data Ti, °C Difference, °C
°C ΔT Without, °C
Dowson 36.8 11.39 11.48 0.09
Boncompain 40 11.77 12.13 0.36
Costa 35 19.07 19.19 0.13
59
Model convergence performed on pressure gradient dp/dz for the experimental data from
Boncompain et al. [15] is presented in figure 4.6. The bearing analyzed has aspect ratio
L/B=0.8 which is short and pressure gradient dp/dz falls rapidly from the bearing mid-
plane. Lower values of the gradients at 0.5 are due to the increased effect of film
Pressure predictions from the proposed model and the rupture/reformation interfaces are
shown in figure 4.7 for Boncompain’s [15] bearing. The rupture zone is in the range
227 0 < θ < 332 0 which is in good agreement with Boncompain’s results (figure 4.7b).
around the bearing. Boxed numbers indicate position along the X coordinate. Figure 4.8b
compares ∂p/∂x and ∂p/∂z along the x axis and reveals that the magnitude of ∂p/∂x is
much greater than ∂p/∂z, which is zero except for the rupture zone which consists of
term of the energy equation since it is significantly larger than ∂p/∂z although this
Of more significance is the position of the rupture interface and how it affects the
gradients. The boxed numbers on the ordinate of figures 4.8a and 4.8b show the position
along the x axis for Boncompain’s [15] input data (Table D2 in appendix). The
magnitude of ∂p/∂x increases along the x direction, peaks at X = 0.5 , changes sign with a
minimum at X = 0.592 which is located just before the rupture interface and becomes
zero at the reformation interface. Noting that the gradients ∂p/∂x and ∂p/∂y are multiplied
60
by the density-temperature coefficient in equation 2.12 and w is several orders of
magnitude less than u [2], the contribution of these gradients to dissipation is minimal
Model Convergence for gradient dp/dz vs No of Elements N
1
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
‐1
‐2 N=10
dp/dz, MN/m3
N=20
‐3 N=30
N=50
‐4
‐5
‐6
‐7
61
Model Pressure Prediction, MPa
5
4.5
THD pressure
4
3.5
Pressure, MPa
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
Angle from oil hole, degrees
(a) (b)
Cavitation
zone
Rupture Reformation
interface interface
(c)
Figure 4.7(a) Model pressure predictions at bearing mid-plane, model vs (b)
Boncompain’s result [15]. (c) Pressure map showing the rupture and reformation
interfaces.
62
Pressure gradient dp/dx
150
4
100
3
5
50
6
0 1, 2,10,11
9 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
7
-50
dp/dx, MN/m3
12 1. dpdx@X=0.11
-100 2. dpdx@X=0.21
3. dpdx@X=0.46
4. dpdx@X=0.5
-150 5. dpdx@X=0.53
6. dpdx@X=0.54
7. dpdx@X=0.55
-200 8. dpdx@X=0.61
9. dpdx@X=0.65
10. dpdx@X=0.92
8
11. dpdx@X=0.99
-250 12. dpdx@X=0.63
(a)
Pressure Gradient Variations
150
Gradients dp/dx and dp/dz, MN/m3
100
dp/dx dp/dz
50
0
‐50 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
‐100
‐150
‐200
‐250
(b)
Figure 4.8(a) Pressure gradient ∂p/∂x variation along the bearing x coordinate, Costa et
al. [69]. (b) Pressure gradients ∂p/∂x, ∂p/∂z variation along the x axis.
The dissipation source terms (last two terms in equation 2.12) in the energy equation are
evaluated for their contribution to the thermal profile. Figure 4.9 shows the values of the
63
gradient ∂u/∂y (normalized by dividing by the peak value) as a function of x . Peak values
occur at the rupture interface 1 which is just before peak temperatures. This is an
[15] and other researchers [6]. Velocity gradient ∂w/∂y is shown in figure 4.10
analysis reveals this gradient varies between -0.38 percent to +0.18 percent of ∂u/∂y
making its contribution small and hence justifies ignoring the term [2]. The peak value
occurs at X = 0.98 which is close to the oil groove. Discontinuities (figure 4.10) appear
64
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.9(a) Velocity gradient ∂u/∂y as a function of X . (b) Magnified view at the peak
gradients point.
65
Figure 4.10 Velocity gradient ∂w/∂y as a function of X .
One benefit of the model is the detailed thermal profile of the film. Figure 4.11(a) shows
the lower surface is in contact with the shaft and the top with the bush. The bottom
on the bush or shaft; knowledge of the fluid profile is sketchy at best. The isotherms in
66
the axial (z) direction are mainly horizontal indicating no thermal gradients confirming
what other researchers noted [2,67]. Their density depends on the number of transverse
divisions considered (ten in the model). The variation in temperature across the film
thickness is apparent due to the mixing of the fresh oil with circulating oil. Comparison
of proposed model predictions (figure 4.11(a)) and figure 4.11(b) (figure 7, adopted from
Boncompain et al. [15]) at the minimum film thickness position (indicated by the
centerline) and position x ≈ 0.1(36 ) in figure 4.11(a) shows similarities. The circular
0
peak just after hmin in the figure is also very similar to the circular peak just after hmin in
figure 4.11(b). A peak temperature of 53.5°C occurs at an angle of 232° from the oil
supply groove (position (0.65,0,0.12)). The geometry of the oil supply hole and cavity are
not given in [15] which makes setting boundary conditions difficult. Conservation of
mass flow at the inlet was used to determine oil temperature after mixing.
Experimental data from Costa et al. [69] and Kucinschi et al. [27] are analyzed next.
Input parameters for the bearings are shown in Table D.3. Temperature profiles from the
proposed model are presented in Figure 4.12(a) and (b), including the inlet hole and
cavity as a function of inlet boundary conditions (note that the x-axis compressed due to
large aspect ratio between this axis and the z-axis). The proposed model predicts Costa’s
data well. Note that Costa et al. [69] present data and no model in their paper. In figure
4.12(a) the supply hole and cavity are assumed to be at Ti whereas in 4.12(b) it is
assumed to be at Ti. The latter assumption results in higher cavity temperatures. A peak
Costa [69]) although the position is slightly lagging. The cavity thermal profile depends
on boundary conditions imposed on the supply hole and cavity. In figure 4.12(a) both the
67
supply hole and cavity are assumed to be at temperature Ti whereas in figure 4.12(b) the
entrance to the supply hole is at Ti. Clearly a mixing phenomenon is evident in the latter
case which appears closer to reality. The type of boundary condition used plays an
important role in model predictions. Kosasih and Tieu [5] assumed that most parts of
supply region are filled with re-circulating oil and most of the injected cold oil does not
immediately enter the oil film, which tends to support the case in figure 4.10(b). The
influence of the inlet oil at a lower temperature Ti on the cavity oil dynamics is also
clearly evident.
Figure 4.13(a) shows the bush upper thermal profile while in figure 4.13(b) the bush
lower surface is exposed to show how the temperature varies along the axial direction
(note that both coordinates y, z are reported in real figures and not in non-dimensional
form). Coordinate z is the actual bearing half width dimension and y is magnified 4000
times since it is very small compared to the other two). Model results of the bush
temperatures are in agreement with Costa’s et al. [69] experimental results. The peak
( z = 0.04 ) has lower surface temperatures than the mid-plane due to convection to the
ambient and leakage flow (the top isotherm of 51.3°C does not get to the outer surface).
To validate the model further, Costa’s experimental temperature data at the mid-plane of
the bush are compared to model predictions in figure 4.14 and Table 4.3. Standard error
∑ ∑
(4.3)
68
where n is the number of points in each series, i the point number in series s, yis the data
value of series s and the ith point, and ny the total number of values in all series. The
deviation of the error in that method. Specifically, it estimates the standard deviation of
the difference between the measured or estimated values and the true values. Notice that
the true value of the standard deviation is usually unknown and the use of the term
standard error carries with it the idea that an estimate of this unknown quantity is being
used. Looking at figure 4.14 model predictions at θ=-30° has the most points outside the
standard error estimate of both the data and predictions (9 points) whereas all points at
θ=0° are within and 2 points are outside at θ=+30°. Table 4.5 summarizes predictions
from the three positions (θ=-30°,0,+30) including the square of the Pearson correlation
coefficient r2. A possible explanation for the high error for θ=-30° is that this groove
location might be in the cavitation zone and so applied boundary conditions are not
applicable.
As explained in section 2.4.2 the inlet film temperature Ti can be determined using
supply and re-circulating oil temperatures respectively and Qr, Qin the re-circulating and
oil inflow. Maximum model prediction deviation from experimental values is 0.09 which
69
occurs in the region after oil mixing prior to the minimum film thickness at groove
location θ=-30°. A probable cause of the higher error here is that the groove is probably
in the rupture zone. This indicates a need for a more accurate modeling of the mixing
phenomenon for this case. Peak temperature predictions are within 0.03 in each case. It
has to be emphasized here that unlike other models in the literature [20,27], the model as
presented is dynamic in that groove location can be changed and results may be easily
obtained. Appendix E explores predictions from other models and shows the superior
rev/s speed are shown in figure 4.15. Boxed values indicate experimental temperatures
while standard error bars are also included. Deviation of model predictions is small as
shown in Table 4.7. Experimental values differ from model prediction by a maximum of
1.6 percent.
70
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.11 (a) Thermal profile from Boncompain et al. [15] data. (b) Figure 7 from
Boncompain. The geometry of the oil supply hole and cavity are not given which makes
setting boundary conditions difficult.
71
1
08
06
Y+
04
02
0
(a)
1
0.8
0.6
Y+
0.4
0.2
0
(b)
Figure 4.12(a and b) Thermal profile in the inlet, cavity and bearing, Costa.
72
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.13 Bush thermal profile, (a) top and (b) bottom view
73
Model Prediction vs Exp. temperatures, θ=-30
65
60
Temperature, C 55
50
45
SUPG
40 Exp. data
35
30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, degrees
(a)
Model Prediction vs Exp. temperatures, θ=0
70
65
60
Temperature, C
55
50
SUPG
45 Exp. data
40
35
30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, degrees
(b)
Model Prediction vs Exp. temperatures, θ=+30
65
60
55
Temperature, C
50
45
40 Exp. data
SUPG
35
30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, degrees
(c)
Figure 4.14 Thermal predictions at the bush/oil interface – Costa’s data. Input parameters
given in Table D3.
74
Table 4.6 Predicted versus experimental temperatures, Costa’s data.
Exp. Values [69] Model Predictions Difference %
x θ =-30 θ =0 θ =+30
Angle T(-30) T(0) T(+30) Diff. % Diff. % Diff. %
(Degrees) Fillon Fillon Fillon (-30) (0) (+30)
0.0000 0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0080 9 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0109 13 35.5 35.5 35.5 36.4 36.3 36.3 2.5 2.2 2.2
0.0393 45 39.0 39.0 37.0 42.6 42.9 41.1 8.5 9.1 10.0
0.0654 75 41.8 41.0 38.0 46.0 45.5 42.2 9.1 9.9 10.0
0.0916 105 42.0 42.0 39.0 46.7 46.7 43.3 10.0 10.0 9.9
0.1178 135 43.0 44.0 44.0 47.8 48.9 48.8 10.0 10.0 9.8
0.1309 150 44.0 46.0 49.0 48.9 51.1 53.9 10.0 10.0 9.1
0.1440 165 45.0 47.5 50.0 50.0 52.8 54.6 10.0 10.0 8.4
0.1571 180 46.5 49.0 52.0 51.7 54.4 55.4 10.0 9.9 6.1
0.1702 195 47.0 51.0 54.0 52.3 55.3 56.2 10.0 7.8 3.9
0.1833 210 49.0 54.0 58.0 54.5 56.2 57.1 10.0 3.9 1.6
0.1963 225 53.0 58.0 60.0 57.1 57.2 58.1 7.2 1.4 3.3
0.2182 250 55.0 60.0 60.5 57.8 57.9 58.7 4.8 3.6 3.1
0.2313 265 58.0 61.0 60.0 57.7 57.7 58.6 0.5 5.7 2.4
0.2443 280 59.0 62.0 58.0 56.9 56.9 57.8 3.7 9.0 0.3
0.2662 305 58.0 58.0 56.0 53.2 53.2 53.9 9.0 9.0 3.9
0.3033 348 46.0 46.0 40.0 42.0 41.8 39.8 9.5 10.0 0.5
0.3107 356 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.3142 360 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Input Parameters
Bearing load, kN 8.0
Bearing speed, Ns rev/s 50.0
Supply pressure, Ps, kPa 300.0
Inlet temperature, C 35.0
Inlet viscosity, Pa.s 0.0
All other input parameters same as Table D3
75
Temperature as function of supply pressure
65
64.5
64
63.5
64.4 63.4
63
Peak Temperature, C
62.5 T_model
Data
62
63.9
61.5
63.2
61
62.5
60.5
60
59.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Supply Pressure, kPa
Figure 4.15 Predicted versus experimental peak temperatures as function of oil supply
pressure, Costa et al. [69]. The y-axis starts at 60.5°C hence the apparent large difference
between prediction and experimental data.
76
4.3.6 Pressure Simulations of Costa’s Data
Pressure predictions presented some challenges, the main one being how to take the
effect of supply pressured into account. It appears from Costa et al. [69] that supply
initial pressure of 200 kPa is detected at groove location theta=+30. Figure 4.16 presents
model predictions versus experimental pressures. Standard error bars show predictions to
77
Pressure Predictions vs Exp. data, θ=-30
1800
1600
P_Model
1400 Exp. data
Pressure, kPa
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, degrees
(a)
Pressure Model Prediction Vs Measured, Theta=0
2000
1800
1600
1400 P_model
Pressure, kPa
P_measured
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, Degrees
(b)
Pressure Prediction vs Model, Theta=+30
2000
1800
1600
1400 P_exp
Pressure, kPa
1200 P model
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, degrees
(c)
Figure 4.16 Pressure prediction as a function of groove location, Costa et al. [69].
Applied load: 6 kN, speed: 50 rev/s.
78
4.3.7 Flow Predictions
Flow predictions are compared to experimental data [69] at a bearing load of 8 kN, 50
rev/s speed, and an inlet angle of -30˚ in figure 4.17. An analytical prediction from
Martin’s formula [70] (see Appendix B) is also included for comparison. The model
predictions are within 2.8 percent of measured values while Martin’s formula gives an
accuracy of 11.2 percent. Standard error bars are included for both models. More detailed
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
Flow, L/min
1.8
Martin,W=8kN,Theta=-30
1.6
Measured
Flow_model
1.4
1.2
1
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Supply Pressure, kPa
Figure 4.17 Flow predictions: model, experimental data and Martin’s formula [70].
is presented. The cylindrical coordinates are transformed to Cartesian ones with the
resultant ‘bearing template’ used to analyze plain journal bearings. This transformation
79
makes bearing analysis easier as shown by the rapid convergence of the model. On
average only two iterations are required to produce stability in thermal predictions. This
difference between model and experimental data is consistently less than 10 percent.
No special treatment of the rupture interface is required in this model due to the high
stability of the streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin method. The velocity gradient ∂u/∂y is
maximum at the rupture interface while ∂w/∂y, which is significantly less, has its lowest
values after the reformation interface (no side flow in this region).
The model also shows the high influence boundary conditions at the oil inlet/groove have
on the results. More investigations need to be carried out to determine the most realistic
Appendix E.
Pressure simulations are more difficult due to a lack of knowledge about the effect of
supply pressure on inlet boundary conditions. Peak pressure predictions are however,
reasonably good. Flow predictions from the model show a maximum deviation of 2.8 per
cent as compared to predictions from Martin’s formula. The model is thus a significant
effective in convection-diffusion problems such as the one analyzed by Kelly et al. [71].
[72] and Pierre’s et al.[73] data (Appendix E). Prediction accuracy of the SUPG model
80
can be improved significantly with better groove mixing computations which are
81
Chapter 5
5.1 Introduction
The SUPG finite element model developed in the previous chapters is used to validate
optimization equations that are introduced here to complete the integrated design process
for journal bearings. Empirical equations for temperature increase ΔT, leakage flow QL
and power loss PL are formulated from first principles. Coefficients for these equations
are determined by simulating measured bearing data in the literature. For a given set of
design variables the FE model is run at speeds from zero to 200 rev/s and the three
parameters are determined at each speed. Figure 5.1 gives details of how the optimization
model is structured.
The main focus in this work is to use the developed THD model to validate a proposed
optimization scheme for medium range (length to diameter ratio 0.4<λ<1.5) medium
speed (0<Ns<200 rev/s) plain journal bearings. Journal bearing design and optimization
involves choosing a set of design variables that include but are not limited to radial
clearance C, length to diameter ratio λ, viscosity μ, oil supply pressure ps for optimum
performance and groove location θ. The goal is to find a set of design variables that
minimizes the objective function. The objective function may include temperature
increase ΔT, side leakage QL, and power loss PL. Derivation of equations for temperature
rise ΔT, side leakage QL, power loss PL, and constraint equations for maximum pressure
pmax, whirl onset speed ωcr, and oil supply pressure ps will be considered. It should be
emphasized that selecting design variables may be influenced by additional factors such
82
as journal strength/stiffness requirements for minimum misalignment. Thus the minimum
journal size could also be determined by consideration of shaft deflection and strength
which is not considered here. A formal definition of the optimization model and its
Multi-objective function equations with linear and non-linear constraints form the basis
of the optimization models developed. Two solution techniques, namely the method of
assigning weighting/scaling factors and using Pareto optimal fronts will be explored. The
targeted range of aspect (L/D) ratios is 0.4<λ<1.5 and a speed range (0<Ns<200 rev/s).
Although Hirani and Suh [54] propose an optimization model for this range of bearings,
their model requires complex numerical integration for power loss PL and use of mass
conserving finite difference equations to solve for angle θ around the bearing
circumference. Their model also involves reference to tables (table 1 in reference 38)
which makes their model even more cumbersome to implement as a flow prediction
program. Optimization equations are derived from first principles and empirical
previous chapter as well as proving these equations using data from literature.
Convergence and simulation times for both meshing and computations was addressed in
section 4.3. As noted each iteration took about 2.9 seconds and at least three iterations
were required for convergence for a total of 8.7 seconds. For optimization computations
which required obtaining operating characteristics at Ns=2 rev/s intervals, a typical cycle
83
Table 5.1 Computation Times for Optimization Model Time Stepping
The total time of 2510 seconds translates to approximately 42 minutes for the iterations.
The computer specifications are Pentium IV clock speed of 3.25 GHz and 1 GB RAM.
The genetic algorithm generally required more time than SQP, however the problem with
SQP is the result depends on the initial guess. If the initial guess is in a region with a
local minimum the algorithm gives erroneous results. On average seven attempts were
The SUPG finite element method predicts temperature increase from given input
parameters and further validates the coefficients in equation 5.7. Table 5.2 presents the
coefficients.
84
Start with initial
speed Ns
Yes
Empirical model
validated at current
speed Ns
End
85
5.2 Governing Equations
The journal bearing shown in figure 4.1(a) is used for reference. The method proposed
follows Jang and Khonsari’s approach [55] whereby an initial estimate of the
μ eff N s DL ⎛ R ⎞ 2
S= ⎜ ⎟ (5.1)
W ⎝C ⎠
where the oil viscosity at inlet conditions is taken as the effective viscosity μeff.
− 0.20986 ln (S )
0.49737
ε = −0.36667 + 0.5 ≤ λ ≤ 1.5 (5.2)
λ
A closed form of the energy equation can be derived by assuming adiabatic conditions at
2π ∂T
∫0
∂y
dx = 0 and T = Tshaft at y = 1 (5.3)
while isothermal conditions apply at the shaft/oil interface ( T = Tshaft at y = 1 ), the so-
dimensionless energy equation [74], as presented in equation 2.14b. Two key parameters
κ1 and κ2 that appear in equation 2.14b are referred to as temperature rise parameters. The
first temperature rise parameter κ1 is associated with viscous dissipation while κ2 relates
oil properties and velocity. The energy equation is solved for temperature increase ΔT(X);
86
ΔT(X) = f(ε,κ1,κ2) (5.4)
The dimensionless temperature equation proposed by Jang [55] forms the basis for
⎡ b c ⎤
Tmax = exp ⎢ a + 0.5 + 0.5 ⎥ (5.5)
⎣ κ1 κ2 ⎦
Table 5.2 Values a, b, and c computation of maximum temperature Tmax. Note that
the valid range of temperature rise parameters is: 0.001≤κ1≤0.5 and 0.01≤κ2≤5
These constants are functions of the eccentricity ratio. Temperature predictions with the
constants in table 5.2 are compared to the finite element and other models in section 5.4
The maximum temperature can be determined from the relation Tmax = β (T − Ti ) once
−1
⎡ b c ⎤
Tshaft = ⎢a + 0.5 + 0.5 ⎥ (5.6)
⎣ κ1 κ2 ⎦
Effective viscosity μeff is updated using the shaft temperature Tshaft and equation 2.26.
The Sommerfeld number and eccentricity ratio are updated using the new viscosity
87
values; maximum temperature and shaft temperature are re-evaluated using the updated
value.
A key difference with other models is in the empirical relation for the leakage flow QL .
π
Khonsari’s model [55] utilizes QL = N s CDL QL while Hashimoto [34] uses
2
π
QL = N s CD 2 ε for short bearings. Consideration of where the hydrodynamic film starts
4
along the bearing circumference is important [68], however the curve fitted empirical
model developed here appears to give good results. The non-dimensional flow QL is
expressed as a function of ε and λ as proposed by Martin [70] and used by Jang and
Khonsari [55]
where the coefficients were determined empirically by Gadala and Zengeya [76] who
simulated pressure-fed bearings in the literature and performing curve-fitting to the data
Model predictions are compared to those from Khonsari’s model in simulating Costa’s
data in section 4.4. Predictions from Khonsari’s model are not as accurate since they
don’t specifically consider supply pressure ps. The proposed model was also validated
using measured leakage data from literature [59,69,75] and compared with predictions
from Song [36], Jang and Khonsari [55], and the finite element model.
88
5.2.3 Power Loss Determination
Power loss forms an important consideration in journal bearing design. Frictional losses
in machines result in wasted energy and the generation of heat which affects the life of
materials including the lubricant. A significant portion of total fluid film bearing losses in
surface speeds below approximately 51 m/s, these losses are generally less than 10
percent of total power input to the bearing [77]. At higher velocities, however, they
rapidly with surface speed and can reach 25 to 50 percent of the total bearing loss in large
⎛ μ eff U h ∂P ⎞
PL = ∫∫ ⎜⎜ + ⎟URdθdz (5.8)
⎝ h 2 R ⋅ ∂θ ⎟⎠
where the effective viscosity is determined at the current iteration. Hirani and Suh [38]
use a mass conserving finite difference scheme to solve for the power loss. The drawback
in this approach is that it involves much more computational effort than proposed. The
approach in emanates from the established fact the term (R C) f is a function of λ and ε.
R ⎛ 2.73622 ⎞
f = exp⎜⎜1.9994 + − 4.97838 ε ⎟⎟ (5.9a)
C ⎝ λ ⎠
PL=Ffr(2πRNs) (5.9c)
where equation 5.9a is determined empirically following Jang and Khonsari’s approach
[55]. The frictional force Ffr is determined once f is known, and W the load on the
bearing.
89
5.2.4 Pressure Computations
Pressure prediction for the optimization equations are implemented by integrating the
p − ps
2
⎛R⎞
P= ⎜ ⎟ (5.10)
μi N s ⎝C ⎠
with the empirical formula proposed by Jang and Khonsari [55] used to evaluate non-
dimensional pressure P
⎡ 0.39491 ⎤
Pmax = exp⎢2.25062 − + 4.77721ε 3 ⎥ (5.11)
⎣ λ ⎦
The onset of whirl is important due to the instabilities it creates in journal bearings.
However, for speeds considered here (Ns<200 rev/s) is was determined not to be a major
problem even for the upper range. Hashimoto [34] gives a brief account on the effects of
whirl especially for high-speed, short bearings. Whirl velocity is determined from the
g
ωcr = {0.0584 exp(6.99ε 2.07 ) − 1.318ε + 2.873} (5.12)
C
where ωcr is the critical whirl speed and g the gravitation acceleration.
The first part of the work investigated minimization of temperature increase ΔT(X) and
side leakage QL by combining the two objective functions F1 and F2 into a multi-
objective function F(X) using weighting and scaling parameters. This works well if the
relative importance of each functional is known apriori. Hashimoto [34,35] uses this
method in analyzing high-speed, short journal bearings. The concept of axiomatic design
90
[39] helps determine the independence of objective functions, and as explained by Hirani
[40,41] ΔT (F1) and QL (F2) are not independent of each other as ΔT is a function of W
and QL which means F1=func(W, F2). However objective functions W (F1) and QL (F2)
are making them the preferred choice. In addition to the method of weighting functions
fronts are sets of equally efficient or non-inferior alternative design vectors. The design
Four design variables are chosen; namely the radial clearance ratio C, length to diameter
ratio λ, oil viscosity μ and supply pressure ps. The design variable set can be written in a
pressure-fed bearings and variation of this variable will be closely monitored in the
results.
State variables vary with the given operating conditions of the bearing such as the load
W, rotational speed Ns and ambient temperature To. These include the eccentricity ratio ε,
film pressure p, film temperature T (K), side leakage QL (m3/s), and whirl onset speed
ωcr. The given choice of design variables affects the state variables.
misalignment. Thus the minimum journal size could also be determined by shaft
91
The multi-objective optimization problem can be formally stated as [42]
g3 = ω - ωcr, g4 = pmax – pa
Cmin ≤ C ≤ Cmax, λmin ≤ λ ≤ λmax, μmin ≤ μ ≤ μmax, ps, min ≤ ps ≤ ps, max (5.14c)
are lower and upper bounds linear constraints for C, λ, μ and ps respectively. Constants
α1 and α2 are scaling while β1 and β2 fulfill a weighting role in equation 5.14a. Note that
these are not necessary if the problem is solved using Pareto optimal fronts.
The program structure follows the steps given in Appendix C and is implemented in
Matlab [51,78] with the input data in table D.5. The hybrid scheme invokes the genetic
algorithm (GA) for rapid convergence to the global minimum region and SQP once this
region is identified for accurate determination of the minimum point. Equation 5.14(a) is
the fitness function and design variable set X T = (C , λ , μ , p s ) comprises the set of genes.
population type, an initial penalty of 10 and a penalty factor of 100 for the non-linear
constraints. The penalty factor increases the penalty parameter when the problem is not
solved to required accuracy and constraints are not satisfied. A rank-based fitness scaling
is used. Rank scales the raw scores based on the rank of each individual, rather than its
92
score. The rank of an individual is its position in the sorted scores. The rank of the fittest
individual is 1, the next fittest is 2 and so on. Rank fitness scaling removes the effect of
The selection function used is stochastic. Stochastic uniform lays out a line in which each
parent corresponds to a section of the line of length proportional to its expectation. The
algorithm moves along the line in steps of equal size, one step for each parent. At each
step, the algorithm allocates a parent from the section it lands on. The first step is a
uniform random number less than the step size. However as Hirani and Suh [38] point out
sharing.
Reproduction options determine how the next generation is created. Elite individuals are
guaranteed survival to the next generation; the elite count was set to 2. Crossover
fraction, which specifies the fraction of the next generation other than elite individuals
that are produced by crossover, was set at 0.8. The remaining individuals, other than elite
individuals, in the next generation are produced by mutation. Mutation functions make
small random changes in individuals in the population, which provide genetic diversity
and enable the GA to search a broader space. The mutation method used is Gaussian
which adds a random number to each vector entry of an individual. This random number
is taken from a Gaussian distribution centered on zero. The variance of this distribution
can be controlled with two parameters. The Scale parameter determines the variance at
the first generation. The Shrink parameter controls how variance shrinks as generations
go by. If the Shrink parameter is 0, the variance is constant. If the Shrink parameter is 1,
93
the variance shrinks to 0 linearly as the last generation is reached. Both scale and shrink
Crossover combines two individuals, or parents, to form a new individual, or child, for
the next generation. The scattered option, which creates a random binary vector and then
selects the genes where the vector is a 1 from the first parent, and the genes where the
vector is a 0 from the second parent, and combines the genes to form the child, is chosen.
greater than one. Every so often, the best individuals from one subpopulation replace the
forward option where migration takes place toward the last subpopulation, that is the nth
used, and this controls how individuals move between subpopulations. A migration
interval of 20 is set, and this controls number of generations before migration takes place.
The effect of supply pressure ps on leakage flow with model predictions on Costa’s data
[69] is shown in figure 5.2. Jang and Khonsari’s [55] predictions are also included for
comparisons. Although Khonsari does not specifically include supply pressure in the
simple expressions of Table 4, reference 55, predicted values in figure 5.2 for this model
are not constant. This may be due to an indirect effect of supply pressure on eccentricity
ratio ε and the way coefficients of QL are determined in the (ref. 55). Standard error and
the square of the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient appear in table 5.3. It is
94
interesting to note that r2 for Khonsari’s model is better (0.999) than the model (0.998)
although it is evident from the graph that the ‘goodness of fit’ is poor.
40E-6
QL , m 3/s
30E-6
20E-6
10E-6
000E+0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Supply Pressure, kPa
Figure 5.2 Model versus Khonsari’s predictions – Costa’s data.
The equations were validated by comparing predictions to measured data from literature.
Three bearings with input data in Tables D.1 (Dowson et al. [59]), D.3 (Costa et al. [69])
and D.4 (Ferron et al. [75]) are used for the analysis. Temperature increase ΔT(X) as a
function of speed for Dowson’s bearing is shown in figure 5.3(a) and 5.3(b), figures
95
5.4(a) and 5.4(b) for Ferron’s data (ΔT is 18 °C at 66.7 rev/s), while figures 5.5(a) and (b)
show simulations for Costa’s data. The dashed lines indicate measured data points and
journal speed on all the figures. The first figure in each case has all four models (FE,
proposed model, Khonsari, and Song); the second shows a smaller speed range for better
leakage oil temperature while model predictions represent the average of all nodal points
in the film mesh. In all cases in the figures, temperature increase is assumed to be the
measured temperature of leakage oil. Standard error bars indicated on 5.3b, 5.4b and5.5b
In all cases the proposed model predictions are more accurate as the formulations are
based on both theoretical and empirical validation for the range of bearings under
consideration. The equations were derived from first principles using ISOADI and
adjusted empirically using Jang and Khonsari [55] as a guide. Also included is
Hashimoto/Song model [34,36] for short, high speed bearing configurations. It is clear
from figures 5.3(a) and 5.4(a) that predictions from Hashimoto are inaccurate for finite
and long bearings under consideration. The model is, however, included for completeness
A different perspective to the results is shown in Figure 5.6 where temperature increase is
shown as a function of diameter and radial clearance for Dowson’s data. Measured values
laminar and below the speed at which shaft whirl starts. This is generally determined by
96
computing the Reynolds number (Re=ρCU/μ). A sampling of data points was used where
the variable set XT=(C,λ,μ,ps) for some of data is shown in Table 5.4.
It was determined from analysis that the range of Reynolds numbers determined were in
the laminar range although the second value in Table 5.4 is high. Onset of whirl occurred
at Ns>195 rev/s for this particular set and higher speeds should be avoided. For Dowson’s
XT=(40,0.75,0.03,300) which is well below both whirl onset and turbulent flow. Costa
97
Delta T Comparisons, Dowson's Bearing
800
700
600
500
DT_model
400 DT_FE
ΔT, C
DT_Khonsari
DT_Song/Hashimoto
300
200
100
0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210
Speed, rev/s
(a)
200
180
140
120
ΔT, C
40
20
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Speed, rev/s
(b)
Figure 5.3 ΔT(X) as function of speed Ns for Dowson’s bearing.
98
Model, FE, Khonsari, Song/Hashimoto Temp Dif f Comparisons: Ferron Brg
350
300
200
ΔT, C
150
DT_model
DT_FE
100 DT_Khonsari
DT_Song/Hashimoto
50
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
(a)
Model, FE, Khonsari and Song/Hashimoto ΔT Comparisons. Ferron Brg
60
55
50
Exp. Point
45 DT_model
DT_FE
40 DT_Khonsari
35 DT_Song/Hashimoto
ΔTmeasured, ns=67rps =18
ΔT, C
30
25
20
15
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Speed, rev/s
(b)
Figure 5.4 ΔT(X) as a function of speed Ns for Ferron’s bearing.
99
Delta T Comparisons, Costa
600
550
500
450
400
350
DTModel
ΔT, C
300
DT_FE
250 DT_Khonsari
DT_Song/Hashimoto
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
(a)
Leakage flow comparisons, Costa
170E-6
160E-6
120E-6
110E-6
100E-6
QL, m3/s
90E-6
80E-6
30E-6
20E-6
10E-6
000E+0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
(b)
Figure 5.5 ΔT(X), QL as function of speed Ns, Costa.
100
Delta T Comparisons, N s =25 rev/s, Dowson's data
30
Measured Data
25 Clearance C = 63.8
Exp. Point
FE
20 Model
Khonsari
ΔT, C
15
10
0
40E-6 60E-6 80E-6 100E-6 120E-6 140E-6
Clearance, C (m)
(a)
80
FE
70
Model
60
Khonsari
50
Song/Hashimoto
40
30
20
10
0
0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
Diameter D, (m)
(b)
Figure 5.6 (a) ΔT(X) as function of clearance ratio C, Dowson data, and (b) as function of
diameter D
101
5.3.3 Leakage Flow QL Predictions
Leakage results were also analyzed for the examples above and presented in Figures 5.7,
5.8 and 5.9. The finite element predictions are closest to the measured values at 25
rev/sec speed. Figure 5.8 presents leakage flow data from Ferron’s bearing (measured at
66.7 rev/s); similar results are evident. Standard error bars are included for the model
Model predictions are good in all cases. Hashimoto’s model is significantly off for the
range of bearings tested since it is derived for high-speed, short bearings. Another
π
shortcoming with this model ( Q L = N s CD 2 ε ) is that it does not specify supply
4
pressure ps explicitly.
140E-6
130E-6
120E-6
Ps = 280 kPa
110E-6 QL measured ns=25 = 26.2x10-6 m3/s
QL measured ns=33.3 = 30.1x10-6 m3/s
100E-6
90E-6
80E-6
QL, m 3/s
70E-6
10E-6
000E+0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.7 Side leakage predictions for Dowson’s bearing.
102
Leakage Comparisons: Ferron Brg
320E-6
300E-6
280E-6
180E-6
QL, m 3/s
160E-6
140E-6
120E-6
100E-6
40E-6
20E-6
000E+0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.8 Side leakage predictions – Ferron’s bearing.
160E-6
120E-6
110E-6
100E-6
QL, m3 /s
90E-6
80E-6
30E-6
20E-6
10E-6
000E+0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.9 Side leakage predictions – Costa’s bearing.
103
A summary of the data is presented in Table 5.5. The figures in brackets show percentage
difference to measured values. The proposed model gives consistently better results than
Table 5.5 Summary of ΔT(X) and QL data comparisons. Note that all leakage flow
data are × 10 −6 m3/s, ΔT values are in °C and based on (Tmax-Ti).
QL
Dowson 26.2 22.5 17.5 1.05
- (14) (-33) (-95.9) 26.2
Ferron 130 134.9 106.1 5.47
(0.46) (3.4) (-18.8) (-96) 130.6
Costa 43.4 58.9 71.7 41.4 56.9 69.7 32.6 44.6 54.7 1.55 1.61 1.67 45.8 54.2 62
(5.2) (8.7) (15.6) (9.6) (5) (12.4)
The model is run to obtain temperature increase ΔT(X) as a function of clearance ratio C
in the range 40≤C≤150 μm for Dowson’s bearing. Figure 5.10 shows values at Ns=201
rev/s. The model, FE, and Khonsari predictions follow a similar pattern while Song’s
Results for side leakage as a function of C for all four models at a speed of 25, 101 and
201 rev/s are shown in figure 5.11. It appears that side leakage is linear at lower speeds
and changes to a power function at higher speeds as shown in figure 5.12. A least squares
QL ∝ C Ns < 50 rev/s
104
QL ∝ C1.5 50 ≤ Ns ≤ 120 rev/s
It has to be mentioned that the bearings analyzed have a diameter close to 100
millimeters. A wider range of sizes needs to be tested to give the results wider
applicability.
200E-6
150E-6
100E-6
50E-6
000E+0
40E-6 60E-6 80E-6 100E-6 120E-6 140E-6
Clearance ratio C, (m)
Figure 5.10 Side leakage as a function of clearance C, speed 25 to 201 rev/s.
105
Delta T Comparisons for Dowson's bearing, N s =201
1200
1000
800
DTFE:ns=201
DTModel:ns=201
600
ΔT, C
DTKhonsari
DTSong/Hashimoto
400
200
0
40E-6 60E-6 80E-6 100E-6 120E-6 140E-6 160E-6
Clearance, C (m)
Figure 5.11 ΔT(X) versus clearance ratio C, Dowson’s bearing, Ns=201 rev/s.
"n_s=25"
350.0E-6
n_s=101
n_s=200 R² = 0.998
Linear ("n_s=25")
QL α C1.3
300.0E-6
Power (n_s=101)
Power (n_s=200)
250.0E-6
Side Leakage QL, m3/s
R² = 0.999
200.0E-6
QL α C1.5
150.0E-6
100.0E-6 R² = 0.993
50.0E-6 QL α C
000.0E+0
40.0E-6 60.0E-6 80.0E-6 100.0E-6 120.0E-6 140.0E-6 160.0E-6
Radial Clearance C, (m)
106
5.3.5 Temperature Increase ΔT, Side Leakage QL as Function of Diameter
The effect of varying diameter D while holding the length L constant for Dowson’s
bearing is analyzed. Figure 5.13 shows the temperature increase ΔT(X) while figure 5.14
shows leakage variation. Figure 5.13 is plotted by holding the length of Dowson’s
bearing constant and varying the diameter. Song’s model is included for completeness of
the discussion although it is clearly unsuitable for the range of bearings tested. Their
model is based on the friction force which is calculated by considering the local Reynolds
number (Re=ρCU/μ). There appears to be no method of updating the viscosity for use in
computation of the Reynolds number in their model. The other models show steady rise
with increasing diameter although the gradient ∂ΔT/∂D increases in the region
400
350
FE@101
Model@101
300 Khonsari@101
Song/Hashi@101
250
ΔT, C
200
150
100
50
0
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Diameter D, (m)
107
Leakage Flow Vs Diameter, Dowson's Data, C=80 mm
7.00E-05
6.00E-05
5.00E-05
4.00E-05
Leakage QL, m 3/s
3.00E-05 Model
Khonsari
FE
2.00E-05 Song/Hashimoto
1.00E-05
0.00E+00
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Diameter D, (m)
Figure 5.14 QL as a function of diameter D, Dowson’s bearing, Ns=25 rev/s. The relation
is linear as expected at this speed.
temperature increase ΔT(X) (F1) and side leakage QL (F2) using the design variable set
X T = (C, λ, μ ) , (same set used by Hashimoto [34] and Song et al. [36] ). Hashimoto’s
model is for high speed (up to 240 rev/s) and short bearings (0.2<λ<0.6) whereas the
model developed here is for medium speed (up to 200 rev/s) and medium range
(0.4<λ<1.0). The two objective functions are combined using scaling and weighting
subject to linear and non-linear constraints given in equation 5.14(b) and (c). Additional
108
input parameters for Dowson’s bearing to run the optimization model are given in table
D.5. Results will be compared to those obtained by Song et al. for high-speed, short
bearings where a similar objective function was used (included for comparison only as
Results from both the classical (SQP) and a hybrid method are compared and presented in
figures 5.15, 5.16, 5.17 and 5.18. At least three runs with many sub-iterations were
performed for each method. Figure 5.15 compares results of the objective function from
the two methods at load 10 kN. The hybrid algorithm needed at most two runs to produce
a consistent result. SPQ however required at least four runs while adjusting the initial
guess to get reasonable predictions. Comparison with Song’s results show a similar
pattern to the objective function although Song’s values are lower due to different input
parameters and range (see table D.5). Clearance ratio predictions from the model (figure
5.16(b)) show a rapid initial increase and leveling off at speeds above 80 rev/s. This is
different from Song’s model prediction (figure 5.16(a)), which shows an initial decline,
leveling off, and gradual increase at speeds greater than 120 rev/s. Actual values of C in
Length to diameter λ predictions are shown in figure 5.17(b) for the model and 5.17(a)
for Song’s model. Both show a decline to the lower bound of λ, the model showing a
faster descend than Song’s model. Thus a similar pattern is exhibited by both models.
Finally viscosity variation μ for both models show predictions in the lower bound values
• Objective function predictions F(X) show a smooth increase for both models
109
• Clearance ratio requirements for wider bearings appear to be higher than
shorter bearings
The next section extends the design variable set to four ( X T = (C , λ , μ , p s ) ) by including
supply pressure variation; the optimization work primarily focuses on pressure fed
of the power loss PL and leakage QL ; these two are axiomatically independent [39].
110
Objective Function: SQP vs GA
18
16
Objective Funcition f(X)
14
12
10
SQP
8
GeneticAlg
6
4
2
50 100 150 200 250
Speed, rev/s
(a)
Objective Function f(X): SQP vs Hybrid
60
50 W = 10 kN
40
f(X)
30 f(X): Hybrid
SQP: 7 Attempts
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Speed, rps
Figure 5.15 (a) Objective function from Song et al. [36], and (b) F(X) predictions from
SQP and hybrid algorithm, Wd=10kN for both cases.
111
Radial Clearance, μm
100
90
Radial Clearance C, μm
80
70
60 SQP
GA
50
40
50 100 150 200 250
Speed, rev/s
(a)
W = 10 kN
200E-6
C: SQP
C: Hybrid
Radial Clearance C, m
150E-6
100E-6
50E-6
000E+0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rps
(b)
Figure 5.16 (a) Clearance ratio C as a function of speed for Song’s model (b) Model
predictions, Wd=20 kN
112
Length to Diameter Variation λ
0.30
Length to Diameter λ
0.25
0.20
0.15 SQP
GA
0.10
50 100 150 200 250
Speed, rev/s
(a)
W = 10 kN
1
0.8
0.6
λ
0.4
1:SQP: 7 attemps
0.2
2: Hybrid
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Speed, rps
Figure 5.17 (a) Length to diameter ratio λ as function of speed, Song’s model, and (b)
Length to diameter ratio λ as function of speed for SQP and hybrid algorithm for
developed model.
113
Viscosity Variation μ
1.10
1.08
1.06 SQP
Viscosity μ, Pa.s
1.04 GA
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
50 100 150 200 250
Speed, rev/s
(a)
Viscosity μ Comparisons
0.033
0.03
W = 10 kN
0.027
2: Hybrid
SQP: 7 Attempts
0.024
Visocosity μ, (Pa.s)
0.021
0.018
0.015
0.012
0.009
0.006
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Speed, rps
(b)
Figure 5.18(a) Viscosity variation, Song/Hashimoto’s model [36] (b) Viscosity variation
versus speed, hybrid and SQP.
114
5.4 Power Loss PL (F1) and Leakage QL (F2) as Objective Functions
Power loss comparisons for the proposed model, Jang and Khonsari’s [55], finite
element, and Hashimoto/Song’s models [34,36] is shown in figure 5.19 for Dowson’s
bearing [59]. Five measured data points and standard error bars are included; these show
the consistently better prediction from the model. Figure 5.20 presents simulation results
for Costa’s data [69]. Both figures show the relative accuracy of the proposed model for
the range of bearings tested (0.4<λ<1.5 and 0<Ns<200 rev/s). Model predictions are well
within the 95% confidence level. Another advantage is the ease with which the model can
be implemented. Equation set 5.9 computes the coefficient of friction f, friction force F,
1000 25 532
900
800
700
600
500
400
Exp. Points
300 FE
200 Model
Khonsari
100
Song/Hashimoto
0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.19 Power loss prediction – Dowson’s data.
115
Power Loss Comparisons, Costa Bearing, 70 kPa
9000
8500
8000 Measured Data
7500 PowerLoss ns=33rps =612 W
PowerLoss ns=50rps =1125 W
7000 PowerLoss ns=67rps =1663 W
6500
6000
5500
Power Loss, W
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Exp. Point
2000 FE
1500 Model
Khonsari
1000
Song/Hashimoto
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.20 Power loss predictions – Costa’s data.
The method of weighting/scaling factors is used to determine optimum values for the
design variables. Input data shown in Tables D.1 and D.5 is used. Values of leakage QL
were weighted appropriately by using a suitable value for β2 while the scaling factors
were selected after comparing the absolute values of the objective function F(X) as a
function of the ratio α1/α2. Three values of the ratio were tried, namely 5, 1, and 1/5. It is
assumed the objective functions f1 and f2 are of equal importance and this means the
magnitude of the two should be equal or nearly so. The effect of weighting factor β2 of
105 is to transform leakage values, which are in the order 10-5 m3/s to the same order of
116
selecting α1/α2=1/5, β1=1/400, β2=105 as shown in figure 5.22a. It is important that
values of the objective functions be similar if they are of equal importance (somewhat
like ‘comparing oranges with oranges’). It must be emphasized that the ultimate choice of
the weighting parameters depends on the relative importance of each objective function f1
and f2 [34]. These graphs show that power loss f1 increases more rapidly than leakage f2
thus having a greater influence on the objective function value F(X). Depending on the
relative importance of minimizing the power loss or leakage, figure 5.21 gives an
indication on what route to take. An assumption is made here that the goal is to obtain the
The effect of scaling factors β1 and β2 with α1/α2=1/5 is shown in figures 5.22, 5.23 and
5.24. Also included are the values of F1, F2 and the design variable sets (C,λ,μ,ps). One
observation is increasing clearance ratio reduces power loss but increases side leakage
significantly. Figure 5.21 shows results with β1=1/400 and β2=105 which has the effect
reducing power loss contribution to F(X). The net result is minimizing side leakage has
more weight and clearance ratio is at the minimum value in 5.21c while length to
diameter ratio λ is at the upper limit of 1. Supply pressure predictions show rapid
increase with increasing speed to the upper limit at a speed of 40 rev/s. Viscosity is
virtually at the minimum allowable in all cases. The trends change significantly
however, when β1 is increased to 1/35 in figure 5.22, making minimization of power loss
(F1) more important (figure 5.22a). Supply pressure increases rapidly to the upper limit as
before, however higher clearance ratio values are predicted. Length to diameter values
shift lower while viscosity remains at the lower values. Significant changes occur with
β1=1 (figure 5.23) as supply pressure increases less rapidly, viscosity remains at the
117
lower limit, clearance ratio is initially high and reduces, while length to diameter ratio λ
3000
α1/α2=5
α1/α2=1
2500 α1/α2=1/5
Obj. Function f(x)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
118
Objective function F(X), F 1 , F 2 for β 1 =1/400
30
25 f(X)
Objective function
f_1
20 f_2
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
(a)
Radial Clearance C, m
300E+3 40E-6
250E+3 38E-6
200E+3 p_s C
ps, kPa
150E+3 36E-6
100E+3 34E-6
50E+3
32E-6
000E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 30E-6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
Speed, rps
(b) (c)
0.025
μ
0.020
1
λ
0.015
0.010
0.005 λ
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0.9
Speed, rps 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
(d)
(e)
119
Objective function F(X) , F 1 and F 2
140
120
Objective function f
100
80
f(X)
60 f_1
40 f_2
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
(a)
Variation of supply pressure p s Variation of clearance ratio C
400 48E-6
350 47E-6
Radial Clearance C, m
Supply press. ps , kPa
46E-6
300
45E-6
250
44E-6
C
200 43E-6
p_s
150 42E-6
100 41E-6
50 40E-6
39E-6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps Speed, rps
(b) (c)
Variation of λ: Hybrid
Variation of inlet viscosity μ 1.05
0.012
1
0.01
Viscosity μ, (Pa.s)
0.95 λ
0.008 μ
λ
0.006 0.9
0.004 0.85
0.002 0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Speed, rps
120
Objective functions F(X), F 1 , F 2
4500
4000
3500
Obj. function 3000
2500 f(X)
2000 f_1
f_2
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
(a)
200
C, m
p_s 6.0E-05
150
5.5E-05 C
100
5.0E-05
50
4.5E-05
0 4.0E-05
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps Speed, rps
(b) (c)
Length to diameter ratio λ
Variation of inlet viscosity μ
0.012 1
0.9
0.01
Viscosity μ, (Pa.s)
0.8
0.008 μ λ
0.7
λ
0.006
0.6
0.004
0.5
0.002
0.4
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Speed, rps
Speed, rps
(e)
(d)
121
5.4.3 Pareto Optimal Front Method
The method of Pareto diagrams eliminates the need for scaling and weighting factors
[40,42]. Pareto fronts for a load of W=10 kN are developed. The two objective functions
are plotted on the axes and a series of non-inferior points plotted. These charts can be
very effective in helping designers choose design variable sets depending on the relative
importance they place on each objective function. Pareto optimal fronts at common
speeds for these bearings (1500 rev/min (25 rev/s), 2000 (33.3), 3000 (50) and 4000
(66.7)) are shown in figures 5.25 and 5.26. Included in each chart is a boxed value for the
recommended operating point. The design variable set for this point is also shown. The
power loss range is small in these plots because the Pareto fronts are developed by
changing the supply pressure and determine its effect on both objective functions. The
Pareto optimal fronts all satisfy the condition in equation 5.12. The Pareto table at 4000
122
Pareto Optimal Front, N s =25 rps
26.70E-6
26.60E-6
26.50E-6
Leakage m3/s 26.40E-6 {6.94E-5,0.734,0.01,75E3}
26.30E-6
26.20E-6
26.10E-6
26.00E-6
25.90E-6
25.80E-6
25.70E-6
418.5 419 419.5 420 420.5
Power Loss, W
(a)
31.60E-6
31.40E-6
Leakage, m3/s
31.20E-6
{65.2E-6,0.697,0.01,107E3}
31.00E-6
30.80E-6
30.60E-6
583.6 584.1 584.6
Power Loss, W
(b)
Figure 5.25 Pareto optimal front for speeds of (a)1500 rpm and (b) 2000 rpm.
123
Pareto Optimal Front, N=50 rps
42.40E-6
42.30E-6
42.10E-6
{6.11E-5,0.664,0.01,184E3}
42.00E-6
41.90E-6
41.80E-6
931.7 931.85 932 932.15 932.3 932.45
Power Loss, W
(a)
54.10E-6
54.00E-6
53.90E-6
Leakage, m 3/s
53.80E-6
53.70E-6
53.60E-6
{59.9E-6,0.652,0.01,250E3}
53.50E-6
53.40E-6
53.30E-6
53.20E-6
1257.3 1257.45 1257.6 1257.75 1257.9 1258.05
Power Loss, W
(b)
Figure 5.26 Pareto optimal front for (a) 3000 rpm and (b) 4000 rpm. Power loss in Watts.
124
Table 5.6 Typical Pareto Table for Bearing at 4000 rpm, W=10kN
Length to
Power Loss Leakage Clearance Diameter Supply
PL, Watts QL (m3/s) C (μm) ratio λ pressure ps
1257.354 54.138E-6 60.050 0.65197 140.0E+3
1257.354 54.051E-6 60.051 0.65205 150.0E+3
1257.381 53.950E-6 60.031 0.65201 160.0E+3
1257.419 53.801E-6 60.002 0.65203 179.1E+3
1257.420 53.796E-6 60.002 0.65203 180.0E+3
1257.470 53.670E-6 59.965 0.65200 200.0E+3
1257.540 53.546E-6 59.913 0.65195 225.0E+3
1257.560 53.516E-6 59.898 0.65192 235.0E+3
1257.607 53.464E-6 59.864 0.65188 250.0E+3
1257.652 53.421E-6 59.830 0.65182 260.0E+3
1257.687 53.394E-6 59.805 0.65178 270.0E+3
1257.721 53.371E-6 59.780 0.65173 279.5E+3
1257.776 53.339E-6 59.740 0.65166 293.9E+3
1257.815 53.323E-6 59.711 0.65162 305.0E+3
1257.877 53.298E-6 59.666 0.65151 320.0E+3
1257.916 53.288E-6 59.638 0.65146 330.0E+3
The flow equation presented by Zengeya and Gadala [76] and detailed in section 5.3
assumes flow is a function of aspect ratio L/D and eccentricity ratio ε, (QL=f(λ,ε)) only; it
does not explicitly consider the effect of supply pressure and oil groove geometry on
leakage flow rate. The method proposed by Martin [70] considers leakage flow as the sum
Martin’s work is in the many considerations of bearing inlet conditions (oil hole/oil
groove, film thickness at inlet port hg, and parameter fg which is a function of the oil
groove or hole dimensions). This justifies the need for formulating a simplified leakage
flow model with less complex considerations while maintaining accurate predictions. The
125
work presented by Zengeya and Gadala [76] is used as a base and expanded here to take
the effect of groove geometry Lg/L, groove location θ, groove length to diameter ratio
⎛ Lg Lg ⎞
Lg/D into account, i.e., Q L = F ⎜⎜ ε , λ , p s , θ , , ⎟⎟ . Based on extensive numerical
⎝ D L ⎠
simulations using the streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin finite element method, the
⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
Q L = (1 + 1.6 p s )(1 + 0.17θ )⎜⎜1 + 0.3
Lg
D
L
⎟⎟⎜⎜1.15 g
L
[ (
⎟⎟ exp 0.2 − 0.5λ1.5 + 1.05 ln ε )] (5.16)
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
2
ps ⎛C ⎞
where p s , the non-dimensional supply pressure p s = ⎜ ⎟ is determined using
2πμN s ⎝R⎠
the fluid pressure ps, the fluid viscosity μ, the journal speed Ns (rev/s), and the radial
clearance C. Other parameters in equation 5.16 include the length to diameter ratio λ =
L/D, the groove length Lg, and the groove location θ. It should be noted that θ can be
positive or negative as shown in figure 4.1a; it varies between ±π/2. The exponential part
of the equation is adopted from the work of reference 76. Depending on the nature of the
Justification for the choice/form of p s and θ (linear) in equations 5.16 follows. Figures
5.27 to 5.31 show the linear relationship between leakage flow and supply pressure,
groove location and eccentricity ratio for some bearing data. Figure 5.27a illustrates the
effect of supply pressure on flow rate for Claro’s data [79] at eccentricity ε=0.7, speed
Ns=8.6 rev/s and supply pressure variation from 8 to 60 kPa. Maximum error of 17 per
cent from experimental data is better than 25 per cent reported in Claro’s work
126
reveal two data points outside the 95% confidence level. Figure 5.27b shows model
predictions on Costa’s data [69] at speed Ns=50 rev/s, eccentricity ε=0.5 and supply
pressure values ranging from 70 to 300 kPa. Maximum error is 19 per cent with two
points outside the 95% confidence level. Figure 5.28 presents flow as a function of speed
at two supply pressures for Dowson’s data [80,81]. Predictions from the model show a
maximum error of 14 per cent while Dowson’s is 21. Both models fall outside the 95%
confidence level for the experimental data at ps=170kPa. Figure 5.29 shows the effect of
both supply pressure and eccentricity ratio on leakage flow for Dowson [80] whose
model predictions are included for comparison. Both models are accurate at zero
pressure; however the model developed here shows better prediction of the data as
indicated by determining the variance of each in table 5.7. The goodness of fit, however,
is poor at 1.0. The accuracy of the model at two supply pressures is tested in figure
eccentricity ratio from Boncompain [15] and Ferron [75]. Two other predictions are
included for comparison. Error bars in figure 31a indicate all models fail to accurately
127
Measured vs Predicted Leakage, Claro et al., θ=+90o
0.6
0.5
QL
Non-dim. leakage
0.4
Measured
0.3
Model
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Supply pressure, kPa
(a)
Predicted vs Measure values, Costa (p s=0.03,0.04,0.09,0.13,0.19 kPa, θ=+30)
0.7
0.6
QL
0.5
Non-dim. leakage
0.4
Model
Measured
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Non-dim supply presure p s
(b)
Figure 5.27 (a) Leakage flow prediction and data as a function of supply pressure for
Claro’s data [79]. Groove at +90° to the load line. Other bearing parameters as in Table
D2. (b) Data from Costa et al. [69]. Groove location: +30°
128
Predicted, Measured, and Dowson Leakage Data
2.50E-05
2.00E-05
Leakage flow QL, m 3/s
1.50E-05
Measured:ps=170kPa
1.00E-05 Q_LDowson:ps=170kPa
QMeasured:ps=0
Q_LModel:ps=0
Q_LDowson:ps=0
Q_LModel:ps=170kPa
Q_LKhonsari:ps=0
Q_LKhonsari:ps=170kPa
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.28 Leakage flow as function of supply pressure, Costa [69]. Ns=50 rpm, ε=0.5.
Dowson:ps=0.5
Dowson:ps=1
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85
Eccentricity ratio ε
129
Table 5.7 Comparison of variance between model and Dowson’s predictions.
ps Variance
Model Dowson
0 0.0022 0.0015
0.5 0.0065 0.0157
1.0 0.0121 0.0176
4.0E-05
3.0E-05
2.0E-05 ps170
ps=0
1.0E-05
0.0E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
Figure 5.30 Leakage flow as a function of speed ps=0 and 170 kPa, Dowson’s [80].
130
Leakage Flow vs Eccentricty, 1500 rpm Leakage Flow vs Eccentricity, 2000 rpm
1.2 1.0
QL Measured model
1 QL 0.8
Non-dimensional flow
Martin khonsari
Non-dimensional f low
Khonsari Martin
0.8 Measured
Model 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0
0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85
0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Eccentricity ε
Eccentricity ε
(b)
(a)
Leakage Flow vs Eccentricity, 3000 rpm Leakage Flow vs Eccentricity, 4000 rpm
0.8
0.9
model 0.7
QL0.8 Exp. Data QL model
khonsari
0.7 khonsari
0.6
Non-dimensional f low
martin
Non-dimensional flow
0.5 0.4
0.4 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Eccentricity ε
Eccentricity ε
(d)
(c)
Power loss determination follows a similar procedure presented in section 5.4. The
131
supply pressure and groove position θ and with the aid of extensive numerical
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
R
( )
f = 1 − 0.25θ 2 + 0.05θ (1 + 0.6 p s )⎢exp⎜⎜1.9994 +
2.73622
− 4.97838 ε ⎟⎟⎥ (5.17)
C ⎣ ⎝ λ ⎠⎦
where f is the coefficient of friction and ε is the eccentricity ratio, ε = e/C. The above
equation introduces the effects of supply pressure p s and groove position θ in an explicit
way. It will become evident that the groove position plays a significant role in calculating
the friction and the subsequent torque and power values from validation simulations. The
effect of supply pressure, although more significant at low eccentricity ratios [80], is
5.17 is evident in figure 5.32 for Costa’s data speed Ns=50 rev/s, eccentricity ε=0.21 and
empirically and averaged over the bearing data. Maximum error is 9.4 per cent.
figure 5.33, Costa [69]. Supply pressure varies from 50 kPa to 300 kPa (non-dimensional
values from 0.04 – 0.23) at two different bearing loads (2 kN, ε=0.2 and 8 kN, ε=0.5)
which is in the light to medium bearing load range [80]. Maximum error is 14 per cent.
Figure 5.34 confirms the accuracy of the model in predicting Costa’s data at three speed
values (Ns=33.3, 50 and 66.7 rev/s, θ=+30°) and eccentricity of 0.5. Values in brackets
are experimental.
132
Predicted Vs Measured Torque: ps =70kPa
4.50
Data TvTheta:Model_W=2kN
Measured at 2kN: 2.7 N.m Measured@2kN
Predicted at 2kN: 2.9 N.m (9.4%)
TvTheta:Mode_W=8kN
Measured at 8kN: 3.7 N.m 4.00
Predicted at 8kN: 4.0 N.m (6.8%) Measured@8kN
Torque, N.m
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Groove position, radians
Figure 5.32 Torque predictions as a function of groove position, Costa [69]. Supply
pressure of 70 kPa.
3.50
3.00
2.50
Torque, N.m
2.00 Model@2kN
Measured@2kN
Model@8kN
1.50 Measured@8kN
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Non-dimensional supply pressure
133
Torque T as function of speed, θ=+30o , ps=70kPa
6.00
Measured data (Predictions in brackets):
TNs=33.3=3.1 N.m (3.08)
TNs=50= 3.6 N.m (3.66)
TNs=66.7=4.05 N.m (4.02)
5.00
Exp. Data
4.00 T
Torque, N.m
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Speed, rev/s
Figure 5.34 Variation of torque as function of speed, Costa [69]. Three data points are
shown.
The program structure follows the steps in Appendix C and is implemented in Matlab
[51] with input data in tables D5 (Dowson) and D6. The two objective functions are
chosen to be: F1 the non-dimensional friction parameter ((R/C)f) and F2 the leakage flow
(QL). A weighting factor β2 of 1x105 is used to make the two objective functions of the
speed. Optimum radial clearance increases with speed to a peak at approximately 30 rev/s
before decreasing and leveling off close to 60 μm. It is interesting to compare this value
134
Optimum radial clearance C Optimum L/D λ ratios
1.4E-04
1
1.2E-04
0.9
λ
Radial clearance C
1.0E-04 0.8
C
L/D ratio λ
8.0E-05 0.7
6.0E-05 0.6
4.0E-05 0.5
0.4
2.0E-05
0.3
0.0E+00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps Speed, rpm
(a) (b)
p_s
30
μ
20
0.005
10
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps Speed, rps
(c) (d)
-0.6
-0.8 θ
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
Speed, rps
(e)
Figure 5.35 Variation of XT as a function of speed, W=10kN. Model predictions with
α1/α2=1, β1=1, β2=105
135
with 138.8µm used by Dowson [80]. The predicted value is obtained with groove
position θ=-π/2. Their data shows bearing speeds up to 16.7 rev/s. Another interesting
observation is evident when figure 5.35a is compared to figure 11c in reference 76 where
the groove is positioned at the load line. The predicted peak clearance of 120 μm at 15
rev/s in figure 5.35a is significantly higher than a peak of 79 μm at 10 rev/s in figure 11c,
reference 76. Corresponding C values at each speed are generally higher in figure 5.35a,
suggesting optimum groove location allows for higher optimum clearance ratios.
Length to diameter ratio values (figure 5.35b) decrease from a high of 0.94 and levels off
at 0.67. This pattern is similar for both bearings simulated and is also comparable to
Optimum viscosity is at the lower bound as expected. This is because lower viscosity
lowers power loss as well as increases leakage for the same set of bearing input variables.
Supply pressure is predicted to be at the lower bound for all speeds. This is significantly
different from predictions in figure 11b, reference 76 where it increases from the lower to
upper bounds. Groove location appears to have a significant effect on supply pressure.
Lower values can be used when optimum location is used in journal bearing design.
Groove location prediction is interesting in that the model indicates optimum placing of
the groove at the lower bound (-π/2), figure 5.35e. Although this position has the least
whether this position is in the rupture zone and what effect that it has on mechanical
stresses is taken. For convenience most journal bearings are designed with groove
136
location in line with the load. The other potential beneficial position, although not shown
in the figures, is at the upper bound (+π/2) which gives slightly higher F(X) values.
Figure 5.36 shows variation of the design variables as a function of speed for a load of
W=700N. The results are similar to those in figure 5.35 although peak C value of 107
μm occurs at higher speed (25 rev/s). Length to diameter ratio levels off at a lower value
Pareto charts present an alternative method of showing optimum design points. A typical
pareto optimal front for load W=10kN and speed 50 rev/s is shown in figure 5.37a. In
figure 5.37b the load is 700N and speed 25 rev/s. Two finite element predictions with the
boxed XT values are included, showing the accuracy of the optimization model. The
graph shows significant power loss variation. Pareto charts present a set of non-
dominated solutions, thus each point on the front has its own merits. A wide range of
these charts can be produced at small speed increments. Designers can then make use of
these charts in design decisions. An interesting observation is in the power loss values
predicted in figure 5.37a (740W) compared to figure 13a (932W), reference 76 for
similar input values. Significant power loss savings can be realized with proper groove
location.
137
Optim um radial clearance C as function of s peed Variation of L/D ratio λ
1.2E-04
1.0
0.9
1.0E-04
0.8
Radial clearance C, m
8.0E-05 C 0.7
0.6 λ
6.0E-05
0.5
λ
0.4
4.0E-05
0.3
2.0E-05 0.2
0.1
0.0E+00
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps
Speed, rps
(a) (b)
Optimum viscosity μ as function of speed Optim um s upply pres s ure ps
0.012 60
0.01 50
Supply pressure. kPa
0.008 40
Viscosity, Pa.s
ps
0.006 30
μ
0.004 20
0.002 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Speed, rps Speed, rps
(c) (d)
Optimum groove location θ
0.0
-0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Groove location, radians
Speed, rps
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2 θ
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
(e)
138
Pareto front, W= 10kN, N s =50 rev/s
3.70E-05
Pfront
68.1e-6,0.699,01,50e3,-1.571
3.60E-05 FE
3.50E-05 63.3e-6,0.818,01,50e3,-1.571
Leakage flow, m /s
3
3.40E-05
3.30E-05
3.20E-05
3.10E-05
3.00E-05
710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780
Power Loss, W
(a)
1.0E-05 Ns=1500rpm
FE
Leakage Flow, m /s
8.0E-06
3
6.0E-06 4.72e-5,0.47,01,50e3,-1.571
4.0E-06 1.16e-4,0.728,01,50e3,-1.571
2.0E-06
0.0E+00
35 45 55 65 75 85
Power Loss, W
(b)
Figure 5.37(a) Pareto optimal front for speeds of 1500 rpm, W=10kN; (b) Pareto optimal
front, W=700N
139
5.6 Interpretation of Optimization Results
A brief overview of the optimization results is appropriate here. Results from the four
variable model are analyzed in more detail and compared to five variable ones.
The Pareto charts in figure 5.25 show a variation of power PL and leakage flow QL of
less than one and four percent respectively. The power loss variation is small, and in
engineering terms might be interpreted to mean other factors have more influence in
determining bearing performance. Noting that for this set the load is in line with the oil
groove, it is clear this position limits the extent to which power loss and side leakage can
be influenced.
The situation is however significantly different when groove location θ is included in the
design set. As shown figure 5.37a power loss variation is 8% while leakage flow varies
23% which gives a significant influence on the two performance parameters. Table 5.7
summarizes the results from the two sets. Further analysis of the results appear in
reference 76.
140
5.6.2 Uncertainty in the Results
flow and temperature increase as proposed by the respected research teams Jang and
Khonsari [55] and Khonsari et al. [74]. There is no reason to doubt the validity of the
temperature rise parameters in reference 76 or the form of the flow equation in reference
76. What might be questioned is the accuracy of the data used. Dowson’s data [59] is
regarded as a benchmark in lubrication circles while Costa et al. [69] present a wide
variety of performance data which is also well taken in the industry. Unfortunately both
sets of researchers do not present any error analysis with their data.
The finite element simulations presented in earlier chapters (and Appendix E) were
shown to be accurate in predicting experimental data from Boncompain [15], Ferron [75],
Costa [69] and others [72,73,79,80,81]. Prediction results were compared to available
well as power loss PL and leakage QL are analyzed. The objective function minimizing
power loss PL and side flow QL is preferable as it minimizes two independent functions.
The proposed approach can be used by design engineers who need simple and effective
models to help them choose optimum design variables using readily available
presents advantages over more complex methods such as Hirani’s model in that no
141
Model predictions for temperature increase, leakage flow, and power loss are accurate in
comparison to models in the literature. The equations are empirically derived and make
are used. The benefits of each method are assessed. Pareto optimal diagrams eliminate
the need to determine the weights and scaling required in the first method and should be
The model is extended to include groove position and supply pressure computations
explicitly by introducing terms width to diameter ratio (wg/D) and groove length to
bearing length ratio (Lg/L). Maximum error of 15% on leakage is observed from the
proposed model. The model is comprehensive yet simple to implement, and depending
on the nature of the problem some terms in the equations may be ignored. Power loss
and torque predictions are within 10% of experimental data. These results show the
effectiveness of the model and the ease of use in bearing optimization problems.
Model results show that groove location has a significant effect on the optimization of the
bearing. The model predicts groove location should be at the lower bound (-π/2). Higher
values of clearance ratio C may be used when optimum groove position is chosen.
Significant power loss savings may be realized with appropriate location of oil groove.
142
Chapter 6
Journal bearing design and optimization requires accurate and reliable prediction of
thermal fields due to viscous dissipation. The effect of temperature increase on load
carrying capacity of the bearing can be dramatic due to a decrease in the viscosity of the
film.
robust, rapid converging THD model that can be used in optimization where many
iterations at varying speeds are required. This requirement presents one of the main
challenges for researchers and is the focus of this work. A robust and effective FEA
procedure is proposed and a novel and simple model for journal bearing is introduced.
Applications of the developed models to the analysis and optimization of practical cases
are discussed. Main outcomes from the work are summarized in the following.
possible form. The streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin finite element (SUPG-FE) method
be effectively used to model journal bearings using Cartesian coordinates. The model can
be refined, especially the boundary conditions in the groove area, to give more accurate
143
results. The same model can also be used for slider bearings with less implementation
requirements. A more detailed model procedure is given in sections 2.4 and 3.3.
Some important observations on slider bearings are noted. An aspect ratio between 2 and
1 is ideal in terms of leakage flow and minimum peak temperatures. A unique way of
identifying this region is illustrated where the differential of the flow ∂Q as a function of
∂Q
aspect ratio reduces rapidly to minimum before increasing again and becoming
∂( L / B )
constant at L / B ratios higher than 10. The above findings along with the flow gradient
method (FGM), uniquely defined in this work, helps optimize slider bearing tilt ratio for
modeling thermal effects, leakage flow, and cavitation effects. The model as presented
Although the approach proposed by Boncompain [15] is used in the rupture zone, focus
on the dynamics of velocity gradients ∂v/∂y and ∂w/∂y near the rupture and reformation
interfaces are critically analyzed and appear to explain the rapid decline in temperature.
Thermal predictions are within ten percent of measured values. The model is robust and
converges in two or three iterations making it ideal for iterative applications such as in
equations require no complex integrations and can be easily implemented using standard
144
optimization tools such as Matlab. Optimization equations for temperature increase ΔT,
power loss PL, and leakage flow QL are developed; constants and other values in the
equations are determined empirically for the range of bearings under consideration. The
set of equations are well-designed and easy to use while giving accurate results.
Comparisons with models in literature show that the equations consistently give better
predictions.
The approach used by Jang and Khonsari [55] whereby temperature rise parameters are
increase ΔT(X) model. Such an approach is used for the first time in journal bearing
optimization. It presents an alternative to Hirani and Suh’s model [38] which requires a
Once empirical values in the temperature increase ΔT(X), leakage QL, and power loss PL
are determined, the optimization model can be used for the range of bearings under
consideration to find optimum values of the design variables (X). This work presents the
optimization model using the weight/scaling factors and Pareto optimal fronts and results
are compared to Hashimoto’s [34]. It is clear Hashimoto’s model is for short bearings
with L/D ratios up to 0.5 and is not accurate for medium range bearings (0.4<L/D<1.0)
In the Pareto optimal front approach, posterior articulation of the weights is used whereby
145
solutions from which a final decision is made on any one solution. Advantages and
disadvantages of each method are given, however Pareto charts appear to be preferable as
they give a set of non-inferior, non-dominated solutions and final choice depends on the
The developed SUPG FE model, although effective in predicting thermal effects, should
shaft and bush are taken into account. This will give a better prediction of the load
carrying capacity of the bearing. Prediction of the clearance ratio C could be adjusted
accordingly.
The journal bearing template developed here could be tested on transient phenomenon
such as the squeeze effect and thermal predictions during start-up and shut down. This is
an important area as it is also linked to the study of bearing time to seizure and how this
can be avoided.
The model presented here focuses on individual journal bearings. A possible expansion
of the work might involve looking at the ‘system’ of a shaft and two journal bearings at
the end. Such a task would the overcome the qualifying statement in section 4.3.5 that
other factors may influence the choice of design variable set (X) such as the shaft
146
3. Expansion of the Empirically Derived Optimization Model
The optimization model developed here works well for medium range journal bearings.
An extension of the model could be developed for short and long range bearings. This
would be very useful to design engineers who use bearings in the two ranges and also
147
Bibliography
effects in lubricating films”, STLE Tribol. Trans., 35, pp. 177-183, 1992.
2. Pinkus, O., Thermal Aspects of fluid film tribology, ASME Press, New York, 1990.
3. Ettles, C.M.M., Cameron, A., “Considerations of oil flow across a bearing groove”,
4. Ettles, C.M.M., “Solutions for flow in a bearing groove”, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs.,
5. Kosasih, P.B., Tieu, A.K., “An investigation into the thermal mixing in journal
bearings”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs. Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., 218, pp. 379-389, 2004.
6. Costa, I., Miranda, A.S., Fillon, M., Claro, J.C.P., “An analysis of the influence of oil
journal bearing”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs. Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., 217 (J2), pp. 133-
144, 2003.
7. Rodkiewicz, C.M., Sinha, P., “On the lubrication theory: a mechanism responsible for
generation of the parallel bearing load capacity”, Trans. ASME J. Tribol., 105, pp.
584-590, 1993.
hydrodynamic lubrication”, Int. J. Numer. Methods. Fluids, 23, pp. 1145-1161, 1996.
9. Ratish Kumar, B.V., Srinivasa Rao, P., Sinha, P., “A SUPG/FEM analysis of thermal
effects on load carrying capacity in slider bearing lubrication”, Numer. Heat Transfer
148
10. Ratish Kumar, B.V., Srinivasa Rao, P., Sinha, P., “A numerical study of performance
of a slider bearing with heat conduction to pad”, Fin. Elem. Analysis Design, 37, pp.
533-547, 2001.
Stokes equations”, Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 32, pp. 199-259, 1982.
12. Grygiel, J-M., Tanguy, P.A., “Finite element solution for advection-dominated
thermal flows”, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 93(3), pp. 277-289, 1991.
13. Zengeya, M., Gadala, M., “Viscous dissipation effects in hydrodynamic lubrication”,
finite slider bearings”, Trans. ASME J. Lub. Tech., 95(3), pp 298-307, 1973.
15. Boncompain, R., Fillon, M., Frene, J., “Analysis of thermal effects in hydrodynamic
scheme for fluid film bearings”, ASLE Tribol. Trans., 31(2), pp 182-191, 1988.
17. Hahn, E.J., Kettleborough, C.F., “Solution for the pressure and temperature in an
infinite slider bearing of arbitrary profile”, Trans. ASME J. Lub. Tech., 89, p 445,
1967.
analysis of a grooved thrust bearing”, Trans. ASME J. Tribol., 126(2), pp. 267-274,
2004.
149
19. Paranjpe, R. S., Goenka, P.K., “Analysis of crankshaft bearings using a mass
20. Paranjpe, R.S., Han, T., “A finite volume analysis of the thermo-hydrodynamic
1990.
steadily loaded journal bearings”, STLE Tribol. Trans., 37(4), pp 679-690, 1994.
22. Stachowiak, G.W., Batchelor, A.W., Engineering Tribology, 2nd Ed., Butterworth, p.
216, 2001.
23. Booker, J.F., Huebner, K.H., “Application of the finite element methods to
24. Goenka, P.K., “Dynamically loaded journal bearings: finite element method
25. Labouff, G.A., Booker, J.F., “Dynamically loaded journal bearings: a finite element
treatment for rigid and elastic surfaces”, Trans. ASME J. Tribol., 107(4), pp 505-515,
1985.
26. Bayada, G., Chambat, M., El Alaoui, “Variational formulations and finite element
algorithms for cavitation problems”, Trans. ASME J. Tribol., 112, pp 398-403, 1990.
27. Kucinschi, B-R., Fillon, M., Frene, J., Pascovici, M.D., “A transient
28. Elrod, H.G., “A cavitation algorithm”, Trans. ASME J. Lub. Tech., 103(3), pp. 350-
354, 1981.
150
29. Kumar, A., Booker, J.F., “A finite element cavitation algorithm”, Trans. ASME J.
30. Kumar, A., Booker, J.F., “A mass and energy conserving finite element lubrication
31. Optasanu, V., Bonneau, D., “Finite element mass-conserving cavitation algorithm in
32. Colynuck, A.J., Medley, J.B., “Comparison of two finite difference methods for the
33. Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., Budynas, R.G., Mechanical Engineering Design, 7th
36. Song J-D, Yang B-S, Choi B-G, Kim H-J, “Optimum design of short journal bearings
by enhanced life optimization algorithm”, Tribol. Int., 38, pp. 403-412, 2005.
37. Yang B-S., Lee Y-H., Choi B-K., Kim H-J., “Optimum design of short journal
bearings by artificial life algorithm”, Tribol. Int., 34, pp. 427-435, 2001.
38. Hirani H, Suh NP, “Journal bearing design using multiobjective genetic algorithm
and axiomatic design approaches”, Tribol. Int., 38, pp. 481-491, 2005.
151
39. Suh NP, “Axiomatic design: advances and applications”, Oxford University Press,
2001.
40. Hirani, H., “Multiobjective optimization of journal bearing using the pareto
optimality concept”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs. Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., 218(4), pp.
323-336.
41. Hirani, H., “Multiobjective optimization of journal bearing using mass conserving
and genetic algorithms”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs. Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., 219(3), pp.
235-248, 2005.
42. Deb K, Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, John Wiley &
43. Hashimoto, H., “Optimization of oil flow rate and oil film temperature rise in high
speed hydrodynamic journal bearing”, in: Dowson D., editor, Tribology for energy
1978.
45. Goldberg, D.E., “Genetic algorithm in search, optimization and machine learning”,
46. Holland, J.H., “Adaptation in natural and artificial systems”, University of Michigan
47. DeJong, K., “The analysis and behavior of genetic adaptive systems”, PhD
152
48. Homaifar, A., Qi, C.X., Lai, S.H., “Constrained optimization via genetic algorithms,
49. Louis, S.J., Zhoo, F., and Zeng, X., “Flaw detection and configuration with genetic
Verlag, 1997.
50. Saruhan, H., “Design of a three-lobe journal bearing using a genetic algorithm”, J.
51. Genetic Algorithm and Direct Search Toolbox User’s Guide for use with Matlab, The
52. Zengeya, M., Gadala, M., Segal, G., “Three-dimensional thermal field in slider
bearings”, Proc. World Tribology Congress III, Washington DC, p. 30, September
12-16 2005.
53. Zengeya, M., Gadala, M., Segal, G., “Three-Dimensional Modeling of Thermo-
Galerkin Method”, Num. Heat Transfer, Part A, 49(10), pp. 947-968, 2006.
54. Dowson, D., “A generalized Reynolds equation for fluid-film lubrication”, Int. J.
55. Jang, J.Y., Khonsari, M.M., “Design of bearings on the basis of thermodrodynamic
56. Segal, G. (2003), Sepran Standard Problems, Ingenieursbureau SEPRA, Den Haag,
The Netherlands.
finite slider bearings”, Trans. ASME J. Lub. Tech., 95(3), pp. 298-307, 1973.
153
58. Boncompain, R., Frene, J., “Thermo-hydrodynamic analysis of finite journal bearings
59. Dowson, D., Hudson, J., Hunter, B., March, C.N., “An experimental investigation of
the thermal equilibrium of steadily loaded journal bearings”, Proc. IMechE. Eng., 181
60. Reddi, M.M., “Finite element solution of the incompressible lubrication problem”,
61. Hahn, E.J., Kettleborough, C.F., “Solution for the pressure and temperature in an
infinite slider bearing of arbitrary profile”, Trans. ASME J. Lub. Tech., 89, p. 445,
1967.
62. Ingenieursbureau SEPRA, Park Nabij 3, 2491 EG Den Haag, The Netherlands.
63. Zengeya, M., Gadala, M., Segal, G. (2007). Hydrodynamic and thermal behavior of
64. Hamrock, B.J., “Fundamentals of fluid film lubrication”, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker,
65. Lebeck, A.O., “Parallel sliding load support in the mixed friction regime”, Trans.
66. Arnell, R.D., Davies, P.B., Halling, J., and Whomes, T.L., Tribology, principles and
finite slider bearings”, Trans. ASME J. Lub. Tech., 95(3), pp 298-307, 1973.
154
68. Khonsari, M.M., Booser, E.R., Applied tribology: bearing design and lubrication,
69. Costa, L., Fillon, M., Miranda, A.S., Claro, J.C.P., “An experimental investigation of
the effect of groove location and supply pressure on the THD performance of a
70. Martin, F.A., “Oil flow in plain steadily loaded journal bearings: realistic predictions
using rapid techniques”, Proc. IMechE J. Eng. Tribol., 212, 1998, 413-425.
71. Kelly, D.W., Nakazawa, S., Zienckiewicz, O.C., “A note on upwinding and
diffusion problems”, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 15, pp. 1705-1711, 1980.
73. Pierre, I., Fillon, M., “Influence of geometrical parameters and operating conditions
74. Khonsari, M.M., Jang, J.Y., Fillon, M., “On the generalization of thermo-
hydrodynamic analysis for journal bearings”, Trans. ASME J. Trib., 118, pp. 571-579,
1996.
75. Ferron, J., Frene, J., Boncompain, R., “A study of the thermo-hydrodynamic
76. Zengeya, M, Gadala, M., “Optimization of journal bearings using a hybrid scheme”,
155
77. Khonsari M. M., Booser E.R., "Parasitic Power Losses in Hydrodynamic Bearings".
78. Optimization Toolbox for use with Matlab, User’s Guide Version 2, The Mathworks
Inc., 2003.
79. Claro, J.C.P., and Miranda, A.A.S., “Analysis of hydrodynamic journal bearings
considering lubricant supply conditions”, IMechE Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 207,
93-101, 1993.
80. Dowson, D., Taylor, C.M., Miranda, A.A.S., “The prediction of liquid film journal
81. Dowson, D., Taylor, C.M., Miranda, A.A.S. “The prediction of liquid film journal
156
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
∂p ∂ ⎛ ∂u ⎞
− ⎜μ ⎟=0 (A-1)
∂x ∂y ⎜⎝ ∂y ⎟⎠
where u is the velocity of the lubricant in the direction of sliding. The boundary
conditions are u=0 at y=h and u=U at y=0. For the one-dimension bearing considered
here the value of the lubricant flow is constant along the bearing assuming no side
leakage; this fact is used to calculate v. Algebraically this means that the lubricant
( ) h
velocity across the film thickness is constant, that is ∂ ∂x ∫ udy = 0 . Equation A-1 can be
0
dp y y y dy
u( y) =
dx ∫
0 μ
dy + A
∫
0 μ
+U2 (A-2)
where A is given by
⎛ h ⎞
⎜⎜ − dp dx
A= ⎝
∫ ( y μ )dy ⎟⎟⎠ − U
0
2
(A-3)
h
∫ dy μ
0
∂p ∂ ⎛ ∂w ⎞
− ⎜μ ⎟=0 (A-4)
∂z ∂y ⎜⎝ ∂y ⎟⎠
with boundary conditions w=0 at y=0 and w=0 at y=h. Equation A-4 is integrated with
respect to y to give
157
⎡
dp ⎢ y
( y μ )dy −
(∫ dy μ )(∫ ( y μ )dy )⎤⎥
y h
dz ⎢ ∫0
w= 0 0
(A-5)
h
⎥
⎣⎢ ∫ dy
0
μ
⎦⎥
Since pressure is constant through the film thickness, ∂p ∂y = 0 and the continuity of
∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 (A-6)
∂x ∂y ∂z
giving
∂ 2 v ∂ ⎛ ∂u ∂w ⎞
+ ⎜ + ⎟=0 (A-7)
∂y 2 ∂ y ⎝ ∂x ∂z ⎠
158
APPENDIX B
The term (1+εcosϕ)3 in equation 5.12, referred to as (hg/C)3 in Martin’s model, relates to
the case where the oil groove is line with the load. The same term applies for an inlet hole
and
' '
Q L ,tot = QmS Q 1p− S (B.2)
where S’=0.6.
Another important case is when the oil groove is at the maximum film thickness
0.27
⎛Q ⎞
where m = 0.27⎜ L Q ⎟ . The proposed model here uses equation 10 to determine the
⎝ p ⎠
flow due to film pressure QL while Qp is evaluated using equation 13 with the appropriate
value of (hg/C)3.
The power value to eccentricity ratio in equation B4 applies when the hydrodynamic
159
APPENDIX C
Optimization Procedure
The procedure presented here will help designers implement the optimization model
This requires three main components namely the main program, objective function, and
non-linear constraint m-files. The call to the optimization subroutine ‘fmincon’ is done in
the main program while computations in part B are done in the objective function m-file
and part C computes the non-linear constraints. Define global variables that will be
passed between the three m-files (ΔT, ε, Ns). The three m-files are attached at the end of
the appendix. While care was taken in preparing these files, no guarantee is given that the
codes are error free. A brief description of the main parts follows. Create a folder and
copy the three files. Run the main program which will call the other m-files.
160
Part B: Objective Function
-Set all the problem parameters here (since the hybrid technique will use same
objective function)
For Ns from Ns1 to Ns max
Step 1: Compute journal surface velocity U
2: Use μI to compute Sommerfeld number S
3: Find eccentricity ratio ε
4: Compute the temperatures Tmax and Tshaft and temperature increase ΔT
5: Update the viscosity μ
6: Go to step 2 and re-compute S until convergence.
7: Compute the side leakage QL
8: Compute the objective function F(X) given the constraints gi(X)
9: Record F(X)
10. Loop and update Ns
Main Program
function [X,FVAL,REASON,OUTPUT,POPULATION,SCORES] = dowprob1
%% This is an auto generated M file to do optimization with the
Genetic Algorithm and
% Direct Search Toolbox. Use GAOPTIMSET for default GA options
structure.
%%Fitness function
fitnessFunction = @dowtaylorobj;
%%Number of Variables
161
nvars = 5 ;
%Linear inequality constraints
Aineq = [];
Bineq = [];
%Linear equality constraints
Aeq = [];
Beq = [];
%Bounds
LB = [4e-005 0.4 0.01 50000 -
1.5708 ];
UB = [0.0003 1 0.03 350000
1.5708 ];
%Nonlinear constraints
nonlconFunction = [];
%Start with default options
options = gaoptimset;
%%Modify some parameters
options = gaoptimset(options,'PopInitRange' ,[-2.5 ; 2.5 ]);
options = gaoptimset(options,'PopulationSize' ,100);
options = gaoptimset(options,'MutationFcn' ,{ @mutationgaussian 1 1
});
options = gaoptimset(options,'Display' ,'off');
options = gaoptimset(options,'PlotFcns' ,{ @gaplotbestf
@gaplotbestindiv });
options = gaoptimset(options,'HybridFcn' ,{ @fminsearch [] });
%%Run GA
[X,FVAL,REASON,OUTPUT,POPULATION,SCORES] =
ga(fitnessFunction,nvars,Aineq,Bineq,Aeq,Beq,LB,UB,nonlconFunction,opti
ons);
Objective Function
function [ret,f1,f2] = objective(x)
global ns rho c_p D W e_0 deltaT Q_tot rfric1 p_max p_s f1 f2 a1 b1 c1
omega1 omega_cr tht_mn;
global tht_mx p_smin p_smax;
162
C_mx = 300.0e-6;
lambda_mn = 0.20; % L/D ratio
lambda_mx = 1.0;
mu_mn = 1.0e-3; % Viscosity
mu_mx = 4.0e-2;
p_smin = 50e3; % Supply pressure
p_smax = 350e3;
beta1 = 1; % Scaling factor
beta2 = 1e5;
alpha1 = 1; % Weighting factor
alpha2 =alpha1;
% Nonlinear objective function
%x0 = [50e-6 0.6 2e-2];
for ns = n_s:n_smx,
% Define the variables
C=x(1);
La=x(2);
mu=x(3);
p_s=x(4);
theta = x(5);
L = La*D; L_g = L_g1; R_C = D/(2*C);
ps_bar = p_s*(1/R_C)^2/(mu*2*pi*ns);
U = ns*2*pi*D/2; Re = rho*C*U/mu;
S = ns*mu*D*L*(D/(2*C))^2/W;
e_0 = -0.36667+0.49737/sqrt(La)-0.20986*log(S);
if (e_0 > 1),
e_0 = 0.6121;
% return;
end;
163
a1 = 1.5917; b1 = -0.13962; c1 = -1.24999;
end;
if (e_0 > 0.7) && (e_0 <= 0.9),
a1 = 1.63973; b1 = -0.10627; c1 = -1.45216;
end;
% Compute T_max
T_max1 = exp(a1 + b1/kappa1^0.5 + c1/kappa2^0.5);
T_max = (T_max1/beta + T_i) + 273;
deltaT = T_max - T_i1;
% Objective function
f1 = alpha1*beta1*Ploss2; % Friction parameter obj
function
f2 = alpha2*beta2*Q_leak4;
ret = f1 + f2;
end
p_max1 = exp(2.25062-0.39491/x(2)+4.77721*e_0^3);
p_max = p_max1*x(3)*(D/2)^2*ns/x(1)^2 + p_s;
omega1 = 2*pi*ns;
omega_cr = sqrt(9.81/x(1))*(0.0584*exp(6.99*e_0^2.07)-1.318*e_0+2.873);
g7 = h_a -x(1)*(1-e_0);
g8 = deltaT - deltaT_a;
%g9 = omega1 - omega_cr;
g10 = p_max - p_a;
c = [g7 g8 g10];
% nonlinear equality constraints returned as vector ceq
164
C3. Hybrid Scheme
The genetic algorithm toolbox with the Hybrid option was used. The fitness function is
the objective function defined in section C1 and non-linear constraints are the same as in
165
APPENDIX D
Tables
Table D.1 Input data from Dowson [59] and Song [36] bearings (empty cells mean
unspecified values).
Figure D1 shows the location of thermocouples (TC) on the bush and shaft in Dowson’s
experimental setup [59]. The temperature of the lubricant at inlet was recorded by two
iron-constantan thermocouples fitted in a radial inlet hole located within the bush. One of
the thermocouples was located near the outer radius of the bush while the other was
166
within 1.59 mm of the entry to the oil groove. Four outlet temperature thermocouples
were fitted in special oil scoops located at the ends of the bush to collect lubricant flow
For bush temperature measurements, the thermocouples were mounted in groups of four
on bronze plugs which fitted closely into 34 radial holes in the bush. The hot junction of
each TC was located on the centerline of each plug and spaced at distances of 1.59, 17.5,
33.3, and 49.2 mm from the dead end of the radial hole adjacent to the oil film. The
bronze plugs were located in four planes at the axial locations shown in figure D1a.
Shaft temperatures were measured using twelve TC’s mounted in plugs similar to the
bush setup. The TC plugs were tightly fitted into radial holes in the shaft with their outer
ends flush with the shaft surface. The TC’s were located in four planes disposed about the
determined. Wires from the thermocouples ran along a hole drilled in the shaft to a slip-
ring assembly that was maintained at a constant temperature by air cooling at the end of
the shaft. The shaft surface temperature was recorded by means of a specially constructed
thin film platinum resistance thermometer mounted on a glass rod located in a radial hole
in the shaft at a distance of 16 mm from the central plane of the bearing. The exposed
surface of the glass plug was contoured to conform with the shaft surface. The leads fro
the platinum film were carried down the internal bore of the shaft to the slip ring
assembly.
167
Fiigure D1. Th
hermocouplee location forr pressure annd temperatuure measurem
ments [59]
168
Table D.2 Input values for the bearing tested by Boncompain et al. [15]
169
Table D.3 Input values for Costa’s bearing [69]
170
Table D.4 Input values for Ferron’s [75] bearing.
171
Table D.5 Additional input data to run optimization simulations.
172
Table D6 Input data for Dowson [80] and Claro [79] bearings
173
APPENDIX E
Verification Examples
E1 Introduction
This section presents some further validation examples of the streamline upwind Petrov-
Galerkin finite element method developed. The classical method is compared to the
Galerkin and SUPG methods, namely the classical upwind scheme defined in section 2.5,
the doubly asymptotic, and discontinuity capturing methods. Brief definitions of each
follow.
If in the energy equation 2.11 the convective part u· dominates the diffusive part
method. It should be noted that upwinding does not always improve the accuracy and
moreover is more computationally expensive in building the matrices. The SUPG method
used in this work is based on the method proposed by Brooks and Hughes [11].
Essentially the method introduces an extra term to the standard Galerkin equation
Ω (E.1)
where e is the element, DT is the differential equation (energy equation in this case), f the
source term, and the weighting function that contains two parts, the Galerkin weighting
function and ζ defined in equation 2.30. The parameter defining the type of upwinding ξ
in equation 2.30 defines the type of upwinding. For the definition of ζ we introduce
u ∆
η=uTΛu where Λ is the matrix with elements Λij and ν η
. The type of upwinding
becomes
174
1. Classical SUPG upwinding: ζ=1 which is used in all the results in thesis.
ν
3≤ν≤3
2. Doubly asymptotic approximation: ξ
ν |ν|>3
3. Discontinuity capturing type 1 from Hughes et al. [11] where a pseudo velocity
u· c
u where c is the degree of freedom (solution to be computed) is defined
and the upwind basis function ζ=(τ1u+τ2u )· where ∇Ni is the divergence of
∆ ∆
the basis functions and and . For this case ξ is chosen
More upwinding schemes appear in the work of Brooks and Hughes [11], however only
these three will be analyzed and results compared to the Galerkin method. The first
example analyses a convection-diffusion problem while the second compares SUPG and
u· (E.3)
steady state conditions (∂c/∂t=0) and no source term (fs=0). We consider the flow in the
square shown in figure E1 with diffusivity D=10-6 with unidirectional and constant flow
Boundary conditions:
175
Left boundary (x=0): Dirichlet (c=1 for y≤0.2 and c=0 for y>0.2)
Flow Conditions:
c=0
α
0.2
c=1
c=1
0 x
0 1
Figure E1. Region for skew convection
Exact Solution:
The exact solution is equal to one in the region starting with lower boundary
condition c=1 and following a straight line with the angle of flow. Obviously the
The diffusivity D is much less than flow velocity u thus the problem is convection-
dominated. The behavior of the standard Galerkin and the three upwind methods is
compared. Linear triangular elements are used. Figure E2 shows the mesh.
176
Figure E2. Mesh for convection-diffusion problem
Appearance of wiggles in the solution is evident in the minimum and maximum values.
The Galerkin method has the highest over-prediction in Table E1. Wiggles are most
apparent with the method as show in figure E3a. The discontinuity capturing SUPG
method (figure E3d) exhibits the least amount of wiggles although it is the most
177
(b)
(a)
(c) (d)
Figure E3. Three-dimensional plots of solutions from (a) Galerkin, (b) first order SUPG,
(c) double asymptotic SUPG, and (d) discontinuity capturing SUPG
Experimental data from Costa et al. [69] and Dowson [59] are simulated using the three
(E.4)
178
where Tpred and Texp are the temperature predicted by the model and experimental
temperatures respectively at each radial position on the bush. Table E2 and figure E4
Results indicate a steady increase in error for Galerkin method. The classic SUPG and
double asymptotic methods give progressive better results with increasing speed.
Although the latter method requires more computational effort in terms of time and
speed, it appears there is no benefit in using it except for the highest speed of 4000
rev/min considered here. There is no doubt, however, of the benefit of better thermal
predictions of SUPG especially for higher speed simulations. Considering that bearing
speeds of 18000 rev/min are not uncommon, SUPG should be the method of choice in
such cases. This, to the best of knowledge, represents the first such analysis in lubrication
sections.
179
Performance of SUPG versus Galerkin
80
75
70
65
Temperature, C
60
55
Experimental
50
Galerkin
45 Classic SUPG
SUPG: Doubly Assymptotic
40
35
30
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Speed, rpm
This example is from Arnell [66] (example 5.4.3, page 136) and analyzes three slider
bearings using the infinitely long approximations (ILA) for maximum pressure pm, flow
rate Qi, load capacity Wd, and frictional power loss PL. This example is from Arnell [66]
(example 5.4.3, page 136) and analyzes three slider bearings using the infinitely long
approximations (ILA) for maximum pressure pm, flow rate Qi, load capacity Wd, and
A thrust bearing of length L=0.2 m and width B=0.05 m operates with a minimum film
thickness of 0.0001m and sliding velocity U=3 m/s, effective viscosity is µ=0.04 Pa.s,
180
and three tilt ratios K=(h2/h1-1) of 1.19, 2.0, and 0.50. The tilt ratio is defined for the
three cases by keeping h1 constant at 0.0001 m and varying h2. Operating characteristics
maximum pressure pm, flow rate Qi, load capacity Wd, and power loss PL are to be
Stationary pad
h2
h
y
z h1
U
x
B
Runner
Figure E5 Slider geometry.
Input data and results from ILA and SUPG FE are compared in table E3. The ILA
expressions for maximum pressure pm, flow rate Qi, load capacity Wd, and power loss PL
are [66]
(E5)
(E6)
1 (E7)
1 (E8)
∆ (E9)
181
Deviation values εr are defined as the difference between SUPG FE prediction and ILA
The values of εr on pressure, flow rate, and power loss are small (between 1 and 3%)
which is very good. L/B ratio for this bearing is 4 which is not a long bearing, so ILA
Arnell [66] (page 169): A hydrodynamic journal bearing of length 160 mm operates with
a shaft 200 mm diameter which rotates at 1200 rev/min. The effective viscosity is
The problem is analyzed using SUPG FE and results compared to the analytical method
used in Arnell. The method [68] uses tabulated numerical solutions for performance
characteristics flow rate Qi, frictional power loss PL, and maximum pressure pm. Table E4
182
E3.3 Simulation Results
The deviation between the two methods as defined in equation E4 above is small
(εr<2.5%) for maximum pressure, flow rate and power loss. Temperature increase shows
a deviation of 5.8%.
The deviation between the two methods as defined in equation E4 above is small
(εr<2.5%) for maximum pressure, flow rate and power loss. Temperature increase shows
a deviation of 5.8%.
Mitsui’s work [72] represents a landmark in journal bearing thermal predictions. The
work presents bearing thermal performance as a function of speed Ns, clearance ratio C,
type of lubricant, load capacity. Three different oils (transformer, no. 90 and no. 140)
with different absolute viscosities are used. Experimental data and model predictions in
figure E6 show the accuracy of the proposed model. Mitsui’s predictions on no. 90 and
140 oil are included for comparison. SUPG appears to give reasonable results in all cases.
Conservation of mass flow (equation 2.24) is imposed, resulting in better predictions than
183
in the results of section 4.3 and figure 4.12. Model predictions are still least accurate in
converging region of the bearing (0<θ<150°) similar to the pattern in figure 4.12. It
184
Predictions vs Exp. Temperatures
60
58
Mitsui:No.140
No.140
56 No.90
Transformer
SUPG:Transf
54
SUPG:No.90
SUPG: No.140
Mitsui:No.90
52
Temperature, C
50
48
46
44
42
40
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle, degrees
Figure E6. SUPG predictions versus experimental temperatures, Mitusi [72]. Included is
Mitsui’s prediction for no.90 oil.
A summary of the maximum and average errors for SUPG and Mitsui’s model are shown
185
E5. SUPG performance in predicting Pierre’s data
The data and THD model presented by Pierre and Fillon [73] is analyzed and compared
to SUPG predictions. The researchers present thermal and performance parameters for
Experimental and predicted temperatures for the two speeds are shown in figure E7
(figure 2 in reference 73). Their THD model appears to be less accurate in the convergent
186
Pierre's Model
70
T35Exp.
65 T50Exp.
Pierre@35C
60
Temperature, C Pierre@50C
55
50
45
40
35
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Angle from inlet groove, deg
Figure E7. Experimental and THD temperature predictions as a function of angle from
inlet groove [73].
The two cases in figure E7 are analyzed using SUPG and presented in figure E8. Included
on figure E8(a) is Pierre’s prediction for reference. Table E7 gives a summary of the error
magnitudes from the two methods. These show SUPG to give better results in both cases.
Both models are off on the convergent region while SUPG gives more accurate
Table E8 gives a summary of performance parameter predictions for Pierre’s data. L/D
ratio is 1, input oil temperature Ti is 40°C (other input parameters as shown in table E6).
The bearing characteristic number S. The error, as determined as before (equation E3) is
187
SUPG vs Pierre Predictions, Ti=35 C
65
60
Exp. Data
55 SUPG
Pierre
Temperature, C
50
45
40
35
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle from groove pos., degrees
(a)
65 Exp. data
SUPG
Pierre
60
Temperature, C
55
50
45
40
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle from inlet groove, degrees
(b)
Figure E8. Comparison of SUPG and Pierre’s THD model [73].
188
Table E8. Error on thermal predictions, SUPG vs Pierre’s THD model
Error Summary
T35 T50
SUPG Pierre SUPG Pierre
Max Error 0.047 0.052 0.058 0.076
Ave. error 0.105 0.128 0.029 0.037
189