Steady state behaviour of hydrodynamic journal bearings

including random surface roughness

B. Roy1, S. Dey2
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Silchar, India
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Silchar, India

1
Corresponding author’s e-mail: bjnit19@gmail.com

Abstract. In this present work, an attempt has been made to theoretically examine the influence
of surface roughness on the steady state characteristics of the plain journal bearing by varying
the surface roughness parameter for various roughness pattern. As the results obtained by the
existing roughness model shows anomalous behaviour when roughness parameter approaches to
zero means instead of giving value for a smooth surface, it gives a much higher value. Also, the
experimental validation of the model is not available in the literature. Thus in this present work,
an attempt has been made to present a new stochastic model with some modifications of the
existing assumptions. Incorporating the present model in Reynolds equation, the various non-
dimensional steady state characteristics i.e. non-dimensional load carrying capacity, friction
variable, flow coefficient are calculated and compared with the existing model. It is found that
in case of transverse roughness, the load carrying capacity is more than the both longitudinal and
isotropic and the load carrying capacity is least in case of isotropic roughness. Also, it is observed
that load carrying capacity is higher in case of the smooth surface compared to any kind of rough
surface.

1. Introduction
It has been over a decade that the study of lubrication theory for rough surfaces have gained noticeable
interest. Elord [1] presented a detailed review of study of theory of hydrodynamic lubrication of rough
surfaces. Basically there are two approaches [2, 3] for the consideration of effect of rough surface in the
hydrodynamic lubrication. Out of these, Christensen [3] developed the roughness model considering
stochastic variation of surface irregularities in full film hydrodynamic lubrication while, Patir and Cheng
[2] portrayed an model to introduce the effect of roughness in partial hydrodynamic lubrication. Using
the same model [2], Patir and Cheng [4] calculated the hydrodynamic load for rough sliding bearings
whereas, Majumder and Hamrock [5, 6] calculated the steady state characteristics of hydrodynamic
bearing considering the journal and bearing with identical [5] and nonidentical [6] roughness structures.
Larsson [7] modeled the effect of surface roughness using two different scales, solving hydrodynamic
problem on the global scale and roughness effects on the local cell level using Patir-Cheng model.
Sander et al. [8] validated the Patir-Cheng model experimentally considering variation due to surface
irregularities while Dobrica et al. [9] proposed a deterministic model to include the effect of surface
irregularities on lubrication of rough bearing and compared the results with the Patir-Cheng model and
smooth bearing. Besides these, Shi and Wang [10], Tanneau et al. [11], Wang et al. [12, 13] used the
Patir and Cheng model in numerical analysis of journal bearings. On the other hand, Christensen and
Tonder [14] used the stochastic theory [3] for the analysis of finite full journal bearing. Same stochastic
theory is used by Guha [15, 16] for dynamic analysis of straight [15] and steady state analysis of
misaligned [16] journal bearing in full film regime. Whereas using the same model Naduvinamani et al.
[17] studied static characteristics and Chiang et al. [18] conducted dynamic analysis of rough full journal
bearing using couple stress fluid. Litwin [19] conducted an experiment to validate the Christensen model
using water as lubricant. Recently Maharshi et al [20] used the Christensen model in stochastic analysis
of the effect of rough surface in hydrodynamic lubrication using Monte Carlo simulation. All the above
works conducted are based mainly on two approaches [2, 3] and out of these approaches, first one [2] is
conducted for the hydrodynamic analysis of mixed lubrication. On the other hand, the second model
developed by Christensen [3] is for hydrodynamic lubrication. Though Patir Cheng model is
experimentally validated [8] but Litwin [19] failed to validate the outcomes of Christensen model
experimentally. Moreover, the results of the experiment [19] shows exactly opposite trend of the
Christensen model. Thus, in the present study a new model is developed incorporating surface roughness
to explain the effect of rough bearing surface on steady state characteristics of hydrodynamic journal
bearing in full film regime.

Figure 1. Schematic view of rough hydrodynamic bearing.

2. Theoretical formulation
In Fig.1 a typical diagram of a rough hydrodynamic journal bearing is shown. In general, for steady
state, isoviscous and incompressible fluid two dimensional Reynolds equation [21] can be expressed as
  h p    h p 
3 3
dh (1)
     6U
x  x  z  z  dx

As the first and the second term of LHS of equation (1) corresponds to the flow in x and z direction
respectively. Therefore, if it is assumed that the pressure gradient along x and z direction as stochastic
variables with zero variance (as assumed by Christensen [3]) then, it can be assumed that the flow in x
and z direction depends solely on the film thickness in the respective direction. Since, in the present
model, similar roughness arrangement with same statistical property is considered for both the journal
and bearing surface. Therefore, film thickness in x or z direction will depend on the roughness heights
in the direction perpendicular to the respective directions. Thus, in the present study, assuming flow in
x and z direction is a function of roughness parameter in z and x direction respectively, two separate
roughness height distribution is adopted to represent film thickness in x and z direction instead of single
distribution as used by Christensen [3]. Incorporating the surface roughness Reynolds equation can be
modified as:
  3 p    3 p  dhx (2)
 hx    hz   6U
x  x  z  z  dx
where, hx  h0 ( x, z )  hs1 ( x, z, cz ) and hz  h0 ( x, z )  hs ( x, z, cx )
2

From the geometry of hydrodynamic bearing in terms of circumferential coordinate can be given as:

h0  C (1   cos ) (3)

where, C and  are known as is the radial clearance and eccentricity ratio respectively. Now, taking
expected values of both sides of equation (2)
  3 p    3 p  d (4)
E  hx   E  hy   6U E (hx )
x  x  z  z  dx
where the expectancy operator, ( ) is defined by

(5)
E ( y)   yf ( y)dy


where f ( y ) is the probability density distribution for the stochastic variable y. Taking two polynomial
probability density distribution
35 (6)
f (hs1 )  2
(c1  hs1 ) ,
2 3
32c17  c1  hs  c1 , 1

35
f (hs2 )  (c22  hs2 2 )3 c  h  c (7)
32c27 2 s2 2

p p
where, 2c1 and 2c2 are the range of hs1 and hs respectively. Considering x and z stochastic variable
2

with zero variance, equation (4) can be expressed as

  3 p   3 p  d (8)
 E (hx ) 0    E (hz ) 0   6U E (hx )
x  x  z  z  dx

where, p0 is the average pressure. After solving   and

E hx
3 3
E (hz ) the equation (8) can be expressed as

  3 p0    3 p0  dh (9)

 Hx    Hz   6U 0
x  x  z  z  dx

where,
h0 2 3 h (10)
H x 3  h03  c1 H z  h03  0 c2 2
3 3

On non-dimensionalising equation (9) in to equation (12) as follows:

  3  p0    3 p  d h0 (11)
Hx  H 0

    z  y z  d
   
pc 2 c c
where,   x , z  z , h  h , p 0  , H x  h0 
3 h0
1 , H y  h 0 
2 3 h0
 2 , 1  1 ,  2  2 .
2

R L/2 C 6UR 3 3 C C

To find the pressure distribution equation (11) can be solved for longitudinal (c1 = 0, c2 ≠0), transverse
(c1 ≠0, c2 = 0) and isotropic (c1 = c2 ≠0) roughness by FDM and can be expressed as equation (12)
using the necessary boundary conditions.
M  M 2  M3  M 4 (12)
p  1 i, j
M5
where
M1  ( pi 1, j  pi 1, j )
3
 D    
2
 hi   2 
2

M2     
 L   z 
 
 pi , j 1  pi , j 1 
 hi  1 

M3 

3 pi 1, j 
 pi 1, j  sin i
2(hi  1 )3
    sin i
2

M4 
h   
3
i 1

 3

 D      h i   2  
2 2

M 5  2 1       
  L   z   hi  1  
 

Boundary Conditions:

p( , z )  p( , z ) 0 (13)

z 0 z 1

p (14)
0
z z 1

3. Bearing characteristics
The non-dimensional steady load components are given by

2 1 2 1 (15)
W x     p 0 cos d zd Wy    p 0 sin d zd
0 0 0 0

The resultant load bearing capacity of the journal bearing is

W  Wx  W y    
2 2 (16)

In dimensional form, load bearing capacity can be obtained from

Wc 2 (17)
W
6UR 2 L
Attitude angle is denoted by  and it is given by,
 Wy  (18)
   tan 1 
W 
 x
The non-dimensional friction variable is given by
2
1 p (19)
0  h  3h  d

6W
The Sommerfeld number is a dimensionless quantity which represents all the bearing characteristics as
it contains the entire design variables of bearing. It is given by [21],
N R 2 (20)
S ( )
P C
where,
P
W (21)
2 LR
4. Results and discussions
The present work is carried out considering a full cylindrical hydrodynamic journal bearing with L/D
= 1 and ε = 0.4. It is seen from the Fig.2 to Fig.4, when the outcomes of Christensen model is compared
with the present model, Christen model shows anomalous behavior when roughness parameter
approaches to zero (except for isotropic roughness). On the other hand, present model not only agrees
with the Litwin’s result [19] but also gives accurate result as predicted when roughness parameter
approaches to zero i.e. value for smooth surface (unlike Christensen model). From Fig.5 to Fig.9 an
comparison between different type of surface roughness pattern for various steady state characteristics
with the roughness parameter has presented. It is found that all the steady state characteristics show
negative effect with increase in roughness parameter agreeing with experimental results [19]. Whereas,
for a given roughness parameter all the steady state characteristics show negative effect as we move
from smooth to isotropic roughness following longitudinal and transverse roughness.

Figure 2. Comparison of present model with Figure 3. Comparison of present model with
Christensen model for longitudinal roughness Christensen model for transverse roughness.

Figure 4. Comparison of present model with Figure 5. Variation of non-dimensional load

Christen model for isotropic roughness. carrying capacity with surface roughness.

Figure 6. Variation of non-dimensional Figure 7. Variation of attitude angle with

frictional variable with surface roughness surface roughness.
 Figure 8. Variation of non-dimensional flow Figure 9. Variation of Sommerfeld number
variable with sur-face roughness. with surface roughness.

5. Conclusions
This paper provides a numerical analysis of steady state bearing characteristics considering the effect of
surface roughness in full film hydrodynamic lubrication using a new approach. It is found that to deal
with the hydrodynamic journal bearing operating at steady state in the full film regime, smooth surface
is better than any type of surface roughness. As the perfectly smooth surface is not realistic and if we
have to choose the rough surface, transverse roughness is preferable to isotropic and longitudinal
roughness.

References
[1] Elord H G 1978 Proc. of the 4th Leeds-Lyon Symp. (Lyon) (London: Mechanical Engineering
Pub-lishers) pp 11-26.
[2] Patir N and Cheng H S 1978 ASME J. Lubr. Technol. 100(1) 12.
[3] Christensen H 1969 Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 184 .
[4] Patir N and Cheng H S ASME J. Lubr. Technol. 101(2) (1979) pp 220-9.
[5] Majumder B C and Hamrock B J 1981 NASA TM-81711.
[6] Majumder B C and Hamrock B J 1981 NASA TM-82639.
[7] Larson R 2009 Tribol Int. 42 pp 512-6.
[8] Sander D E, Allmaier H, Priebsch H H, Witt M and Skiadas A 2015 Tribol Int.
[9] Dobrica M B, Fillon M and Maspeyrot P 2006 ASME J. Tribol, 120 pp 778-7.
[10] Shi F and Wang J Q 1998 ASME J. Tribol. pp 198-205.
[11] Tanneau G Frene J and Berthe D 1985 Proc. of the 11th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology,
Buttereworths, London pp 64-69.
[12] Wang J Q, Shi F and Lee S C 1998 ASME J. Tribol. 120 pp 206-13.
[13] Wang Y, Zhang C, Wang J Q and Lin C 2002 Tribol. Int. pp 395-407.
[14] Christensen H and Tonder K 1971 J Lubr Tech. pp 149-62.
[15] Guha S K 1993 Wear, 167 pp 173–9.
[16] Guha S K 2000 Tribol Int. pp 1-12.
[17] Naduvinamani N B, Hiremath P S and Gurubasavaraj 2002 Fluid Dynamics Reasearch 31 pp
333-54.
[18] Chiang H L, Hsu C H and Lin J R 2004 Tribol Int. 37 pp 297-307.
[19] Litwin W 2011 Tribol Trans. 54 pp 351-361.
[20] Maharshee K, Mukhopadhayay T, Roy B, Dey S and Roy L 2018 IJMS 142.
[21] Majumdar B C 2008 Introduction to Tribology of Bearings ( New Delhi: S. Chand)