Kumar 2017

Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
Effect of surface roughness and deformation on Rayleigh step bearing under thin film lubrication
Rahul Kumar, Mohammad Sikandar Azam, Subrata Kumar Ghosh, Hasim Khan,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rahul Kumar, Mohammad Sikandar Azam, Subrata Kumar Ghosh, Hasim Khan, "Effect of surface roughness and
deformation on Rayleigh step bearing under thin film lubrication", Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, https://doi.org/10.1108/
ILT-04-2017-0098
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ILT-04-2017-0098
Downloaded on: 07 November 2017, At: 22:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 39 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 22:47 07 November 2017 (PT)
,"The effect of round corner on lubrication of high speed cylindrical roller bearings considering skidding", Industrial
Lubrication and Tribology, Vol. 0 Iss ja pp. 00-00 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/ILT-03-2016-0055">https://doi.org/10.1108/
ILT-03-2016-0055</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:281668 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Effect of surface roughness and deformation on Rayleigh step
bearing under thin film lubrication
Abstract
Purpose – The main aim of this paper is to study the effect of deterministic roughness and small
elastic deformation of surface on flow rates, load capacity and coefficient of friction in Rayleigh
Step bearing under thin film lubrication.
Design/ Methodology/ Approach – Reynolds equation, pressure-density relationship, pressure-
viscosity relationship and film thickness equation are discretized using Finite Difference Method.
Progressive Mesh Densification (PMD) method is applied to solve the related equations
iteratively.
Findings – The nature and shape of roughness plays a significant role in pressure generation. It
has been observed that square roughness dominates the pressure generation for all values of
minimum film thickness. Deformation more than 100 nm in bounding surfaces influences the
film formation and pressure distribution greatly. Divergent shapes of film thickness in step zone
causes a delay of pressure growth and reduces the load capacity with decreasing film thickness.
The optimum value of film thickness ratio and step ratios have been found out for the maximum
load capacity and minimum coefficient of friction, which are notably influenced by elastic
deformation of the surface.
Practical implications – It is expected that these findings will help in analysing the performance
parameters of a Rayleigh step bearing under thin film lubrication more accurately. It will also
help the designers, researchers and manufacturers of Bearings.
Originality/value – Most of the previous studies have been limited to sinusoidal roughness and
thick film lubrication in Rayleigh step bearing. Effect of small surface deformation due to
generated pressure in thin film lubrication is significant, as it influences the performance
parameters of the bearing. Different wave forms like, triangular, sawtooth, sinusoidal and square
formed during finishing operations behaves differently in pressure generation. The analysis of
combined effect of roughness and small surface deformation has been performed under thin film
lubrication for Rayleigh step bearing using PMD as an improved methods for Direct Iterative
Approach.
1
Keywords- Elastic deformation; Surface roughness; Rayleigh step bearing; Progressive Mesh
Densification (PMD).
1. Introduction
The topic of lubricant’s flow in thin films has been an important area of research in recent
years. Lubricants with low viscosity are used in these cases as they have high operating
efficiency at high speed under high load. The lubrication regime of operation becomes more
severe in these conditions.
Several gigapascals of pressure cause piezo-viscous effect in lubricant and elastic

deformation of surface. They jointly influence formation of film in elasto-hydrodynamic

condition as found in counter-formal contact. Reduction of film thickness to 1 nm can be
predicted by numerical model of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication (EHL), which assimilates
these two effects (Venner 2005). In counter-formal contact, normally found in rolling bearings,
traction drives and cam-tappet system support the load in a small area, resulting in increase in
pressure upto several gigapascals. Dowson and Higginson (1959) numerically showed that film
profile exhibits a specific feature with a flat zone around the center and a constriction zone
around the outlet. This feature is generally found due to elastic deformation of the surface caused
by significant increase in pressure (Dowson 1967). An equation was also formulated to assess
central and minimum film thickness. Johnson (1970) classified EHD condition into four regimes,
namely, iso-viscous and rigid (IR), piezo-viscous and rigid (PR), iso-viscous and elastic (IE) and
piezo-viscous and elastic (PE), depending upon the magnitude of elastic deformation and piezo-
viscous effects.
However, so far there has not been any significant study on thin film lubrication in conformal
contact. The film formed in conformal contacts found in journal bearings, thrust bearings and
mechanical seals have greater thickness in comparison to those found in EHD condition.
Pressure generated in such contacts is less in comparison to EHD contact. For machine element,
many researchers refer to a well-established hydrodynamic lubrication theory. However, with
very high sliding speed and load in conformal contact, both effects play their role. A number of
studies in the past have considered elastic deformation of surface assuming fixed slider plane
bearing as semi-infinite body. Rohde and Oh (1975), Jain et al. (1982), Ramanaiah and
Sundarammal (1982), Prakash and Peeken (1985) and Malvano and Vatta (1986) are few among
2
them. Other models include shell model for journal bearing (Higginson 1965), (Hooke et al.
1967), (O’Donoghue et al. 1967) and beam model for pivoted bearing. Actual deformation of
bodies, estimated by Finite Element Method (FEM), has been assimilated into Reynolds equation
for estimation of higher load by various researchers (Oh and Goenka 1985), (Desbordes et al.
1995), (Bonneau et al. 1995), (Olson and Booker 2001), (Moreau et al. 2002).
In case of high sliding speed, the heat generated in the film, is noteworthy. For conformal
contact, the impact of generated heat on viscosity (Cameron 1958) and expansion of surface due
to the generated heat have been given more importance than elastic deformation of the surface
(Ettles 1980), (Robinson and Cameron 1975), (Cameron and Robinson 1975), (Bennett and
Ettles 1967), (Carl 1963). Ettles (1980) conducted investigations to find that when a large
bearing is used, the influence of elastic deformation of surface becomes less in comparison to
thermal expansion. Robinson and Cameron (1975) and Cameron and Robinson (1975) suggested
that pressure generated in parallel thrust bearing is due to tapered film shape, produced by heat
expansion. The supporting method for pad is responsible for its distortion. Bennett and Ettles
(1967) suggested that a cantilever thrust bearing is responsible for wedge formation in the
leading side of the pad by exploiting the pad deformation.
The above studies suggest that under high sliding velocity and high load, the elastic
deformation of the surface and piezo-viscous effect appear under hydrodynamic lubrication. The
theory of hydrodynamic lubrication has been found to be acceptable under mild sliding velocity
and mild load. When film thickness reduces, the nominal pressure produced causes elastic
deformation of surface, which is proportionate to the film thickness. This small elastic
deformation of the surface causes change in film thickness. Carl (1963) found that a nominal
pressure of 7 MPa causes small elastic deformation. However, it cannot be neglected. Under a
nominal pressure of 2 MPa, the elastic deformation depends on location of the support ring of the
pad. It plays a significant role in film formation as suggested by Hemingway (1965). Kawabata
et al. (2012) has concluded that the inlet profile of thrust bearing and circular bumps used in
scroll compressor plays an important role in pressure generation under the Elastohydrodynamic
(EHD) condition.
Finishing operations like grinding, lapping and grit blasting impart roughness on microscopic
scale to engineering surfaces (Lundberg 1995). Lubrication is affected by surface roughness in
3
various ways. It disturbs the pressure build-up in oil film at inlet along with subsurface stress
field and frictional coefficient (Bakolas 2004). A flow factor method was developed by Patir and
Cheng (1978) to study the effect of surface roughness. Although it is a popular and powerful
method as well as widely accepted for the study of rough EHL, the flow factor method has
shortcomings (Venner and Napel 1992). Kumar et al. (2001) theoretically established that the
minimum film thickness reduces to an extent of 15% when surface roughness is considered in
comparison with smooth surface. The lubricant film breaks down in rough EHL condition due to
the presence of operating parameters and depth of grooves (Křupka et al. 2008). A definite
textured pattern is induced on the surface during finishing operation. This pattern is greatly
influenced by the direction of finishing operation, shape and size of the finishing media. When
longitudinal alignment along the sliding direction is exhibited by surface features, the contact
length in direction of motion gets reduced in comparison with width, thus influencing the
lubricant film formation (Höhn et al. 2006), (Krupka et al. 2010), (Choo et al. 2006),(Choo et al.
2007). It is also observed in the study that in sliding, rolling and reciprocating contacts, surface
texturing reduces frictional coefficient notably (Sudeep et al. 2013), (Xiao et al. 2003). Wang et
al. (2009) studied the effect of dimple size on frictional coefficient in line contact and found that
dimple with a diameter of 20 µm reduces frictional coefficient significantly.
All these open literature suggests that very few work has been done on thin film lubrication
in Rayleigh step bearing. This type of lubrication needs further investigation to study its effect on
performance parameters. Effect of small surface deformation due to generated pressure has not
been considered much in thick film lubrication study. However, its effect on thin film lubrication
is significant and needs further investigation, as it influences the performance parameters of the
bearing. A lot of study has been done on deterministic surface roughness considering sinusoidal
waveform. But other wave forms like, triangular, sawtooth and square are also formed during
finishing operations. Effect of these waveforms on thin film lubrication needs to be studied, as
each wave form behaves differently in pressure generation. Also, a combined study of roughness
and small surface deformation effect has not been done much and needs further analysis.
In the present study, an elastohydrodynamic numerical simulation for one dimensional

Rayleigh step bearing has been conducted to study the effect of deterministic roughness patterns
and elastic deformation of surface under thin film lubrication.
4
2. Mathematical Modelling
Figure 1. Schematic representation of Rayleigh step bearing.
2.1 Governing Equations:
For one dimensional Rayleigh step bearing, the Reynolds equation is formulated as:
ℎ
ℎ
− =0
12 2
(1)
Where, ℎ is the film thickness, is the viscosity of lubricant, is the density of lubricant,
is
the pressure of lubricant film and is the sliding velocity of the moving surface.
By introducing non-dimensional parameters in Equation (1), the non-dimensional form of

Reynolds equation has been worked out as:
∗ ∗
∗ − =0

(2)
where, = , =
ℎ 6 , = ℎℎ , ∗ = , ∗ = .

and, and are the viscosity and density of the lubricant at

= 0.
The discretized form (using Finite Difference Method) of the non-dimensional Equation (2) has
been worked out as:
! , + . ! , − ! + ,
∗ * ∗ * ∗ * ∗ *
"#$%.' ×)#$%.' "#/%.' ×)#/%.' "#$%.' ×)#$%.' "#/%.' ×)#/%.'
+#$%.'
∗ +#/%.'
∗ +#$%.'
∗ +#/%.'
∗
∆
.1
∗
× .1 − ..1
∗
× ..1
=
(3a)
∆
On arrangement Equation (3a) gives
1
= 42 × + 3 × . − ∆5 − 67
2+3
(3b)
Where, 2 = 3=
.14"∗ # "∗ #$8 7 ×9.1)# )#$8 :* .14"∗ # "∗ #/8 7 ×9.1)# )#/8 :*
.14+ ∗ # +∗ #$8 7 .14+ ∗ # +∗ #/8 7
5 = 0.54∗ + ∗ 7 × 0.5 + 6 = 0.54∗ + ∗ . 7 × 0.5 + .
The boundary conditions for Equation (3b) are:
5
At inlet, = 0 for = 0 and at outlet = 0 for = 1
2.2 Film Thickness Equation:
Considering elastic deformation of the two surfaces on the assumption of semi-infinite bodies
(Jain et al. 1982), the film thickness equation is given by:
ℎ + = + = >?@ 0 ≤ <
ℎ=<
ℎ + = + = >?@ ≤ <
(4)
Where, = represents elastic deformation and = represents deterministic roughness pattern on the
surface formed due to the direction, size and shape of the grinding media.
Elastic deformation of the moving body at any point due to pressure at point C is determined by
following elasticity equation (Houpert et al. 1986):
4 K
==− H
C?I| − C| LC
EF G
(5)
2 1 − M 1 − M
= +
FG F F
(6)
Where F G is the equivalent elastic modulus, F is the Young’s moduli of moving surface and F
is the Young’s moduli of stationary surface. M and M are the Poission’s ratios of the respective
materials. Figure 2 shows relation between elastic deformation and film thickness. For studying
the effect of small elastic deformation, the bearing pad is assumed to be rigid and elastic
deformation is witnessed in runner.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of elastic deformation in the contact area.
The static deterministic roughness patterns is shown in Figure 3. The mathematical form of these
roughness pattern are expressed in Equation (7) (Gananath et al. 2016) as:
22 . 2E
Q sin !sin ! ,, >?@ VWXYIZX@ CZ@>X[\ @?ZIℎY\CC
XVV\@Y
O E U
22 E
O − tan. _cot _ bb >?@ CXcV??Vℎ CZ@>X[\ @?ZIℎY\CC
XVV\@Y
= = E U
2E
P2 !sin ! ,, >?@ CWYZC?WLX CZ@>X[\ @?ZIℎY\CC
XVV\@Y
O U
(7)
O 2E 2E
2 csc ! , dsin ! ,d >?@ CeZX@\ CZ@>X[\ @?ZIℎY\CC
XVV\@Y
N U U
Where, U and 2 are the period and amplitude of the surface texture, respectively.
6
Figure 3. Schematic representation of different surface texture.
The Non-Dimensional form of Equations (4) and (5) has been worked out as:
g + = ∗ + = ∗ >?@ 0 ≤ < h
=<
1 + = ∗ + = ∗ >?@ h ≤ < 1
(8)
−24
=∗ = H i?I| − i|Li = j H i?I| − i|Li
EF G ℎ
(9)

Where, j = _ b and g =
.k+% lm Kn r8
op q rn * rn
is the film thickness ratio.
The discretized form of the film thickness Equation (8) has been formulated as:
u
Qg − j s 6 + = ∗
>?@ 0 ≤ < h
O t t
= v
(10)
P
u
O 1 − j s 6t t + = >?@ h ≤ < 1

∗

N v
where
1 1 1 1
6t = !W − w + , Δ !Y !dW − w + d Δ, − 1, − !W − w − , Δ !Y !dW − w − d Δ, − 1,
2 2 2 2
and =
∗
is the non-dimensional surface roughness parameter at any node i.
2.3 Lubricant viscosity and density Equations:
The discretized density-pressure relationship, given by (Dowson, 1967) in the non-dimensional

form is expressed as:
0.6 × 10.z × _ b
{+% lm K
= y1 + }
∗ rn n
1 + 1.7 × 10.z × _ b
{+% lm K (11)
n
rn
The discretized viscosity-pressure relationship given by (Roelands, 1963) in dimensionless form

is expressed by:
6

∗ = \
~Y + 9.67 × −1 + 1 + 5.1 × 10.z ×
ℎ
(12)

=
Y + 9.675.1 × 10.z
(13)
Where, is the pressure-viscosity coefficient of the lubricant.
7
2.4 Mass flow rate:
Mass flow rate of the lubricating oil is given by:
e = e + e (14)
e = e = −
"lm r "r *
+
,
Where, e is total mass flow rate, e is the Couette mass flow rate and e is the Poiseuille mass
flow rate.
The non-dimensional form of Equation (18) is as follows:
= + (15)

Where, = = + and = +
e
0 C ℎ2 % lm rn % lm rn
,
Further, may be written as
∗ ∗
= −
2 2 ∗
(16)
The discretized form of Equation (16) has been presented as:
∗ ∗ − .
= − ! ,
2 2 ∗ Δ
(17)
2.5 Load carrying capacity:
By integrating the distributed pressure over the contact area, the bearing’s load carrying capacity
is expressed by:
K
c = H
L
(18)
The non-dimensional form of load carrying capacity is:
8
c ∗ = H L
(19)

Where, c ∗ =
n
rn
{+% lm Kn
is the non-dimensional parameter of the load carrying capacity.
The discretized form of the Equation (19) is:

u
c ∗ = s Δ
v
(20)
2.6 Coefficient of friction:

By integrating the shear stress developed over the contact area, the frictional force on the moving
surface is obtained. The Equation for calculating frictional force is expressed as:
K
K
ℎ
>=H = H !− − ,
ℎ 2 (21)
The non-dimensional form of the Equation (21) is:
∗
= H !− − 3 ,

(22)

Where, = +
rn
% lm K
is the non-dimensional parameter of the frictional force. The minus sign in
frictional force Equation shows that it is applied opposite the sliding direction.
The non-dimensional coefficient of friction is expressed as:

∗ =
c∗
(23)
The above set of non-dimensional Equations was discretized using finite difference method
(FDM) and were solved using Progressive Mesh Density (PMD) method (Zhu, 2007). Pressure
at = 0 and = 1 were set at zero as the boundary condition for pressure distribution. The
level of mesh density (N) is applied in order to make the entire solution very fast. In this process,
the error in pressure E with low frequency is cancelled first at lower level with coarser grid
density. Then, E of intermediate and higher frequency are cancelled at higher level with finer
grid density. Due to this, the first approximate solution is achieved very quickly.
9
For E = 10. , the first approximate solution is achieved at 32 nodes. At this number of nodes,
the difference between approximate and exact solution is less. So, in order to achieve first
approximate solution nearer to exact solution with coarser grid density, 32 number of nodes are
required at Level 1 to make the entire solution very fast.
In order to calculate the pressure and film thickness distribution in the entire contact area, the
steps involved are shown by a flow chart in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Flow chart representation of various steps involved in PMD method for computation.
During calculation, if a negative pressure is evolved at = , then Reynolds boundary

condition for cavitation is practised. For negative pressure value encountered in real practice, 0 is
the value set for it in the iterative process. In the non-pressure zone, it is assumed that there is no
shear stress in this zone.
3. Results and Discussion:
In order to visualize the effect of deflection and roughness on pressure generation in

Rayleigh step bearing, the minimum film thicknessℎ , film thickness in step zone ℎ , width
of the land zone − and width of step zone are changed and other parameters are kept
constant. This is similar to the changing of load while keeping other parameters constant. In the
present study, equivalent elastic modulus F G = 462 X has been taken which is combination of
steel (F = 210 X, M = 0.3 ) and a rigid body. The other fixed parameters are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Basic parameters and values used

Basic Parameters Symbols Values
Width of the slider 10 mm
Difference in film thickness ℎ − ℎ 100 nm
Equivalent elastic modulus F′ 462 GPa
Viscosity of the lubricant at inlet 0.01 Pas
Density of the lubricant at inlet 846 Kg/m3
Poisson's ratio of steel M 0.30
Sliding velocity 0.05 m/s
Pressure –viscosity coefficient 10 GPa-1
Amplitude of surface texture 2 20 nm
10
Period of surface texture U 0.5 mm
3.1 Effect of Surface roughness
Different surface roughness affects pressure distribution differently. For different values of
minimum film thickness ℎ , the distribution of pressure and film thickness (Piezo-viscous and
Rigid solution) (PR) for smooth and rough surfaces are shown in Figure 5. It is evident from the
graph that for ℎ = 1000 Y, a maximum pressure generated for square roughness is 0.61 MPa.
On the other hand, for smooth surface, 0.58 MPa is the maximum pressure value. The maximum
pressure for different types of roughness follows the trend:

, >
, ¡¡ r >
, ¢£K >
,¢¡¤K >
,¡¡ r
With further reduction in the minimum film thickness of ℎ = 600 Y, the value of maximum
pressure for square roughness increases to 2.75 MPa, whereas, this value increases to 2.5 MPa
for smooth surface, with the same trend of maximum pressure distribution.
Figure 5. Comparison between pressure and film thickness distribution for different surface roughness pattern at
= 10 , = 0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y, g = 2,h =
0.7and U = 0.5 : (a) ℎ = 1000 Y, (b) ℎ = 600 Y, and (c) ℎ = 200 Y.
As the minimum film thickness reduces to ℎ = 200 Y, for square roughness, the value of the
maximum pressure increases to 65 MPa. On the other hand, this value increases to 60 MPa for
smooth surface. At all values of ℎ , the difference in pressure distribution for different roughness
pattern is small. The trend followed by the maximum pressure for various roughness patterns
at ℎ2 = 200 Y is same as stated above.
It is evident from Figure 5 that the maximum pressure value increases with a decrease in
minimum film thickness. The coordinate of the maximum pressure is located at = 0.7 for all
values of minimum film thickness, where the land and step zones meet. All these observations
clearly indicate that as soon as various roughness patterns are introduced for different values of
minimum film thickness, there is a substantial difference in pressure distribution between smooth
and rough surfaces. The pressure distribution by square roughness dominates as compared to
other roughness patterns for all values of ℎ . The reason is that an uniform gap is maintained
between two relatively moving smooth surfaces. In case of rough surfaces, there are crusts and
11
troughs on the two relatively moving surfaces which alter the gap between them, resulting in
smaller film thickness at the peaks. When a small portion of rough surface (a portion equivalent
to wavelength) is taken into consideration, square roughness is found to act like an array of tiny
Rayleigh step bearing with high resistance to flow. On the other hand, sawtooth roughness
behaves like an array of plain slider bearing. Both sinusoidal and triangular roughness behaves
like an array of converging and diverging slider bearing with half-length for each part. This
clearly explains that the pressure generated in case of square roughness pattern is greater
compared to other roughness patterns when the period and amplitude remain the same for each
roughness pattern.
3.2 Effect of Surface deformation
Surface deformation alters the parameters of bearing performance. Figure 6 shows the pressure
distribution and film thickness variation for different types of surface roughness with surface
deformation. Moreover, they are compared with the distribution in smooth surface with diverse
minimum film thickness. It can be observed from the graph that for ℎ = 1000 Y, a maximum
pressure of 0.59 MPa is generated for surface with square roughness pattern, and, for the smooth
surface, this value is 0.56 MPa. This value is low in comparison with undeformed surface. For
different surface roughness patterns, a similar trend is followed by the maximum pressure value
as stated in section 3.1. With further reduction in the minimum film thickness value to ℎ =
600 Y, the maximum pressure increases to 2.1 MPa for square pattern. For smooth surface, this
value increases to 1.0 MPa. On the other hand, the difference in pressure distribution for
different roughness patterns remains small.
Figure 6. Comparison between pressure and film distribution for different surface roughness and elastic
deformation at = 10 , F = 462 X, © = 0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, =
G
10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,h = 0.7, g = 2 and U = 0.5 : (a) ℎ = 1000 Y, (b) ℎ = 600 Y, and (c) ℎ =
200 Y
As the minimum film thickness further reduces to ℎ = 200 Y, the value of maximum pressure
increases to 6.3 MPa for square roughness and to 6.0 MPa for smooth surface with surface
deformation. The difference in pressure for two different roughness distribution patterns
becomes very small with this thickness. The trend in maximum pressure level even under elastic
deformation of surface for various roughness patterns with minimum film thickness ℎ = 200 Y
12
follows that of mentioned in section 3.1. It is evident from results in Figure 6 that with a
reduction in minimum film thickness, the value of maximum pressure increases. However, as
soon as deformation of the surface comes into effect, an increase in film thickness and decrease
in pressure is observed compared to the value in undeformed surface. Fig. 6(c) shows that there
is a delay in pressure growth in the step zone and the position of pressure growth point shifts
towards the step point. Fig. 6(c) shows existence of another small divergent film shape in the
land zone, which is very close to the step point. There is a no-pressure zone as well at this level
of film thickness for a smooth surface which occupies about 40% of the contact area. In this
study, less than 150 nm of elastic deformation has been calculated, which appears to be
negligible. However, elastic deformation plays a significant role if it is compared to film

thickness. The maximum pressure generated has been less than 7 MPa in the current section.
Under such a small value of generated pressure, the piezo-viscous effect of the lubricating
substance can be ignored. Similar to Slider bearing, Rayleigh step bearing shows a drastic
decrement in load carrying capacity due to deformation of the surface elastically.
A specific trend in developed pressure for the Rayleigh step bearing has been observed in the
present study. A divergent film shape occurs at the leading side of the contact area in step zone
when surface deformation is pronounced in thin films. A delay in pressure growth occurs due to
such film shape. Ultimately it develops lesser load carrying capacity. A small divergent shape
develops in the land zone resulting in a slight increment in the pressure. A slightly convergent
shape is found at the outlet. Such a film profile produces two pressure peaks at step and land
zone, respectively.
It has already been noticed in Figure 5 that for very thin film thickness the pressure in Piezo-
viscous and Rigid (PR) solution increase greatly. This is due to the fact that the Poiseuille flow
"r*
+
rate is dependent on the film thickness. In the value of of the Poiseuille flow term, film
thickness rises to the cubic power. Due to piezo-viscous effect, viscosity of the lubricating
substance increases. The combined effect of significant increase in viscosity along with tiny film
thickness result in an increase in resistance to Poiseuille flow. When minimum film thickness is
is witnessed
"r*
reduced from ℎ = 1000 Y to ℎ = 200 Y, a significant decrease in the value of +
in the present study. Also, the length of the bearing pad = 10 is larger than that of counter-
13
"r*
+
formal contacts which is generally of order 100 µm. This shows that smaller value of and
larger value of contact area contribute towards high pressure as shown in Figure 5. Deformation
in bounding surface is caused due to this generated pressure. The pressure is distributed along the
contact area rather than being uniform throughout the contact area.
Deformation of the bounding surface is higher in the vicinity of the outlet. It is the area where
the maximum pressure is generated. On the other hand, surface deformation is less at the center
and in the vicinity of inlet. As a result, there is enhanced film thickness. This results in two
divergent shapes in step and land zones, respectively, and a convergent shape in the land zone
"r*
+
near outlet. Moreover, for small values of , the pressure variation is much sensitive. In the
present case, due to an escalation in film thickness, resistance to Poiseuille flow reduces. As a
result, the drop in pressure is comparable to piezoviscous and rigid solution.
The above discussion shows that the surface roughness along with surface deformation greatly
influences the pressure distribution as shown in Figure 6. Square roughness pattern dominates
the pressure distribution as compared to other roughness due to reasons mentioned above in
section 3.1. Another important finding is that despite a change in film thickness due to elastic
deformation, step shape exists. Step shape of film thickness and convergent shape in land zone
play an important role in hydrodynamic pressure generation.
3.3 Flow rates:
Figure 7. Comparison between flow rates for different surface roughness and elastic deformation at = 10 ,
F G = 462 X, = 0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,ℎ =
200 Y,h = 0.7, g = 2and U = 0.5 . (a) PR solution and (b) PE Solution.
Figure 7 shows flow rates for (a) piezo-viscous and rigid solution (PR) as well as (b) piezo-
viscous and elastic (PE) solution for ℎ = 200 Y. A non-dimensional form of flow rates can be
obtained by dividing each of the flow rates by the total flow rate. A significant variation in both
flow rates can be observed. For the PR solution, the Couette flow rate decreases suddenly at the
step point due to decrease in film thickness for all types of roughness patterns at an
approximately constant density. On the other hand, the Poiseuille flow rate increases suddenly at
step point to maintain continuity of the flow. In case of PE solution, Couette flow remains
constant upto midway, starting from inlet. After midway, it starts to go up linearly till the step
14
point. This reflects the film shape. In the land zone, this flow rate witnesses concave shape upto
outlet, reflecting the shape of the film. The Poiseuille flow rate remains approximately zero in
the inlet side because of smooth surface due to film rupture. After moving towards the step point
from midway, the Poiseuille flow rate diminishes linearly upto the step point. In the land zone, a
concave shape appears due to this flow rate, reflecting the shape of the film. A slight variation in
flow rate can be witnessed for different roughness patterns starting from inlet to outlet due to
variation in film thickness.
3.4 Variation in Film thickness Ratio (k):
Figure 8. Comparison between pressure distribution for different film thickness ratio (k)at = 10 , F G =
462 X, = 0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,ℎ =
200 Yh = 0.2and U = 0.5 . (a) Smooth Surface and (b) Rough (Square) Surface.
The influence of film thickness ratio (k) on pressure profile with h = 0.2 in EHL condition is
depicted by Figure 8 with minimum film thickness ℎ = 200 Y and other parameters remaining
constant. At this step size, pressure peaks are located on both sides of the contact area. Around
center of the contact area, the pressure is minimum. The pressure peak located at inlet is sharper
in comparison to the one located around the outlet. From k=1.5 to k=2.0, the value of total
pressure increases for smooth and rough (Square) surface. For k = 4.0, the profile of pressure is
identical to that of k=2.0 with only slight decrement in pressure value at the contact area. From
k=6.0 onwards, the value of total pressure reduces significantly with an increase in film thickness
ratio. It is also evident from Figure 8 (a) and 8 (b) that an increase in k does not change the shape
of the pressure profile with two pressure peaks.
Figure 9. Comparison between pressure distribution for different film thickness ratio (k) at = 10 , F G =
462 X, = 0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,ℎ =
200 Yh = 0.7and U = 0.5 . (a) Smooth Surface and (b) Square Roughness.
For minimum film thickness ℎ = 200 Y with other parameters remaining constant, the
influence of film thickness ratio (k) on pressure profile with h = 0.7 in EHL condition is shown
in Figure 9. At this step size, there is a no-pressure zone with smaller value of k as shown in Fig.
9(a) and 9(b). As the value of k increases, the no-pressure zone decreases because as far as film
thickness is concerned, slight increasing zone nearer the step point starts decreasing. This
decreasing no-pressure zone contributes towards pressure growth and finally leads to an increase
15
in the load carrying capacity. From k = 1.5 to k = 4.0, the value of total pressure increases in
smooth and rough (square) surface. For k = 4.0, pressure rises proportionally from inlet to the
step point. From k = 6.0 onwards, there is a significant reduction in total pressure value, and,
thus, the load carrying capacity also decreases significantly. The value of total pressure in case of
rough (square) surface is higher in comparison to smooth surface for different values of k due to
the factors mentioned in Section 3.1.
3.5 Variation in Step Ratios (L1):
Figure 10. Comparison between pressure distribution for different Step Ratios (L1) at = 10 , F G = 462 X,
= 0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,ℎ = 200 Y,g = 2and
U = 0.5 . (a) Smooth Surface and (b) Rough (Square) Surface.
For minimum film thickness ℎ = 200 Y and other parameters remaining constant, the
influence of step ratios (L1) on pressure profile with g = 2 in EHL condition is shown by Figure
10. At h = 0.7, two peaks are evident in the pressure profile at outlet and inlet sides in Figure
10(a) and 10(b). Pressure in the step zone increases almost linearly up to the step point. After
that it reaches minimum value at the center point and again increases in the land zone around
outlet. The value of pressure at step point is around 4 MPa for both smooth and rough (square)
surface. On the other hand, pressure at the outlet is around 3.9 MPa for smooth surface and 4.1
MPa for rough surface. There is no no-pressure zone at h = 0.7 but it starts appearing as the
step ratios start increasing. With an increase in the step ratio, the peak pressure at step point
gradually increases in both smooth and rough surface. There is an increase in pressure in the land
zone with increasing step ratio. This pressure finally reaches step point for very high value of k,
i.e., 0.8 and 0.9. At this high value of k, the peak pressure in land zone disappears completely.
The overall pressure in case of rough surface exceeds that of smooth surface by a considerable
amount.
3.6 Load capacity:
The above discussion clearly indicates that for minimum film thickness values, the square
surface roughness dominates the pressure profile compared to other variants of roughness. The
maximum pressure value reduces due to an increase in film thickness when surface deformation
comes into consideration.
16
Figure 11. Comparison betweenNon-Dimensional Load Capacity with variable Film thickness ratio for (a) Smooth
surface and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ at = 10 , F G = 462 X, = 0.01 XC,
= 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,h = 0.7and U = 0.5 .
Figure 11 shows the load capacity in non-dimensional form for both smooth and rough (square)
surface with film thickness ratios (k) and step ratio h = 0.7. It can be observed that in case of
decreasing film thickness with various film thickness ratios, the value of load capacity reduces.
This reduction in load capacity is generally witnessed at the peak point, which is generally
present at a low value of k. For smooth surface, the maximum load capacity for ℎ = 200 Y is
about 0.007 at k=3.5. This value increases to 0.032 for ℎ = 1000 Y. The value of film
thickness ratio for maximum load capacity shifts towards lower side at k = 2.2 as shown in
Figure 11(a). In case of rough (square) surface as shown in Figure 11(b), the maximum load
capacity is about 0.0085 for ℎ = 200 Y and is located at k=3.5. This value increases to 0.033
for ℎ = 1000 Y. The value of film thickness ratio for maximum load capacity shifts towards
lower side at k = 2.2. This slight increment in load capacity of bearing with rough surface is due
to an increase in pressure witnessed by bearing as a result of roughness in surface. These
observations lead to two important conclusions. Firstly, with smaller film thickness, the variation
in non-dimensional load capacity to film thickness ratio is small. This suggests that there is an
insensitivity in load capacity with an increasing k for smaller film thickness. This insensitivity
decreases with increase in film thickness. The maximum load capacity can be found at smaller
value of k with increasing film thickness. Secondly, at a higher value of film thickness ratio, load
capacity becomes insensitive to different degrees of film thickness. There is a small difference in
load capacity for various degrees of film thickness at a higher value of k.
Figure 12. Comparison between Non-Dimensional Load Capacity with variable Step ratio for (a) Smooth surface
and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ at = 10 , F G = 462 X, = 0.01 XC, =
846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,g = 2and U = 0.5 .
Figure 12 shows non-dimensional load capacity for smooth and rough (square) surface for
different values of step ratios at film thickness ratio of k = 2.0 while keeping other parameters
fixed. For step ratios more than 0.3, the value of non-dimensional load capacity increases with
increasing film thickness. In case of ℎ = 200 Y, the maximum value of load capacity is
located at lower step ratios. This is so as at higher value of step ratios, a delay in pressure growth
occurs resulting in lower value of load capacity. For ℎ ≥ 400 Y, the maximum load capacity
17
is found at higher value of step ratios. This is only due to disappearance of no-pressure area in
step zone at high step ratios, resulting in the maximum load capacity shifting to higher value of
step ratios. For step ratios lower than 0.3, the value of non-dimensional load capacity at ℎ =
600 Y is greater than that of ℎ > 600 Y. This is only due to reduction in generated pressure
at higher value of film thickness. The variation in load capacity at different step ratios for smooth
[as shown in Figure 12(a)] and rough (square) [as shown in Figure 12(b)] surfaces follows a
similar pattern. In case of rough (square) surface, the load capacity is slightly higher in
comparison with smooth surface.
3.7 Coefficient of Friction:
Figure 13. Comparison between Non-Dimensional Coefficient of Friction with variable film thickness ratio for (a)
Smooth surface and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ at = 10 , F G = 462 X, =
0.01 XC, = 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,h = 0.7and U = 0.5 .
Figure 13 shows the Coefficient of Friction in non-dimensional form for both smooth (as shown
in Figure 13(a)) and rough (Square) (as shown in Figure 13(b)) surface with film thickness ratio
(k) and step ratio h = 0.7. In both cases, frictional coefficient is the maximum for ℎ =
200 Y at lower value of k. As the value of k increases, the frictional coefficient reaches the
minimum value at k=3.5. With further increment in k, the variation in coefficient of friction
becomes small, and, at very high value of k, it becomes almost constant. For other value of ℎ ,
the difference in frictional coefficient is small and is less compared to that at ℎ = 200 Y for
lower value of k. This value of frictional coefficient reaches the minimum point at k = 2.2. With
further increase in k, frictional coefficient increases and becomes almost constant at a very high
value of k in both the cases. At high value of k, the frictional coefficient for ℎ = 1000 Y
becomes greater compared to that of other value of ℎ . Although the difference between
coefficient of friction for different values of ℎ remains small at very high value of k.
Figure 14. Comparison between Non-Dimensional Coefficient of Friction with variable step ratios for (a) Smooth
surface and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ at = 10 , F G = 462 X, = 0.01 XC,
= 846 Kg/ , M = 0.30, = 0.05 /C, = 10 X . , 2 = 20 Y,g = 02and U = 0.5 .
Figure 14 shows the coefficient of friction in non-dimensional form for both smooth [as shown
in Figure 14(a)] and rough (square) [as shown in Figure 14(b)] surface for various step ratios
(h ) and film thickness ratio g = 2.0. In both cases, with increasing film thickness, the
18
coefficient of friction decreases. The difference in coefficient of friction for various ℎ ≥
400 Y is small. At low and high step ratios, the coefficient of friction has more values
compared to that at intermediate value of step ratios. The coefficient of friction at lower value of
step ratio is greater as compared to that at higher values of step ratio. This profile of coefficient
of friction is possible because the load capacity is low at smaller and larger values of step ratios.
However, the frictional force is large at smaller value of step ratio compared to larger value of
step ratio. Thus, the combined effect of load capacity and frictional force generates such profile.
In case of rough (square) surface, the non-dimensional coefficient of friction is less in
comparison with smooth surface for varying film thickness ratio and step ratio. This is better
explained by the fact that due to roughness, increase in load capacity is greater in comparison
with frictional force, resulting in lower value of coefficients of friction due to their combined
behaviour.
3.8 Material parameter effect:
Figure 15 shows the effect of different material parameters on pressure distribution

considering elastic deformation, surface roughness, the optimum value of film thickness ratio
and step ratio with ISO 33 lubricant. It is evident from Figure 15(a) and 15(b) that surface
deformation is less when the equivalent modulus of elasticity is more, thereby generating more
pressure compared to lower modulus of elasticity. With increasing equivalent elastic modulus,
pressure starts increasing and shows two pressure peaks. It is also evident that with increasing
equivalent modulus of elasticity, the no-pressure zone starts decreasing in both rough and smooth
cases. The difference in the maximum pressure generated in the smooth and rough case is very
small as shown in Figure 15(c).The percentage change in the maximum pressure (with and
without surface roughness) is about 3 percent for all values of the equivalent elastic modulus.
Figure 15. Effect of material parameter on (a) Smooth surface, (b) Rough (Square) surface at = 10 , =
0.1723 XC, = 0.05 /C, = 22.206 X . , 2 = 20 Y,U = 0.5 , k=3.5and ℎ = 200 Y. (c) Maximum
pressure with and without roughness pattern.
Percentage change in maximum pressure is obtained by the following Equation:

,¡£r −
,¡¡ r
% [ℎXYI\ WY XWZ
@\CCZ@\ =

,¡£r
(28)
19
It is evident from the above results that a material with high elastic modulus can improve the
load capacity due to decrease in the elastic deformation. On the other hand, a material with really
high elastic modulus is required to cause deformation of the surface very small, which is
practically impossible as yet. This shows that the compelling reduction in load carrying capacity
due to elastic deformation of the surface can never be side-stepped in thin film lubrication as far
as the currently available materials are concerned.
3.9 Effect of Viscosity grades:
Figure 16 shows the effect of different lubricants on pressure distribution by considering surface
roughness (square), elastic deformation of the surface, optimum film thickness ratio and step
ratio. Figure 16(a) shows that lubricant with higher viscosity (ISO 46) generates more pressure
as compared to lubricant with lower viscosity (ISO 7). The pressure generated goes on increasing
with an increase in viscosity. The maximum pressure generated for minimum film thickness, ℎ2 =
200 Y with smooth surface by using ISO 46 is about 40 MPa. On the other hand, for ISO 7, it is
about 14 MPa. For the commonly used lubricant ISO 33, in case of step bearing, the maximum
pressure generated is about 31 MPa. When the roughness effect is taken into consideration
during calculation, it is found that the generated pressure gets increased by a marginal amount
(as shown in Figure 16(b)). Under the roughness condition, the maximum pressure generated for
ISO 46 is about 42 MPa, and, for ISO 7, it is about 15 MPa. For the commonly used lubricant
ISO 33, the value of maximum pressure increases to 33 MPa. This indicates that there is a slight
increment in pressure due to roughness effect. Figure 16(c) presents a comparative study of
maximum pressure values for different viscosity grades being used with and without roughness
effect. Figure 16 (d) shows the percentage change in maximum pressure with and without
roughness effect.
Figure 16. Effect of different Viscosity grades on (a) Smooth surface, (b) Rough (Square) surface at = 10 ,
= 0.05 /C, 2 = 20 Y,F G = 462 X,U = 0.5 , k=3.5, M = 0.30and ℎ = 200 Y.(c) Maximum pressure
with and without roughness pattern (d) % change in maximum pressure with and without roughness pattern.
It is evident from the above results that the percentage change is the maximum for lubricant with
higher viscosity (ISO 46). On the other hand, for lubricant with lower viscosity (ISO 7), this
value of percentage change is small. These results suggest that lubricant with higher viscosity
can be used for improving the load capacity under both smooth and rough conditions. It can be
20
observed that with changing lubricant, viscosity and pressure-viscosity coefficient change. For
lubricant with higher viscosity, the value of the pressure-viscosity coefficient is also high. The
pressure distribution in Fig. 16(a) and Fig. 16(b) suggests that with increasing viscosity grades,
resistance to flow increases, resulting in high pressure. This high pressure causes deformation of
surface, creating a no-pressure zone at the inlet. This no-pressure zone expands with increase in
viscosity. There are two pressure peaks for very high viscosity grades – one at step point and
another near outlet due to variation in the film shape. These pressure peaks start to expand with
increasing viscosity grades.
4. Conclusion:
The present study showcases simulation of thin film elastohydrodynamic condition for Rayleigh
step bearing with one dimension. The following conclusion can be drawn from the results
generated:
1. The nature and shape of roughness play a significant role in pressure generation. Among
all roughness patterns, square roughness consists of an array of tiny step bearings. As a
result, this roughness profile dominates the process of pressure generation compared to
others, resulting in larger value of load capacity.
2. The pressure generated with different minimum film thickness values under piezo-
viscous and rigid (PR) conditions is small, which do not significantly influence the
viscosity of the lubricant. It can be assumed that for thin film and rigid surface, the
bearing operates in isoviscous and rigid (IR) regimes.
3. For bounding surfaces, more than 150 nm of elastic deformation over the unified contact
area influences formation of thin film, which is comparable with elastic deformation.
4. The maximum pressure generated is reduced to 6.3 MPa for square roughness under
piezo-viscous and elastic (PE) condition when ℎ = 200 Y and ℎ − ℎ =
100 Y compared to 65 MPa under PR condition. This small pressure of 6.3 MPa causes
elastic deformation of about 150 nm. This pressure is deficient in causing the squeezing
and piezo-viscous effects of the lubricating substance. For such a small deformation and
little influence of pressure on viscosity of the lubricant, it can be assumed that the bearing
operates under isoviscous and elastic (IE) conditions.
21
5. When the film thickness is comparable to elastic deformation, the film profile has four
shapes, i.e., a divergent shape in step zone, a retained step shape, a slightly divergent
shape and a convergent shape in land zone, respectively.
6. Despite change in film thickness due to elastic deformation, the step shape exists. The
step shape of film thickness and convergent shape in land zone play an important role in
hydrodynamic pressure generation.
7. At decreased film thickness, divergent shapes in step zone causes a delay in pressure
growth at a small value of film thickness ratio.
8. The film thickness ratio (k) is notably influenced by elastic deformation of the surface.
An optimum value of k prevails for which the load capacity is the maximum and
coefficient of friction is the minimum. With a decrease in film thickness, the optimum
value of k increases. There is sensitivity at a higher value of film thickness in load
capacity.
9. The step ratios (L1) are influenced by elastic deformation of the surface. There is an
optimum value of step ratio for the maximum load capacity and minimum coefficient of
friction. Due to delay in pressure growth, the optimum value of step ratio decreases. With
increasing film thickness, the optimum value also increases.
10. For very high equivalent elastic modulus F G , the generated pressure increases. The
presence of no-pressure zone decreases for high F G . However, for this high F G , elastic
deformation cannot be avoided. The difference in maximum pressure generated for
smooth and rough surface is very small.
11. As the viscosity and pressure-viscosity coefficient for different lubricants increase, the
generated pressure increases due to an increase in resistance to flow. This results in
higher load capacity. The difference in the maximum pressure generated for smooth and
rough surface is greater for lubricant with high viscosity.
The present study suggests that elastic deformation of the surface significantly influences
film formation. However, a clear understanding of the process regarding thin film lubrication is
not possible at this stage. The primary reasons are:
(a) The influence of initial shape needs to be further investigated. For example, the generated
pressure at inlet crowning and chamfer expands over a flat contact area and produces a
22
convergent shape due to deformation of surface elastically. This enables to support the load. It
suggests a positive effect of deformation on thin film lubrication. However, in most cases,
deformation has a negative impact.
(b) Small elastic deformation is created by nominal pressure under 10 MPa. This aspect of
small deformation has been neglected till date in the study of hydrodynamic thin film lubrication.
The present study is an initial step to show the effect of elastic deformation on thin film
hydrodynamic lubrication.
(c) This investigation has not taken into account the process of heat generation due to small
sliding velocity. However, a small temperature rise affects flow terms in ways similar to elastic
deformation. Further study needs to be done for better understanding of the thin film
hydrodynamic lubrication phenomenon.
Nomenclature
Lubricant’s density (kg/m3)
ℎ Film thickness (m)

Fluid film pressure(Pa)
Lubricant’s viscosity (Pa s)
Moving surface sliding velocity (m/s)
Width of the pad (m)
Nondimensional width of the pad =
Non-dimensional pressure of the fluid film =

ℎ 6

Non-dimensional film thickness = ℎℎ

∗
Non-dimensional viscosity
=
∗
∗ Non-dimensional density ∗ =

ℎ Film thickness at inlet (m)
ℎ Film thickness at outlet (m)
= Elastic deformation of the moving surface (m)
= Deterministic roughness pattern (m)
F Elastic modulus of moving surface (Pa)
F Elastic modulus of stationary pad (m)
FG Equivalent elastic modulus of moving surface (Pa)
M Poisson's ratio of moving surface
23
M Poisson's ratio of stationary pad
2 Amplitude of the roughness (nm)
U Period of roughness (mm)
=∗ Non-dimensional elastic deformation of the moving surface
= ∗
Non-dimensional deterministic surface roughness factor
g Film thickness ratio g = ℎ ℎ

¯ Coefficient of lubricant thermal expansivity (0C-1)

Pressure viscosity coefficient (Pa-1)
Viscosity at p=0 (Pa)
Density at p=0 (kg/m3)
5
Specific heat of the lubricant (J Kg-10C-1)

e Mass flow rate (Kg/ (ms))
e Couette mass flow rate (Kg/ (ms))
e Poiseuille mass flow rate (Kg/ (ms))
Non-Dimensional mass flow rate = "

% lm rn
Non-Dimensional Couette mass flow rate = "

% lm rn

Non-Dimensional Poiseuille mass flow rate = "
% lm rn
c Load capacity (N/m)
Non-Dimensional load capacity c ∗ = {+

rn n
c∗
% lm K
n
> Frictional force (N)

Non-Dimensional frictional force
∗
Non-Dimensional coefficient of friction
F Error in Pressure
° Level of grid
References
Bakolas, V., 2004. Analysis of rough line contacts operating under mixed elastohydrodynamic lubrication
conditions. Lubrication Science, 16(February), pp.153–168. doi: 10.1002/ls.3010160206
Bennett, A.. &Ettles, C., 1967. A self-acting parallel surface thrust bearing. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, 182, pp.139–146.
Bonneau, D. et al., 1995. Ehd Analysis, Including Structural Inertia Effects and a Mass-Conserving Cavitation
Model. Journal of Tribology-Transactions of the Asme, 117(3), pp.540–547.
Cameron, A., 1958. The Viscosity Wedge. A S L E Transactions, 1(2), pp.248–253. doi:
10.1080/05698195808972337
24
Cameron, A. & Robinson, C.L., 1975. Studies in Hydrodynamic Thrust Bearings. I. Theory considering thermal and
elastic destortions. Pholosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and
Physical Sciences, 278(1283), pp.351–366. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1948.0007
Carl, T.E., 1963. An Experimental Investigation of a Cylindrical Journal Bearing Under Constant and Sinusoidal
Loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 178, pp.100–119.doi: 10.1243/PIME
Choo, J.W. et al., 2006. The Influence of Longitudinal Roughness in Thin-Film, Mixed Elastohydrodynamic
Lubrication. Tribology Transactions, 49(2), pp.248–259. doi:10.1080/05698190600614866
Choo, J.W., Olver, A. V. & Spikes, H.A., 2007. The influence of transverse roughness in thin film, mixed
elastohydrodynamic lubrication. Tribology International, 40, pp.220–232. doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2005.10.009
Desbordes, H. et al., 1995. The effects of three-dimensional pad deformations on tilting-pad Journal bearings under
dynamic loading. , 1(July), pp.8–13.doi:
Dowson, D., 1967. ELASTOHYDRODYNAMICS. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 182(6),
pp.151–167.
Dowson, D. & Higginson, G.R., 1959. A Numerical Solution to the Elasto-Hydrodynamic Problem. Journal
Mechanical Engineering Science, 1(1), pp.6–15.
Ettles, C.M., 1980. Size Effects in Tilting Pad Thrust Bearings. Wear, 59(1), pp.231–245.
Gananath, D.T., Sharma, S.C., Harsha, S.P. & Tyagi, M.R., 2016. A theoretical study of ionic liquid lubricated µ-
EHL line contacts considering surface texture. Tribology International, 94, pp.39-51.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2015.08.001
Hemingway, E.W., 1965. The Measurement of Film Thickness in Thrust Bearings and The Deflected Shape of
“Parallel” Surface Thrust Pads. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 180(44), pp.1025–
1034.
Higginson, G.R., 1965. The Theoretical Effects of Elastic Deformation of the Bearing Liner on the Journal Bearing
Performance. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. pp. 31–38.
Höhn, B.R., Michaelis, K. & Kreil, O., 2006. Influence of surface roughness on pressure distribution and film
thickness in EHL-contacts. Tribology International, 39(12), pp.1719–1725.doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2006.01.008
Hooke, C.J., Brighton, D.K. & O’Donoghue, J., 1967. The Effect of Elastic Distortions on the Performance of Thin
Shell Bearings. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part 3B, 181, pp.63–69.doi:
10.1115/1.3617009
Houpert, L.G. & Hamrock, B.J., 1986. Fast approach for calculating film thicknesses and pressures in
elastohydrodynamically lubricated contacts at high load. Transaction of ASME: Journal of Tribology, 108(3),
25
pp. 411-420.
Jain, S.C., Sinhasan, R. & Singh, D. V, 1982. Effect of Bearing pad Deformation on the performance of Finite
Fixed-Pad Slider Bearings. Wear, 76, pp.189–198.
Johnson, K.L., 1970. Regimes of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science,
12(1), pp.9–16.
Kawabata, S. et al., 2012. Hydrodynamic Lubrication Effects of Multiple Circular Bump Pattern for a Thrust Sliding
Bearing of a Scroll Compressor. Tribology Online, 7, pp.13–23.doi: 10.2474/trol.7.13
Krupka, I. et al., 2010. Effect of real longitudinal surface roughness on lubrication film formation within line
elastohydrodynamic contact. Tribology International, 43, pp.2384–2389. doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2008.02.005
Křupka, I., Koutný, D. & Hartl, M., 2008. Behavior of real roughness features within mixed lubricated non-
conformal contacts. Tribology International, 41(12), pp.1153–1160.doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2010.08.007
Kumar, P., Jain, S.. & Ray, S., 2001. Study of surface roughness effects in elastohydrodynamic lubrication of rolling
line contacts using a deterministic model. Tribology International, 34(10), pp.713–722.doi: 10.1016/S0301-
679X(01)00066-4
Lundberg, J., 1995. Influence of surface roughness on normal-sliding lubrication. Tribology International, 28(5),
pp.317–322.doi: 10.1016/0301-679X(94)00003-9
Malvano, R. & Vatta, F., 1986. Elastohydrodynamic lubrication in a plane slider bearing. Meccanica, 21(3), pp.134–
139.doi: 10.1007/BF01556694
Moreau, H. et al., 2002. Dynamic behaviour of elastic engine main bearings: theory and measurements. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, 216(4), pp.179–194.doi:
10.1243/135065002760199943
O’Donoghue, J., Brighton, D.K. & Hooke, C.J.K., 1967. The Effect of Elastic Distortions on Journal Bearing
Performance. Journal of Lubrication Technology, 89(4), p.409.doi: 10.1115/1.3617009
Oh, K.P. & Goenka, P.K., 1985. The Elastohydrodynamic Solution of a Journal Bearing Under Dynamic Loading.
ASME Journal of Tribology, 107(3), pp.389–395.
Olson, E.G. & Booker, J.F., 2001. EHD Analysis With Distributed Structural Inertia. Journal of Tribology, 123(3),
p.462.doi: 10.1115/1.1332396
Patir, N., Cheng, H.S., 1978. An average flow model for determinimg the effects of three-dimensional roughness on
partial hydrodynamic lubrication. Transactions of the ASME : Journal of Tribology 100, pp: 12-17.
Prakash, J. & Peeken, H., 1985. The Combined Effect of Surface Roughness and Elastic Deformation in the
Hydrodynamic Slider Bearing Problem. A S L E Transactions, 28(1), pp.69–74.doi:
26
10.1080/05698198508981596
Ramanaiah, G. & Sundarammal, A., 1982. Effect of bearing deformation on the characteristics of a slider bearing.
Wear, 78, pp.273–278.
Robinson, C.L. & Cameron, A., 1975. Studies in Hydrodynamic Thrust Bearings. II. Comparison of calculated and
measured performance of tilting pads by means of interferometry. Pholosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 278, pp.367–384.doi:
10.1098/rsta.1948.0007
Roelands, C., Vlugter, J. & Watermann, H., 1963. The viscosity-temperature-pressure relationship of lubricating oils
and its correlation with chemical constitution. ASME: Journal of Basic Engineeering, 85, pp: 601-610.
Rohde, S.M. & Oh, K.P., 1975. A Unified Treatment of Thick and Thin Film Elastohydrodynamic Problems by
Using Higher Order Element Methods. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 343, pp.315–331.doi: 10.1098/rspa.1975.0068
Sudeep, U., Pandey, R.K. & Tandon, N., 2013. Effects of surface texturing on friction and vibration behaviors of
sliding lubricated concentrated point contacts under linear reciprocating motion. Tribology International, 62,
pp.198–207. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2013.02.023
Venner, C.H., 2005. EHL Film Thickness Computations at Low Speeds: Risk of Artificial Trends as a Result of
Poor Accuracy and Implications for Mixed Lubrication Modelling. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, 219(4), pp.285–290.doi:
10.1243/135065005X33928
Venner, C.H. & Ten Napel, W.E., 1992. Surface Roughness Effects in an EHL Line Contacts. ASME Journal of
Tribology,114, pp. 616-622.
Wang, X. et al., 2009. Preliminary investigation of the effect of dimple size on friction in line contacts. Tribology
International, 42, pp.1118–1123.doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2009.03.012
Xiao, L. et al., 2003. A study on the effect of surface topography on rough friction in roller contact. Wear, 254(11),
pp.1162–1169.doi: 10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00329-6
Zhu, D., 2007. On Some Aspects in Numerical Solution of Thin-Film and Mixed EHL. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, 221(5), pp. 561–579.
doi:10.1243/13506501JET259.
Biographies
Dr. Subrata Kumar Ghosh is Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad), India. Before joining at IIT (ISM), He was Lecturer at BIT, Mesra. His
research has focused on Tribology and in Thermal Engineering. He is the author and co-author of over 25 articles,
which have appeared in journals such as Applied Thermal Engineering, Energy Conversion Management, Energy,
27
Indian Journal of Cryogenics, ASME Fluid Engineering, Industrial lubrication & Tribology, Heat Mass Transfer, Heat
Transfer Research and several conferences.
Email ID: subratarec@yahoo.co.in
Phone No: +919430187029
Mr. Rahul Kumar is Research Scholar in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Indian
Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad), India. His research is focused on
Lubrication and Bearing Design. He is the author and co-author of 7 conference papers.
Dr. Mohammad Sikandar Azam is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad)
India. He received his M. Tech. Degree in Mechanical Engineering with specialization in
Mechanical System Design from IIT Kharagpur, and Ph.D. degree from IIT (ISM), Dhanbad,
India. He is the author and co-author of 8 articles in journal of international repute and 13
conference papers. His research interests include vibro-acoustic behavior of plated structures,
Fluid- structure interaction, lubrication and bearing design.
Dr. Hasim Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science
at Jazan University, Jazan, K.S.A. He obtained his Ph.D from IIT Kanpur, India. His research is
focused on Theory of Lubrication and Numerical Methods and Computational Techniques. He is
the author and co-author of over 11 articles, which have appeared in journals such as Int.
Journal of Surface Science and Engineering, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
India (Section - A) and several conferences.
28
Figure 1. Schematic representation of Rayleigh step bearing.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of elastic deformation in the contact area.
1

Sinusoidal Texture
Sawtooth Texture
Triangular Texture Square Texture
Figure 3. Schematic representation of different surface texture.
2
Figure 4. Flow chart representation of various steps involved in PMD method for computation.
3
Pressure Distribution Film Thickness Distribution
Square Roughness Square Roughness
1.0 Triangular Roughness 1600 Triangular Roughness
Sawtooth Roughness Sawtooth Roughness
Sinusoidal Roughness Sinusoidal Roughness
1400 Smooth
0.8 Smooth
Film Thickness (nm)

1200
Pressure (MPa)
0.6
1000
0.4
800
0.2
600
0.0 400
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Non Dimensional Coordinate X=x/l Non Dimensional Coordinate X=x/l
(a)
5 Triangular Roughness 1400
Triangular Roughness
Sinusoidal Roughness 1200 Sinusoidal Roughness
4 Smooth Smooth
Film Thickness (nm)
1000
Pressure (MPa)
3
800
2
600
1
400
0 200
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(b)

120 1200
Triangular Roughness Triangular Roughness
100 Sinusoidal Roughness 1000 Sinusoidal Roughness
Smooth Smooth
Film Thickness (nm)
80 800
Pressure (MPa)
60 600
40 400
20 200
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(c)
4
Figure 5. Comparison between pressure and film thickness distribution for different surface roughness pattern at
= 10 ,
= 0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !, " = 2,# =
0.7and = 0.5 : (a) ℎ& = 1000 !, (b) ℎ& = 600 !, and (c) ℎ& = 200 !.
Pressure Distribution Film Thickness Distribution

1.0 Triangular Roughness 1600 Triangular Roughness
0.8 Smooth Smooth
Film Thickness (nm)

1200
Pressure (MPa)
0.6
1000
0.4
800
0.2
600
0.0 400
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a)

4 1400 Triangular Roughness
3 Smooth Smooth
Film Thickness (nm)
1000
Pressure (MPa)
2 800
600
1
400
0 200
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(b)
5
12 1200 Triangular Roughness
10 Sinusoidal Roughness 1000 Sinusoidal Roughness
Smooth Smooth
Film Thickness (nm)

8 800
Pressure (MPa)
6 600
4 400
2 200
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(c)
Figure 6. Comparison between pressure and film distribution for different surface roughness and elastic
(
deformation at = 10 , ' = 462 , )
= 0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, =
10 , = 20 !,# = 0.7, " = 2 and = 0.5 : (a) ℎ& = 1000 !, (b) ℎ& = 600 !, and (c) ℎ& =
200 !
Square Roughness
Triangular roughness Square Roughness
2.0 Sawtooth Roughness 2.0 Triangular Roughness
Sinusoidal Roughness Sawtooth Roughness
1.5 Smooth Sinusoidal Roughness
1.5 Couette flow rate
Non Dimensional Flow Rate
Non Dimensional Flow Rate
Smooth
1.0
Couette flow rate 1.0
0.5
0.0 0.5
-0.5
0.0
-1.0
Poiseuille flow rate
-0.5
-1.5 Poiseuille flow rate
-2.0 -1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Non Dimensional Coordinate X=x/l Non Dimensional Coordinate X= x/l
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Comparison between flow rates for different surface roughness and elastic deformation at = 10 ,
' ( = 462 ,
= 0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !,ℎ& =
200 !,# = 0.7, " = 2and = 0.5 . (a) PR solution and (b) PE Solution.
6
k=1.5
k=1.5 k=2
12 12
k=2 k=4
k=4 k=6
k=6 k=8
9 k=8 9 k=10
k=10
Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)
6 6
3 3
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Non Dimensional Coordinate X= x/l Non Dimensional Coordinate X= x/l
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Comparison between pressure distribution for different film thickness ratio (k)at = 10 , ' ( =
462 ,
= 0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !,ℎ& =
200 !# = 0.2and = 0.5 . (a) Smooth Surface and (b) Rough (Square) Surface.
k=1.5 k=1.5
12 k=2 12 k=2
k=4 k=4
k=6 k=6
k=8 k=8
9 k=10 9 k=10
Pressure ( MPa)
Pressure (MPa)
6 6
3 3
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Comparison between pressure distribution for different film thickness ratio (k) at = 10 , ' ( =
462 ,
= 0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !,ℎ& =
200 !# = 0.7and = 0.5 . (a) Smooth Surface and (b) Square Roughness.
7
L1=0.1 L1=0.1
16 L1=0.2 16 L1=0.2
L1=0.4 L1=0.4
L1=0.6 L1=0.6
12 L1=0.7 12
L1=0.7
L1=0.8
Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)
L1=0.8
L1=0.9
8 8 L1=0.9
4 4
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Comparison between pressure distribution for different Step Ratios (L1) at = 10 , ' ( = 462 ,

= 0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !,ℎ& = 200 !," = 2and
= 0.5 . (a) Smooth Surface and (b) Rough (Square) Surface.
h2=200 h2=200
0.05 h2=400 0.05 h2=400
h2=600 h2=600
Non Dimensional Load capacity
Non Dimensional Load capacity
0.04 h2=800 0.04 h2=800

h2=1000 h2=1000
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
Film thickness ratio (k) Film thickness ratio (k)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Comparison betweenNon-Dimensional Load Capacity with variable Film thickness ratio for (a) Smooth
surface and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ& at = 10 , ' ( = 462 ,
= 0.01 ,

= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !,# = 0.7and = 0.5 .
8
h2=200 h2=200
0.04 h2=400 0.04 h2=400
h2=600 h2=600
Non Dimensional Load Capacity
Non Dimensional Load Capacity

h2=800 h2=800
0.03 h2=1000 0.03
h2=1000
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Step Ratio (L1) Step Ratio (L1)
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Comparison between Non-Dimensional Load Capacity with variable Step ratio for (a) Smooth surface
and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ& at = 10 , ' ( = 462 ,
= 0.01 ,
=
846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !," = 2and = 0.5 .
h2=200 h2=200
300 300
h2=400 h2=400
Non Dimensional Coefficient of friction
Non Dimensional Coefficient of friction
h2=600 h2=600
250 250
h2=800 h2=800
200 h2=1000 200 h2=1000
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
Film thickness ratio (k) Film thickness ratio (k)
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Comparison between Non-Dimensional Coefficient of Friction with variable film thickness ratio for (a)
Smooth surface and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ& at = 10 , ' ( = 462 ,
=
0.01 ,
= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !,# = 0.7and = 0.5 .
9
h2=200
h2=200
200 h2=400 200 h2=400
Non Dimensional Coefficient of Friction

Non Dimensional Coefficient of Friction
h2=600
h2=600
h2=800
h2=800
150 h2=1000 150
h2=1000
100 100
50 50
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Step Ratio (L1) Step Ratio (L1)
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Comparison between Non-Dimensional Coefficient of Friction with variable step ratios for (a) Smooth
surface and (b) Rough (Square) surface for different values of ℎ& at = 10 , ' ( = 462 ,
= 0.01 ,

= 846 Kg/ , = 0.30, = 0.05 /, = 10 , = 20 !," = 02and = 0.5 .
80 E'= 160 GPa 80 E'= 160 GPa

E'= 340 GPa E'= 340 GPa
70 E'= 462 GPa 70 E'= 462 GPa
E'= 780 GPa E'= 780 GPa
60 E'= 880 GPa 60 E'= 880 GPa
E'= 1170 GPa E'= 1170 GPa
Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
10
(a) (b)
E'= 1170 GPa
Smooth Surfaces
80 Rough Surfaces
E'= 880 GPa
70
E'= 780 GPa
Miximum Pressure (MPa)
60
E'= 462 GPa
50
E'= 340 GPa
40
E'= 160 GPa
30
20
10
0
Materials parameter considering smooth and rough surface
(c)
Figure 15. Effect of material parameter on (a) Smooth surface, (b) Rough (Square) surface at = 10 ,
=
0.1723 , = 0.05 /, = 22.206 , = 20 !, = 0.5 , k=3.5and ℎ& = 200 !. (c) Maximum
pressure with and without roughness pattern.
11
60 ISO 7 60 ISO 7
ISO 10 ISO 10
ISO 15 ISO 15
50 50
ISO 22 ISO 22
ISO 33 ISO 33
ISO 46 40
Pressure (MPa)
40
Pressure (MPa)
ISO 46
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a) (b)
Smooth Surfaces
60 Rough Surfaces 10
% change in maximum pressure
50
8
ISO 46
Maximum Pressure (MPa)
40
6
ISO 33
30
ISO 22
4 ISO 46
ISO 15 ISO 33
20 ISO 10
ISO 7 ISO 22
2
10
ISO 7 ISO 10 ISO 15
0 0
Different ISO grades oils Different Lubricating Fluids
(c) (d)
Figure 16. Effect of different Viscosity grades on (a) Smooth surface, (b) Rough (Square) surface at = 10 ,
= 0.05 /, = 20 !,' ( = 462 , = 0.5 , k=3.5, = 0.30and ℎ& = 200 !.(c) Maximum pressure
with and without roughness pattern (d) % change in maximum pressure with and without roughness pattern.
12

Kumar 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kumar 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Lubrication and Tribology

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Several gigapascals of pressure cause piezo-viscous effect in lubricant and elastic

deformation of surface. They jointly influence formation of film in elasto-hydrodynamic

In the present study, an elastohydrodynamic numerical simulation for one dimensional

Figure 1. Schematic representation of Rayleigh step bearing.

2.1 Governing Equations:

By introducing non-dimensional parameters in Equation (1), the non-dimensional form of

and,  and  are the viscosity and density of the lubricant at

5 = 0.54∗  + ∗  7 × 0.5 +   6 = 0.54∗  + ∗ . 7 × 0.5 + . 

The boundary conditions for Equation (3b) are:

2.2 Film Thickness Equation:

following elasticity equation (Houpert et al. 1986):

Figure 2. Schematic representation of elastic deformation in the contact area.

O 1 − j s 6t t + = >?@ h ≤  < 1

2.3 Lubricant viscosity and density Equations:

The discretized density-pressure relationship, given by (Dowson, 1967) in the non-dimensional

The discretized viscosity-pressure relationship given by (Roelands, 1963) in dimensionless form

Where,  is the pressure-viscosity coefficient of the lubricant.

Mass flow rate of the lubricating oil is given by:

The non-dimensional form of Equation (18) is as follows:

Further,  may be written as

The discretized form of Equation (16) has been presented as:

2.5 Load carrying capacity:

The non-dimensional form of load carrying capacity is:

The discretized form of the Equation (19) is:

2.6 Coefficient of friction:

The non-dimensional form of the Equation (21) is:

The non-dimensional coefficient of friction is expressed as:

During calculation, if a negative pressure is evolved at  = , then Reynolds boundary

3. Results and Discussion:

In order to visualize the effect of deflection and roughness on pressure generation in

Table 1. Basic parameters and values used

3.1 Effect of Surface roughness

pressure for different types of roughness follows the trend:

3.2 Effect of Surface deformation

negligible. However, elastic deformation plays a significant role if it is compared to film

3.3 Flow rates:

3.4 Variation in Film thickness Ratio (k):

3.5 Variation in Step Ratios (L1):

3.6 Load capacity:

3.7 Coefficient of Friction:

3.8 Material parameter effect:

Figure 15 shows the effect of different material parameters on pressure distribution

Percentage change in maximum pressure is obtained by the following Equation:

3.9 Effect of Viscosity grades:

Non-dimensional pressure of the fluid film  =

 Non-dimensional film thickness  = ℎℎ

∗ Non-dimensional density ∗ = 

g Film thickness ratio g = ℎ ℎ

¯ Coefficient of lubricant thermal expansivity (0C-1)

Specific heat of the lubricant (J Kg-10C-1)

Non-Dimensional Couette mass flow rate  = "

c Load capacity (N/m)

Non-Dimensional load capacity c ∗ = {+

> Frictional force (N)

Email ID: subratarec@yahoo.co.in

Phone No: +919430187029

Figure 1. Schematic representation of Rayleigh step bearing.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of elastic deformation in the contact area.

Triangular Texture Square Texture

Figure 3. Schematic representation of different surface texture.

Film Thickness (nm)

Non Dimensional Coordinate X=x/l Non Dimensional Coordinate X=x/l

and, and are the viscosity and density of the lubricant at

5 = 0.54∗ + ∗ 7 × 0.5 + 6 = 0.54∗ + ∗ . 7 × 0.5 + .

O 1 − j s 6t t + = >?@ h ≤ < 1

Where, is the pressure-viscosity coefficient of the lubricant.

Further, may be written as

During calculation, if a negative pressure is evolved at = , then Reynolds boundary

Non-dimensional pressure of the fluid film =

Non-dimensional film thickness = ℎℎ

∗ Non-dimensional density ∗ =

g Film thickness ratio g = ℎ ℎ

Non-Dimensional Couette mass flow rate = "