Symbol Description Units

a Semimajor axis of contact

ellipse mm (in.)
True average contact area mm2 (in.)2
Apparent contact area mm2 (in.)2
Semiminor arris of contact
ellipse mm (in.)
d Separation of mean plane of
summits and smooth plane mm (in.)
Summit density mm-2 (in.)-2
Elastic moduli of bodies I and
2 MPa (psi)
Reduced elastic modulus MPa (psi)
Tabular functions for the
~ r e e n ~ o o d - ~ i l l i a m smodel
on
Lubricant film thickness mm (in.)
Central or plateau lubricant
film thickness mm (in.)
4 FRICTION IN ~ L U I ~ - L ~ R ROLLING
I C A ~ ~E L E ~ ~ - CONTACTS
~ C E ~ ~ ~

Symbol Description Units

Zeroth-order spectral moment,
EiZ q s2 pm2 (pin.2)
Second-order spectral moment
Fourth-order spectral moment mm-2 (in.-2)
Contact density mme2 (in.-2)
Plastic contact density mm-2 (in.-2)
Local contact pressure MPa (psi)
Maximum contact pressure MPa (psi)
Applied load N (lb)
Asperity-supported load N (lb)
Fluid-supported load N (lb)
Summit sphere radius mm (in.)
Root mean square (rms)value
of surface profile pm (pin.)
Temperature "C ( O F )
Sliding velocity mmlsec (in./sec)
Deflection of summit pm (pin.)
Variable governing asperity
density pm (pin.)
Yield strength in simple
tension MPa (psi)
Summit height relative to
summit mean plane mm (in.)
Distance between surface and
summit mean plane mm (in.)
Surface profile mm (in.)
Bandwidth parameter
Shear rate sec-l
Absolute viscosity N"sec/m2 (lb-sec/in.2)
Lubricant film parameter, h / s
Coulomb friction coefficient
Poisson's ratio for bodies 1
and 2
Standard deviation of summit
heights for bodies 1. and 2 mm (in.)
Standard deviation for
summit heights for composite
surface mm (in.)
Shear stress MPa (psi)
Shear stress dueto fluid MPa (psi)
Limiting shear stress influid MPa (psi)
Shear stress inNewtonian
fluid lubrication MPa (psi)
GE

Symbol Description Units

Gaussian probability density
function mm-l (in.-l)

In its full complexity, a rolling element-raceway contact caanot be rep-

resented by a simple analytical expression. The combined action of an
applied load and kinematic constraints produces some combination of
rolling, sliding, and spinning motions. These motions act to draw lubri-
cant into the contact where, its properties altered by the pressure and
temperatures that vary throughout the contact region, it forms a film
that serves to separate the contacting bodies to an extent depend in^ on
both the microgeometry of the bodies, and theproperties of the lubricant.
When the separating film is small relative to the composite surface
roughness, a myriad of microcont~ctsof highly irregular shapes forms
within the macrocontact, causing pressure, temperature, and film thick-
ness perturbations on a microscale. Moreover, these microcontacts may
deform plastically as well as elastically with the result that the micro-
geometry varies with Lime,
Sliding and spinning motions on the macrocontact act to shear the
separating lubricant film and, if separation is only partial, to drag the
microcontacts across each other. A tangential force is producedfrom
these combined effects. This tangential or traction force alters the stress
distri~utionin the solids and is a critical factor in determining fatigue
itude of the fluid contribution to the traction depends on
roperties under the locally variable pressure and temper-
ature and shear rates that prevail in themacrocontact. Thecontribution
to the traction caused by the sliding microcontacts will depend on the
local film conditions or the nature of the surface boundary films that
result from oxidation and additives present in the lubricant.
As discussed in Chapter 12, several researchers have attem~tedto
model the eff'ect of surface roughness, i.e., microgeometry, on the thick-
ness of the lubricant films in rolling/sliding concentrated contacts.
efforts have fre~uentlyincluded the estimation of fluid friction a
effect on the lubricant film thickness. In general, it hasbeen determine
that thefriction and the resultant localized temperature rise in thecon-
tact has little effect on lubricant film thickness; as indicated in Chapter
12, lubricant film thickness depends on events occurring at the inlet to
the contact and not in the contact proper.In these analyses, the indicated
solutions have been obtained by numerical analysis, most recently using
finite element methods re~uiringmeshes of several thousand nodes and
tes to hours of calculation evenwith hi
464 FRICTION IN F L ~ - L ~ R I C A T
ROLLING
E ~ E L E ~ ~ - ~ C
C OE~ A~ C A
T S~

culation. While this approach is useful for research purposes, it does not
suffice for use in the determination of ball and roller bearing perform-
ance in practical engineering applications.
This chapter describes an approach that synthesizes state-of-the art
models forlubricant film thickness and asperity load sharing into a prac-
ticable, analytical description of a real, rolling element-raceway contact.

In calculating the lubricant film thickness in Chapter 12, it is assumed

that thesurfaces are perfectly smooth. Theassumption is now made that
when the surfaces are rough the lubricant film thickness, calculated as
if the surfaces were smooth, separates the mean planes of the rough
surfaces, as shown in Fig. 13.1.
The surfaces fluctuate randomly about their mean planes in accord-
ance with a probability distribution. The root-mean-square (rms) value
of this distribution is denoted a, for the upper surface and a2 for the
lower surface. When the combined surface fluctuations at a given posi-
tion exceed the gap h due to the lubricant film, a microcontact occurs.
At the microcontacts the surfaces deform elastically and possibly plas-
tically. The aggregate of the microcontact areas is generally a small frac-
tion (-45%) of the nominal area of contact.
A microcontact model uses surface microgeometry data to predict, at
a minimum, the density of microcontacts, the real area of contact, and
the elastically supported mean load. One of the earliest and simplest
microcontact models is that of Greenwood and Williamson (GW) E13.11.
this model applicable to isotropic surfaces have been
et al. [13.2] and by O’Gallaghan and Cameron E13.31.
lso treated a strongly anisotropic surface. One of the
most comprehensive models yet developed is A ~ P E E13.51, ~ ~ which
I ~
requires a nine-parameter microgeometry description and accounts for
anisotropic as well as isotropic surfaces. A comparison of various micro-

E 13.1. Asperity contacts through partial oil film.

 C R O ~ E O ~ T RAND
Y ~ C ~ O C O ~ A C T S 5

contact models conducted byMcCool L13.61 has shown that the G~

model, despite its simplicity, compares favorably with the other models.
Because it is much easier to implement than the other models, the GW
model is the microcontact model recommended here.

For the contact of real surfaces Greenwood and Williamson [13.1] devel-
oped one of the first models that specifically accounted for the random
nature of interfacial phenomena. Themodel applies tothe contact of two
flat plastic planes, one rough and the othersmooth. It is readily adapted
to the case of two rough surfaces as discussed further below. In the GW
model the rough surface is presumed to be covered with local high spots
or asperities whose summits are spherical. The summits are presumed
to have the same radius R, but randomly variable heights, and to be
uniformly distributed over the rough surface witha known density DSUM
of summitshnit area.
The mean heightof summits liesabove the mean heightof the surface
as a whole by the amount Z, indicated in Fig. 13.2. The summit heights
x, are assumed to follow a Gaussian probability law with a standard
deviation u-,.Figure 13.3 shows the assumedform for the summit height
distribution or probability density function (pdf) f(z,). It is symmetrical
about the mean summit height. The probability that a summit has a
height, measured relative to the summit mean planein the interval(z,?
z, + dz,) is expressed in termsof the pdf as f(z,) dz,. The probability that
a randomly selected summit has a height in excess of some value d is
the area under thepdf to the right of d. The equation of the pdf is

(13'.1)

SOthe probability that a randomly selected summit has height in

excess
of d is

S U ~ ~ HEIGHT
I T
~IST~I~UTIO~

~ . ~ -

13.2. Surface and summit mean planes and distributions.

 13.3. Distribution of summit heights.

This integration must be performed numerically. for tun at el^, however,

the calculation can be related to tabulated areas under the standard
normal curve for which the mean is 0 and the standarddeviation is 1.0.
Using the standard normal density function #(x), the probability that
a summit has a height greater than d above the summit mean plane is
calculated.

(13.3)

where F&) is the area under the standard normal curve to the right of
the value t. Values Fo(t)for t ranging from 1.0 to 4.0, are given in column
2 of Table 13.1.
It is assumed that when large flat surfaces are pressed together,their
mean planes remain parallel. Thus, if a rough surface and a smooth
surface are pressed against each other until the summit mean plane of
the rough surface and the mean plane of the smooth surface are sepa-
rated by an amount d, the probability that a randomly selected summit
will be a microcontact is

PEsummit is a contact] = P[z, > dl = Fo (d/a$) (13.4)

Since the number of summits per unit areais DSTIM,

the average expected
number of contacts in. any unit area is
 E 13.1. Functions for the G r e e n ~ o o d - ~ i l l i a ~ sModel
on

0.0 0.5000 0.3989 0.4299

0.1 0.4602 0.3509 0.3715
0.2 0.4207 0.3069 0.3191
0.3 0.3821 0.2668 0.2725
0.4 0.3446 0.2304 0.2313
0.5 0,3085 0.1978 0.1951
0.6 0.2743 0.1687 0.1636
0.7 0.2420 0.1429 0.1363
0.8 0.2119 0.1202 0.1127
0.9 0.1841 0.1004 0.9267 x 10-1
1.0 0.1587 0.8332 x 10-1 0.7567 x 10-1
1.1 0.1357 0.6862 x 10-1 0.6132 x 10-1
1.2 0.1151 0.5610 x 10-1 0.4935 x 10-1
1.3 0.9680 x 10-1 0.4553 x 10-1 0.3944 x 10-1
1.4 0.8076 X 10-1 0.3667 x 10-1 0.3129 x 10-1
1.5 0.6681 x 10-1 0.2930 x 10-1 0.2463 x 10-1
1.6 0.5480 x 10-1 0.2324 x 10-1 0.1925 x 10-1
1.7 0.4457 x 10-1 0.1829 x 10-1 0.1493 x 10-1
1.8 0.3583 x 10-1 0.1428 x 10-1 0.1149 x 10-1
1.9 0.2872 x 10-l 0.1105 x 10-1 0.8773 x
2.0 0.2275 x 10-1 0.8490 x 0.6646 x
2.1 0.01786 6.468 X 0.4995 x
2.2 0.01390 4.887 X 0.3724 x
2.3 0.01072 3.662 x 0.2754 x
2.4 0.8198 x 2.720 x 0.2020 x 10-2
2.5 0.6210 x 2.004 X 0.1469 x
2.6 0.4661 X low2 1.464 X 0.1060 x
2.7 0.3467 x 1.060 x 0.7587 x
2.8 0.2555 x 7,611 X lo-* 0.5380 X
2.9 0.1866 x 5.417 X lo-* 0.3784 x .
3.0 0.1350 x 3.822 X 0.2639 X
3.2 6.871 x lo-* 1.852 X lo-* 0.1251 X
3.4 3.369 x lo-* 8.666 x 0.5724 X lo-*
3.6 1.591 X lo-* 3.911 X 0.2529 x lo-*
3.8 7.235 X 1.702 X 0.1079 X lo-*
4.0 3.167 x 7,145 x 0.4438 X

Given that a summit is in contact because its height x, exceeds d , the

summit must deflect by the amount u) = z, - d , as shown in Fig. 13.4.
For notational simplicity the subscript on x, is henceforth deleted. For
a sphere of radius 12 elastically deflecting by the amount u), the
solution gives the contact area
 A = TRW = TR(Z- d ) = ma2 x d (13.6)

where a = contact radius.

The correspondingasperity load is

(13.7)

where E' = [(l- v?)lE, + (1 - ~i4)lE~I-l and Ei, vi (i = 1,2) are "Young's
moduli and Poisson's ratios for the two bodies. The maximum Hertzian
pressure in the microcontact is

(13.8)

Both A and P are functions of the random variable z. The average or

expected value of functions of random variables are obtained by inte-
grating the function and the probability density of the random variable
over the space of possible values of the random variable. The expected
summit contact area is thus

(13.9)

which transforms to

(13.10)

where
 (13.11)

F,(t) is also given in Table 13.1.

The expected total contact area as a fraction of the apparent area is
obtained as theproduct of the average asperity contact area contributed
by a single randomly selectedsummit and the density of summits. Thus,
the ratio of contact to apparent area, AJA,, is

(13.12)

By the same argument the total load per unit area supported by asper-
ities is

(13.13)

where

(13.14)

F3/2(t)is also given in Table 13.1.

s2ie e2
A contacting summit will experience some degree of plastic flow when
the maximum shear stressexceeds half the yield stress insimple tension.
In thecontact of a sphere and aflat, the maximum shear stressis related
to the maximum Hertzian stress p o by

egree of plastic deformation is present at a contact if

T~~~ > Y/2.Using the expression for p o [(eq. 13.8)l gives

0.31 * 2E’ (X - d)li2 Y

>- (13.16)
TR1I2 2

or
 (13.17)

z>d+wp (13.18)

Thus, any summit whose height exceeds d + w, will have some de

of plastic deformation. The probability of a plastic sum
the shaded area inFig. 13.3 to the right of d + w,. The e
of plastic contacts per unit area becomes

(13.19)

where

(13.20)

d / u sthe degree of plastic asperity interaction is determi

value of w;: the higher w;, the fewer plastic contacts. Acw
use the inverse, l/wz, as a measure of the plasticity of an i
For a given nominal pressure PIA,, d / u Bis found by solving e ~ u a t ~ o n
( 1 3 ~ 3assuming
)~ that most of the load is elastically supported.

model for a lubricated contact, (1)the height d relative

ne of the summit heights to h, the thickness of the lu-
bricant film that separates the two surfaces, must be ~ e t e r m i n ~and
d,
) the values of the GW parameters R, usmust be establis
or (1)the first step is to compute th e rms value of the
“rough” surfaces as

0- = (0-: + 0-;>1”” (13.21)

en the mean plane of a rough surface with this rms value is held at
ight h above a smooth plane, the rms value of the gap width is the
same as shown in Fig. 13.3, where both surfaces are rough. It is in this
sense that the surface contact of two rough surfaces may be translated
into the e~uivalentcontact of a rough surface and a smooth surface. As
2, the summit and surface mean planes

c surface with normally ~istributedheight ~uctuations,

the value of E, has been found by ush et al. [13.7] to be
 CROGEO C~OCO~ACTS

- 40-
x, = - (13.22)
G
The quantity a, h o w n as the bandwidth parameter, is defined by

where m,, m2,and m4 are known as the zeroth, second, and fourth spec-
tral moments of a profile. Theyare equivalent to the mean square height,
slope, and second derivative of a profile in an arbitrary direction; that is

m, = E (x2) = u2

(13.25)

(13.26)

where x(x)is a profile in an arbitrary direction x, E [ 1 denotes statistical

expectation, and m, is simply the mean square surface height. The
square root of m, or root mean square (rrns) is sometimes referred to as
and forms part of the usual outputof a stylus measuring device.
Some of the newer profile measuring devices also give the rms slope,
which is the same as (m2)1'2 converted fromradians to degrees. No com-
mercial equipment is yet available to measure m4. ~easurementsof m4
made so far have used custom computer processing of the signal output
of profile measurement equipment.
Bush et al. E13.101 also show that the variance uz of the surface sum-
mit height distribution is related to c r 2 , the variance of the composite
surfaces, by

(13.27)

A summit located a distance d from the summit height mean plane is at

a distance h = d + Z, from the surface mean plane. Thus,

d=h-Z, (13.28)

Using equation (13.22) forE, and equation (13.27) for usgives

(13.29)
Equation (13.29) shows that dIus is linearly related to hlu. The ratio
h l u is also referred to as the lubricant film parameter A. When A > 3,
contacts are few and the surfaces may be considered to be well lubri-
cated.
For a specified or calculated value of A, dlcr, is computed from equa-
tion (13.29) for use in the GVV model. For an isotropic surface the two
SUM and 23, the average radius of the spherical caps of as-
perities, may be expressed as (Nayak C13.81):

(13.30)

(13.31)

For an anisotropic surface, the value of m, will vary with the direction
in which the profile is taken on the surface. The ma~imumand minimum
values occur in two orthogonal “principal”~irections.Sayles and T h o ~ a s
[13.9] recommend the use of an equivalent isotropic surface for whichm2
is computed as the harmonic mean of the m2 values found along the
principal directions. The value of m4 is similarly taken as theharmonic
mean of the m4 values in these two directions.

For a specified contact with semiases a and b, under a load P, with pla-
teau lubricant film thickness h and given values of m,, m,, and m4, the
a is determined by first computing PlA, from equation
[13.13] and using

(13.32)

The fluid-supported loadis then

If &, > P, the implication is that the lubricant film thickness is larger
than computed under smooth surface theory. Inthis case, equation
(13.13) could be solved iteratively until Qa= P.

4.1. An isotropic surface has roughness parameters clr2 =

m, pm2, m2 =
= 0.062~ 0.0018, and m4 = 1.04 X pm-,. Calculate
 the summit density DSUM, the height of the summit mean plane above
the surface mean plane, the mean summit radius R, and the standard
deviation a, of the summit height distribution.
From equation (13.30) the summit density is

m4 = 1.04 X 10-4 (13.30)

DSUM =
6wm2a 1.8 X X 32.65

= 1.77 X pm-2 (1.142 pin.-2)

The separation of the surface and summit mean plane is, by equations
(13.22) and (13.23),

(13.22)

(13.23)

= 2.006
- =
2, 4 (~n=) 1/2

= 0.399 pm (1.571 X in.)

The mean summit tip radius is, from equation (13.31),

(13.31)

= 65.2 pm (2.567 X lom3in.)

The standard deviation of the summit height distribution is calculated
from equation (13.27) to be

a, = [(1- ~) 1/2
(13.27)

1 = 0.186 pm (7.323 X in.)

Let a steel surface having these roughness characteristics make

rolling contactwith a smooth plane forming an EHL contact for which
the plateau lubricant film thickness, computed from equation (12.61)
and adjusted for starvation and inlet heating, is h = 0.5 pm. Using
the GW microcontact model, calculate the nominal pressure PIA,, the
relative contact area &/A,, the mean real pressure PIA,, the contact
density n, and, for a tensile yield strength of 2070 NImm2,the plastic
contact density n,.
The computed filmparameter A = 0.51(0.0625)1f2= 2.0. From equa-
tion (13.29),

d - hlcr - 4/(wa)lf2
"
(13.29)
CrB (I - 0.8968Ia)'l2

(I - 0.8968/2.006)1f2
0.544

Interpol~tingin Table 13.1 gives

F, (0.544) = 0.2935
F , (0.544) = 0.1850
F3/2 (0.544) = 0.1812

The nominal pressure is calculated from equation (13.13) with E' =

1.14 X IO6N/mm2 (16.53 x lo6 psi) for steel:

= x 1.14 x IO5 (0.0652)1/2(0.186 x 10-3)3/2

3 (13.13)
X 1770 X 0.1812
= 31.6 NImm2 (4581 psi)

From equation (14.13) the ratio of mean real contact area A, to nom-
inal contact area A, is

(13.12)

= w X 0.0652 X 0.186 X X 1770 X 0.185

= 0.0125

The actual contact area thus averages only 1.25%of the nominal con-
tact area. The mean actual pressure PIA, is
 31.6
-
- "

0.0125
- 2528 N/mm2 (3.665 X lo5 psi)

From equation (13.5) the contact density n is

(13.5)

= 1770 X 0.2935 = 519 eontacts/mm2 (3.35 X 105/in.2)

From equation (13.20),

w: = 6.4 ( ~( )~ ) 2
(13.20)

= 6.4 X

= 0.740

From equation (13.19),

(13.19)

= 1770 F, (0.544 + 0.740)

= 1770 F, (1.284)

inter pol at in^ in Table 13.1 gives F, (1.284) = 0.100 and np = 177/
mm2 ( 114,000/in.2).
If the macroeontact is elliptical with semiaxes a = 3 mm (0.01181
in.) and b = 0.33 mm (0.01299 in.) under a load of P = 3500 N (786.5
lb), the mean asperity-supported load is

Q, = Tab (~) = T X 3 X 0.33 X 31.6

= 98.3 N (22.1 lb)

The fluid-supported load is

Q~ = P - Qa = 3500 - 98.3 = 3402 N (764.5 lb)

4 FRICTION IN ~ ~ ~ - L ~ R ROLLING
I C ~ ET EL ~ E ~ ~

As indicated in Chapter 12, a Newtonian lubricant is one in which stress

due to shearing of the lubricant is defined by equation (12.1).

aU
7 - q- (12.1)
ax

This equation implies that fluid viscosity is a constant. Several investi-

gators [13.101-[ 13.131have investigated the effects of non-Newtonian lu-
bricant behavior on the EHL model. Bell [13.ll] specifically studied the
effects of a Ree-Eyring model, in which shear rate can be described by
equation (13.34).

( 13.34)

In equation (13.34), Eyring stress T~ and viscosity q are functions of tem-

perature and pressure. When r is small, equation (13.34) describes a
linear viscousbehavior approaching that of equation (12.1). Subse-
quently, it has been established that the non-Newtonian characteristics
of lubricants tend to cause decreases in viscosity at high lubricant shear
rates. These may occurdirectly in thecontact under operating conditions
involving substantial sliding in addition to rolling. It has been further
established, however, that thefilm thickness which obtains over most of
the contact is primarily a function of the lubricant properties at the con-
tact inlet. At the contact inlet, pressure is substantially atmospheric;
therefore, it is not anticipated that a non-Newtonian lubricant will sig-
nificantly influence lubricant film thickness.
Non-Newtonian lubrication does, however, significantly influence fric-
tion in the contact. Due to friction, lubricant temperature in the contact
rises during rolling element-raceway contact,causing lubricant viscosity
to decrease. Moreover, since pressure increases greatly in, and varies
over, the contact, it is evident that equation (12.11) becomes

(13.34)

Assuming the contact area and surface pressure distribution is as rep-

resented by Fig. 6.6 for point contact and Fig. 6.7 for line contact, then
equation (13.34) defines the localized shear stress T at any point x,y on
the contact surface. Since EHL films are very thin compared to the ma-
crogeometrical dimensions of the rolling components, it is further appro-
priate to approximate equation (13.34) as follows:

(13.35)

where u is sliding velocity at thecontact surface point x,y, and hc is the

central or plateau film thickness.
Houpert E13.141 and Evans and Johnson E13.151 used the Ree-Eyring
modelfor analysis of EHL traction. Equations (12.21)-(12.23), intro-
duced in Chapter 12, can provide the viscosity-pressure-temperature
relationship for many common lubricants. These equations can be used
in equation (13.34) in the estimation of shear stress r provided the lo-
calized temperature and pressure can themselves be estimated.

As shown in Chapter 7, owing to the macrogeometries of mating rolling

components-i.e., rolling elements and raceways-and the contact de-
formations of these components under load, both rollingand sliding mo-
tions occur in most rolling element-raceway contacts. Gecim and Winer
air and Winer E13.161 suggested alternative espressions for
the relationship between shear stress and strain rate thatincorporated
a maximum or limiting shear stress. Essentially, they proposed that for
a given pressure, temperature, anddegree of sliding, there is a maximum
shear stress that can be sustained. Based on experimental data from a
disk machine, Fig. 13.5 from Johnson and Cameron [13.17] shows curves

ean contact
pressure

Siide to roil ratio

~ I ~ 13.6. ~ R Typical
E curves of traction measured on a disk machine operating in line
contact (from [13.171).
 - L ~ R I C ~ T
~ E
O ~L L ELE
~ G

of traction coefficient vs pressure and slide-roll ratio, which illustrate

this phenomenon.
In thiscase, traction coefficient is defined as theratio of average shear
stress to average normal stress. ased on experiments, Schipper et al.
[13.18] indicated a range of values for limiting fluid shear stress; for
example, 0.07 < ~ ~< 0.11.~ ~ / p ~ ~ ~

rachman and Cheng [13.19] and Tevaarwerk and Johnson [13.20] in-
vestigated traction in rolling-sliding contacts and found that equation
(12.1) pertains only to a situation involving a relatively low slide-to-roll
ratio; for example, less than 0.003 as shown in Fig. 13.5. Notethat trac-
tion refers to the net frictional effect in the rolling direction. Similar to
Trachman and Cheng, for a given temperature and pressure, it is pos-
sible to define local contact friction as follows:

(13.36)

where T~ is the ~ewtonian portion o f the €rictional shear stress as

defined by equation (12.1) and 7-1im is the maxim^^ shear stress thatcan
be sustained at the applied pressure, Fig. 13.6 schematically demon-
strates equation (13.36).
ognizing that viscosity is a function of local pressure and temper-
ct, and since the film thickness is extremely small
imensions of the rolling co~ponents,7-N can be de-
scribed by equation (13.35).

As indi~atedin the section on ~ i c r o ~ e o m e tand

r y ~icrocontacts?
when
lubricant film thickness is of the same magnitude or less than the com-
posite roughness of the rolling components, Le,,A 5 1,contact of asper-

Ne~onianshear stress T,,

limitingshearstress y,

shear rate
F I ~ U R E13.6. Schematic illustration of equation (13.36).
ities on the component surfaces becomes morefrequent. The frictionthat
occurs due to sliding motions between asperities can be characterized as
Coulomb friction, such that

7
, = Pap (13.37)

where EA, is the Coulomb coefficientof friction and p is the local pressure.
On an average basis, this frictional stress may be assumed to apply to
the portion of the overall contact area associated with asperity-asperity
contact. If the contact area of the smooth components is defined as A,,
then, according to equation (13.12), the portion of the contact associated
with Coulomb friction is AJA, * A,.

Combining the stress components due to Newtonia

ting shear in the fluid, and asperity interactions,
[13.211 applied the following formulain thedetermination of rolling con-
tact tractions:

(13.38)

In using equation (13.38), it is necessary to define values for q i m and p.

These values for can only bedetermined from testing of full-scale bearing
ased on comparison of predicted to actual bearing heat
generations so determined, rIim= O.Ip,,, and p = 0.1 have been found
to be representative in several applications.

This chapter contains an approach to predicting key performance-related

parameters descriptive of real EHL contacts, including contact density,
true contact area, plastic contact area, fluid and asperity load sharing,
and the relative contributions of the fluid and asperities to overall fric-
tion. It is recognized that using more elegant and complex analytical
methods such as very fine mesh,multi-thousand node, and finite element
analysis together with solutions of the Reynolds and energy equations
in three dimensions, it is possible to obtain a more generalized solution
with perhaps increased accuracy. Unfortunately, using currently availa-
ble computing equipment, such solutions would require several hours of
computational time to enable the performance analysis of a single op-
erating condition for a rolling bearing containing only a small comple-
48 FRICTION IN F L ~ D - L ~ R I C ~ T
ROLLING
ED E L E ~ ~ - ~ C ECONTACT^
~ A Y

ment of rolling elements. The equations provided in this chapter for

frictional shear stress are based on the assumption of Hertz pressure
(normal stress) applied, unmodified by EHL conditions, to the contact.
This assumption is sufficiently accurate formostrollingelement-
raceway contacts in that such loading is reasonably heavy; for example,
generally at least several hundred MPa. Furthermore, the assumption is
made that equation (13.38) can be applied at every point in the contact.
With respect to the Coulomb friction component of surface shear stress,
it is recognized that surface roughness peaks cause local pressures in
excess of Hertzian values and these will cause localized shear stresses
in excess of those predicted by equation (13.38).Accom~odationof these
variations tends to increase the computational time beyond current en-
gineering practicality.Therefore, for engineering purposes, frictional
shear stressmay becalculated according to the average condition in each
contact.

13.1. J. Greenwood and J. Williamson, “Contact of Nominally Flat Surfaces,” Proc. RoyaZ
SOC.London A295, 300-319 (1966).
13.2. A. Bush, R. Gibson, and T. Thomas, “TheElastic Contact of a Rough Surface,” Wear
35, 87-111 (1975).
13.3. M. O’Callaghan and M. Cameron, “Static Contact under Load Between Nominally
Flat Surfaces,’’ Wear 36, 79-97 (1976).
13.4. A. Bush, R. Gibson, and G. Keogh, “Strongly Anisotropic Rough Surfaces,” ASME
Paper 78-LUB-16 (1978).
13.5. J. McCool and S. Gassel, “The Contactof Two Surfaces Having Anisotropic Rough-
ness Geometry,”ASLE Special ~ubzication(SP-71,29-38 (1981).
13.6. J, McCool, “Comparison of Models for the Contact of Rough Surfaces,” Wear 107,
37-60 (1986).
13.7. A. Bush, R. Gibson, and G. Keogh, “The Limitof Elastic Deformation in the Contact
of Rough Surfaces,” Mech. Res. Cornrn. 3, 169-174 (1976).
13.8. P. Nayak, “Random Process Model of Rough Surfaces,” Trans. ASME, J Lub. Tech-
nology 93F, 398-407 (1971).
13.9. R. Sayles and T. Thomas, “ThermalConductances of a Rough Elastic Contact,”AppZ.
Energy 2, 249-267 (1976).
13.10 T. Sasaki, H. Mori, and N. Okino, “Fluid LubricationTheory of Roller Bearings Parts
I and 11,” ASME Trans., J Basic Eng. 166, 175 (1963).
13.11 J. Bell, “Lubrication of Rolling Surfaces by a Ree-Eyring Fluid,” ASLE Trans. 5,
160-171 (1963).
13.12. F. Smith, “Rolling Contact Lubrication-The Application of Elastohydrod~amic
Theory,” ASME Paper 64-Lubs-2 (April 1964).
13.13 B. Gecim and W. Winer, “A Film Thickness Analysis for Line Contacts under Pure
Rolling Conditions with a Non-Newtonian Rheological Model,” ASME Paper 80C2/
LUB 26 (August 8, 1980).
 FERE~CES
13.14. L. Houpert, “New Results of Traction Force Calculations in EHD Contacts,” ASME
Trans, J; Lub. Technology l07(2), 241 (1985).
13.15. C. Evans and IC. Johnson, “The Rheological Properties of EHI) Lubricants,” Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. 200(C5),303-312 (1986).
13.16. S. Bair andW. Winer, “A Rheological Model for Elastohydrodynamic Contacts Based
on Primary Laboratory Data,” ASME Trans., J. Lub. Tech. 101(3), 258-265 (1979).
13.17. IC.Johnson and R. Cameron, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 182(1), 307 (1967).
13.18. D. Schipper, P. Vroegop, A. DeGee, and R. Bosma, ‘“Micro-EHL in Lubricated Con-
centrated Contacts,’’A5”E Trans., J. Tribology 112, 392-397 (1990).
13.19. E. Trachman and H. Cheng, “Thermal and Non-Newtonian EEects on Traction in
Elastohydrodynamic Contacts,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 2nd Symposium on Elasto-
hydrodynamic Lubrication, Leeds, 142-148 (1972).
13.20. J. Tevaamerk and IC. Johnson, “A Simple Non-Linear Constitutive Equation for
EHD Oil Films,” ‘Wear 35, 345-356 (1975).
13.21. T. Harris and R. Barnsby, “Tribological Performance Prediction of Aircraft Turbine
Mainshaft Ball Bearings,” Tribology Trans. 41(1), 60-68 (1998).