Understanding and preventing
surface distress
Technology
In many industrial applications that have lubricated rolling/sliding contacts such
as rolling bearings, power density has steadily increased over time due to
the need for greater efficiency, reduction of weight and costs (i.e., downsizing).
­Alongside, this has brought an increased severity in working conditions,
such as heavier loads in combination with higher temperatures, thinner oil
films and/or boundary-lubrication conditions, and this can give rise to surface
distress in machine components [1].
26 Surface distress manifests
itself initially with a change of
colour/dull appearance of the sur-
face, which grows as the damage
progresses. Under the microscope
the affected surface areas show the
presence of tiny micro spalls, micro
cracks or micro pits (fig. 1).
S. Way [2] was one of the first to
study surface distress in lubricated
contacts. He observed that the
polishing of the contacting discs
substantially increased their resist-
ance to surface distress. Later, P.H.
Dawson [3] identified the import-
ance of good lubrication and fine
roughness in preventing or delaying
1 mm surface distress.
It is now recognized that sur-
face distress is a surface damage
phenomenon associated with
poor lubrication conditions [4],
thus generating high local friction
and stresses at the asperity level.
Fig. 1:
­Illustration
This phenomenon has been the
of surface subject of many experimental and
200 μm ­distress. numerical studies [5–7]. Other
surface phenomena such as mild
11EVO4_ensurfacedistress_4519.indd 26
material removal (mild wear) [8,
9] compete with surface distress
during the running-in phase and
in later stages, by removing lay-
ers of damaged material, making
the surface less prone to develop
surface micro cracks. Recently,
SKF has developed detailed sur-
face distress models [10] based on
the interaction between surface
micro-crack generation and mild
loss of material, in order to inves-
tigate critical parameters and
predict surface damage.
In the following sections mechan-
ical aspects (lubrication, roughness,
friction and mild loss of material)
that are believed to play an import-
ant role in surface distress will be
described, along with some recom-
mendations to improve the condi-
tions in the contact and reduce the
risk of surface distress. Chemistry
(tribochemistry) certainly has a key
role to play [8, 9] by affecting mater-
ial removal and/or the boundary
friction coefficient during running-
in and successive stages.
evolution.skf.com #4 2011
2011-10-03 10:11:45
 b) Coulomb ­sliding

Friction ­coefficient [-]

friction

Surface friction
Since surface distress is greatly
influenced by the lubrication
regime, notably enhanced by
a) L
 ubrication ­sliding
friction
coefficient is increased, surface
distress is more severe. In conclu-
sion, boundary friction is a very
important factor in promoting sur- Sliding

boundary and/or mixed-lubrica- face micro cracks when the contact

tion regimes, consequently “dry
or boundary” friction plays a
very important role. In full-film
lubrication regime, the friction
force is introduced by shearing
the lubricating film by means of
sliding. The shear stress (and thus
the friction force) depends on the
rheology of the lubricant, following
the schematic path described in fig.
2 (a). However, whenever asperity
tips are in contact, “dry” friction
(or boundary-lubrication friction)
is regarded approximately as a
Coulomb type of friction, i.e., fig.
2 (b), which has zero value at pure
rolling and a nearly constant value
as soon as sliding starts. Notice
operates under boundary or mixed Fig. 2: Schematic view of friction behaviour
lubrication. as a function of sliding for (a) the lubricated
Boundary friction largely areas and (b) the dry areas (contacting
asperities) within a mixed-lubrication con-
depends on the type of lubricant
tact, according to the Coulomb law.
and its additive package. The value
of the boundary friction coefficient
can be extracted from measured
Stribeck curves from ball-on-disc Stribeck curves,
several measurements, same oil and surface
tribometers. This is normally done
0.16
with a fixed amount of nominal
0.14
slip in the contact (2 – 5 %) and by Boundary friction
0.12
steadily increasing the lubricant Friction coefficient [-] coefficient
0.10
entrainment speed. In a ball-disc 0.08
tribometer the boundary coeffi- 0.06
cient of friction is the first point in 0.04
the Stribeck curve (fig. 3). Notice 0.02 27
that friction coefficients meas- 0
ured here represent average values 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

that in either case, higher sliding within the contact. Entraining speed [m/s]

does not necessarily mean higher

friction. In a rough (boundary)
or mixed-lubricated contact, the
“dry” spots will not have trac-
tion forces on the surface, unless
there is some sliding, regardless
Importance of lubrication
and roughness
In rolling bearings, lubrication
has a major role in life perform-
ance. This is why SKF life models
Fig. 3: Typical Stribeck boundary
curves obtained, e.g., lubrication mixed
lubrication
from a ball-on-disc tri-
bometer for the same oil
and surface with 5 % slip
Friction coefficient [-]

(above); a general shape

how little, as long as it is different
from zero, as indicated in fig. 2 (b).
However, “pure rolling” conditions
do not exist. Real contacts, even
when running under “nominal
pure rolling” conditions, always
have a small amount of slip, which
results in some sliding friction and,
consequently, in the possibility of
a risk of surface distress. In tests
carried out at the SKF Engineering
& Research Centre, Nieuwegein,
the Netherlands, it was found that
nominal pure rolling conditions
can also exhibit surface distress.
Under equal conditions and
number of cycles it has also been
found that if the boundary friction
account for the effect of the lubri-
cation parameter, к. The import-
ance of lubrication and roughness
in surface damage is very much
related to the effect of local friction
forces and stress concentrations (at
the asperity level). In boundary or
mixed lubrication, having irregu-
larities on the surface (roughness
or indentations, fig. 4) will influ-
ence the way the dry and lubricated
spots are distributed within the
contact. Furthermore, discontinui-
ties on surface traction and possible
stress concentrations (fig. 5) must
also be considered. High rough-
ness (or high roughness slopes) will
promote local film collapse, high
full-film
of the Stribeck curve
lubrication
showing the friction
coefficient as a function
of the film thickness
parameter (right).
Film thickness parameter [-]
contact pressures and tractions.
This will enhance stress concentra-
tions in the critical areas of traction
discontinuities.
From test results and theoretical
modelling at SKF, surface distress
appears first in areas of pressure
discontinuities (high-pressure gra-

#4 2011 evolution.skf.com

11EVO4_ensurfacedistress_4519.indd 27 2011-10-03 10:11:48

 200 μm Roughness lay interaction models and the experimental
with friction direction results.
Experiments show that under
boundary or mixed-lubrication The contact of two
conditions, transverse roughness rough surfaces
lay (to the rolling/sliding direction) In industrial applications, the
Technology

50 μm 20 μm is more prone to surface distress contact always takes place between

Fig. 4: Surface distress ­appearance than longitudinal lay (fig. 6); the
on asperity summits (left) and in the same conclusion is described in [5].
area around a dent (right). This is an interesting observation
since under full-film elastohydro-
dynamic lubrication (EHL)
Pressure
conditions transverse roughness
3
may produce a better film build-up,
p, [GPa]
two real surfaces having a certain
roughness. This is also the case in
the tests carried out at SKF using
a surface distress test rig (SDTR),
which has a rotating rod in con-
tact with three discs (all made of
hardened bearing steel). It was

2
but likely higher pressure ripples as observed that when the test rod
1
well. However, under boundary or was rougher than the load apply-
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 mixed lubrication the acting ing discs, surface distress did not
x, [m] x 10 -4
x 10 -5 von Mises, τvM, [GPa] mechanisms are different. appear in a reasonable time even
0
1
SKF researchers have found that under the harshest conditions (fig.
2 the component of the friction force 7a). However, when the discs were
z, [m]

3 normal to the roughness lay can
4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
5 substantially increase the stress
28 0.5 1 1.5
x, [m]
2 2.5
x 10 -4
concentration at the “root” zone of
the roughness for the rougher
Stress concentration
surface and on the micro contact
edges for the smoother surface (fig.
5). This effect can enhance damage
and surface distress, but its
severity depends on the actual
micro geometry of the roughness.
high friction There is, however, another aspect
that is related to the stress history.
low friction Stress concentration
Transverse roughness will induce a
higher number of micro stress
Fig. 5: Schematic representation of the trac-
cycles in the contact than longitu-
tion discontinuities and stress ­concentration
dinal roughness (with or without
areas in boundary or mixed-lubrication
the presence of lubricant). Since
regime of rough surfaces.
fatigue is sensitive to the number of
stress cycles, then more damage is
expected on the opposite contact-
ing surface. Experiments have been
dients) associated with increased conducted alongside numerical
roughness. It can easily be seen simulations to show this effect (fig.
on the borders of grooves or in the 6). Very similar surfaces were
summits of asperities or surface tested under the same conditions,
rises from indentations (fig. 4). changing the lay direction of the
Rather unexpectedly, it is generally roughness only. In the model, the
the smoother of the two mating sur- same roughness sample has been
faces that will first start the distress used at 0° and 90°. Good agreement
process. has been found between the SKF
rougher than the rod (fig. 7b); then
surface distress easily appeared
on the rod surface. This is also a
common observation elsewhere [9].
The likely explanation for this is the
load history from the fatigue micro
cycles imposed by the roughness.
Since the conditions in the con-
tact are, in general, more towards
boundary or mixed lubrication,
then the stress history is imposed
by the dominant rougher surface
upon the smoother one, as long as
there is some sliding. Fig. 8 sche-
matically represents this situation
(i.e., rough and smooth contacting
surfaces in relative sliding motion,
with speed Ur). It can be observed
that the smooth surface “sees”
a fluctuation in pressures (load
micro cycles) while all points on
the rough surface always “feel” the
same stresses (which are higher in
the contact areas and lower in the
non-contact areas). This example
shows that the rough surface is
dominant when imposing the load
variation upon the smooth one. In
real contacts, both surfaces will be
rough and in movement (with some

evolution.skf.com #4 2011

11EVO4_ensurfacedistress_4519.indd 28 2011-10-03 10:11:53

 Roughness
5 5
0 0
-5
600
400
400
200 300
200
y [µm] 100
0 0 x [µm]
(a) Longitudinal roughness.
Fig. 6: Effect of roughness orientation with respect to the rolling direction (denoted by the black arrow): longitudinal roughness (a)
and transverse roughness (b). Typical configurations of roughness (left) along with experimental and model results showing surface
distress on the opposite smooth surface (right) after 720,000 Hertzian cycles with 2 % slip.
sliding), but if they have different
roughness, the rougher surface will
prevail over the smoother one when
it comes to impose the load micro
cycles. Therefore, the smoother
surface will be more prone to
surface distress in the presence
of some sliding, provided that the
mechanical properties of both sur-
faces are the same. However, in full-
film conditions with the presence of
hydrodynamic pressures from the
lubrication, this effect in the load
history can be very different. With
sliding, hydro-dynamic pressure
waves propagate at different speeds.
Fig. 9 shows simulation results
for a rough-on-smooth surface
contact. It describes the distressed
area as a function of the maximum
Hertzian contact pressure. It can be
seen that surface distress progress-
es much faster on the smoother
surface, as well as that the risk
increases for both surfaces with
load.
Mild removal of material
Observations from tests run on the
SDTR show that if the lubricant vis-
cosity is too low (e.g., 1 cSt) surface
distress does not always appear, but
rather mild material removal (mild
wear) on the surface can take place.
Therefore, it is believed that with
diminishing the lubrication quality,
represented by either the param-
#4 2011 evolution.skf.com
11EVO4_ensurfacedistress_4519.indd 29
Roughness
-5
500
400
300 600
500
200 400
100 200
y [µm] 0 0
x [µm]
(b) Transverse roughness.
eter к, or the lambda ratio Λ (Λ = suppressed by the removal of mater-
h/R q ) for more general lubricated ial at the surface. However, the
contacts, the material removal counteractive effect of the material
becomes important. Surface dis- removal quickly disappears with
tress and mild wear compete with increasing Λ , which causes a tempo-
each other [8, 9], both during the rary increase of surface distress and
running-in and in the steady state reaches its maximum at Λ ≈ 1.1. For
phase. Therefore, the modelling this example, beyond this point the
of surface distress is a complex influence of mild wear becomes neg-
task, because several phenomena ligible and the two curves merge. 29
interact.
It is believed that in some cases
the mild wear at the surface may
reduce or inhibit the presence of
surface distress by modifying the
surface topography or by removing Fig. 7: Effect of roughness location:
(a) smooth discs on rough rod
layers of damaged material, thus
and (b) rough discs on smooth rod.
making the surface less prone to
surface distress [8, 9]. Mild mater-
ial removal can also interact with
the lubrication conditions in the
contact. Fig. 10 depicts an example
of the lubrication effect, predicted
by SKF modelling: the percentage
of the distressed area versus the
lubrication quality parameter ( Λ )
for two cases – with and without
mild wear. As can be seen, in the
case of no removal of material, the
surface distress gradually decreases
with increasing Λ , as the surface
becomes more protected by thicker
lubricant film. In the case of com-
bined fatigue and mild material
removal, the behaviour is more a) Smooth on rough b) Rough on smooth
complex. Thus, at very low values ­contact. ­contact.
of Λ, the surface distress is entirely
2011-10-03 10:11:59
 ΔϬ
Ur
ΔϬ
Fig. 8: Stress history for the rough and smooth
contacting surfaces in relative sliding motion
Technology
under boundary or mixed-lubrication conditions.
Rougher surface
Smoother surface
12
Percentage of distressed area A p, [%]
10
8 9
Smooth Rough
6 8
4 7
2 200µm
0 5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Maximum contact pressure p 0, [GPa]
Fig. 9: SKF modelling results for the percentage
of distressed area versus load for the two differ-
30 ent surfaces in the same contact, one rougher
than the other.
Effect of sliding
This is an important topic since the
effect of sliding on surface distress
in rolling bearings has recently
attracted renewed interest. Many
studies argue that increasing
sliding would increase surface dis-
tress, based on crack propagation
concepts. However, to propagate a
crack, it first needs to be generated.
Through SKF modelling capabil-
ities and carefully conducted
experiments in the laboratory, it is
shown that increasing sliding does
not necessarily mean increasing
surface distress; in fact, quite the
opposite occurs in many cases. Fig.
11 shows the effect of sliding in the
SKF model (curve) when mild wear
is considered. Fig. 11 also shows the
11EVO4_ensurfacedistress_4519.indd 30
18
t 16
no material removal
Percentage of distressed area A p, [%]
14
12
10
mild material removal
8
6
t 4
2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Lubcrication quality parameter Λ
Fig. 10: Example of SKF model ­c alculated diagram showing the
effect of the lubrication quality parameter Λ and mild material
removal on surface distress.
Fig. 11: Effect of
10
the slide-to-roll
Corresponding experimental results for
different sliding-to-rolling ratios
ratio on surface
Percentage of distressed area A p, [%]
distress, curve:
SKF model;
6
photos: experi-
ments; for
200µm 200µm
S=0.01 S=0.02 S=0.1
2.0 S=0.01, S=0.02
4 and S=0.1.
3
2
1
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Sliding/rolling ratio S, [-]
roller surface photographs from the increase with sliding, in both cases
experimental results with increas- lubricated and dry (=> surface
ing sliding, S=0.01, S=0.02 and friction). In dry contact (boundary
S=0.1, respectively (i.e., S = sliding lubrication) friction follows a
speed/entrainment speed), clearly Coulomb law; therefore only a tiny
showing that surface distress amount of sliding is necessary to
damage is maximum at low sliding activate this mechanism and almost
values (S≈0.01). The sliding value reach its maximum value. If sliding
typically present in any rolling still increases, then the friction
bearing type. Therefore, when it force on the surface does not
comes to surface distress resist- increase (after the compliance of the
ance in relation to sliding, there surface has been overcome). In
is no performance differentiation lubricated contacts, friction follows
between, say, roller bearings with the rheological law of the lubricant;
straight or curved rollers, or even in EHL conditions the behaviour of
ball bearings. the lubricant is non-Newtonian and
There are two explanations for close to the limiting shear stress
this mechanism, based on crack conditions. Therefore, increasing
generation concepts. sliding does not substantially
Friction: It does not necessarily increase friction on the surface.
evolution.skf.com #4 2011
2011-10-03 10:12:04

Mild wear: It increases with
sliding, removing the damaged
layers of material from the surface,
and this delays the fatigue damage.
Conclusions
There are number of conclusions
related to surface distress. Firstly,
the quality of lubrication (and
roughness) is extremely important
with respect to the generation (and
control) of surface distress. Mixed
and boundary lubrication produce
spots of basically “dry” contact.
This introduces a local increase in
the surface tractions, stress con-
centrations (wet areas have lower
friction than dry areas) and micro
stress cycles, which may facilitate
fatigue. Surface friction has a major
role in the surface distress gener-
ation. Even with “seemingly ideal”
pure rolling conditions, surface dis-
tress may be generated, since some
sliding is always present in real
applications. Due to the importance
of surface friction in the generation
of surface distress, the presence of
some sliding is necessary for the
development of surface traction
and surface damage. However, the
increase of sliding to more than 1 or
2 % (typical of any rolling bearing
type) does not increase the surface
distress risk, as friction does not
increase and mild wear helps to pre-
vent surface fatigue.
Surface stress risers and the
stress history (micro cycles) under
mixed or boundary-lubrication
conditions are likely to be the most
important factors responsible for
different performance of roughness
against surface distress. However,
when a full separating lubrication
film exists, the effect of roughness
may be disregarded. In the tests,
the “contact” between a rougher
and a smoother surface has shown
that the latter is always more prone
to surface distress. Finally, mild
#4 2011 evolution.skf.com
11EVO4_ensurfacedistress_4519.indd 31
wear in general may inhibit or
retard the presence of micro cracks
by reducing the high asperities dur-
ing running-in and by removing the
fatigued layers of material close to
the surface. However, substantial
or localized wear can lead to the
changes in the macro geometry of
components that in turn can nega-
tively influence life.
Ways of prevention
From these studies, there are a
number of practical steps that can
reduce surface distress. namely:
E nsure good lubrication (full-
film conditions), depending on
the application, e.g., higher lubri-
cant viscosity, higher running
speed, lower temperature, etc.
R educe boundary friction (lubri-
cant, thickener, low-friction coat-
ings, etc.).
R educe stress raisers (contam-
ination, debris, surface marks
from mounting, etc.). Use of opti-
mized topography.
R educe dynamic movements
under load (e.g., by preload, or
minimizing clearances).
E nsure equal levels of roughness
in the different contacting elem-
ents (e.g., by running-in).
I n certain cases some controlled
mild surface removal of material
(additive-lubricant interaction)
can be justified to reduce the sur-
face distress level.
U
 se SKF Explorer bearings that
have a surface topography bal-
ance to avoid surface distress
risk.
By G.E. Morales-Espejel, Senior scientist,
SKF Engineering and Research Centre,
Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, V. Brizmer,
Researcher, SKF Engineering and Re-
search Centre, Nieuwegein, the Nether-
lands, K. Stadler, Programme Manager
SKF Technology Centre Wind, Schwein-
furt, Germany.
References
[1] ISO Standard 15243, “Rolling Bearings
– Damage and Failures – Terms, Charac-
teristics and Causes”, 2004.
[2] Way, S., “Pitting due to Rolling
Contact”, J. of Appl. Mech., vol. 57, pp.
A49-A58, 1935.
[3] Dawson, P.H., “Effect of Metallic Con-
tact on the Pitting of Lubricated Rolling
Surfaces”, J. Mech. Eng. Sc., vol. 4(1), pp.
16-21, 1962.
[4] Olver, A.V., “The Mechanism of Rolling
Contact Fatigue – an Update”, Proc. Instn.
Mech. Engrs., Part J, J. of Eng. Trib., Vol.
219, pp. 313-330, 2005.
[5] Oila, A., Bull, S.J., “Assessment of the
Factors Influencing Micropitting in Roll-
ing/Sliding Contacts”, Wear, Vol. 258, pp.
1510-1524, 2005.
[6] Brandão, J.A., Seabra, J.H.O., Castro,
J. “Surface Initiated Tooth Flank Damage
Part I: Numerical Model”, Wear, Vol. 268,
pp. 1-12, 2010.
[7] Brandão, J.A., Seabra, J.H.O., Castro,
J. “Surface Initiated Tooth Flank Damage
Part II: Prediction of Micropitting Initia-
tion and Mass Loss”, Wear, Vol. 268, pp.
13-22, 2010.
[8] Lainé, E., Olver, A.V., “The effect of
Anti-wear additives on fatigue damage”,
Extended abstract, 62nd STLE Annual
Meeting, 2007.
[9] Lainé, E., Olver, A.V., Beveridge, T.A.,
“Effect of lubricants on micropitting and
wear”, Tribology International, 41, pp.
1049-1055, 2008.
[10] Morales-Espejel, G.E., Brizmer, V.,
“Micropitting Modelling in Rolling-Sliding 31
Contacts: Application to Rolling Bearings”,
Tribology Transactions, vol. 54, pp 625-
643, 2011.
summary
Understanding the under-
lying causes of surface
distress in rolling surfaces
such as bearings could
go a long way toward
developing measures
to prevent the events
that then lead to surface
damage and, potentially,
bearing failure. Through
tests and modelling tech-
niques developed at SKF,
engineers have gained a
greater insight into the
conditions, mostly related
to lubrication, that pro-
mote surface distress and
suggest some practical
ways of mitigating it.
2011-10-03 10:12:07