The Effect of Wear on the Load-Carrying Capacity and Maximum Oil

Pressure of a Plain Journal Bearing

by
Marc Desjardins
A Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:

_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, CT
December, 2013

i
 CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................. ix
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... x
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
2. Theory/Methodology ................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Hydrodynamic Lubrication ................................................................................ 2
2.1.1 Velocity of Oil around the Journal ......................................................... 2
2.1.2 Reynolds Equation for the Pressure Gradient dp/dx .............................. 4
2.1.3 Harrison Equation .................................................................................. 5
2.1.4 Load-Carrying Capacity and the Harrison-Sommerfeld Equation......... 6
2.2 Wear in Journal Bearings ................................................................................... 7
2.3 Finite Element Modeling.................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Plain Journal Bearing Model ................................................................ 10
2.4 COMSOL Modeling of Journal Bearings with Wear ...................................... 12
2.4.1 COMSOL Model Used for Varying Wear Location ............................ 12
2.4.2 COMSOL Model Used for Varying Wear Depth ................................ 14
2.5 Cases Evaluated ............................................................................................... 15
2.6 Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 17
3. Results / Discussion ................................................................................................... 18
3.1 COMSOL Validation ....................................................................................... 18
3.2 Effect of Load-Carrying Capacity on Wear Location ...................................... 20
3.2.1 Capacity and Maximum Pressure for 90°F at 100 rpm ........................ 20
3.2.2 Capacity and Maximum Pressure for Oil Temperatures of 60°F and
130°F .................................................................................................... 27

ii
 3.2.3 Capacity and Maximum Pressure for Shaft Speeds of 50 rpm and 150
rpm ....................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Effect of Wear Depth on Load-Carrying Capacity and Maximum Oil Pressure
.......................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.1 Effect of Increasing Wear Depth at φ = 120° ...................................... 35
3.3.2 Effect of Increasing Wear Depth at φ = 160° ...................................... 37
4. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 40
5. References.................................................................................................................. 42
6. Appendix A – Supplemental Information.................................................................. 44

iii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Geometry of the Plain Journal Bearing with No Wear..................................... 11
Table 2: Plain Journal Bearing Operating Parameters .................................................... 12
Table 3: Summary of Plain Journal Bearing Cases Evaluated ....................................... 15
Table 4: Summary of Cases Evaluated for Varying Wear Location .............................. 16
Table 5: Summary of Cases Studied For Evaluating Wear Severity .............................. 17
Table 6: Unit Conversions .............................................................................................. 18
Table 7: Parameter Comparison to Journal Bearing With No Wear .............................. 26
Table 8: Parameter Comparison to the Journal Bearing with No Wear for 60°F and
130°F Oil ......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 9: Parameter Comparison to the Journal Bearing with No Wear for Shaft Speeds
of 50 rpm and 150 rpm .................................................................................................... 34

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Schematic of Operation of Hydrodynamic Lubrication in Journal Bearing [1]
........................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.2: Forces on an Oil Particle [2] .......................................................................... 3
Figure 2.3: Position of Journal in Bearing [2] .................................................................. 5
Figure 2.4: Theoretical Position of a Full Journal Bearing [2] ......................................... 6
Figure 2.5: Severely Worn Journal Bearing Sleeve [8] .................................................... 8
Figure 2.6: Example of a Worn Sleeve Caused by Smearing [9] ..................................... 9
Figure 2.7: Example of a Worn Sleeve Caused by Flaking [10] ...................................... 9
Figure 2.8: Baseline Plain Journal Bearing .................................................................... 11
Figure 2.9: COMSOL Model of Journal Bearing with Wear at φ = 60° ........................ 13
Figure 2.10: COMSOL Model of Journal Bearing with Wear at φ = 130° .................... 13
Figure 2.11: COMSOL Model used to Vary Wear Depth .............................................. 14
Figure 2.12: Geometry of Rectangular (Flaking) Wear Model ...................................... 15
Figure 3.1: Pressure Distribution For Baseline Plain Journal Bearing ........................... 19
Figure 3.2: Oil Pressure Distribution for Wear at φ= 90° .............................................. 20
Figure 3.3: Pressure (Pa) vs. Arc Length (m) for Wear at φ= 90°.................................. 21
Figure 3.4: Oil Pressure Distribution for Wear at φ =120° ............................................ 22
Figure 3.5: Pressure (Pa) vs. Arc Length (m) for Wear at φ= 120°................................ 22
Figure 3.6: Oil Pressure Distribution for Wear at φ =150 .............................................. 23
Figure 3.7: Pressure (Pa) vs. Arc Length (m) for Wear at φ= 150°................................ 23
Figure 3.8: Capacity vs. Wear Location with 90°F Oil .................................................. 24
Figure 3.9: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for 90°F Oil ................................... 25
Figure 3.10: Oil Pressure Gradient at Wear Site (φ= 160°)............................................ 27
Figure 3.11: Capacity vs. Wear Location with 60°F Oil ................................................ 27
Figure 3.12: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for 60°F Oil ................................. 28
Figure 3.13: Capacity vs. Wear Location with 130°F Oil .............................................. 29
Figure 3.14: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for 130°F Oil ............................... 29
Figure 3.15: Capacity vs. Wear Location with Shaft Speed of 50 rpm .......................... 31
Figure 3.16: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for Shaft Speed of 50 rpm ........... 32
Figure 3.17: Capacity vs. Wear Location with Shaft Speed of 150 rpm ........................ 32

v
Figure 3.18: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location with Shaft Speed of 150 rpm ....... 33
Figure 3.19: Full Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 120° .................................. 35
Figure 3.20: Half Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 120° ................................. 36
Figure 3.21: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Depth for φ = 120° ...................................... 37
Figure 3.22: Full Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 160° .................................. 37
Figure 3.23: Half Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 160° ................................. 38
Figure 3.24: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Depth for φ = 160° ...................................... 38

vi
 Table of Symbols
°F degrees fahrenheit
rpm revolutions per minute
m meters
mm millimeters
W total load on bearing (lb)
h variable oil film thickness (in)
h1 oil film thickness at point of maximum pressure (in)
h0 minimum oil film thickness (in)
Q oil flow rate (in3/sec)
L bearing length (in)
v oil velocity at any point (in/sec)
x distance in direction of motion (in)
y distance of any point in oil film above bearing surface (in)
z distance parallel to axis of shaft (in)
in inches
sec second
s shear stress in oil (lb/in2)
µ absolute viscosity (lb-sec/in2 or reyns)
V velocity of journal surface (in/sec)
e eccentricity (in)
r radius of journal (in)
c radial clearance (in)
θ angle from line of centers (°)
ε eccentricity ratio (e/c)
p oil pressure at any point in film (psia)
p0 oil pressure at the line of centers (psia)
π pi
ω angular speed of shaft (rad/s)
P unit load on bearing (Pa or lb/in2)
N angular speed of shaft (rpm)

vii
S Sommerfeld number (sec/min)
psia pounds per square inch
φ radial position of wear site (°)
N/m newton per meter
kN/m kilonewton per meter
Pa pascal
kPa kilopascal
°K degrees kelvin

Keywords
Journal Bearing Mechanism used to support a load perpendicular
to a rotating shaft
Hydrodynamic Lubrication Condition that exists when the rotation of the
shaft creates a thin fluid film preventing contact
between two solid surfaces
Wear The erosion or removal of a material from its
original position on a solid surface which is
performed by the action of another surface
COMSOL Finite element analysis solver and simulation
program
Load-Carrying Capacity Force capable of being supported by a journal
bearing
Maximum Pressure Maximum steady-state oil pressure in a journal
bearing

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank his family and friends for their support in his pursuit of a
Master’s degree in mechanical engineering. He would also like to thank Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and all of the professors for all the help in meeting his goals
and expectations during his enrollment at RPI-Hartford. The author would also like to
thank Professor Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete for his role as project advisor and for
inspiring the author’s interest in wear and hydrodynamic lubrication.

ix
 ABSTRACT
Hydrodynamic journal bearings are widely used in industry because of their simplicity,
efficiency and low cost. They support rotating shafts over long periods of time and are
often subjected to many stop/start cycles. During these transient periods, friction is high
and the bearings can become progressively worn, thus inducing certain operational
limitations. This paper analyzes the steady-state effects of single wear site in a plain
journal bearing sleeve using finite element modeling. The two parameters specifically
analyzed are the load-carrying capacity of the bearing and the maximum oil pressure.
This parametric study evaluates a 200 mm diameter bearing that is subjected to oil
temperatures of 60°F, 90°F and 130°F as well as shaft rotational speeds of 50, 100 and
150 rpm. The analysis of a journal bearing subjected to a single wear site is performed
by varying two geometrical variables, circumferential location and severity (depth). The
location of the bearing wear is rotated around the lower portion of the bearing sleeve
where the pressures are highest and where wear is most likely to occur. The depth of
wear is varied in locations; upstream and downstream of the maximum oil pressure
location for the same journal bearing with no wear.

x
 1. Introduction
Journal bearings are used in a wide range of applications and industries such as power
generation, automotive, pumps and gearboxes. Such bearings can be used to support
perpendicular shaft loads of up to five million pounds while some are used mainly for
alignment purposes. Journal bearings can be used in machinery operating from zero to
tens of thousands of revolutions per minute. The rotating shaft in a journal bearing is
also called the “journal” and the outer surface of the bearing is also referred to as the
journal “sleeve”. Full journal bearings are those that completely encircle the journal
while partial journal bearings are used where the load is only applied in one direction.
Hydrodynamic journal bearings are those that rely on the pressure build-up of the
lubricating fluid caused by rotation of the shaft to separate the journal and the sleeve to
maintain separation of the metal surfaces during operation, as opposed to hydrostatic
bearings which rely on the supply pressure of the lubricating fluid system to maintain
clearances between the rotating journal and sleeve.

1
 2. Theory/Methodology

2.1 Hydrodynamic Lubrication

The function of a fluid lubricant is to prevent solid-solid contact and reduce the
resistance of relative motion between two surfaces. Fluid film lubrication exists if the
lubricant is a fluid and enough of it exists between two surfaces to separate them
entirely. The way in which a rotating shaft builds up pressure in the oil sufficient to
separate the surfaces of the shaft and sleeve is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Schematic of Operation of Hydrodynamic Lubrication in Journal Bearing [1]

If the shaft does not rotate it will descend to the bottom of the clearance space and there
will be metal-to-metal contact between the journal and bearing. As the shaft starts to
rotate, it will climb the bearing wall, but as the speed increases, the moving journal
surface will tend to pull oil into the wedge shaped area between the shaft and sleeve.
This creates an oil pressure on the lower side greater than the upper side and the journal
is forced away from the sleeve. An equilibrium position is reached with the shaft and
sleeve surfaces separated by a film of oil whose minimum thickness is defined as h. The
magnitude of oil thickness and the position of the line of centers will depend on the load
vector, fluid properties, size and speed of the shaft, clearance and length.

2.1.1 Velocity of Oil around the Journal

Figure 2.2 is used to analyze an infinitesimally small oil particle between a journal shaft
and the journal sleeve. Since the particle size is much smaller than the radius of the

2
shaft, Cartesian coordinates can be used to describe the forces acting on the particle. If
we assume that the journal rotates clockwise, as shown in Figure 2.2, and that there is no
end flow (no flow parallel to the axis of rotation) then three facts should be self-evident:
(1) the oil flows only in the x direction; (2) the oil has zero velocity at y=0 and the
velocity of the journal at y is equivalent to the film thickness (h); (3) the quantity of oil
flowing per second past any section in the x direction is constant. If Q is rate at which
oil is circulating around the journal and v is the velocity of the oil in inches per second, y
inches above the bearing. Then from Figure 2.1:

∫ ∫ ∫ [1]

x
z
z

Figure 2.2: Forces on an Oil Particle [2]

Before we can integrate this, the velocity (v) must be expressed as a function of
y. According to Newton, the shear stress (s) in the fluid parallel to plates moving
relative to each other is given by the following Equation:

[2]

Differentiating both sides with respect to y gives:

[3]

Summing the forces in the x-direction of Figure 2.2 shows that ds/dy = dp/dx.
Substituting dp/dx into Equation 2 gives:

3
 ( ) [4]

After integrating once:

( ) [5]

And then a second integration gives:

( ) [6]

To solve for C2, note that v = 0 if y = 0, hence C2=0. To solve for C1, note that v = V
(the peripheral speed of the journal) if y = h (the oil film thickness). Hence:

( )

Substituting C1 in Equation 6 gives:

( ) ( ) [7]

2.1.2 Reynolds Equation for the Pressure Gradient dp/dx

The rate at which fluid circulates may be calculated by plugging Equation 7 into
Equation 1.

[ ( )] [8]

If h1 is the oil film thickness at the place where dp/dx = 0 and Q1 is the
corresponding flow rate, then:

[9]

Since the amount of flow per second past any section is a constant, Q = Q1, and
by combining Equation 8 and Equation 9 the pressure gradient becomes:

( ) [10]

Equation 10 is the Reynolds formula for the variation of oil film pressure with
respect to the distance along a bearing in the direction of sliding and serves as a basis for
determining the load-carrying capacity of journal bearings.

4
2.1.3 Harrison Equation

To find the oil film pressure at any point around the ideal full journal bearing we need to
refer to Figure 2.3 below and apply Equation 10.

Figure 2.3: Position of Journal in Bearing [2]

From Figure 2.3 above, the oil film thickness (h) at any angle is found to be:
( ) √( ) [11]
The e2sin2 term can be neglected since it is much smaller than (r+c)2, and since ε = e/c,
the oil film thickness as a function of θ is:
( ) [12]
If θ1 is the angle at which the oil film pressure is at a maximum, the
corresponding oil film thickness is:
( ) [13]
Incorporation Equation 12 and 13 into Equation 10 gives the following Equation
for the oil film pressure at any angle where p0 is the oil film pressure at the line of
centers (θ = 0):

∫ [14]
( )
If it is assumed that p-p0 = 0 if θ = 0 and at θ = 2π, one will find, after integrating
Equation 14, that cos θ1 has a definite value:

5
 [15]

And the oil film pressure is given by the Harrison equation below:
( )
[16]
( )( )

2.1.4 Load-Carrying Capacity and the Harrison-Sommerfeld Equation

From Figure 2.4 below and the assumption of no end leakage:

∫ ( ) [17]

Figure 2.4: Theoretical Position of a Full Journal Bearing [2]

Substituting p-p0 from Equation 16 and integrating gives the Harrison-

Sommerfeld equation for an ideal journal bearing:

( ) [18]
( )√
Substituting V = rω, where ω is the angular speed of the journal in radians per
second, and W=2rLP, where P is the unit load in pounds per square inch of projected
area of the bearing gives:
( )√
( ) [19]

6
 Finally substituting 2πN/60 for ω to express the angular speed in units of
revolutions per minutes (N) gives:
( )√
( ) [20]

The term on the left side of Equation 20 is called the Sommerfeld number (S). The
reciprocal of the Sommerfeld number is typically used in industry to quantify the load-
carrying capacity of a bearing.

2.2 Wear in Journal Bearings

Wear is defined as erosion or removal of a material from its original position on a solid
surface which is performed by the action of another surface. Operation of a shaft within
a bearing housing over a long period of time is one cause of wear, and low rotational
speed, high load and misalignment are some of the most important factors that produce
wear [3]. Wear is one of the main reasons for the failure of journal bearing systems. In
most scenarios, wear is generally caused due to transient start/stop operations, which are
inevitable for most machines [4]. The onset and development of wear in plain
hydrodynamic journal bearings under repeated stop/start cycles has been studied
experimentally by Mokhtar [5]. The wear that occurred was easily discernible, but
localized changes in diametric clearance, surface finish and roundness of the bearing
bore were measured after varying numbers of operating cycles had been completed [6].
A study of the wear location within the bearings showed that it was caused entirely by
the sliding motion that occurred during startup [6]. An immense amount of study into
the tribology and hydrodynamic bearings has lead engineers and designers the ability to
calculate the life of a bearing with considerable accuracy, thus making it possible to
match the bearing life with the service life of the machine involved [7]. Unfortunately, it
sometimes happens that a bearing does not attain its calculated rating life due to some
degree of bearing wear. There may be many reasons for this – heavier loading than has
been anticipated, inadequate or unsuitable lubrication, careless handling, ineffective
sealing, or fits that are too tight, resulting in insufficient bearing clearance [7]. Each of

7
these factors produces its own particular type of damage and leaves its own special
imprint on the bearing.
Small, abrasive particles, if introduced into to the lubrication can cause the bearing
material to wear away. If the condition persists, an accelerated wear condition can occur
that may lead to the catastrophic failure of the bearing system. If there is an insufficient
amount of lubricant, or if the lubricant has lost its lubricating properties, it may not be
possible for an oil film to form with sufficient load-carrying capacity [7]. Metal-to-
metal contact could occur permanently damaging the bearing. Three examples of
journal bearings that have been subjected to wear are shown in Figures 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7
below.

Figure 2.5: Severely Worn Journal Bearing Sleeve [8]

Figure 2.5 shows a severely worn due to the introduction of abrasive particles in the
lubricating fluid. The abrasive particles in the fluid flow scored the circumference of the
journal sleeve.

8
 Figure 2.6: Example of a Worn Sleeve Caused by Smearing [9]

Figure 2.6 shows a journal bearing sleeve that was subjected to smearing. This type
of wear occurs when the harder shaft material physically deforms the softer sleeve
material and causes a local increase in the sleeve radius. This type of wear is often
caused by metal-to-metal contact during start-up, dynamic loading conditions or poor
lubrication.

Figure 2.7: Example of a Worn Sleeve Caused by Flaking [10]

Figure 2.7 shows an example of a severely worn bearing sleeve that is known in the
industry as flaking. Flaking can be caused by improper handling, excessive loading,
fatigue life or fluid cavitation.

9
 One of the first studies concerning the problem of wear was led by Dufrane et al.
[11] in 1983 who analyzed a worn bearing in a steam turbine. They were the first to
propose a geometrical model taking into account the worn region of a bearing, in order
to include it in calculations. They paid particular attention to the mechanisms that lead
to wear for a bearing operating at low speed. They showed that wear most often occurs
symmetrically on the bottom of the bearing, and that even bearings equipped with a
hydrostatic pocket were subjected to wear if the pocket was badly dimensioned [12].
They also concluded that there is an optimum film thickness, as wear progresses that
may explain the difference between bearings that wear in versus those that wear out [3].
The first people to be interested in the consequences of a wear defect were Hashimoto et
al. [13]. They analyzed the influence of wear defect on the pressure field and on the
eccentricity ratio and showed that wear defect damages bearing stability and that weak
L/D ratio bearings were less sensitive to a defect [7]. Vaidyanathan and Keith [14]
studied the performance of four geometrically different bearings, one of which was a
worn bearing. They were interested in the influence of wear defect on parameters such as
friction, pressure or the Sommerfeld number compared to the eccentricity ratio. The last
work done on the topic is that of Kumar and Mishra [15] who found that the defects can
decrease the stability of the hydrostatic bearing when it is submitted to a light load.

2.3 Finite Element Modeling

The COMSOL Multiphysics program is used to evaluate ideal and worn journal
bearings. The COMSOL program allows a user to change geometry, material properties,
mesh, and operating conditions. In order to perform parametric studies on journal
bearing performance, the COMSOL program and results must be compared to the
theoretical analysis of an ideal journal bearing using the equations derived in Section
2.1. In order to validate the COMSOL results a baseline plain journal bearing with no
wear is modeled and evaluated to compare the theoretical (ideal) and analytical results.

2.3.1 Plain Journal Bearing Model

The COMSOL model of the baseline plain journal bearing is shown in Figure 2.6 below
and the geometric dimensions are given in Table 1. The geometrical dimensions of the

10
journal bearing in Table 1 are reasonable and typical for many applications. However,
the radial clearance was chosen to be larger than a typical journal bearing of this size in
order to visually show the dynamics of the oil between the shaft and the sleeve.

Figure 2.8: Baseline Plain Journal Bearing

Table 1: Geometry of the Plain Journal Bearing with No Wear

Parameters Dimension
Sleeve radius (mm) 100
Journal (shaft) radius (mm) 98
Offset in the x-direction (mm) 1.0
Eccentricity (mm) 1.0
Radial clearance (mm) 2.0
Eccentricity ratio 0.5

The lubricating fluid and bearing operating parameters are given the in Table 2
below. A constant pressure point constant of 0 psia is placed at the top (positive y-
direction) of the sleeve in order to allow the COMSOL program iterations to converge to
an exact solution. This is considered acceptable as low pressure locations in the bearing
fluid are typical of lubricating fluid entrance and exits locations in practical applications.

11
This region of the bearing of the bearing is also of little interest when evaluating bearing
performance.

Table 2: Plain Journal Bearing Operating Parameters

Parameter Value
Fluid type Typical “Engine Oil”
Temperature (°F) 90
Shaft speed (rpm) 100

2.4 COMSOL Modeling of Journal Bearings with Wear

As discussed in Section 2.2 different causes of wear can result in various wear
geometries. Typically, the shaft is made from a slightly harder and more durable
material than the sleeve. Therefore, if wear does occur it is expected to be seen on the
sleeve rather than the shaft. Two types of the wear geometry are modeled: (1) wear due
to excessive “run-in” and material loss due to smearing and (2) wear due to cracking,
flaking, or cavitation erosion. Both types of wear geometry are exaggerated somewhat
to adequately show the effects bearing wear without needing to complicate the mesh
sizing local to the wear site and endure time-consuming program convergence iterations.
The first type of wear is (smearing) used to evaluate its effect on bearing performance by
varying its circumferential location and the second type of wear (flaking) is used to
evaluate its effect on bearing performance by varying its depth in two locations.

2.4.1 COMSOL Model Used for Varying Wear Location

Two examples of the COMSOL model used to evaluate bearing wear are shown in
Figures 2.9 and 2.10 below.

12
 φ=60°

Wear Site

Figure 2.9: COMSOL Model of Journal Bearing with Wear at φ = 60°

φ=130°

Wear Site

Figure 2.10: COMSOL Model of Journal Bearing with Wear at φ = 130°

The wear site is modeled using a 60 mm diameter circle offset from the center of
the sleeve by 72 mm in the negative X-direction. The “union” function of the COMSOL
modeling program is used to combine the “wear” circle with the bearing sleeve to form a

13
discontinuity in the sleeve perimeter. Finally, the 98 mm (radius) journal is modeled
using the “difference” function to form the inner perimeter of the fluid. The “wear”
circle is then rotated about the center of the sleeve to model other wear locations. The
modeled wear site is 2 mm deep at the most severe location and consumes
approximately 3.4 percent of the sleeve perimeter.

2.4.2 COMSOL Model Used for Varying Wear Depth

A COMSOL model used to evaluate the effect of wear depth is shown in Figure 2.11
below.

φ=120°

Wear Site

Figure 2.11: COMSOL Model used to Vary Wear Depth

The wear geometry above is modeled in a similar method as that described in

Section 2.4.1, except a rectangular shape is used to from the discontinuity in the sleeve
perimeter. The rectangle is 1.4 mm tall and 22 mm wide and rotated 30 degrees from the
bottom center of the sleeve such that the long edge of the rectangle is normal to a line
directly from the center of sleeve as shown below.

14
 30°

30°

Figure 2.12: Geometry of Rectangular (Flaking) Wear Model

This rectangular wear is then rotated above the sleeve centerline to evaluate the
influence of wear depth at the other locations.

2.5 Cases Evaluated

The baseline plain journal bearing was first evaluated to show the location of the
maximum pressure to better understand critical locations within the bearing. The plain
journal bearing was also studied at different operating speeds and temperatures. Table 3
summarizes the plain journal bearing cases that were studied to attain a baseline for
comparing the effects of wear on load-carrying capacity and maximum oil pressure.

Table 3: Summary of Plain Journal Bearing Cases Evaluated

Case # Speed (rpm) Temperature (°F)

1 100 90
2 100 60
3 100 130
4 50 90
5 150 90

15
 In order to fully evaluate the effect of wear location, the fluid temperatures and
operating speed were modified along with the wear location and compared to the journal
bearing cases with no wear. Table 4 below summarizes the cases that were evaluated
with various wear sites:

Table 4: Summary of Cases Evaluated for Varying Wear Location

Parameters
Constant Speed = 100 rpm Temperature = 90°
Location (φ) Temperature (F) Speed (rpm)
0 60 90 130 50 150
30 60 90 130 50 150
60 60 90 130 50 150
90 60 90 130 50 150
120 60 90 130 50 150
130 60 90 130 50 150
140 60 90 130 50 150
150 60 90 130 50 150
160 60 90 130 50 150
170 60 90 130 50 150
180 60 90 130 50 150

Wear depth was varied and evaluated at two locations on the bearing sleeve to
determine if the load-carrying capacity and maximum oil pressure was impacted by the
wear location as well as depth. The two locations chosen are at φ = 120° and 160°
which are on either side of the maximum oil pressure location of the same journal
bearing with no wear. Table 5 summarizes these cases:

16
 Table 5: Summary of Cases Studied For Evaluating Wear Severity

Wear Depth (mm) Location (φ)

0.61 120 160
1.3 120 160
1.5 120 160
1.8 120 160
1.9 120 160

For all of the cases listed in Tables 4 and 5, the load-carrying capacity per unit
length of the bearing (N/m) is evaluated by plotting the steady-state fluid pressure at the
surface of the shaft as a function of the angle (φ) around its perimeter and integrating.
The maximum oil pressure is an output calculated by the COMSOL software.

2.6 Assumptions
In order to model the journal bearings with and without wear in COMSOL, several
assumptions were made:
o Only the cross section of the bearing is considered, that is, the bearing has
infinite depth such that effects due to end leakage or end losses are neglected. In
addition, all wear sites are assumed to be geometrically constant across the length
of the bearing.
o There is a no-slip fluid boundary along the perimeter of the shaft.
o The sleeve and shaft surfaces are perfectly smooth.
o All models use an “extremely fine” mesh to attain sufficiently accurate results.
o The interface with the lubricating system is not considered, and therefore the
bearing has no oil inlet or outlet location. However, a constant pressure point
constraint is located on the top of the bearing sleeve to allow the program results
to converge and could be assumed as an oil entrance or exit location.

17
 3. Results / Discussion

3.1 COMSOL Validation

In order to confidently use the results of the COMSOL analyses, the COMSOL program
and model must be validated by comparing the ideal plain journal bearing analysis with
the COMSOL results. The dimensions and fluid properties used in the COMSOL
analysis must be converted to appropriate units for use in Equations 16 and 15 to
compare the results of two methods.

Table 6: Unit Conversions

Parameters COMSOL Analytical

Journal (Shaft) Radius (r) 98 mm 3.86 in
Eccentricity (e) 1 mm 0.0393 in
Radial Clearance (c) 2 mm 0.079 in
Eccentricity Ratio (ε) 0.5 0.5
Speed (V) 100 rpm or 1.26 m/s 40.4 in/sec
Viscosity at 90°F (µ) 0.33 Pa-s 4.73 x 10-5 reyns

Assuming p-p0 = 0 at θ = 0 and θ = 2π (i.e. the line of centers) p-p0 is calculated

below for an angle (θ) of 30° using Equation 16 and the values in Table 6:

( )( )( )( )( ) ( )( ( ) ( ))
( ) ( ( ) )( ( ) ( ))

The 0.94 psia resultant pressure above is equivalent to approximately 6,473 Pa.
The COMSOL analysis results in a pressure of 30,000 Pa at θ = 30. Subtracting the
pressure (p0) at the line of centers shown in Figure 3.1 (23,500 Pa) results in a pressure
of 6,500 Pa which is approximately equal to the analytical results. In addition, the
maximum pressure location of the ideal bearing can be calculated from Equation 15:

18
The maximum oil pressure location of the COMSOL journal bearing is at approximately
φ = 132° which compares very well with the analytical results.

Figure 3.1: Pressure Distribution For Baseline Plain Journal Bearing

There are slight differences between the two results which can be attributed to
some of the assumptions used in deriving the Sommerfeld-Harrison equation. The
Sommerfeld-Harrison equation assumes no flow in the y-direction while COMSOL uses
the Navier-Stokes equation and accounts for flow in the x-direction and y-direction and
also accounts for inertial effects. However, the COMSOL modeling shows a good
correlation with the analytical results and therefore it can be assumed that the COMSOL
modeling software is correctly calculating the fluid pressures around the circumference
of the shaft.

19
3.2 Effect of Load-Carrying Capacity on Wear Location
Based on the results seen from the plain journal bearing in Figure 3.1 the bottom half of
the bearing contains the highest pressures and therefore the majority of the load support.
For this reason the wear site is only varied from φ = 0° to φ = 180°.

3.2.1 Capacity and Maximum Pressure for 90°F at 100 rpm

Figures 3.2 through 3.7 show the oil pressure distribution for wear locations of φ = 90°,
130° and 160° and graphs showing how the fluid pressure at the shaft varies along the
bottom half of the shaft perimeter.

Figure 3.2: Oil Pressure Distribution for Wear at φ= 90°

20
 Figure 3.3: Pressure (Pa) vs. Arc Length (m) for Wear at φ= 90°

As one can see from Figures 3.2 and 3.3 there is only a slight loss of pressure
buildup in the vicinity of the wear site. The slope of the pressure line remains positive
but decreases slightly at the wear location before reestablishing the linear increase in
pressure. The small loss of pressure build-up in these areas slightly reduces the
maximum oil pressure attained and the load carrying-capacity.
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show a similar loss in pressure at the wear location as that
shown for wear at φ = 90°. The slope of the pressure line remains positive similar to
Figure 3.3 but does not show as severe of a decrease as Figure 3.5. Therefore, one
would expect a lesser impact on maximum oil pressure and load-carrying capacity.

21
 Figure 3.4: Oil Pressure Distribution for Wear at φ =120°

Figure 3.5: Pressure (Pa) vs. Arc Length (m) for Wear at φ= 120°

22
 Figure 3.6: Oil Pressure Distribution for Wear at φ =150

Figure 3.7: Pressure (Pa) vs. Arc Length (m) for Wear at φ= 150°

23
 In contrast to the wear sites at φ = 90° and 120°, Figure 3.7 shows a severe
pressure spike in the location of the wear reaching a peak pressure where the oil must
converge back into the gap between the shaft and sleeve with no wear. After the oil
pressure reaches the first peak the fluid begins to decrease and then the fluid encounters
an area of expansion as it enters the gap caused by the wear geometry. This expansion
causes the fluid pressure to decrease more rapidly than it would if there were no wear.
Halfway through the wear site the gap begins to shrink and causes the fluid pressure to
increase until it reaches the second peak before falling off at a rate similar to that seen in
a bearing with no wear. This second pressure spike now becomes the location of the
maximum oil pressure and also causes the negatively sloped pressure line to shift to the
right thereby causing the area underneath the curve (load capacity) to increase.
Figure 3.8 below shows the load-carrying capacity of the journal bearing as the
wear scar is rotated from φ = 0° to φ =180°. The data points in Figure 3.8 (and all
similar Figures) were generated by integrating the oil pressure around the bottom half of
the shaft (“half load”) and entire perimeter of the shaft (“full load”) using the COMSOL
program.

Figure 3.8: Capacity vs. Wear Location with 90°F Oil

24
 Figure 3.8 shows both the load-carrying capacity for the bottom half of the
bearing and the entire bearing. This confirms that the majority of the load-carrying
capacity is provided by the bottom half, accounting for about 89 percent of the total load
support. The dotted red and green lines represent the respective load capacities for the
plain journal bearing without wear. Figure 3.8 shows that wear reduces the load-
carrying capacity for wear locations between φ = 0° and 110° and that it increases
steadily from φ = 0° to 110°. For φ = 110° to 150° the load-carrying capacity is actually
higher than that of the bearing without wear before falling off sharply between φ = 150°
to 180°. Based on Figures 3.2 through 3.8 the wear location site relative to the
maximum pressure location of the bearing without wear (φ = 132°) seems to be an
important parameter affecting the bearing’s performance.

Figure 3.9: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for 90°F Oil

Figure 3.9 above shows that the maximum pressure decreases slightly as the wear
location moves from and then increases sharply between φ = 80° and 130° before
decreasing suddenly at approximately φ = 140°. The red dotted line shows the
maximum oil pressure for the plain journal bearing with no wear. Figure 3.9 shows a
similar structure to that in Figure 3.8 where the worn bearing has a lower maximum fluid
pressure than the plain journal bearing with no wear between φ = 0° and 110°.
However, the maximum pressure decreases between φ = 0° to 80° and then begins to

25
increase while the load carrying-capacities increase all the way from φ = 0° and 110°.
Both graphs show a significant influence on the wear location relative maximum
pressure site of the bearing without wear (φ = 132°).
Table 7 below displays the percent increase/decrease in the half bearing capacity,
full bearing capacity, and maximum oil pressure for the wear locations evaluated
compared to the same journal bearing with no wear.

Table 7: Parameter Comparison to Journal Bearing With No Wear

Half-Bearing Full-Bearing
Wear Location (φ) Maximum Pressure %
Capacity % Capacity %
0 -2.4 -2.3 -1.71
30 -2.08 -2.01 -1.82
60 -1.82 -1.81 -2.12
90 -1.2 -1.26 -2.07
120 +0.3 +0.38 +1.17
130 +0.82 +1.13 +3.84
140 +0.9 +1.65 +3.60
150 +0.05 +1.52 -1.69
160 -2.16 +0.25 -5.81
170 -5.58 -2.22 -7.31
180 -8.56 -5.09 -7.88

Table 7 shows very small percentage decreases (< 3%) in load-carrying capacities and
maximum fluid pressures between φ = 0° to 90°. Between φ = 120° and 150° there is a
slight increase in both load-carrying capacity percentage (< 2%) and maximum pressure
percentage (< 4%). Both parameters decrease in percentage somewhat significantly (>
7%) as the wear site moves to φ = 180°. Based on pressure gradients shown in Figure
3.10, the load-carrying capacity and maximum pressure percentages in Table 7 could be
amplified by increasing the length of sleeve perimeter affected by the wear (greater than
3.4 percent of the perimeter as discussed in Section 2.4.1).

26
 Accelerated Decrease in Oil
Pressure due to Area Oil Pressure Increase Due to
Expansion Reduction in Flow Area

Location of Maximum
Pressure

Figure 3.10: Oil Pressure Gradient at Wear Site (φ= 160°)

3.2.2 Capacity and Maximum Pressure for Oil Temperatures of 60°F and 130°F

Figures 3.11 through 3.14 show the load-carrying capacities and maximum oil pressures
plotted against wear site location (φ) similar to Figures 3.8 and 3.9, respectively, for oil
temperatures of 60°F and 130°F.

Figure 3.11: Capacity vs. Wear Location with 60°F Oil

27
Figure 3.11 shows a significant overall increase in load-carrying capacity for an oil
temperature of 60°F compared to 90°F oil. This is expected because as the oil viscosity
decreases with temperature, the Sommerfeld number in Equation 20 decreases,
signifying an increase in load carrying-capacity. The trends shown in Figure 3.11 are
comparable to those seen in Figure 3.8. The load-carrying capacities begin to increase
more abruptly at φ = 70° than the 90°F oil and reach the load-carrying capacities of the
journal bearing with no wear slightly sooner (φ = 100° in lieu of 110°). The slight
differences between Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.11 can be attributed to the differences in oil
viscosity.

Figure 3.12: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for 60°F Oil

28
 Figure 3.13: Capacity vs. Wear Location with 130°F Oil

Figure 3.14: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for 130°F Oil

29
 The curves in Figures 3.11 through 3.14 show a strong correlation to Figures 3.8
and 3.9, respectively. The changes in temperature do not have a large effect on load-
carrying capacity or maximum pressure as those parameters relate to wear location.
However, it is easy to see that the higher temperature oil decreases the magnitude of the
load-carrying capacity and the lower temperature oil increase the load-carrying capacity
of the bearing due to the changes in oil viscosity.
Table 8 below shows the percent increase/decrease in the half bearing capacity,
full bearing capacity, and maximum oil pressure for the wear locations and temperatures
evaluated.

Table 8: Parameter Comparison to the Journal Bearing with No Wear for 60°F and
130°F Oil

Oil Temperature = 60°F Oil Temperature = 130°F

Wear Half- Full- Half- Full-
Maximum Maximum
Location Bearing Bearing Bearing Bearing
Pressure Pressure
(φ) Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
% %
% % % %
0 -2.4 -2.3 -1.71 -2.37 -2.28 -1.68
30 -2.08 -2.01 -1.82 -2.06 -2.00 -1.80
60 -1.82 -1.81 -2.12 -1.82 -1.81 -2.10
90 -0.42 -0.48 -1.29 -1.20 -1.26 -2.04
120 +0.30 +0.38 +1.17 +0.31 +0.38 +1.19
130 +0.82 +1.13 +3.84 +0.85 +1.14 +3.85
140 +1.69 +2.45 +4.40 +0.91 +1.67 +3.66
150 +0.83 +2.32 -0.90 +0.07 +1.53 -1.72
160 -1.39 +1.04 -5.06 -2.13 +0.27 -5.81
170 -4.84 -1.45 -6.58 -5.55 -2.22 -7.32
180 -7.83 -4.34 -7.15 -8.56 -5.08 -7.88

Table 8 above clearly indicates a negative impact on load-carrying capacity for wear
sites between φ = 0° and φ = 90° decreasing in severity as the wear moves

30
counterclockwise for both oil temperatures. At approximately φ = 120° the load-
carrying capacity for both oil temperatures increases above that expected for the bearing
with no wear. At φ = 170° the bearing capacities begin to decrease violently. The
maximum load-carrying capacities occur at approximately φ = 140° while the maximum
oil pressure occur with wear at approximately φ = 130°. The 60°F oil has a stronger
reaction to bearing wear than the 90°F and 130°F oil temperature as shown by the larger
percentage deltas in both the positive and negative regions.

3.2.3 Capacity and Maximum Pressure for Shaft Speeds of 50 rpm and 150 rpm

Figures 3.15 through 3.18 show the load-carrying capacities and maximum oil pressures
plotted against wear site location (φ) similar to those seen in Figures 3.8 and 3.9,
respectively, for shaft speeds of 50 rpm and 150 rpm.

Figure 3.15: Capacity vs. Wear Location with Shaft Speed of 50 rpm

31
Figure 3.16: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location for Shaft Speed of 50 rpm

Figure 3.17: Capacity vs. Wear Location with Shaft Speed of 150 rpm

32
 Figure 3.18: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Location with Shaft Speed of 150 rpm

Figures 3.15 through 3.18 do not differ from Figures 3.8 and 3.9, respectively,
except in magnitude. The load carrying-capacity and maximum oil pressure of the
bearing system increases for the higher shaft speed and decreases for the lower shaft
speed. This is expected as inspection of Equation 20 reveals a linear relationship
between the Sommerfeld number and shaft speed. Table 9 below shows the percent
increase/decrease in the half bearing capacity, full bearing capacity, and maximum oil
pressure for the wear locations and shaft speeds evaluated.

33
 Table 9: Parameter Comparison to the Journal Bearing with No Wear for Shaft Speeds
of 50 rpm and 150 rpm

Shaft Speed = 50 rpm Shaft Speed = 150 rpm

Wear Half- Full- Half- Full-
Maximum Maximum
Location Bearing Bearing Bearing Bearing
Pressure Pressure
(φ) Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
% %
% % % %
0 -2.40 -2.30 -1.71 -2.40 -2.30 -1.71
30 -2.08 -2.01 -1.82 -2.08 -2.01 -1.82
60 -1.82 -1.81 -2.12 -1.82 -1.81 -2.12
90 -1.20 -1.26 -2.07 -1.20 -1.26 -2.06
120 +0.30 +0.38 +1.17 +0.31 +0.38 +1.17
130 +0.82 +1.13 +3.84 +0.82 +1.13 +3.84
140 +0.90 +1.65 +3.59 +0.90 +1.66 +3.61
150 +0.04 +1.52 -1.68 +0.05 +1.52 -1.70
160 -2.16 +0.25 -5.81 -2.15 +0.26 -5.81
170 -5.59 -2.23 -7.31 -5.58 -2.22 -7.31
180 -8.55 -5.09 -7.88 -8.56 -5.09 -7.88

Table 9 above shows a similar trend to that seen in Table 8 where there is a percentage
decrease in load-carrying capacity for wear sites between φ = 0° and φ = 90° decreasing
in magnitude as the wear site moves counterclockwise. However, both cases (50 rpm
and 150 rpm) yield almost identical results in terms of percentage delta. At
approximately 110° the load-carrying capacity increases above that expected for the
bearing with no wear and at φ = 170° the load-carrying capacity begins to decrease
sharply.

3.3 Effect of Wear Depth on Load-Carrying Capacity and Maximum

Oil Pressure
Based on the results in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 the locations selected to study the effect of
wear depth are tactically chosen at two locations, φ = 120° and φ = 160° (upstream and

34
downstream of φ = 132°). All of the bearings in this section are evaluated with shaft
speeds of 100 rpm and oil temperatures of 90°F.

3.3.1 Effect of Increasing Wear Depth at φ = 120°

Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show the effect of wear depth on load-carrying capacity for the φ
= 120° wear location.

Figure 3.19: Full Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 120°

35
 Figure 3.20: Half Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 120°

Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show a very small change in load-carrying capacity (< 1%)
for an increasing wear depth. However, the load-carrying capacity does increase ever
slightly for increasing wear depths up to approximately 1.3 mm before dropping off
rather harshly. These figures once again confirm that the majority of the load carrying-
capacity resides on the bottom half of the bearing.
Figure 3.21 shows that the maximum oil pressure follows a similar trend as the
capacity curve above where the maximum pressure increases slightly as the wear depth
increases up to a wear depth of ~1.3mm before decreasing.

36
 Figure 3.21: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Depth for φ = 120°

3.3.2 Effect of Increasing Wear Depth at φ = 160°

Figures 3.22 and 3.23 show the effect of wear depth on capacity for the φ = 160° wear
location.

Figure 3.22: Full Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 160°

37
 Figure 3.23: Half Bearing Capacity vs. Wear Depth for φ = 160°

Figure 3.24: Maximum Pressure vs. Wear Depth for φ = 160°

Figure 3.22 shows a linear increase in load-carrying capacity as the wear depth is
increased. At approximately 1.3 mm (similar to φ = 120°) the slope changes and levels

38
off at a constant value. This is different the wear location at φ = 120° which shows a
drop off in load carrying capacity for wear depths greater than 1.3 mm. The half load
capacity curve in Figure 3.23 shows that the load capacity on the bottom half of the
bearing sleeve decreases as the wear depth increases before leveling off at a depth of 1.3
mm. The decrease in half-load capacity and increase in load capacity suggests that the
pressure force is recovered on the upper half of the bearing downstream of the wear site.
The maximum pressure graph mirrors that of the half bearing load capacity curve such
that it decreases linearly with wear depth until it reaches 1.3 mm deep where the
maximum pressure levels off and remains constant.

39
 4. Conclusions
Wear can significantly affect the load carry-capacity of a plain journal bearing. While
tables 7, 8 and 9 show a small change in load-carrying capacity this disparity may have a
very significant effect on bearing performance for a heavily loaded bearing. If a heavily
loaded journal bearing suffers a decrease in load-carrying capacity (due to wear) the
minimum operating clearance between the shaft and sleeve will tend to decrease and the
fluid pressure will increase to compensate and support the load. These resulting effects
(decrease in clearance and increase in fluid pressure) could cause a significant increase
in friction and heat-generation (due to the increase in oil shear stress), power losses
(from the increase in friction), and increased potential for metal-to-metal contact in a
dynamic environment (due to the smaller clearance). The percent change in load-
carrying capacity is independent of the size journal bearing size. This means that lightly
loaded bearings will not see a significant change in load-carrying capacity. However,
the resultant fluid force vector of a lightly loaded bearing can be altered in direction and
magnitude by a wear site as indicated by the pressure spike in Figure 3.7. This change in
the fluid force vector could significantly affect the performance of any bearing used for
alignment purposes.
The amount of influence a single wear site can have on a plain journal bearing
depends on its location relative to the maximum pressure location of the same journal
bearing without wear. The journal bearing load capacity is approximately 2% lower
than the journal bearing without wear for wear sites between φ = 0° and φ = 120°. This
loss in capacity decreases as the wear site approaches the location of maximum pressure
of the plain journal bearing without wear. Wear sites downstream of this maximum
pressure location cause an abrupt and severe decrease in load-carrying capacity. The oil
flowing past the wear scar in these locations is allowed to expand briefly into the wear
site geometry before soon experiencing a contraction in flow area. This contraction
causes a spike in pressure and therefore an increase in local capacity. However, the
downstream wear locations (greater than φ = 160°) result in a more severe loss in load-
carrying capacity than wear locations approaching maximum pressure location. Wear
sites near the maximum pressure location seem to increase the load capacity of the
bearing. However, this result may be an effect of the COMSOL modeling assumptions

40
and may not truly reflect how a journal bearing performs with this geometry. The
maximum oil pressures attained in journal bearings with wear follows a similar pattern
as the load carrying-capacities. The maximum oil pressure is approximately 2% lower
than the journal bearing without wear for wear locations upstream (φ = 0° and φ = 120°),
increases slightly for wear locations between φ = 130° and φ = 150°, and decreases
sharply for all downstream locations. The maximum oil pressure decreases for the
downstream wear sites because the wear defect briefly increases the flow area and
lowers the backpressure on the fluid allowing it flow more easily through the bearing-to-
sleeve clearance.
The conclusions discussed above are consistent for variations in shaft speed and oil
temperature. Changing oil temperature and shaft speed do not affect the results observed
by varying the wear location. Only the magnitude of the load-carrying capacity and
maximum oil pressure are affected and can be easily predicted using ideal hydrodynamic
bearing analysis.
The effect of wear depth on load-carrying capacity depends on the location relative
to the maximum pressure location of the journal bearing without wear. As the wear
depth is increased for an upstream wear site the load-carrying capacity increases slightly
(<1% increase) until a discrete wear depth (1.3 mm for the bearing examined) is reached
and the load-carrying capacity then begins to decrease. As the wear depth is increased
for a downstream wear site, the load-carrying capacity decreases slightly (<1%) until the
wear depth is increased to a value of approximately 1.3 mm where the load-carrying
capacity levels off and remains constants as the wear depth is increased.

41
 5. References
1. A. Chauhan, R. Sehgal, Thermal Studies of Non-Circular Journal Bearing
Profiles: Offset-Halves and Elliptical, InTech Company, 2012.
2. R. R. Slaymaker, Bearing Lubrication Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955.
3. Padelis G. Nikolakopoulos, Chris A. Papadopoulos, A study of friction in worn
misaligned journal bearings under severe hydrodynamic lubrication, Tribology
International 41, 2008.
4. Vikas M. Phalle, Satish C. Sharma, S.C. Jain, Influence of wear on the
performance of a 2-lobe multirecess hybrid journal bearing system compensated
with membrane restrictor, Tribology International 44, 2011.
5. Mokhtar M.O.A., Howarth R.B., Davies P.B., Wear characteristics of plain
hydrodynamic journal bearings during repeated starting and stopping. ASLE
Trans 1977;20:191–4.
6. K.P. Gertzos, P.G. Nikolakopoulos, A.C. Chasalevris, C.A. Papadopoulos, Wear
identification in rotor-bearing systems by measurements of dynamic bearing
characteristics, Computers and Structures 89, 2011.
7. SKF Company, Bearing failures and their causes, Product Information 401, 1994.
8. http://polygoncomposites.com/bearings-master/bearing-lines/guide-rod-
bearings/, Polygon Company, Guide Rod Bearings, 2011.
9. http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthread.php?19770-More-S65-con-rod-
bearing-wear-pictures-photos-from-VAC, BimmerBoost-BMW Performance,
DragonByte technologies Ltd., 2013
10. Engine Bearing Failure - Is it Round?, Mechanic Support,
http://www.mechanicsupport.com/engine__bearing_failure.html
11. Dufrane K.F., Kannel J.W., McCloskey T.H., Wear of steam turbine journal
bearings at low operating speeds. Journal of Lubrication Technology 1983;
105:313–7
12. M. Fillon, J. Bouyer, Thermohydrodynamic analysis of a worn plain journal
bearing, Tribology International 37, 2004.

42
13. Hashimoto H., Wada S., Nojima K., Performance characteristics of worn journal
bearings in both laminar and turbulent regime. Part 1: Steady-state
characteristics. ASLE Transactions1986;29:565–71
14. Vaidyanathan K., Keith T.G., Performance characteristics of cavitated
noncircular journal bearings in the turbulent flow regime. Tribology
Transactions 1991;34:35–44
15. Kumar A., Mishra S.S., Stability of a rigid rotor in turbulent hydrodynamic
worn journal bearings. Wear 1996;193:25–30

43
 6. Appendix A – Supplemental Information
Data tables containing maximum pressures and load carrying capacities for varying wear
locations, including temperatures of 50°F, 90°F and 130°F and shaft speeds of 50 rpm,
100 rpm and 150 rpm.
Angle No Wear 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 180.00
Half Load Capcity (N/m) 12050.45 11761.47 11800.04 11830.91 11905.67 12087.16 12149.37 12158.76 12056.48 11790.41 11377.81 11019.47
Half Load Capcity (kN/m) 12.05045 11.76 11.80 11.83 11.91 12.09 12.15 12.16 12.06 11.79 11.38 11.02
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 13544.68 13232.78 13271.81 13299.09 13373.42 13595.93 13697.67 13768.83 13750.31 13578.99 13243.36 12855.65
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 13.54468 13.23 13.27 13.30 13.37 13.60 13.70 13.77 13.75 13.58 13.24 12.86
Max Pressure (Pa) 52926.56 52020.56 51961.70 51802.65 51832.63 53546.58 54958.08 54830.82 52032.25 49851.15 49057.20 48754.33
Max Pressure (kPa) 52.92656 52.02 51.96 51.80 51.83 53.55 54.96 54.83 52.03 49.85 49.06 48.75
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37

Angle No Wear 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 180.00
Half Load Capcity (N/m) 3552.63 3468.51 3479.31 3487.99 3510.07 3563.57 3582.89 3585.04 3555.02 3476.90 3355.35 3248.70
Half Load Capcity (kN/m) 3.55263 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.51 3.56 3.58 3.59 3.56 3.48 3.36 3.25
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 3987.33 3896.41 3907.53 3915.13 3937.15 4002.59 4032.68 4053.73 4048.35 3997.91 3898.93 3784.61
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 3.98733 3.90 3.91 3.92 3.94 4.00 4.03 4.05 4.05 4.00 3.90 3.78
Max Pressure (Pa) 15608.87 15346.00 15328.68 15280.69 15290.01 15793.96 16209.32 16179.57 15340.59 14701.24 14466.91 14378.44
Max Pressure (kPa) 15.60887 15.35 15.33 15.28 15.29 15.79 16.21 16.18 15.34 14.70 14.47 14.38
Temp (K) 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59 327.59

Angle No Wear 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 180.00
Half Load Capcity (N/m) 40920.32 39938.92 40071.03 40176.31 40748.95 41044.92 41255.37 41612.48 41260.47 40350.47 38938.32 37715.60
Half Load Capcity (kN/m) 40.92032 39.94 40.07 40.18 40.75 41.04 41.26 41.61 41.26 40.35 38.94 37.72
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 46015.1 44956.56 45089.34 45182.41 45793.10 46189.04 46533.93 47144.66 47080.84 46494.46 45346.18 44019.36
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 46.0151 44.96 45.09 45.18 45.79 46.19 46.53 47.14 47.08 46.49 45.35 44.02
Max Pressure (Pa) 179704.64 176627.12 176427.05 175888.33 177379.27 181806.44 186603.47 187613.48 178080.68 170604.10 167887.90 166849.35
Max Pressure (kPa) 179.70464 176.63 176.43 175.89 177.38 181.81 186.60 187.61 178.08 170.60 167.89 166.85
Temp (K) 288.706 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71 288.71

Angle No Wear 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 180.00
Half Load Capcity (N/m) 6027.47 5882.89 5902.30 5917.80 5955.15 6045.82 6076.86 6081.47 6030.06 5897.09 5690.71 5511.86
Half Load Capcity (kN/m) 6.02747 5.88 5.90 5.92 5.96 6.05 6.08 6.08 6.03 5.90 5.69 5.51
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 6777.03 6621.06 6640.61 6654.31 6691.44 6802.66 6853.48 6889.05 6879.74 6794.04 6626.21 6432.29
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 6.77703 6.62 6.64 6.65 6.69 6.80 6.85 6.89 6.88 6.79 6.63 6.43
Max Pressure (Pa) 26470.97 26017.61 25988.15 25908.76 25923.72 26780.68 27487.10 27420.57 26025.51 24933.34 24536.33 24384.63
Max Pressure (kPa) 26.47097 26.02 25.99 25.91 25.92 26.78 27.49 27.42 26.03 24.93 24.54 24.38
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37

Angle No Wear 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 180.00
Half Load Capcity (N/m) 18069.45 17636.63 17694.00 17740.01 17852.21 18124.57 18218.08 18232.37 18078.76 17680.48 17061.82 16523.38
Half Load Capcity (kN/m) 18.06945 17.64 17.69 17.74 17.85 18.12 18.22 18.23 18.08 17.68 17.06 16.52
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 20303.57 19836.25 19894.55 19935.18 20046.77 20380.51 20533.21 20640.01 20612.36 20355.50 19852.12 19270.69
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 20.30357 19.84 19.89 19.94 20.05 20.38 20.53 20.64 20.61 20.36 19.85 19.27
Max Pressure (Pa) 79368.79 78012.80 77924.13 77684.62 77730.22 80300.18 82415.61 82233.38 78022.40 74755.64 73564.78 73111.38
Max Pressure (kPa) 79.36879 78.01 77.92 77.68 77.73 80.30 82.42 82.23 78.02 74.76 73.56 73.11
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37 305.37

44
Data tables containing maximum pressures and load carrying-capacities for varying wear
depths at φ = 120 and φ = 160:
Depth = 0.61 (mm) 120.00 160.00
Half Load Capacity (N/m) 12091.67 11941.89
Half Load Capacity (kN/m) 12.09 11.94
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 13600.01 13558.49
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 13.60 13.56
Max Pressure (Pa) 53600.86 51633.00
Max Pressure (kPa) 53.60 51.63
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37
Depth = 1.307 (mm) 120.00 160.00
Half Load Capacity (N/m) 12113.01 11823.28
Half Load Capacity (kN/m) 12.11 11.82
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 13629.04 13576.13
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 13.63 13.58
Max Pressure (Pa) 53919.17 50208.56
Max Pressure (kPa) 53.92 50.21
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37
Depth = 1.507 (mm) 120.00 160.00
Half Load Capacity (N/m) 12101.91 11821.78
Half Load Capacity (kN/m) 12.10 11.82
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 13614.13 13575.24
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 13.61 13.58
Max Pressure (Pa) 53755.07 50195.86
Max Pressure (kPa) 53.76 50.20
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37
Depth = 1.807 (mm) 120.00 160.00
Half Load Capacity (N/m) 12086.93 11821.90
Half Load Capacity (kN/m) 12.09 11.82
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 13594.71 13575.22
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 13.59 13.58
Max Pressure (Pa) 53522.29 50203.21
Max Pressure (kPa) 53.52 50.20
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37
Depth = 1.907 (mm) 120.00 160.00
Half Load Capacity (N/m) 12080.86 11824.40
Half Load Capacity (kN/m) 12.08 11.82
Full Load Capacity (N/m) 13585.86 13575.82
Full Load Capacity (kN/m) 13.59 13.58
Max Pressure (Pa) 53445.06 50226.03
Max Pressure (kPa) 53.45 50.23
Temp (K) 305.37 305.37

45
46