0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Numerical Study of Slider Bearings With Limited Corrugation

[+] Author and Article Information
B. Phuoc Huynh

Faculty of Engineering University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007 Australiae-mail: phuoc.huynh@uts.edu.au

J. Tribol 127(3), 582-595 (Jun 13, 2005) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1843152 History: Received May 13, 2003; Revised April 27, 2004; Online June 13, 2005
Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Michell, A. G. M., 1950, Lubrication—Its Principles and Practice, Blackie and Son, London.
Tzeng,  S. T., and Saibel,  E., 1967, “Surface Roughness Effect on Slider Bearing Lubrication,” ASLE Trans., 10, pp. 334–338.
Christensen,  H., and Tonder,  K., 1971, “The Hydrodynamic Lubrication of Rough Bearing Surfaces of Finite Width,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 93(3), pp. 324–330.
Elrod,  H. G., 1979, “A General Theory for Laminar Lubrication With Reynolds Roughness,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 101, pp. 8–14.
Phan-Thien, N., 1981, “On the Effect of Parallel and Transverse Stationary Random Surface Roughness in Hydrodynamic Lubrication,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A374 , pp. 569–591.
Mitsuya,  Y., and Fukui,  S., 1986, “Stokes Roughness Effects on Hydrodynamic Lubrication. Part 1—Comparison Between Incompressible and Compressible Lubricating Films,” ASME J. Tribol., 108, pp. 151–158.
Gans,  R. F., 1987, “On Random Reynolds Roughness,” ASME J. Tribol., 109, pp. 427–431.
Bayada,  G., and Chambat,  M., 1988, “New Models in the Theory of the Hydrodynamic Lubrication of Rough Surfaces,” ASME J. Tribol., 110, pp. 402–407.
Lunde,  L., and Tonder,  K., 1997, “Numerical Simulation of the Effects of Three-Dimensional Roughness on Hydrodynamic Lubrication: Correlation Coefficients,” ASME J. Tribol., 119, pp. 315–322.
Burton,  R. A., 1963, “Effects of Two-Dimensional, Sinusoidal Roughness on the Load Support Characteristics of a Lubricant Film,” ASME J. Basic Eng., 85(2), pp. 258–264.
White,  J. W., Raad,  P. E., Tabrizi,  A. H., Ketkar,  S. P., and Prabhu,  P. P., 1986, “A Numerical Study of Surface Roughness Effects on Ultra-Thin Gas Films,” ASME J. Tribol., 108, pp. 171–177.
Tonder,  K., 1984, “A Numerical Assessment of the Effect of Striated Roughness on Gas Lubrication,” ASME J. Tribol., 106, pp. 315–321.
Tonder,  K., 1996, “Dynamics of Rough Slider Bearings: Effects of One-Sided Roughness/Waviness,” Tribol. Int., 29(2), pp. 117–122.
Elrod,  H. G., 1973, “Thin-Film Lubrication Theory for Newtonian Fluids With Surfaces Possessing Striated Roughness or Grooving,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 95, pp. 484–489.
Rhow,  S. K., and Elrod,  H. G., 1974, “The Effects on Bearing Load-Carrying Capacity of Two-Sided Striated Roughness,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 96, pp. 554–560, 640.
Sun,  D.-C., and Chen,  K.-K., 1977, “First Effects of Stokes Roughness on Hydrodynamic Lubrication,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 99(1), pp. 2–9.
Chow,  P. L., and Saibel,  E. A., 1978, “On the Roughness Effect in Hydrodynamic Lubrication,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 100, pp. 176–179.
Tonder,  K., 1977, “Mathematical Verification of the Applicability of Modified Reynolds Equations to Striated Rough Surfaces,” Wear, 44, pp. 329–343.
Tonder,  K., 1986, “The Lubrication of Unidirectional Striated Roughness: Consequences for Some General Roughness Theories,” ASME J. Tribol., 108, pp. 167–170.
Patir,  N., and Cheng,  H. S., 1979, “Application of Average Flow Model to Lubrication Between Rough Sliding Surfaces,” ASME J. Lubr. Technol., 101, pp. 220–230.
Tonder,  K., 1980, “Simulation of the Lubrication of Isotropically Rough Surfaces,” ASLE Trans., 23(3), pp. 326–333.
Fre⁁ne, J. D., Nicolas, D., Degueurce, B., Berthe, D., and Godet, M., 1997, Hydrodynamic Lubrication—Bearings and Thrust Bearings, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., and Lightfoot, E. N., 1960, Transport Phenomena, Wiley, New York.
Hamrock, B. J., 1994, Fundamentals of Fluid Film Lubrication, McGraw–Hill, New York.
Phuoc,  H. B., and Tanner,  R. I., 1980, “Thermally-Induced Extrudate Swell,” J. Fluid Mech., 98, pp. 253–271.
Huynh, B. P., and Tanner, R. I., 1983, “Finite Element Study of Some Flow Problems With Thermally Induced Buoyancy,” Proceedings of the Eighth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, 28 Nov.–2 Dec., Newcastle, Australia, pp. 8B.1–8B.5.
Huynh,  B. P., 1998, “A Numerical Investigation of Non-Isothermal Extrusion Through Annular Dies,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 36(2), pp. 171–188.
Huynh, B. P., 2001, “Thermal Effects on Coat Thickness in Wire-Coating Process,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Polymers and Processing, 30 October–2 November, Yonezawa, Japan, pp. 3–9.
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Wright, M. H., 1991, Numerical Linear Algebra and Optimization—Vol. 1, Addison–Wesley, Redwood City, CA.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Slider bearing geometry with corrugated inclined surface. See Sec. 2 of text (Mathematical Model and Numerical Method) for explanation of symbols.
Grahic Jump Location
Grid pattern of a representative case; the case is G (see Table 1 for details on cases)
Grahic Jump Location
Evidence of grid convergence; comparison of pressure distribution resulted from using patterns with 11×204 and 11×244 grid points in a test case: the difference is negligible
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation location on pressure distribution. Case A: smooth-walled reference case; case C: xm=5 mm; F: xm=15 mm; G: xm=18.5 mm; I: xm=25 mm. In all cases but case A, corrugation length d=10 mm, normalized corrugation amplitude a/hm=0.1818.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation location on normal load and maximum pressure; changes are relative to smooth-walled isothermal case A. Data are from cases C, F, G, and I.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation length on pressure distribution. Case A is taken to be a special case with length zero. Cases A, J, K, and C have xm=5 mm, with d/l increasing from 0 to 0.333; case J: d/l=0.111; K: d/l=0.222; C: d/l=0.333. Cases A, L, M, N, and I have xm=25 mm, with d/l also increasing from 0 to 0.333; case L: d/l=0.022; M: d/l=0.111; N: d/l=0.222; I: d/l=0.333.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation section’s length on normal load and maximum pressure; changes are relative to smooth-walled isothermal case A, itself being taken to be a special case with length zero. Data are from cases A, C, J, K for xm/l=0.167; and from cases A, I, L, M, N for xm/l=0.833.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation amplitude on pressure distribution. Case A is taken to be a special case with zero amplitude. Cases A, B, and C have xm=5 mm, with a=a/hm increasing from 0 to 0.1818; case B: a=0.0909; C: a=0.1818. Cases A, E, and F have xm=15 mm, with a increasing from 0 to 0.1818; case E: a=0.0909; F: a=0.1818. Cases A, H, and I have xm=25 mm, with a also increasing from 0 to 0.1818; case H: a=0.0909; I: a=0.1818.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation amplitude on normal load and maximum pressure; changes are relative to smooth-walled isothermal case A, itself being taken to be a special case with zero amplitude. Data are from cases A, B, C for xm/l=0.167; from cases A, E, F for xm/l=0.500; and from cases A, H, I for xm/l=0.833.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation wavelength on pressure distribution. Case A is a reference case; case P: λ/hm=4.545 (λ=0.5 mm); I: λ/hm=6.061 (λ=0.667 mm); O: λ/hm=11.364 (λ=1.25 mm).
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation wavelength on normal load and maximum pressure; changes are relative to smooth-walled isothermal case A. Data are from cases I, O, and P, with xm/l=0.833.
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation location and corrugated section’s length on flow rate; changes are relative to smooth-walled isothermal case A. Data are from cases C, F, G, and I (changing corrugation location xm/l;d/l=0.333); from cases A, C, J, K (corrugation centered at xm/l=0.167; changing d/l); and from cases A, I, L, M, N (corrugation centered at xm/l=0.833; changing d/l).
Grahic Jump Location
Effects of corrugation amplitude and wavelength on flow rate; changes are relative to smooth-walled isothermal case A, itself being taken to be a special case with zero amplitude. For changing amplitude, data are from cases with constant wavelength λ=0.6667 mm (but changing normalized wavelength λ/hm): cases A, B, C for xm/l=0.167,λ/hm=4.445; cases A, E, F for xm/l=0.500,λ/hm=5.128; and cases A, H, I for xm/l=0.833,λ/hm=6.061. For changing wavelength, data are from cases P, I, and O. These cases have constant normalized amplitude a=a/hm=0.1818, and xm/l=0.833, but wavelength increasing from 0.5 to 1.25 mm, respectively (normalized wavelength λ/hm increasing from 4.545 to 11.364).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In