0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Numerical Analysis of a Journal Bearing With a Heterogeneous Slip/No-Slip Surface

[+] Author and Article Information
Alicia E. Fortier, Richard F. Salant

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

J. Tribol 127(4), 820-825 (May 26, 2005) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2033897 History: Received January 13, 2005; Revised May 26, 2005

The no-slip boundary condition is part of the foundation of the traditional lubrication theory. It states that fluid adjacent to a solid boundary has zero velocity relative to the solid surface. For most practical applications, the no-slip boundary condition is a good model for predicting fluid behavior. However, recent experimental research has found that for certain engineered surfaces the no-slip boundary condition is not valid. Measured velocity profiles show that slip occurs at the interface. In the present study, the effect of an engineered slip/no-slip surface on journal bearing performance is examined. A heterogeneous pattern, in which slip occurs in certain regions and is absent in others, is applied to the bearing surface. Fluid slip is assumed to occur according to the Navier relation. Analysis is performed numerically using a mass conserving algorithm for the solution of the Reynolds equation. Load carrying capacity, side leakage rate, and friction force are evaluated. In addition, results are presented in the form of Raimondi and Boyd graphs. It is found that the judicious application of slip to a journal bearing’s surface can lead to improved bearing performance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Journal bearing configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Film thickness distribution (a) and slip/no-slip pattern (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Pressure distributions, slip/no-slip bearing (a) and conventional bearing (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Effects of slip coefficient on load support (a), friction force (b), and side leakage (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Sommerfeld number vs slip region length (a) and slip region width (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Eccentricity ratio vs Sommerfeld number, ly∕D=1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Eccentricity ratio vs Sommerfeld number, various ly∕D, conventional bearing (a) and slip/no-slip bearing (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Friction coefficient (xR∕c) vs Sommerfeld number, ly∕D=1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Friction coefficient (xR∕c) vs Sommerfeld number, various ly∕D, conventional bearing (a) and slip/no-slip bearing (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Side leakage rate Q vs Sommerfeld number, ly∕D=1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Side leakage rate Q vs Sommerfeld number, various ly∕D, conventional bearing (a) and slip/no-slip bearing (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Side leakage rate Qy vs Sommerfeld number, ly∕D=1

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