0
Technical Briefs

Effects of Differential Scheme and Viscosity Model on Rough-Surface Point-Contact Isothermal EHL

[+] Author and Article Information
Yuchuan Liu1

Center for Surface Engineering and Tribology,  Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, B224, Evanston, IL 60208ycliu@northwestern.edu

Q. Jane Wang

Center for Surface Engineering and Tribology,  Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, B224, Evanston, IL 60208

Dong Zhu2

Innovation Center,  Eaton Corporation, 26201 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, MI 48037

Wenzhong Wang

School of Mechanical and Vehicular Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100084, P.R.C.

Yuanzhong Hu

State Key Laboratory of Tribology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, P.R.C.

1

Corresponding author. Currently with GM Powertrain, Warren, MI.

2

Currently with Tri-Tech Solutions, Inc., Mount Pleasant, IL.

J. Tribol 131(4), 044501 (Sep 21, 2009) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2842245 History: Received September 08, 2006; Received June 05, 2007; Revised December 18, 2007; Published September 21, 2009

This paper discussed the computational accuracy of rough-surface point-contact isothermal elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) analysis by investigating the effects of differential scheme, viscosity-pressure, and shear-thinning models. An EHL experiment with multitransverse ridges was employed as simulated target. Four differential schemes, including the combined and the separate first-order and second-order backward schemes, were investigated. It is found that the separate second-order backward scheme offers the best results based on the comparison with the experimental data, with which two roughness derivatives may be fully or partially canceled each other; thus, the discretization error induced by roughness can be reduced. The consistency of differential schemes is an important issue for the separate schemes. The Yasutomi free-volume viscosity-pressure model and the Eyring rheological model are found to yield the numerical simulations the closest to experimental results.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Transverse roughness profile used in the current calculations (μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Numerical results from the S2B scheme in simple sliding based on the Yasutomi viscosity-pressure model and the Erying rheological model; ∂S1∕∂X was obtained analytically

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Effect of differential scheme on the results in pure rolling based on the Yasutomi viscosity-pressure model and the Newtonian model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Effect of viscosity model on the results in pure rolling based on the S2B scheme and the Newtonian model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Effect of differential scheme on the results for Σ=−1 based on the Yasutomi viscosity-pressure model and the Erying rheological model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Effect of rheological model on the results for Σ=1 based on the C2B scheme and the Yasutomi viscosity-pressure model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Interferogram, contour, and profile plot comparisons between experimental data and numerical results

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 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