0
Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication

Size Effect on the Behavior of Thermal Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication of Roller Pairs

[+] Author and Article Information
Xiaoling Liu1

 School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, Qingdao 266033, P. R. C.lxl@qtech.edu.cn

Jinlei Cui, Peiran Yang

 School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, Qingdao 266033, P. R. C.

1

Corresponding author. Present Address: Qingdao Technological University, School of Mechanical Engineering, 11 Fushun Road, Qingdao 266033, P. R. C.

J. Tribol 134(1), 011502 (Feb 09, 2012) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005515 History: Received July 27, 2011; Revised December 01, 2011; Published February 08, 2012; Online February 09, 2012

In order to investigate the size effect on elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) of roller pairs, complete numerical solutions for both the Newtonian fluid and the Eyring fluid thermal EHL problems of roller pairs under steady state conditions have been achieved. It can be seen that there is no size effect on the isothermal EHL performance; however, there is a very strong size effect on the thermal EHL performance. Results show that the term of shearing heat is the most important factor for the film temperature when the size of a contact changes. Comparison between the Newtonian solution and the Eyring solution has been made under some operating conditions. It is interesting to see that the effective viscosity of the Eyring fluid is nearly the same as that of the Newtonian fluid when the size of a contact is large enough. The non-Newtonian effect, therefore, can be ignored when the size of a contact is very large. It is equally interesting to see that the thermal effect can be ignored when the size of a contact is very small. In addition, the influence of the velocity parameter, the load parameter, and the slide-roll ratio on the lubricating performance for various sizes of contacts has been investigated.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of the dimensionless central viscosity between Newtonian and Eyring solutions; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparisons of hcen /R versus R among isothermal Newtonian and thermal Newtonian solutions with and without thermal expansion; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Variations in temperature rise versus X for three cases of thermal Newtonian solution without shearing heat; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Variations in hcen /R, hmin /R, and Tcen in the middle layer of the film versus R for isothermal Newtonian and thermal Newtonian solutions with and without shearing heat; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Variations in Tcen on both solid surfaces and in the middle layer of the film versus R predicted by both the Newtonian and Eyring thermal solutions; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Effect of oil conductivity on the thermal Newtonian EHL; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W =1.2 × 10−4 . 1: k = 0.14 W/m · K, 2: k = 0.14 × 10−1 W/m · K, 3: k = 0.14 × 10−2 W/m · K, 4: k = 0.14 × 10−3 W/m · K, and 5: k = 0.14 × 10−4 W/m · K

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Variations in hcen /R, hmin /R, Tcen in the middle layer of the film, and μ obtained with four EHL models; ξ = 0.5, U = 1×10−11 , and W =1.2×10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The profiles of pressure p, ratio h/R, and the contour maps of the film temperatures with various R. Newtonian fluid; ξ = 0.5, U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4 .

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Variations in hcen /R, hmin /R, Tcen in the middle layer of the film, and μ versus slide-roll ratio ξ predicted by both the thermal Newtonian solution (the left column) and the thermal Eyring solution (the right column); U = 1 × 10−11 , and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Variations in hcen /R, hmin /R, Tcen in the middle layer of the film and μ versus velocity parameter U predicted by both the thermal Newtonian solution (the left column) and the thermal Eyring solution (the right column); ξ = 0.5, and W = 1.2 × 10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Variations in hcen /R, hmin /R, Tcen in the middle layer of the film and μ versus load parameter W predicted by both the thermal Newtonian solution (the left column) and the thermal Eyring solution (the right column); ξ = 0.5, and U = 1 × 10−11

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