0
Research Papers: Hydrodynamic Lubrication

Compressible Fluid Model for Hydrodynamic Lubrication Cavitation

[+] Author and Article Information
G. Bayada

I.C.J. UMR CNRS 5208,
INSA de Lyon,
Bat. Léonard de Vinci,
Villeurbanne Cedex, 69621, France
e-mail: Guy.bayada@insa-lyon.fr

L. Chupin

Laboratoire de Mathématiques,
Campus des Cezeaux,
Université Blaise Pascal,
Aubière Cedex, 63177, France
e-mail: Laurent.chupin@math.univ-bpclermont.fr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Tribology. Manuscript received November 29, 2012; final manuscript received April 18, 2013; published online June 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Luis San Andres.

J. Tribol 135(4), 041702 (Jun 18, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: TRIB-12-1217; doi: 10.1115/1.4024298 History: Received November 29, 2012; Revised April 18, 2013

In this paper, it is shown how vaporous cavitation in lubricant films can be modeled in a physically justified manner through the constitutive (compressibility) relation of the fluid. The method treats the flow as a homogeneous mixture employing a “void fraction” variable to quantify the intensity of cavitation. It has been already proposed to study cavitation in fluid mechanics. It is shown how the widely used Jakobsson–Floberg–Olsson (JFO) / Elrod–Adams (EA) mass flow conservation model can be compared with this new model. Moreover, the new model can incorporate the variation of the viscosity in the cavitation region and allows the pressure to fall below a cavitation pressure. Numerical computations show that discrepancy with JFO/EA is mostly associated with light loading condition, starved situation or viscosity effects.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

example of geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Density pressure laws: A comparison between cavitation models. High pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Density pressure laws: A comparison between cavitation models. Low pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A comparison between models. Pressure curves and zoom near the cavitation area.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

A comparison between models. Relative density curves.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Dukler mixture viscosity model. Influence of rρ ratio. Pressure curves.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Dukler mixture viscosity model. Influence of rρ ratio. Relative density curves.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Starved situation. A comparison between various models. Pressure curves.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Light loading. Influence of cavitation parameters. Comparison between various models. Pressure curves.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Light loading. Influence of cavitation parameters. Comparison between various models. Relative density curves.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

A comparison of the pressure field (finite bearing): Experimental values (top) present model (middle) and JFO model (bottom). Pressure values in MPa.

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