0
Research Papers: Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication

Effect of Kinematic Operating Conditions on Ridge Deformation—Numerical Study With Experimental Comparison

[+] Author and Article Information
Ildikó Ficza

Assistant Professor
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Brno University of Technology,
Technicka 2896/2,
Brno 616 69, Czech Republic
e-mail: ficza@fme.vutbr.cz

Petr Šperka

Assistant Professor
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Brno University of Technology,
Technicka 2896/2,
Brno 616 69, Czech Republic
e-mail: sperka@fme.vutbr.cz

Ivan Křupka

Professor
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Brno University of Technology,
Technicka 2896/2,
Brno 616 69, Czech Republic
e-mail: krupka@fme.vutbr.cz

Martin Hartl

Professor
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Brno University of Technology,
Technicka 2896/2,
Brno 616 69, Czech Republic
e-mail: hartl@fme.vutbr.cz

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received November 10, 2015; final manuscript received August 23, 2016; published online November 30, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Ning Ren.

J. Tribol 139(3), 031502 (Nov 30, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: TRIB-15-1403; doi: 10.1115/1.4034764 History: Received November 10, 2015; Revised August 23, 2016

The behavior of roughness features under rolling–sliding inside highly loaded elastohydrodynamically lubricated (EHL) contacts is studied in detail for many years now. In particular, the roughness deformation was subject to different theoretical analyses as well as experiments. A recent experimental work developed by Šperka et al. (2016, “Experimental Study of Roughness Effects in a Rolling–Sliding EHL Contact—Part I: Roughness Deformation,” Tribol. Trans., 59(2), pp. 267–276) studied the effect of kinematic operating conditions (mean velocity and slide to roll ratio) on the deformed profile of a ridge. The current paper presents results of full numerical simulations and their direct comparison to experiments in order to study the dependency of roughness deformation on the operating conditions. The assumption of non-Newtonian lubricant behavior seems to have a significant influence on the results as well. Results indicate that, in agreement with experiments, the variation of mean velocity causes changes in the deformed profiles of roughness while, on the other hand, the magnitude of slide to roll ratio (for sliding larger than ±50%) does not have influence on the size of the deformation.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Šperka, P. , Křupka, I. , and Hartl, M. , 2016, “ Experimental Study of Roughness Effects in a Rolling–Sliding EHL Contact—Part I: Roughness Deformation,” Tribol. Trans., 59(2), pp. 267–276. [CrossRef]
Ai, X. , and Cheng, H. , 1994, “ The Influence of Moving Dent on Point EHL Contacts,” Tribol. Trans., 37(2), pp. 323–335. [CrossRef]
Venner, C. , and Lubrecht, A. , 1994, “ Numerical Simulation of a Transverse Ridge in a Circular EHL Contact Under Rolling/Sliding,” ASME J. Tribol., 116(4), pp. 751–761. [CrossRef]
Venner, C. , and Lubrecht, A. , 1996, “ Numerical Analysis of the Influence of Waviness on the Film Thickness of a Circular EHL Contact,” ASME J. Tribol., 118(1), pp. 153–161. [CrossRef]
Kaneta, M. , 1992, “ Effects of Surface Roughness in Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication,” JSME Int. J. Ser. 3, 35(4), pp. 535–546.
Morales-Espejel, G. , 2014, “ Surface Roughness Effects in Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication: A Review With Contribution,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 228(11), pp. 1217–1242. [CrossRef]
Venner, C. H. , 1991, “ Multilevel Solution of the EHL Line and Point Contact Problems,” Ph.D thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Greenwood, J. , and Morales-Espejel, G. , 1994, “ The Behaviour of Transverse Roughness in EHL,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part J, 208(2), pp. 121–132. [CrossRef]
Lubrecht, A. , and Venner, C. , 1999, “ Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication of Rough Surfaces,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 213(5), pp. 397–404. [CrossRef]
Hooke, C. , 2005, “ The Effect of Roughness in EHL Contacts,” Tribology and Interface Engineering Series, Life Cycle Tribology, 48, pp. 31–46.
Hooke, C. , 2006, “ Roughness Attenuation and Pressure Rippling in EHL Contacts,” IUTAM Symposium on Elastohydrodynamics and Micro-Elastohydrodynamics, Vol. 134 of series Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 411–422.
Hooke, C. , 1999, “ The Behaviour of Low-Amplitude Surface Roughness Under Line Contacts,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 213(4), pp. 275–285. [CrossRef]
Hooke, C. , 2003, “ Non-Newtonian Effects in Dynamic EHL Contacts,” Tribol. Ser., 43, pp. 215–224.
Eyring, H. , 1936, “ Viscosity, Plasticity and Diffusion as Examples of Absolute Reaction Rates,” J. Chem. Phys., 4(4), pp. 283–291. [CrossRef]
Johnson, K. , and Tevaawerk, J. , 1977, “ Shear Behaviour of Elastohydrodynamic Films,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 356(1685), pp. 215–236. [CrossRef]
Kim, K. , and Sadeghi, F. , 1991, “ Non-Newtonian Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication of Point Contacts,” ASME J. Tribol., 113(4), pp. 703–711. [CrossRef]
Holt, C. , Evans, H. , and Snidle, R. , 1996, “ Solutions of the Non-Newtonian Elastohydrodynamic Problem of Circular Contacts Based on a Flow Continuity Method,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 210(4), pp. 247–258. [CrossRef]
Ehret, P. , Dowson, D. , and Taylor, C. , 1998, “ On Lubricant Transport Conditions in Elastohydrodynamic Conjunctions,” Proc. R. Soc. London A, 454(1971), pp. 763–787. [CrossRef]
Greenwood, J. , 2000, “ Two-Dimensional Flow of a Non-Newtonian Lubricant,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 214(1), pp. 29–41. [CrossRef]
Jacod, B. , Lugt, P. , Dumont, M. , Tripp, J. , and Venner, C. , 2000, “ Amplitude Reduction of Waviness in Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication Using an Eyring Fluid Model,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 214(4), pp. 343–350. [CrossRef]
Chapkov, A. , Venner, C. , and Lubrecht, A. , 2006, “ Roughness Amplitude Reduction Under Non-Newtonian EHD Lubrication Conditions,” ASME J. Tribol., 128(4), pp. 753–760. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y. , and Wen, S. , 2002, “ An Analysis of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication With Limiting Shear Stress—Part I: Theory and Solutions,” Tribol. Trans., 45(2), pp. 135–144. [CrossRef]
Bair, S. , and Winer, W. , 1979, “ A Rheological Model for EHL Contacts Based on Primary Laboratory Data,” J. Lubr. Technol., 101(3), pp. 258–264. [CrossRef]
Kumar, P. , and Khonsari, M. , 2009, “ On the Role of Lubricant Rheology and Piezo-Viscous Properties in Line and Point Contact EHL,” Tribol. Int., 42(11–12), pp. 1522–1530. [CrossRef]
Chapkov, A. , Bair, S. , Cann, P. , and Lubrecht, A. , 2007, “ Film Thickness in Point Contacts Under Generalized Newtonian EHL Conditions: Numerical and Experimental Analysis,” Tribol. Int., 40(10–12), pp. 1474–1478. [CrossRef]
Charles, P. , Elfassi, M. , and Lubrecht, A. , 2011, “ ‘Double-Newtonian’ Rheological Model for the Two-Dimensional Reynolds Equation,” Tribol. Int., 225(6), pp. 335–346.
Guangteng, G. , Cann, P. , Spikes, H. , and Olver, A. , 1999, “ Mapping of Surface Features in the Thin Lubrication Regime,” Tribol. Ser., 36, pp. 175–183.
Choo, J. , Olver, A. , and Spikes, H. , 2003, “ Influence of Surface Roughness Features on Mixed Film Lubrication,” Lubr. Sci., 15(3), pp. 219–232. [CrossRef]
Glovnea, R. , Choo, J. , Olver, A. , and Spikes, H. , 2003, “ Compression of a Single Transverse Ridge in a Circular Elastohydrodynamic Contact,” ASME J. Tribol., 125(2), pp. 275–282. [CrossRef]
Felix-Quinonez, A. , Ehret, P. , and Summers, J. , 2004, “ Numerical Analysis of Experimental Observations of a Single Transverse Ridge Passing Through an Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication Point Contact Under Rolling/Sliding Conditions,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 218(2), pp. 109–123. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , Kaneta, M. , Guo, F. , and Yang, P. , 2006, “ Occurrence of Microelastohydrodynamic Lubrication in Simple Sliding Motion With Transverse Roughness,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J, 220(3), pp. 273–285. [CrossRef]
Liu, Y. , Wang, Q. , Zhu, D. , Wang, W. , and Hu, Y. , 2009, “ Effects of Differential Scheme and Viscosity Model on Rough-Surface Point-Contact Isothermal EHL,” ASME J. Tribol., 131(4), p. 044501. [CrossRef]
Venner, C. H. , and Lubrecht, A. A. , 2000, Multilevel Methods in Lubrication, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wijnant, Y. H. , 1998, “ Contact Dynamics in the Field of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication,” Ph.D thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Hartl, M. , Křupka, I. , Poliščuk, R. , and Liška, M. , 1997, “ An Automatic System for Real-Time Evaluation of EHD Film Thickness and Shape Based on the Colorimetric Interferometry,” Tribol. Trans., 42(2), pp. 303–309. [CrossRef]
Hartl, M. , Křupka, I. , and Liška, M. , 1997, “ Differential Colorimetry: Tool for Evaluation of Chromatic Interference Patterns,” Optic Eng, 36(9), pp. 2384–2391. [CrossRef]
Hartl, M. , Křupka, I. , Fuis, V. , and Liška, M. , 2004, “ Experimental Study of Lubricant Film Thickness Behavior in the Vicinity of Real Asperities Passing Through Lubricated Contact,” Tribol. Trans., 47(3), pp. 376–385. [CrossRef]
Křupka, I. , Kumar, P. , Bair, S. , Khonsari, M. M. , and Hartl, M. , 2010, “ The Effect of Load (Pressure) for Quantitative EHL Film Thickness,” Tribol. Lett., 37(3), pp. 613–622. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental and numerical flat-top transverse ridge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The behavior of the ridge inside EHL contact at different time steps: (a)–(c) SRR = 1.0 and (d)–(f) SRR = –1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Illustration of ridge deformation (RD) and complementary wave (CW) at given time steps for positive and negative rolling–sliding conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Deformed and undeformed ridge profiles: (a) pure rolling and (b) rolling–sliding SRR = 1.0. Contact inlet on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Film thickness and pressure distributions for three different mean velocities and SRR = 1.0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Deformed ridge for a range of um and given SRR = ±1.0 for Eyring model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Deformed ridge profiles for a range of um = 0.02, 0.04, and 0.08 m/s and SRRs = ±0.5, ±1.0, and ±1.5: (a) positive SRRs and (b) negative SRRs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison with experiments—from left to right: SRR = 0.5, SRR = 1.0, and SRR = 1.5. Contact inlet is on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison with experiments—from left to right: SRR = −0.5, SRR = −1.0, and SRR = −1.5. Contact inlet is on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Deformed ridge for um = 0.04 and 0.08 m/s and SRR = ±1.0 for Newtonian (dashed lined) and Eyring (solid line) models

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