559

A note on the lubricating film in hydrostatic

mechanical face seals
Z Luan and M M Khonsari∗
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

The manuscript was received on 1 September 2007 and was accepted after revision for publication on 18 January 2008.

DOI: 10.1243/13506501JET344

Abstract: A hydrostatic model for analysing the lubrication film in mechanical seals with
provision for surface roughness is presented. The model takes into account the wedge angle
between the seal faces developed due to thermal gradient. It is useful for predicting the mean
pressure distribution, fluid-film thickness, power loss, and leakage rate. An analytical solution
for the fluid pressure distribution is obtained by solving the axis-symmetric Reynolds equation,
without assuming constant fluid-film thickness. It is demonstrated that surface roughness con-
siderably increases the mean fluid-film thickness. On the basis of predicted film thickness, the
leakage rate and dissipated power can be easily predicted. The method and results can be useful
as an adjunct analysis for more complicated thermoelastohydrodynamic analysis of mechanical
seals.

Keywords: mechanical seals, lubrication fluid film, leakage rate, surface roughness

1 INTRODUCTION variation along the sealing gap. More recently, Salant

The most important indicator of seal performance
is leakage rate. It determines the success or failure
of a seal. In a mechanical seal, the leakage rate is
directly related to the lubrication film formed between
the rotating and stationary rings. Hence, numerous
authors have studied the lubrication characteristics
of these rings to better understand the behaviour of
mechanical seals. Brunetiere et al. [1] developed a
thermoelastohydrodynamic (TEHD) model to deter-
mine mean face temperature, power loss, leakage
rate, and fluid-film thickness. Lebeck [2] formulated
a mixed-lubrication friction model and developed
appropriate relationships for predicting the minimum
film thickness and leakage in a mechanical seal. Using
this model, the total power consumption of seals can
be calculated in which both the fluid and mechani-
cal contact between asperities are properly accounted
for. Pascovici and Etsion [3] performed a thermohy-
drodynamic analysis for a face-to-face double seal
configuration considering temperature and viscosity
∗ Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Louisiana State University, 2508 CEBA, Baton Rouge, LA 70803,
USA. email: khosnari@me.lsu.edu
and Cao [4] came up with an unsteady numerical
model of a mechanical seal with mixed lubrication
using Duhamel’s method. The model can be used
to predict the thermal behaviour of the lubrication
fluid film of the seals during startup and shutdown.
Tournerie et al. [5, 6] developed two-dimensional
and three-dimensional models to analyse the thermal
behaviour of the lubrication film of a seal. In their
study, the Reynolds equation and energy equation
were solved numerically using the finite-difference
method and the method of influence coefficient to
determine the seal face distortion.
In addition to the numerical studies [1–6],
researchers also have experimentally investigated the
characteristics of fluid film at the sealing gap between
seal rings. Representative literatures are shown as
follows. Using magnetic reluctance technique, Win-
ney [7] designed a seal test rig to measure very thin
fluid-film thickness of the order of 1 μm. Reddyhoff
et al. [8] also developed an ultrasonic measurement
rig to measure the film thickness for seals. Their
test results showed that, while stationary, the film
thickness varied appreciably with load. San Andres
and Delgado [9] in their study presented a parame-
ter identification procedure and force coefficients of
a squeeze film damper featuring a mechanical seal.

JET344 © IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology
560 Z Luan and M M Khonsari

Their experiments demonstrated that the mechanical assumptions are made.

seal effectively prevented air entrapment into the
1. The problem is steady state and axis-symmetric.
squeeze film for the frequencies and amplitudes of
2. The fluid is Newtonian with constant density and
motion tested.
viscosity across the sealing gap.
The motivation of the paper is to develop a sim-
3. The radial taper is due to thermal effects and
ple hydrostatic model which can be used for rapidly
does not depend on the details of the contact or
predicting the pressure distribution, mean film thick-
hydraulic pressure [1, 2].
ness, leakage rate, and power dissipation at the sealing
4. Inner pressure is zero [1, 2].
gap. This paper can be treated as an extension to
the work of references [1], [2], and [10]. Based on In order to analyse leakage rate, first it is necessary
the results of references [2] and [10], reference [1] to predict the film thickness. The film thickness is a
developed a simple method for estimating the mean function of r and can be determined by an axial force
film thickness of the fluid film between smooth balance between the closing force acting on the back
seal faces. The present work relaxes the assump- of the rings and the opening force – caused by the
tion of the narrow inner and outer radius difference fluid pressure in the lubricating film – and the contact
by references [1], [2], and [10]; solves the Reynolds force at the sealing gap. In the section that follows, the
equation considering the effect of roughness on the film thickness is predicted with provision for surface
hydraulic pressure, contact force, and friction heat; roughness.
and investigates the lubrication film thickness and
associated leakage rate using load equilibrium (bal-
ance of the opening and closing forces acting on 2.1 Seal face with roughness
the seal ring). It is demonstrated that surface rough-
For a seal face with roughness, the hydrodynamic pres-
ness considerably increases the mean fluid-film thick-
sure is given by the Reynolds equation of the following
ness. On the basis of predicted film thickness, the
form [12]
effects of roughness on leakage rate and dissipated
power are also discussed for both rough and smooth  
∂ h3 ∂pσ ω1 − ω2 ∂φs
seal face. rφx = σ (1)
∂r 12μ ∂r 2 ∂r

where φx and φs is the pressure flow factor and shear

2 MODEL
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the model showing seal
faces with roughness. Based on the study of Doust and
Parmar [11], the seal faces present themselves at an
angle β due to the thermal gradients in the seal rings.
The lubrication fluid film at the seal gap is of thickness
h(r) with hi at the inlet and ho at the outlet. The corre-
sponding fluid pressures at the inner and outer radius
(at the seal chamber) are pi and po , respectively.
This model is intended for an outer pressurized seal
but the method can be easily extended to an inner
pressurized seal. The pressure between the two seal
faces includes both hydraulic and rough surface con-
tact pressure [2]. In the present study, the following
flow factor, respectively, ω1,2 are the rotating speeds
of the surfaces, and σ is the roughness variance. The
pressure flow factor is defined as [13]
φx = 1 − Ce−rH for γ  1 (2)
φx = 1 + CH −r for γ > 1 (3)
where C and r are constants whose values can be found
in references [12] and [13] and H is the dimensionless
film thickness defined as: H = h/σ . In equations (2)
and (3), the parameter γ is the length-to-width ratio
of a representative asperity [12]. Note that γ > 1,
γ = 1, and γ < 1 correspond to the roughness pattern
of longitudinal orientation, isotropic, and transverse
orientation, respectively. The shear flow factor, φs , is
defined as [13]

φs = Vr1 s (H , γ1 ) − Vr2 s (H , γ2 ) (4)

where Vr1 and Vr2 are the variance ratios given by

 σ 2  σ 2
1 2
Vr1 = and Vr2 = = 1 − Vr1 (5)
σ σ

The parameter s is a function of H and the roughness

Fig. 1 Schematic of the model pattern parameter γ . In this study, it is assumed that

Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology JET344 © IMechE 2008
 Lubricating film in hydrostatic mechanical face seals 561

the surfaces of the seal rings have the same roughness Reference [4] introduced an approximate method
pattern γ and roughness variance, σ , that is to calculate the opening force for the seal faces with
roughness in the following form
σ 1 = σ2 and γ1 = γ2 (6)  ro
Fσ = 2π pr dr + Fcontact (16)
Therefore, the shear flow factor φs = 0 and equation (1) ri
reduces to
  where p is the hydraulic pressure in the lubrica-
d 3 dpσ tion film for smooth seal faces which is discussed
rφx h =0 (7)
dr dr in later section of smooth seal face. Note that the
difference between equations (12) and (16) is at the
where the film thickness h is a function of the radius, r hydraulic pressure term: the hydraulic pressure used
in the present model (equation (12)) is estimated
h(r) = (hi − ri β) + βr (8)
from the Reynolds equation with roughness effect
The pressure boundary conditions are while in the approximate method [4] (equation (16)),
the hydraulic pressure is calculated from the simpler
pσ (ro ) = po and pσ (ri ) = 0 (9) Reynolds equation without roughness.
Having obtained an expression for the fluid pres-
In the case of rough seal faces, the opening force sure calculated from equation (7), one can determine
results from a combination of the fluid pressure gov- the mean fluid-film thickness by balancing the axial
erned by equation (7) and the contact force Fcontact , closing force and opening force acting on the seal
which is determined by contact mechanics of the ring as shown in equation (13). Therefore, the mean
contacting asperities. If assuming that the asperi- film thickness of rough seal face can be predicted by
ties’ height distribution is Gaussian [14], the contact numerically solving equation (13). It can be recognized
pressure at the seal gap can be expressed as [4] that the fluid-film thickness is a function of roughness
∞ since it can influence the hydraulic pressure and the
1 2 2 asperity-contact pressure at the sealing gap.
pc = S √ e(−z /2σ ) dz (10)
h σ 2π Once the mean film thickness is determined by bal-
ancing the axial force acting on the seal ring, leakage
where S is the flow pressure or flow stress. Halling [15] rate Q for rough seal faces can be expressed as [10]
indicated that S is approximately three times the
 2π  
tensile yield strength for a metal, i.e. essentially the h3 ∂pσ
Q = ro − dθ
indentation hardness. 0 12μ ∂r r=ro
The contact force is  
 ro h3 ∂pσ
= 2πro − (17)
Fcontact = 2π pc r dr (11) 12μ ∂r r=ro
ri
where μ is the fluid viscosity at the sealing gap. Since
Therefore, the opening force is the pressure distribution for rough seal faces is known,
 ro equation (17) can be solved.
Fσ = 2π pσ r dr + Fcontact (12) The dissipated power due to a combination of the
ri fluid friction and the contact friction can be calculated
using the following expression [1, 4]
By equalizing the opening force and the closing force,
then  ro
2 ro − ri
4 4
Ec = πμω + 2π fc ωpc r 2 dr (18)
2hm
Fσ = Fc (13) ri

where fc is the contact friction coefficient and ω the

where Fc is the closing force which can be calculated rotational velocity of the rotor.
from the following equation
 
Fc = π ro2 − ri2 po Bt (14) 2.2 Smooth seal face

Bt is the total balance ratio and is defined as [1] If the roughness variance at the seal faces is very small,
the roughness effects can be neglected. Thus, the prob-
Fsp lem above can be simplified by assuming smooth seal
Bt =   +B (15)
π ro2 − ri2 po faces [1–3, 5, 6]. At present, in this case, it is possi-
ble to obtain a closed-form analytical solution for the
where Fsp is spring force and B is the seal balance ratio. pressure distribution.

JET344 © IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology
562 Z Luan and M M Khonsari

For smooth seal faces σ = 0, H approaches infinity For the exact pressure from the expression given in
and then φx = 1; see equations (2) and (3). Substitut- equation (20), the opening force is
ing φx = 1 into equation (7), the Reynolds equation for  2 
smooth seal faces can be obtained 2πC1 h ln h 1
Fo = − −
hi − r i β β 2 2 4
    
d dp hi − ri β   ln r 1 ro
rh3 =0 (19) − h ln h − h − r 2
−
dr dr β2 2 4 r i
 ro
r h i − ri β   
+ 2πC1 − ln h  + πC1 hi − ri β
with the same boundary conditions as equation (8). β β 2 
Equation (19) can be solved analytically when h =  
ri

h(r) as a function of r as prescribed by equation (9). hi − ri β 1 r 
× 
+ 2 ln h ri + πC2 r ri
o 2ro
(27)
The solution is 2
β h β

    The closing force can be calculated using

1 h 1 h i − ri β 1 equation (14). By equalizing the closing and opening
p(r) = C1 − ln + + + C2
hi − r i β r h 2 h2 force, the mean lubrication fluid-film thickness can
(20) be determined. Using the approximate opening force
in equation (26), the approximate thickness can be
explicitly expressed as [1]
where C1 and C2 are constants determined by bound-
ary conditions (ro − ri )β
hm = (28)
4(Bt − 0.5)
po
C1 =    Using the exact opening force in equation (27) and
1 r o hi 1 1
ln + −
hi − r i β ri h o ho hi Fo = Fc (29)
 
hi − ri β 1 1
+ − 2 (21) The mean film thickness is implicitly included in the
2 h02 hi
  above equation (29) but it can be easily solved using
1 hi 1 hi − ri β 1 some simple root finding method such as the Bisection
C2 = −C1 − ln + + (22)
hi − r i β ri hi 2 hi2 method.
Once the mean film thickness is solved by balancing
and referring to [1] the axial force acting on the seal ring, leakage rate Q
for smooth seal faces can be expressed as [1]
hi = hm − 0.5β (ro − ri ) (23) πro po ho2 hi2
Q= (30)
ho = hm + 0.5β (ro − ri ) (24) 12μ(ro − ri )hm
where μ is the fluid viscosity at the seal gap.
where hm is the mean value of the lubrication film Finally, the dissipated power can be calculated [1, 4]
thickness. using the expression
Lebeck [2, 10] obtained the following approximate
solution to the fluid pressure by assuming a narrow ro4 − ri4
Ec = πμω2 (31)
seal radius difference 2hm
  Note that equation (31) is obtained by eliminating the
po 1 1 contact friction term in equation (18).
p(r) =
 − 2 (25)
(1/ho2 ) − (1/hi2 ) h2 hi
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This expression is valid and yields very close results to
the exact solution when (ro − ri ) is small. In this section, the performance of a mechanical seal
The opening force for the smooth seal face is the using the model described in section 2 is predicted.
integration of the fluid pressure in the sealing gap. Specifically, three sets of inner and outer radii shown in
For the approximate pressure as equation (25), the Table 1 are considered for comparison purposes. Addi-
opening force is [1, 2] tional parameters used in the simulations are given in
Table 2. The values in Tables 1 and 2 are chosen based
  ho on the results of references [1], [2], and [10] so that
Fo = π ro2 − ri2 po (26)
ho + h i direct comparison can be made.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology JET344 © IMechE 2008
 Lubricating film in hydrostatic mechanical face seals 563

Table 1 Radii of the lubrication film (m)

Case number 1 2 3

ri 0.048 02 0.043 02 0.033 02

ro 0.053 02 0.053 02 0.053 02

r 0.005 0.01 0.02

Table 2 Parameters used in simulations

Parameter Value

B 0.75
Fs 314 N Fig. 3 Hydraulic pressure distribution for rough seal
Po 3.45 × 106 Pa face along r direction with
r = 0.02 m, γ = 1.0,
μ 6.82 × 10−4 Pa s
ω 188.5 1/s and β = 100 × 10−6
fc 0.1

distribution does not change appreciably, hence the

3.1 Effect of roughness pattern, γ
Figure 2 shows the effect of roughness pattern factor γ
on the pressure distribution. Note that γ > 1, γ = 1,
and γ < 1 correspond to the roughness pattern of
longitudinal orientation, isotropic, and transverse ori-
entation, respectively. Compared with that of the
smooth seal face, the pressure in a rough seal gap
is considerably greater. According to the definition
of the roughness pattern [12], it can be recognized
that with γ increasing from 1/3 (transverse) to 9 (lon-
gitudinal), the roughness pattern is becoming more
difficult for the lubrication fluid to flow through, which
results in that the hydraulic pressure is increasing with
decreasing γ . From Fig. 2, it can be seen that due to
the constraints imposed by the boundary conditions,
the pressure distribution for the smooth and rough
surfaces are very close at the regions near ri and ro ,
however.
Figure 3 shows the effects of the roughness variance
on the pressure distribution. The results predict that,
in the range of σ = 0.1 × 10−6 to 1 × 10−6 , the pressure
effect of roughness is relatively small.
Turning the attention to the film thickness of rough
seal gap, the results for two methods are presented.
One is using the opening force shown in equation (12),
the other is using equation (16) introduced by refer-
ence [4]. The difference is the hydraulic terms used
in the two equations: the hydraulic pressure used in
equations (12) and (16) is estimated from the Reynolds
equation for rough seal face and smooth seal face,
respectively. Prediction of equation (12) is obviously
more realistic than equation (16) since it uses the fluid
pressure distribution calculated from the Reynolds
equation with provision for surface roughness. The
comparison is shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the
difference increases with increasing the taper angle, β.
For a small taper angle such as β  10 × 10−6 , the dif-
ference is as small as approximately 5 per cent, which
means the approximate method of equation (16) may
be satisfactory. However, for larger taper angles, this
approximate method is not valid since the difference
is large. For example, at β = 500 × 10−6 , the difference
is as much as 60 per cent. Nevertheless, the mean

Fig. 2 Hydraulic pressure distribution for rough Fig. 4 Comparison of mean film thickness of rough
seal face along r direction with
r = 0.02 m, seal face with
r = 0.01 m, S = 250 MPa, and
σ = 0.5 × 10−6 m, and β = 100 × 10−6 σ = 0.5 × 10−6 m by using equations (12) and (16)

JET344 © IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology
564 Z Luan and M M Khonsari

film thickness predicted by equation (12) is always

conservative. Note that the typical taper angle for a
mechanical seal is about 100 × 10−6 to 500 × 10−6 rad
[1–3].
In Fig. 5, the mean film thickness is plotted against
the taper angle β for smooth surface and isotropic
rough surface with γ = 1. It can be seen that the mean
film thickness of the rough face is greater compared
with that of the smooth seal face. With roughness on
the seal faces, the opening force consists of two parts:
one is the hydraulic pressure, the other the contact
force.
Fig. 7 Mean film thickness with
r = 0.01 m, γ = 1.0,
3.2 Effects of roughness variance, σ and σ = 0.5 × 10−6 m

Figure 6 shows the mean film thickness with various

Figure 7 shows the mean film thickness with var-
values of σ ranging from 0.1 × 10−6 to 1.0 × 10−6 m.
ious flow stress parameter, S. It shows that when
It shows that the film thickness is increasing with
β  10 × 10−6 , the flow stress does not have much
increasing σ for small taper angle (β < 100 × 10−6 ),
effect on the film thickness, which is in agreement with
while for large taper angle (β > 100 × 10−6 ), the thick-
Lebeck’s argument [10]. Physically, when S is increas-
ness does not change appreciably with σ . The reason
ing, the contact pressure increases (see equation (10))
relies on the fact that at greater roughness, contact
and that brings about an increase in average film
occurs at larger mean film thickness. At a larger taper
thickness. However, since the contact pressure cal-
angle β, hydraulic pressure dominates the load sup-
culated from equation (10) is small compared with
port, thus the contact is not occurring and the value of
the hydraulic pressure at the sealing gap, the film
roughness makes little difference.
thickness does not appreciably increase the open-
ing force. Referring to Fig. 7, it can be observed that
for β  10 × 10−6 the mean film thickness increases
slightly with increasing S.

3.3 Smooth seal face

r values ranging from 0.005 to
Fig. 5 Mean film thickness with
r = 0.01 m,
S = 250 MPa, and σ = 0.5 × 10−6 m
r. This suggests that the approximate
r.
r = 0.01 m, the maximum error is 5
r = 0.02 m, the error increases to
Fig. 6 Mean film thickness
r = 0.01 m, equation (29) by balancing the axial opening force and
S = 250 MPa, and γ = 1.0
Figure 8 shows the hydraulic pressure distribution
along r for the case of smooth seal face. The
exact solution calculated from equation (20) is com-
pared with the approximate solution calculated from
equation (25). These results are obtained at a fixed
taper angle β with
0.02 m. Constrained by the boundary conditions, it
can be seen that the approximate solution is very
close to the exact expression (equation (25)) only
in regions close to the inner and outer radii. Else-
where, the discrepancy is greater and tends to grow
with increasing
solution becomes inaccurate for large values of
For example, at
per cent; while at
nearly 8.5 per cent. Figure 9 shows the effect of the
taper angle β on the difference between the exact and
approximate pressure. It suggests that the difference is
increasing with decreasing β. The values of the exact
pressure are generally greater than the approximate
ones.
The mean film thickness was predicted using
with
closing force acting on the seal ring. Equation (29)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology JET344 © IMechE 2008
 Lubricating film in hydrostatic mechanical face seals
Fig. 8 Pressure distribution along r direction at the seal
gap with β = 500 × 10−6 and σ = 0
Fig. 9 Pressure distribution along r direction at the seal
gap with
r = 0.02 m
was solved using a root finding method. This solu-
tion is compared with the approximate method of
Brunetiere et al. [1] as shown in Fig. 10 where the
mean film thickness is plotted against taper angle. The
results show that the difference increases with increas-
ing
r, as expected. The mean film thickness linearly
varies with the taper angle, which is reasonable since
the seal faces are assumed to be smooth. Although
at the first glance, it may appear that approximate
solution yields a reasonable prediction for film thick-
ness, careful examination of Fig. 10 reveals that this
r = 0.01 m, γ = 1.0,
Fig. 10 Mean film thickness of smooth seal face
JET344 © IMechE 2008
565
is not always the case. For example, for β  10 × 10−6
the error caused by the simplified equation (28) can
reach to about 40 per cent, while for β  100 × 10−6
the maximum error is approximately 5 per cent.
It should be noted that the minimum film thickness,
an important parameter that is relevant to leak-
age control, can be easily evaluated once the
mean film thickness is known using equations (23)
and (24), where hi represents the minimum film
thickness.
3.4 Leakage rate
Using equations (17) and (30), the leakage rate is
calculated for smooth and rough seal face, respec-
tively. The results are shown in Figs 11(a) and (b). It
can be seen that the leakage rate is increasing with
increasing the taper angle and that the leakage rate of
rough seal face is much greater than that of smooth
seal face, suggesting that a smoother seal face per-
forms better than rough one in terms of reducing
leakage rate. In Fig. 11(a), it may appear that the leak-
age rate for the rough and smooth cases is the same
at β = 100 × 10−6 . However, this is not the case. By
examining Fig. 11(b), the leakage rate for the range
Fig. 11 Comparison of leakage rate of smooth and
rough seal face with
S = 250 MPa, and σ = 0.5 × 10−6 m: (a)
0.1 × 10−4 < β < 5 × 10−4 ; (b) 0.1 × 10−4 <
β < 2 × 10−4
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology
566
Fig. 12 Comparison of dissipated power of smooth
and rough seal face with
r = 0.01 m,
γ = 1.0, S = 250 MPa, and σ = 0.5 × 10−6 m
of 10 × 10−6 < β < 200 × 10−6 , it is found that the
minimum leakage rate difference is at β = 100 × 10−6
which correspond to the film thickness results shown
in Fig. 5.
3.5 Power loss
The power dissipated at the seal gap can be
predicted using equation (18) for rough seal faces
and equation (31) for smooth faces. The results are
presented in Fig. 12. It is shown that the power is
decreasing with increasing taper angle for both rough
and smooth seal face. Because the additional term
involving the frictional heat associated with contact
asperities, the dissipated power for rough seal face
is considerably larger than for the smooth seal face
when β  15 × 10−6 . However, this is not true for β >
15 × 10−6 . In that case, the dissipated power for the
smooth surface is slightly greater compared that for
smooth surface. Equation (18) reveals that the reason
is that the heat from both contact friction and fluid-
film frication is decreasing with average film thickness
increasing. For β > 15 × 10−6 , the film thickness of
smooth seal face is smaller than that of rough face. This
results in a greater power loss associate with smooth
face greater even though there is an additional contact
friction term for rough seal face.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a simple hydrostatic model of
lubrication film with rough and smooth seal faces
for mechanical face seal that allows for the deter-
mination of mean pressure distribution, fluid-film
thickness, power loss, and leakage rate. By solving
the axi-symmetric Reynolds equation, an analytical
solution of the pressure distribution is obtained that
accounts for the taper angle formed between the seal
Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology
Z Luan and M M Khonsari
surfaces because of thermal gradients. Comparison of
the results with and without the assumption of con-
stant fluid-film thickness shows that the difference
cannot be ignored especially when the inner and outer
difference of the rings is large. The effects of surface
roughness on the mean film thickness are also anal-
ysed and discussed. It is demonstrated that surface
roughness considerably increases the mean fluid-film
thickness. Based on the results of film thickness, the
leakage rate and dissipated power are also discussed.
The model and results presented in this paper can
be used as an adjunct analysis for more complicated
TEHD analysis of mechanical seals.
REFERENCES
1 Brunetiere, N., Tournerie, B., and Frene, J. A simple and
easy-to-use TEHD model for non-contacting liquid face
seals. Trans. ASME, J. Tribol., 2003, 46, 187–192.
2 Lebeck, A. O. Contacting mechanical seal design using a
simplified hydrostatic model. Tribol. Int., 1988, 21, 2–14.
3 Pascovici, M. D. and Etsion, I. A thermo-hydrodynamic
analysis of a mechanical face seal. Trans. ASME, J. Tribol.,
1992, 114, 639–645.
4 Salant, R. F. and Cao, B. Unsteady analysis of a mechani-
cal seal using Duhamel’s method. Trans. ASME, J. Tribol.,
2005, 127, 623–631.
5 Tournerie, B., Brunetiere, N., and Danos, J. C. 2D
numerical modelling of the TEHD transient behavior of
mechanical face seals. Sealing Technol., 2003, 2003(6),
10–13.
6 Tournerie, B., Danos, J. C., and Frene, J. Three-
dimensional modeling of THD lubrication in face seals.
Trans. ASME, J. Tribol., 2003, 123, 196–204.
7 Winney, P. E. The thickness measurement of thin fluid
films by a magnetic reluctance technique. J. Sci. Instrum.,
1968, 1(2), 767–769.
8 Reddyhoff,T., Dwyer-Joyce, R., and Harper, P. Ultrasonic
measurement of film thickness in mechanical seals.
Sealing Technol., 2006, 2006(7), 7–11.
9 San Andres, L. and Delgado, A. Identification of force
coefficients in a squeeze film damper with a mechanical
end seal-centered circular orbit tests. Trans. ASME, 2007,
126, 660–668.
10 Lebeck, A. O. Principles and design of mechanical face
seals, 1991 (Wiley, New York).
11 Doust, I. G. and Parmar, A. An experimental and the-
oretical study of pressure and thermal distortion in a
mechanical seal. Trans. ASLE, 1986, 29(2), 151–159.
12 Khonsari, M. M. and Booser, E. R. Applied tribology:
bearing design and lubrication, 2001 (Wiley, New York).
13 Patir, N. and Cheng, H. S. Application of average flow
model to lubrication between rough sliding surfaces.
Trans. ASME, J. Lubr. Technol., 1979, 101, 220–230.
14 Greenwood, J. A. and Williamson, J. B. P. Contact of
nominally flat surfaces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1966, 295,
300–319.
15 Halling, J. Principles of tribology, 1978 (Macmillan,
London).
JET344 © IMechE 2008
 Lubricating film in hydrostatic mechanical face seals 567

APPENDIX H dimensionless film thickness

p fluid pressure of smooth seal face
Notation p approximate fluid pressure of
B conventional balance ratio smooth seal face
Bt total balance ratio pi inner pressure
C, C1 , C2 constants po outer pressure
Ec dissipated power Q leakage rate
fc contact friction coefficient r radius
Fc closing force ri inner radius
Fcontact contact force ro outer radius
Fo open force of smooth seal face S flow stress
Fo approximate open force of Vr1 , Vr2 roughness variance ratio
smooth face
Fsp spring force β taper angle
Fσ open force of rough seal face γ roughness pattern factor
Fσ approximate open force of rough μ fluid viscosity
seal face σ roughness variance
h lubrication film thickness φs shear flow factor
hi inner film thickness φx pressure flow factor
hm mean film thickness s function of γ and H
ho outer film thickness ω1 , ω2 rotational speed

JET344 © IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology