On the Energy Equation for Fluid-Film Lubrication Author(s): A. Charnes, F. Osterle, E.

Saibel Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 214, No. 1116 (Aug. 7, 1952), pp. 133-136 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/99164 . Accessed: 12/10/2011 01:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

On the energy equation for fluid-film lubrication

BY A. CHARNES, F. OSTERLE AND E. SAIBEL Department8 of Mechanical Engineering and, Mathematic8, Carnegie In8titute of Technology, Pitt8burgh 13, Penn8ylvania, U.S.A. (Communicated by J. L. Synge, F.R.S.-Received 17 March 1952)

The energy equation for fluid-film lubrication is developed in such a way as to resolve the discrepancy that now exists in the literature because of the fact that two obviously different energy equations have been used. A qualitative estimate of the error introduced by the use of the incorrect equation is given. INTRODUCTION

In developing an energy equation to describe temperature effects in a lubricating film, the difficulty lies in obtaining an expression for the rate at which work is done on the lubricant. It is this work that is dissipated as heat and, if conduction be neglected, stored as internal energy in the fluid. Vogelpohl (I935) developed an expression for this work-rate from the 'dissipation function', and from it derived the equation for pressure distribution in the film by requiring that this distribution be such that the work-rate be a minimum. Christopherson (I94 I) and Cameron &Wood (I946) developed an energy equation by setting the shear work done on the lubricant by the moving surface equal to the energy stored in the lubricant. Their work expression did not agree with Vogelpohl's. Cope (I949) developed an energy equation by re-deriving Vogelpohl's work expression and equating it to the energy stored in the lubricant. Cope then called attention to the fact that his equation did not agree with the one used by Christopherson and Cameron & Wood. It is the purpose of this paper to develop the energy equation in such a way as to resolve this discrepancy.
DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY EQUATION

The steady flow of a viscous, incompressible fluid between two parallel or nearly parallel surfaces, very close together and in relative tangential motion, is governed by the well-known Reynolds equation which can be written + ax0nqZan?yO, ay = Uh h3 ap qx-= 2-12 q 12/,tax h3 ap y ( 1)

with
and

(2)
(3)

where qx is the flow in the x direction per unit length in the y direction, q, is the flow in the y direction per unit length in the x direction, p is the fluid pressure, ,a is the fluid viscosity, h is the film thickness, and U is the velocity of the moving surface in the x direction. [ 133

134

A. Charnes, F. Osterle and E. Saibel

Implicit in the Reynolds equation are the assumptions that the inertia and weight of the fluid are negligible and that the film is so thin that the pressure is essentially constant throughout its thickness. It can be readily shown that the frictional resistance per unit area of the moving surface is given by ,= U+ h ap h 2ax'(4 Neglecting heat conduction, an energy equation can be formulated by equatinig the work done on an element of the fluid (of volume h dxdy) by the frictional force exerted by the moving surface and the pressure forces exertedby the surrounding fluid, to the increase in the internal energy of the element. This energy equation is

X
terms, we obtain
Noting that

(Pqq) (pqg) = P{ ax + ay(-

(eq) + +

(q)}

()

where e is the internal energy of the fluid per unit mass and p is the fluid density. Expanding this equation and noting that the Reynolds equation eliminates certain

U(
sZU(fax
+ qy ay) = (qax

y)

(6)
(7)

i = e+ P,
p

where i is the enthalpy, we can write the energy equation as

( {qx +qy} a
If we assume that the internal energy is given by
e = ct,

(8)

(9)

where c is a constant (the specific heat) and t is the temperature, and substitute for Sx, qx and q., the energy equation becomes
jtU2

UhapiIf h

Uh

h3 a

ap

2 Ax

Ph3 apA p)

' 121u AxAx

(( 2

12,u cy ayl
+

-__-

12,u )x/ ax

12/taJy) 8-jy

(10)

DISCUSSION As it stands, this energy equation agrees exactly with the one developed by Cope from the 'dissipation function'. Omitting the second group of terms, we obtain the form used by Christopherson and Cameron & Wood, namely, h
+2 +

f/Uh Uh?ap -PC, 2 2 Ax

h3p
121t

att At+/

x/ Ax

h3p\ 12,ay) ay(

(11)

However, this form of the equation is in error, since it neglects the work done by the pressure forces, the so-called 'flow work' of thermodynamics.

Energ?y equationfor fluid-film lubrication

135

The possible reason for the confusion may be due to the interesting fact that in large, i.e. over the entire film area, the net contribution of the neglected terms is zero. This can be demonstrated as follows. Consider the integral of the flow work terms over the entire film area

jj (fraz+ qy -) dx dy
recLuces to rep

(12)

By partial integration, and since the pressure is zero on the boundary, this integral j

( ax+ ey) dxdy,

ox

(13)

which vanishes in accordance with the Reynolds equation. The energy equation can be put into dimensionless form by letting x=x1B and y=y1B,

where B is the bearing length in the x direction. Taking hm as the minimum film thickness, and Ito as the viscosity of the lubricant at entry, we introduce two dimensionless quantities, H andM. These are defined by h-Hhm Finally, we write and
1t=M#t.

64a0 6 UB
2

and

t=

21-a0 UBT 2

(14)

in which P and T are dimensionless. Equation (10) then becomes

38 +M

aLl

3 1- H

+ X aX-(maP)
(H2

P-

2PXP

ay}
a ) aT

ap aT (H2

( MMay1+Yi ax1

(15)

Omitting the second group of terms on the left, which represents the flow work, we obtain equation (11) in dimensionless form:

J1 H2 +a3x, -

+3

aP -

ii-k

2 aPP aT TH2 apaT -M Ar ax,+V aylJ y1 .(16) Mxi) a'?( aYl

16

Christopherson solved equation (16) by relaxation methods to determine the pressure and temperature distribution in the film of a partial-journal bearing. It is clear that if equation (16) is replaced by equation (15) both the pressure and the temperature reported by Christopherson will be incorrect (the temperature distribution more so perhaps than the pressure distribution), so that the problem should be solved anew. However, it is possible, by using some of Christopherson's results, to make qualitative observations concerning the effect that the new energy equation would have on the temperature distribution. Christopherson reported his results by plotting the pressure and temperature distribution over the bearing surface in the form of contour lines. An inspection of these plots reveals that along, a line drawn across the bearing (i.e. perpendicular to the Xl axis) through the point

136

A. Charnes, F. Osterle and E. Saibel

of maximum pressure, the pressure gradient in the X1 direction is essentially zero. All the points in the film should satisfy equation (15) which, when applied to this 'maximum pressure' line, becomes Al aT H2-xl
_

+ P) a~T H -Ma8Y1 'aYl+3

f2
ap

(17)

But the points on Christopherson's plots satisfy equation (16) which, when applied to the maximum-pressure line, becomes M aT H2 aP aT

H2 ax1

M ay1ay

(18)

Along this line Christopherson's plots indicate a temperature drop of about 6 F from the centre of the bearing to the edges. If, as a first approximation, the pressure distribution, is assumed correct, then the temperature along this line must be altered if equation (17) is to be satisfied. It has been found that on the right-hand side of equation (17), the first term based on Christopherson's results, is roughly equal to the second term at all points on the maximum-pressure line. Therefore, the temperature should be more nearly uniform across the bearing at this point. The physical reason for this is that as the lubricant flows toward the sides of the bearing (from a high to a low pressure), flow work is continually being done on it, and this tends to counteract the temperature decrease predicted by the incorrect energy equation. Since similar reasoning can be applied in a qualitative way to any line across the bearing, it can be concluded that the temperature gradient in this direction at all points will be more nearly zero than Christopherson's results would indicate; or, alternatively, the isothermals will be more nearly straight lines, a fact of considerable importance for approximate analytical treatment of the Reynolds equation allowing thermal and compressional effects. The research underlying this paper was partly supported by funds from a U.S. Air Force contract with the Carnegie Institute of Technology. 6~
REFERENCES

Cameron, A. & Wood, W. L. 1946 Parallel surface thrust bearing. Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Appl. Mech. Christopherson, D. G. I94I Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, 146, 126. Cope, W. F. 1949 Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 197, 201. Vogelpohl, G. I935 Z. angew Math. Mech. 15, 378.