Int. J. Surface Science and Engineering, Vol. 4, Nos.

4/5/6, 2010 505

Studies on the influence of surface texture on the

performance of hydrodynamic journal bearing using
power law model

S. Kango and Rajesh Kumar Sharma*

Mechanical Engineering Department,
National Institute of Technology,
Hamirpur, HP 177005, India
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The present study investigates the combined influence of surface

texture, using sinusoidal, positive full and half wave roughness (transverse and
longitudinal roughness) and non-Newtonian lubricants, obeying power law
model on finite journal bearing. The modified Reynolds equation is solved
numerically through finite difference approach for analysis of texture and
non-Newtonian effects on bearing performance characteristics. It is concluded
that the load carrying capacity and friction force is increased with shear
thickening fluids in both bearings (smooth and rough bearings). It is also
concluded that out of three roughnesses, the transverse positive full wave
roughness is best for increasing the load carrying capacity and friction force,
whereas the longitudinal sinusoidal roughness is best for decreasing the friction
force.

Keywords: hydrodynamic journal bearing; power law model; surface texture;

finite difference method; bearing pressure; load carrying capacity; friction
force; friction coefficient.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kango, S. and

Sharma, R.K. (2010) ‘Studies on the influence of surface texture on the
performance of hydrodynamic journal bearing using power law model’, Int. J.
Surface Science and Engineering, Vol. 4, Nos. 4/5/6, pp.505–524.

Biographical notes: Saurabh Kango is doing his PhD in Designing under the
supervision of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma from NIT Hamirpur (HP). He holds a
Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Himachal Pradesh
University (HPU) and a Master’s in Computational fluid dynamics and heat
transfer from NIT Hamirpur (HP). He is involved in developing codes for the
study of various performance parameters for smooth and rough journal bearings
with Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids for last two year.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma is an Assistant Professor in the Department of

Mechanical Engineering. He has completed his doctoral work from IIT Delhi
in year 2008. His areas of interests include noise control, design and tribology.

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

506 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

1 Introduction

Many researchers have adopted different techniques for analysing hydrodynamic journal
bearing’s performance. Various parameters such as type of roughness (random or
deterministic), nature of lubricant i.e., Newtonian or non-Newtonian, and the shape of the
bearing (elliptical or two and three lobe) etc. have been considered for investigation by
researchers in past.
The performance of hydrodynamic bearings is numerically computed through
Reynolds equation for Newtonian fluids. Journal bearings are generally used in heavy
machinery, where these bearings operate at high-speeds and there is a possibility of shear
thinning of the fluid. At this time, the Reynolds equation may not be capable for
predicting accurate pressures etc. furthermore commercial lubricants behave like
non-Newtonian lubricants, due to the presence of different types of additives, which leads
to the application of non-Newtonian theory to various lubrication problems.
For non-Newtonian flow, many studies have been presented while adopting different
models such as power law model, Eyring model, cubic law model etc. Based upon power
law model, Safar (1979) derived a modified Reynolds equation by using polynomial
expansion and concluded that the viscometric exponent of the model have a significant
effect at higher eccentricity ratio. This equation is different from Dien and Elrod’s (1983)
Reynolds equation derived by a regular perturbation method. Many authors including
Buckholz (1985, 1986), Jang and Chang (1988), and Lin et al. (2006) used Dien and
Elrod model for calculating the non-Newtonian effect, obeying the power law model in
hydrodynamic journal bearings.
Influence of random roughness was first investigated by Tzeng and Saibel (1967) and
later by Christensen (1969–1970). Authors concluded that both the load carrying capacity
and the frictional forces are increased considerably when surface roughness is taken into
account. Since then, many researchers have employed the stochastic Reynolds equation
to predict the effects of roughness on bearing performance. However, most of the
approaches are restricted to one sided roughness, either oriented parallel to or
perpendicular to the motion of the bearing surfaces. This aspect was looked into and
improved by Patir and Cheng (1978, 1979) who proposed a new flow factor method to
provide an effective way to handle general random roughness. Authors concluded that the
bearing performance improves more while considering roughness on stationary surface
(i.e., bearing) as compared to rough moving surface (i.e., journal).
In recent studies, the introduction of a range of micro fabrication techniques coupled
with developments in microscopy has been reported to have a profound effect on the
performance of fluid film bearings. Etsion (2005) showed the potential use of laser
surface texturing (LST) in different applications such as seals, piston rings and thrust
bearings. Journal bearings can also be textured in the same way. With the help of this
new technology, it is now possible to produce microstructures on journal bearing surfaces
to improve the overall tribological performance including reduction in friction,
improvement in reliability, and increase in the pressure and load carrying capacity and
lowering the power consumption.
Cupillard et al. (2008) used ANSYS CFX 10 software to study a complete textured
bearing using full Navier-stokes equations and cavitation model. The authors illustrated
that the coefficient of friction can be reduced if dimples of suitable width are introduced.
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 507

According to the authors, this can be achieved either in the region of maximum
hydrodynamic pressure for a bearing with a high eccentricity ratio or just downstream of
the maximum film for a bearing with a low eccentricity ratio. The authors also reported
an additional effect of pressure build up that is generated by surface texturing for journal
bearing at low eccentricity ratios.
The combined effect of surface roughness and power law model was first introduced
by Abdel-Latif et al. (1989) and the authors concluded that the combined effect is more
pronounced at higher eccentricity ratios. Li et al. (1996) also performed similar study and
concluded that the accurate determination of film rupture and reformation boundaries will
provide a good understanding of roughness and flow behaviour effects on journal bearing
lubrication.
Sinusoidal roughness with striation parallel or perpendicular to the sliding direction
has been investigated by Burton (1963), Huynh (2005), Burstein (2006, 2008), Sharma
and Pandey (2008) and Kumar (2008). All the authors concluded that consideration of
sinusoidal roughness enhances the performance of the hydrodynamically lubricating
films. Kango and Sharma (2010) used positive rectifier equation for protruding the
bearing surface while considering different configurations with different asperity
amplitude and wavelength at various eccentricity ratios and journal speeds for Newtonian
fluids. Authors concluded that the load carrying capacity is very high at minimum film
thickness region (configuration-II) for optimum eccentricity ratio. In present work, a
comparative study has been carried out for three different roughness models using
transverse and longitudinal both types of roughness at configuration-II with power law
model for non-Newtonian lubricant. As per the conclusion of Patir and Cheng (1978,
1979), the roughness is applied on the stationary bearing surface rather than moving
journal surface in the present work.

2 Mathematical model

2.1 Governing equation

The schematic diagram for smooth journal bearing is presented in Figure 1 for left
handed coordinate system. The circumferential length in the x-direction is rθ, bearing
length in the y-direction is l and nominal film thickness for smooth bearing in the
z-direction is taken as h. The lubricant in the system is considered to be a non-Newtonian
power law fluid. The analysis in present work has been carried out for a steady state,
laminar flow, incompressible oil while neglecting the effects due to lubricant inertia and
squeeze. The variation of pressure in z-direction is very small as compared to variation in
pressure in x and y directions as the film thickness is very small; the continuity and
Navier stokes equation in Cartesian coordinates thus reduce to:

∂u ∂v
+ =0 (1)
∂x ∂y

∂p ∂τ zx
= (2a)
∂x ∂z
508 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

∂p ∂τ zy
= (2b)
∂y ∂z

∂p
=0 (2c)
∂z
∂u
τ zx = η (3a)
∂z
∂v
τ zy = η (3b)
∂z
where u and v are the velocity component in x and y direction respectively, and η is the
dynamic viscosity of the lubricant.

Figure 1 Schematic diagram for smooth journal bearing

The power model for lubricant viscosity is given by:

n −1
∂u
η=m (4)
∂z

where m denotes the consistency index and n represents the flow behaviour index. For
n = 1, the lubricant is Newtonian, for n < 1, it is pseudoplastic (shear thinning) lubricant
whereas, for n > 1, it characterises dilatant lubricant (shear thickening). Equations (3a)
and (3b) reduce to:
n −1 n
∂u ∂u ⎛ ∂u ⎞
τ zx =m = m⎜ ⎟ (5a)
∂z ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠
n −1
∂u ∂v
τ zy = m (5b)
∂z ∂z
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 509

Using equations (2a), (2b), (5a) and (5b), the new equation becomes:
n
∂p ∂ ⎛ ∂u ⎞
=m ⎜ ⎟ (6a)
∂x ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠

∂ ⎛ ∂u ∂v ⎞
n −1
∂p
=m ⎜ ⎟ (6b)
∂y ∂z ⎜⎝ ∂z ∂z ⎟⎠

The boundary conditions at bearing surface are:

z = 0 : u = 0; z = h : u = U and z = 0 : v = 0; z = h : v = 0 (7)

In present work, binomial expansion method is used to obtain the velocity component. In
binomial expansion higher terms are neglected for simplification.
Integration of equation (6a) with respect to z, and using binomial method while
applying boundary conditions from equation (7), the velocity component in x-direction
becomes:

u=
Uz ⎛ h ⎞
+
n −1 ⎛
⎜ (z 2
)
− zh ∂p ⎞
⎟ (8a)
h ⎜⎝ U ⎟⎠ ⎜⎜ 2mn ∂x ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
Similarly, equation (6b) is used to obtain velocity component in axial direction. To obtain
the same the second term on right hand side of equation (8a) is neglected, to avoid
complexity arising due to pressure gradients in x and y directions encountered while
solving equation (6b).
Uz
u= (8b)
h
Differentiating equation (8b) with respect to z, we get:
n −1 n −1
∂u ⎛U ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ (9)
∂z ⎝h⎠
Now equation (6b) reduces to:

∂ ⎛ ⎛ U ⎞ ∂v ⎞
n −1 n −1 2
∂p ⎛U ⎞ ∂ v
= m ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎟ = m⎜ ⎟ (10)
∂y ∂z ⎝⎜ ⎝ h ⎠ ∂z ⎠⎟ ⎝ h ⎠ ∂z 2

Using equation (10), the velocity component in y-direction is expressed as:

⎛h⎞
v=⎜ ⎟
n −1 ⎛
⎜ (z 2
− zh ∂p ⎞
⎟ ) (11)
⎝U ⎠ ⎜⎜ 2m ∂y ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
Substituting velocity components from equations (8a) and (11) in equation (1) and
integrating with respect to z, the non-Newtonian Reynolds-type equation for a journal
bearing with power law fluid is obtained:
510 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

∂ ⎛ h n + 2 ∂p ⎞ ∂ ⎛ h n + 2 ∂p ⎞ n ∂h
⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟ = 6mU (12)
∂x ⎜⎝ mn ∂x ⎟⎠ ∂y ⎜⎝ m ∂y ⎟⎠ ∂x

where x = r θ and y are the coordinates in circumferential and longitudinal directions, p

and h are the bearing pressure and nominal film thickness respectively whereas, m, r and
U are notations for lubricant’s viscosity, shaft radius and shaft speed respectively.
The pressure field in the lubricant film is numerically computed through
equation (12) using finite difference method (FDM) with central differencing scheme.
The pressure is computed iteratively through Gauss-Seidal method and an over relaxation
factor of 1.7 is used for finding the solutions.
The convergence criterion for obtaining numerical solution of equation (12) is given
below:

( pI , J )K − ( pI , J )K −1
∑∑ ( pI , J ) K
< 0.0001

where I, J and K represent the number of nodes in x and y direction and number of
iterations respectively.
In the present study, nodes considered in x and y directions are 200 each.

2.2 Bearing performance parameters

The performance parameters viz. the load carrying capacity (W), the friction force (F) on
the journal, and the friction coefficient (f) on the journal are calculated for smooth journal
bearing.
Load carrying capacity is calculated from the integration of pressure parallel to the
x-axis and y-axis as:
l 2π
W1 = ∫ ∫ pr cosθ dθ dy
0 0
(13a)

l 2π
W2 = ∫ ∫ pr sin θ dθ dy
0 0
(13b)

W= (W 1
2
+ W2 2 ) (14)

% variation in load = [(WR − W ) / W ]*100 (15)

l 2π
F= ∫ ∫τ
0 0
zx rdθ dy (16)

% variation in friction force = [(FR − F ) / F ]*100 (17)

Load carrying capacity and friction force are obtained numerically through double
integration by Simpson’s 1/3rd rule.
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 511

The coefficient of friction for smooth bearing is computed as:

f = F /W (18)

% variation in friction coefficient = ⎡⎣( f R − f ) / f ⎤⎦ *100 (19)

In above relations WR, FR and fR are load carrying capacity, friction force and friction
coefficient for rough bearing respectively.

2.3 Boundary conditions

The boundary condition for the Reynolds equation for the smooth and rough bearings is:

p = 0 at ϑ = 0o ,360o (20)

∂p
p = 0 and = 0 at θ = θc where θc corresponds to initiation of cavitation.
∂θ

3 Surface roughness models

Kango and Sharma (2010) used full wave rectifier equation (22) for converting sinusoidal
wave into positive full wave as shown in Figure 2(a). In the present work, sinusoidal and
half wave rectifier equations given by equations (21) and (23) respectively for transverse
and longitudinal roughness are introduced. The resulting variations due to sinusoidal and
half wave roughness on the bearing surface are presented in Figure 2(b) schematically.

Figure 2 Schematic diagram for (a) sinusoidal wave and full wave profile and (b) sinusoidal
wave and half wave profile

sinusoidal wave profile

1.00E-05
Positive full wave rectifier profile
8.00E-06

6.00E-06
Surface roughness variation(m)

4.00E-06

2.00E-06

0.00E+00
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.7 6.0
-2.00E-06

-4.00E-06 w

-6.00E-06
λ
-8.00E-06

-1.00E-05
Theta(radians)

(a)
512 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

Figure 2 Schematic diagram for (a) sinusoidal wave and full wave profile and (b) sinusoidal
wave and half wave profile (continued)

sinusoidal wave profile

1.00E-05
Positive half wave rectifier profile
8.00E-06

6.00E-06
Surface rou ghness variation(m )

4.00E-06

2.00E-06

0.00E+00
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.7 6.0
-2.00E-06

-4.00E-06 w
-6.00E-06

-8.00E-06 λ
-1.00E-05
T heta(radians)

(b)

Different types of roughness profiles considered in this work are given below as:
δ s = A sin ( C ) (21)

⎛ 4* A ⎞ ⎛⎜ cos ( qC ) ⎞ ⎛ 2* A ⎞
δ f = −⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟+⎜
⎝ π ⎠ ⎝ q = 2,4,6,......∞ q 2 − 1 ⎟⎠ ⎝ π ⎠
∑
⎟ (22)

⎛ 2 * A ⎞ ⎛⎜ cos ( qC ) ⎞ ⎛ A ⎞ ⎛ A * sin ( C ) ⎞
δh = −⎜
⎝ π
⎟⎜ ∑ ⎟+⎜ ⎟+⎜
⎠ ⎝ q = 2,4,6,......∞ q 2 − 1 ⎟⎠ ⎝ π ⎠ ⎝ 2
⎟
⎠
(23)

where
δs, δf and δh = surface roughness variation for sinusoidal, full wave and half wave
respectively, m
π * r *θ
C= for transverse roughness
w
π *y
= for longitudinal roughness
w
Lenght of asperity sec tion
w = Wavelength of asperity = (Huynh, 2005; Kumar, 2008;
Number of asperities
Kango and Sharma, 2010)
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 513

A = amplitude of asperity, m
λ = sinusoidal wavelength, m
q = even Integers i.e., 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12…
In this work, maximum number of terms (q) = 100,000.
Number of asperities (roughness) = 10 in configuration-II (roughness in order to
maintain same wavelength):
r = radius of shaft, m.
The film thickness for rough bearing is:
H = h −δ (24)
h = c (1 + ε cos θ ) (25)

where ‘c’ is the radial clearance, ‘ε’ =e/c is the eccentricity ratio and ‘e’ is the relative
eccentricity of the journal.
δ is replaced by equations (21) to (23) for obtaining different type of roughness.
Equation (24) is used in equation (12) for obtaining the different bearing parameters.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Validation of the smooth bearing model

The input parameters used in this work have been taken from Kango and Sharma (2010)
and are presented in Table 1. In the present work, the numerical value of η is set equal to
m to simplify the problem. The values of flow behaviour index are takes as 0.9, 1.0 and
1.1. Results obtained through the present work have been validated with the
corresponding results of Jang and Chang (1988) for smooth bearing. The results
presented in Figures 4 and 5 have been found to be matching considerably well. While
validating due care has been taken for considering all the input parameters and other
conditions.
Table 1 Input parameters

Sr. no. Description Symbol/ notation Value Unit (S I)

1 Bearing length l 0.1 m
2 Shaft radius r 0.05 m
3 Radial clearance c 0.0001 m
4 Dynamic viscosity η 0.04 Pa.s.
5 Consistency index m 0.04 Pa.sn
6 Flow behavior index n 0.9,1.0,1.1 unit less
7 Asperity amplitude A 7.5 micron
8 Asperity wavelength w 0.008 m
9 Journal speed N 1000 rpm
514 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

Figure 3 Different roughness model, (a) sinusoidal roughness on bearing surface at

configuration-II (b) positive full wave roughness on bearing surface at configuration-II
(c) positive half wave roughness on bearing surface at configuration-II

(a) (b)

(c)

4.2 Influence of flow behaviour index (n) on bearing performance

characteristics
The effect of the flow behaviour index on the pressure distribution for a smooth bearing
is shown in Figure 4. For n > 1 (shear thickening fluid) the pressures increases, whereas
when n < 1 (shear thinning fluid) the pressures decreases when compared with pressures
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 515

for Newtonian fluids as depicted in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the effect of ‘n’ and ‘ε’ on
the load carrying capacity of smooth bearing. The load carrying capacity has been found
to increase with the increase in the eccentricity ratio and flow behaviour index.

Figure 4 Validation of the pressure results for smooth bearing

12.0 Jang and Chang(1.1)

Present work(1.1)
10.0 Jang and Chang(1.0)
Non dimensional Pressure P*

Present Work(1.0)
8.0
Jang and Chang(0.9)
Present Work(0.9)
6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Theta(degree)

Notes: ε = 0.6, c = 100 μm, η = 0.04 Pa.s, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj =1.0, N = 1,000 rpm and
m = 0.04 Pa.sn

Figure 5 Validation of the load results for smooth bearing

25.0
Jang and Chang(1.1) Present Work(1.1)
Jang and Chang(1.0) Present Work(1.0)
20.0 Jang and Chang(0.9) Present Work(0.9)
Non dimensional Load W*

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Eccentricity ratio

Notes: c = 100 μm, η = 0.04 Pa.s, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, N = 1,000 rpm and m = 0.04 Pa.sn
516 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

4.3 Roughness effect on lubricant film thickness

Figure 6 Comparison of smooth film thickness with different rough film thicknesses at
configuration-II

180

160

140
Film thickness(micron)

120

100
Smooth
80
Positive full wave
60 Positive half wave
40 Sinusoidal

20

0
0.00 0.52 1.05 1.57 2.09 2.62 3.14 3.66 4.19 4.71 5.23 5.76 6.28
Theta(radians)

Notes: ε =0.7, c = 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m and
N = 1,000 rpm

Figure 7 3D film thickness for transverse sinusoidal roughness at configuration-II

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj =0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008m and
N = 1,000 rpm
Figure 6 shows the comparison of smooth film thickness with other roughness profiles
considered at configuration-II. It is observed that the film thickness decreases in the case
of positive full and half wave profiles whereas it increases or decreases in the case of
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 517

sinusoidal profile. Figures 7 and 8 show the film thickness of sinusoidal roughness for
transverse and longitudinal both types of roughness, which is obtained by equation (21).
With the help of equation (22), the film thickness of positive full wave is obtained for
transverse and longitudinal roughness as shown in Figures 9 and 10. Positive half wave
roughness has been achieved from equation (23) as depicted in Figures 11 and 12. In
Figures 6 to 12, it is found that the presence of roughness reduces the nominal film
thickness of lubricant in comparison to the smooth one.

Figure 8 3D film thickness for longitudinal sinusoidal roughness at configuration-II

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj =0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m and
N = 1,000 rpm

Figure 9 3D film thickness for transverse full wave roughness at configuration-II

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m,

N = 1,000 rpm
518 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

Figure 10 3D film thickness for longitudinal full wave roughness at configuration-II

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008m and
N = 1,000 rpm

Figure 11 3D film thickness for transverse half wave roughness at configuration-II

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj =0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m and
N = 1,000 rpm
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 519

Figure 12 3D film thickness for longitudinal half wave roughness at configuration-II

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj =0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m,

N = 1,000 rpm and n = 1.0

4.4 Roughness effect on bearing pressure for non-Newtonian fluids

The comparison for pressure between different rough and smooth profiles for n = 0.9 and
1.1 is depicted in Figures 13 to 16 for circumferential as well as axial direction. It is
observed that with any type of roughness the bearing performance gets improved in
comparison to the smooth one. Enhanced pressures are found in positive type of
roughness when compared with other types of roughness.

Figure 13 Transverse circumferential pressure profiles for shear thinning fluids (n = 0.9) and
different roughness at configuration-II

2.5

2 Smooth
Positive full wave
Pressure(MPa)

1.5
Positive half wave

1 Sinusoidal

0.5

0
0.00 0.52 1.05 1.57 2.09 2.62 3.14 3.66 4.19 4.71 5.23 5.76 6.28
T heta(radians)

Notes: ε = 0.7, c= 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m,

N = 1,000 rpm and n = 0.9
520 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

Figure 14 Transverse axial pressure profiles for shear thinning fluids (n = 0.9) and different
roughness at configuration-II

Smooth
Positive full wave
2.5 Positive half wave
Sinusoidal
2
Pressure(MPa)

1.5

0.5

0
0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10
Bearing length(m)

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075m, w = 0.008m,

N = 1,000 rpm and n = 0.9

Figure 15 Transverse circumferential pressure profiles for shear thickening fluids (n = 1.1) and
different roughness at configuration-II

30

25
Smooth
20 Positive full wave
Pressure(M Pa)

15 Positive half wave

Sinusoidal
10

0
0.00 0.52 1.05 1.57 2.09 2.62 3.14 3.66 4.19 4.71 5.23 5.76 6.28
Theta(radians)

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m,

N = 1,000 rpm and n = 1.1
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 521

Figure 16 Transverse axial pressure profiles for shear thickening fluids (n = 1.1) and different
roughness at configuration-II

Smooth
Positive full wave
30
Positive half wave
25
Sinusoidal
Pressure(MPa)

20

15
10

5
0
0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10
Bearing length(m)

Notes: ε = 0.7, c = 100 μm, dj = 0.1 m, l/dj = 1.0, A = 0.0000075 m, w = 0.008 m,

N = 1,000 rpm and n = 1.1

4.5 The combined effect on bearing performance characteristics

The effect of surface roughness for both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids is
presented in Tables 2 and 3 for transverse and longitudinal roughness respectively. From
Table 2, it is found that the percentage load carrying capacity and friction force increases
by about 35.94% and 11.25% respectively whereas, friction coefficient decreases by
about 18.66% for transverse positive full wave roughness with shear thickening fluid. It
has been observed that with the shear thickening fluid (n > 1) the percentage load
carrying capacity gets increased in comparison for Newtonian fluid which is already
reported by Kango and Sharma (2010).
Table 2 Influence of three different types of transverse roughness on bearing performance
parameters for ten asperities at configuration-II

Transverse roughness % variation in W % variation in F % variation in f

Sinusoidal n = 0.9 +9.10 +3.83 –4.24
n = 1.0 +9.81 +4.42 –4.91
n = 1.1 +10.56 +5.05 –5.56
Full wave n = 0.9 +30.68 +8.66 –16.37
n = 1.0 +33.30 +9.91 –17.54
n = 1.1 +35.94 +11.25 –18.66
Half wave n = 0.9 +17.43 +5.28 –9.82
n = 1.0 +18.90 +6.05 –10.81
n = 1.1 +20.4 +6.86 –11.79
Notes: A = 0.0000075 m, ε =0.7, w = 0.008 m, N = 1,000 rpm and m = 0.04 Pa.sn
522 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

From Table 3, it is observed that the percentage load carrying capacity and friction force
significantly increase by about 34.30% and 10.50% respectively and friction coefficient
decreases by about 18.24% for longitudinal positive full wave roughness with shear
thickening fluid. Both the tables are point out that the positive full wave roughness is the
best in contrast to the other types of roughness in terms of percentage increase in load.
Table 3 Influence of three different types of longitudinal roughness on bearing performance
parameters for ten asperities at configuration-II

Longitudinal Viscosity
% variation in W % variation in F % variation in f
roughness power index
Sinusoidal n = 0.9 +7.63 +1.46 –5.18
n = 1.0 +8.46 +1.70 –6.24
n = 1.1 +9.32 +1.96 –7.30
Full Wave n = 0.9 +29.30 +8.08 –15.92
n = 1.0 +31.77 +9.24 –17.10
n = 1.1 +34.30 +10.50 –18.24
Half Wave n = 0.9 +15.06 +4.17 –8.93
n = 1.0 +16.34 +4.75 –9.96
n = 1.1 +17.66 +5.38 –10.98

Further, in case of friction force, the longitudinal sinusoidal roughness is the best for
improving the bearing performance. It is found that the percentage load carrying capacity
is significantly increased by about 9.32%; on the other hand friction force increases
marginally by about 1.96% whereas friction coefficient decreases by about 7.30% for
longitudinal sinusoidal wave roughness with shear thickening fluid. It is also observed
that the results for transverse and longitudinal half wave roughness lie between the both
the roughness i.e., sinusoidal and full wave roughness.

5 Conclusions

In present work, a comparative study has been reported between three different roughness
models using transverse and longitudinal both type of roughness at configuration-II with
power law model for non-Newtonian lubricant.
Following are the broad outcomes of present study:
1 The flow behaviour index (n) has a great influence on the bearing performance
characteristics. Both the load carrying capacity and friction force have been observed
to increase with n > 1 in both bearings (smooth and rough).
2 Surface texture helps to increase the load carrying capacity and the friction force
whereas the friction coefficient gets decreased.
It has been observed that out of three roughnesses the transverse positive full wave
roughness is the best for increasing the load carrying capacity and friction force, whereas
the longitudinal sinusoidal roughness is best suited for decreasing the friction force.
 Studies on the influence of surface texture 523

References
Abdel-Latif, L.A., Safar, Z.S. and Mokhtar, M.O.A. (1989) ‘Behaviour of non-newtonian lubricants
in rough bearing applications’, Proceedings of the 14th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology,
pp.133–138.
Buckholz, R.H. (1985) ‘On the role of a non-newtonian fluid in short bearing theory’, Transactions
of the ASME, Vol. 107, pp.68–74.
Buckholz, R.H. (1986) ‘Effects of power- law, non-newtonian lubricants on load capacity and
friction for plane slider bearings’, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 108, pp.86–91.
Burstein, L. (2006) ‘Two sided surface roughness and hydrodynamics pressure distribution in
lubricating films’, Lubrication Science, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.101–112.
Burstein, L. (2008) ‘Effect of sinusoidal roughened surfaces on pressure in lubricating film’,
International Journal Surface Science and Engineering, Vol. 2, Nos. 1–2, pp.52–70.
Burton, R.A. (1963) ‘Effects of two dimensional, sinusoidal roughness on the load support
characteristics of lubricating film’, Journal of Basic Engineering, Vol. 84, pp.258–264.
Christensen, H. (1969–1970) ‘Stochastic models for hydrodynamic lubrication of rough surfaces’,
Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Vol. 184, No. 1, pp.1013–1025.
Cupillard, S., Glavatskih, S. and Cervantes, M.J. (2008) ‘CFD analysis of journal bearing with
surface texturing’, Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology,
Vol. 222, pp.97–107.
Dien, I.K. and Elrod, H.G. (1983) ‘A generalized steady-state reynolds equation for non newtonian
fluids, with application to journal bearings’, Journal of Lubrication Technology, Vol. 105,
pp.385–390.
Etsion, I. (2005) ‘State of the art in laser surface texturing’, Journal of Tribology, Vol. 127,
pp.248–253.
Huynh, P.B. (2005) ‘Numerical study of slider bearing with limited corrugation’, ASME Journal of
Tribology, Vol. 127, pp.582–595.
Jang, J.Y. and Chang, C.C. (1988) ‘Adiabatic analysis of finite width journal bearings with
non-Newtonian lubricants’, Wear, Vol. 122, pp.63–75.
Kango, S. and Sharma, R.K. (2010) ‘Studies on the influence of positive roughness on the
performance of journal bearing’, Accepted for publication in Journal of Tribology and Surface
Engineering, Nova Science Publication.
Kumar, R. (2008) Studies of the hydrodynamic bearings with surface profiling and entrained solid
particulate’, PhD thesis, IIT Delhi, India.
Li, W.L., Weng, C.I. and Lue, J.I. (1996) ‘Surface roughness effects in journal bearings with
non-newtonian lubricants’, Tribology Transactions, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.819–826.
Lin, J.R., Chou, T.L. and Ho, M.H. (2006) ‘Dynamic characteristics of finite slider bearings
lubricated with non-newtonian power law fluid’, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology,
Vol. 58, No. 5, pp.254–259.
Patir, N. and Cheng, H.S. (1978) ‘An average flow model for determining effects of
three-dimensional roughness on partial hydrodynamic lubrication’, ASME Journal of
Lubrication Technology, Vol. 100, pp.12–17.
Patir, N. and Cheng, H.S. (1979) ‘Application of average flow model to lubrication between rough
sliding surfaces’, ASME Journal of Lubrication Technology, Vol. 101, pp.220–230.
Safar, Z.S. (1979) ‘Journal bearings operating with non- newtonian lubricant films’, Wear, Vol. 53,
pp.95–100.
Sharma, R.K. and Pandey, R.K. (2008) ‘Thermohydrodynamic analysis of infinitely wide cycloidal
profiled pad thrust bearing with rough surface and a comparison to plane profiled pad’,
Lubrication Science, Vol. 20, pp.183–203.
Tzeng, S.T. and Saibel, E. (1967) ‘Surface roughness effect on slider bearing lubrication’, ASLE
Transactions, Vol. 10, pp.334–338.
524 S. Kango and R.K. Sharma

Nomenclature
A Amplitude of asperity (m or μm)
c Radial clearance (μm)
db Bearing diameter (m)
dj Journal diameter (m)
e Relative eccentricity of the journal
F Friction force (N)
FR Rough friction force (N)
f Friction coefficient
fR Rough friction coefficient
h Nominal film thickness (m)
H Rough film thickness = h – δ (m)
I Number of nodes in X-direction
J Number of node in Y-direction
K Number of iterations
l Length of bearing (m)
m Consistency index (Pa.sn)
n Flow behaviour index
N Shaft speed (rpm)
Ob Bearing center
Oj Journal or the shaft center
p Bearing pressure (MPa)
P* Non-dimensional pressure = (60 p c2)/(2Π N m r2)
r Radius of journal (m)
U Shaft speed (m/sec)
u Lubricant velocity in x-direction (m/sec)
v Lubricant velocity in y-direction (m/sec)
w Wavelength of asperity (m)
W Load carrying capacity (N)
WR Rough load carrying capacity
W* Non-dimensional load = (60 W c2)/(2π N m r3 l)

Greek symbols
τ Shear stress (Pa)
θ Angular direction (radians)
ε Eccentricity ratio
η Lubricant viscosity (Pa.s)
δ Surface roughness variation (m)