HEAT TRANSFER EFFECTS

IN

HYDRODYNAMIC JOURNAL BEARINGS

by

MICHAEL KEVIN FITZGERALD

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

University of Sheffield

Department of Mechanical Engineering

January 1986
"Another damned, thick, square book!"

The Duke of Gloucester (1743-1805)

 CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(i)
PREFACE
(ii)
SUMMARY (iii)
NOMENCLATURE (iv)
TERMINOLOGY (x)

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Foreword 1
1.2 A Survey of the Relevant Literature 3
The Effects of Variable Viscosity 3
Journal Bearing Design Procedures 5
Journal Bearing Experimental Investigations 7
Theoretical Investigations 10
Hot Oil Carry-Over 14
1 .3 The Scope of the Present Work 17
2 THE NUMERICAL MODEL 19
2.1 Introduction 19
2.2 Pressure Generation 20
The Reynolds Equation 20
Treatment of Cavitation 22
2.3 Temperature Distribution 23
The Energy Equation 23
2.4 Inlet Mixing 25
2.5 Power Loss 27
2.6 Solution Procedure 28
Introduction 28
Boundary Conditions 28
Viscosity Variation 29
2.7 Computing Considerations 30
Introduction 30
Convergence Criteria 31
Location of Lubricant Inlets 31
Mesh Requirement 32
3 TEST MACHINE AND INSTRUMENTATION 33
3•1 Foreword 33
3.2 Principal Features of the Test Machine 33
Drive 33
 Test Journal 33
MQunting of the Test Bearings 34
Application of Load 34
3.3 Measurement and Instrumentation 35
Speed 35
Load 35
Feed Pressure 35
Lubricant Flowrate 35
Friction Torque 36
3.4 Temperature Measurement 37
Bush Thermocouples 37
Journal Thermocouples 37
Feed and Drain Temperatures 38
3.5 Data-Logging System for Bush and Journal 38
Thermocouples
4 EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAMME 40
4.1 Foreword 40
4.2 Test Bearings 40
4.3 Speed Range 41
4.4 Load Range 42
4.5 Feed Pressure 42
4.6 Inlet Temperature 42
4.7 Test Lubricant 42
4.8 Bush and Journal Temperature Distribution 42
5 TREATMENT OF RESULTS 44
5.1 Experimental Results - Calculated Quantities 44
Journal Torque and Power Loss 44
Energy Balance 45
Maximum Bush Surface Temperature 47
Bush Temperature Distribution 47
5.2 Accuracy of Experimental Results 47
Speed 47
Load 48
Feed Pressure 4S
Lubricant Flowrate 48
Friction Torque 48
Temperature 49
Energy Balance 49
5.3 Theoretical Results 50
Independent Predictions 51
Experimental Temperature Boundary Conditions 51
6 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 53

6.1 Introduction 53

6.2 Experimental Results 53

Temperature Distribution in the Bush 54
Flowrate 56
Power Loss 56
Journal Temperature, Maximum Bush Surface 56
Temperature and Mean Inlet Groove Temperature
Drain Temperature 58
Energy Balance 58

6.3 Discussion of Bearing Temperature Distribution 60

and the Energy Balance
Bush Temperature Distribution 61
Mean Inlet Groove Temperature, Journal 62
Temperature, Maximum Bush Surface Temperature
and Drain Temperature
Energy Balance 63

6.4 Performance Predictions 66

Flowrate 66
Power Loss 67
Maximum Bush Surface Temperature and 68
Journal Temperature
Drain Temperature 69

6.5 Preliminary Discussion of Results from the 70

ESDU 84031 Design Procedure and from the
Full Numerical Model
Flowrate 70
Power Loss 73
Maximum Bush Surface Temperature and 74
Drain Temperature
Journal Temperature 75
Results Based on Experimental Boundary 76
Conditions

7 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 77

7.1 General Discussion 77

7.2 ,Conclusions 81

REFERENCES

PLATES

FIGURES

APPENDIX 1 i

APPENDIX 2 ix

APPENDIX 3 xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to all who have helped him

over the past three years. In particular, he should like to thank
his supervisor, Dr. P.B. Neal, for his time, help and encouragement
throughout the work. The author would also like to thank Mr. D.
Butcher for his enthusiasm, and for the many helpful suggestions he
provided.
The author is grateful to Professor K.J. Miller, Head of
the Mechanical Engineering Department, for his encouragement and
assistance. Finally he should like to thank. Mrs. M. Akid for
typing this thesis.

i
PREFACE

This thesis is based on the findings of research carried

out in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University
of Sheffield.
The content is original except where specific reference is
made to other studies. No part of this work has been presented to
any other University for a degree.

ii
HEAT TRANSFER EFFECTS IN HYDRODYNAMIC JOURNAL BEARINGS

,
by MICHAEL KEVIN FITZGERALD

SUMMARY

Results are presented of a study of heat transfer effects

in hydrodynamically lubricated plain journal bearings.
The relevant literature is reviewed along with current
procedures for the design of bearings. The computational
difficulties associated with a full three-dimensional analysis are
discussed.
Recent evidence from related work on pad thrust
bearings has shown that the heat conducted to the stationary pads
is a consistently small proportion of the total film energy
dissipation. On the basis of this evidence a
quasi-three-dimensional mathematical model is investigated. This
analysis incorporates a quadratic temperature distribution through
the film thickness, thereby accounting for heat transfer to and
from the moving journal but neglecting heat transfer to and from
the bush. The variation of viscosity with temperature is
considered along and around the lubricant film.
Tests have been carried out on bearings of diameter 76.2mm,
length to diameter ratios 0.5 and 1.0, and clearance ratios 0.001
and 0.002, over the speed range 1000 to 8000 r.p.m.. The heat
conducted across the bush wall was deduced from a detailed mapping
of the temperature distribution in the bush, and was found to
represent around 10% of bearing power loss at high Peclet number,
but to account for the removal of the bulk of the power loss at low
Peclet number. At low speed the proportion of film cooling
provided by bush conduction was significantly dependent upon load.
The test results are compared with results from the
mathematical model and a recently published design procedure.
Whilst there was good agreement between results from the- two
prediction methods, these predictions did not agree well with the
experimental results. The most significant discrepancy lay in the
lubricant flowrate, which was in general poorly predicted.
Reasons for the discrepancies are discussed, and it is
concluded that their source was associated with viscosity variation
through the film thickness - a factor not modelled in either of the
prediction methods.
( iii )
NOMENCLATURE

1
A =
R.

a = constant in quadratic expression for cross-film

temperature variation

b = constant in quadratic expression for cross-film

temperature variation

C = ~1lE.
YL \I az
= diametral clearance

= lubricant specific heat at constant pressure

radial clearance

C lubricant specific heat at constant volume

v

c = constant in quadratic expression for cross-film

temperature variation

D = bearing diameter

d constant in Vogel viscosity-temperature expression

6k
E =
pC h mi
v J3 Uh
= eccentricity of journal

e\; 3) t 24; 4) t 34;: 1J - ~( \;: 2y

e = electromotive force

F = (1 ~)+ + or + or

f = any function

iv
G =

g = constant in Vogel viscosity-temperature expression

g1 = empirical coefficients used in a mixing model

g2
2noyU ~1 + 3B
4
(ap)2 + 3S
41
H =
C h . 2Q2~ y2 ax y2 v2
p v m1n ..,

= power loss

h = C (1 + £cose) = local film thickness

r

= maximum film thickness

~ax

= minimum film thickness

~in

= film thickness at cavitation boundary

= film thickness at downstream inlet

k = thermal conductivity of lubricant

L = bearing axial length

= nO = length of developed bearing surface

= non-dimensional mesh length in x-direction

= non-dimensional mesh length in z-direction

N = rotational speed of journal in revolutions per minute (r.p.m.)

= rotational speed of journal in revolutions per second (r.p.s.)

n = number of iterations in solution to the Reynolds equation

( v )
 h 2
=
min p = non-dimensional pressure
(6n U.Q, )
. 0

Pe =
Nt
cd
2 = Peclet number
K

p = pressure

= rate of heat transport by convection

<2conv

= flowrate at start of new film

= flowrate of recirculating lubricant

= flowrate of supply lubricant

q = lubricant flowrate

= cross-film integrated flowrate per unit length in x-direction

= cross-film integrated flowrate per unit length in z-direction

= journal radius

s = 8, + 8 + 8
3
= total shear force at journal surface
2

= shear force between 0 and x *

= shear force between x * and lTR

= shear force between lTR and 2lTR

T = local temperature

= mean drain temperature

T = temperature at start of new film

e

vi
T.In 1 = journal temperature

T
r = temperature of recirculating lubricant

T
s = supply temperature

= mean cross-film temperature

o
t = temperature in C

u = surface speed of journal

u = local velocity in x-direction

v = local velocity in y-direction

w = load carried by bearing

w = local velocity in z-direction

x x = non-dimensional x co-ordinate
=
x = longitudinal co-ordinate measured from upstream groove

x * = x co-ordinate of breakdown boundary

y = cross-film co-ordinate measured from journal surface

z = z = non-dimensional z co-ordinate
L
z = transverse co-ordinate measured from edge of bearing

vii
a :
= make-up flow temperature weighting factor

h non-dimensional film thickness

= =
hmin

r = ~3
r
= ....n.. = non-dimensional viscosity
110
au + av + aw = dilatation
= ax ay az

= e c sin W= lateral displacement of journal within bush

= eccentricity ratio

= local viscosity

= viscosity of lubricant at supply temperature

e = constant in Vogel viscosity-temperature expression

e = angle around bearing from maximum film thickness position,

in direction of rotation

K = thermal diffusivityof lubricant = 0.083 x 10- 6m2 s- 1

= constant in Volgepohl substitution

v = L/ 1,

p = lubricant density

"t'b = friction torque at bush surface

viii
 = friction torque at journal surface

u = second coefficient of viscosity

= ~
aX
= pr A = Volgepohl substitution

= attitude angle

w = over-relaxation factor

'iJ • = mixture ratio

m1x

ix
TERMINOLOGY

Cross-film temperature Variation of temperature through

variation the film thickness, in the y-
direction (See Figure 1).

Downstream groove Lubricant supply groove to 'unloaded'

bearing film. Location defined in
Figure 1.

e.m.f. Electromotive force.

Feed pressure Gauge pressure of lubricant at upstream

bearing inlet groove.

Groove inlet hole Temperature of the lubricant in the oil

temperature hole supplying an inlet groove.

Journal temperature In the context of experimental results,

'journal temperature' is the temperature
indicated by thermocouple number 101,
See Figure 6.

Mean inlet groove The arithmetic mean of the temperatures

temperature of the lubricant in each supply groove.

Peclet number (Pe) - A non-dimensional group which may be

linked with the relative importance of
convection to conduction through the
film thickness as a heat transport
process in the lubricant film. Defined
in the Nomenclature.

Upstream groove Lubricant supply groove to loaded

bearing film. Location defined in
Figure 1.

( x )
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Foreword

The load-carrying capacity of hydrodynamic bearings was

first explained by Reynolds(1), following Beauchamp Tower's
experimental work on partial-arc journal bearings (2). The
differential equation describing the pressure generation, first
formulated by Reynolds, has been
the starting-point for all
subsequent theoretical lubrication studies.
The journal bearing is the most common type of hydrodynamic
bearing, and has a wide range of applications. However, even for
the most simple of real cases, that of a steadily-loaded aligned
bearing, the complexity and degree of interaction between the
various processes involved precluded any attempt at comprehensive
treatment until the arrival of the digital computer.
Fully to describe the behaviour of a hydrodynamic bearing
requires the consideration of the following interacting regimes:

1) Pressure generation, as lubricant is drawn into a

converging space. This is governed by the Reynolds
equation.

2) Temperature variation within the film. As the

lubricant film is subject to a shearing action there is
a generation of heat which is, in part, dependent upon
the pressure gradients existing in the film. The
temperature field defines the viscosity field.

3) Heat transfer to and from the bearing surfaces.

4) Recirculation of hot lubricant, which then mixes with

fresh cool supply lubricant at the inlet.

5) Thermal distortion of the bearing surfaces.

Because of the strong temperature-dependence of viscosity

for most practical lubricants, the pressure generation, which is
dependent upon viscosity, will depend upon the temperature field.

1
The temperature field is itself dependent upon pressure gradients.
Recirculation of hot lubricant will re-define the film
inlet temperature in some way. Thermal distortion will affect the
film shape and hence the pressure generation.
Evidently these five main regimes, if tackled together,
may only be solved using some large iterative scheme. A solution
of 1), 2) and 3) is known as a thermohydrodynamic (THD) solution,
while solution of 1) is the isoviscous case, and of 1) and 2) the
adiabatic case.
Before about 1960, analyses involved, of necessity, either
simplified analytical, or limited numerical approaches. Full
analytical solutions are still not available, and the calculating
machines then available did not permit refined solutions. Hence
numerical solutions were for either the isoviscous or the adiabatic
case.
With the development of the digital computer it became
possible to model the different aspects of the lubrication process
in greater detail, and THD solutions were achieved. If one attempts
to design a bearing using a full computational treatment, however,
a number of problems are encountered:

1) There is a lack of basic modelling data.

2) Temperature boundary conditions, necessary for the

analysis, are not generally known in advance.

3) Even if thermal boundary conditions were known,

rigorous consideration of the temperature variations
would restrict the solution to those conditions for
which it was derived; to a specific lubricant, inlet
viscosity, and thermal environment.

4) A full treatment would be a very large iterative

procedure.

A solution would therefore be expensive, as well as highly

particular. Moreover, the aim in most design applications is
selection rather than analysis. For most purposes, the results of
approximate analyses are adequate. It is only in special
applications that a comprehensive treatment can be justified.

2
 The isoviscous form of the Reynolds equation is commonly
used to predict bearing
performance. In methods based on
isoviscous solutions, an 'effective temperature' is calculated, and
the corresponding 'effective viscosity' used to evaluate the power
dissipated. Such methods reflect, and are tested against, actual
bearing performance data. There is however a paucity of
experimental data, particularly relating to thermal
characteristics. The specification of an effective temperature
evidently depends upon some understanding of the underlying heat
transfer processes; also, an excessive maximum temperature is one
of the basic causes of failure of hydrodynamic bearings.
With the current trend towards 'limit design', we seek
better procedures for calculating bearing performance, particularly
for the prediction of bearing temperatures. As a consequence, we
also seek experimental information upon which to base such
procedures.

1.2 A Survey of the Relevant Literature

The Effects of Variable Viscosity

Tower (2) discovered that it was the lubricant film in

journal bearings which carried the applied load, with no
metal-to-metal contact in normal operation. Reynolds (1) explained
Tower's observations working on the basis of classical hydrodynamic
theory. He demonstrated analytically the importance of the
viscosity of the lubricant and the clearance of the bearing in
determining its friction characteristics. In deriving what is now
known as the Reynolds equation, Reynolds' basic assumptions were:

1) The fluid is newtonian.

2) The fluid has constant viscosity.

3) The fluid has constant density.

4) Body forces and inertia forces are negligible.

5) The film is so thin that curvature may be neglected;

this permits the 'unwrapping' of the film for analysis.

3
 6) Pressure is constant through the thickness of the film.

7) Flow is laminar.

8) Steady flow conditions prevail.

The assumptions of constant viscosity and density imply

constant temperature. Reynolds realised that this was an
approximation, but he provided an explanation of the pressure
generation mechanism; variable property values would have produced
only a secondary effect.
Reynolds' assumptions dictate that a load-supporting film
can only be produced for flow through converging passages, and it
was long accepted that such passages were essential for film
lubrication. In 1946, Fogg (3) reported an investigation in which
a plane-faced thrust bearing was tested and gave results comparable
with those from a Michell (tilting pad) bearing having a comparable
bearing area. This observation was in apparent contradiction to
the Reynolds equation. Fogg questioned Reynolds' assumption of
constant density, suggesting that bulk expansion of the lubricant
as it was heated on passing through the bearing could be
responsible for the load-carrying capability. Cope (4) relaxed
Reynolds' assumptions, and derived the lubrication equations
incorporating variable density and viscosity. He concluded that
the mechanism suggested by Fogg, which became known as the 'Thermal
Wedge', could be responsible for load carrying capacity, providing
that viscosity variation with temperature was small, that the
coefficient of cubical expansion for the lubricant was large, and
that the film thickness was small. These conditions were unlikely
to be met in practice with normal lubricants.
The attention of many investigators was now turned towards
variable viscosity. Christopherson (5) had considered viscosity to
be variable with both temperature and pressure, and had outlined
the numerical relaxation methods required to solve the equations~
But he had considered viscosity variation along and around the
bearing, the probable viscosity variation through the film
thickness having been neglected. Zienkiewicz (6), in 1957
considered the effects of temperature variation, and hence
viscosity variation and density variation, through the film between

4
parallel bearing surfaces. In a subsequent paper Hunter and
Zienkiewicz (7) extended the investigation to the case of the
infinitely-wide inclined pad. They compared a constant viscosity
solution with two variable property solutions. These were for:

1) Viscosity and density variable both along the film and

through the film thickness.

2) Viscosity variable with bearing length only. Density

constant.

The solutions to the variable viscosity cases showed

considerable discrepancy when compared with the classical analysis.
Hunter and Zienkiewicz found constant viscosity theory based on the
inlet temperature to predict pressures far in excess of those
suggested by taking variable viscosity and density into account.
The consideration of viscosity variable with bearing length only
also resulted in higher pressures than when cross-film variations
were considered.
Dowson and Hudson (8) imposed more realistic boundary
conditions than Hunter and Zienkiewicz, and concluded that changes
in . lubricant density had a small effect upon operating
characteristics. Viscosity changes imposed a serious reduction to
the load-carrying capacity, and a good approximation to the full
pressure curve could be obtained by considering viscosity changes
only.

Journal Bearing Design Procedures

Current design codes for steadily-loaded journal bearings

are based on isoviscous solutions, the aim being to predict an
effective viscosity using a succession of charts in an iterative
process (9). For dynamically- loaded bearings, a similar design
process may be adopted (10).
Codes may make varying assumptions regarding the relative
importance of the different modes of heat transfer, but both (9)
and (10) assume 80% of the dissipated power to be carried away from
the bearing by the lubricant.
Seireg and Dandage (11) proposed an empirical design
procedure, based on experimental thermohydrodynamic considerations,

5
to calculate a modified Sommerfeld number which could be used with
standard isoviscous solution data to yield bearing operating
characteristics.
Alternatives to the effective viscosity design 'codes' are
general computer programs, for example the General Electric
Company's MELBA suite (12), which offer individual numerical
solutions of varying refinement selected according to the
particular problem.

Much of the information in the ESDU design code 66023 (9)

remains acceptable and up-to-date. However, it is widely
recognised that the thermal balance procedure adopted to determine
the effective and outlet lubricant temperatures, and in particular
to predict the maximum t~mperatur~ of the ~earing material, is not
adequate in detail (13). It is assumed that any recirculating
lubricant is ejected after t~versing once around the bearing;
such an assumption may clearly lead to error in prediction of
temperatures.
The ESDU 66023 code has recently been revised, and a new
code contained in ESDU 84031 (14) released. This incorporates
modified procedures for determining effective and maximum
temperatures. In ESDU 66023 it is assumed that the effective
temperature is the side-leakage temperature while in ESDU 84031
the effective temperature is partly dictated by the maximum
temperature. This is intended to reflect the fact that at high
eccentricity ratios the effective part of the film is in the region
of the minimum film thickness, where the flowrate is small, and
most of the side leakage flow is from the relatively unimportant
thick-film region. At high eccentricity ratios the circumferential
temperature distribution on the bush surface shows a marked peak
(near the minimum film thickness position). There is also an
influence due to speed, hence the expression for maximum
temperature incorporates a factor which is a function of both
eccentricity ratio and the Peclet number. It is assumed that
all the dissipated power is removed from the bearing by the
lubricant.
In these ESDU items the total flowrate is evaluated by
adding a velocity-induced flowrate term to a pressure-induced
flowrate term. This is an approximation, and the fact that there
is little evidence in the published literature of correlation

6
between theoretical and experimental flowrate in journal
bearings (15) suggests that the method requires some refinement.

Journal Bearing Experimental Investigations

In order to assess the validity of a particular design

method or analysis it is essential to have some experimental data
with which to make a comparison. Perhaps the first detailed
investigation of thermal effects in journal bearings was that of
Clayton and Wilkie (16). In their essentially qualitative
investigation they mapped the temperature distribution in the
bush and found considerable circumferential variation combined
with little variation in the axial direction. Cole (17 )
investigated temperature distribution in the bush, and found that
with increasing speed the lubricant was responsible for removing
from 40% to 60% of the dissipated power. The remainder was removed
in approximately equal proportions by the bush and the journal.
Oil flowrate was lower than predicted, even using simple theory
which neglected the effects of a higher than ambient feed pressure.
The bush was of an unusual design in that the wall thickness was
greater than would normally be the case.
Woolacott (18) investigated the temperature distribution at
the bush surface. He found that typically 80% of the dissipated
power was removed from the bearing by the lubricant. He commented
that the journal "might be similar to a regenerative heat exchanger
in which the shaft bulk mean temperature remains constant and the
surface temperature fluctuates as it transfers heat from the hot
oil film to a cooler portion of the oil film."
Christopherson (19), from a consideration of heat transfer
to the journal, pointed out that the journal should experience only
a small temperature fluctuation. Dowson et al (20) later
investigated the temperature distribution in bush and shaft, and
established the effective invariance of the temperature around the
journal. This has proved a very widely used boundary condition in
subsequent analyses. Dowson et al were able to construct a heat
balance, and demonstrated that the bush provided between 70% and
15% of the bearing cooling, dependent primarily upon speed, and to
a lesser degree upon load. The work is some of the most
comprehensive reported in the literature, but their test programme
was limited to comparatively low speeds the maximum being

7
2000 r.p.m., on a 4 inch diameter journal. The test bush was also
unusual in that the wall thickness was much larger than it would be
in a typical bearing- there is thus the possibility that the high
degree of cooling provided by the bush was a result of this.
Ferron, Frene and Boncompain (21) have reported results
for a 50mm diameter bearing running up to 4500 r.p.m •• There was no
measurement of journal temperature, and no heat balance was
presented. The main purpose of this work was to study the effect
of thermal distortion of the bearing solids upon the performance,
hence shaft position was monitored, and actual clearances used in a
thermohydrodynamic model. They concluded that thermal deformation
ought to be considered in both experimental and theoretical
studies.
Mitsui, Hori and Tanaka (22) have carried out a study on a
100 mm diameter bearing running up to 3000 r.p.m.. Journal
temperature was measured, and a heat balance was constructed.
Bearing power loss was calculated from bush frictional torque and
measured eccentricities. For the cases presented, it was found
that typically 20% of the dissipated power was conducted away from
the film by the bush.
The work outlined has concerned single inlet bearings, yet
the·double inlet groove type is more common. A detailed study of
both twin inlet hole and twin inlet groove bearings was carried out
by Tonnesen and Hansen (23). The test apparatus featured a journal
instrumented to yield temperature, pressure and displacement
information. Speed was varied from 400 to 8000 r.p.m., on a 100 rom
diameter shaft, and loads up to 9 kN were applied. The bush
temperature distribution was measured but no heat balance could be
constructed as the necessary bush temperature gradients were not
available.
As a result of these experimental studies, the following
conditions are generally accepted:

1) The heat flow pattern in the bush is a mixture' of

radial flow and a considerable circumferential flow,
which feeds heat from the hot region in the vicinity of
the minimu~ film thickness to the cool region near the
oil inlet.

2) The cyclic change in shaft surface temperature is

8
 small, and the shaft can be treated as an isothermal
component within the bearing.

3) Axial temperature gradients within the bush are

negligible.

4) A considerable circumferential temperature variation

may occur on the surface of the bush adjacent to the
lubricant film.

5) The maximum bush temperature occurs near the point of

minimum film thickness, and the minimum temperature
occurs beyond the inlet groove in the direction of
shaft rotation.

6) The lubricant and the bush are the most effective heat
transfer systems for the removal of the heat produced
by viscous dissipation.

7) The lubricant outlet temperature is a good indication

of the mean temperature of the bearing solids bounding
the lubricant film.

8) The adiabatic assumption in bearing analysis does not

accord with experimental observations.

A further feature of journal bearings is cavitation in

the lubricant film. For normal feed pressures this occurs shortly
after the minimum film thickness position, owing to dissolved gases
coming out of solution. The disrupted film persists as a pattern
of streamers of lubricant which continue to be sheared, and hence
contribute to the power loss. The cavitated region is a constant
pressure region and does not contribute to load capacity.
The hot lubricant recirculating around the bearing -via
the cavitated region will play some role in determining the film
inlet temperature, but experimental information is scarce. Mitsui
and Yamada (24) propose a 'mixture ratio' to account for the
effect, and this is described later (page 13).

9
 Theoretical Investigations

With the arrival of more powerful digital computers,

theoretical treatments have tended to be computational rather than
analytical. Some maintain that the analytical treatments give
greater insight into the behaviour of bearings, and it is perhaps
for this reason that solutions continue to be presented. These are
of some considerable complexity if variable viscosity is
considered, and in many cases the assumptions made in order to gain
a solution limit the utility of the result. All the investigations
considered below involve computational treatments.

There are many isoviscous (e.g. 25) and adiabatic (e.g. 26)
analyses in the literature. It was long assumed (see, for example
(20», that the solution for load capacity of a bearing was
bounded by the extremes of isoviscous and adiabatic analyses.
However, as Stokes and Ettles (27) point out; although the mean
oil temperature will fall when heat conduction through the bearing
solids is considered, the actual temperatures in the load-carrying
part of the film may be higher than for adiabatic operation. This
is due to heat transfer from the hot region to the cool inlet
region, via the shaft and bush.
If conduction to the bearing surfaces is included, some
cross-film temperature profile must be provided, in order that the
temperature gradients, and hence the heat transfer components, can
be evaluated. This suggests the prediction of cross - film
temperatures using at least a two-dimensional form of the energy
equation. In practice, because of problems connected with both the
computing time required, and with the specification of boundary
conditions, various analytical cross-film temperature profiles have
also been postulated.

Perhaps the first thermohydrodynamic analysis for a journal

bearing was that of Dowson and March (28). They drew on the
experimental results of Dowson et al (20) to model the infinite
bearing, with cross-film property variations, and accounting for
cavitation. The form of the temperature profile in the bush was
represented simply, to approximate the experimental findings, and
was based, essentially, upon circumferential heat flow. The shaft
was assumed to be isothermal and at the mean bush surface

10
temperature; this latter condition resulted in the journal acting
as a heat transfer path conducting heat away from the lubricant
film. A mixing calculation, to account for the effects of
lubricant recirculation, was not employed, and the two-dimensional
analysis neglected side-leakage.
McCallion, Yousif and Lloyd (29) performed a THD analysis
for a finite-length bearing. They treated the Reynolds equation in
two dimensions, a two-dimensional energy equation incorporating
cross-film viscosity variations, and used a two-dimensional heat
conduction equation in the bush. They assumed the shaft to be an
isothermal component, establishing its temperature from the
criterion that it should experience no net heat transfer.
MCCallion et al decoupled the Reynolds and the energy equations by
assuming the pressure gradients to have only a small effect on the
temperature distribution. The decoupling technique was used to
reduce computing time, and it was concluded that it was an
efficient and accurate way of predicting bearing performance. The
mixing of recirculating and fresh supply oil was neglected.
McCallion et al also modelled the case of a bearing experiencing no
heat transfer to the bush : for their conditions, and an
eccentricity ratio of 0.8 combined with a length to diameter ratio
of 0~5, this gave a 17% reduction in load capacity and 1% reduction
in friction by comparison with their full THD solution. This
result they attributed to the fact that the amount of heat
conducted to the bush and the amount returned to the oil by the
bush were much smaller than the heat circulating through the shaft.
McCallion et al considered that their THD model agreed well
with the experimental results of Dowson et al (20). The bearing
housing geometry and material properties were found only slightly
to affect the performance parameters, making it possible to produce
design curves for the full journal bearing.
Stokes and Ettles (27), in their THD solution, combined the
two-dimensional Reynolds equation with a two-dimensional energy
equation describing the temperature distribution along and around
the bearing, simultaneously solving these with the Laplace equation
for the bush, and oil mixing conditions at inlet. The energy
equation was assumed to give the mean cross-film temperature and,
using this, a parabolic temperature profile through the film
thickness was postulated. This resulted in a quasi-three-
dimensional solution. Viscosity through the film thickness was

11
taken as constant, and was based on the mean cross-film
temperature. Oil conditions at inlet were described by a simple
bul~-mixingmodel in which all the recirculating oil was assumed to
enter the fresh lubricating film, thus:

Q T
e e
= Q T
s s
+ Q T
r r

(1.2.1)

Where the flow terms Q , Q and Q , and their

e s r
associated bulk mean temperatures are defined in the following
sketch.

Inlet hole

Qr~ r---..
1
Qe
( T )
·r~
_----.:...1_ (T)
e
~
Journal
. ---,...~~ ~
u

Heat flow was found to be predominantly circumferential in the

bush; r~dial heat flow from the bush to the film in the inlet
region, and the reverse effect occurring near the minimum film
thickness. Little bush surface temperature variation was found in
the axial direction.
Stoke and Ettles sought to generalise the results of their
quasi-three-dimensional approach into a form suitable for design
use. They used regression techniques to obtain sets of algebraic
eXpressions describing the performance. These techniques have the
advantage over existing design methods of being non-iterative and
differentiable. Applying the results of the regression analysis
resulted in good agreement with a range of published experimental
work (16,17,20,30).
Boncompain and Frene (31) have presented a THD solution for

12
a finite journal bearing. A three-dimensional energy equation and
the two-dimensional Reynolds equation were combined with the
Laplace equation for the bush, and two convective bush-surface
conditions. A bulk-mixing model was used to account for lubricant
recirculation at the inlet and the temperature profile through
the film thickness at the oil inlet was assumed uniform.
Mitsui and Yamada (24) assumed a 'mixture ratio'( V )
to describe the recirculation of the lubricant. This was defT~~d
as the fraction of the recirculating oil which entered the new
film, and was taken as 0.5. Thus:

Q T = (V Q T) + (Q - V O)T
e e mix r r e m i x r s

oe Te= r
(0.5 0 T )
r
+ (Q
e
- 0.5 Q )T
r s

(1.2.2)

Their THO analysis made use of two-dimensional Reynolds and energy

equations, and the temperature profile through the film thickness
at inlet was corrected at each iteration. More recently, Mitsui,
Hori and Tanaka (22) have further investigated the 'mixture ratio'
approach, both experimentally and theoretically, employing a full
three-dimensional energy equation. The mixture ratio expresses the
degree to which the fresh supply lubricant displaces the
recirculating lubricant in the inlet region, and Mitsui et al
presented this as a function of flowrate. They found the mixture
ratio to be in the range of 0.4 to 0.8.
Lund and Hansen (32) made use of a cross-film integrated
form of the energy equation, in which axial temperature variations
were neglected. The cross-film temperature distribution was
represented by a fourth order polynomial, and temperature gradients
at the bush and shaft surfaces were expressed analytically. A
mixing condition was invoked, based upon two empirical constants,
g1 and g2, thus:

o T = 0 (T - g1(T - T ) - g2(T - T »
e err r jnl r s

+ (0 - Q )T
e r s

(1.2.3)

13
 Lund and Hansen considered that typically 60% to 70% of the
generated friction power would be carried across the trailing-edge
groove, hence the values of g1 and g2 appeared to be of the order
of 0.1, in order that the cooling provided by the grooves should
not become unacceptably high. In a subsequent paper, Lund and
Tonnesen compared this model with experimental results (33). They
found the journal to be an important heat transfer path, while the
bush appeared to be much less significant. This is in
contradiction to experimental results where heat balances have been
presented (17,20,22), and may be explained by the large axial
temperature gradient which they imposed on the journal. Thus they
found that the journal was responsible for the conduction of
between 36% and 15% of the total power loss, dependent upon load
and speed, while the bush was responsible for ·11% to 2.5% of the
total power loss, across the same range of load and speed.
The effects of circumferential heat flow in the bush
evidently complicate the analysis, and a number of workers
(34,35,36) have simplified solution by assuming only radial heat
conduction. Safar (34) justifies this assumption; "The effect of
neglecting circumferential heat transfer in the bearing has not
been tested against physical experience. Nevertheless, it is not
thought to affect maximum lubricant and bearing temperatures
seriously, for although it inhibits the decrease in maximum
temperatures that would, under normal circumstances, be the result
of circumferential temperature gradients, it also prevents
pre-heating of the incoming lubricant, as nowhere is heat transfer
permitted to proceed from the bearing to the lubricant." Safar
Concluded that the agreement of his results with experimental data
Suggested the assumption to be valid.

Hot Oil Carry-Over

For many years thrust bearings were deSigned on a

'per-pad' basis - assuming that individual pads were unaffected by
the presence of others. As long ago as 1941 von Freudenreich (37)
noted a substantial improvement in the performance of individual
pads as total pad complement was reduced. In 1957 de Guerin and
Hall (38), in their experimental investigation of tilting pad
bearings, found that almost the same failure loads were achieved

14
 with four pads as had been achieved with eight. They suggested
that there was an appreciable carry-over of heat from pad to pad,
and removing alternate pads in a full complement bearing reduced
the tendency for hot oil leaving one pad to enter the wedge of the
next one, and allowed more time for the dissipation of heat from
the runner in the widened gaps between the pads. Evidently pads
could not be considered to operate independently. Hahn and
Kettleborough (39), in their THO analysis of a slider bearing,
noted that if the temperature profile through the film thickness at
inlet was parabolic or linear (rather than uniform, as they had
assumed), great reduction in pressure generation resulted. A
'carry-over' of heat would most likely result in some non-uniform
inlet temperature profile, and considerable effort has been
directed to studying this effect.
Ettles and Cameron (40) considered the flow in the supply
groove to be laminar, and modelled the issue of hot oil from a
downstream pad as a liquid-into-liquid jet. The runner was
considered to be isothermal, and exit oil was taken to be all at
the runner temperature. The proportion of heat carried over was
expressed as a 'carry-over-coefficient', and this was given by the
ratio of relative mean film entry temperature to relative rotor
temperature. The datum was taken as supply temperature. It was
considered that removal of the thermal boundary layer would give a
substantially improved bearing performance. In a later paper,
Ettles (41) modelled the flow in the full groove, rather than using
simply a boundary-layer approach as in (40). In 1970, he stated
(42) that the hot oil carry-over was approximately 60-80% in all
thrust bearings with transverse flooded grooves.
Ettles and Cameron found experimentally (40) that the
temperature of the oncoming oil was largely dependent on the rotor
surface temperature. When the groove width was increased by an
order of magnitude there was negligible effect on carry-over which
tended to confirm the hypothesis. Ettles (42) considered the main
factor affecting carry-over to be speed, because of the influence
of speed on the turbulent cooling of the pads. Elwell (43) found
that only about 5% of fresh lubricant was drawn into a new film,
which tended to support the concept of carry-over. In the
discussion of (40) Elwell suggested that, for journal bearings,
preheating of the lubricant charge by the journal could be far more
important than carry-over as such.

15
 Huffenus and Khaletsky (44) attempted to model the
individual heat transfer modes in a multi-pad bearing. They
considered the infinitely-wide and three-dimensional cases; for
the former, they assumed a linear temperature variation at inlet,
from runner to supply temperature, while for the latter, because of
a lack of experimental data, they assumed a uniform profile
through the film thickness, based on the supply temperature.
Huffenus and Khaletsky found the bearing runner temperature to be
strongly related to the effective film temperature, and recommended
effective cooling of the runner surface to improve performance.
Pad cooling was found to be ineffective, resulting in no decrease
of the runner temperature. Heat transfer in the bearing groove was
2
based on an assumed heat transfer coefficient (1700W/m K) and
runner and supply oil temperatures. From a consideration of
one-dimensional conduction, the amplitude of temperature
oscillations in the runner was found to be less than 0.5 K. It was
noted that the accompanying power fluctuations might be large but
that the energy would be confined to a layer of metal less than 1
rom thick.
Vohr (45)attempted to model the individual heat transfer
modes in a two-dimensional analysis. He considered temperature
variation in the plane of the bearing. Huffenus and Khaletzky (44)
had envisaged cooling of the runner by feed oil at the runner face,
with a thin layer of metal in the runner experiencing cyclic
temperature variations. Vohr envisaged deep heat penetration in
the runner, and cooling at the circumference. Hence the film
thermal resistance was not the dominant factor in the heat transfer
path. Vohr determined experimentally an expression for the heat
transferred to the feed oil in the groove, and found heat transfer
2
coefficients in the range 2550 to 3670 W/m K, for speeds from
75 to 150 r.p.m., and concluded that the individual mode heat
transfer models were sound. The percentages of heat transferred
by the different conductive and convective mechanisms varied
substantially. Vohr's experimental work revealed that the runner
was more instrumental in carrying heat across the bearing groove
than the bearing oil film. The effect of the runner appeared to be
to preheat the inlet oil.
Neal (46) carried out a series of tests on tilting and
fixed inclined pads, varying the pad complement, load and speed.
He found that the proportion of film energy dissipation accounted

16
for by pad conduction was approximately constant at an average of
12%, and that:

1) All operating temperatures fell as the pad complement

was reduced (from eight to three), in spite of the
consequent increase in load per pad.

2) Except at low load, runner temperature agreed closely

with pad entry temperature for the three pad case, but
increased in relation to pad entry temperature as the
number of pads was increased.

Neal considered that the observed reduction in runner temperature

with a reduction in number of pads suggested a significant heat
transfer to the runner on traversing a pad, and subsequent loss of
heat to chamber oil on traversing a space. A reduction in the
ratio of pad area to swept area would be expected to result in a
lower runner temperature. He envisaged the behaviour of the runner
as that of a near-infinite heat sink; heat flow into the runner
being governed by the film thermal resistance. Neal provided an
iterative design process which obviated the need for separate
cons~deration of hot oil carry-over. Indeed, he commented, it was
doubtful whether carry-over was at all significant when compared
with the role of the runner as an accumulator in smoothing what
would otherwise be much greater temperature fluctuations in the
film.

1.3 The Scope of the Present Work

It has been noted that there is little experimental

information relating to thermal effects in journal bearings,
particularly double inlet groove bearings. It was felt that any
new research programme should therefore involve some detailed
performance tests on such bearings.
Work carried out on thrust bearings (44,46) has shown the
small degree of film cooling provided by the bearing pads, and the
dominant role played by the runner in determining film inlet
temperature. The journal bearing supply groove is to some degree
analagous to the inter-pad space of a thrust bearing, and it seemed
that information relating to the journal temperature would be

17
particularly useful. The likely role of the journal in
'preheating' the lubricant entering the loaded film has already
been commented upon (47) (Section 1.2 - Hot Oil Carry-Over, page
15 ) ~
Experimental tests on journal bearings have demonstrated
that at high speeds (high Peclet numbers) most of the dissipated
power is removed from the bearing by the lubricant. The work of
Dowson et al (20) and Cole (17) has shown the bush to be an
important cooling influence at low Peclet number , but the unusual
form of the test bushes has left the general value of the results
open to question. A fresh experimental investigation would require
a more usual form of bush, and the construction of heat balances in
order to assess the relative importance of the different cooling
processes operating in the bearing.
Computational modelling permits concentration on individual
effects, and it was decided to write a computer program which would
aid in assessing the importance of heat transfer to and from the
journal. Heat transfer to and from the bush would complicate the
analysis, and was in any case expected to be small, so the model
would neglect this process, but would incorporate journal heat
transfer.
A two part investigation was followed:

1) An experimental investigation intended to yield journal

temperature and bush temperature information, an
energy balance and general performance data.

2) A theoretical study intended to permit concentration on

the role of the journal as an agent of heat transfer in
the film lubrication process.

18
 2 THE NUMERICAL MODEL

2.1· Introduction

A numerical model was formulated which incorporated the

following of the processes listed earlier (Section 1.1):

1) Pressure generation in the lubricant film - governed by

the Reynolds equation.

2) Temperature variation within the lubricant film

governed by the energy equation.

3) Heat transfer to and from the journal, but not to the

bearing bush.

4) Recirculation of hot lubricant at the inlet.

A computer program, based upon this model, was

written for a double inlet bearing. This program could be used to
give either:

1) Independent predictions of bearing performance, having

specified the bearing geometry, lubricant type and
inlet temperature,

or:

2) Comparisons with experimental results, having specified

the bearing geometry, but also supplying experimental
inlet and journal temperatures as boundary conditions.

Previous computational treatments have suffered from

problems associated with reverse flow regions eXisting in the film
(48). The energy equation is solved as a downstream marching
problem, and the substantial regions of reverse flow have the
effect of violating the assumed inlet temperature boundary
condition. In principle this problem may be overcome, but it

19
 would entail a very large iterative scheme. As a way of
simplifying the solution
it was decided procedure, to use a
,
cross-film integrated form of the energy equation.

2.2 Pressure Generation

The Reynolds Equation

Under the conventional thin film assumptions (Section 1.2),

notably that:

1) density is constant,

2) body forces and inertia forces are negligible

3) flow is laminar,

the Reynolds equation may be derived. If the variation of

viscosity, n, across the film is neglected, and if the following
boundary conditions are imposed

u =U at y = 0; u =0 at y =h

where U is the velocity at the moving surface, and h is the film

thickness then:

a h
3
ap) +
a
(:3 ::) =
6U ah

ax ( n ax az ax
( 2.2.1 )

This is the Reynolds equation.

The co-ordinate system used in this investigation is
defined in Figure 1. The local film thickness, h, is defined by:

h =C (1 + e:: Cos a)
r

20
 Equation 2.2.1 may be non-dimensionalised by writing:

I
I

I
X = R.x = 1TD X
!
Z = LZ
h = h
min
e
Tl = Tl Y
0

P = (6Tl o UR,)P
h 2
min

e3 =r
y

Lit =v

Then equation 2.2.1 becomes:

+
1 ae =
ax az aX

( 2.2.2 )

Now the pressure generation in a journal bearing may become

markedly peaked at high eccentricity ratios, p and its derivatives
tending towards infinity as the eccentricity ratio approaches
unity. For this reason, equation 2.2.2 may be re-written in terms
of some product of pressure and film thickness. This approach was
first suggested by Volgepohl (49) and leads to a more evenly
distributed function.
If we write:

I¥ = pr A

21
Then equation 2.2.2 becomes:

a
~(r = as
ax az ax

( 2.2.3 )

1
and if A = 2
then equation 2.2.3 becomes:

I(; ::r (~~rl

a 2,¥ 1 a 2,!, '¥
+ + +
_1
ax 2 \)2 a z2 4 \)2 r az
1

I
'¥ 1 a 2r 1 1 a 2r

2 r ax 2
+
\)2 r a z2 j = ~ .r -2

( 2.2.4 )

Treatment of Cavitation

A feature of the journal bearing is the occurrence of

cavitation in the
part divergent
of the film (See Section
1.2,. Journal Bearing Experimental Investigations). Cavitation leads
to two problems in the solution of the Reynolds equation: first,
the breakdown boundary is not normally known in advance, and the
system of equations resulting from 2.2.4 cannot therefore be solved
using a direct method; second, the transition from the complete to
the cavitated film region must be represented in some way. A
number of boundary conditions have been considered (50,51), but the
following are generally accepted for practical purposes, and
satisfy the requirement of flow continuity at the breakdown
boundary:

1) p = = 0 at the onset of cavitation.

ax
2) the film reforms at zero gauge pressure at the oil
groove.

22
 These conditions have proved to be useful for aligned and
steadily-loaded' journal bearings, but are not meaningful for
I .
misaligned or dynamically-loaded bearings (52). 2) is not
correct except for zero feed pressures; for non zero feed pressures
it has been demonstrated that the film may reform upstream of the'
supply groove (53).

2.3 Temperature Distribution

The Energy Equation

The distribution of temperature in the l~bricant film is

governed by the energy equation, which may be written thus:

pc lu -aT + v
aT
+ waT!
_ + +
v ax ay az

= - pfl +

( 2.3.1 )

where = au/ax + av/ay + aw/a z

2 2
Now the a T~y term is likely to be far more
2 2 2 2
significant than the a T/aX or a T/az terms. Retention
of these terms would also make solution of 2.3.1 a
boundary value problem. For lubricating oils, convection in the
plane of the lubricating film will predominate over conduction in
the plane of the
film, and if in addition constant density is
assumed then b. = 0, and equation 2.3.1 may be re-written as:

lu ax
aT
+ v
aT
ay
+ aT!
w az
k
pc
v
a 2T

a y2
= Tl

pc
v
~ (::J (:;J! +

( 2.3.2 )

23
Equation 2.3.2 may in principle' be the solved
full for
three-dimensional case, but here a cross-film integrated form is
used for the reason outlined in Section 2.1. If, further, the
I ;

temperature gradient at the stationary bush surface is assumed to

be zero, which corresponds to there being no heat transfer to the
bush, then a quadratic cross-film temperature profile may be
postulated such that,

2
T = a + by + cy

and

...
G:) y=h
= b + 2ch = 0, b = -2ch

(T) y=O = ... a = T.)n I

If the mean cross-film temperature is defined as

h
T 1 Tdy

then'
=
h oj
2 2
T = T ch
jnl 3

and
2
T 3 ( T - 'l' Y 3 T- T Y
T = +
jnl
jnl h jnl h2
2

( 2.3.3 )

so, in its cross-film integrated from, writing

aT =
aT ., aT =
aT
ax ax az az

24
Equation 2.3.2 becomes:
'.

2
q
x
aT
ax
+ q
z
aT
az
k

PCv
[3 T

ay
f0
= n
PCv
! u2
h
+
,::2 [(::J (::t
+

( 2.3.4 )

and from equation 2.3.3, equation 2.3.4 may be written' as:

q
x
+ q aT
+ ~ ':(T - T ) =
z PC h jnl
v
( 2.3.5 )

then, non-dimensionalising as in section 2.2, and substituting for

the flow terms q and q , equation 2.3.5 becomes:
x z

ap l aT
ax ~ ax

1
+
2
v
( 2.3.6 )

~.4 Inlet Mixing

A number of expressions have been proposed to describe the

role which the recirculating lubricant plays in defining the film
inlet temperature (Equations 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3.). In the absence"
of any general data, it was decided to adopt initially a full

25
recirculation model,in which all the recirculating hot lubricant
enters the new film. This is the approach adopted by Stokes and
Ettles
!
(27) and a number of other workers. Thus:

Q T
e e = Q T
r r
+ Q T
s s

(1.2.1

Preliminary computed results showed that' at high

~Ccentricity ratios, because of the large make-up flow at the
lnlet, and because of the assumed cross-film temperature profile,
it
Was Possible for the bush surface temperature near the inlet to
fall below supply temperature. One way of overcoming this problem
was to t'le the make-up flow temperature to the journal temperature.
On the basis of earlier thrust bearing work (45,46), this seemed
Illore
reasonable an approach than is equation 1.2.1. Thus:

Q T = Q T + Q ( a T + (1- a)T )
e err s s jnl

( 2.4.1-)

Where a lies between 0 and 1.

SUCh an
expression might relate physically to the fresh lubricant
PiCking
1 up heat from the journal as it scours the recirculated
Ubricant from the journal surface. The near-universal use of
highe
th r than ambient feed pressures might be expected to justify
is approach. In t h e absence 0 f '
experlmen t a 1 eVl. d ence a was se t
;qUal to 0.5. Fresh feed lubricant probably displaces the
eCirculatl' ng lubricant to some degree, so t h e mlxlng
,. coe ff'lClen
, t
approach of Mitsui and Yamada (24), equation 1.2.2,was combined with
~.4 1
• to give

oe Te = 'i/ Q T
mix r r
+ (0
e
'i/ Q) (a T
mix r s
+ (1 - a ) T
jnl
)

( 2.4.2 )

26
 If V is less than unity, i.e., if not all the
recirculatingmiYubricant participates in the next film, the effect
of ~ ~s to depress the journal temperature. For a appreciably less
than i (eg., a = 0.7), this depression led to unrealistically low
j
oUrnal temperatures.
Accordingly, the original expression of Mitsui and Yamada
'tIas used:

QT = V QT + (Q - V Q)T
e e mix r r e m i x r s

1 .2.2

SOlutions were obtained for different values of V Note

that V mix
=1.0 corresponds to the simple bulk-mixing case of
Stoke mix
sand Ettles (27), equation 1.2.1.

~ower Loss

The shear force, S, at the journal surface is given by

s =S + S + S
1 2 3
'tIhere for the pressure generating film

L x*
nu ap
S1 = //[
o 0
h
+
ax
( 2.5.1 )
and x*
denotes the location of the breakdown boundary.
For the cavitated zone between the breakdown boundary and
the
second inlet groove

o x
( 2.5.2 )

27
Where h * denotes the film thickness at the breakdown
bOUndary. 2
I I

For the cavitated zone between the second and first inlet
9rooves

L 27TR

h *
3 ;-;-[~J
o 7TR
dxdz

2.5.3
Where h *
3 denotes the filW thickness at the second inlet.
The power loss, H is given by

H* = su

( 2.5.4 )
Where U
is the surface velocity of the journal.

2.6 S
~ution Procedure

l.ntroduction

th Finite difference methods were used in the solution to both

e ~eYnolds and the ene r gy equations. The Reynolds equation was
sOlv
~ ed Using the Gauss-Seidel iterative method with Successive Over
elaxatl' on. The energy equation was solved using an implicit
ilIethod
D to solve for temperatures row by row, marching downstream.
etails
of the numerical methods are contained in Appendix 1.

~oundary Conditions

For the Reynolds equation:

ne Cavitation was taken into account by setting to zero all

9ative
pressures as they arose in the solution. In addition to

28
the cavitation boundary conditions (Section 2.2), it was further
assumed that:

1) p =0 at x = 0,

2) p =0 at z =0 and at z = L.

Symmetry was exploited to reduce the computational effort.

This
Was effected by setting ap/az to zero along the centre-line.
The specific form of the bearing grooves. was not
~~preSented; it was assumed that lubricant was supplied along a
lne inlet existing across the full width of the bearing and that
the film existed across the full width of the bearing in the loaded
Part of the film. In the cavitated part of the film, striation of
the lub r1cant
. film was considered.

For the energy equation, the boundary conditions were that:

1) For the downstream film inlet, the temperature along

the inlet row was initially taken as the supply
temperature. In subsequent iterations, the temperature
was that dictated by the mixing model being used.

2) For the upstream film inlet, the temperature was

adjusted according to a bracketting algorithm, until
the requirements of energy conservation were satisfied
(See 'Convergence Criteria', Section 2.7).

The 'upstream'and 'downstream'inlets are defined in Figure1.

~ 1 The journal temperature was given an initial presumed

a Ue .
e~ , wh1ch was updated in successive iterations until the journal
Perienced no net heat transfer. The journal temperature was
adjust
ed Using a bracketting algorithm.

Yiscosity Variation

The variation of viscosity with temperature was represented

29
by a Vogel type expression of the ~orm:

The
Coefficients d, g, a, are chosen to represent a specific
lUbricant.
Here they were chosen to suit the test lubricant, and
~ere as fOllows:

d -4
= 2.924 x 10
g = 407.3
0 = 45.65
t = temperature in degrees C.

These
~' values were calculated from the experimentally derived
1ScOS't
Ill' 1 Y-temperature characteristic of the test lubricant, a
1neral oil ISO VG32.

2.7 C
~uting Considerations

l..ntroduction

A FORTRAN77 program was developed for use on a 'Prime'

CompUter.
~arYin ' The program was written so as to accommodate a film
som g 1n thickness with both x and z. Thus it would accommodate
b e degree .of misalignment of the journal with respect to the
USh
and • In f act, the program was never used for misaligned cases,
e sYmmetry was therefore invoked in the solution to the Reynolds
qUation
eqUal (Section 2.5 and Appendix 1), simply by setting a pi a z
to~ to zero along the centre-line of the film. The full
""'by
tet -row implicit solution scheme for the energy equation was
ained
and ' both because this was not a particularly slow routine,
So
~it as to permit any future user to investigate misalignment
ho ut
St haVing to make serious modifications to the program. The-
Ote
nec requirement of the program is thus larger than is strictly
eS sar
fUll Y, the economies of a 'symmetrical analysis' not being
YeXPloited.

30
 The computer procedure which was followed is shown in
Figure 2.

Convergence Criteria

Convergence was considered to have been achieved when the

fOllowing criteria had been satisfied:

1) The non-dimensional load parameter had not changed by

6
more than one part in 10 of its value at the
previous iterative cycle of the solution to the
Reynolds equation. This corresponded to convergence on
individual pressure values such that the pressure at
each mesh point had not changed by more than one part
3
in 10 of its value at the previous iterative
cycle.

2) The attitude angle had not changed by more than one

5
part in 10 of its previous value.

3) The power convected from the bearing by the

side-leakage flow and by any flow leaving the film due
to its displac~ment by fresh supply lubricant at the
inlets (i .e. , 'V. < 1.0) agreed with the power
ml.X
dissipated by friction to within 1%.

4) The net heat transfer to the journal was not more than
1% of the dissipated power.

&ocation of Lubricant Inlets

numerical model was formulated for a double inlet

inlets being at +/- 90 degrees to the load line (See
Initially a fairly coarse solution was achieved for -the
single inlet on the line of centres. Thus the inlet
boundary condition was:

p = 0 at e = 0

31
When convergence on load and attitude angle W had been achieved
two inlets were then located at +/- 90 degrees to the load line by
supplying as boundary conditions

p = 0 at e = ~/2
and
p = 0 at e = 3~/2

The procedure was repeated until full convergence (as outlined

above) was achieved.

Mesh Reguirement

A preliminary investigation was carried out both to check

the program and to determine a suitable mesh. Load capacity
predictions from the isoviscous solution to the Reynolds equation
were compared with established data (56) and the power convected by
the lubricant compared with ~ower loss data, again for the
isoviscous case.
The influence of mesh proportions, and the degree of
refinement of the mesh were then investigated. A mesh consisting
of 56 mesh lengths around the full bearing by 14 across the bearing
was considered adequate, and this was used for all the computed
results presented here.

32
-~~.- .. ,~---

3 TEST MACHINE AND INSTRUMENTATION

3.1 Foreword

The test machine was designed to take a variety of test

bearings; the test bearings used in the experimental programme were
thus specific to this investigation and details are contained
elsewhere (Section 4.2). Similarly, the measurement of temperature
distribution in the bush and the journal was a specific feature of
this test work, and details are contained separately in Sections
3.4 and 3.5. The remaining features outlined below are of general
relevance.

3.2 Principal Features of the Test Machine

A General Arrangement of the test machine is contained in

Figure 3, see also Plates 1 to 4. Letters in the text refer to
items lettered in the General Arrangement.

Drive

A variable-frequency power supply unit supplied a 7.5kW

A.C. motor, which was coupled to a 2.828:1 (speed increasing)
gearbox via a toothed belt (Pulley ratio 2:1). The gearbox drove
the test journal directly. The variable frequency unit allowed
continuously variable speed between 500 and 2500 r.p.m., and
between 2000 and 8000 r.p.m., depending upon which way round the
belt pulleys were connected.

Test Journal

See the General Arrangement, Figure 3.

The test journal (A), a stepped shaft, was supported by

rolling element bearings (B), contained in support pedestals (C),
at each end. The test bearing (D) was mounted centrally, and the
design of the test machine permitted the bearing to float radially
upon the journal.

33
 Mounting of the Test Bearings

See the General Arrangement, Figure 3, and Plates 5, 6

and 7.

Power loss is one of the most important quantities to be

measured in a bearing test. The measurement of power loss implies
the measurement of a friction torque; this may be either the bush
or journal friction torque, though these two quantities are not
equal (See Section 5.1). The test machine was designed to permit
measurement of the bush torque, which meant that the bush had to be
allowed some degree of rotational movement. The bearing had also
to be loaded , and this was made possible by isolating the bush
from the rest of the test machine by a hydrostatic bearing film.
Test bearings were mounted rigidly in a cylindrical
bearing-holder (E) (See also Plate 7). This holder was mounted
within a yoke (F), though was separated from it by the
hydrostatic bearing film (G). In the absence of any restraint, the
holder was free to rotate with respect to the yoke and the journal.
A torque-arm (H), fitted to the bearing-holder, prevented rotation,
and allowed friction torque to be measured.
The lubricant for the test bearing was supplied to the
crown of the yoke, then across the hydrostatic film through an
lOr_ring (I) (See Plate 7). Galleries in the upper half of the
bearing-holder then directed lubricant to the bearing inlet holes.
The lOr-ring (I) was progressively trimmed until the friction it
introduced into the torque measurement system was negligible.

Application of Load

The test bearing was loaded using a hydraulic cylinder (J)

bearing against a loading beam (K), which forced the yoke upwards
via a parallelogram linkage (Figure 3 and Plate 4). The lower half
of the test bearing was correspondingly forced upwards towards the
test journal. The oil supply circuit is shown in Figure 4.

34
3.3 Measurement and Instrumentation

In addition to bush and journal temperature distribution

(See Sections 3.4 and 3.5), the following quantities were measured:

Speed

Rotational speed was measured using an· opto-electronic

tachometer mounted near the output shaft of the gearbox. This was
connected to a counter/timer which gave the speed in tens of r.p.m ••

The pressure in the high pressure oil circuit feeding the

hydraulic loading cylinder was measured using a calibrated Bourdon
test gauge. The cross-sectional-area of the hydraulic cylinder was
known, hence the applied force was calculated. The dead weight of
the yoke and loading-beam assembly was subtracted from this
pressure loading to give the net upwards force.
Oil was supplied by a variable delivery vane pump, and the
supply pressure was variable from 0 to 50 bar. This maximum
pres.sure corresponded to a maximum load of 9.43 kN.
The oil supply circuit is shown in Figure 4.

Feed Pressure

The pressure of the oil supply immediately at entry to the

yoke was measured, using a Bourdon gauge (See Figure 4).
In this investigation static pressure tappings were also
drilled in each groove of each test bearing (See Plate 8). These
tappings were connected to calibrated Bourdon gauges.

Lubricant Flowrate

The lubricant supply circuit is shown in Figure 4.

Two types of flowmeter were used:

35
 1) For flowrates greater than about 5 mlls a magnetic
pick-up turbine type flowmeter was used. This was
connected to an analogue indicator via a frequency to
D.C. converter. For a yoke entry temperature of
0
50 C, the temperature at the flowmeter could vary
0
with flowrate up to about 55 C - because of heat
transfer from the lubricant in the supply line to the
surroundings. This temperature variation might be
expected to affect the flowmeter reading, because of
the consequent variation in viscosity at the flowmeter.
Previous investigation had shown that this effect was
slight, so the system was simply calibrated for a yoke
o
inlet temperature of 50 C.

2) For flowrates less than about 5 mIls a rotameter was

used. This device was viscosity-sensitive, and hence
temperature-sensitive. At low flowrates, because of
heat transfer, there was an appreciable variation in
the temperature of the lubricant along the supply line.
The temperature of the oil entering the rotameter
during a test was therefore measured, using a copper I
constantan thermocouple, and the rotameter was
calibrated for different rotameter inlet temperatures.

The meters were connected in series in the supply line to

the test bearing. Calibration was performed by measuring the time
required to collect a given volume of lubricant, across the
relevant range of flowrates. Lubricant was supplied by a gear
pump, with a pressure relief valve set for 3.0 bar. The oil flow
was controlled by operating a bypass valve to give the required
feed pressure.

Friction Torgue

See the General Arrangement (Figure 3).

The design of the test rig permitted limited rotational

movement of the test bearing, and thus the measurement of bush

36
torque using a torque arm (H) and strain-gauged cantilever
load-cell (L). The strain gauges were arranged so as to be self-
temperature-compensating, and the output was connected to a strain
indicator. The system was calibrated statically, using a weight
hanger and known masses. The radius of the torque arm was known,
hence friction torque at the bush could be calculated.
It should be noted that the bush torque is not equal to the
journal torque, and that a correction is required if the latter is
to be obtained (See Section 5.1).

3.4 Temperature Measurement

Bush Thermocouples

See'Figure 5, and Plates 8, 9 and 10.

Each test bush was drilled and fitted with 84 copper/

constantan thermocouples, mounted in two arrays at different axial
positions. A concentration of thermocouples in the vicinity of the
minimum film thickness position was intended to aid in locating the
maximum temperature.
Each groove contained one thermocouple (arrowed on Plate
10), and an additional thermocouple was located in the inlet hole
immediately at entry to the groove (also arrowed on Plate 10).
All the thermocouple leads were soldered to plug-in
'D'-connectors (See plate 9) which were then connected to
connector boxes (See Plate 3) mounted on the test machine frame.
Copper leads then led to switch units. Details of the data-logging
system are contained in Section 3.5 along with details of the
arrangement of the cold junctions.

Journal Thermocouples

Two test journals were used (See Section 4.2). Each test
journal contained eight thermocouples (See Figure 6). Eight Smm
diameter screws were drilled to accommodate thermocouples. Each
journal was then drilled and tapped radially and the screws
fixed with 'Araldite' in the holes, such that the thermocouple
beads lay within 2mm (+/- 0.25mm) of the desired finished journal

37
surface. The screwheads were then cut off, and the journals ground
to the required diameter.
The leads from the thermocouples were brought out through a
hole along the axis of the journal. Four thermocouples were then
connected to an eight channel air-cooled slip-ring unit. This unit
was calibrated across the test speed range.
All thermocouples were then connected to the 'oj-connectors
by copper/constantan wire from the slip-ring unit. The
'0'- connectors were mounted in connector boxes as was the case for
the bush thermocouple connections.
Details of the slip-ring unit calibration are contained in
Appendix 2.

Feed and Drain Temperatures

Thermocouples were inserted in the test bearing oil feed

pipe at entry to the rotameter, and at entry to the yoke. A
thermocouple was positioned at each end of the bearing holder, so
as to lie in the stream of oil draining from the test bearing.
All these thermocouples were directly connected to a
calibrated multi-channel digital thermometer, giving a reading in
o
C •.

3.5 Data-logging System for Bush and Jonrnal Thermocouples

The logging system is shown schematically in Figure 7.

Copper leads from the connector boxes were connected to one

of two programmable multiple switch units, which were controlled
via an I.E.E.E. 488 (1978) standard bus from a desk-top computer
(Hewlett Packard hp85). Preliminary testing of the logging system
showed that at high switching speeds it was possible to record
incorrect e.m.f.s. Amplification of each thermocouple e.m.f.
before it was measured enabled the switching speed to be increa-sed
by a factor of about 2.
Each switch in each of the two switch units was operated
to connect each thermocouple in turn to a digital voltmeter (O.V.MJ
via a 100 gain amplifier. The computer then sampled the e.m.f. and

38
stored it.
Reference junctions, in an ice-water bath, were connected
via the 'D' connectors (See Section 3.4) to the switch units. Each
,
'D'-connector had an individual reference junction connection which
enabled the 'D'-connector te~perature to be measured. Thus any
difference in temperature between 'D'-connectors was accounted for~
The computer sampled each reference junction e.m.f., and
subtraction of the relevant reference junction e.m.f. from each
stored bush e.m.f. gave an e.m.f. which corresponded to temperature
above that of the ice-water bath. Thus:

e
total
= e
bush
e
reference

The individual e.m.f.s were converted to temperatures using

a simple interpolation routine, based on standard thermocouple
data. After calculating the temperatures the heat conduction
through the bush wall, based on the temperatures around the bush at
axial array 1 (See Figure 5),was calculated. It was assumed that
at any point the temperature variation through the wall thickness
was linear. The temperatures and net bush heat conduction were
then printed-out.
These operations were controlled using one switching and
data-handling program which was written in BASIC. The program
incorporated delay 'loops' to allow the current e.m.f. reading to
settle-down before being sampled.
The total number of switch unit switches available was 84.
Thus once the reference junctions from the eight 'D'-connectors,
and the four journal thermocouples had been connected there were 72
remaining. All the thermocouples in axial array 1 (See Figure 5)
were connected, and key thermocouples from axial array 2 were
connected.
Slight differences (of the order of 1 K) between
temperatures measured on the multi-channel digital thermometer
(Section 3.4 Feed and Drain Temperatures) and this data-logging
system were noted. The digital thermometer was considered to give
the true supply datum temperature, and logged temperatures were
corrected so as to relate to this. This correction was possible
because feed temperature at entry to the yoke was measured using
both the computer data-logger and the digital thermometer.

39
4 EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAMME

4.1 Foreword

In order to cover a reasonable range of bearing test

conditions the following are required:

1) At least two length to diameter ratios.

2) At least two clearance ratios.

3) A broad range of load and speed.

In addition, the effects of different supply temperatures,

feed pressures, and l~bricant viscosity-temperature characteristics
may be investigated.
The mixed experimental and theoretical nature of the
investigation precluded a fully comprehensive experimental
programme. It was decided to perform a series of tests covering
the basic requirements 1), 2) and 3) above, for constant feed
pressure and supply temperature. A limited number of tests were
also conducted at a different feed pressure. These were intended
primarily to yield information relating to flowrate (See Section
4.5).

4.2 Test Bearings

Tests were carried out on two double inlet groove bearings

of nominal inside diameter 76.2mm (3.003 in. actual) and of length
to diameter (LID) ratios 1.0 and 0.5. The bushes were made of mild
steel and were faced with whitemetal. The bush wall thickness
was 9.5 mm. The feed grooves extended over 0.8 of the bearing
length, and for 28.7 degrees circumferentially (See Figure 8).
This circumferential extent is equivalent to a distance at the bush
surface equal to one quarter of the in~ide diameter of the bearing.
The grooves were located at 90 degrees to the load line. This
grooving arrangement and the test bush wall thickness are typical
of practical thick wall bearings.

40
 Clearance ratios of 0.001 and 0.002 were provided by using
two test journals of diameters 3.000 in. and 2.997 in.
respectively.' The test journals and bushes showed a maximum
departure from circularity of 5 Um.
Details of the arrangement of the bush thermocouples are
contained in Section 3.4.

4.3 Speed Range

.A programme of tests on bearings may include tests to

failure. Such tests were not included in this work, and the test
speed and load ranges were therefore limited by the following two
criteria:

1) The maximum bush surface temperature ought not to be

allowed to exceed a safe limit.

2) The minimum film thickness ought not to be less than

some safe value.

The suitability of potential test loads and speeds was

assessed from performance predictions given by the ESDU design
procedure 84031 (14). For the clearance ratio (C /0) of
d
0.002, t~e maximum design speed of the test machine, 8000 r.p.m.,
was used as the maximum test speed. This gave reasonable predicted
maximum bush temperature. The lowest speed of 1000 r.p.m. was
chosen because, in conjunction with the maximum load, predictions
using the ESDU design procedure suggested that this would give the
maximum eccentricity ratio acceptable for safe operation. Tests
were carried out at 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, 7000 and 8000 r.p.m ••
For the clearance ratio of 0.001, the maximum speed was
chosen to be 3500 r.p.m.. Predictions from the ESDU design
procedure suggested that this speed would give an acceptable
maximum bush surface temperature. The lowest test speed was again
1000 r.p.m •• Tests were carried out at 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 30aO
and 3500 r.p.m ••

41
SHEFFIElO
tJ~ ::'il-. ~~S:TY
4.4 Load Range

The maximum hydraulic loading pressure of which the test

I
machine was capable was 50 bar. This corresponded to a maximum'
load of 9.43 kN, which was adopted as the maximum for all the tests
performed. Tests were carried out at each test speed with loads of
1.43, 3.43, 5.43, 7.43 and 9.43kN.

4.5 Feed Pressure

A feed pressure of 2.0 bar was adopted for the full test
range of length to diameter ratio, clearance ratio, load and speed.
This feed pressure is that measured from the pressure tapping in
the upstream bearing groove.
A limited series of tests was carried out on the bearing
with a length to diameter ratio of 0.5 in order to assess the
influence of feed pressure upon flowrate. For these tests a
feed pressure of 1.0 bar was employed. For C /D = 0.001, the test
d
speeds were 1000, 2000 and 3000 r.p.m., and for C /D = 0.002 the
d
speeds were 2000, 4000 and 6000 r.p.m ••

4.6 ,Inlet Temperature

The yoke lubricant feed temperature was maintained at 50~oC

( +/_ 0.3 o C) for all the tests carried out.

4.7 Test Lubricant

The test lubricant was a mineral oil ISO VG32 (See Appendix
3 for the viscosity-temperature characteristic).

4.8 Bush and Journal Temperature Distribution

Details of the temperature logging arrangements, and

thermocouple locations are contained elsewhere (Sections 3.5 and
3•4) •
Temperature distributions were monitored throughout each
test and were recorded when steady-state conditions had been

42
achieved.
Tests were performed at constant speed, and after
starting-up the test machine about two hours were required before
steady-state was reached. After increasing the test load
typically 45 minutes were required before steady-state was again
reached.

43
 5 TREATMENT OF RESULTS

I I

5.1 Experimental Results - Calculated Quantities

Experimental measurements were converted to physical

quantities using the relevant instrument calibrations. Most of the
experimental data did not require further treatment before being
displayed graphically.
Some manipulation of the data was required to yield the
following:

Journal Torque and Power Loss

Power loss is given by the product of angular velocity and

friction torque. The relevant torque is that at the moving
surface, the journal, but the design of the test machine permitted
the direct measurement of bush torque only. It has already been
stated (Section 3.3) that journal torque is not equal to bush
torque, and a correction is required to give this. This correction
is derived below:
If the journal and bush geometry is as follows:

Downstream groo~_ ___Ups tream groove

then the film experiences the following system of torques and

forces:

44
 W

Taking moments about 0,

Tb + Wo
where 0 = e
c
sinq, = EC sinq,
r

The bush torque therefore differs from the journal torque by

WEC 'sinq, ,where E is the eccentricity ratio. In order to derive
r
the journal torque a knowledge of
attitude angle is therefore
.
required.
the eccentricity ratio and the
In this investigation no
measurements of journal eccentricity or attitude angle were made,
however the ESDU 84031 design procedure provides estimates of these
which show good agreement with experimental data (57). The values
of eccentricity ratio and attitude angle predicted by the ESDU
84031 procedure were therefore used to derive the correction to the
bush torque, and hence the power loss was calculated.

Energy Balance

The construction of an energy balance for the bearing

required calculation of the amounts of heat conducted through the
bush and along the journal, and of the heat convected from the
bearing by the lubricant.

45
1) Bush Conduction :

The wall thickness of the bush allowed only two

circumferential rows of thermocouples to be mounted and so
the rate of heat conduction through the bush wall was
calculated assuming that the temperature through the bush
wall varied linearly. Preliminary tests established that
the axial variation of temperature in the bush was slight,
and conduction was therefore based upon the temperature
gradients at axial array 1 (See Figure 5) only.
The bush was made of steel corresponding to the EN3
specification, and its thermal conductivity was taken as 52
w/mK (58).

2) Journal Conduction :

The heat conducted from the film along the journal was
calculated assuming one-dimensional conduction along the
axis of the journal. The temperature difference between
thermocouples 102 and 104 (See Figure 6) led to the
calculation of an axial temperature gradient and the
calculation of the heat conducted. Heat conduction from
both ends of the bearing was allowed for, by assuming the
journal temperature distribution about the journal
centre-line to be symmetrical. Throughout the programme of
tests on the shorter bearing (LID = 0.5), temperatures at
thermocouple locations 102 and 103 were observed to be
almost identical, and the assumption of a symmetrical
journal temperature distribution therefore seemed
reasonable.
Thermocouple number 104 was only outboard of the
bearing for the shorter test bearing (LID = 0.5), and an
estimate of the journal heat conduction could therefore
only be made for this case.
The test journal was made of EN24 steel, for which the
thermal conductivity was taken as 38W/mK (58 ).

46
 3) Convection

The rate of energy convection by the lubricant is

given by

Q = pqc (T - T )
conv p d s

where T is the
yoke entry temperature, if the
s d
mean drain
temperature for the lubricant, and q the
volumetric flowrate.
The product of lubricant density and specific heat at
6 3
constant pressure was taken as 1.8 x 10 J/m K.

Maximum Bush Surface Temperature

The thermocouples placed in the test bushes were either

2.5mrn or 7.5 mm from the whitemetal bearing surface, so did not
give maximum bush surface temperature directly (Figure 5). This
maximum temperature was calculated by extrapolation from the known
thermocouple temperatures, assuming temperature variation through
the wall thickness to be linear.

Bush Temperature Distribution

The temperature distribution through the bush wall

thickness was plotted in isotherm form for a number of cases
(Figures 9 to 13). These isotherms were constructed assuming a
linear temperature variation across the bush wall radially, and by
employing linear interpolation between thermocouples.

5.2 Accuracy of Experimental Results

Speed

Rotational speed was measured to within +/- 10 r.p.m.

47
 Applied load was measured to within +1- 0.1 kN.

Feed Pressure

Feed pressure was measured to within +1- 0.1 bar.

Lubricant Flowrate

In the range 2.0 to 5.0 mIls the rotameter was used to

indicate the flowrate and it was estimated that this was measured
to within +1- 0.2S-ml/s

For flowrates above 5.0 mIls the turbine flowmeter was

used and

1) In the range 5 mIls to 10 mIls this permitted

flowrate measurement to within +1- 0.5 mIls

2) In the range 10 mIls to 40 ml/s this permitted

flowrate measurement to within +1- 1.0 mIls

Friction Torque

To assess the likely error in the measurement of bush

friction torque the test journal was removed from the test machine
and the repeatability of torque readings was investigated.
Individual torque readings were found to be repeatable to within
+1_ 0.02 Nm, and bush friction torque was therefore measured to
within +1- 0.04 Nm.
The correction added to the measured bush torque in order
to give journal torque was typically equal to 10% of the bush
torque. Uncertainty in the attitude angle and in the eccentricity
ratio led to a likely error of less than +/- 20% in the correction
to the bush torque. The maximum error in the correction was
therefore of the order of 2% of bush torque.

48
 Temperature

Computer data-logging system :

From consideration of the likely errors arising in the

amplification and measurement of the thermocouple e.m.f.s
and in the temperature interpolation it is estimated that
temperature differences were measured to within +/- 0.35 0 C.

Multi-channel digital thermometer:

The digital thermometer was a calibrated instrument giving

a reading +/- 0.1 K.
to Temperature differences were
therefore measured to within +/- 0.2 K.

Energy Balance

At high speeds the overall temperature rise experienced by

the lubricant passing through the bearing was large, and
temperature differences across the bush wall were also large.
Given below are the typical uncertainties in the individual heat
transfer components, and the corresponding uncertainties in the
total accounted for heat transfers.

Bush Conduction +/- 10% - corresponding to +/- 3%

of total dissipated energy

convection +/- 6% - corresponding to +/- 4%

of total dissipated energy

Journal Conduction +/- 25% - corresponding to +/- 1%

of total dissipated energy

Even at high speeds the temperature differences between

thermocouples in the journal were only of the order of 2.0 K , thus
the possible error in calculated journal heat conduction is quite
high. However, since journal conduction was a small proportion of

49
the total heat transfer, the uncertainty in the total accounted for
heat transfer is correspondingly small.
At low speed the overall temperature rise was small, and
the bush and journal temperature gradients were similarly small.
The possible error in the conduction terms is therefore large.
This is particularly so for the journal heat conduction component,
where temperature differences were typically of the order of 0.5 K.
Thus the proportional uncertainty in this component is very large.
Again, however, the corresponding uncertainty in the total
accounted for heat transfer is small. Given below are the typical
uncertainties in the individual heat transfer components, and the
corresponding uncertainties in the total accounted for heat
transfer.

Bush Conduction +/- 50% - corresponding to +/- 35%

of total dissipated energy

Convection +/- 25% - corresponding to +/- 5%

of total dissipated energy

Journal Conduction +/- 100% - corresponding to +/- 4%

of total dissipated energy

5.3 Theoretical Results

The computer program was written so as to give either :

1) Independent predictions of bearing performance, having

specified the film geometry, lubricant type and inlet
temperature.

orz

2) Comparisons with experimental results, having specified

the film geometry, but also supplying experimental
groove lubricant and journal temperatures as boundary
conditions.

50
 The ESDU design procedure 84031 was applied to each test
case and the eccentricity ratio which _ resulted from this analysis
was used to' define the geometry of the film in the full
computational analysis.

Independent Predictions

In addition to the geometry of the film, the test bearing

speed was supplied. The program required the specification of the
mixture ratio, V (the proportion of recirculating
mix
lubricant which enters the fresh film, See Section 2.4) and in the
absence of any detailed data computer runs were performed for
values of V of 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0. Unless otherwise noted,
mix
however, all presented results are for V equal to 1.0
mix

Experimental Temperature Boundary Conditions

For each test case the geometry and test speed were
specified, and in addition :

1) The temperature in the upstream groove was supplied as

a temperature boundary condition for the solution of
the energy equation in the loaded film.

2) The temperature in the downstream groove was supplied

as a temperature boundary condition for the solution of
the energy equation in'the unloaded half of the film.

3) The journal temperature was supplied as a temperature

boundary condition for both loaded and unloaded films.

Because of the highly simplified representation of the

bearing grooves in the numerical model it was felt that comparison
between computed and experimental lubricant flowrates would not be
meaningful for these cases. The only results from these numerical
analyses which are considered are therefore power loss and the
maximum bush surface temperature.
Early results from this version of the program showed that

51
in general loads predicted using the experimental temperature
boundary conditions and ESDU-predicted eccentricity ratio were
not equal to the actual applied loads. Experimental applied load
• I
was probably the most reliably measured quantity, so the computer
program was modified to iterate towards this. The ESDU-predicted
eccentricity ratio was subsequently modified until the program
indicated that the predicted load capacity was within 2% of the
actual experimental load. This was considered to be sufficiently
accurate for purposes of comparison.

52
 6 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

,
6.1 Introduction

The bulk of the results are shown graphically in Figures 9

to 117. Where appropriate, experimental results are shown together
with numerical comparisons (experimental boundary conditions),
results from the full numerical model, and results from the ESDU
84031 design procedure.
Results from the full numerical model, based upon the
eccentricity ratio indicated by the ESDU procedure, tended to show
different loads from the actual experimental load~. Thus the bulk
of the results are plotted on a load base, and comparison between
experimental results and results from the full numerical model is
essentially comparison of characteristic curves rather than spot
values. Experimental results can be compared directly with
numerical comparisons because for these cases the loads carried
agree to within 2%.
In the following sections,
C /D for
= 0.001, low
d
speed is considered to be 1000 r.p.m., medium speed 2000 r.p.m.,
and high speed 3500 r.p.m •• For C /D = 0.002, low speed is
d
considered to be 1000 to 2000 r.p.m., medium speed 2000 to 4000
r.p.m., high speed 6000 to 8000 r.p.m ••
The experimental results are presented first (Section 6.2)
and some aspects are discussed (Section 6.3). Th~ main features of
the ESDU 84031 and full numerical model predictions are then
introduced and compared with experimental results (Section 6.4). A
discussion of the ESDU 84031 design procedure and the full
numerical model then follows (Section 6.5).
Unless otherwise noted, all results are for a feed pressure
of 2.0 bar.

6.2 Experimental Results

The experimental results are contained in Figures 9 to 74.

Features of interest in these test results are outlined below, and
reference is made to the relevant figures.

53
 Temperature Distribution in the Bush

From the bush isotherm plots (Figures 9 to 13), it can be

seen that:

1) In the upper half of the bush, isotherms are roughly

circumferential lines, indicating that heat flow is
largely radial.

2) In the lower half of the bush, isotherms are

circumferential lines in the region of the minimum film
thickness, but

3) there is a considerable circumferential temperature

variation (e.g. Figure 11). This variation results in
heat flow from the minimum film thickness position to
the oil feed holes, particularly the feed to the
upstream groove.

4) a) For given load and speed the magnitude of the

circumferential heat flow effect is greater for LID
= 0.5 than for LID = 1.0 (See Figures 9 and 10).

b) If comparison is based on roughly equal unit loads

(Figures 9 and 11), the circumferential heat flow
appears still to be greater for LID = 0.5 than for
LID = 1.0.
The graphs showing temperature variation around the
developed bush (Figures 14 to 26) indicate that with increasing
load:

5) For low speed cases all temperatures increase with

increasing load (Figures 14,18,21,24).

6) At medium speed temperatures in the loaded half

54
 increase while those in the unloaded (cavitated) half
decrease (Figures 15 and 19).

7) At high speed temperatures in the loaded half may

decrease slightly (Figures 17 and 23), while those in
the cavitated half decrease more markedly (Figures
17,20,23,26).

8) The effects 6) and 7) are present for both LID = 1.0

and LID = 0.5, but are less pronounced for LID = 0.5.
For LID = 1.0, the effects 6) and 7) are manifested at
lower speed than is the case for LID = 0.5, thus Figure
15 shows a temperature fall in the unloaded bearing
half while Figure 18 does not; Figure 16 shows a
fall in temperature in the loaded bearing half with
increasing load while Figure 19 does not.

These observations apply to both clearance ratios used in

these tests.
The graphs showing the full temperature distribution in the
developed bush (Figures 27 to 31) show that:

9) There is little axial temperature variation in the bush

between the two axial thermocouple arrays but that

10) there is some in the vicinity of the downstream groove,

and this is more pronounced in the longer bearing than
in the shorter (See Figures 28 and 30). The tendency
here is for temperatures nearer the bearing centre-line
(axial array 2, Figure 5), to be lower than those
nearer the bearing edge (axial array 1).

11) The unloaded side of the bush is a region in which

temperature is in general roughly constant. There .are
exceptions to this however; see for example Figure
20.

12) Generally the maximum bush temperature occurs on the

55
 loaded side of the bush, and in the array nearer the
bush centre-line (axial array 2, Figure 5). At low
load and high speed, see Figure 27, the maximum bush
surface temperature may occur in the unloaded half of
the bearing.

F10wrate

The variation of f10wrate with load is shown in Figures 32

to 35. Constant viscosity theory dictates that at high
eccentricity ratios (£ greater than about 0.8) the side-leakage
flow must reduce with increasing eccentricity (i.e. load). The
observed reduction in f10wrate with increasing load for certain
cases (eg Figure 34) is consistent with this.

Power Loss

The variation of power loss with speed is shown in Figures

36 to 39. It is noted that for a given load the power loss is
roughly proportional to speed to the power of 1.4.
The variation of power loss with load is shown in Figures
40 to 43.

Journal Temperature, Maximum Bush Surface Temperature, and

Mean Inlet Groove Temperature

In the absence of individual groove f10wrate information

the mean inlet groove temperature was adopted as a repre~entative
groove temperature. This was defined as the arithmetic mean of the
two groove lubricant temperatures indicated by the thermocouples in
the feed grooves. Unless otherwise noted, journal temperature is
the temperature measured on the journal centre-line (thermocouple
101, Figure 6).
The variation with load of journal temperature,
maximum bush surface temperature, and mean groove temperature
excess over supply is shown in Figures 44 to 47. The variation of
journal temperature excess over supply as a proportion of maximum
bush surface temperature excess over supply as a function of Pec1et

56
number is shown in Figure 48. It is noted that:

1) For a specific clearance ratio the journal temperature-

excess increases with respect to the maximum bush
surface temperature excess as the speed increases
(Figure 48).

2) For a given speed the form of the variation in mean

inlet groove temperature tends to reflect the form of
the variation in journal temperature (Figures 44 to 47~

The variation with speed of journal temperature excess over

supply and maximum bush surface temperature excess at constant load
is shown in Figures 49 to 52.

3) For a given load both the journal temperature rise and

maximum bush surface temperature rise are approximately
linear functions of speed.

The variation with load of maximum bush surface temperature

excess over supply is shown in Figures 53 to 56.

4) For a given speed:

a) For LID = 1.0 the maximum bush surface temperature

is roughly constant across the test load range
(Figures 53 and 54),

b) For LID = 0.5 the maximum bush surface temperature

increases with load (Figures 55 and 56).

The variation with load of journal temperature excess over

supply is shown in Figures 57 to 60.

5) For a given speed:

a) For LID = 1.0 (Figures 57 and 58), journal

temperature tends to fall with increasing load
(except at low speed).

57
 b) For LID = 0.5 (Figures 59 and 60), journal
temperature tends to increase with increasing load.

The variation of journal temperature excess over supply as

a proportion of maximum bush surface temperature excess over supply
is shown in Figure 61 as a function of load.

6) Journal temperature excess varies from about 50% to

about 85% of the maximum bush surface temperature
excess.

7) Comparison of Figures 48 and 61 shows that speed is

more influential than load in determining the
relationship between maximum bush surface temperature
and journal temperature.

Drain Temperature

The variation of drain temperature with load is shown in

Fig~res 62 to 65.

1) For a given speed:

a) For LID = 1.0 (Figures 62 and 6~) drain temperature

falls with increasing load (except at low speed).

b) For LID = 0.5 (Figures 64 and 65) drain temperature

rises with increasing load, except at high speed
where it shows an initial fall as the load is
increased from the lowest test load (1.43 kN).

Energy Balance

Figure 66 shows heat conduction across the bush wall as a

proportion of power loss vs. Pee let number. Where symbols are
clustered then they relate to the abscissa indicated by a vertical

58
dotted line passing through the cluster. It is noted that:

1) Bush conduction is an important cooling influence at

low Peclet number.

2) When scatter of the experimental results is taken into

consideration bush conduction accounts for between
about 15% and about 75% of bearing cooling, dependent
primarily upon Peclet number.

Figures 67 and 68 show bush conduction as a proportion of

power loss vs. load.

3) At low speed there is a great reduction in the

conduction fraction with increasing load.

4) At high speed the conduction fraction is roughly

constant.

A feature of Figure 66 is the high degree of scatter in the

values of bush heat conduction at low speeds (the low Peclet number
end. of the relevant C /0 test range). It has already been
d
noted (Section 5.2) that at low levels of dissipation the
temperature differences across the bush wall are slight, and the
possible error in calculating temperature gradients correspondingly
large. The high error which may be involved is particularly
apparent at low Peclet numbers, where the indicated heat conduction
through the bush wall may exceed by more than 30% the measured
power loss (Figure 67).
Figures 69 and 70 show the energy balance as a function of
load, for two different speeds.
Figure 71 shows heat convection by the lubricant as a
proportion of power loss vs. Peclet number.

5) Measured convection accounts for between about 30% and

about 75% of the bearing cooling dependent upon Peclet
number, and to a secondary degree upon load (Figure
71 ) •

59
 6) At low speed, the effect of increasing the load is to
increase the cooling influence of convection (Figure
71 ) •

A feature of Figure 71 is the near constancy of the

convection fraction for the shorter (LID = 0.5) bearing.
Conduction decreases with increasing Peclet number for LID = 0.5,
and the near constancy of the journal conduction fraction for a
given C 10 (Figure 72) implies that convection should
d
increase. In fact, the actual convected power did increase, but
the proportion of power loss which it represented did not do so
significantly. This anomaly is discussed later (Section 6.3).
Figure 72 shows as a ,function of Peclet number the
proportion of the power loss which is conducted along the journal.
Information regarding the journal conduction was only available for
the shorter bearing (LID = 0.5), so Figure 72 relates only to this.

7) The importance of the journal as a cooling path appears

to be primarily dependent upon the clearance ratio.
Thus for LID = 0.5:

a) For C 10 = 0.002, journal conduction accounts

d
for about 4% of the bearing cooling.

b) For C 10 = 0.001, journal conduction accounts

d
for about 10% of the bearing cooling.

6.3 Discussion of Bearing Temperature Distribution and the

Energy Balance

This section contains a preliminary uiscussion of .the

results relating to bearing temperature distribution, and to the
energy balance. The ideas introduced here are developed in the
later General Discussion (Section 7.1).

60
 Bush Temperature Distribution

At high spee~, for the longer test bearing (LID = 1.0, see
Figures 17 and 23) the temperatures in the loaded half of the bush
decrease slightly when the load is increased from the lowest test
load; the temperatures in the unloaded half decrease markedly.
For the shorter bearing (LID = 0.5, see Figures 20 and 26) the
effect of an increase in load is to reduce the temperatures in the
unloaded bearing half and to increase those in the loaded bearing
half. The explanation is probably that for a long bearing the
eccentricity ratio is less for a given load than is the case with a
shorter bearing. The side-leakage flow is smaller, and without the
cooling effect of a significant side-leakage the longer bearing
will tend to run hot. For the loaded half, as the test load is
increased from the lowest value (1.43kN in these tests), the
eccentricity change per unit load increment is comparatively large
and the cooling effect of side-leakage becomes more significant.
At the same time the change in power loss is slight, hence the
bearing operating temperature level is reduced. As load is again
increased, the film stiffness increases, and temperatures in the
loaded half of the bush will again tend to rise. Whether or not
the. high load maximum temperature exceeds the low load maximum
temperature depends upon the precise operating conditions. For the
unloaded bearing half, as the eccentrici~y ratio approaches unity
so the film thickness in this region will increase, thereby
reducing velocity gr~dients through the film thickness. This will
lead to a reduction in the ratio of power loss to flowrate and
there will be a consequent decrease in temperature. A similar
effect has been observed by Gethin (59).
For the shorter test bearing the eccentricitY'ratio will be
greater for a given load, speed and clearance ratio than would be
the case for the longer bearing. The cooling effects of
side-leakage are therefore already quite significant, and the
effect of an increase in load is to increase the loaded film
temperature. Temperatures in the unloaded bearing half will be
reduced in the same way as in the longer bearing.
There is little evidence of significant axial temperature
variation in the bush except in the region downstream of the

61
downstream groove. This probably reflects the fact that fresh
lubricant flow here does not experience an adverse pressure
gradient, hence more lubricant may enter the film than does so at
I
the upstream groove, providing a more significant cooling influence
than does fresh lubricant entering the film there. Also, because
there is no side-leakage from the unloaded film, any lubricant
entering the bearing at the downstream groove will be carried over
to the upstream groove. This will lead to a proportional reduction
in flowrate at the upstream groove as the load is increased.
Figure 22 shows the temperature immediately downstream of
the grooves to be lower than the groove temperature. This is to be
expected because the groove temperatures are actual lubricant
temperatures, while the downstream temperatures are of the bearing
metal some distance from the whitemetal surface. The lubricant
supply to the grooves was via a gallery machined in the inside
surface of the bearing holder. A temperature rise (up to about
10 K) was experienced by the lubricant as it passed through the
yoke and bearing holder, and there was a noticeable difference
between the two groove inlet hole lubricant temperatures. This
temperature difference varied up to about 8 K, and is probably
associated with the likely difference between the individual groove
flowrates.

Mean Inlet Groove Temperaeure, Journal Temperature,

Maximum Bush Surface Temperature and Drain Temperature

The individual oil flowrates at the two grooves were not

known, but it was nonetheless desirable to assign an inlet groove
temperature to the oil passing through the bearing. It seemed
reasonable that the mean inlet groove lubricant temperature would
characterise the flow better than would a single groove
temperature, so this was calculated.
In many of the test cases maximum bush surface
temperature, journal temperature, drain temperature and mean inlet
groove temperature show a fall when the load is increased from the
lowest test value. For LID = 1.0, the fall is continued, while for
LID = 0.5, the trend is reversed. This effect is due to the
relationship between film stiffness and side-leakage discussed

62
earlier (Section 6.3, Bush Temperature Distribution).
Figures 44 to 47 show the mean inlet groove oil
temp,erature variation to follow the journal temperature variation.
A fall in journal temperature is associated with a fall in mean
groove temperature and this suggests that the groove temperature
and journal temperature are connected in some way. A graph was
plotted showing as a function of Peclet number the mean inlet
groove oil temperature excess over supply as a proportion of
journal temperature excess over supply (Figure 73), and it is clear
that this temperature ratio is a function of the Peclet number. At
high Peclet number the fraction approaches zero, i.e. the mean
groove temperature excess reduces with respect to the journal
temperature excess. The length to diameter ratio of the bearing is
also an important factor, and it appears that a family of curves
might be constructed for different LID ratios. Alternatively, some
modified Peclet number might be calculated, and correlation based
on this. The results displayed in Figure 73 suggest that heat
transfer between the journal and oil in the supply grooves is a
significant effect at low Peclet number, while at high Peclet
number, as would be expected, it becomes less significant.

Enerqy Balance

A prime aim of the experimentaf work was the construction

of an energy balance for the bearing. Convection, and bush and
journal conduction were calculated and plotted as functions of
Peclet number and load. The journal conduction fraction appears to
be dependent primarily upon the clearance ratio (Figure 72). This
observation is based on very limited information however. Only two
thermocouple readings were used to calculate the axial temperature
gradient in the journal, and results were only obtainable for the
shorter bearing. The possible error in evaluating the axial
temperature gradients is large, possibly as high as +1- 100%,
because of the small temperature differences measured.
Furthermore, the thermocouples were sufficiently near the bush
surface for convective cooling of that thermocouple outboard of the
bearing (thermocouple 104, Figure 6) to be an important factor.
Thus the temperature variation through a journal section might be

63
expected to befairly slight inboard of the bearing and large
outboard of it. Heat conduction values are therefore almost
certainly an upper bound, although the likely error cannot be
I
estimated without further investigation. In practice, the relative
importance of journal conduction as a cooling influence would be
dependent upon the type of machine of which the journal was a part.
Thus there might be an influx of heat to the film if the bearing
was for example part of a steam turbine assembly.
Bush conduction appears to be primarily a function of
Peclet number (Figure 66), but at low speed is also a function of
load (Figures 67 and 68). At the low speed end of the relevant
clearance ratio test range there is large scatter of the
conduction/dissipation values (Figure 66). This is both a result
of the large errors which may be involved in evaluating the
conduction term and the fact that at low speed the bush conduction
fraction is very much dependent upon load. At high speed (say
3500 r.p.m. and 8000 r.p.m. for clearance ratios of 0.001 and 0.002
respectively), the proportional conduction values are roughly
constant across the load range and conduction appears to be more
directly a function of Peclet number. This suggests that a
modified definition of the Peclet number might be more relevant -
for.example the minimum film thickness might be incorporated. A
suitable modified Peclet number has, however, not been identified.
In view of the near-constanc~ of the journal conduction
fraction, and the dependence of the bush conduction fraction upon
Peclet number, it is inevitable that convection be dependent upon
Peclet number. For L/D = 1.0 the convection does complement the
conduction, but for L/D = 0.5 the convection fraction appears not
to vary systematically with Peclet number (Figure 71). For L/D =
0.5 the actual quantity of energy convected did increase with
increasing Peclet number and to a lesser degree load, yet the
proportional effect was negligible. The thermocouples used to
monitor drain temperature were positioned so as to lie in the
stream of oil leaving the bearing and were permanently fixed as-far
inside the bearing holder as was practical. Hence the distance
travelled by the draining lubricant was greater for the shorter
bearing than for the longer. There was thus the opportunity for
cooling of the lubricant before its temperature was measured, and

64
this effect would be more significant for LID = 0.5 than for LID =
1.0. The surface temperature of the yoke arrangement was not
measured, so rio estimate of radiative heat transfer can be made.
I
It is therefore impossible to try further to balance the dissipated
energy against convected and conducted heat for LID = 0.5.
Energy balance calculations for any particular test
involved considerable manipulation of the experimental results.
The high possible error in calculating the bush conduction at low
speeds and the cooling of the drain lubricant before its
temperature was measured make precise agreement between the power
loss and the accounted for heat transfers unlikely. In general,
the accounted for heat transfers agreed with the measured power
loss to within +1- 30%. The tendency was for the summated heat
transfers to exceed power loss at low speed, and to fall short at
high speed. At low speeds the uncertainty in conduction terms is
large. However, because of the generally low power loss levels,
the effect of proportionally large conduction errors upon actual
film conditions might be supposed to be small. At high speed the
shortfall in the accounted for heat transfers is probably
attributable to error in the convection term. This is because the
overall temperature variation is large, and the opportunity for
cooling of drain lubricant is similarly large.
Convection was based upon yoke supply temperature rather
than individual groove inlet hole temperatures which might more
properly have been used. It has already been mentioned that there
was a rise in the temperature of the lubricant as it passed through
the yoke and supply galleries (Bush Temperature Distribution,
above), and that there was also a difference between each groove
inlet hole oil temperature. However, as the individual groove oil
f10wrates were not known it was not possible to evaluate convection
exactly. Basing the lubricant temperature rise upon the yoke
supply temperature does mean that the calculated convection is
directly comparable with other published data where groove inlet
hole temperatures are not available.
The temperature rise experienced by the lubricant passing
through the yoke indicated that heat conducted across the bush
walls was being returned to the bearing by the lubricant. The heat
transfer associated with the temperature rise of the lubricant as

65
it passed through the supply galleries was calculated from
consideration of the mean groove inlet hole temperature rise and
the total flowrate, and because of the temperature difference
between the oil in the two inlet holes is of uncertain accuracy.
This heat transfer varied from about 10% to about 50% of the
indicated heat conduction across the bush wall. The proportional
effect was greatest for the large clearance ratio cases,
particularly for high speed tests. The bush conduction was
re-calculated, leading to a reduced bush conduction fraction which
is plotted as a function of Peclet number in Figure 74. At high
values of Peclet number, bush conduction now appears to account for
about 10% of film cooling, while at the low Peclet number end it
accounts for about 60% of the film cooling. It is interesting to
note that whereas Figure 66 shows the indicated bush conduction to
exceed the total power loss at low speeds, all the bush conduction
fractions plotted are now less than unity.

6.4 Performance Predictions

Typical results from the ESOU 84031 design procedure, and

from the full numerical model are introduced below. These
performance predictions are compared with experimental cases for
the full load range, and in general for the following speeds:

For C /0 = 0.001 : 1000 r.p.m., 2000 r.p.m., 3500 r.p.m ••

d

For C /0 = 0.002 : 2000 r.p.m., 4000 r.p.m., 8000 r.p.m ••

d

m x = 1.0,
Results from the full numerical model are for V i
i.e. full recirculation of lubricant at the inlets. Power loss and
maximum bush surface temperature computed using experimental
boundary conditions are also presented.
Individual performance characteristics are examined
separately.

Flowrate

The variation of flowrate as indicated by the full

66
numerical model and by the ESDU procedure is shown in Figures 75 to
78. Experimental flowrates are also shown.
Figures 79 to 84 show flowrate vs. load for specific
speeds, and for two different feed pressures. Feed pressure tests
were onlycarried out on the shorter (LID = 0.5) bearing.
Experimental, ESDU-predicted and full-model-predicted flowrates are
plotted. The graphs show the ESDU total flowrate predictions
(0 + Q) and the separately plotted velocity induced
v P The full numerical model results are
flowrate terms (0).
v
based on the assumption of zero feed pressure.
It is noted that there is generally poor agreement between
experimental flowrates and those predicted using the full model and
the ESDU procedure.
Figures 85 to 88 show as a function of load the flowrate
predicted by the ESDU procedure as a proportion of the experimental
flowrate. The main features of these graphs are:

1) For C ID = 0.002 ESDU-predicted flowrates are

d
proportionally in greater error than for C ID =
d
0.001 (Figures 85 and 87, Figures 86 and 88 ).

2) For LID = 1.0 the discrepancy between ESDU-predicted

and experimental flowrates increases with increasing
load while for LID = 0.5 the" error is roughly constant.

3) Except for LID = 1.0, Cd/D = 0.002 (Figure

85), there is no significant influence of speed upon
this flowrate discrepancy.

Power Loss

The variation of experimental and ESDU-predicted power loss

with speed is shown in Figures 89 to 92.
The variation with load of experimental power loss-and
power loss predictions from the ESDU procedure and the full
numerical model is shown in Figures 93 to 96. Computed results
based upon the experimental boundary conditions are also plotted.

67
 The main features of these graphs are:

1) ESDU-predicted power losses are lower than experimental

in all cases.

2) From Figures 93 to 96 the full-model-predicted power

losses are approximately equal to the ESDU-predicted
power losses.

3) From Figures 89 to 92, discrepancies between

experimental power losses and ESDU predictions are
greater for C /D = 0.001 than for C /D =
d d
0.002.

4) For a given speed, the ESDU-predicted range of power

loss is greater than experimental for L/D = 1 .0
(Figures 89 and 90), and of the same order as the
experimental range for L/D = 0.5 (Figures 91 and 92) •

5) with experimental boundary conditions supplied the

computed power loss is closer to the experimental than
the ESDU or full numerical model predictions (Figures
93 to 96).

Maximum Bush Surface Temperature and Journal Temperature

The variation with load of experimental maximum bush

surface temperature excess over supply is shown in Figures 97 to
100 together with predictions from the ESDU procedure and the full
numerical model. Computed results based upon the experimental
boundary conditions are also plotted.

1) For all low speed cases the ESDU procedure leads to

too high a prediction of maximum bush surf-ace
temperature. At the high speed end of the relevant
speed range:

a) For C /D = 0.002 ESDU predictions are too low.

d

68
 b) For C 10 = 0.001 ESDU predictions are too high.
d

2) Maximum bush surface temperature as predicted using

the f~ll numerical model agrees reasonably well with
maximum temperature predicted using the ESOU procedure
across the full speed range for C 10 = 0.001. For
d
C 10
d
= 0.002 the temperatures from the full
numerical model approach experimental at high speed
and approach ESOU predictions at low speed.

3) There is reasonable agreement between experimental

maximum bush surface temperature and that computed
using experimental boundary conditions except for the
bearing L/o = 1.0, C ID = 0.002 operating at high
d
speed (Figure 97).

The variation with load of experimental journal temperature

excess over supply and journal temperature excess as predicted
using the full numerical model is shown in Figures 101 to 104.

4) Predicted journal temperature variation with load

follows the same trend as experimental.

The variation of full-model-predicted journal temperature

excess over supply as a proportion of the same experimental
quantity is shown as a function of Peclet number in Figure 105.

5) For a given C 10, the discrepancy between

d
experimental journal temperature and that predicted
using the full numerical model decreases with
increasing speed.

Drain Temperature

The variation with load of experimental drain temperature

excess over supply and that predicted using the ESOU procedure and
the full numerical model is shown in Figures 106 to 109.

69
 1) a) For C 10 = 0.002 the ESOU predictions are
d
generally in fair agreement with experimental
results. (Figures 106 and 108)

b) For C 10 = 0.001 the ESOU predictions are too

d
high. (Figures 107 and 109)

2) Results from the full numerical model show fair

agreement with those from the ESOU procedure.

6.5 Preliminary Discussion of Results from the ESOU 84031

Design Procedure and from the Full Numerical Model

Experimental results were compared with computed results

and with results from a constant viscosity design procedure (ESDU.
item 84031). Both the full numerical model and the ESDU design
procedure were based on the assumption that the bearing film can be
considered to experience globally adiabatic conditions. These
results are discussed below. Results from the numerical model
incorporating experimental boundary conditions are also discussed.

Flowrate

The most striking feature of the ESOU 84031 flowrate

predictions is the lack of agreement shown with the experimental
results. For all cases except that of the shorter (LID = 0.5)
bearing operating with a clearance ratio of 0.001 (Figure
88) the ESDU procedure leads to a prediction of flowrate which
exceeds by about 50% the experimental flowrate. The proportional
discrepancy increases with increasing load for LID = 1.0, and
remains approximately constant for LID = 0.5.
Now the ESDU procedure provides a prediction of flowrate on
the basis of two component flowrates; a velocity-induced flow
term Q, and a pressure-induced flow term Q. The total
v p
bearing flow is taken as the sum of these two. The
velocity-induced flow is simply the flow pulled into the film at

70
the inlet groove by virtue of the journal's movement. This depends
upon the axial length of the bearipg groove, and is expressed as a
proportion of' the idealised side-leakage flow Q. Thus if the
I s
length of the groove is 80% of the bearing length then Q =
v
0.8 Q. The Q term is derived from potential flow
models s and is ba~ed upon the viscosity of the lubricant at the
supply temperature. However the present investigation has
demonstrated that the lubricant entering the bearing grooves is at
a temperature higher than the supply temperature. This suggests
that the Q term ought to be based upon the groove inlet hole
p
temperature, in which case the Q term would be larger than it
p
is currently indicated to be.
The possibility of thermal expansion of the bearing solids
being responsible for the observed discrepancies was considered. A
reduced clearance would affect the Q term slightly (Q« h)
v 3 v
but would have a significant effect upon Q (Q« h). There
p p
appears to be little or no speed influence upon the flowrate
discrepancy, and because general temperature levels are determined
by speed, thermal expansion seems an unlikely explanation. Also,
one could argue that the effects of thermal expansion would be in
any case indirectly incorporated in the ESDU procedure because
thermal expansion effects could reasonably be present in the
experimental data used for validation of the design procedure.
Nonetheless, the ESDU 84031 procedure wAs used to predict flowrate
on the basis of diametral clearances reduced to 90% and 95% of the
nominal clearance ratios 0.001 and 0.002 respectively. These
correspond to a temperature d~fference of about 10 K between the
journal and mean bush surface temperature, assuming the journal to
be the hotter component, and assuming free thermal expansion.
The effects of these reduced diametral clearances on
flowrate are shown in Figures 110 and 111, for LID = 1.0. While
the predicted flowrates are reduced, they are still generally in
excess of the experimental values. Examination of cases where the
Q term is small (for example Figure 81, where the - Q
t~rm alone is greater than the actual total flowrate which exist~
for a feed pressure of 1 bar) still shows a discrepancy, thus some
error must be present in the Q term. There is very little
v
evidence of good agreement between predicted and actual flowrates

71
(15) and this suggests a deficiency in the present approach. The
ESDU procedure is based on constant viscosity analysis and the
variation of 'viscosity through the film thickness is not therefore
I
considered - except in the sense in which it arises in the
experimental data used for the validation of the procedure.
Constant viscosity across the film implies a linear velocity
profile wnerever ap/ax equals zero. In fact there will be
variation of viscosity across the film, and the velocity profile
will not be linear. If the journal temperature T lies
jnl
between the maximum bush surface temperature T and the
max
minimum T , and if we consider the film inlet region (where
min
3p/ax is generally small) then compared with the constant viscosity
case there will exist a 'reduced' flowrate thus:

Bush
T
bush

. '",- Const~nt viscosity

~__~~ "'~ veloc~ty_p'rofile

Journal

In the breakdown region (where a p/ax equals zero) there will exist
an 'increased' flowrate, thus:

72
 Bush

Constant viscosity
__ velocity' profile
~--------~~~

--------~.. U
Journal

Hence the flow in the cavitated region will be

side-leakage flow will be reduced.
.
For a
augmented,
given load there will be
and the

a reduction in pressure generation over the isoviscous case, with

the result that the bearing will operate with a greater
eccentricity ratio than predicted using constant viscosity theory.
Experimental flowrate information tallies with this explanation.
The full numerical model was formulated for two line inlets
at ninety degrees to the load line. Thus the only flow term
considered was the idealised side-leakage flow Q. At low
s
feed pressures this will approach ESDU predictions, but at high
feed pressures comparison of full numerical model predictions with
ESDU predictions is not really meaningful.

Power Loss

. The ESDU procedure leads to predicted power losses which

73
are lower than experimental in all cases. Power loss and f10wrate
are intimately connected, thus the following may be an explanation.
The 'ratio of ESDU-predicted f10wrate to experimental
I

f10wrate generally increases with load for LID = 1.0 (Figures 85

and 86). This implies a variation in predicted power loss greater
than experimental, and this is observed (Figures 89 and 90). The
ratio of the ESDU-predicted to the experimental f10wrate does not
vary greatly with load for LID = 0.5 (Figures 87 and 88). This
implies a smaller variation in predicted power loss than for LID =
1.0, and this is observed (Figures 91 and 92). Also, for C ID
d
= 0.002, ESOU predicted f10wrates are larger than experimenta1-
implying too large a predicted power loss. For C 10 = 0.001
d
predicted f10wrates represent a closer approximation to the
experimental data, thus these power loss levels should be generally
'lower'. This line of argument is consistent with the observations
regarding power loss variation with speed for different clearance
ratios (Figures 89 to 92), but does not explain why ESDU
predictions of power loss are an underestimate in all cases. It
appears that the procedure adopted in order to define an effective
film temperature dictates too high a temperature.
Full numerical model predictions show close agreement with
ESDU predictions, and this aspect of the results is discussed later
(Section 7.1).

Maximum Bush Surface Temperature and Orain Temperature

The ESDU predictions show the same forms of variation of

maximum temperature and drain temperature as are observed
experimentally, but the ESDU predictions show exaggerated trends.
Comparison of full numerical model predictions and ESDU predictions
shows a fair agreement.
It has been noted that for all low speed cases the ESDU
procedure leads to too high a prediction of the maximum bush
surface temperature, while at high speed, for C /D = 0~001
d
ESDU predictions are too high, and for C 10 = 0.002 ESDU
d
predictions are too low. The trends in drain temperature are
similar (Figures 106 to 109). For the high speed cases, for both
clearance ratios, these temperature discrepancies are consistent

74
with the flowrate discrepancies discussed earlier; for C 10 =
d
0.002 ESDU predictions of flowrate' are too high, while for
C 10 =
0.001, although ESDU predictions are still an
d,
overestimate, the error is smaller. At low speeds, a significant
removal of heat other than by convection would reduce the actual
maximum temperature - which tends to explain the over-predictions
from the globally adiabatic ESDU procedure. It is interesting
however to note that despite the overestimate of flowrate and
underestimate of power loss provided by ESDU item 84031 the
predicted drain temperature is higher than experimental for
C 10 = 0.001, LID = 1.0 (Figure 107).
d

Journal Temperature

The ESDU design procedure does not lead to a prediction of

journal temperature, so comparisons are of necessity between
experimental and full numerical model predictions.
It has been noted that the experimental journal temperature
tends to fall with increasing load for LID = 1.0, and after an
initial fall to rise for LID = 0.5. The same trends are predicted
using the full numerical model with V
mix
= 1.0, although these
are. more pronounced. At high speed, for LID = 1.0, the
eccentricity ratio is smaller for a given load than it is for LID =
0.5 and side-leakage is correspondingly·smaller. For LID = 1.0 the
effect of a small load increment is to increase the cooling of the
bearing by a comparatively large amount, while power 10.5s is only
slightly increased. Thus the journal temperature is reduced. Film
stiffness increases with increasing load, and the fall in the
journal temperature is reduced and may even be reversed so that at
high loads T increases again.
. 1
For t1D
= 0.5 the eccentricity ratio is greater for a given
load than is the case for LID = 1.0. Thus even at low loads
side-leakage is already important and the effect of a load
increment is generally to increase temperature levels.
The graph showing as a function of Peclet number the
predicted journal temperature excess over supply as a proportion of
actual journal temperature excess over supply (Figure 105)
indicates that for a given C 10 the discrepancy between
d

75
predicted and experimental journal temperatures falls with
increasing speed. The numerical model was formulated for globally
adiabatic (full convective cooling) conditions and it therefore
appears reasonable that the computed journal temperature should
approach the experimental value as speed is increased.

Results Based on Experimental Boundary Conditions

Power loss and maximum bush surface temperature were

computed using the full numerical model with experimental
temperatures and applied load supplied as boundary conditions.
These computed results are plotted in Figures 93 to 96 and 97 to
100 •
Computed power loss shows good agreement with experimental
power loss for C ID = 0.001 (Figures 94 and 96). For
d
C ID = 0.002 (Figures 93 and 95) the computed power losses
d to the experimental values than are the ESDU
are closer
predictions, but nonetheless tend to reflect these ESDU
predictions.
computed maximum bush temperature for C ID =
surface
d
0.001 (Figures 98 and 100) shows very good agreement with
experimental results, while for Cd/D = 0.002 (Figures 97 and
99) the ESDU predictions are again reflected.
These results tend to suggest that if an accurate
prediction of the bounding temperatures could be made, then maximum
bush surface temperature and power loss could be predicted
reasonably well. However, it is worth noting that where agreement
between numerical comparisons and experiment is good, for example
LID = 1.0, C ID = 0.001, (Figures 94 and 98), the difference
d
between maximum bush surface temperature and mean inlet groove
temperature is small (See Figure 45). For LID = 1.0, C ID =
d
0.002, the difference between inlet groove and maximum bush surface
temperatures is large (Figure 44). To some degree therefore the
overall operating temperature level is being supplied and the
slight temperature variations which are present with the smaller
clearance ratio cases may tend to 'force' agreement between
experimental and computed maximum temperatures.

76
 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 General Discussion

The tests carried out have demonstrated that large

temperature variations can exist around the bush of a journal
bearing, particularly at high speed and load. The axial
temperature variation in the bush is slight except in the region of
the downstream groove, where the effect of incoming lubricant is to
cool the bush nearer the centre-line.
An energy balance, constructed on the basis of measured
conducted and convected energies, has demonstrated that conduction
of heat across the bush wall is dependent upon the Peclet number.
Bush conduction is responsible for the removal of the bulk of the
dissipated power at low values of Peclet number, and it is also the
main cooling influence when low speed is combined with a low load _
conditions for which the flowrate through the bearing is small.
It is possible that the flow of oil to the
hydrostatic bearing films isolating the test bearing from the
loading arrangement (See Section 3.2) had a slight cooling.
influence upon the bearing. If this were the case then the
measured bush conduction values would be somewhat large. In any
future programme of tests it would be useful to try to assess the
magnitude of this effect by measuring the flowrate and temperature
rise of the lubricant passing through the hydrostatic bearing.
At high values of Peclet number most of the dissipated
power is carried away by the lubricant. In these tests at the
maximum Peclet number value of about 10, some 75% of the dissipated
power was removed in this way. The energy balance shows that even
if the return to the film by fresh oil of heat conducted across the
bush wall is considered, the bush still provides a significant
cooling influence at low Peclet number (Figure 74). When this
return of heat to the bearing is considered, convection may now
provide up to 90% of the bearing cooling at high Peclet number.
At low load and low speed the power loss is small; of the
order of 100 W at 1000 r.p.m. for the present test bearings. At
high speed and load the power loss is of the order of 1500 W
(C /D - 0.002 , 8000 r.p.m.). Thus the actual conducted power
d

77
at low speeds may be of the order of 100 W (if all the generated
heat is removed by conduction across the bush wall), and at high
speeds of the'order of 300 W (if 20% of the generated heat is
removed by bush conduction). Suppression of this heat conduction
to the bush would lead to an increase in outlet temperature of from
5 to 7 K for the low speed case, and from 2 to 3 K for the high
speed case. The neglect of heat conduction to the bush would
therefore have only a small effect upon an 'effective temperature'
calculated for these test bearings, and the effect upon the ESDU
prediction of power loss would be correspondingly slight.
The predictions from the full numerical model and the ESDU
84031 procedure show close agreement except in terms of flowrate,
but each shows only fair agreement with experiment. The physical
modelling of flowrate the full numerical model is deficient in
in
that the effects of a higher than ambient feed pressure are
neglected. So failure to predict flowrates accurately is not
therefore surprising, and for this reason good drain temperature
agreement cannot be expected. The similarity between the full
numerical model and ESDU results suggests either that the full
numerical model reflects very well the experimental data upon which
was based the ESDU procedure, or that it incorporates many of the
weaknesses of the ESDU approach. The results do show that an
effective viscosity approach can give equivalent results to a
numerical model in which viscosity varies around and along the
film. Both the ESDU approach and the full numerical model are
based on the assumption of full convective cooling of the bearing;
i.e., . these are globally adiabatic models. The full numerical
model permits heat transfer to and from the journal, which is at a
constant temperature. If the film experienced everywhere locally
adiabatic conditions, then in order to suppress the cross-film
temperature gradient at the journal surface, the journal surface
temperature would have to vary quite significantly around the
bearing. No appreciable temperature variation has been observed
experimentally (20). Dowson et al (20) did demonstrate that there
was a slight reduction in journal surface temperature in the region
of the inlet groove. This suggests that the journal supplies heat
to incoming feed oil. The present results show the mean inlet
groove temperature and the journal temperature to be connected

78
(Figures 44 to 47), and Figure 73 shows that as the Peclet number
increases so the mean inlet groove temperature is reduced with
respect to the journal temperature. This.observation suggests that
I
heat conduction between the journal and the lubricant may be
significant at low Peclet number.. , but that at high Peclet number',
where one would expect conduction to be less influential than
convection, it is not a significant heat transfer process.
The computer program was adapted so as to model a lubricant
film experiencing fully adiabatic conditions. Experimental inlet
groove lubricant temperatures and the load capacity were imposed as
boundary conditions, and computed results are introduced below.
These results are compared with those from the full model with the
same temperatures, load, and in addition the experimental journal
temperature imposed as boundary conditions. The effect of assuming
locally adiabatic conditions is to give a large temperature
variation around the journal, as is illustrated in Figure 112. The
effect of the adiabatic assumption upon maximum bush s.urface
temperature is shown in Figures 113 to 114, for LID = 1.0. At low
Peclet number (Figure 113) the effect of neglecting heat transfer
to and from the journal is to give higher maximum temperatures than
when heat transfer is considered. The temperatures calculated are
also greater than the experimental values. As the Peclet number
increases, so the discrepancy becomes smaller (Figure 114). It
appears therefore that the influence of neat conduction to and from
the journal has little influence upon film conditions at high
Peclet number, but that it does have an influence at low values of
Peclet number. At the same time, for the same range of Peclet
number, the power loss computed for adiabatic conditions shows only
a slight difference from that obtained when heat transfer to and
from the journal is permitted (Figures 115 and 116).
From Section 6.4 it appears that the existing ESDU 84031
design procedure, based on constant viscosity solutions, is
inadequate in the following respects:

1) The calculated effective temperature appears to be too

high, leading to too low a predicted power loss.

2) Predicted flowrates show poor agreement with actual

flowrates.

79
 If the ratio of ESDU-predicted power loss to experimental
power loss 1S plotted against Peclet number (Figure 117) it is
,
clear that the power loss discrepancy is dependent upon the Peclet
number. Physically, Peclet numberrelates to the relative
importance of convection to conduction as a heat transport process,
thus for high Peclet number conditions convection predominates over
conduction. Figure 117 suggests that at high Peclet number the
predicted power loss will approach the actual power loss, which
implies that this design procedure reflects high Peclet number
conditions. Now the expression for effective temperature used in
the ESDU 84031 procedure incorporates an expression to model the
Peclet number influence, but the procedure as a whole is based on
the assumption that convection provides full cooling. The
experimental results show that this is not the case for the test
range of Peclet number, but it has, however, already been
demonstrated that neglect of bush conduction would have only a
slight effect on the 'effective temperature' for these test
conditions. The test information upon which was based the ESDU
design procedure presented power loss as the product of mass flow
rate, specific heat capacity, and overall temperature rise, i.e.
the convection fraction. It was recognised that conduction would
playa role in film cooling, and power loss values were corrected
to incorporate this using estimates of the heat lost by
radiation. However, even at high values of Peclet number, an
estimate of power loss based upon a measured temperature rise is
likely to be less accurate than one based upon friction torque.
The experimental results from this investigation show that measured
convection is likely to be an underestimate of the true value. It
is possible that the performance predictions from the ESDU
procedure are sufficiently accurate for many purposes, but it is
nonetheless desirable to be able confidently to assign limits of
accuracy to predictions from any design procedure.
The ESDU procedure and the full numerical model diff&red
significantly in their degree of refinement, and the similarity of
the results from each tends to draw attention to the factor common
to each, i.e. the assumption of viscosity constant through the film

80
thickness. The prediction of lubricant flowrate has been seen to
be poor, and the discrepancies between prediction and experiment
can be connected with viscosity variation through the film
I
thickness (Section 6.5, Flowrate). One aim of adopting the
simplified THD approach used in this investigation was to provide a
reasonably detailed analysis of the film conditions without
recourse to a full numerical model incorporating heat transfer to
and from the bush. It appears that the effect on film conditions
of neglecting bush heat transfer may be far less important than the
effect of neglecting cross-film viscosity variations. Future
studies might therefore involve extending the model to incorporate
cross-film viscosity variation, while continuing to neglect heat
conduction to the bush.

7.2 Conclusions

1) The importance of heat conduction across the bush wall

as a heat transport process is a function of the Peclet
number, and

a) Conduction of heat across the bush walls is the

major cooling influence on the bearing film at low
Peclet number.

b) At high Peclet number the heat removed by bush

conduction is a small fraction of the total film
energy dissipation,and convection of heat by the
lubricant is the dominant heat transport process.

2) At low speed, the fraction of the dissipated power

conducted across the bush wall is significantly
influenced by load.

3) If actual experimental boundary conditions are imposed

on the solution to the numerical model, then:

a) At low Pee let number, the assumption of adiabatic

conditions leads to maximum bush surface

81
 temperatures higher than experimental. When heat
transfer to and from the journal is incorporated, a
good indication of the maximum temperature is
provided.

b) At high Peclet number, results from the full and

the adiabatic analyses show few differences.

4) The experimental evidence indicates the mean inlet

groove temperature and the journal temperature to be
linked by the Peclet number. The ratio of mean groove
temperature excess over supply to journal
temperature excess Qver supply falls as the Peclet
number increases. This observation, combined with 3)
above, suggests that heat conduction to and from the
journal becomes less important a heat transfer process
as the Peclet number increases.

5) Performance predictions from a constant viscosity

design procedure (ESDU item 84031) and the full
numerical model incorporating variation of viscosity
along and around the film show only small differences.

6) Predictions of lubricant flowrate show poor agreement

with experiment. The similarity between performance
predictions from the constant viscosity design
procedure and from the full numerical model draws
attention to their common assumption of viscosity
constant through the film thickness, and it appears
that the flowrate discrepancies are associated with
this.

7) In the present series of experiments, conduction of

heat along the journal provided a consistently small
proportion of the total film cooling. This cooling
fraction appeared to be dependent upon the clearance
ratio, and bush conduction and convection of heat by
the lubricant were therefore complementary cooling
influences. In general, the importance of heat
conduction along the journal would depend upon the
thermal state of the machine of which the bearing was a
part.
82
REFERENCES

1. Reynolds,O. 'On the theory of Lubrication and its

Application to Mr. Beauchamp Tower's
Experiments, Including an Experimental
study of the Viscosity of Olive Oil.'
Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc., 1886,177,Pt.1,
pp157-234.

2. Tower,B. 'First Report on Friction Experiments.'

Proc.I.Mech.E., 1883,pp632-659.

3. Fogg,A. 'Fluid Film Lubrication of Parallel

Thrust Surfaces.'
Proc.I.Mech.E., 1946,155,pp49-53.

4. Cope,W.F. 'The Hydrodynamical Theory of Film

Lubrication.'
Proc.Roy.Soc.A, 1949,197,pp201-217.

5. Christopherson,D.G. 'A New Mathematical Method for the

Solution of Film Lubrication Problems.'
Proc.I.Mech.E., 1941,146,pp126-135.

6. Zienkiewicz,O.C. 'Temperature Distribution Within

Lubricating Films Between Parallel
Bearing Surfaces, and its Effect on the
Pressures Developed.'
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear, 1957,I.Mech.E.,
pp135-141.

7. Hunter,W.B. 'Effect of Temperature Variations

Zienkiewizc,O.C. Across the Lubricant Films in the Theory
of Hydrodynamic Lubrication.'
Jnl.Mech.Eng.Sci., 1960,2,pp52-58.

8. Dowson,D. 'Thermo-hydrodynamic Analysis of the

Hudson,J.D. Infinite Slider-Bearing : Part 1 The
Plane-Inclined Slider-bearing.'
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear, 1963,I.Mech.E., 1964
pp33-44
9. Engineering 'E.S.D.U. Data item 66023 - Calculation
I Sciences Data Unit Methods for Steadily Loaded Journal
Bearings. '
Engineering Sciences Data Unit, Londonj
September 1966.

10. Lund,J.W. 'A Calculation Method and Data for the

Thomsen,K.K. Dynamic Coefficients of Oil Lubricated
Journal Bearings.'
Topics in Fluid Film Bearing and Rotor
Bearing System Design and Optimisation.
A.S.M.E. publication, 1978.

11. Seireg,A. 'Empirical Design Procedure for the

Dandage,S. Thermohydrodynamic Behaviour of Journal
Bearings. '
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1982,104,
pp135-148.

1 2 •. Hea th , H• H. 'MELBA: A Suite of Computer Programs for

Cowking,E.W. Analysis of Self-Acting Plain Bearings.'
G.E.C. Jnl.S~i.Tech.,45,No.2,pp83-90.

13. Dowson,D. 'The Prediction of Liquid Film Journal

Taylor,C.M. Bearing Performance with a Consideration
Miranda,A.A.S. of Lubricant Film Reformation. Part 1 :
Theoretical Results.'
Proc.I.Mech.E.,199,No.C2,pp95-102.

14. Engineering 'Engineering Sciences Data Item 84031 -

Sciences Data Unit Calculation Methods for Steadily Loaded
Axial Groove Hydrodynamic Journal
Bearings. '
Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London,
November 1984.
15. Hargreaves,D.J. 'An Experimental and Theoretical study
Taylor,C.M. of Lubricant Film Extent and Flowrate in
Grooved Rectangular Pad Slider Thrust
Bearings. '
Proc.I.Mech.E., 198C,No.16,pp225-233

16. Clayton,D. 'Temperature Distribution in the Bush of

Wilkie,M.J. a Journal Bearing.'
Engineering, 1948,166,pp49-52.

17. Cole,J.A. 'An Experimental Investigation of

Temperature Effects in Journal
Bearings. '
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear, 1957,Proc.I.Mech.E.,
pp111-117.

18. Woolacott,R.G. 'Hydrodynamic Journal Bearing

Performance at High Speed Under Steady
Load. '
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear, 1966,Proc.I.Mech.E.,
180,Pt.3k,pp76-89.

19. Christopherson,D.G. 'A Review of "Hydrodynamic Lubrication

with Particular Reference to the
Conference Papers.'
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear,London,1957,Proc.I.
Mech.E.,pp9-15.

20. Dowson,D. 'An Experimental Investigation of the

Hudson,J.D. Thermal Equilibrium of Steadily Loaded
Hunter,B. Journal Bearings.'
March,C.N. Proc.I.Mech.E.1966-67,181,Pt.3B,pp19-29,
Paper 3.
21. Ferron,J. 'A study of the Thermohydrodynamic
Frene,J. Performance of a Plain Journal Bearing
,
Boncompa~n,R. Comparison Between Theory and
Experiment. t
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech.,1983,105,
pp.422-428.

22. Mitsui,J. 'Thermohydrodynamic Analysis of Cooling

Hori,Y. Effect of Supply Oil in Circular Journal
Tanaka,M. Bearings. '
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech.,1983,105,
pp.414-421.

23. Tonnesen,J. 'Some Experiments on the Steady State

Hansen,P.K. Characteristics of a Cylindrical
Fluid-Film Bearing Considering Thermal
Effects. '
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1981,103,
pp.107-114.

24. Mitsui,J. 'A Study of the Lubricant Film

. Yamada,T. Characteristics of Journal Bearings.'

.
Bull.J.S.M.E., 1979,22,Pt.2,pp1491-1498 •

25. Raimondi,A.A. 'A Solution for the Finite Journal

Boyd,J. Bearing and its Application to Design; I,
II, III. '
Trans.A.S.L.E. 1958,1,pp159-209.

26. Pinkus,O. 'Adiabatic Solutions for Finite Journal

Bupara,S.S. Bearings. '
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech.,
1979,101, pp.492-496.

27. Stokes,M.J. 'A General Evaluation Method for the

Ettles,C.M.M. Diabatic Journal Bearing.'
Proc.Roy.Soc.A., 1974,336,pp307-325.
28. Dowson,D. 'A Thermohydrodynamic Analysis of
March,C.N. Journal Bearings.'
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear, Proc.I.Mech.E.,
1966-67,181,Pt.30,pp117-126.

29. McCallion,H. 'The Analysis of Thermal Effects in a

Yousif,F. Full Journal Bearing.'
Lloyd,T. Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech.,1978
pp578-587.

30. Woolacott,R.G. 'The Performance at High Speeds of

Complete Plain Journal Bearings with a
Single Hole Oil Inlet.'
N.E.L. Report No. 194,1965.

31. Boncompain,R. 'Thermohydrodynamic Analysis of Finite

Frene,J. Journal Bearings - Static and Dynamic
Characteristics.'
Proc.6th.Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology
1979,M.E.P.,1980,pp33-41.

32. 'Lund,J .W. 'An Approximate Analysis of the

Temperature Conditions in a Journal
Hansen,P.K. .
Bearing. Part 1: Theory.'
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1984,106,
pp.228-236.

33. Lund,J.W. 'An Approximate Analysis of the

Tonnesen,J. Temperature Conditions in a Journal
Bearing. Part 2: Application.'
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1984,106,
pp.237-245.

34. Safar,Z.S. 'Thermohydrodynamic Analysis of Laminar

Flow Journal Bearings.'
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1978,100,
pp510-512.
35. Yu,T. 'Partial Journal Bearing Performance in
Szeri,A.Z. the Laminar Regime.'
I

Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub. Tech., 1975,97,

pp94-100.

36. Safar,Z. 'Thermohydrodynamic Lubrication in

Szeri,A.Z. Laminar and Turbulent Regimes.'
Trans.A.S~M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1974,96,

pp48-57.

37. von Freudenreich,J. 'Some Recent Investigations into

Segmental Thrust Bearings.'
The Brown Boveri Rview, 1941,28,pp366-367.

38. de Guerin,D. 'Some Characteristics of Conventional

Hall,L.F. Tilting-Pad Thrust Bearings.'
Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear , 1957,I.Mech.E.,
pp142-146.

39. Hahn,E.J. 'Thermal Effects in Slider Bearings.'

Kettleborough,C.F. Proc.I.Mech.E., 1968-1969,183,Pt.1.,
pp631-645.

.
'Considerations of Flow Across a Bearing
40. Ettles,C.M.M.
Cameron,A. Groove. '
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jnl.Lub.Tech., 1968,90,
pp312-319.

41. Ettles,C. 'Solutions for Flow in a Bearing

Groove. '
Proc.I.Mech.E., 1967-68,182,Pt.3N,
pp120-131.

42. Ettles,C. 'Hot Oil Carry-Over in Thrust Bearings.'

Proc.I.Mech.E., 1968-69,184,Pt.3L,pp75-81.

43. Elwell,R.C. 'Thrust Bearing Temperature, Part 1.'

Machine Design, 1971,79,pp79-81.
44. Huffenus,J.P. 'Theoretical study of Heat Transfer in
Kha1etzky,D. Thrust Bearings of Hydraulic Machines.
Applications to the Cooling of the Oil
Film. '
Proc.6th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on
Tribo10gy, 1979, M.E.P., 1980,pp117-126.

45. Vohr,J.H. 'Prediction of Operating Temperature of

Thrust Bearings.'
Trans.A.S.M.E. Jn1.Lub.Tech., 1981,103,
pp.97-106.

46. Nea1,P.B. 'Heat Transfer in Pad Thrust Bearings.'

Proc.I.Mech.E., 1982,196,No.20.

47. E1we11,R.C. Discussion of (40)

48. Ha11,P.W. 'Thermohydrodynamic Analysis of the

Nea1,P.B. Finite Slider Pad - Adiabatic
Conditions.'
Int.Jn1.Mech.Sci., 197~,17,pp59-71.

49. Vo1gepoh1,G. 'contribution~ to the Study of Journal

Bearing Friction.'
V.D.I.ForschHft, 1937,8(386),pp1-28.

50. L10yd,T. 'Recent Developments in Fluid Film

McCa1lion,H. Lubrication Theory.'
Proc.I.Mech.E., 1967-68,182,Pt.3A, pp36-S0.

51. Nea1,P.B. 'The Off Boundary Condition in

Hydrodynamically Lubricated Convergent-
Divergent Slider Bearings.'
Int.Jn1.Mech.Sci., 1960,1,pp192-205.

52. Sma11ey,A.J. 'Steadily Loaded Journal Bearings - A

Lloyd,T. Comparison of Performance Predictions.'
Horsne11,T. Proc.Conf.Lub.Wear,I.Mech.E., 1966,
McCa11ion,H. pp133-144.
53. Dowson,D. 'The Prediction of Liquid Film Journal
Taylor, C.M. Bearing Performance with a Consideration
Miranda,A.A.S. of Lubricant Film Reformation. Part 2:
Experimental Results.'
proc.I.Mech.E.,199,No.C2,pp103-111.

54. Bickley,W.G. 'Formulae for Numerical Differentiation.'

Math.Gazette, 1941,25,pp19-27.

55. Zienkiewicz,O.C. 'The Finite Element Method.'

McGraw Hill, 1977, 3rd.Edition.

56. Jakobsson,B. 'The Finite Journal Bearing Considering

Floberg,L. Vaporization. '
Rept.No.3 from the Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1957,
Trans.Chalms.Univ.Tech.No.190.

57. Neal,P.B. Private Communication.

58. Woodman,J. 'The Mechanical and Physical Properties

Mottram,R.A. of the Brit~sh Standard EN Steels.'
Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford, 1st Edition.

59. Gethin,D.T. 'An Investigation into Plain Journal

Bearing Behaviour Including Thermo-
elastic Deformation of the Bush.'
Proc.I.Mech.E.,199,No.C3,pp215-223.
TEST MACHINE PLATE 1

TEST MACHINE PLATE 2

TEST MACHINE PLATE 3
(Note thermocouple connector boxes ,
arrowed)

TEST MACHINE PLATE 4

(Not e parallelogram linkage for
application of load)
YOKE, BEARING HOLDER AND TEST BEARING PLATE 5

CLOSE-UP OF TEST BEARING WHEN MOUNTED PLATE 6

TEST BEARING (LID = 0.5) MOUNTED IN PLATE 7
THE BEARING HOLDER
( Note the 'O'-ring, arrowed)

TEST BEARING (LID = 1.0) PLATE 8

(Not e the groove static pressure tapping ,
arrowed )
TEST BEARING (LID = 1 . 0 ) PLATE 9
( Note the thermocouple ' D' -connectors )

DETAIL OF BEARING GROOVE PLATE 1 0

( Note the groove and inlet hole
thermocouples , arrowed )
h= C (1 +E:Cos8 )
r

upstream downstream
groove groove

Centre-line
pressure
profile

I
f
w

CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM - FIGURE 1

 Calculate"fi1.m
shape for singl~ ~__~Calculate" tempera-
inlet on line of ure distribution
cent e

Calculate power
loss & convection

Calculate viscosit o
distribution

Calculate new up- Calculate attitude

stream groove film angle and re-locate
inlet temperature inlet. grooves at
+ _9U c to load lin"e

Calculate pressure~__+-__~~~~
distribution

YES
Write out results

Calculate viscosiW Calculate new up-

distribution stream groove film ~---~
inlet temperature

Calculate net heat

transfer to journal Calculate net heat
change journal transfer to journa
temperature if nec. change journal
temperature if nec.

Calculate tempera-
ture distribution

~ __________________~~----------------iCalculate viscosit
distribution

FLOW CHART SHOWING COMPUTER PROCEDURE FIGURE 2

;

I 1------

~-----------------------------~

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE TEST MACHINE - FIGURE 3

 HIGH PRESSURE SIDE LOW PRESSURE SIDE

Variable delivery pump Gear pump

Tank

res sure relief valve

Solenoid unloadinq line
operated
spool valve Pressure
gauge

Feed to hydraulic Pressure

cylinder gauge

Feed to Feed to test bearing

hydrostatic
bearing
films

Feed to support bearings

Gommon drain to tank

OIL SUPPLY TO TEST MACHINE - FIGURE 4

 --~

thermocou Ie locations

upstream downstream
groove inlet hole + groove inlet hole

" Di::~ction of
~tation

Minimum film
thickness region

View on A - A

indicate depth of thermocoup'les in bush

--.--
I
I O.3L
I
Axial i
Array 1 _-1-
groove thermo-
couple line
L
groove inlet hole
Axial
Array 2 thermocou Ie line
-
I II II I I I I, I !! !! !!!
,'I I, , I ,I
I I
I II I

I
A
I I 11 A

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSH THERMOCOUPLES FIGURE 5

 /

'f,
Journal

15 15

p:
A 15

• (I) •

-tT'
,T71 08

1~6 dia. hole

107
-t- - -~~'~",~~I------1{cr'
J 103
Detail of MS Screw • (1)107 1'1l)3 1 ( )

104 I -EI1-1 06
105

A Sectional view on A-A

I-
Journal thermocouples are numbered 101 to 108 .
All dimensions in rom

JOURNAL THERMOCOUPLE ARRANGEMENT - FIGURE 6

 Copper/cons~~ntan ~eads ~~2er/coP2~r leads

I I IEEE interface bus J J

Bush th
ermocou~le L -I I r:~ IL--_~
Printer
- ~----~--~t-~r--------===::J
\. I ~
, I ~
To other ~..l I ::l
thermocouples \ ..c:
\ i ~ U
~ J. ~ ~ i\.-
I I ..1 ..1 ~ IJi'-
\ I
~
00 I

''--ll I Output L
" .3 \.l
L_J from
switch H J
u \.l x ... 't ,
~
Q) 0 0
~.Q \. ~0 unl. S Desk top co mputer
~
o u
Q) ,
Z
U ~ th ....
,-------, ~
.___-r--, 1---rV I ~ To 0 er v 'r-i

~
"7'l

~t-- -I-t/j
l/:: '0 8
-
connector /1
boxes ~.s::
§

~~
~4V\7~ ~ ~~ ~"
Reference junction 100 gain Digital
in ice-water bath amplifier voltmeter

SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF DATA-LOGGING SYSTEM - FIGURE 7

: I

9.5

---+--++-~* ----

~r-

~~
I

~ -11
~r
2
1/
II O.4L II
-~! + !~- --
L
1--11 - ~
-
Ir- +.-- 8
1/
O.4L II
II II
~L_
U
I
~,

-~
•

Dimensions in rom

ARRANGEMENT OF TEST BEARING GROOVES - FIGURE 8

 LID = 1.0; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 3500 r.p.m.; W = 9.43 kN

Journal temperature = 73.2 0c _

Upstream._ __
groove Downstream
groove

Minimum film
thickness region
75

Temperatures in °c

Isotherms constructed from temperatures at axial

array 1 (See Figure 5)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 9

 LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 3500 r.p.m.; W = 9.43 kN

Journal temperature = 71.5 °c

Upstream --____ Downstream

groove groove

Minimum film thickness

region

Temperatures in °c

Isotherms constructed from temperatures at axial

array 1 (See Figure 5)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 10

 LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 3500 r.p.m.; W = 5.43 kN

Journal temperature = 69.6 o c_

Upstream _ __
_ __ Downstream
groove groove

.1 \ Direction of
~tion

6~364~~
Minimum film
68 69 thickness region

Temperatures in °c

Isotherms constructed from temperatures at axial

array 1 (See Figure 5)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 11

 LID = 1.0; Cd/D = 0.002
N = 8000 r.p.m.; W = 9.43 kN

Journal temperature = 82.3 0c

upstream Downstream
groove groove

. 0
Temperatures 1n C
Isotherms constructed from temperatures at axial
array 1 (See Figure 5)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 12

 LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.002
N = 8000 r.p.m.; W = 9.43 kN

Journal temperature = 80.0 °c

64

Upstream Downstream
groove groove

Minimum film
75 thickness region

Temperatures in o C
Isotherms constructed from temperatures at axial
array 1 (See Figure 5)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 13

 40
L/D = 1.0; Cd/D = 0.002
N = 1000 r.p.m.
Applied Load kN
1.43 0
3.43 0
5.43 v
7.43 ~

9.43 0
30
IiII::

cv
Sol
:l
+J

"'
Sol
cv
0..
El
cv
+J

>t
~
0.. 20
0..
:l cv
U) >
cv 0
0
Sol >
cv 0 Sol
tTl
>
0
0
Sol
t7l El
U)
U)
cv
El "'
cv
1-1
0
X
cv
"'
cv
J..I
+J
+J
U)
s::
U) ~
cv 0.. 0
1-1 ::> 0
:l
+J 10
"'cv
1-1
0..
El
cv
~

•I
~
•I
~

i
I

~~
I
J 0 90
I ~e-;
180
I

270
; e 8
I
360
Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),

2.5 rnrn from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves

BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION-WITH LOAD - FIGURE 14

 40
LID = 1.0; Cd/D = 0.002
N = 2000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1 .43 0
3.43 0
5.43 V
7.43 A
9.43 0
30
::.::

Q)
H
::s
~
1\3
H
Q)
a.
eQ)
~

:>t
,.....j
a. 20
a. Q)
::s >
00
Q) 0
H > 0
Q) 0 H
tI'l
>
0
0
H
/jI e1\3
III <:' Q)
.00
Q) ia H
0 Q) +J
H 00
X c:
Q) ~
00 ~
Q) a. 0
H 0 Q
::s I
~
1\3 10 I
• •
.
H
Q)
a. •• •
eQ)
E-I If
,
I ~MI
• ~

o~------------------------------~--------~
180 270 360
o 90
Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees
Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5~
2.5 rom from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 15
 40
LID = 1.0; Cd/D = 0.002
N = 4000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1 .43 0
3.43 0
5.43 v
7.43 A
9.43 0
30
Q)
:>
~ Q) 0
:> 0
0 1-1
Q) 0 C'l
1-1
1-1
~ C'l e
It!
+J
It! e
It!
Q)
I 1-1
1-1
Q) Q) I+J

I~
0. 1-1
eQ) +J
{Jl
+J 0.
::> Ig
>t
..-t
0.
20
0. I
~
(Jl

1-1
•
,

Q)
:>
0
fIl
(Jl
Q)
• • •I
t>
>< I
• •I
I•
Q)

Q)
I
1-1
~
10 •
+J
It!
1-1
Q)
•
0.
e
Q)
E-t

o~------------------------------~--------~
o 90 180 270 360
Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees
Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 rom from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 16
 40r---------~r---------~-----------------------

•
30 I
;:;:;
I
Q)
•
1-4
:3
.j..I
ItS
1-4
Q)
a.
e
Q)
.j..I

>t • •
~
r-f
a.
a.
:3
en
1-1
20
•
Q)
> • •
I• I•
0
en
en
oQ) eItS

• •
()
><
Q)
eItS Q)
1-4
.j..IQ)
Q) a>
1-4 > en >
Q)
1-1 .j..IO s::0
en 0 ~ 0
:3 01-4
.j..I 0.1-1 Ot7l
ItS ::>t7l
1-1
Q) 10
a. LID = 1.0; Cd/D = 0.002
e
Q)
E-t N = 8000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 0
3.43 0
5.43 V
7.43 A

9.43 0
0
0 90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open~mbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols- temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 17
 40
LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.002
! "
N = 2000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 0 -
3.43 0
5.43 V
7.43 A

9.43 0
30
~

Q)
1-1
::s
+J
lIS
1-1
Q)
0.
El
Q)
+J
>t
M
0. 20
0.
::s
(I)
Q)
>
0
1-1 Q)
0
Q) > 1-1
>
0
0
0 t1I
1-1
.(1) ~ El
"(I) lIS
Q)
Q) elIS 1-1
u Q) +J
X (I)
Q) 1-1 s::
+J ~
Q) III
1-1 0.. 0
0
::s ::>
+J
lIS 1
1-1
Q)
0.
El
Q)
E-4

•
A

I
ol~____~----~~--~.----~I
90 180 270 360
o
Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees
Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 18
 40r---------r---------r-------------------'
LID = 0.5; cd/D = 0.002
N = 4000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 0
3.43 o
5.43 V
A
7.43
9.43 o

•
•
I ••
• I
'----"------_ _...!------II
180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 rom from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 19
 40 - - - - - . . . - . , -
LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.002
N = 8000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 o
3.43 o
5.43 V
7.43 A
9.43°
30~----

1-1
Q)
>
o.
CIl
CIl
Q)
o
x
•
Q)

Q)
1-1
~
+J
ItS 10
•
1-1
Q)
0-
S
Q)
Eo! .> Q)

o
... 0
•...
i~
sttl
i
Q)
1-1
+J
en
0-
o~ ::> __- -__________________________ ~ ________-J
o 90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 rnrn from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 20
 40 =
LID 1.0; CdlD = 0.001
N = 1000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1 .43 0
3.43 0
5.43 V
7.43 A

9.43 0
30
~

Q)
1-1
::s
+l
III
1-1
Q)
0..
El
Q)
-iJ

:>'1
r-I
0..
0..
::;j 20
In
Q)
1-1
Q)
>
0
Q)
>
0 > 0
1-1
0 Ol
In
0
1-1 El
In Ol
-Q) III
0 Q)
El 1-1
><
Q)
III +J
Q)
1-1 In
Q)
+l ~
1-1 In ~
::;j
0.. 0
+l ::> c
III
1-1
Q)
0..
1~
•• •
••
El
Q)
E-t
•
• I
I i I
~
~

o Lo-----------9.o----------~18~0~------~2~7~0~--------~360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),

2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves

BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 21

 40
I
LID = 1 .0; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 2000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 0
3.43 0
5.43 V
- 7.43
L\.

0
9.43
30
Q)
~ ,
Q)
>
0
0
> I-t
Q)
I-t
0
0 b'l I
I
::s I-t
b'l ero ,
+J
ro Q)
I-t
Q)
ero I-t i
+J
a. Q)
rn
eQ) I-t
+J s::
rn ~
+J o
P- c
>t 0
rl
a. 20
a.
::s
rn
I-t
•I
Q)
>
0
u• := •
0- v v -0
.....
~
..... -0
~

~I ~
rn
rn
Q)
0 I :l--
><
Q)

Q)
I-t
::s
+J
ro 10
I-t
Q)
a.
eQ)
E-t

I
I

o
o 90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 22
 40.---------~---------r--------~----------

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 23
 40 LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 1000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1 .43 0
3.43 0
5.43 V
7.43 ~

9.43 0
30

Q)
1-1
~
+J
RS
1-1
Q)
0.
eQ)
+J
~
~ 20
0. Q)
0. :>
::s Q) 0
til 0
:> 1-1
1-1 0 0'1
Q) 0
:> 1-1 e
.0 0'1 RS
Q)
til eRS 1-1
til +J
Q) Q)
til
0 1-1 ~
~ +J ~
Q) til 0
0. 0
Q) ::>
1-1
~
+.I 10
RS
1-1
Q)
0.
eQ)
••
E-4

•
.
I
•.
..•
A
I• A

• I
I
••
•
0 I
I I.
0 90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 24
 40
LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 2000 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 0
3.43 0
5.43 v
7.43 A

9.43 0
30
~ <U
:>
<U 0
:> 0
rn 0 1-1
<U 0 b'l
J..j 1-1
::s
.j.J
b'l ecU
cU
1-1
e
cU
<U
1-1
<U .j.J
<U
0. 1-1 rn
e<U .j.J s::
rn ~
.j.J
0. 0
0 0
:>,
..... 20
0.
0.
::s
rn
1-1
<U
:>
0
rn
rn
<U
C)
X
<U
<U
1-1
::s 10
.j.J
cU
1-1
<U

••
0.
e<U
E-f
•
£

I I

O~0--------~9~O~--------1~8tO~--------~2~7~0---------3~60
Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees
.Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 25
 40
LID = 0.5; Cd/D = 0.001
N = 3500 r.p.m.
Applied load kN
1.43 0
3.43 a
5.43 v
7.43 .6-

9.43 0
30
~
Q)

til
>
0
Q) 0
1-1 1-1
::J IJ'
+J
ttl e
It!
1-1
Q) Q)
0.. 1-1
eQ) +J
rn
+J 0..
0
>t
~
0.
20
0..
::J
til
1-1
Q)
•I
>
<:>
til
I
rn
Q)
0
><
Q)

Q)
1-1
::J 10· •
+J
It!
1-1
Q) ,•
A
•
A
0..
e
Q)
E-4

OL-----------~--------~~--------~--------~
o 90 180 270 360
Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees
Open symbols - temperatures at axial array 1 (See Figure 5),
2.5 mm from bush surface
Solid symbols - temperature of lubricant in inlet grooves
BUSH TEMPERATURE VARIATION WITH LOAD - FIGURE 26

L
 40 - - - - - ----,-
o
00

~_-t::-...-
~ \
p-
\

I
\
\
t::-
• /
,~
'"
\
\
\
/ \
ti 0\
1 t::----A-
30 I
I

t::-
If
O

t::- t::-

• 0
•
20
Q) LID = 1 .0, Cd/D = 0.002
Q)
>
0
N = 8000 r.p.m.
~
>
0
0
1-1
W = 1 .43 kN
0 ~
~
o
1-1
~ I eas Distance
trom bush ~,1\Xial Array
Ul
Ul
een (!)
1-1 surface 1 2
(J.) Q) +J -0- 0
o ~ III 2.Smm
><
...., ~
(J.) Ul ~ 7.Smm ---6-- t::-
o.. 0
CI
(J.) ::>
~ 10
::s
+J
cU
~
Q)
0.
eQ)
• •
E-t
•

o 180 270
o 90 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - bush temperatures
Solid symbols - groove lubricant temperatures (circles)
groove inlet hole lubricant temperature~ (squares)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 27

 40r---------,----------r--------------------
LID = 1 .0, Cd/D = 0.002
N = 8000 r.p.m.
W = 9.43 kN
Distance Axial Array
from bush 1 2
Journal surface
Temperature
O-/~'1-\ - 2 .. 5mm -0- 0

/ \
7.Smm --6- A
tl \
301------- - / \ --f'--------r--------J
/ \
1/ \
\ I
t£ \ I
/I ~I
I
/

/
/1. ,A--t::- I
l~ --c.---o,..O
If/ 0 --A-. ... ~ 0
o \ ,
201--- -----+-------i~--A-- 0 --t------'\
• 'h
A

Q)
:>
0
0
1-1
•
tTl
e
III
1-1
.jJ
III
s::
~
0
0

• •
•
0--------~~------~71~------~--------~
o 90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - bush temperatures
Solid symbols - groove lubricant temperatures (circles)
groove inlet hole lubricant temperature~ (squares)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 28

 40r---------~r---------~-----------------------
LID = 0.5, Cd/D = 0.002
.f N = 8000 r.p.m.
W 1.43 kN
Distance Axial Array
from bush 1 2
surface
2".5mm -0- 0

7.5mm A
30~----------+---

Journal Temp rature

Q)
1-1
::s
+J
n:I
1-1
Q)
0-
S
Q)
+J
>,
r-I
0-
0-
::s
rn
1-1
Q)
.>.
·0
rn
rn
Q)
U
><
Q)

Q)
1-1
::s 10~'----------~----------~------------+------------J
+J
n:I
1-1
Q)
a.
s
Q)
•
E-t
•

O~________~----------~--------~-----------J
180
o 90 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - bush temperatures
Solid symbols - groove lubricant temperatures (circles)
groove inlet hole lubricant temperature~ (squares)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 29

 40r-------~

LID = 0.5, cd/D = 0.002

. I
N = 8000 r.p.m.
W = 9.43 kN
Distance Axial Array
from bush 1 2
~ A
I \ surface
\ 2.5mm
I \ -0- 0
I \

I
\ 7.5mm --t::r- A
\
30 Journal ---
Temperatur I
~
I --\A-
,.
\

\
Q) / I
~ :> / I
0 / I
0 /
1-1 \
Q) tJl / \
1-1
::s 5 I I
+J ro I
ro Q) I·
I-l 1-1 \
Q)
Cl.
+J
til
\
5 Cl. \
Q) ::> \
+J 20
\
:>t \
r-I
Cl.
Cl.
\
::s \
til \
.\-1 \
Q) \
:>
0 \
A
til
til
Q)
0
~ AI
Q)

Q)
I-l
10 1-
::s
+J
ro
I-l
Q)
Cl.
• • •
5
Q)
E-I

• • •
O~------~~------~~--------~------~
o 90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - bush temperatures
.Solid symbols - groove lubricant temperatures (circles)
groove inlet hole lubricant temperature~ (squares)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 30

 40
LID = 1 .0, Cd/D = 0.001
!
N = 3500 r.p.m.
W = 9.43 kN
Distance
from bush Axial Array
surface 1 2
~

Z.5mm -0- 0
7.5mm
--l!r- A.
30,------------4------0-----r------------~-----------J

I
I
0__

~--6- ....
-1---------
Journal tempLature

-I
A. _~/
• IY"'-
0 tt'/N/
/tr~ ~,O

'\h, -
t,t/
A---A..
I
o''t:.---&--6- A.
A---A.
-I
-""IX--~LT

20r---------~r_------~~--------~--~=-----~

Q)
>
o
o
"'01"
e
rei
Q)

"'til"
.j..J

0..
::>
10r----------T----------4-----------~--------~

90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees

Open symbols - bush temperatures
Solid symbols - groove lubricant temperatures (circles)
groove inlet hole lubricant temperature' (squares)

BUSH TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION - FIGURE 31

50r--------------r--------------~-------------
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40r---------------~--------------~----------------J

I
I
18000 r.p.m.
~o I
a !

7000 r.p.m.
I
i
;6000 r.p.m.
I

r.p.m.

a
i
o 1 _ _ _ 0 - - - -0 ,2000 r.p.m.
a -------ra I
101----0~ 10 0,---0 1000 r.p.m.

0---- 0-

OL-------------~------------~~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 32
 LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

10 r---------------~---------------+--------------~

r.p.m.

:, 3000 r.p.m.

o 0 0 2500 r.p.m.
~~ ___Ol
5~--0-O~ I O~O-------0~1~2-0-0-0--r-.p--.m-.------~
0
o....---1
O~ _ _ _0 - - - - - 0 1
1500 r.p.m •
.-----1 0 I
0 ____ 0 I __o-~--O 11000 r.p.m.
_____ 0
-----,0 I,.

I
O~------------~------------~~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 33
50
I
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

-
40
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I !
0-

0
-0 8000 r.p.m.

o----r 0 -0

-o--=-=---=--0
7000 r.p.m.

~nnn ,.. T\ m

17
30

/0 -0
------0 0 4000 r.p.m.

0 0 ___
~o 0_
0 2000 r.p.m.·

0 ____
O~ 0
0-
0 1000 r.p.m.
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
10

o 5 10
o Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 34

 !L/!) = 0.5
,
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
0----0 3500 r.p.m.
10~--------------+0~---------r--------------~
O~O'-O 3000 r.p.m.

;jo
1/
o
o~
I ____O-=::::::.
0
0
~O
2500 r.p.m.
2000 r.p.m.

/ \
0,----0 ' 1500 r.p.m.

o I
1 0 , - - - - 0- - - - 0
1
1000 r.p.m.
o O~

/
5~--------------~--------------~--------------~

I
I
I i

oL-------------~~------~-----~~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 35

 2.5r---------------------,-----~----r-----~--~~

LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.?02
Feed Pressure = 2.0 bar o

2.0
Load - kN
1.43 0
3.43 0
5.43 v
A
7.43
0
9.43

1 .5

~
~

•
~
~ 1.0
~
~
~

0.5~----~~-----+---

o 4000 6000
o 2000 8000
Speed - r.p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 36

 1.0r---------------------~----r---~-----r--------

LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed Pressure = 2.0 bar

-
0
Load - kN
1 .43 0 Ii
'iJ
3.43 0
5.43 V
0
6
7.43 0
0
9.43

o~--~--~~~--~--~~--~--~~----L---~~
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed - r.p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 37

..
 r---------------~--~r_--r_--~--~_
2.5
LID = 0.5
cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

2.0
Load - kN

1.43 0
3.43 0 0
5.43 v
6
7.43
9.43 0
v
1.5

O~D
~
~

0
In
In
0
~

J.4
~
0
1 .0
V/
o 0
~

0.5

0
i~
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Speed - r.p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 38

 1.0 [~~---.--=-. ~-=-~-=~~~
LID
Cd/D = = 0.5
0.001 I---T---~- *==

ssure = 2.0 bar

Feed pre'

Load - kN

1.43 0
3.43 C
5.43 V
A
7.43
0
9.43

~
~ 0.5

o ~o---,;----l-~--D
EXP Speed - r
ERIMENTAL .p.m.
POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 39
 2.5r-------------~------------r--------------
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.002
8000 r.p~m. Feed pressure =
. , _ _ _ _ CJ
2.0 bar
o .

2.01------
o
o
,____0
.
7000 r.p.m.

O~

o
o _______ 0 6000 r.p.m.
~O
1. 5 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 . 0 " - - - - - - - - - - 1

o
~
~

m
·m
'0
,..::j
1 .0
1-4
Q)
~
0 _______ 0 4000 r.p.m.
III
_ _ _ _0
0
0 ____0
------r

0.5~-~--~r---+1----1----~

2000 r.p.m.

-OJO- -0 0
0-

0 0 1000 r.p.m.
-0 0
0
0
0 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 40

 LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

1.0~--------------~----------------~

3500 r.p.m.

~ I 0---°,---0 3000 r.p.m.

,~ _____ °-----'
tn
~ 0.5 ~-o
~ 2500 r.p.m.
,...
G>
~
o
III
! I I I I
I I II
------'0------0
'_-6 2000 r.p.m.
1 - - - ~.:.L- O' ____+-I______________---l
I I II I I
I
r---~o~__
I L~----_~-----6
~~----O--~~~----~------~
1500 r.p.m.

0---0---0 1000 r.p.m.

~-O----=O====~~~--~------~

o
o 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 41

 2.5r--------------r--------------r--------------
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

2.0
I I I I- I
1
I I I I
I I I I I
/0 8000 r.p.m.

/0
1.5
071° ~o 7000 r.p.m.

/ /0
/ 0 ~o
6000 r.p.m.
~
~
° /(

hLiO
o
rn
rn
S-.
1 .0
J.I
C1l
~ /0
0
III
0
-0 4000 r.p.m.
0..------ 0-

o~
O. 5 I----o~---I---------~

I Iii I
I : I ~ I
__ O---oI 2000 .r.p.m.
0-

0~1 ---0---0 1000 r.p.m.

o 0 0

O~------------~------------~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 42

 LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
.J Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

1.0~----------------+---------------~

__---0 1000 r.p.m.

-o-----~
o~u-
0---

o~ ____________~--------------~____________~
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 43
 50r-------------r-----------~-----------------
LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

. ° 8000 r.p.m.
40~--~~0------+---------0~_- -
" -0----
~~
0 _____ ~ _0--0 7000 r.p.m.
0--'--...;,..",-°'_--
A"" '- ~ . . . .
--~ - . @ 6000 r.p.m.
O~
G)
H
.B 30 °___ 0'> ..... --..,.... 0----- --- - - - - . - 1
--
~
ItS Maximum bush 0
H
G) ----A_ surface temperature
a. '-A
eG)
E-t Journal ~
~ • .'>. t'emperature
8:::I ~~
--. 4000 r.p.m. Mean inlet groove •
~. ~~- ~ temperature
~
> 0 ---0
1 ._---- ~---- O~
o 20 1 - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - 1
~
m

~~
o

H
G)
.'" ~
•

A.............
. : .
--A.
•
.
::I
~
-.
-A-·-. ~

eea.
QJ • • ~O 2000 r.p.m.
QJ .~ •
E-t 1 0 I--_ _ _ _ _ _ _----J--::::::::====__O
0---0----:°

•
A __ . • • ~~~
1000 r.p.m.

--A--·-e~
~I• •
• NOTE :All temperatures
increase with speed
i
______ 0

A __ · - A -
• __
I
A--·- A_·_A

~~------------~------------~~--------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE, JOURNAL TEMPERATURE,
AND MEAN INLET GROOVE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 44
50r--------------r--------------r-----------------
LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.001
.1
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40 ~----------------~------------_----~
Maximum bush 0
surface temperature

Journal A
temperature

Mean inlet groove •

temperature

~---:-~-o~~~~~~-o---------------o~ 3500 r.p.m.

•
o~
.~~o~ .
~ . ---~-
O---~'---~

- ~-.-~
3000 r.p.m.

• ~Q
. •
~--------_~~_~.--g~===-~O~----~
~

O~ '----.. •
•

-.-~-.-~

•
___ i

~
2500 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.
• ---=-8..:::-· -- 8-=-:--g~ ~
~
• • • •
"-.. ~~ 1500 r.p.m.
--~
0-_-...:...·0--· H~i:--'
• • • •
.~~ 1000 r.p.m.
10 o ___ !
~--.-~-.-~~j---.

~-.-~-.-~- ·
i - - -o - - - -
--~---
-- ~
NOTE :All temperatures
increase with speed

o
o 5 10
Load - kN
MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE, JOURNAL TEMPERATURE,
AND MEAN INLET GROOVE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 45
 50r---------------~--------------,_---------------- __
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
o Feed pressure =
/soaa r.p.m.
2.0 bar

/to 0/0
401-------
° ~oa r~p.m.
~o 0

/' I 0-------
o o
0~oo r.p.m.

.,
Q)
1-1
::s
cu
30 ~_ 01
0 __
ll __ '--ll-. _ l l - ._ll---
:;: ;.-"- Maximum bush
surface temperature:>
1-1.
Q)
0.
e Journal
Q)
E-t
o ~f!2 temperature
·-0
>. ~-~
...-I ---·~o~ 4000 r.p.m. Mean inlet groove •
0.
0. ~_--ll~ temperature
::s _ll
CIl
ll-"
1-1

7-
Q) 20 _____
0 ~ll ~------------~
--'-
>
o
UJ
.-- ~--' I I I
UJ
A I I I
Q)
o o I ' I
><
r:.l
I I
,
I
I
I, I
I
Q) I I I I ___~
.,cu::s
1-1

1-1
I
I
I A"-'
I __ . ..-:, ____ 0
---~ .-----0 2000 r.p.m.

Q)
......-ll 0
~--~- o~------------------
0.
e
Q)
E-t
10

V-•• • -- 1----
1-- ____ I 1000 r.p.m.

I..---' ___-- --rio----• ".

.~.
o
~o ..----;- •
• _A-- •
__
,...-- - •
NOTE :All temperatures
increase with speed

oo ----
•
A----
•
~--- ---I
5 10
Load - kN
MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE, JOURNAL TEMPERATURE,
AND MEAN INLET GROOVE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 46
50 r-----------~------------~----------------
LID 0.5 =
CdlD = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40
Maximum bush 0
surface temperature

Journal ~
temperature

Mean inlet groove.

temperature

3500 r.p.m.

3000 r.p.m.

2500 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.

1500 r.p.m.

10
1000 r.p.m.

NOTE :All temperatures

increase with speed

o
Load - kN

MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE, JOURNAL TEMPERATURE,

AND MEAN INLET GROOVE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 47
,..-

Feed Pressure
Load 2.0 bar 2.0 bar 1.0 bar
kN L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5 L/D=0.5
1.43
3.43
0
0
v
••
•
•, ,

,
5.43 T
I
!

~LD=O.OO 1....... C~/D=0.002

.,
... --
7.43
9.43
A
0
•
• ••
1II
_ 1.0 0-
fIl
E-I
I I ~I v~
I I
I
~ , I
I
I
I
I
1
I I I
I 0 0
I
I I I
'e"
~ ~.}111
0 v

.
~
I I I
E-I
.......
I
0 v I Jt 0
I

~ T~~A ~
fIl ctJ.)1fI .,
E-I
I
,~ ~
v.
~.~i,
fT~
r-I
on
s::
~ •
• ~o
E-I
0.5 ... I~ ., I

• •
I I I I I I 10 I I I I I
I I I I I I I~ I I I I I
,
I I I I I I • I I I I I
I .
o • ~ -- ~- - -~--~~- -~ -- ----~- ------
I ---- --~-~

0.1 - 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
Pee let Number - Pe
(T.In l-T s )/(Trna x- Ts ) vs. Peelet Number - FIGURE 48
!,t- 50r---------------------~----r---~----~----~--
t LID = 1.0 and 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
W = 1.43kN,
,Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

40

L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5

Maximum bush 0 •
surface temperature

Journal
temperature
o •
CD

...,~ 30
co
Sol
CD
Co
eCD
E-t
>t
.-f
Co
Co
::s
CIl
•
Sol
QJ /0
~ 20 I
III - 0
III
QJ I •
~
o
•
QJ
Sol
...,::s
co
Sol
QJ
I
Co
eQJ
E-tl0 - / •
a
I
•
0

'.
o
0",-_ _
•o
o 2000 4000 6000 8000
• Speed - r.p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE AND MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE

TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 49
 50
LID = 1.0 and 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
W = 9.43kN'
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

I
40
•
L/D=1.0 L/D=O.S" •
Maximum bush 0 •
/0
surface temperature

Q.I

""
::l
Journal
temperature
D
•
~
cu I
,--t----I----. --
""
Q.I 30
a.
eQ.I -
E-t o
>. I
rot
a.
a.
::l
•
til

""QJ

~----~----~--~--~~~Oi----~----~~----~----~L-~
>
0 ..
til
til 20
QJ
0
X
M
QJ

""
::l
~
cu
""
QJ
Q,
•o
eQJ
E-t
I
0

10

•o
I
i

o~____~----~----~----------~----~----~----~~
4000
o 2000 6000 8000
Speed - r.p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE AND MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE

TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 50
50r---------------------~----r_--_,----_r----~ __
LID = 1.0 and 0.5
CdlD = 0.p01
W = 1.43kN
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

40r-------------------------r-----~----_+------~----+_~

L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5

Maximum bush 0
surface temperature
•
Journal a •
temperature

/0
o r
I 1---+-----+-----1
o 0/ •
• •
r/ o
10
1(+/- ·
f V·
r/1
•
o ~--~---l----~--~--~----~--~----~~
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed - r.p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE AND MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE

TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 51
 50r---------------------~----r---~-----r----~--

LID = 1.0 and 0.5

CdlD = 0.001
W = 9.43kN
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

40~----------------------r-----t-----+-----+-----+--J

L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5

Maximum bush 0 •
surface temperature

~
Journal
[J •
temperature
(1)
~
::s 30
+J
IU
~
(1)
0.
e
(1)
E-4
>..
.-f
0.
a.
::s
CI)
I

~
(1)
>
0 20
OJ
OJ
(1)
0
~
~
(1)
~
::s
+J
IU
~
(1)
a.
e
(1)
E-4 10

I
o
I
•

OL-__~____~----~--~~~--~----~----~--~~
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed - r.p.m.
EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE AND MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE
TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 52
 50r-------------~------------~--------------
L/o = 1.0
Cd/o = 0.002
Feed p~essure =
2.0 bar
.'

40 I--_~ rl ::::::::=----~ 800 0 r. p.m.

----_0--0-
o 7000 r.p.m.
0_____o~ 0------
6000 r.p.m.

0___.. 0

U)
U)
0)
o
~
~
o ~o 4000 r.p.m.
:0)
O---O--~------
~ 20
+J
CIS
J.I
0)
a. I
I I I
m I
E-t I I I
0) I
o I I
CIS
IW
I
I I I
J.I
::s
Ul
I I
.
I_____ 0I 2000 r.p.m •
..c:
~10 _ _..,-0 ~
al 0 - - - '0-
e
g
• pof
____ 0 1000 r.p.m •
~
____ 0
~ 0
______ 0 .---1
o
o~__________--~----------~~------______~
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS
vs. LOAD - FIGURE 53

l
 50
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
I Feed pressure =
:1 2.0 bar

~
40
-
Q)
J..I
...,
~

lIS
J..I
Q)
a.
E!
Q)
E-t
>t
r-f
a.
a.
~
CIl
30 o~ 3500 r.p.m.
0 -0
J..I
0
Q)
>
0
rn
rn
o~
Q) 0 0 0 0 3000 r.p.m.
0
><
r&:I

o~
Q)
J..I
...,~ ____0 2500 r.p.m.
ftI o~o _0
J..I 20
Q)
a.
E!
Q)
E-t ____ 0 2000 r.o p.m.
0,,---
Q)
0 0 -0
0
lIS
11-1
J..I
='
CI) ____ 0 1500 r.p.m.
;::::
rn 0_
0 0 _ _0 ~
='
III
10 ~o ,1000 r.p.m.
E!
e='
..-4
>< 0_
~o
lIS
~ 0
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
o
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS
vSo LOAD - FIGURE 54
 sor-------------r-------------,-------------
LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
Feed pressure =
1 : 2.0 bar

~ 40
6000 r.p.m.

4000 r.p.m.

____ 0 2000 r.p.m.

_____ 0

~----------~~-O----------------~
/0
o
1000 r.p.m.

o~------------~------------~~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS
vs. LOAD - FIGURE 55
 50r-------------~r-------------~--------------~

LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
:! 2.0 bar
.'

40 ~----------------+---------------~

3500 r.p.m.

3000 r.p.m.

20

_____ 0 2000 r.p.m.

~O
~O

10 /
0

//I
0.----- 0--- 0 1500 r.p.m.

1000 r.p.m.
~O ._____0
O~ ~O
~O
/0
o

o
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERU1ENTAL HAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS
vs. LOAD - FIGURE 56
 50
LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.002
I

/'
Feed Pressure =
2.0 bar

40 0
-
0

;--"'0

~~o
-----0
-----0 8000 r.p.m.

0 ~o- - 0 7000 r.p.m.

0

0 ____
0- 0 6000 r.p.m.

~o
I I
~o
I
- 0 -0
I
4000 r.p.m.

I I
I
I I I
I
! I !I I I
-I I

I I I I I
0 ___ ____0
2000 r.p.m.
0 -0
0
1000 r.p.m.
o 0 ____ 0

o o~---r---
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 57
 50·r-------------~---------------r---------------

LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40 ~--------------_,r_--------------~----------------~

Q)
J.I
::s
+J
ItS
J.I
[ 30
e
Q)
E-t

....0.>t o
0. o
::s
til
J.I 0 - - - 0 ____0 1
3500 r.p.m.
Q)
>
0 o~
rn
rn 20 O~ ______________~----------------~
Q) ~------------ ~---
0
><
r:z:I
~ -0_ 0 3000 r.p.m.
Q)
J.I
::s
+J
O~O---o 2500 r.p.m.
ItS
J.I
Q)
0.
e
Q)
0'-----0
~ _______ 0 2000 r.p.m.
E-t ~o'---_o
....ItS
c: 10
J.I _______ 0
::s 1500 r.p.m.
0 0 - - - - - _ 0 - - - 0- -0
~
0 1000 r.p.m.
0~1
°l~
I
__--I 0---1
I
I
I
I I I I I
I I I I I
o I I I I
o 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 58

 50r---------------,---------------~-----------------

LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
.I 2.0 bar

40 ~------__------~----------------_+----------------~

~------____- - + _ - - - -_ _~o
8000 r.o.m.
0 _ _ _ 0 _ _ _ 0 _ _ _0

____ 0 7000 r.p.m.

0 ____ 0

0---0-------.-
____ 0 6000 r.p.m.
____ 0

o;::::::==-r °
o~
I I i I I
I I I I I
I ____ ~----O
4000 r.p.m.
: I
I, ~ i I
~I I I I
9 1 I I I
. ___ 0 2000 r.p.m •
0----0
0-----0-'
____ 0 1000 r.p.m.
____ 0

0-----,0
O~__. ~~--~------------~------------~
o 0---- 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 59

50
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
I Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40
-

I I I I I
I I I I I

I I I I
I
I I I I I
I I I ~ _____ O 3500 r.p.m.

0 -o~ 0 3000 r.p.m.

0-----
0----

o ------o----T ~o 2500 r.p.m.

0
0-----

0----
o~ 0
~ 2000 r.p.m.

O~ iI

o~~o------0
1500 r.p.m.

~ ____ 0 1000 r.p.m.

o~ _____ 0

o o~
O/--r 10
o 5
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 60

 1•0 <l
0 I I
A
<l I I
~V 0 I I
<l I I
~
Q
~ 0 <l
1;
..,
y
9
~ A9 &I
*9
<i;l
9o~
• Y V

t•
~
~
t;Q...
•T ..T
Q4~
T ~rr
~
i 9!
,• • • ~
••
-
E-t
fI) ,
~

~
~
.'
~ ~
I
>< 0 8 ~ a-
E-t

E-t
I
~

fI)
o. s
I
I
, "
I
I
I
~
I
I Speed C~/D = 0.002
r-I
~
I I I I r.p.m. L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5
on
I I I I
E-t
0 1000
2000
0
0 ••
'. • 4000 V ~

6000 A •
0 7000
8000
0
<l ~
•
• Cn/D = 0.001
1000
1500
2000
9
Q
Y
,
4p

T
...
2500
3000 *
Q
•
o
• 3500
I
~ 11

o 5 10

Load - kN
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

(T. I-T )/(T -T) vs. LOAD - FIGURE 61

In s max s
 50
LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.002
I Feed pressure =
:/ 2.0 bar

40
-
0

Q)
So!
::s 0 0
+I
ro
So!
Q)
0.
eQ) 30
E-4
~
r-t
0.
~O~ ~O 8000 r.p.m.
0.
::s
en
So!
Q)
o~o~~o 7000 r.p.m.
:>
o~o
0
Ul
Ul 6000 r.p.m.
.Q)
0
>< 20

~ o~o
rz:l
Q)
So!
::s ___ 0
4000 r.p.m.
+I
ro
So!
Q) I I
I I ?I I
0. I I
eQ) I
I I
I I
E-4
I I I I
I
c: .I I I I
..-I
ro
So!
I I I I I
Cl 10
_____ 0 2000 r.p.m.
_____ 0
0 _____ 0 _0

° ~ 1000 r.p.m.

0 0-
-- 0 _____

o
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL DRAIN TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 62
 50
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
I

:1
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40
-

CI)
~
::s
+J
C1S
o~
~

~---
CI) 30
0-
S
CD
E-t 0- 0 3500 r.p.m.
:>t 0,,----
.-I
0-
0- o~o
::s
CIl
-0 0 3000 r.p.m.
~

o~
CD
>
0 ..
_0 2500 r.p.m.
rn
rn O~O 0-
20
CD
0
><
~

~o_
CI)
~ 0 2000 r.p.m.
::s 0 0---
+J
C1S
~
CD
0-
S

~
CD
0 ____
1500 r.p.m.
E-t
0 0
~
ori

Q
C1S
~
10 I
I
___ 0-
1000 r.p.m.
0 _____ 0
0 0--- .
I
I
I
I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
o
o 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL DRAIN TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 63

 50
LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
I Feed pressure =
·, 2.0 bar

40
-

Q)
J.I
..,
~

cd
J.I
Q)
30
~
Q)
E-t
~
.-4
0..
0..
~
CIl
J.I
Q)
>
0
.-en
rn
Q) 20
0
~
~ I
I I
I
I I I
Q)
I I I I
I
..,
J.I
~
I I I I
I
I
cd
J.I I I I 0 8000 r.p.m.
Q)
7000 r.p.m.
o . o~o
~
~o
Q)
E-t 6000 r.p.m.
0::....---------0 0
d 10 0-----
..-i 0 - - - 1 _____
cd
~~o
J.I 10
0 _____ 0 4000 r.p.m.
~o
_____ 0
0 ___0 2000 r.p.m.
0
. ~
0---
0----0 I _ _ _ 0- 0 1000 r.p.m.

o ____ ~o
o
o 5 10
Load - kN
EXPERIMENTAL DRAIN TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD -FIGURE 64
 SOr----------------r---------------,--------------___
LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40~--------------__4_----------------~

cD
S-f
....,~
R:I
S-f
cD
g, 30 J---..----------------+------------------I
m
E-t
l>t
~
g,
g,
~
til
S-f
cD
~
rIl
ID
cD
o 20 ~--------------~----------------~
>< o
~O ~O
r:r.1
3500 r.p.m.
o ~O _O~O 3000 r.p.m.

°
"'---0_

~---~
I .
I _____
0----
I 0 _ _ _0

0
_____0
2500 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.

I ____0----
10 i - -___ O- °
0--======== 0 - 1500 r.p.m.

0-------:0 0 ____ 1000 r.p.m.

0---- ____ 0
1 o
~~I' I I
cr--- I I I I
I I I I I
o I I I I I
o 5 10
Load - kN

EXPERIMENTAL DRAIN TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 65

 Feed Pressure
Load
o kN
m
m 0 1.43 0 • ,
o
~ 0 3.43 0 • .,
H • ~. 5.43 V 9 ,
~ • C /0=0.0(1 C /0=0.002 7.43 A • ..
g v::o.- d -, 9 • 43 , 0 , • , • I

:::;-1.0.. I I
~.
~
-,
A 0
\- 0
I I I I

.!: 9 8 1
~ ~ 0
m ~ V 0 I I 1 I I I
m ---....__....," 'i1 VA 0 I \9
:.. Ir II 1I 1I
I
~ --. .0 , 0 QO I
~
H • --
~
0 X IA
~V
\" 1 I
'.
-II I I I
I. .,~ • • tP I.
;~
't1
B 0.5 I . .._~V I 1
u
.g
§
I
I
I
I
.
I
• T
I 9 9'
•
II" II
•
___...
i I I :
u
~
I I I
1

I I II <>i
.+'l[.. 8 I I I
~
I
I
I I
I
I
II II
I I
III r ~ <b~0'
:I: I
I
I I I I
II " ..W"" _A_. A 0'Ij
I • . ., . . . . ....q,

I
0' 0.1
\
0.2 0.3
I 0.4
I I 0.5
II
1.0
I
2.0
I
3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
Peclet Number - Pe

HEAT CONDUCTED ACROSS BUSH WALL AS A PROPORTION OF POWER LOSS vs. PECLET NUMBER - FIGURE 66
 0

Feed Pressure
Speed 2.0 bar
i r.p.m. L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5
• 1 ()'OO
2000_ '
0
0 ••
4000 "; V ~

1 .0
\
\
6000
7000
8000
ll.
0
<3
•
....•

Cd/D = 0.002
0

.\ I I 1
I 1\ I
I I
1 I \ 1 I I
rn I I
[\1
• I
rn 1
0
..::I
$-I
CD
1
I
I
I 1\ 0
1
I
I

-
~
0 I 1 0
\ I
I
~ i
r -4
I I i \1 I
I
,
r-4

~
AS
• .'~ -",
.s:::
rn • 0

~ 0.5
rn
rn
0
• "'e
0
$-I
U '"
rc
AS

CD
CJ
~
•
[J
I
I
V
"'::su"' V
i
rc
d
8 V
~
0
U V
~
0
•
"'CDAS"' ~
.
<J
1%1 ~ -
<3
~ ~ •• 'i .:J
~ ~
~ ~

1 I I I I
I I I I I
o
o 5 10
Load - kN
HEAT CONDUCTED ACROSS BUSH WALL AS A PROPORTION OF POWER
LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 67
 Feed Pressure
0\ Speed 2.0 bar
, 0 r.p.m. L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5

~ 1000 0
••
1500
2000
C
V ..
• ~ 2500 ll.
•
....•
3000 0
'\ 0 3500 <l
I I i"\1. I
1•0 I I
i •I II "'" ~II I
I Cd/D = 0.001
0
0
•
V
V
"" ""0
0
ll.
V •
0
•
0 I~
V
ll. V
ll. a)
0 ~
0
<l
<l ,
i • I

• !
<l I

• • •
~ •
••
•
.... •
....
•
~

•
•
•
....
-
....

I
•I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I

o
o 5 10
Load - kN
.
HEAT CONDUCTED ACROSS~.uSH WALL AS A PROPORTION OF POWER
LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 68
 ~g~ournal Conduction = 0.5
~8~~
LID
, . CdlD = 0.002
N = 2000 r.p.m.
1 .0 Feed pressure =
2.0 bar
Convection
UJ
UJ
0
~
Sol
Q)
:.0
Po.
r-4
ItS
o ___ o~
""E-t0 0.5 ....... 0

11-1
0
Bush
Conduction ~o- ---0 I
~
0 I
r I
-" I
I I I I
""0
Sol
I I I
I
I
I
0.
0 I I I I
Sol
Po. I I I I I
0
o 5 10
Load - kN
ENERGY BALANCE AS A FUNCTION OF LOAD - FIGURE 69

1.0
Journal Conduction

~
UJ
UJ
0

Sol
Q)
oo~
~0~~8
O~ 0-::;::::;:--
-h
-0
o·
LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
N = 8000 r.p.m.
Feed pressure =
:.
0
0 2.0 bar
Po.
r-4 Convection
ItS 0.5
""E-t0 .
I I I
11-1
0
I
I II I I I
~
0 I I I I I
""""Sol I I I I I
0
.0. 0 0
o· 0 0 0
Sol
Po. Bush
Conduction
0
o 5 10
Load - kN
ENERGY BALANCE AS A FUNCTION OF LOAD - FIGURE 70
 Feed Pressure
Load 2.0 bar 2.0 bar 1.0 ba!
kN L/D=1.0 L/D=0.5 L/D=OS
I
1.43 0 • •
3.43
5.43
0
V
•
. •
,.
III

o~ 1.0
~
:.
III ~ _0-0.00
C / 1 Cg /0=0.002
7.43
9.43
6
o •
A
••
o -

~.~
p..
........
I
II
I
II
'I
• I~
.0 1 1 1 1
H"1-1 1 1 I
1 1 I A
· •II 'I
TAn~
,., !.. •I •
I •1 •I 10 I 1 I

.0

"~ y\."
..'
-
." I ,1
~
. t .-
I -

~~.... 6 DO
~~- ~
~.~. .~
.... • .... V •
alo O. 5 0 • ." - :I. • ... , I . . . . . '-"'1Jr_· -
. 0
0 8

,~~/- I ~ ,«~ ..
fV\
+" ....lJa"
2 --J',p OJ
_.~.
fA. f .... •
8
'"
~
.... ,p
d1v
1
1

1
I
o.
DV

1
II 1
I,
III ,-
I
I
I, II
I
I
<;J
I
II
I
I
I'
II
-,-,-y-
I
I1
I
I '
I 1I
I :
I I II II
I I I I
oI I ' I I I I

I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 .0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
Pee let Number - Pe
HEAT CONVECTED BY LUBRICANT AS A PROPORTION OF POWER LOSS, vs. PECLET NUMBER - FIGURE 71
 -
Feed Pressure
m Load 2.0 bar 1.0 bar
m
~
o
~
Q)
kN
1.43
3.43
•• ,,
L/D=0.5 L/D=0.5
,

~
~
o
...... I
5.43
7.43
'Y
.4
T
.
r-I Si!D=O .OC ~~Cd/D=O. ~~2 9.43
ItS
~
~ 0.2 ~-I • '-
o
t') 'YI
~
~
o
r-I
ItS • ;
I
't1
Q)
·1
+J
U
::s • I
'~:·T
,
. ..
't1 .4
r::

......
I

8 ~
+J 0.1 • •• • 1
ItS
Q)
=r:
T •• ".. , I I , I
,
I
I
I I I
• • III I I I I I
•I I, I, I I I:· : •
T.. •
o
0.1 0.2
I
,
I
•
0.3 0.4
,
I

0.5
I
I
1.0
I
I
I I
I
I
I:
I'
2.0 3.0
;I~
••
••
4.0 5.0
...,•
WJ
10.0
T
. , -j•
.-':".4
Peclet Number - Pe
HEAT CONDUCTED ALONG JOURNAL AS A PROPORTION OF POWER LOSS vs. PECLET NUMBER - FIGURE 72
II
II
III
o
. ,

~
!Xl • . '- I
Q)
v.1 v I

~ ~ A
::l
+I
ItS
8',,- Q,
14 o "--... ~
Q)
o 8
0..
eQ)
E-t ;
e
~
0
0
f"'r'6 en...
I,. 0
v
A
'
~ L/D=1. 0
r-l
ItS
~
+ ----v '\Ij1J 0
14
::l
o 1.0
t I ~'''-
I-) ~ • 1 "-
........
Ul • .~. I \ill -. . . . I I I I I
Ul
.. I • I I \"--..., I I I
I I
+ "- "--.. "--. . 0A.v8
Q) 1
o
x I • lIT e I I I
I
~
Q)
I e•I .•••
••
•
eye\.•
......
,. I
~
0
0
I I
I
T,. \ '~v8
14 L/D=0.5, 0
::l I I I .... ·II~ 0 8
i ~.~ .~
+I
cd
I I I I I v v

.
~ ~
14
Q)
0..
eQ) 0.5 I I \ I I I \1 "I
E-t I ~ • • '0
[ .............
Q)
Feed Pressure "--... ,', "
>
o
o Load 2.0 bar 2.0 bar 1.0 bar I : + •
••• '-..... ~.. e
14
C!J kN L/D=1 .0 L/D=O. 5 L/D=O. 5 Cd/D=O. 001 •.J... C.:./D=O. 002
+I 1 • 43 0 •• _. - ~ '"" - • •• • •
Q)
...... 3.43 0 . , I ... ~I
~
H 5.43 v •T
c 7.43 A A 4 \
cd
Q) 9.43 0 •• \
:::e: 0
0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
Peclet Number - Pe

MEAN INLET GROOVE TEMPERATURE EXCESS AS A PROPORTION OF JOURNAL

TEMPERATURE EXCESS, vs. PECLET NUMBER - FIGURE 73
 Feed Pressure
Load 2.0 bar
kN L/D=1.0

~
~~ --~==~~--~~.
1.43 o • •
3.43 D • •
m 02
C /D=O.O
5.43
7.43
v
t:l
•
A .
T

0
9.43
I
o • ~
II
' I I
.e:;:::o 1.0 I
I
I
I
III I
I II
I \I
I
I
I

.:; : i
~e
I I 1I
.il • 0 I•
.:-\ 0 00 I'
v I [JI I

~+'""T I ~
D
o or v D I
.. ------ .------I 8 --Cb V dl I I I

~ ~\-
6
o O. 5 • 0 ,.Q Iv-II ______. _______ i
I[] I III I
:;:J &n li I I.I I

~+ ~~ ~
Y

~ J__~I ~I_.:'~ l A~______~,~8~'~~~~_O~;-~

.g I., • , IF CD 19. Bzl
8 . ' , . .4f :'+ V , "&"¥f%, --:r. 6f? <v.
1. . • "1I
·ri
11-1
·ri VA fIt.'fi'
'8 ___ ___.__
~ 0L-_ _ 1(

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
Pee let Number - Pe
MODIFIED HEAT CONDUCTION ACROSS BUSH WALL AS A PROPORTION OF
POWER LOSS vs. PECLET NUMBER - FIGURE 74
 50 / -
o
/ /
/
/
~
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.002
;1
/
/
I ,.
.
8000 r.p.m. /8000 r.p.m. Feed pressure =
/
/ 2.0 bar
~
/
/
I
/

4000 r.p.m.

8000 r.p.m.

4000 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.

20
___ 0 4000 r.p.m.

0----°
o 2000 r.p.m.

Experiment o

ESDU 84031 o
prediction

Full numerical ..
model prediction

o
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 75

 LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
I.
2.0 bar

3500 r.p.m.
2000 r.p.m.
2000 r.p.m.

ell
.......
r-4
s·
I
5
G)
+l
ftS
~
~
0
r-4
rz.
1000 r.p.m.
1000 r.p.m.

Experiment o

ESDU 84031
prediction 0

Full numerical A
~odel prediction

o
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 76

 50
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
8000 r.p.m. ~ ____ --A Feed pressure =

/
;"
A"""'- ---
---
8000 r.p.m.
2.0 bar

/'
/
/
~
40 ,I
/
/
/
;/0_·-0
//'
. -·--0
0 - . -0
I 4000 r.p.m.
o I ~O -0 8000 r.p.m.
O

30
V -.
0
0 - . _0
--0
--· _ _ 0
-·-0 2000 r.p.m.

-en
.....
/0 ,°--0 0 4000 r.p.m.

.,
Q)
t
0

;"
...- ;"
.------ i
A-----A-----A 4000 r.p.m •

Cd
~
20 / " 0 _ _ _ 0 __
~ ~o 2000 r.p.m •
.....0 °
rz.

.... __ .A- ----A------A------A I2000 r.p.m.

,,/
10 J - - - ~_ _ _ _ _ __ + - - - - - - - - - - - - i
Experiment 0

I
I ESDU 84031
o
I prediction
I
Full numerical A
model prediction

o~------------~--------------~--------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 77

 LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
I:
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

3500 r.p.m.

2000r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.

-til
. -f .
',S
1000 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.

1000 r.p.m.

1000 r.p.m.

K'
/-- -- _ . ____ -- . - - - - - - . - - - - --A

Experiment o

ESDU 84031
prediction 0

Full numerical.
model prediction

OL-____________~--------------~~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 78

 50
LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
N = 2000 r.p.m.
I ,

40 ~--~----------+---------------1

Experiment 0

I I I I I ESDU 84031
prediction a
I I I I I
I I I I I Full numerical ...
30 --------1f------~-___j model prediction
0 ..............
--0 ESDU Qv term •
---- o-Oo~o
-0-0_0 2 bar feed pressure
I
I I I I
-rn
. -f
IS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I
0- 0 __
o~o_o-o_o_ 0 _ _ 0 2 bar feed pressure
o 0---0
1 bar feed pressure
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
10
0 _ _0 •
...
0.. 0"--0 ..
1 bar feed pressure

• • •
I
•I
•
I
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I

o LO--------------~5---------------1~0--------------~
Load - kN
FLOWRATE VS. LOAD.
EFFECT OF FEED PRESSURE - FIGURE 79
 50r-------------~------------~--------------

LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
I N = 4000 r.p.m.
,

40~----------------~----------------~

.......-o-·~--.
. --0

o
/ '" ~O 2 bar feed pressure"

30~----------------~----------------~

.,....-0-.-,-0-._ 0_
1 bar feed pressure
1~0 ~
I 0-0
'-0
2 bar feed pressure

-fIl
r -I
e
o
. ~....

20~----------------~----------------~

o---------~- 1 bar feed pressure

i-----r • i --~

~I I I
I I I Experiment 0
I I I
10~----------------+-----------------~
ESDU 84031 a
prediction

Full numerical-.
model prediction·

ESDU Qv term •

O~______________--------------------------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
FLOWRATE vs. LOAD.
EFFECT OF FEED PRESSURE - FIGURE 80

..... :-.:-.- ....

_r. ·
···.... -·"v···~

50
LID = 0.5
2 bar feed pressure
Cd/D = 0.Q02
I
o__ · - 0 - ' -0--. N = 6000 r.p.m.
;, /' --0

·AO
/
0
I !- I
I I I I I
I I I I I

/ . . .
0 - - . -0 - ' - 0 - ' - 0 1 bar feed pressure

'30
I
0 L
•O 0 - 0_ _
0- 2 bar feed pressure

/
A
• • •
•0-
- (/)

~
.Ei .

~
0 0- -0 1 bar feed pressure

20
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I

Experiment 0

10 .I:oSDU 84031
prediction a

rull numerical
~odel prediction
•
iESDU Qv term
•
o
o 5 10
Load - kN
FLOWRATE vs. LOAD.
EFFECT OF FEED PRESSURE - FIGURE 81
 LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.001
N = 1000 r.p.m.

10~----------------4-----------------~

Experiment o

ESDU 84031
prediction o

Full numerical A
model prediction

I
I I I I I ESDU Qv term
•
I I I I I
I I I I I
0 0 2 bar feed pressure
------r0
/0
0
5~-----------------+----------------~
.--0-·-0_
0/ ·-0-·-0 2 bar feed pressure

o
1 bar feed pressure
~O-::::=:-0-.-8 0
8~.-- -·-0 1 bar feed pressure

• • • •
•

o~------------~--------------~--------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD.

EFFECT OF FEED PRESSURE - FIGURE 82
 LID = 0.5
I CdlD = 0.001
;I N = 2000 r.p.m.

10

I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
Lo-----0~ 2 bar feed pressure

,/
~o ___ -O_-O-' -0 2 bar feed pressure

/
rIl
.......
r-f
e 8 1 bar feed pressure
0
~ =-'.0-'''''-
0 -§
1 bar feed pressure

. /
.to

0
/;
• • •
.to
0
•
• I
Experiment 0
I I I I I
I I I I I ESDU 84031 a
I I I I I prediction

Full numerical ...

model prediction

ESDU Q term
v •
o
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD.

EFFECT OF FEED PRESSURE - FIGURE 83
,g;;;;;:w. -'

LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.001
:/
N = 3000 r.p.m.
-,

I I I
10 I I I I
I-
:
I I I ____ 0 0I 2 bar feed pressure
o/ 0
~o~~
I 0 _ - -0 - - - - 0 2 bar feed pressure

0/
0/
/ --
A
0_--0-. --0

A A
1 bar feed pressure

•
/ -AO-~~---o
A

-
en
~
.E:-
0

/0
1 bar feed pressure

CJ) 5
+oJ A
cd
~
~
0
~
~
•

0
Experiment 0

I I I I I
I I I I I ESDU 84031 0
I I I I I prediction

Full numerical A
model prediction

ESDU Qv term •
0
0 5 10
Load - kN
FLOWRATE vs. LOAD.
EFFECT OF FEED PRESSURE - FIGURE 84
 2.5
0"---
_0
~_ I0
~
, o 0""
- 0
~O
~ . 0
C ............. 0

2.0 V V -
V V

...,.,
r-f

s::
CD
~
~
.9 _ _ <J
e 4
S
orf
k
!.
V 0/--1
H
CD
IH
0
/<J
1.5

1
s::
0
...,
orf

k
0
g, <J
0
k
g,
., I I I I I I
I
I
' I
I I
.,
CD
I
I I

...,.,
CD
I I I I I
k
1.0 I

~
r-f
IH
LID = 1.0
'0
...,CD Cd/D = 0.002
0
orf Feed pressure =
'0 I
CD 2.0 bar
k
g,
I
0
Q
CIl
/lQ 0.5 Speed
r.p.m.
1000 0
2000 0
4000 v
6000 ~

7000 0
8000 <J

o 10
o 5
Load:- kN
ESDU-PREDICTED FLOWRATE AS A PROPORTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
VB. LOAD - FIGURE 85
 2.5

".,
~
2.0 -
s::
.,..I I
I
k

~ I I 1 I I
•
.....
I I I I I
0 I I I I I
s:: I I I
.,..
0 I I
~
k 1.5 B-
0
Po §-·-~-·-O
0 ~ ~
~
at
ij/ X~~---
•., / g
A . V~
~

••
k
~ 0
/ ~
".... 1.0
0 /
~

~
i V
.,..0 LID = 1.0 ,
ik S Cd/D = 0.0'01
Po I

=
g•
fJ)
Feed preSj3ure
2.0 bar
f4

0.5 Speed I
r.p.m •.
1000 0
0
1500
V
2000
I:l.
2500
3000 0
3500 <J
/

o 5 10
o
Load - kN
ESDU-PREDICTED FLOWRATE AS A PROPORTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
vs. LOAD - FIGURE 86
 2.5

2.0
....II I I I I I
i.5 I I I I I
M
I I I I I
f
....•
[J
8 ._0-·-0-·_·-
0

......."
0 1.5 .g=-1 -1 j-t
10 I I I I I
k

..
Q.
I I I I I
.
OJ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
......•
k

....~
1 .0
....
LID = 0.5
! Cd/D = 0.002
....0
1k Feed pressure =
Q. 2.0 bar
f
8
U)
Il4
0.5 I Speed
r.p.m.
1000 0
2000 [J
4000 V
6000 A
7000 0
8000
<l

o 5 10
o Load - kN
ESDU-PREDICTED FLOWRATE AS A PROPORTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
vs. LOAD - FIGURE 87
 2.5

~
2.0 -
...,RS
s::
CD
S
.rf
J.4
CD
a.
~
CD
If.f
0
s::
0
..., 1.5
.rf

J.4
&
0
J.4
a.
RS
I I I I I
CIl
RS I
I I I I I
...,
CD
I I I I [
I

m
J.4
~
0 1 .0 6 _6_-..e --
~
6 <3- ~
If.f
13
~~ -
0 0
~
...,CD V
V
V
LID = 0.5
0 0 0
.rf 0
~ -O-·-O~·-O Cd/D = 0.001
CD
J.4
a.I I I I \ I Feed pressure =

8 I \ I I I 2.0 bar
CIl
r:LI
I I I I I
0.5
Speed
r.p.m.
1000 0
1500 b
2000 V
2500 6
3000 0
3500 <l

o 0 5 10
Load - kN
ESDU-PREDICTED FLOWRATE AS A PROPORTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
vs. LOAD - FIGURE 88
 2.5r--------------------r----~--_;----,-----~
LID = 1.0
cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

2.0

Load - kN Expt. ESDU

1.43
3.43
0
0
•
5.43 V Y
~
7.43
9.43
0 •
1.5

•
~
~

fI)
fI)
0
~
•
:.0"'" 1 .0
CI.I

Il4
•

0.5 .----~------+-----~-----+--~

O~__~--~~--~--~~--~--~-----L----L-J
o 2000 4000 6000 8000
Speed - r.p.m.

POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 89

1.0·r--------------------.-----r----~--~----~--
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure = 2.0 bar

Load - kN Expt. ESDU 0

1.43
3.43
0
0
•
5.43 v y

6
7.43
9.43 0 •
•
y
I
0.5~------~-----4-------+------~------+-

•
I
y

•
--------+--------.------~------+-~

•
•

•
O~--~--~~~--~--~~--~--~~----~--~~
o 1000 2QOO 3000 4000
Speed - r.p.m.

POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 90

 - \ ~

2.5r---------------------~--~r---~-----r----~~
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed press~re = 2.0 bar
;,

2.0
Load - kN Expt. ESDU

1.43 0
C
•
3.43 0
v
5.43 ~
~
7.43
9.43 0
• V

1 .5

:t
J(

III
III
0
Io:j
•
I.!
1.0 a 0
~ I
0
Ilt •
•
0.5 1--_ _--+_ _ _- + - - - - + /

OL---~--?ir~--~--~W---~--~~--~--~~
() 2000 4000 6000 8000
Speed - r.p.m.

POWER LOSS vs. SPEED - FIGURE 91

~.

",~o

LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
.;Feed
. '
pressure = 2.0 bar

Load - kN Expt. ESDU

1 .43
3.43
0
0
•
5.43 V
~
7.43
9.43
0
•

o
•
1000 2000 3000 4000
Speed - r.p.m.

POWER LOSS vs SPEED - FIGURE 92

 2.5
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.002
I

~o
Feed pressure =
;1
2.0 bar
~o ./'p
A// 8000 r.p.m.

2.0
~",,/// 0 0
/
0
..
o /. ;' /0.6
-
/ /' I 0 / .
/' /.6
/A . ..

// /
t/ Il. "-
Experiment
/ 0

1 .5

.6
0
1 ESDU 84031
prediction
0

Numerical A
comparison
a
..!< Full numerical ..
I I I I I model prediction
fIl
fIl
I I
I I I
0-'
I I I
14
1.0
I I I I i
\..t I I I I
~ I J I I _ _ _ _ 0I
0
~
_____ ~ __ A
4000 r.p.m.

o _____ 0 __
_-A
-
-I - - ---
-----r
.--
_- -

IJP--
o
A . __
~-
Il--·.6
0

A/ --/ .II ...........

0.5 ~/

~_--",-;-o-~---
-0- --0
~
0-- --0- lA----8~.:.-o 2000 r.p.m.
l:l----~ ---.--..-
_-- I . n _ · -1IIr
jJ-'-

o ~ ______________ ______________ ~ ~~ ______________ ~

o 5 10
Load - kN
POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 93
 LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

1.0~---------------+--------------~
Experiment o

ESDU 8·4031 0
prediction

Numerical
comparison

3500 r.~
o
Full numerical.
o -----~----
_ model prediction
_-A
~!.- A--=---,-----,--...,
---
I---e-~----g::;:::-:::--~--- I :
I I I
I
I
1
I
I
__ 0
I 1 / .6.
I

3: I I I 0-- I
~
.6. . - -
I . 0"'-
0.5 /- I
rn
rn
0 0
Y
...:t
~
/
Q)
):
0 r---~~------4------------~
tl! o
A---- -A---..:LO=-
..A --- -
-0-
A----=8 2000 r.p.m.
.---0- -0-
.6.
.6. .-0
_~.-o-

~--'
l----~ ~~---I---------I
~/

. .". _=_~----o

.-'
A=----:-e=----::..'W- :1.0- 1000 r.p.m.
t---O-
_tJ-·---- I,......_._AO-·-

oL-----------~----------_,l~O----------~
o 5
Load - kN

POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 94

 LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

ESDU 8'4031 o
predict'
. lon

Numerical
compar'lson

Full n umerical
I model predict'lon
..

(fl.
(fl
o
H
(
l-l
Q)
~ II I I
o
Po.
I I i
I II
I b
.....-0-

/10""--
I 0~ __ ~ __- - . -_ll
_0 Ii

f:l.-----D--.~
o
/ A·--~·
t:r"_-_oc::.. ~.
I

J:J.....-. --.6:

-------= -----e-----e-
___ ° 2000 r.p.m •

~
0_0
....-.-.---.
__ - ----~"
__ . _ -A-- -A--O
i8

o OO----------------~5----------------Jl-------
Load - kN
10

POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 95

 LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

1.0 r----
o

ESDU 8-4031
prediction 0

Numerical
comparison A

Full n umerical A
model
predict'l.on

3500 r .p.m.

00
00.
e
...:I 0.5
1-1
Q)
3:
e
III

12000 r.p.m.
O..-----rO~O
g~_----A---- _ 6 - - - - 6
.n..-. ~O- .:...o_·..-A-O
~--.----

o
~o--+-5~-h-- Load - kN
10

POWER LOSS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 96

50r-------------~------------,--------------

LID = 1.0
--
Cd/O = 0.002
Feed pressure =
~ 2.0 bar
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
40 I--_~O ____
~ I ::::::=----~ 8000 r.p.m.

~\........... ~'
~

~ ~
~
. . '. -,j-:--- -- -0

-.
. . . . . . " ---. ---~-------~ 8000 r.p.m.
. . . . 6.~
~~
\ ~

0"'-.......
'_0_,_0
:-':-<R ...
8000 r.p.m.

30 ~-----------------+---------------~

~
"-,
"- '-
",
, /
..... -A 4000 r.p.m.
o '.,..... _.-.----
"\
O~ O~O--""
---r:---- o-------::::::::~ 4000 r. p. m.

20 I---_ _ _~ ~ __ , ~ - -----I
:l3 _ , - 0 _~.-
-- -----------'*

__ ............ 0 2000 r.p.m.

A,
" .....,_
--A-----
...
.---- -- -,-
~_.--

0 ,/""'
~

o' " O~2000 r.p.m.

__ ' Experiment o
I
~-,,_o ---- e--:::::-::-:.A----
o~H~" IESDU 84031
'-0-' 0
10
o
prediction

I I I Numerical -A
I I I I comparison
I I I I I
I ! I
I I I Full numerical A
I I I I I model prediction
I I I ! I
0
5 10
0
Load - kN

MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 97

50r----'\\'\-,----r-----------r-----------
LID = 1.0
, \
\ o:.\' Feed pressure =

'" ,
"~" a'-.. . . . . . . . . . .
........
"-,
-.-
--'.......
2.0 bar

--
40 r-----------------~----~~O -~:O-::::::--A 3500 r.p.m.
A
\ 2000 r.p.m.
\
\
\
\
\ 3500 r.p.rn.
A,/\
8~.',t",
" '
30 /~tj., '
/ ~~"~------------~
200Q r.p.m. "'r-I~._ _ 3500 r. p.m.
..... --'c-- ..-
o---=-j
- --------A--- _____ A

~ r.p.m.

20 ","- - ,~O-
A " ""- 0--
" "'- 0___
0'
, "A'-, ' -I 0 - ' - -
~-A -'-'-~ ~
/ ~o-----e_.;:.-------~~--.. &- -

200Q r.p.m.

Experiment 0
1000 r.p.m. ...:-8
10 ~-
~-a:: ESDU 84031
prediction
0

-----=-= e--- _.-'.

A 0 .........
0---
I I Numerical A
I I comparison
I I
I I I I
I I I Full numerical A
I I I I model prediction
I I I I
o
10
o 5
Load - kN

MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 98

50r-----------1r-----------,-------------
LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

401-------
8000 r.p.m.

4000 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.

2000 r.p.m.
Experiment 0

ESDU 84031 0
prediction

Numerical A
comparison

Full numerical.
model prediction

O~
o __------------~--------------~--------------~
5 10
Load - kN

MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 99

 50r---------------~----------------_r-------------- ___

LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
,. Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40'~----------------_+----------------~

Q)

'"'
~
+J
n1

'"'
Q)
0-
S
Q)
E-i
~ 30~----------------~r_-------------- 0- 3500 r.p.m.
8: O~~
2000 r.p.m.
~ O~~:"'--- 3500 r.p.m.
~l!J.~-
'"'
~ .----0---/,1-
A~--- 6~'
0
..... -------_.
__ , - . '
2000 r.p.m.

til 0_ 0 --
til
Q) ~. - - - ------ - -. -
U>--.:"---...
o
~
·M ~O
~ 201-------------------+--------- 0 ,../""
~ ~
+J
n1 0./
~ '~J 0 2000 r.p.m.
~ 0/ ._~
~
Q)

~
./'

o~ __:::.P-
._---c:. %
~/____
6--
__ -;?'

6-----
__ 6 2000 r.p.m.

~o__ ----
't!
:::s
CI) :..--_-
_-6 Experiment o
.c: 101----
til
:::s ESDU 84031 0
III prediction
e
g
.r-I Numerical - 6
~ comparison
~
Full numerical A
model prediction

OL-------------~~------------~--------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 100

50----------------~--------------~--------------~
LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.002
Feed pressure =
'2.0 bar

40 0 ------------~----------------~
Experiment 0
A
o

\ o
Full numerical ...
model prediction

~
0 ____0
8000 r.p.m.

30~----------~--~------------~
~A __ . _ _ I
A_. --A

...
\
20 I----O-~ A _A

~ --A_·_A_·

0"--L
0 __ 0 -0 4000 r.p.m.
A _A

"'--"'-'---&- -"'-'
10~--------------+_------------~

2000 r.p.m.
O~o _ _ O~

I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I
OL-______________ I______________
I I ______________
~
~
~
o 5 10
Load - kN

JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. ~OAD - FIGURE 101

 50r---------------~--------------~--------------_

\ LID = 1.0
Cd/D =
0.001
Feed pressure =

\ 2.0 bar

40 ~--------------

Experiment o
~A
~
- - ' __ lull numerical.
model prediction
Q)
1-1
::l
+J
ro
1-1
Q)
0- 30
S
Q)
E-t
>t
o
~I A __ . _
~
0-
0-
::l
o A_'_A
CIl
1-1
0 ___
Q)
:> o 0 3500 r.p.m.
0
.(/) .
'(/)
Q)
0 20
><
~

Q)
1-1
::l
+J
ro
1-1
Q)
0-
S
Q) O~O'
~ ______ 0 2000 r.p.m.
E-t
~
ro ~___A~ ~O------_O
~
1-1 10
::l
0

~A
Ij

0 __
0
--. I
_ _--0
-A_ .....
--~.--
__
-----
,...~
0
.. 1000 r.p.m.

I I
I I
I I
o L-______________~--------------~--------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 102

 50~--------------1I--------------~--------------~

LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.002
Feed pressure =
I 2.0 bar

40
- Experiment 0
~

Full numerical.
CD model prediction
~
...,::s..,
~
c»
G"
CD •
E-t 30 / - 0 - 8000 r.p.m.
:>t 0 ___ ~
..-f
0 0----.A5-
8: /"
::s
ell 1./'
.-' --.
~
c» ./
~ /
ct)
fI)
CD

B 20
.,..... •
/'

CD ".-

AY
~

13.., /'"
~ ,,/
CD /A
~
cv ./
E-t ~O 4000 r.p.m.
..,
......
O~
,..-...0
s::~
~ o~
,.,
0
0-,
~/'"
10
;/
2000 r.p.m.
o~
0----
~
0 o·

OL-____________ ~~---------- __ ~ ______________ ~

o 5 10
Load - kN

JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 103

50

LID = 0.5
CdlD = 0.001
I

Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40
- Experiment 0

Full numericaa
model prediction

A
A..--·..-'"
30'------~ A _ . _ A_ . - -

20
.-·-A-·- I I•

0 - - - 0-----:--
-.-- -----
A.....-·

0 -;:::::::--
0
.--. 0
-----j
3500 r.p.m.

_.
A--'-A
--' --'-
-~
A-'

~o
2000 r.p.m.
~_O_ _ _--1
10~----------------rO~---

0 ____ 0 ----'
1000 r.p.m.

o 5 10
Load - kN

JOURNAL TEMPERATURE EXCESS vs. LOAD - FIGURE 104

 ~ Feed
- - Pressure
~ (jj A Load 2.0 bar 2.0 bar 1.0 barl
r - I ' kN ~m=1.0 ~O.5 LjD=0.5
11 ~ 1.43 0 _ •
i 3.0 v ~ 3.43 0 • •
!i ,~ I 5.43 '\l Y ,
~ • . 0 _ C..d/D=O. oo~ .!4C /D=O. ~0_2
d
7.43 A A +
~ A ~ Y - I 9.43 0 • •
,(J) + V 0 "'"
8 fIl 1:1.. I0 "'"
' ;1 I .. I I I I I ."" ..gr. I 1 I
f~' e lill ~
A

f'g I
I} II,
0 I .
I I
I
I
1
(1 •
I · I I
+J

~(J)
2.
I I r: ~ ~ I,
+ • ~ _,
I •
...
I"
~ II ,
I
I
-~ I ,
I ' . ~f 0 I
vib
T
•
+" I I I
~
I I

fl
f1l

7 I I I I!I I ' I I I
~
~n I,
I I
,
I
I
rI III II~ .~ I
I
,~.'"
~I '" ~
II

1.01 I I ' / I ,~-~

VAi"!

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0

I
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
J
Peclet Number - Pe

(Tjnl-Ts)predicted/(Tjnl-Ts)experimental vs. LOAD - FIGURE 105

 , 1
Ol Feed Pressure
~ ~ Load 2.0 bar 2.0 bar 1.0 bar
r-I • kN ~m=1.0 L/D=O.5 L/D=0.5
(Ij
+J
c:Q) 3. Ol-------+--~
~ 1.43 0 • •
~ 3.43 0 • ., ~
e
..-t , ~ I 5.43 'il • ,
C..d/D=0.00 __ .!4Cd/D=0.~0_2 +
1-1
Q)
0-
• o. 7.43 A •
X A "",. - 9.43 0 • •
Q)
4 I ~
E-4
III
A.
'il 0
I0 ~
.",,~. I
I
r-i
c:: I .....1 I I I I I I
~ 11, e ~ I I I
"f""\
E-4
I ;;, I I I
I ~
........
'tj
Q)
+I 2. r • I I II I I I
o I Of • II • I I I
I· ~
-ri
'tj
I I • "'" I I
I ; : ~. I I
Q) 0
1-1
0- I ++ '" I' I
E-4
I
III I
I
J. e~
I I., ·~I I
I I ' .I ~
I II I
'~"" 1.. I
r-i
-n
E-4
c:
i I I : r rII} '" I
,~_~
1•o 0 ~
I ~~
0.1
.
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0
1- __
2.0
__ _L......-

3.0 4.0 5.0

.~
10.0
Peclet Number - Pe
(T.In I-T) .
s predlcted I(T jnl -T)
s experimental vs. LO AD - FIGURE 105
50
LID = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40~----------------+-----------------~
Experiment o
o
o ESDU 84031 0

..\
prediction

o Full numerical A

~-
model prediction

30 ~----o-U'" ~I 0 .

. '----
"'0

--'--0 0 ____ 0
-'-0
8000 r.p.m.

201---~~
"'" . 0___~O
I
0 ____ 0 4000 r.p.m.

~--. I -~-.-~- ...

-0

10 A-
.to .to 0 2000 r.p.m •
.to
8 . 0 . __ 0
-- ' - - 0 - · -B-'-O-
I
I I 1
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
0
0 5 10
Load - kN

DRAIN TEMPERATURE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 106

 50~----\r-----r---------~----------__

LID = 1.0
\ Cd/D = 0.001

:, 0\ Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

~
40~________________+-D_~ ____________~
:~~
A --0

°
IV
\ "
~
~
::s
+"
m
~
IV
."
8~_+_--------------_l A
E-I
m 30 1--_ _ _ _ _

"'~IO·
. ~
~
>t
A
"'-L 0 __ . _0_ 0 3500 r.p.m.
8:::s 0_·-0
CIl

~
IV
~
til
~ A
~ 20~-------------_I_--------------l
~
IV
~ D~
.Bm 0-.........:..:."
~~__ _0-----0 2000 r.p.m.
~
IV °---·-lD-·-Ao-·-~D
1.0
m
E-4
a
""m
~
t:l 10 1---------------_
_--------- _____
- 0 - 1 000 r. p. m.

0 ______
O~ Experiment o
0-----0---
ESDU 84031 0
I prediction
I
I Full numerical A
I model prediction
I
o~____________~__------------~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
DRAIN TEMPERATURE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 107
 50~-r----r--
LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
·f • 2.0 bar

40
o

Full n pumer~cal A
lmOdel
red~ction

30 I

i I
I
I

~
0
I .---0 __ . -
_._ O---'~
0--'--
• A A
A
o

__ . - 0

"---'--1
A
A0 __ . - -• 0 _ _ _ _0 -.
0--'--
- - - 0 -A
- --
--
0

0 4 000 r.p.m.

0 ____ 0

-
~
~ob'::::::-:-::== 8:::::::':==8:::::::.-======8 2000 r.p.rn.

o~o~5~l- Load _ kN 10

DRAIN TEMPERATURE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 108

50r-----------------~----------------~------------,----_.

LID = 0.5
Cd/D = 0.001
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

40~----------------~----------------~
Experiment o

I I I I I
ESDU 84031
prediction
0

I I I I I
I I I I Full numerical ..
I I I I I model prediction
I I I I
30 r--- 0 - - - - - - + - - - - - - - ..........~

..
'"
'-0-.-0 --.--- o../"

20~------------_+----~--- .~~
~ .!.-o-"
~ .~D--" 0 3500 r.p.m.
0-"-8~ O~
o -

____ 0 2000 r.p.m.

____ 0 . __ 0
o 0--

--'--
10......-- O-----O~ 0-- :.....-------~
0_·_0

____ 0
____ 0 1000 r.p.m.

----,"0
____ 0
o
OL-______________ ~ ________________ ~ ______________ ~

o 5 10
Load - kN

DRAIN TEMPERATURE vs. LOAD - FIGURE 109

 50 r---------,--/-. / /
L/D = 1.0

,/
8000 r.p.m. .
l ./o

/
-

8000 r.p.m.
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =

40 \ - - - - - - - 0 -
I-J-+----------l 2.0 bar

/• ,..,.- 0--
_0 4000 r.p.m.

.
./
/1
0/
~
.--
---.0
4000 r.p.m.
8000 r.p.m •
O~
30~-J- - 0
. /
/(
./'
7
o // 10
-0 0 0
- - - - - -0 r.p.m.

-~/l-----·-- r.p.m.

201----1- 0---/---+-----___ ---0---14000 r. p.m.

/ 0 _____ 0

-
o
... 0---0 2000 r.p.m.

10 \---- :;;-'
o~
0"""""""- Experiment o

ESDU 84031 0
prediction

ESDU 84031 •
prediction
(reduced Cd/D)
OL-______________~--------------~~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD

EFFECT OF REDUCED Cd/D ON ESDU PREDICTIONS - FIGURE 110
 L/D = 1.0
Cd/D = 0.001
·J
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

1 0 ~--------+------/- a - 3500 r. p.m.

a/
/
a
/ 3500 r.p.m.

l ./ 0 3500 r.p.m.

o
/ /' ~a 2000 r.p.m.

AO~~"""'"
i~
0--: i ~.~ /f ,/
2000 r.p.m.

5 I---/-J4./-,/./-----1
,,/yI ----:;:::::=:8-~=e
OJ1/1 e0 8
-
==-. 2000 r.p.m.

~-Zo~ r.p~._._. 1000 r.p.m.

a '/ .....-.--
' . / ' I o_~_o-~-O 1000 r.p.m.
~O"'-----;-
/
~
7 Experiment o
•
ESDU 84031 0
prediction

ESDU 84031 •
prediction
OL-______________ ______________ ______________
(reduced Cd/D)
~
~
~
o 5 10
Load - kN

FLOWRATE vs. LOAD

EFFECT OF REDUCED Cd/D ON ESDU PREDICTIONS - FIGURE 111
 40 - -~,- - - - " - - - - - ----------
LID = 1.0 Experiment
Cd/I) =.0.002
N = 8000 r.p m.
W = 1.43 kN
Pe = 9.33

30~----------~----------r-----------r---------~

Q)

'::s"'
+J
ItS
'0."'
Q)

m
+J
>t 20~----------~----------~------------~----------_;
r-I
0.
0. LID = 1.0
::s
en Cd/D = 0.001
'"'
Q) N = 1000 r.p,m.
>
o W = 1.43 kN
en' Pe = 0.29
en
Q)
o
><
Q)

Q)

~ 10~---------­
+J
ItS

'0."'
Q) comparison

! ________________ 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Experi nt

90 180 270 360

Angle around bearing from upstream groove, degrees
o 0
Note that temperatures at 0 and 180 , for the adiabatic
comparisons, are experimental inlet groove lubricant temperatures
JOURNAL TEMPERATURE -
COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS FROM
ADIABATIC ANALYSES FIGURE 112

....
 50r---------------~--------------~-------------- ___
LID = 1.0
CdlD =0.001
Feed pressure =
--- - .. ;
.",dr..
2.0 bar

40 \---- -----------11---------.-
.~ /

"---. --
~. ./
'--... ~

A
"-
o '-, "
30~---~Q--__::.R__ -0 3500 r.p.m.
---A
Pe = 1.02

•
20~------------~--------.~
/
/
./
Y
.-" ---. ,.,../

1 0 '----------t-----~~ Pe = 0.29
1000 r.p.m. .A

A ""'8................ Experiment o
A_ o~
O- -- --B~
-
Full numerical A
I I I comparison
I I I
I I I Adiabatic
I I I comparison

o ~--------------~---------- ______ ________________

~ ~

o 5 10
Load - kN
MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE
EXCESS vs. LOAD FIGURE 113
 50~--------------~~--------------~----------------~
LID = 1.0
CdlD = 0.002
Feed pressure =
,I
2.0 bar

8000 r.p.m.
40 o~ I
I
:::-----~
Pe = 9.33

-
~ 0---0-

I::. .................
cv A~ ..... I::.
~
...,
~ A ..........
.....
cd .~- 1::. . . . ...................
.......
~
cv
p..
. A
......
...............
m
E-t . ~ .......... I::.
.......

~
>t
r-I
p..
p.. 30
~
til A
~
cv A
~
til
til
cv A
0
><
r:LI
.CD
~
/
...,
~

cd
20 A
/-
~
cv
~
/
cv
E-t
cv
/
0
cd
/'
If.!
~ A/
~
til ./ 2000 r.p.m.
.ctil A/ 0
-----=:1::. Pe = 2.33
~ 10 o-----::~----
f--- A
o -- ---d . -...::::::-::=A---- Experiment 0
S
a
.~ I I I 1
><
I I I I Full numerical "A
~ comparison
I I I I
I I I I Adiabatic
...::..
I I I I comparison
A

::..,., 0
, 0 5 10
Load - kN

.. MAXIMUM BUSH SURFACE TEMPERATURE

. :v~::;
16-
EXCESS vs. LOAD FIGURE 114
':
'", '
 LID = 1.0
~--------------~----------------~
Cd/D = 0.001
-,~ .
Feed pressure =
of
2.0 bar

1.0~------------~--------------~

______ 0
3500 r.p.m.
______ 0 ~ Pe = 1.02
-~~---...;...-~-----
t-----e-~Q---I
A_---A
_--r- A - - -
1---
A---A

0.5~ ____________-+_________- - j

.'~ .

Experiment

1000 r.p.m.
°
Pe = 0.29 Full numerical
-~

A
comparison

OL---------------~----------
o 5
__ ______________
~
10
~

Load - kN
POWER LOSS vs. LOAD FIGURE 115
 2.5----------------~----------------~--------------_,

8000 r.p.m.
;I Pe = 9.33

2.0J--_ _ __

LID = 1.0
,:-< ....
,:.
Cd/D = 0.002
Feed pressure =
2.0 bar

1.5L--------~------------~

~
rn
rn
0
H
~
Q)
1.0
~
~

I I I I
I

I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
. ~,-/ O• 5
2000 r.p.m. Experiment o
Pe = 2.33
-0- -0 Full n~merical .A
-0- A
0- -----0- I_A-----A----
_._. compar1son
i-==----
&
.--
A--- - .-._.
- - . - -

Adiabatic
comparison

OL---__________~--------------~------------~
o 5 10
Load - kN
POWER LOSS vs. LOAD FIGURE 116"
1·...

"o 1ft
H
Feed
-- - - Pressure
1- -
~
Q)
~ Load 2.0 bar' 2.0 bar 2.0 ba
o
~
kN L/D=1.0\L/DCO.S L/D=O.
r-I 1. 43 o • •
ItS
+J 3.43 o • .,
c: 5.43 'V •

~D=0.0~1J.Cd/D=0.002
Q)

=
oM
~
7.43 A
Q) 9.43
~ 1.0
rz:I
--- -1---
......

-Q ,~4~
[/)
[/)

~
o 1\ - I I : II I i I
I
I I I I 0 I ~
~
~
Q)
~
If
o _
N)
'V 'V
Al
'V __
Aft)_-
..:4 .....'W' 0 T~~
o o 0 0 0
~
- - -~-...:- il ..,~ :1I~D l~ I I I
I
~ I~·I
'0 o I I I

-_.,
Q)
+J T o0 ·I I I I I I
II~I
o I 0 0
o,..f
'0 0.5.-1- - I; : I
I 1- I I I
Q)
~ -) I I I
0- III
I
::> I I I I I
o I I I I I I I I
til
rz:I
I I
I II I I 1 I I
I I I 1 I I I
I
I-
o
0.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 10.0

ESDU-PREDICTED POWER LOSS AS A PROPORTION OF EXPERIMENTAL, vs. PECLET NUMBER - FIGURE 117
 APPENDIX 1

Numerical Model) Solution Methods

Introduction

Finite difference methods were used in the solution to both

the Reynolds and the energy equations. All the finite difference
approximations used were taken from (54).
The developed surface of the bearing was divided into a
mesh of the following general form:

Figure A1.1
centL-une
~ z of b~arlng
x ..0.' I .0 degrees _ __

-1= ~----~----+-----~-----t-----i------~----t---~ upstream groove

x

180 degrees -
downstream groove

L~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~:~~~~:~~~~:~~~~~:~~~~:~~~~ i=n

i=n+1

360 degrees
I

N j=n j=n+1

R. = non-dimensional mesh length in the x-direction

x
R. = non-dimensional mesh length in the z-direction
z

i
Reynolds Equation

The following finite difference approximations were used:

. 1 - 2f.1.,J. + f.1.,J-
f.~,J+ . 1
=
2
1
z

f.1.+ 1 ,]. .:.. f.1.- 1 ,].

=
2t
x

.. 1 -
f 1.,]+ .. 1
f 1.,J-
=

Where i and j denote respectively the row and column

locations as shown in Figure Al.1.
The Reynolds equation, 2.2.4, when cast into finite
difference form becomes:

r 1 r 3\
+ + 2 4)
r:,(r + r
( 2r o} \ 4r 0

_(r 3 r1) 2
4r 0
~(r 4
4r 0
r2) 2J =
1
2 ~
o

( A1.1.1 )

ii
 Where the points 0,1, 2, 3 and 4 are defined in Figure A1 • .2. The
point 0 is any/internal mesh node.

Figure A1.2
-----1~
.. Z

1
x
2
-
0 4

tx
3

Equation A1.1.1 was solved using the Gauss-Seidel iterative

method, with successive over relaxation (S.O.R.). A feature of the
Gauss-Seidel method is that ~ values are used as soon as they are
calculated, thus when sweeping in the positive z-direction the
(n+1)~h iteration at some internal point 0 is defined by:

n+1
'l'0

(A1.1.2)

F = (1 +l;)

G =
The procedure was to sweep across the mesh from z=O to the
centre-line along the first row of the solution, then from the
"centre-line to 2=0 along the second row of solution, then along the

iii
F
third row, and so on until all the points were assigned a ~ value.
The procedure was repeated until convergence to a solution was
achieved. w is the over-relaxation factor which • over-corrects'
the current value, and hence improves the rate of convergence.
The magnitude of w affects the number of iterations required to
achieve a given degree of convergence.
The boundary conditions are given in Section 2.5.2.

The Energy Equation

The following finite difference forms were used:

Backward Differences -

aT) = 3T 1.,J
. . - 4T.1 .1- , J. + T.1.- 2 ,).
(ax ..
1.,)
2ix

T1.,J
. . - T.1.- 1 ,).
( ::). . =
1.,)

3T.1.,1. - 4T.1.,1-
. 1 + T.1., 1 - 2
( ::)1.,)
.. = 2i z

Forward Differences -

-3T i ,j + 4T i ,i+1 - Ti ,i+2

2i
z

central Differences -

T.1., i + , - T.1.,J-
. ,

iv
 The following 'computational molecules' were constructed:

For the first row of solution:

Figure A1.3

---I". Z
Inlet row,
o or 180 degrees
l
x
I

For the second (or greater) row of solution -

Figure A1.4

----I~. Z
Inlet or other
row

.. :..
 The energy equation was solved as a downstream-marching
problem. The set of equations for each row of temperatures was set
up according to these finite difference representations and
soltition for each row in turn was carried out. If the energy
equation 2.3.6 is written as:

CaT + E(T - T. 1)
In = H
ax az

Then for a mesh of five points in the z-direction, the

equations in matrix form for the first and second rows of solution
are as set out in Figures A1.S and A1.6 respectively. (See
overleaf). Further rows of solution have a similar matrix
representation to that for the second row (Figure A1.6).
These equations were s~lved using a band matrix Crout
decomposition procedure as used by Zienkiewicz (55). An
alternative solution routine from the 'NAG' library of subroutines,
routine number F04ATF, was used, successfully, but was found to
take approximately twice as long as the Zienkiewicz routine.
The boundary conditions are given in Section 2.6.

Numerical Instability in the Solution to the Energy Equation

Numerical instability in the solution to the energy

equation is well-reported (48). The consideration of viscosity
~ariation with temperature can give rise to instability as follows:

In the row-by-row solution to the energy equation, the

dissipation at the current mesh point is based upon the previous
cycle viscosity value. Thus if the previous temperature was low,
the dissipation will tend to be hiqh, and a high up-dated
temperature will be calculated. At the next iteration, dissipation
~ill be low, and the calculated temperature will tend to be low.
'thiS effect may give rise to severe fluctuations of temperature
~ithin the film between iterative cycles, and consequent failure to
converge to a solution.
This problem was avoided in the computer program in the

vi

.Ii".;,.
 I
!~1+
IX
3C21 +
21 z
E2l~r~1f ~:u~
21
z
T21 1121 + A Tll + E2t T jn1

"x
~C22 ~
21 Z
~~2+
"x
E22~ r~~
z
0 T22 H22 + A

R.
X
T12 + E22Tjnl

T23 ..
~~~ ~~ ~3~ r~:~l
H + A Tt3
23 + E23Tjnl
+
1x

g:41 ~1:4+ E24l r::: T24 H24 + A T14 + E24Tjnl

0
l
z .lx

T25
LC125~ ~241C25~ ~~5-3.5+ E25~ H25 + A T 15 + E25Tjnl

z z . 1 21 .l
x z x

FIGURE A1.5

E31r~t~ ~:~tz ~
3C
1~1 + .:.:3.1 + 31 H31 + 4A '1'21 - A T11 + E31Tjnl
21. 21 z :U. z

0
" z 21X

~ 3A32+ E32~rC32~
l~l
T32 H32 + 4A '1'22 - A 'l'12 + E32 T jnl
2&. 21x 2R. z
2.lx 2.lx

1C33~ !3A 33 + E33~rC33~ T33 H33 + 4A

-21x
T23 - A 'l'13 + E33 T jnl
2.l z . 2.lx 2.l z
2.lx

r34~ fA 34 +
E34W:::~
T34 H34 + 4A '1'24 - A '1'14 + E34Tjnl

0
2.l z 2.t
x 2.tx 21x

r:u~ rC35~ rA35-3C35+ E35 T35 4A T

H35 + 25 - A '1'15 + E3S T jnl
Hz 2.l z ax 2R. z 2R. x 2.lx

FIGURE A1.6

vii
following way:

1) A rough estimate of the temperatures at the row under

consideration was made before solving the energy
equation.

2) Viscosities were based on these presumed temperatures.

3) The energy equation was solved using these viscosities.

The downstream temperatures were estimated assuming a

linear variation of temperature in the x-direction. The
temperature at the new row was predicted by extrapolating from the
temperatures at the previous two rows.
No problems were encountered with instability in the
implicit solution to the energy equation.
An explicit method was investigated. This exploited
symmetry, and the method entailed marching along the centre-line of
the bearing, where aT/ az = 0, and calculating these centre-line
temperatures. From these known temperatures, and the film inlet
temperature boundary condition, a point by point solution procedure
was, followed, moving out from the centre-line row by row. This
procedure proved to be unstable when the mesh was refined beyond a
certain degree~

viii
APPENDIX 2

Slip-Ring Unit Calibration

The slip-ring unit was an air-cooled air-actuated eight

channel unit supplied by I.D.M. Electronics Limited. When the
brushes were brought into contact with the slip-rings frictional
heating occurred and a temperature gradient across the unit was
introduced. This resulted in a speed-dependent error in
measurement of the journal temperature.
In order to calibrate the unit it was necessary reliably to
measure a temperature, and to compare this with the same
;

temperature as indicated via the slip-ring unit. The temperature

selected was atmospheric temperature, and two thermocouples were
connected as follows:

1) The first thermocouple was fixed statically near the

slip-ring unit coupling and was connected directly to a
calibrated digital thermometer.

2) The second thermocouple was mounted on the slip-ring

unit coupling in the same plane as the first
thermocouple, and was connected to the digital
thermometer via the slip-ring unit.

The bearing test machine was then run at different speeds,

the slip-ring unit brushes were brought into contact with the
rings, and the steady-state indicated temperature difference
between the two thermocouples was recorded.
The variation of this temperature difference with speed is
shown in Figure A2.1 (see overleaf). All presented journal
temperatures have been corrected using this calibration. It is
considered that the presented journal temperatures lie within +/-
10C of the true values.

ix
 The journal temperature indicated via the slip-ring
unit was corrected using the following expression:
I Tjnl = Tjnl + l1T
~
actual indicated

~
..
<J

rD
..
,.,
CI)

='
~
.,,., 3

CI)
0-
S
cD
~ 2
'tJ Temperature indicated
CI)
,.J..J
G
I via slip-ring unit
too low.
....ra
U

. L
1 I
s:: O
H

-g
'"
.-f 0

1:4
I
I
I
'::s"
,.J..J I I
0
.cC
I
I .
c:
CD -1
I i I I
CD 0
~
~
til
CD
CJ -2 0
d "---0 ________0 Temperature indicated
CD
w
CI)
IU
....c
IU
1- 0 via slip-ring unit
too high.

-3

o 2000 4000 6000 8000

Speed - r.p.m.

SLIP-RING UNIT CALIBRATION - FIGURE A2.1

x
 ,.'

APPENDIX 3

The Viscosity-Temperature Characteristic of the Test Lubricant

The test lubricant was a mineral oil, ISO VG32. The

variation of viscosity with temperature was measured across the
relevant temperature range and the results are tabulated below:

Temperature Viscosity
0 2
C Nslm

40.0 0.0340
45.0 0.0264
50.0 0.0207
55.0 0.0165
60.0 0.0136
65.0 0.0115
70.0 0.0099
75.0 0.0036
80.0 0.0076
85.0 0.0066
90.0 0.0060
95.0 0.0054
100.0 0.0048
105.0 0.0043
110.0 0.0040
115.0 0.0036
120.0 0.0033

The constants in the Vogel expression for the viscosity

~ .. ~ariation with temperature used in the computer program (Section
"~~f. .' 2.5, Solution Procedure) were deri ved from the measured
/-'> 0 0 .0
~iscosities at 50.0 C, 75.0 C and 100.0 C.

xi