Effects of Surface Roughness in Lubrication
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T. R. Thomas (UK) P. Poon (England) A. O. Lebeck (USA) E. Salbel (USA) Meellng Hall FOREIGN REPORT Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/tribology/article-pdf/100/1/6/5659660/6_1.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 D. Pnuell (Israel) Donald F. Wilcock Effects of Surface Roughness in Manager-Tribology Department, Mechanical Technology tncorporated, Lubrication Latham, N. Y. Fellow AS ME A Review of the Fourth Leeds-Lyon Symposium J. Hoppe (Germany) The fourth symposium in the Leeds-Lyon series was held posium has provided a unique forum which brings together in Lyon on September 13-16, 1977. The symposium subject scientists and engineers of closely similar interests. The range was "Effects of Surface Roughness in Lubrication." of papers from theoretical to practical broadens the outlook The series began in 1974 as a means for the workers in Tri of each, and one leaves a meeting of this type with the im bology at the Institute ofTribology at Leeds, and at Mechan pression that is he well up in the particular field. Many inter ical Contacts Laboratory at INSA (lnstitut National des Sci national friendships have been begun and cemented at these ences Appliquees at Lyon) to meet together to discuss and symposia. review each others work. Each year a specialized topic is se Sessions, comprising papers and discussion, covered topics lected, and others around the world interested in that topic are of Early Concepts, Fluid Mechanics and Rough Surfaces, Ef invited to attend. The topic in 1975 was turbulence [41].1 In fects of Roughness in Lubrication Theory, Surface Topography 1976 it was wear of non-metallic materials [42]. and Running In, New Experimental Techniques, Asperity The 1977 symposium, on "Effects of Surface Roughness in Behavior in Rough Contacts, Scuffing, Fatigue Wear, Lubrication" established the Leeds-Lyon Symposium as a Roughness in Bearings, Seals and Gears, Roughness in Met viable ongoing significant meeting in tribology, attracting alworking and Roller Bearings, and General Roughness Ef authors and attendees from a wide area. The 1977 conference fects. had 120 attendees from seventeen countries, namely France Thinking back on the meeting, the writer is left with two [50], England [35], United States [10], West Germany [4], Spain broad overriding conclusions. The first is that in almost every M. R. Philips (UK) [4], Holland [3], Israel [2], Sweden [2], and one each from tribological situation, there is an optimum degree of roughness: Belgium, Denmark, India, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Poland, surfaces can very often be too smooth as well as too rough. The Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Authors from eight countries second is that we need better means of measuring and func presented 39 papers to the symposium. The distribution of tionally describing surface roughness: most profilometer papers was England [17], U.S.A. [9], France [7], Israel [2], and measurements are two dimensional in a three dimensional one each from Germany, Ireland, Poland and Sweden. world; better measuring equipment and better analysis are The selection of a single well-bounded topic for each sym- needed for future progress. 1 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. Photographs of D. F. Moore, E. Felder, and D. F. Wilcock were not avail able. D. A. Jones (England) T. Mathia (France) H. H. Heath (UK) W. R. D. Wilson (USA) Copyright © 1978 by ASME 6 / VOL 100, JANUARY 1978 Transactions of the ASME J. A. leather (UK) D. Berthe (France) A. Bowyer (UK) Early Concepts containing the statistical constants expressing the surface Dowson [1] provided an intriguing and fascinating insight roughness. into some of the earlier concepts related to the interaction of While the paper is of necessity highly mathematical and rough surfaces. Many of the early theories, for example, as theoretical, striking flashes of physical insight occur. For ex sumed that friction was the result of the force required to ample, in discussing the greater load capacity predicted for separate contacting surfaces as the inclined shoulders of situations in which the rough surface is stationary and a asperities rode over each other. smoother surface is moving, he states, "Essentially, pressure Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/tribology/article-pdf/100/1/6/5659660/6_1.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Based on excerpts from a forthcoming book on the History build up is the result of fluid resistance to being drawn by of TriboZogy Dowson pointed out that friction was the first of convective shear into a narrowing film. For a given surface the three pillars of tribology, friction, lubrication, and wear to speed and mean film thickness, less resistance will be experi receive scientific attention. Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) enced if some of the fluid is drawn along in the interstices of who wrote"... all things and everything whatsover that it be a moving rough surface." Similarly, it is convenient analytically which is interposed in the middle between objects that rub to define film thickness as the distance between the mean levels together lighten the difficulty of this friction." The paper of each surface; but from a practical point of view half the continues wit.h quotations from such well known workers as surface roughness of each surface must be subtracted from this Robert Hook (1685), Amontons (1706), Coulomb (1781), Leslie film thickness value in order to obtain a realistic estimate of (1804), and W. Bridges Adams (1853). Dowson concludes by available non-contact surface separation. pointing out: "Some of the concepts are quaint, some pur In discussions of his own and subsequent papers, Elrod poseful and accurate, but practically all are interesting. It forcefully questioned the validity of using Reynold's equation seems quite remarkable that the concepts of surface topogra in situations where the surface wavelength is small, ap K. Tonder (Norway) phy, the modelling of rough surfaces for analytical purposes proaching the film thickness in value. and the development of understanding of the influence of Chow and Saibel [3J pointed out that in treating the hy surface roughness upon friction, lubrication, and wear could drodynamic effects of surface roughness by statistical methods, have advanced so far before surface measuring instruments the roughness parameters for the two surfaces must. be char emerged in the present century." acterized by independent, stationary Gaussian random func tions, and that the length of the bearing must be large com Fluid Mechanics and Rough Surfaces pared to the correlation length of the roughness parameters. Elrod [2] in a keynote paper reviewed the theories that have The mean square deviation from the smooth case indicates been developed for expressing the fluid dynamic effects of fluctuations about the mean value and determines the im surface roughness on laminar lubricating films. The paper portance of surface roughness. They find that the upper bound provides an excellent overview and access t.o some 34 references of the root mean square deviation of load capacity is critically for anyone interested in pursuing the field in depth. dependent on the behavior of the autocorrelation of the Elrod points out that three different viewpoints have been roughness. embodied in the analyses by different workers in the field. In Rohde and Whicker [4] used a Monte Carlo method to ex one group, the common feature is the assumption that some amine the statistical effects of surface roughness in a tilted specific roughness contour (rectangular, sinusoidal, etc.) may slider configuration. A "triangular surface texture was created be treated by Reynold's equation, either by some perturbation by dividing the length of the slider into N increments and de analysis or by a direct numerical method. These analyses in termining t.he deviation of the profile at each increment, above general assume that the roughness is formed by striations or below t.he smooth mean profile, by a Monte Carlo selection running t.ransverse to the direction of sliding; and the detailed process. The results for load distribution, flow and friction were A. Dyson (UK) int.eraction bet.ween t.he surface roughness and the lubricating found to be in good agreement. with the results from asymptotic film is then followed. Roughness is usually assumed on one analysis. surface only. The second group assumes that. because of peri Chen and Sun [5] reviewed the existing methods for treating odicit.y of the roughness or short roughness wavelength, the rough surface hydrodynamic lubrication problems using st.a detailed interactions may be "smeared" or averaged. Differ tistical parameters. They concluded that a practical as well as ential equations are then developed which permit calculat.ions a general method is still not available. The method of averaging of load capacity, frict.ion, and other bearing quantities of in the solut.ion is practical only when the solution can be put in terest. The third group assumes a statistical approach, deriving analytical form; while the method of averaging the Reynold's different.ial equations analagous t.o Reynolds's equat.ion, but equation before solving has not yet been handled in a satis- D. Dowson (UK) , . !t./ H. S. Sayles (UK) P. M. Ku (USA) l. Rozeanu (Israel) F. T. Barwell (UK) Journal of Lubrication Technology JANUARY 1978, VOL 100 / 7 factory manner. a form of abrasive wear in which the tips of the asperities are Dyson [7] also reviewed the status of theoretical work. In cleanly removed down to a certain level. Thomas proposes two doing so he extended the discussion into the area of EHL, functions to quantify these effects: the power spectrum and elastohydrodynamic lubrication. In contacts of this type, oc- the height distribution. Foucher, Flamand and Berthe [11] curing in rolling element bearings, gears, and cams, the fric- briefly described their method of digitizing profilometer data tional penalty is less important than it is in lubricated sliding and computing from the digitized data the distributions of bearings.