Abstract
Lubricants which contain a polymeric thickener will often display a second Newtonian plateau in measured flow curves. Like other manifestations of sheardependent viscosity, this shear response will lead to an inaccurate prediction when the classical filmthickness formulas are employed. A correction formula has been developed from numerical experiments for a range of parameters of the doubleNewtonian modified Carreau equation. The parameters of this shearthinning model were selected from measurements for real lubricants obtained in Couette viscometers and a capillary viscometer. In addition, a full EHL film thickness formula has been derived from the same numerical experiments. The correction formula and the full formula were successfully validated using published film thickness data and published viscosity data for an EHL reference liquid, a polymer solution. Clearly, viscometer measurements of sheardependent viscosity which contain the inflection leading to the second Newtonian are essential for a filmthickness calculation when a highmolecularweight component of the lubricant is present.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Early on, it was recognized that the shear dependence of the viscosity of polymerthickened lubricants must influence film thickness [1] in elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL). The development of the classical Newtonian film thickness formulas for EHL circular contacts [2] was one of the shining achievements of the field. In the ensuing enthusiasm, it was often overlooked that these formulas lacked precision for all conditions and were accurate only for mineral oils and other lowmolecularweight base oils under mild conditions. Experimental measurements indicated that, for polymerblended mineral oil or highmolecularweight silicone oil, the predicted film thickness may be about twice the measured value [3]. This trend could be observed when employing a pressureviscosity coefficient obtained from a viscometer [4] rather than a pressureviscosity coefficient which had been adjusted [5] to yield agreement with the same Newtonian formula.
The shear stress in a steady shear flow for a nonNewtonian liquid is related to the shear rate by
where the generalized viscosity, η, is some function of the invariants of stress or strain rate. Many empirical functions have been derived for η and most employ a parameter, μ _{2}, representing a limit to the viscosity at infinite shear rate or simply a second plateau apart from the first Newtonian plateau, μ, at low shear rate.
The function, F, goes to 1 as the argument goes to zero and F goes to 0 as the argument goes to infinity. The expectation is that, for a polymer solution, the contribution of the solvent to the viscosity will be unaffected by shear within the inlet of the EHL contact. This contribution of the solvent is expected to result in a second plateau or, at least, an inflection in the flow curve which will be produced by μ _{2} > 0. An extensive list of models which have served the role of Eq. (2) may be found in [6].
The shear dependence of the viscosity of polymer solutions has been of extreme importance to rheology [7] and considerable research effort has been devoted to understanding the shear response. It must be stressed that the generalized Newtonian approach which is used here and throughout tribology is incomplete. In addition to sheardependent viscosity other, even more profound, effects such as normal stress differences result from the shearing of the polymer solutions [8] which are ubiquitous as lubricants.
Within the tribology literature, it is often recommended to set μ _{2} equal to the viscosity of the base oil or the viscosity of the oil less polymer [9]. In the rheology literature, where the second Newtonian viscosity has been measured with precision, the second Newtonian viscosity generally is greater than the viscosity of the solvent [10] and occasionally less, but seldom equal. There has been some work to determine the relationship between the intrinsic second Newtonian viscosity and the intrinsic first Newtonian viscosity [11]; however, the principles obtained do not lead to an estimation of μ _{2}.
It is usually difficult to observe both the first and second Newtonian plateaus in a single experimental flow curve. Experience also indicates that the approach to the second Newtonian plateau is often interrupted by mechanical degradation of the polymer, complications due to shear heating, or the onset of shear dependence of the base oil. Gear oils are less likely to display a clear inflection than motor oils. When a second Newtonian appears, the ordinary meaning of n, \( = \partial \tau /\partial \dot{\gamma } \) in the powerlaw regime, does not apply unless \( \mu_{2} /\mu < 0.03 \). For such a low value of \( \mu_{2} /\mu \) the second Newtonian would not appear for any ordinary lubricant since the base oil would usually be shearthinning before the inflection would be observed.
An example for which the first Newtonian appears, as well as an inflection which may be characterized by a second Newtonian viscosity, is shown in Fig. 1. This flow curve for a multigrade motor oil was obtained with a pressurized, thinfilm Couette viscometer [6]. The curves plotted in Fig. 1 represent a remarkably useful modification of the Carreau [12] equation
Notice that in Fig. 1, the value of G, which establishes the limit of Newtonian response has been held constant, a useful and simple application of the time–temperature–pressure superposition principle. The curves can be superimposed by shifting vertically. A useful relation for estimating the Newtonian limit, G, for a polymer solution [13] is
where M _{W} is the molecular weight of a monodisperse polymer of concentration, c, in a solution of mass density, ρ, and absolute temperature, T in Fig. 1, the value of μ _{2}/μ has also been held constant with good result. The effective shear modulus, G and the powerlaw exponent, n only have the usual meanings [6] when μ _{2} ≪ μ, that is 1 − 1/n equals the slope on a log–log plot of viscosity versus shear stress.
Reynolds equations for DoubleNewtonian shearthinning have been analytically derived for the onedimensional case [14] and the twodimensional case [15]. Correction formulas have already been derived from numerical experiments for singlecomponent liquids for which a second Newtonian plateau is not expected [16–21]. One of these, [21], is unusual in that the viscosity function takes the form of an empirical expression for thermal softening from viscous heating rather than for shearthinning. Corrections are generated by calculating film thicknesses for the Newtonian and shearthinning rheologies over some range of load, geometry and rolling velocity. The correction factor is the ratio of Newtonian to shearthinned film thickness. Here, the same approach is taken for doubleNewtonian shearthinning lubricants.
2 Numerical Experiments
In this section, the global numerical procedure employed in this work is described. The authors employ the finite element fullsystem approach described in [22] for solving the EHL problem. The goal is to model a lubricated contact between a sphere and a plane under a prescribed external load. Both contacting bodies are elastic and have constant surface velocities. Surface separation is insured by a complete lubricant film. In this work, only pure rolling conditions are considered under mild mean entrainment speeds. Therefore, thermal effects are neglected.
In the FullSystem approach, the generalized Reynolds, linear elasticity and load balance equations are solved simultaneously. The Reynolds equation for a steady state point contact lubricated with a generalized Newtonian lubricant under unidirectional surface velocities in the xdirection is given by Yang and Wen [23]:
where: \( \begin{array}{*{20}c} {U_{\text{m}} = \frac{{u_{\text{p}} + u_{\text{s}} }}{2}} \hfill & {\left( {\frac{\rho }{\eta }} \right)_{\text{e}} = 12\left( {\frac{{\eta_{\text{e}} \rho^{\prime}_{\text{e}} }}{{\eta^{\prime}_{\text{e}} }}  \rho^{\prime\prime}_{\text{e}} } \right)} \hfill \\ {\rho^{*} = \frac{{[\rho^{\prime}_{\text{e}} \eta_{\text{e}} (u_{\text{s}}  u_{\text{p}} ) + \rho_{\text{e}} u_{\text{p}} ]}}{{U_{\text{m}} }}} \hfill & {\rho_{\text{e}} = \frac{1}{h}\int_{0}^{h} {\rho \,{\text{d}}z} } \hfill \\ {\rho^{\prime}_{\text{e}} = \frac{1}{{h^{2} }}\int_{0}^{h} \rho \int_{0}^{z} {\frac{{dz^{\prime}}}{\eta }dz} } \hfill & {\rho^{\prime\prime}_{\text{e}} = \frac{1}{{h^{3} }}\int_{0}^{h} \rho \int_{0}^{z} {\frac{{z^{\prime}{\text{d}}z^{\prime}}}{\eta }{\text{d}}z} } \hfill \\ {\frac{1}{{\eta_{\text{e}} }} = \frac{1}{h}\int_{0}^{h} {\frac{{{\text{d}}z}}{\eta }} } \hfill & {\frac{1}{{\eta^{\prime}_{\text{e}} }} = \frac{1}{{h^{2} }}\int_{0}^{h} {\frac{{z\,{\text{d}}z}}{\eta }} } \hfill \\ \end{array} \)
Note that this equation accounts for the variations of viscosity across the film thickness as can be seen in the integral terms. In fact, the changes in viscosity stem from shear rate variations across the lubricant film. Moreover, both density and viscosity are allowed to vary with pressure as described in the following section. Indices p and s correspond to the plane and the sphere, respectively, and η is the generalized Newtonian viscosity. The film thickness h is defined from the film thickness equation:
where h _{0} corresponds to the rigid body separation and δ the equivalent elastic deformation of both contacting solids obtained by solving the linear elasticity equations on a large solid representing a semiinfinite medium as described in [22].
Finally, the load balance equation insures the correct external load F is applied to the contact by balancing it with the integrated pressure field over the contact area:
This equation insures load balance by monitoring the value of the rigid body separation variable h _{0}. The generalized Reynolds, linear elasticity and load balance equations are solved simultaneously using a finite element discretization and a nonlinear damped Newton resolution procedure. For more details about the technical implementation of the numerical scheme employed in this work, the reader is referred to [22].
3 Selection of Rheological Parameters
Two representations of the pressure dependence of viscosity of lubricating oils were used in this analysis. Both are based upon the Doolittle free volume relation and utilized the Tait equation of state to supply the specific volume of the liquid. The pressure dependence of the density also comes from the Tait equation. The parameters of the Tait equation of state are the universal parameters proposed in Ref. [6, p. 70]. The two sets of Doolittle parameters are the model strong liquid and model fragile liquid in Ref. [6, p. 123]. The temperature was assumed to be 60 °C for the model strong liquid and 80 °C for the fragile liquid. The reference viscosity was 0.3 Pa s, resulting in ambient pressure viscosities of 0.0302 and 0.0123 Pa s for the strong and fragile liquids, respectively, and reciprocal asymptotic isoviscous pressure coefficients of 14.6 and 18.3 GPa^{−1}, respectively. The fragility classification of glassforming liquids [24] provides a useful means of describing the viscosity dependence on temperature and pressure at high pressure.
The shear dependence of viscosity was given by Eq. (2). The various combinations of parameters of this viscosity function should be representative of the behavior of real lubricants. The combinations of G, n, and μ _{2}/μ plotted as the solid points in Fig. 2 were obtained from curve fitting of flow curves of motor oils and gear oils. Twelve motor oils were investigated in this work and eight clearly showed an inflection which allowed the determination of μ _{2}/μ. The remaining data were not used. Five additional oils were included in Fig. 2 from references [14, 25–27] and these include two gear oils. The combinations chosen for the numerical experiments are shown as the open points in Fig. 2. A total of 25 individual combinations of G, n, and μ _{2}/μ (as summarized in Table 1) were investigated numerically.
Both Newtonian and nonNewtonian solutions for central and minimum film thicknesses were generated for 36 permutations involving rolling velocities of 0.1, 0.3, 1, and 3 m/s, reduced radii of 0.005, 0.015, and 0.05 m and Hertz pressures of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 GPa. For the nonNewtonian case, each of these permutations was investigated for 25 combinations of the sheardependent viscosity parameters shown in Table 1.
4 Film Thickness Results and Derivation of Correction Formula
Each of the 900 results for central and minimum film thicknesses using the pressureviscosity response of the model strong liquid were treated by dividing into the corresponding Newtonian result to yield values of φ.
The task of deriving a correction formula amounts to find an expression that approximates φ. In many past works [16–19], an inlet Weissenberg number was used to quantify the shear stress of the inlet flow relative to the Newtonian limit for the liquid.
where h _{cNewt} is the Newtonian solution for central film thickness. In the past [16–19], it has been useful to employ, as the correction formula, the functional form of the viscosity law, with Γ substituted for the usual Weissenberg number. This is not surprising since the film thickness should vary roughly with viscosity raised to the 2/3 power. This technique is used here. Seven trial functional forms were tested and the form which yielded a combined low standard deviation and simplicity is
where n is simply the powerlaw exponent in the constitutive law. The two parameters a and b and the standard deviations are listed in Table 2 for central and minimum thicknesses obtained from a least squares regression.
The formula (10) was derived for the case of the strong liquid. Applying it to the results for the fragile liquid resulted in standard deviations of 5.0 and 6.1 % for central and minimum film thicknesses, respectively. Fragility appears at high pressures, pressures greater than the inflection pressure, where it has a profound effect on friction; however, the effect on film thickness is not significant.
Another approach is taken to benefit from the extensive data obtained from the numerical experiments. A complete expression for the film thickness can be written as the product of a Newtonian solution and the correction Eq. (10). If the Newtonian solution is put in terms of the three Blok [28] dimensionless numbers
The full formula reads
The same 900 results for central and 900 results for minimum film thicknesses were employed in a least squares regression. The parameters and the standard deviations are listed in Table 2 for central and minimum thicknesses. Although Eq. (13) yields greater standard deviations, it has the advantage of not requiring an independent Newtonian prediction. Here, the exponent, B, is similar to the classical solutions while C is greater. The Tait equation yields a greater compressibility than the equation of state assumed in the classical formulas (Table 3).
5 Experimental Validation
For experimental validation of the new correction formulas both rheological data and film thickness data are required for the same material, and there are few examples available. Fortunately, the film thicknesses have been measured for one of the reference liquids of reference [29], a solution of 15 % by weight cispolyisoprene (M = 4 × 10^{4} Daltons) in squalane. New viscosity data at 450 MPa pressure from [30] are shown in Fig. 3 along with data from Ref. [29]. Curves plotted in Fig. 3 are Eq. (2) with G = 23 kPa, n = 0.65, and μ _{2}/μ = 0.28. In Fig. 3, the curves do not shift vertically because the horizontal axis is shear rate.
Film thicknesses for this liquid, obtained from optical measurements, have been reported in reference [31] for a circular contact formed by a 12.7 mm radius ball against plane with combined elastic modulus of 124 GPa. The load was 23 N to give a maximum Hertz pressure of 0.47 GPa. The test temperature, at 40 °C, results in μ _{0} = 0.0711 Pa s and α = 18.53 GPa^{−1}.
The Hamrock and Dowson Newtonian film thickness formulas [2] were used for validation of the correction formulas (10) in Figs. 4 and 5. The corrected film thicknesses are shown to improve the film thickness predictions. The central prediction improved from an average deviation of 41 to −9 % and the minimum prediction improved from an average deviation of 44 % to −11 %.
Next, the full film thickness formulas (13) are compared to the Newtonian formulas (12) in Figs. 6 and 7. The full film thickness formulas are shown to improve the film thickness predictions over the Newtonian predictions. The central prediction improved from an average deviation of 49 to −6 % and the minimum prediction improved from an average deviation of 74 to 1 %.
6 Conclusions
1. A correction formula has been developed from numerical experiments for a range of parameters of the doubleNewtonian modified Carreau equation. The parameters of this shearthinning model were selected from measurements for real lubricants obtained in Couette viscometers and a capillary viscometer.
2. In addition, a full EHL film thickness formula has been derived from the same numerical experiments. These formulas should not be applied to liquids with a single Newtonian plateau or to cases of μ _{2}/μ < 0.2.
3. The correction formula and the full formula were successfully validated using published film thickness data and published viscosity data for an EHL reference liquid, a polymer solution.
4. Clearly, viscometer measurements of sheardependent viscosity which contain the inflection leading to the second Newtonian are essential for a film thickness calculation when a highmolecularweight component of the lubricant is present.
Abbreviations
 a, b, A, B, C :

Parameters for correction formulas
 c :

Weight fraction of polymer
 E :

Combined elastic modulus of the rollers
 F :

Load
 G :

Effective liquid shear modulus associated with rotational relaxation time
 h :

Film thickness
 \( h_{\text{cNewt}} \) :

Newtonian solution for central film thickness
 h _{0} :

Rigid body separation
 H, M, L :

Blok dimensionless parameters
 n :

Powerlaw exponent
 \( M_{\text{W}} \) :

Molecular weight of polymer
 p :

Pressure
 R _{g} :

Universal gas constant
 T :

Temperature
 U :

Surface velocity
 α :

Reciprocal asymptotic isoviscous pressure coefficient
 \( \dot{\gamma } \) :

Shear rate
 δ :

Equivalent elastic deformation
 Γ :

Inlet Weissenberg number
 η :

Generalized (nonNewtonian) viscosity
 μ :

Low shear (first Newtonian) viscosity
 μ _{0} :

Ambient pressure, low shear viscosity
 μ _{2} :

Second Newtonian viscosity
 ρ :

Mass density
 τ :

Shear stress
References
Westlake, F.J., Cameron, A.: Optical elastohydrodynamic fluid testing. ASLE Trans. 15(2), 81–95 (1972)
Hamrock, B.J., Dowson, D.: Isothermal elastohydrodynamic lubrication of point contacts. Part IIIfully flooded results. J. Lubr. Technol. 99, 264–276 (1977)
Dalmaz, G., Chaomleffel, J.P.: Elastohydrodynamic lubrication of point contacts for various lubricants. In: Dowson, D., Taylor, C.M., Godet, M., Berthe, D. (eds.) Fluid film lubricationosborne reynolds centenary, pp. 207–218. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1987)
Villechaise, B., Dalmaz, G., Makala, J., Chaomleffel, J.P.: On the traction fluid behavior in concentrated contacts. In: Dowson, D., Priest, M., Dalmaz, G., Lubrecht, A. (eds.) Boundary and Mixed Lubrication: Science and Applications, pp. 401–412. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)
Aderin, M., Johnston, G.J., Spikes, H.A., Caporiccio, G.: The elastohydrodynamic properties of some advanced non hydrocarbonbased lubricants. Lubr. Eng. 48(8), 633–638 (1992)
Bair, S.: High Pressure Rheology for Quantitative Elastohydrodynamics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 29, 143–150, 70, 123 (2007)
Tanner, R.I.: Engineering Rheology, Second Edition. pp. 129–131. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)
Bair, S., Lockwood, F.E., Anderson, W.B., Zhang, Z., Dotson, D.: Measurements of elasticity in multigrade motor oil at elevated pressure. STLE Tribol. Trans. 50(3), 407–414 (2007)
Dobson, G.R.: Analysis of high shear rate viscosity data for engine oils. Tribol. Int. 14(4), 195–198 (1981)
Talbot, G.R.: High shear viscometry of concentrated solutions of poly (alkylmethacrylate) in a petroleum lubricating oil. Rheol. Acta 13(2), 305–317 (1974)
Ram, A., Siegman, A.: Intrinsic viscosity of polymer solutions at high shear rates. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 12(1), 59–69 (1968)
Carreau, P.J.: Rheological equations from molecular network theories. Trans. Soc. Rheol. 16(1), 99–127 (1972)
Bird, R.B., Armstrong, R.C., Hassager, O.: Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids Volume 1 Fluid Mechanics, 2nd edition. p. 144, Wiley, New York (1987)
Bair, S., Khonsari, M.M.: Generalized Reynolds equations for line contact with doubleNewtonian shearthinning. Tribol. Lett. 18(4), 513–520 (2005)
Charles, P., Elfassi, M., Lubrecht, A.A.: DoubleNewtonian’ rheological model for the twodimensional Reynolds equation. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J 225(6), 335–346 (2011)
Bair, S., Winer, W.O.: A simple formula for EHD film thickness of nonNewtonian liquids. In: Dowson, D., Taylor, C.M., Childs, T.H.C., Godet, M., Berthe, D., Dalmaz, G., Berthier, Y., Flamand, L., Georges, J., Lubrecht, A. (eds.) Elastohydrodynamics—’96 Fundamentals and Applications in Lubrication and Traction, pp. 235–241. Elsevier, Amsterdam. (1997)
Bair, S.: Shear thinning correction for rolling/sliding elastohydrodynamic film thickness. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J 219(1), 69–74 (2005)
Kumar, P., Khonsari, M.M.: EHL circular contact film thickness correction factor for shearthinning fluids. J. Tribol. 130(4), 041506 (2008)
Jang, J.Y., Khonsari, M.M., Bair, S.: Correction factor formula to predict the central and minimum film thickness for shearthinning fluids in EHL. J. Tribol. 130(2), 024501 (2008)
Anuradha, P., Kumar, P.: New film thickness formula for shear thinning fluids in thin film elastohydrodynamic lubrication line contacts. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J 225(4), 173–179 (2011)
MoralesEspejel, G.E., Wemekamp, A.W.: Ertel–Grubin methods in elastohydrodynamic lubrication—a review. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J 222(1), 15–34 (2008)
Habchi, W., Eyheramendy, D., Vergne, P., MoralesEspejel, G.: Stabilized fullycoupled finite elements for elastohydrodynamic lubrication problems. Adv. Eng. Softw. 46, 4–18 (2012)
Peiran, Y., Shizhu, W.: A generalized Reynolds equation for nonNewtonian thermal elastohydrodynamic lubrication. J. Tribol. 112(4), 631–636 (1990)
DrozdRzoska, A., Rzoska, S.J., Roland, C.M., Imre, A.R.: On the pressure evolution of dynamic properties of supercooled liquids. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 20(24), 244103 (2008)
Novak, J.D., Winer, W.O.: Some measurements of high pressure lubricant rheology. J. Lubr. Technol. 90, 580–591 (1968)
Bair, S., Qureshi, F., Kotzalas, M.: The lowshearstress rheology of a traction fluid and the influence on film thickness. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J 218(2), 95–98 (2004)
Bair, S., Qureshi, F.: The high pressure rheology of polymeroil solutions. Tribol. Int. 36(8), 637–645 (2003)
Greenwood, J.A.: Film thicknesses in circular elastohydrodynamic contacts. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C 202(1), 11–17 (1988)
Bair, S.: Reference liquids for quantitative elastohydrodynamics: selection and rheological characterization. Tribol. Lett. 22(2), 197–206 (2006)
Bair, S.: Rheology and highpressure models for quantitative elastohydrodynamics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J 223(4), 617–628 (2009)
Habchi, W., Eyheramendy, D., Bair, S., Vergne, P., MoralesEspejel, G.: Thermal elastohydrodynamic lubrication of point contacts using a Newtonian/generalized Newtonian lubricant. Tribol. Lett. 30(1), 41–52 (2008)
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the Lubrizol Corporation and by the Center for Compact and Efficient Fluid Power, a National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center funded under cooperative agreement number EEC0540834. The first author wishes to thank the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) and the Fullbright commission for funding his visiting scholar program at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
At the time this work was done, the first author was holding a visiting scholar position at Georgia Institute of Technology.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Habchi, W., Bair, S., Qureshi, F. et al. A Film Thickness Correction Formula for DoubleNewtonian ShearThinning in Rolling EHL Circular Contacts. Tribol Lett 50, 59–66 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1124901200786
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1124901200786