Yuchuan Liu1

e-mail: ycliu@northwestern.edu Effects of Differential Scheme

Q. Jane Wang
Center for Surface Engineering and Tribology,
Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL 60208
Wenzhong Wang
Yuanzhong Hu
State Key Laboratory of Tribology,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China
Dong Zhu
Innovation Center,
Eaton Corporation,
Southfield, MI 48037
and Mesh Density on EHL Film
Thickness in Point Contacts
This paper investigates the effects of differential scheme and mesh density on elastohy-
drodynamic lubrication (EHL) film thickness based on a full numerical solution with a
semi-system approach. The solution variation with different schemes and mesh sizes is
revealed based on a set of numerical cases in a wide range of central film thickness from
several hundred nanometers down to a few nanometers. It is observed that when the film
is thick, the effects of differential schemes and mesh density are not significant. However,
if the film becomes ultra-thin, e.g., below 10–20 nanometers, the influence of mesh den-
sity and differential schemes becomes more significant, and a proper dense mesh and
differential scheme may be highly desirable. The present study also indicates that the
solutions from the 1st-order backward scheme give the largest film thickness among all
the solutions from different schemes at the same mesh size. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2194916兴
Keywords: elastohydrodynamic lubrication, thin-film EHL behavior, numerical methods

1 Introduction unified solution approach based on the semi-system method and

Elastohydrodynamic lubrication 共EHL兲 solutions are commonly
used for analyzing counterformal contact elements, such as gears,
bearings, cams, and traction drives.
EHL problems have been solved by Ranger et al. 关1兴 and Ham-
rock and Dowson 关2兴 with a direct iterative method for light loads
in point contacts, and Dowson and Higginson 关3兴 with an inverse
method for heavy loads in line contacts. Evans and Snidle 关4兴 and
Hou et al. 关5兴 later applied the inverse method to point contacts.
The inverse method can handle heavy loads but is semi-empirical,
and the convergence may be unstable when it is used to solve
moderate and lightly loaded cases. The Newton-Raphson method
was first pursued by Rohde and Oh 关6兴 to solve line-contact prob-
lems, and Oh and Rohde 关7兴 to solve point-contact problems. This
method was later applied to high-pressure line contact problems
up to 4.8 GPa by Houpert and Hamrock 关8兴. With this method, the
Reynolds equation and the film thickness equation form a nonlin-
ear equation set that can be solved for pressure and film thickness
simultaneously. However, point contact problems may involve a
large amount of computation if the mesh size is small. The mul-
tigrid method with a considerably increased mesh density has
been used by Lubrecht 关9兴, Venner 关10兴, Ai 关11兴, and others to
improve solution convergence and accuracy. Through efficient
elastic deformation calculations, the discrete convolution 共DC兲
and fast Fourier transform 共FFT兲 共DC-FFT兲 approach 关12,13兴 and
the multilevel multiintegration method 关10兴 have considerably ac-
celerated the EHL computation. It has been found that, in practice,
the DC-FFT method is considerably faster than multilevel multi-
integration 关14,15兴. Venner 关10兴 and Ai 关11兴 described a semi-
system method, which ensures that the coefficient matrix of the
Reynolds equation is strictly diagonally dominated by enhancing
the leading diagonal element. With this method the solution con-
the reduced Reynolds equation. It can handle the entire transitions
from the full film and mixed EHL down to boundary lubrication
by solving the hydrodynamic pressure and the contact pressure
simultaneously. Using this robust approach, one can tackle prob-
lems in an extended wide range of operating conditions, e.g., from
light to very heavy loads and for the film thickness from several
microns down to a practical zero 关17兴.
Although the EHL problems have been extensively studied, so-
lution accuracy has not been well addressed. Thus far, the solu-
tions obtained from different numerical methods have not been
fully compared, especially when the lubricant film becomes ultra-
thin. Ehret et al. 关18兴 compared solutions obtained using the mul-
tigrid method, the Newton-Raphson method and the Hamrock-
Dowson equation. The comparison by Holmes et al. 关19兴 shows
that the most noticeable differences among different methods may
occur when the film thickness is smaller than 100 nm. Holmes
关20兴 compared his results obtained using the deformation differ-
entiation method to that using the multigrid method by Venner and
Lubrecht 关21兴. There are some differences, although the compared
cases are still with rather thick films. It has been found that for the
ultrathin-film EHL, the numerical solution method becomes much
trickier and more critical. The work presented in this paper is to
investigate the effects of mesh size and differential schemes for
the wedge term on EHL film thickness solutions at different
speeds, which aims at a better understanding of the characteristics
of the ultra thin-film EHL solution.
2 Mathematical Model
The Reynolds equation that describes the formation of hydro-
dynamic pressure in steady-state and point-contact EHL is

冉 冊 冉 冊
vergence is further improved for cases under severe conditions.
Recently, Hu and Zhu 关16兴 and Zhu and Hu 关17兴 developed a ⳵ x ⳵P ⳵ y ⳵P ⳵共¯␳H兲
␧ + ␧ = 共1兲
⳵X ⳵X ⳵Y ⳵Y ⳵X
1
Corresponding author. MCC Mechanical Engineering, 2145 Sheridan Rd, Room where

冉 冊冉 冊
B224, Evanston, IL 60208.
Contributed by the Tribology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF aph ¯␳H3 ␧x
TRIBOLOGY. Manuscript received June 2, 2005; final manuscript received March 2, ␧x = , ␧y =
2006. Review conduct by Liming Chang. 12u␩0 ¯␩ K2e

Journal of Tribology Copyright © 2006 by ASME JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 641

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Coefficients contributions of density derivation term
for separate Couette flow

First-order backward Second-order central Second-order backward

␳X
␣¯i,j 0 0 0
␳X
␤¯i,j 0 0 0
␳X
␥¯i,j 0 0 0
␳X ¯␳i,j − ¯␳i−1,j ¯␳i+1,j − ¯␳i−1,j
␦¯i,j 3¯␳i,j − 4¯␳i−1,j + ¯␳i−2,j
Hi.j Hi.j Hi.j
⌬X 2⌬X 2⌬X

⌷共⌬x2兲 = −
共⌬x兲2 ⳵3u
6 ⳵x3
冏 冏 i,j
+ ⌷关共⌬x兲4兴

Fig. 1 Profiles of dimensionless pressure, film thickness, and In the second-order backward scheme,

冏 冏
first-order film thickness derivative along the centerline in a
Hertzian contact ⳵u 3ui,j − 4ui−1,j + ui−2,j
= + ⌷关共⌬x兲2兴
⳵x i,j 2⌬x
共9兲
The film thickness expression, including normal approach, ge-
ometry clearance, roughness, and elastic deformation, is as fol-
lows:
⌷共⌬x 兲 =
共⌬x兲2 ⳵3u
2
3 ⳵x3
冏 冏 i,j
+ ⌷关共⌬x兲 兴 3

H = H0 + BxX2 + ByY 2 + S共X,Y兲 + V共X,Y兲 共2兲 Comparison of the truncation errors of the three schemes draws
two conclusions. First, for a given mesh size, results obtained by
where S共X , Y兲 denotes roughness, and elastic deformation V共X , Y兲 applying the second-order central scheme most closely approach
is from the Boussinesq integration the exact solution. Solutions from the first-order backward scheme
may have the largest discretization errors. The solution from the
P共¯␰,¯␨兲
V共X,Y兲 = 共CE兲 /冑 ⍀ 共X − ¯␰兲2 + K2e 共Y − ¯␨兲2
d¯␰d¯␨ 共3兲 second-order backward scheme is between the two. Second, as the
mesh spacing decreases, the solution deviations reduce. However,
the superiority of the higher-order formulas relies on the smooth-
The Barus pressure-viscosity relationship is used for viscosity ness of the exact solution of the problem modeled. When speed is
variation in the present study low or load is high, the film thickness gradient of an EHL solution
¯␩ = exp共␣ P兲 共4兲 becomes sharp at the inlet area. The limit case is a Hertzian con-
tact as shown in Fig. 1. The inlet film thickness gradient under-
The Dowson-Higginson pressure-density relationship 关22兴 is goes a turning point, where the higher-order film thickness deriva-
used for density variation tives do not existed. When a sharp gradient occurs, the truncation
Ca P error of a higher-order discretization is much larger than that of a
¯␳ = 1 + 共5兲 low-order discretization. Consequently, on a given grid, the trun-
1 + Cb P cation errors of higher-order terms do not diminish at such a rapid
Load balance is analyzed through the following pressure inte- rate as when the underlying exact solution is smooth. Unless the
gration grid is made extremely fine, a higher order discretization cannot
show apparent superiority over a low-order discretization 关23兴. In
2␲
/ ⍀
PdXdY =
3
共6兲 later sections, one can find that in the thin film regime, the first-
order backward schemes seem to yield more accurate solutions
than the other second-order schemes.
3 Differential Schemes
All differential schemes are derived from the Taylor series ex-
pansion. The first-order backward, second-order central, and
4 Discrete Equation
second-order backward differentiations are often used for discreti- By using the differential schemes mentioned above, the Rey-
zating the Reynolds equation. Because downstream schemes may nolds equation in Eq. 共1兲 can be converted into a discrete differ-
encounter instability caused by convection, forward schemes are ential equation at each unknown pressure point
not preferred here. The truncation errors for the commonly used ␣i,j Pi−1,j + ␤i,j Pi,j + ␥i,j Pi+1,j = ␦i,j 共10兲
three schemes are
in the first-order backward scheme, where ␣i,j, ␤i,j, ␥i,j, and ␦i,j are all known numerical coefficients,

冏 冏 冏 冏
which will be further described later. The Eq. 共10兲 system is
⳵u ui,j − ui−1,j ⌬x ⳵2u solved by Jacobi line relaxation described in 关24兴.
= + ⌷共⌬x兲 ⌷共⌬x兲 = + ⌷关共⌬x兲2兴
⳵x i,j ⌬x 2 ⳵x2 i,j
4.1 Second-Order Central Scheme for Poiseuille Flows.
共7兲 The Poiseuille flows are usually discretized by the Second-order
In the second-order central scheme central differential scheme

冏 冏
⳵u
⳵x i,j
=
ui+1,j − ui−1,j
2⌬x
+ ⌷共⌬x2兲 冋 冉 冊册
⳵ x ⳵P
⳵X
␧
⳵X i.j
=
1
关␧x
⌬X2 i+1/2,j
Pi+1,j − 共␧i+1/2,j
x
+ ␧i−1/2,j
x
兲Pi,j

共8兲 + ␧i−1/2,j
x
Pi−1,j兴 + ⌷共⌬X2兲 共11兲

642 / Vol. 128, JULY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 2 Coefficients contributions of film thickness derivation term for separate Couette flow

First-order backward Second-order central Second-order backward

␣i,j
HX i,j
Di−1,j i−1,j
− Di−1,j i+1,j
Di−1,j i−1,j
− Di−1,j i−1,j
−2.0Di−1,j i−2,j
+ 0.5Di−1,j
−¯␳i,j −¯␳i,j −¯␳i,j
⌬X 2⌬X ⌬X
␤i,j
HX
−␣i,j
HX
0 i,j
1.5Di,j i−2,j
+ 0.5Di,j
−¯␳i,j
⌬X
␥i,j
HX i,j
Di+1,j i−1,j
− Di+1,j −␣i,j
HX i,j
1.5Di+1,j i−2,j
+ 0.5Di+1,j
−¯␳i,j −¯␳i,j
⌬X ⌬X

关 兴 关 兴 关 兴
␦i,j
HX
关Hi,j − 兴共Di−1,j
i,j
Pi−1,j兲 关Hi+1,j − 兴共Di−1,j
i+1,j
Pi−1,j兲 1.5关Hi,j − 共Di,j
i,j i,j
Pi,j + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴
¯␳i,j +Di,j Pi,j + 关共Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴 ¯␳i,j +Di,j Pi,j关共 + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴 ¯␳i,j −2.0关Hi−1,j − 共Di−1,j Pi−1,j兲兴
i,j i,j i+1,j i+1,j i−1,j

⌬X −关Hi−1,j − 兴共Di−1,j Pi−1,j兲

i−1,j
2⌬X −关Hi−1,j兴−共Di−1,j Pi−1,j兲
i−1,j
⌬X +0.5关Hi−2,j − 兴共Di−1,j
i−2,j
Pi−1,j兲
i−1,j
+Di,j Pi,j关共 + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴
i−1,j old i−1,j
+Di,j Pi,j关共 + Di+1,j
i−1,j
Pi+1,j兲兴 i−2,j
+Di,j Pi,j关共 + Di+1,j
i−2,j
Pi+1,j兲兴

Table 3 Comparisons to available results for different

methods

Hcen Hmin
共nm兲 共nm兲

Venner and Lubrecht 关21兴 143 63

Holmes 关20兴 136 61
Present method 135 61
Hamrock-Dowson equation 146 84

冋 冉 冊册
⳵ y ⳵P
⳵Y
␧
⳵Y i.j
=
1
关␧y
⌬Y 2 i,j+1/2
Pi,j+1 − 共␧i,j+1/2
y
+ ␧i,j−1/2
y
兲Pi,j

+ ␧i,j−1/2
y
Pi,j−1兴 + ⌷共⌬Y 2兲 共12兲
where Fig. 2 Present results obtained from the working conditions in
†21‡
1 x 1 x
␧i+1/2,j
x
= 共␧i,j + ␧i+1,j
x
兲, ␧i−1/2,j
x
= 共␧i−1,j + ␧i,j
x
兲
2 2

␧i,j+1/2
y 1 y
= 共␧i,j
2
+ ␧i,j+1
y
兲, ␧i,j−1/2
y 1 y
= 共␧i,j−1
2
+ ␧i,j
y
兲
冋 册
⳵共¯␳H兲
⳵X i.j
=
¯␳i,jHi,j − ¯␳i−1,jHi−1,j
⌬X
+ ⌷共⌬X兲 共15兲

Because film thicknesses at two points, 共i , j兲 and 共i − 1 , j兲, are

The coefficient contributions of the Poiseuille terms in Eq. 共10兲 related to all pressures in a discrete form, these film thicknesses
can be obtained as follows: can be expressed as

冦 冧
␣i,j
p
=
␧i−1/2,j
x 2
Hi,j = H0 + BxXi,j 2
+ ByY i,j + 兺兺D i,j
k,l Pk,l 共16兲
⌬X2 k l

␧i+1/2,j + ␧i−1/2,j ␧i,j+1/2 + ␧i,j−1/2

兺兺D
x x y y
␤i,j
p
=− −
2
Hi−1,j = H0 + BxXi−1,j 2
+ ByY i−1,j + i−1,j
k,l Pk,l 共17兲
⌬X2 ⌬Y 2 k l
共13兲
␧i+1/2,j
x
By substituting Eqs. 共16兲 and 共17兲 into 共15兲, the contributions of
␥i,j
p
= the Couette flow term to the coefficients in Eq. 共10兲 can be given
⌬X2
as follows:
␧i,j+1/2
y
Pi,j+1 + ␧i,j−1/2
y

冦 冧
Pi,j−1
␦i,j
p
=− ¯␳i,jDi−1,j
i,j
− ¯␳i−1,jDi−1,j
i−1,j
⌬Y 2
␣i,j
W
=−
⌬X
4.2 First-Order Backward Scheme for Couette Flow. The ¯␳i,jDi,j
i,j
− ¯␳i−1,jDi,j
i−1,j
Couette flow has two forms, the combined form and the separated ␤i,j
W
=−
form, corresponding to the left and the right sides of Eq. 共14兲 ⌬X
respectively. The separated form includes two terms, a density ¯␳i,jDi+1,j
i,j
− ¯␳i−1,jDi+1,j
i−1,j

derivative and a film thickness derivative ␥i,j

W
=−
⌬X

冤 冥
⳵共¯␳H兲 ⳵␳
¯ ⳵H 1
= H + ¯␳ 共14兲 ␦i,j
W
= ¯␳i,j关Hi,j − 共Di−1,j
i,j i,j
Pi−1,j + Di,j i,j
Pi,j + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴
⳵X ⳵X ⳵X ⌬X

If the first-order backward scheme is used for the combined − ¯␳i−1,j关Hi−1,j − 共Di−1,j
i−1,j i−1,j
Pi−1,j + Di,j i−1,j
Pi,j + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴
form, the expression for the Couette term becomes 共18兲

Journal of Tribology JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 643

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Finally, the total coefficients for Eq. 共10兲 are summations of the 4.3 Second-Order Central Scheme for Couette Flow. As
coefficients for the Poiseuille and Couette flows compared to the first-order backward scheme, the second-order
central differential scheme is supposed to have higher accuracy
due to its smaller truncation error. If the second-order central

冦 冧
␣i,j = ␣i,j
P
+ ␣i,j
W scheme is used for the combined Couette flow, the expression of
the discrete term and the contributions to the coefficients in Eq.
␤i,j = ␤i,j
P
+ ␤i,j
W
共10兲 can be given, respectively, as follows:

冋 册
共19兲
␥i,j = ␥i,j
P
+ ␥i,j
W
⳵共¯␳H兲 ¯␳i+1,jHi+1,j − ¯␳i−1,jHi−1,j
␦i,j = ␦i,j
P
+ ␦i,j
W = + ⌷共⌬X2兲 共20兲
⳵X i.j 2⌬X

冦 冧
¯␳i+1,jDi−1,j
i+1,j
− ¯␳i−1,jDi−1,j
i−1,j
␣i,j
W
=−
2⌬X
¯␳i+1,jDi,j
i+1,j
− ¯␳i−1,jDi,j
i−1,j
␤i,j
W
=−
2⌬X
共21兲
¯␳i+1,jDi+1,j
i+1,j
− ¯␳i−1,jDi+1,j
i−1,j
␥i,j
W
=−
2⌬X

␦i,j
w
= 冋
1 ¯␳i+1,j关Hi+1,j − 共Di−1,j Pi−1,j + Di,j Pi,j + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴
i+1,j

2⌬X − ¯␳i−1,j关Hi−1,j − 共Di−1,j

i−1,j
i+1,j

i−1,j
Pi−1,j + Di,j
i+1,j

i−1,j
Pi,j + Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲兴
册
As described in 关24兴, this scheme will be unstable for heavy loads. In this paper, oscillating results may be observed for the cases
studied using this scheme.
4.4 Second-Order Backward Scheme for Couette Flow. Another high-order differential scheme is the second-order backward
scheme. However, if one processes the wedge term contributions to the discrete Eq. 共10兲 using this scheme in the same way as shown
in Eqs. 共22兲 and 共23兲, divergence is encountered regardless of how the relaxation factor is chosen

冋 册
⳵共¯␳H兲
⳵X i.j
=
3¯␳i,jHi,j − 4¯␳i−1,jHi−1,j + ¯␳i−2,jHi−2,j
2⌬X
+ ⌷共⌬X2兲 共22兲

冦 冧
3¯␳i,jDi−1,j
i,j
− 4¯␳i−1,jDi−1,j
i−1,j
+ ¯␳i−2,jDi−1,j
i−2,j
␣i,j
W
=−
2⌬X
3¯␳i,jDi,j
i,j
− 4¯␳i−1,jDi,j
i−1,j
+ ¯␳i−2,jDi,j
i−2,j
␤i,j
W
=−
2⌬X
3¯␳i,jDi+1,j
i,j
− 4¯␳i−1,jDi+1,j
i−1,j
+ ¯␳i−2,jDi+1,j
i−2,j
共23兲
␥i,j
W
=−
2⌬X

冤 冥
3¯␳i,j共Hi,j − Di−1,j
i,j i,j
Pi−1,j − Di,j i,j
Pi,j − Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲
1
␦i,j
W
= − 4¯␳i−1,j共Hi−1,j − Di−1,j Pi−1,j − Di,j Pi,j − Di+1,j
i−1,j i−1,j i−1,j
Pi+1,j兲
2⌬X
+ ¯␳i−2,j共Hi−2,j − Di−1,j Pi−1,j − Di,j Pi,j − Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲
i−2,j i−2,j i−2,j

Venner and Lubrecht 关24兴 believe that the instability is due to the accumulation of changes in the summation in film thickness. They
proposed the Jacobi distributive line relaxation instead. However, the present authors have realized that if the contributions in Eq. 共23兲
are adjusted as follows, good convergence may be observed for the cases studied:

冦 冧
− 2.0¯␳i−1,jDi−1,j
i−1,j
+ 0.5¯␳i−2,jDi−1,j
i−2,j
␣i,j
W
=−
⌬X
1.5␳i,jDi,j + 0.5¯␳i−2,jDi,j
¯ i,j i−2,j
␤i,j
w
=−
⌬X
1.5¯␳i,jDi+1,j
i,j
+ 0.5¯␳i−2,jDi+1,j
i−2,j
共24兲
␥i,j
w
=−
⌬X

冤 冥
1.5¯␳i,j共Hi,j − Di,j
i,j i,j
Pi,j − Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲
1
␦i,j =
W
− 2.0¯␳i−1,j共Hi−1,j − Di−1,j Pi−1,j兲
i−1,j
⌬X
+ 0.5¯␳i−2,j共Hi−2,j − Di−1,j
i−2,j i−2,j
Pi−1,j − Di,j i−2,j
Pi,j − Di+1,j Pi+1,j兲

644 / Vol. 128, JULY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 Comparison of coefficient contributions between the Couette flow and the Poiseuille flows for a smooth case: „a… distri-
butions of pressure and film thickness, „b… distribution of coefficient ␣ in Eq. „10…, „c… distribution of coefficient ␤ in Eq. „10…, „d…
distribution of coefficient ␥ in Eq. „10…, and „e… distribution of coefficient ␦ in Eq. „10…

4.5 Mixed Scheme for Couette Flow. In Secs. 4.2–4.4, the
first-order backward, second-order central and second-order back-
ward schemes are applied to the combined form of the Couette
flow. If these differential schemes are applied to the separated
form, shown in Eq. 共14兲, one can get various mixed discrete
schemes. One example is the first-order backward for the density
under consideration.
First, applying the first-order backward, second-order central,
and second-order backward schemes to the density derivative term
yields

冋 册
derivative term and the second-order backward for the film thick-
ness derivative term. Actually, there could be a rather large num- ⳵␳
¯ ¯␳i,j − ¯␳i−1,j
H = Hi.j + ⌷共⌬X兲 共25兲
ber of possible scheme combinations when the mixed schemes are ⳵X i.j ⌬X

Journal of Tribology JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 645

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4 Comparison of coefficient contributions between the Couette flow and the Poiseuille flows for a case involving a sinu-
soidal rough surface: „a… distributions of pressure and film thickness, „b… distribution of coefficient ␣ in Eq. „10…, „c… distribution
of coefficient ␤ in Eq. „10…, „d… distribution of coefficient ␥ in Eq. „10…, and „e… distribution of coefficient ␦ in Eq. „10…

冋 册 H
⳵␳
¯
⳵X i.j
= Hi.j
¯␳i+1,j − ¯␳i−1,j
2⌬X
+ ⌷共⌬X2兲 共26兲
listed in Table 1.
Second, the film thickness derivative term can be processed
similarly, if the first-order backward, second-order central, and

冋 册
H
⳵␳
¯
⳵X i.j
= Hi.j
3¯␳i,j − 4¯␳i−1,j + ¯␳i−2,j
2⌬X
+ ⌷共⌬X2兲 共27兲
second-order backward schemes are used for this term

冋 册
¯␳
⳵H
= ¯␳i.j
Hi,j − Hi−1,j
+ ⌷共⌬X兲 共28兲
The coefficient contributions to Eq. 共10兲 from Eqs. 共25兲–共27兲 are ⳵X i.j ⌬X

646 / Vol. 128, JULY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 4 Material parameters and working conditions for nu-
merical cases

Parameters Value Unit

w 800 N
E⬘ 2.1978⫻ 1011 Pa
Rx 1.905⫻ 10−2 m
␣ 1.82⫻ 10−8 1 / Pa
␩0 0.096 Pa s
a 4.725⫻ 10−4 m
ph 1.711⫻ 109 Pa

冋 册 ¯␳
⳵H
⳵X i.j
= ¯␳i.j
Hi+1,j − Hi−1,j
2⌬X
+ ⌷共⌬X2兲 共29兲

冋 册¯␳
⳵H
⳵X i.j
= ¯␳i.j
3Hi,j − 4Hi−1,j + Hi−2,j
2⌬X
+ ⌷共⌬X2兲 共30兲

The coefficient contributions to Eq. 共10兲 from Eqs. 共28兲–共30兲 are

listed in Table 2.
For mixed differential schemes, the total coefficients for the
discrete Eq. 共10兲 should come from both Poiseuille flows and the
separated Couette flow terms

冦 冧
␳X
␣i,j = ␣i,j
P
+ ␣¯i,j + ␣i,j
HX

␳X
␤i,j = ␤i,j
P
+ ␤¯i,j + ␤i,j
HX

␳X
共31兲
␥i,j = ␥i,j
P
+ ␥¯i,j + ␥i,j
HX

␳X
␦i,j = ␦i,j
P
+ ␦¯i,j + ␦i,j
HX

As mentioned before, the effect of pressure on density is lim-

ited. For a maximum Hertzian pressure of 4.0 GPa, the density
increase does not exceed 33% of that in the ambient condition.
Therefore, when the Couette flow term is in the separated form,
the film thickness derivative term is dominant. Its differential
scheme should dominate the accuracy of the final solution.
5 Numerical Method and Model Validation
Based on a given initial pressure, the film thickness can be
solved according to Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲 by using the DC-FFT method
关12,13兴 for elastic deformation. Once the film thickness is ob-
tained, discrete Eq. 共10兲 is solved by line relaxation with an under
relaxation factor, thus obtaining a new pressure distribution. The
above loop is repeated until the relative pressure error between
two iterations is smaller than a prescribed error control factor,
which is 1 ⫻ 10−6 in the present study. Out of the pressure loop,
there is another loop for load balance, Eq. 共6兲. Through compari-
son of the dimensionless load, 2␲ / 3, and the integration of total
dimensionless pressures, normal approach H0 is determined by
another under relaxation iteration.
A comparison of the results from the current model to the
second-order backward scheme for the combined Couette term
Fig. 5 Effect of entrainment speed on the shapes of film thick-
ness and pressure: film thickness and pressure profiles along
the centerline „a… in X direction and „b… in Y direction
and those given in 关20兴 is shown in Table 3. Figure 2 presents the
film thickness and pressure along the centerline in the moving
direction comparable to those in 关20兴. The working conditions,
differential scheme, computational domain, and mesh number are
the same as those used in 关21兴. The present results for central film
thickness and minimum film thickness agree very well with those
presented in Refs. 关20,21兴.
6 Contact Condition and the Reduced Reynolds
Equation
The contact condition used in the present work is the same as
those described in 关16,17兴. A very small value, e.g., ␧ = 1.0

Table 5 The corresponding applied schemes for seven differential schemes. 1B, 2C, and 2B
refer to the first-order backward scheme, second-order central scheme, and second-order
backward scheme, respectively.

Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3 Scheme 4 Scheme 5 Scheme 6 Scheme 7

⳵共¯␳H兲 1B 2C 2B
⳵X
⳵␳
¯ 1B 1B 1B 2B
H
⳵X
⳵H 1B 2C 2B 2B
¯␳
⳵X

Journal of Tribology JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 647

Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 6 Effect of differential scheme on the shapes of film thick-
ness and pressure: film thickness and pressure profiles along
the centerline „a… in X direction and „b… in Y direction
⫻ 10−6, is selected as the criterion for contact determination. The
use of a smaller ␧ would negligibly affect the calculated results. If
H is larger than ␧, the full Reynolds equation in Eq. 共1兲 is used to
obtain the hydrodynamic pressure. Otherwise, the contact pressure
is obtained from the steady-state reduced Reynolds equation
⳵H
=0 共32兲
⳵X
In the present algorithm, when the film thickness is smaller than ␧,
it is directly set to ␧. In this case, the solution to Eq. 共32兲 is
equivalent to H expressed in the following contact equation:
H=␧ 共33兲
The results obtained by using Eq. 共32兲 were compared to those
obtained from Eq. 共33兲. In both cases, Eq. 共1兲 was used for lubri-
cation pressure. It was found that there is no obvious difference
between these two treatments. However, the advantage of replac-
ing Eq. 共33兲 by Eq. 共32兲 is that both the reduced Reynolds equa-
tion in Eq. 共32兲 and the full Reynolds equation in Eq. 共1兲 are all in
the same equation system; therefore, Eq. 共32兲 can be easily pro-
gramed.
The reduced Reynolds equation can also be used to explain the
EHL behavior. Since pressure in the inlet area is low, viscosity
and density here are lower than those in the center zone, and the
elastic deformation is also small. It is well known that film thick-
ness is formed mainly by the entraining action in this magic inlet
648 / Vol. 128, JULY 2006
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 7 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 1250 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum
film thickness
area. On the contrary, pressure is very high in the central area,
which causes very high viscosity and density and large elastic
deformation. These features result in such small coefficients for
the Poiseuille flows, ␧x and ␧y, that Poiseuille flows can be ne-
glected. In this case, the Reynolds equation reduces to
⳵共¯␳H兲
=0 共34兲
⳵X
Equation 共34兲 has a solution in the form
¯␳H = const 共35兲
Because the change in the density ␳ is small, the film thickness
along the X direction in the central area should be almost constant.
Here, the above statement is checked for validation since the
present method solves pressures in both areas from the same full
Reynolds equation.
A numerical example for smooth surface EHL that supports the
above statement is illustrated in Fig. 3. The working conditions
are listed in Table 4. Contributions to the solutions are shown in
Figs. 3共b兲–3共d兲. All plots in these figures show the results along
the centerline. The vertical coordinates, A1, A2, A3, and b corre-
spond to the coefficients ␣, ␤, ␥, and ␦ in Eq. 共10兲. The dotted and
dashed lines are for the contributions from the Poiseuille flows
and the Couette flow, while the solid line is for the summation of
the contributions from both sides. The figures show the absolute
values of all contributions. Three regions can be identified. In the
area far from the inlet border of the contact zone, the solid line
strictly follows the dotted line, indicating that the Poiseuille flows
are dominant. In the area around the inlet, the solid line first
follows the dotted line and then follows the dashed line. This
means that both the Poiseuille flows and the Couette flow are
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 8 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 312.5 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum
film thickness
important. In the central area, the solid line follows the dashed
line, which means that the Couette flow is dominant. In general,
Poiseuille flow and Couette flow have different weights of influ-
ence in different areas.
However, the above statement may only be valid for smooth
surface contacts when the film is ultrathin. The results may be
different when surface roughness is involved. A sample case with
a stationary transverse sinusoidal surface is shown in Fig. 4. The
working conditions are the same as those in 关25兴. The solution
indicates that, because of the effect of roughness, the solid line
does not always follow the dashed line in the central high-pressure
area, revealing that both Poiseuille flows and the Couette flow are
important, and completely using the reduced Reynolds equation in
Eq. 共34兲 in the central area for rough surfaces may result in some
numerical error. This observation indicates that for rough-surface
EHL cases, the reduced Reynolds equation should only be used
when condition h 艋 ␧ is satisfied in a point-by-point basis, as
stated in 关16,17兴.
7 Results
Numerical analyses are conducted to investigate the influences
of speed, differential scheme, and mesh size. The operating con-
ditions and parameters are the same as those in Table 4. The
solution domain is −1.9⬍ X ⬍ 1.1 and −1.5⬍ Y ⬍ 1.5. First, results
for seven entrainment speeds are selected to compare:
1250 mm/ s, 312.5 mm/ s, 100 mm/ s, 30 mm/ s, 10 mm/ s,
3 mm/ s, and 1 mm/ s. These results correspond to the central film
thicknesses from relatively thick 共⬃530 nm兲 to thin 共3 – 4 nm兲.
Second, four computational meshes are chosen for the same solu-
tion domain: 128⫻ 128, 256⫻ 256, 512⫻ 512, and 1024⫻ 1024,
Journal of Tribology
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 9 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 100 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum
film thickness
corresponding to mesh sizes of ⌬X = ⌬Y = 0.02344, 0.01172,
0.00586, and 0.00293, respectively. Third, solutions with seven
differential schemes for the Couette term are compared. Details of
theses schemes are listed in Table 5. For all the cases with contact,
Hmin are identical, equal to the film thickness lower limit of
0.47 nm, which corresponds to the dimensionless value of ␧
= 1.0⫻ 10−6.
Figures 5 and 6 focus on comparisons of the film thickness and
pressure profiles along the centerlines in the X and Y directions.
Figure 5 presents the effect of decreasing entrainment speeds. All
results were obtained from scheme 1, the separated first-order
backward approach, on the finest mesh, 1024⫻ 1024. The results
for U = 1250 mm/ s are not included in order to emphasize the
thin-film performance. It is clear that, as speed decreases, EHL
pressure gradually approaches the Hertzian pressure. On the other
hand, the film thickness keeps its horseshoe shape and becomes
flatter at lower speeds.
Figure 6 shows the effect of the differential schemes by using
an ultrathin-film case of U = 1 mm/ s on the finest mesh of 1024
⫻ 1024. It is found that the first-order backward schemes, both the
separated 共scheme 1兲 and the combined 共scheme 5兲 yield the
thickest film; the films from the second-order backward schemes
共scheme 3, 4, 7兲 are the thinnest; while those from the second-
order central schemes 共scheme 2 and 6兲 are in between. The os-
cillating film is from scheme 6, the combined second-order central
scheme.
The following comparisons focus on the central film thickness
and minimum film thickness. Figures 7 and 8 show the results for
the high-speed cases of 1250 mm/ s and 312.5 mm/ s. The analy-
sis of both Hcen 共Figs. 7共a兲 and 8共a兲兲 and Hmin 共Figs. 7共b兲 and
JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 649
 Fig. 10 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 30 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum film
thickness
8共b兲兲 indicate that as the mesh number increases, all solutions
from different schemes approach a constant value. The compari-
sons among different differential schemes indicate that for Hcen,
all the solutions from the first-order backward schemes, both sepa-
rated and combined forms 共schemes 1 and 5兲, gradually decrease
toward the constant value, whereas all the solutions from the
second-order backward schemes, both separated and combined
forms 共schemes 3, 4, and 7兲, increase toward this value. Solutions
obtained using the second-order central schemes 共schemes 2 and
6兲 are in between. For these high-speed cases, the second-order
central schemes yield solutions of the highest accuracy due to
their smallest truncation errors. By using a coarse mesh of 256
⫻ 256, the solutions obtained by means of these schemes con-
verge to a value that can be considered sufficiently accurate. The
second-order backward schemes also yield higher accuracy and
fast convergence without datum oscillation. It is fair to say that
the second-order backward schemes are more suitable for thick
film cases at high rolling speeds.
The solutions confirm that the effect of pressure on density is
limited. For mixed differential schemes, the final solution accu-
racy is dominated by the film thickness derivative term. As a
result, although scheme 2 uses the first-order backward for the
density derivative term, its solution behavior is similar to that of
scheme 5, which uses the full second-order central scheme. Simi-
larly, both schemes 3 and 4 use the second-order backward for the
film thickness derivative term. Although their schemes for the
density derivation term are different, their solutions show similar
behaviors.
However, the tendency of Hmin variation is slightly different. In
Fig. 7共b兲, all the Hmin values from the first-order backward
650 / Vol. 128, JULY 2006
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 11 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 10 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum film
thickness
schemes, including schemes 1 and 5, get their maximum on mesh
256⫻ 256, then slightly decrease toward the final solution, while
in Fig. 8共b兲, the Hmin values from those increase toward the final
solution. For other schemes, other than the first-order backward
scheme, Hmin always increases toward the final solution. Simi-
larly, the results from the first-order backward are the largest,
whereas those from the second-order backward are the smallest.
The second-order central scheme yields results in between. In
addition, the differences between Hcen and Hmin, which reflects the
flatness of film thickness distribution in the nominal contact area,
are 306 nm and 135 nm for U = 1250 mm/ s and 312.5 mm/ s, re-
spectively.
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the results for the intermediate
speeds of 100 mm/ s and 30 mm/ s. The phenomena are similar to
those shown in the solutions for the high-speed cases. However, as
the speed and the film thickness decrease, the difference between
Hcen and Hmin becomes smaller, approximately 67 nm for
100 mm/ s and 30 nm for 30 mm/ s, respectively. This reduced
difference means that smaller film thickness corresponds to a flat-
ter film thickness distribution. Meanwhile, the pressure distribu-
tion approaches the Hertzian pressure as the height of the pressure
peak at the outlet reduces. Similar observations were found in
关26兴. It is understood that, as the speed approaches zero, the film
thickness approaches zero and the entire solution approaches that
of the Hertzian dry contact.
The results for the case of 30 mm/ s with a thinner film, as
shown in Fig. 10共a兲, is different from that of the thicker film
cases. Hcen from the first-order backward schemes 共1 and 5兲 on the
coarse mesh 128⫻ 128 becomes low compared to that on the fine
meshes due to poor resolution in the inlet area. Similar to Hmin in
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 12 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 3 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum film
thickness
Fig. 7共b兲, the Hcen values from the first-order backward schemes
have their maximum on mesh 256⫻ 256. Therefore, for the low
speed and thin film cases, a fine mesh should be used to obtain
more accurate results. But even for the finer mesh, the first-order
backward scheme still gives the maximum value of Hcen.
Figures 11–13 plot the results obtained for the low speeds of
10 mm/ s, 3 mm/ s, and 1 mm/ s, respectively. At the speed of
10 mm/ s, as shown in Fig. 11共a兲, Hcen from the first-order back-
ward schemes reach the maximum on the mesh of 512⫻ 512. As
speed decreases to 3 mm/ s, the maximum occurs on the mesh of
1024⫻ 1024, as shown in Fig. 12共a兲. However, for a much lower
speed of 1 mm/ s, as shown in Fig. 13共a兲, the solutions from the
first-order backward schemes does not reach a maximum for the
tested mesh numbers. The first-order backward schemes on a
mesh of 512⫻ 512 seem to be good enough for the calculation in
this ultrathin region, owing to their good convergence behavior
and practical computational efficiency, because the difference of
film thickness due to further mesh refinement is only ⬃0.5 nm,
which is about in, or smaller than, the order of a typical lubricant
molecule.
The approximate differences between Hcen and Hmin are 14 nm,
7 nm, and 3 nm for the cases at the speeds of 10 mm/ s, 3 mm/ s,
and 1 mm/ s, respectively. It can be expected that as the speed
reduces to zero, the difference will approach zero, and the EHL
film shape will approach that of a smooth Herzian dry contact.
8 Conclusions
This paper investigates the effects of differential scheme and
mesh size on EHL film thickness based on a full numerical solu-
Journal of Tribology
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 13 Variation of film thickness as mesh number increases
for U = 1 mm/ s: „a… central film thickness and „b… minimum film
thickness
tion with a semi-system approach. Solutions from seven differen-
tial schemes for the Couette flow term, four mesh densities, and
seven speeds are compared. It is concluded that
1. The film thickness solved by using the first-order backward
differentiation of the Couette flow is the thickest among all
schemes studied. For film thickness larger than or around
10 nm, an increase in mesh number generally causes the
central film thickness to decrease toward an ultimate value.
However, for ultrathin films, e.g., a few nanometers, the con-
vergence behavior of the first-order backward schemes be-
comes similar to that of the second-order schemes: the film
thickness all increase toward the ultimate value.
2. A new second-order backward differential scheme is derived
by coefficient adjustment. For thick film cases, the second-
order backward schemes are suitable due to its high accu-
racy. However, when film thickness reduces to a few nanom-
eters, the first-order backward schemes may be better due to
their less dependence on mesh size.
3. In the central area of an EHL interface, the Couette flow
dominates. However, such domination is only valid in
smooth surface EHL problems when the film is ultrathin. For
the case involving a rough surface, both of the Poiseuille
flows and the Couette flow are important, and the reduced
Reynolds equation should be applied on a point-by-point
basis wherever the condition, h 艋 ␧, is satisfied.
In general, when the film is thick, the effects of differential
schemes and mesh density are relatively insignificant. If the film
is ultrathin, saying below 10– 20 nm, the influence of mesh den-
sity and differential schemes becomes more significant, and prop-
JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 651
 erly selected dense meshes and differential schemes may be
highly desirable. However, the low-speed cases in this paper in-
dicate that the difference of the central film thickness as a result of
mesh refinement from 512 to 1024 is only ⬃0.5 nm, and the dif-
ference due to further refinement should be much smaller. Re-
questing a numerical accuracy to the order of magnitude below
the lubricant molecular size is not necessary.
Acknowledgment
Yuchuan Liu and Q. Jane Wang would like to express their
gratitude for the support from National Science Foundation, Of-
fice of Naval Research, Department of Energy, Eaton Corporation,
and Center for Surface Engineering & Tribology 共CSET兲 at Geor-
gia Institute of Technology & Northwestern University. Bo He and
Ashlie Martini at CSET should also be acknowledged for their
help in manuscript preparation.
Nomenclature
a ⫽ semi-axis of Hertzian contact ellipse in the
rolling direction 共m兲
A ⫽ amplitude of sinusoidal roughness 共m兲
b ⫽ semi-axis of Hertzian contact ellipse perpen-
dicular to the rolling direction 共m兲
Bx, By ⫽ coefficients for geometry term in the film
thickness equation, Eq. 共2兲, Bx = a / 2Rx, By
= b2 / 2aRy
CE ⫽ coefficients for elastic deformation in Eq. 共3兲,
CE= b2ph / a␲E⬘ = 2Ke ph / ␲E⬘
ca, cb ⫽ coefficients for pressure-density equation, ca
= 0.6⫻ 10−9, cb = 1.7⫻ 10−9
Ca, Cb ⫽ dimensionless coefficients for pressure-density
equation, Eq. 共5兲, Ca = ca ph, Cb = cb ph
Di,j
k,l ⫽ influence coefficient of position 共Xi , Y j兲 with
respect to 共Xk , Y l兲
E1, E2 ⫽ Young’s modulus of two surfaces 共Pa兲
E⬘ ⫽ reduced Young’s modulus of two surfaces,
1 / E⬘ = 共1 / 2兲关共1 − ␮21 / E1兲 + 共1 − ␮22 / E2兲兴, 共Pa兲
G共X , Y兲 ⫽ dimensionless geometry clearance, G共X , Y兲
= B xX 2 + B y Y 2
h, H ⫽ film thickness, 关m兴, and its dimensionless
value, H = h / a
h0, H0 ⫽ normal approach of two surfaces 共m兲, and its
dimensionless value, H0 = h0 / a
Hcen, Hmin ⫽ dimensionless central film thickness and mini-
mum film thickness
Ke ⫽ contact ellipticity, Ke = b / a
p ⫽ pressure 共Pa兲
ph ⫽ maximum Hertzian pressure 共Pa兲
P ⫽ dimensionless pressure, P = p / ph
r ⫽ polar radii
R ⫽ ball radii
R1x, R2x ⫽ radii of curvature of surface 1 and surface 2 in
x direction
R1y, R2y ⫽ radii of curvature of surface 1 and surface 2 in
y direction
Rx, Ry ⫽ reduced radii of curvature in x and y direc-
tions, 1 / Rx = 1 / R1x + 1 / R2x, 1 / Ry = 1 / R1y + 1 / R2y
S ⫽ slide-to-roll ratio, S = 共u2 − u1兲 / u
S共X , Y兲 ⫽ dimensionless roughness; see Eq. 共2兲
u1, u2 ⫽ velocities of two surfaces 共m/s兲
u ⫽ entrainment velocity, u = 共u1 + u2兲 / 2, 共m/s兲
V共X , Y兲 ⫽ dimensionless elastic deformation; see Eqs. 共2兲
and 共3兲
w ⫽ load 共N兲
x, y ⫽ coordinates, 共m兲
X, Y ⫽ dimensionless coordinates X = x / a, Y = y / b
652 / Vol. 128, JULY 2006
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
␣ ⫽ pressure-viscosity coefficient 共1/Pa兲
␣, ␤, ␥, ␦ ⫽ coefficients and right side in the discrete Rey-
nolds equation, Eq. 共10兲
⌬X, ⌬Y ⫽ dimensionless mesh spacing in x and y
directions
␧x, ␧y ⫽ dimensionless coefficients for Poiseuille flow
␩ ⫽ viscosity 共Pa s兲
␩o ⫽ ambient viscosity 共Pa s兲
¯␩ ⫽ dimensionless viscosity, ¯␩ = ␩ / ␩0
␮1, ␮2 ⫽ Poisson ratios of two surfaces
␳ ⫽ density of lubricant 共kg/ m3兲
␳0 ⫽ ambient density 共kg/ m3兲
¯␳ ⫽ dimensionless density, ¯␳ = ␳ / ␳0
␻ ⫽ wavelength of sinusoidal roughness
⌷ ⫽ truncation error
⍀ ⫽ solution domain
Subscripts
i, j ⫽ at position 共Xi , Y j兲
Superscripts
P ⫽ coefficients form Poiseuille flow term
W ⫽ coefficients form combined Couette flow term
HX ⫽ coefficients form film thickness derivation in
separate Couette flow term
¯␳X ⫽ coefficients form density derivation in separate
Couette flow term
References
关1兴 Ranger, A. P., Ettles, C. M. M., and Cameron, A., 1975, “The Solution of the
Point Contact Elastohydrodynamic Ploblem,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A,
A346, pp. 227–244.
关2兴 Hamrock, B. J., and Dowson, D., 1976, “Isothermal Elastohydrodynamic Lu-
brication of Point Contacts Part 1—Theoretical Formulation,” ASME J. Lubr.
Technol., 98共2兲, pp. 223–229.
关3兴 Dowson, D., and Higginson, G. R., 1959, “A Numerical Solution to Elastohy-
drodynamic Problem,” J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 1, pp. 6–15.
关4兴 Evans, H. P., and Snidle, R. W., 1981, “Inverse Solution of Reynolds Equation
of Lubrication under Point Contact Elastohydrodynamic Conditions,” ASME
J. Lubr. Technol., 103共4兲, pp. 539–546.
关5兴 Hou, K. P., Zhu, D., and Wen, S. Z., 1987, “An Inverse Solution to the Point
Contact EHL Problem Under Heavy Loads,” ASME J. Tribol., 109共3兲, pp.
432–436.
关6兴 Rohde, S. M., and Oh, K. P., 1975, “A Unified Treatment of Thick and Thin
Film Using Higher Order Element Methods,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A,
A343, pp. 315–331.
关7兴 Oh, K. P., and Rohde, S. M., 1977, “Numerical Solution of the Point Contact
Problem Using the Finite Element Method,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 11,
pp. 1507–1518.
关8兴 Houpert, L. G., and Hamrock, B. J., 1986, “Fast Approach for Calculating
Film Thickness and Pressure in Elastohydrodynamically Lubricated Contacts
at High Loads,” ASME J. Tribol., 108共3兲, pp. 411–420.
关9兴 Lubrecht, A. A., 1987, “The Numerical Solution of Elastohydrodynamic Lu-
bricated Line and Point Contact Problems Using Multigrid Techniques,” Ph.D.
thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
关10兴 Venner, C. H., 1991, “Multilevel Solution of the EHL Line and Point Contact
Problems,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
关11兴 Ai, X., 1993, “Numerical Analysis of Elastohydrodynamically Lubricated Line
and Point Contacts With Rough Surfaces by Using Semi-System and Multigrid
Methods,” Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
关12兴 Liu, S. B., Wang, Q., and Liu, G., 2000, “A Versatile Method of Discrete
Convolution and FFT 共DC-FFT兲 for Contact Analyses,” Wear, 243共1-2兲, pp.
101–110.
关13兴 Wang, W. Z., Liu, Y. C., Hu, Y. Z., and Wang, H., 2004, “A Computer Thermal
Model of Mixed Lubrication in Point Contacts,” ASME J. Tribol., 126共1兲, pp.
162–170.
关14兴 Liu, Y. C., Wang, H., Wang, W. Z., Hu, Y. Z., and Zhu, D., 2002, “Methods
Comparison in Computation of Temperature Rise on Frictional Interfaces,”
Tribol. Int., 35共8兲, pp. 549–560.
关15兴 Wang, W. Z., Wang, H., Liu, Y.-C., Hu, Y. Z., and Zhu, D., 2003, “A Com-
parative Study of the Methods for Calculation of Surface Elastic Deforma-
tion,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., 217共J2兲, pp. 145–153.
关16兴 Hu, Y. Z., and Zhu, D., 2000, “A Full Numerical Solution to the Mixed Lu-
brication in Point Contacts,” ASME J. Tribol., 122共1兲, pp. 1–9.
关17兴 Zhu, D., and Hu, Y. Z., 2001, “A Computer Program Package for Prediction of
EHL and Mixed Lubrication Characteristics, Friction, Subsurface Stresses and
Flash Temperatures Based on Measured 3-D Surface Roughness,” STLE Tri-
bol. Trans., 44共3兲, pp. 383–390.
Transactions of the ASME
 关18兴 Ehret, P., Dowson, D., Taylor, C. M., and Wang, D., 1997, “Analysis of Iso-
thermal Elastohydrodynamic Point Contacts Lubricated by Newtonian Fluids
Using Multigrid Methods” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci.,
211共7兲, pp. 493–508.
关19兴 Holmes, M. J. A., Evans, H. P., and Snidle, R. W., 2003, “Open Discussion
With D. Zhu for ‘Elasotohydrodynamic Lubrication in Extended Parameters
Ranges Part II: Load Effect,’ ” STLE Tribol. Trans., 46共2兲, pp. 282–283.
关20兴 Holmes, M. J. A., 2002, “Transient Analysis of the Point Contact Elastohydro-
dynamic Lubrication Problem Using Coupled Solution Methods” Ph.D. thesis,
Cardiff University, UK.
关21兴 Venner, C. H., and Lubrecht, A. A., 1994, “Numerical Simulation of a Trans-
verse Ridge in a Circular EHL Contact Rolling/Sliding,” ASME J. Tribol.,
Journal of Tribology
Downloaded From: http://tribology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
116共4兲, pp. 751–761.
关22兴 Dowson, D., and Higginson, G. R., 1966, Elasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication,
Pergamon, Oxford.
关23兴 Fletcher, C. A. J., 1988, Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol. I.
关24兴 Venner, C. H., and Lubrecht, A. A., 2000, Multilevel Methods in Lubrication,
Elsevier, The Netherlands.
关25兴 Venner, C. H., and Lubrecht, A. A., 1996, “Numerical Analysis of the Influ-
ence of Waviness on the Film Thickness of a Circular EHL Contact,” ASME J.
Tribol., 116共1兲, pp. 751–761.
关26兴 Kudish, I. I., 1996, “Asymptotic Analysis of a Problem for a Heavy Loaded
Lubricated Contact of Elastic Bodies,” Dyn. Syst. Appl., 5, pp. 453–478.
JULY 2006, Vol. 128 / 653