The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong?

The field of elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) now has two very different approaches to the problem. For the first approach, two assumptions regarding the pressure, temperature and shear dependence of viscosity have been essential to the way that classical EHL developed over the last forty years....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Tribology international 2019-03, Vol.131, p.45-50
Main Author: Bair, Scott
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Classical EHL
Elastohydrodynamic lubrication
Lubrication
Pathological science
Pressure dependence
Quantitative EHL
Rheological properties
Rheology
Shear rate
Shear stress
Temperature dependence
Viscosity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3
container_end_page 50
container_issue
container_start_page 45
container_title Tribology international
container_volume 131
creator Bair, Scott
description The field of elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) now has two very different approaches to the problem. For the first approach, two assumptions regarding the pressure, temperature and shear dependence of viscosity have been essential to the way that classical EHL developed over the last forty years. 1. The liquid in the inlet zone responds in Newtonian fashion. 2. The shear stress versus shear rate relationship of the liquid has the same form as the average shear stress versus average shear rate obtained from a traction curve. The new, quantitative, approach employs viscosities measured in instruments which do not rely upon these assumptions. There has been a rapid succession of advances in understanding of film forming and friction under the new approach. •Two assumptions regarding rheology have been essential to classical EHL.•Classical EHL has avoided using viscosity obtained from viscometers.•Primary measurements of viscosity would have allowed testing of these assumptions.•Real pressure-viscosity response does not support the assumptions.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.triboint.2018.10.020
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2180872263</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301679X18305012</els_id><sourcerecordid>2180872263</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_QRY8b51k02TXgx-U-gEFLxW9hTSZbbNsNzXZKv57U6tnLzPwzvvOMA8h5xRGFKi4bEZ9cAvvun7EgJZJHAGDAzKgpaxyxgU_JAMogOZCVm_H5CTGBgAkr-SAXM9XmIUV-tYvndFtpmPcrje9813MfJ2ZNgk_g-nj7Cp7Xek--8QuleC75c0pOap1G_Hstw_Jy_10PnnMZ88PT5O7WW44iD6ndlxxQ7WhRlaaSVbVUhhjJdclarQUaiaLoipr5GAsRyOY0WBrzdCW40UxJBf7vZvg37cYe9X4bejSScVoCaVkTBTJJfYuE3yMAWu1CW6tw5eioHasVKP-WKkdq52eWKXg7T6I6YcPh0FF47AzaF1A0yvr3X8rvgEfL3Zh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2180872263</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong?</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Bair, Scott</creator><creatorcontrib>Bair, Scott</creatorcontrib><description>The field of elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) now has two very different approaches to the problem. For the first approach, two assumptions regarding the pressure, temperature and shear dependence of viscosity have been essential to the way that classical EHL developed over the last forty years. 1. The liquid in the inlet zone responds in Newtonian fashion. 2. The shear stress versus shear rate relationship of the liquid has the same form as the average shear stress versus average shear rate obtained from a traction curve. The new, quantitative, approach employs viscosities measured in instruments which do not rely upon these assumptions. There has been a rapid succession of advances in understanding of film forming and friction under the new approach. •Two assumptions regarding rheology have been essential to classical EHL.•Classical EHL has avoided using viscosity obtained from viscometers.•Primary measurements of viscosity would have allowed testing of these assumptions.•Real pressure-viscosity response does not support the assumptions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-679X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2464</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2018.10.020</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Classical EHL ; Elastohydrodynamic lubrication ; Lubrication ; Pathological science ; Pressure dependence ; Quantitative EHL ; Rheological properties ; Rheology ; Shear rate ; Shear stress ; Temperature dependence ; Viscosity</subject><ispartof>Tribology international, 2019-03, Vol.131, p.45-50</ispartof><rights>2018 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Mar 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bair, Scott</creatorcontrib><title>The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong?</title><title>Tribology international</title><description>The field of elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) now has two very different approaches to the problem. For the first approach, two assumptions regarding the pressure, temperature and shear dependence of viscosity have been essential to the way that classical EHL developed over the last forty years. 1. The liquid in the inlet zone responds in Newtonian fashion. 2. The shear stress versus shear rate relationship of the liquid has the same form as the average shear stress versus average shear rate obtained from a traction curve. The new, quantitative, approach employs viscosities measured in instruments which do not rely upon these assumptions. There has been a rapid succession of advances in understanding of film forming and friction under the new approach. •Two assumptions regarding rheology have been essential to classical EHL.•Classical EHL has avoided using viscosity obtained from viscometers.•Primary measurements of viscosity would have allowed testing of these assumptions.•Real pressure-viscosity response does not support the assumptions.</description><subject>Classical EHL</subject><subject>Elastohydrodynamic lubrication</subject><subject>Lubrication</subject><subject>Pathological science</subject><subject>Pressure dependence</subject><subject>Quantitative EHL</subject><subject>Rheological properties</subject><subject>Rheology</subject><subject>Shear rate</subject><subject>Shear stress</subject><subject>Temperature dependence</subject><subject>Viscosity</subject><issn>0301-679X</issn><issn>1879-2464</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_QRY8b51k02TXgx-U-gEFLxW9hTSZbbNsNzXZKv57U6tnLzPwzvvOMA8h5xRGFKi4bEZ9cAvvun7EgJZJHAGDAzKgpaxyxgU_JAMogOZCVm_H5CTGBgAkr-SAXM9XmIUV-tYvndFtpmPcrje9813MfJ2ZNgk_g-nj7Cp7Xek--8QuleC75c0pOap1G_Hstw_Jy_10PnnMZ88PT5O7WW44iD6ndlxxQ7WhRlaaSVbVUhhjJdclarQUaiaLoipr5GAsRyOY0WBrzdCW40UxJBf7vZvg37cYe9X4bejSScVoCaVkTBTJJfYuE3yMAWu1CW6tw5eioHasVKP-WKkdq52eWKXg7T6I6YcPh0FF47AzaF1A0yvr3X8rvgEfL3Zh</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Bair, Scott</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong?</title><author>Bair, Scott</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Classical EHL</topic><topic>Elastohydrodynamic lubrication</topic><topic>Lubrication</topic><topic>Pathological science</topic><topic>Pressure dependence</topic><topic>Quantitative EHL</topic><topic>Rheological properties</topic><topic>Rheology</topic><topic>Shear rate</topic><topic>Shear stress</topic><topic>Temperature dependence</topic><topic>Viscosity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bair, Scott</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Tribology international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bair, Scott</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong?</atitle><jtitle>Tribology international</jtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>131</volume><spage>45</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>45-50</pages><issn>0301-679X</issn><eissn>1879-2464</eissn><abstract>The field of elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) now has two very different approaches to the problem. For the first approach, two assumptions regarding the pressure, temperature and shear dependence of viscosity have been essential to the way that classical EHL developed over the last forty years. 1. The liquid in the inlet zone responds in Newtonian fashion. 2. The shear stress versus shear rate relationship of the liquid has the same form as the average shear stress versus average shear rate obtained from a traction curve. The new, quantitative, approach employs viscosities measured in instruments which do not rely upon these assumptions. There has been a rapid succession of advances in understanding of film forming and friction under the new approach. •Two assumptions regarding rheology have been essential to classical EHL.•Classical EHL has avoided using viscosity obtained from viscometers.•Primary measurements of viscosity would have allowed testing of these assumptions.•Real pressure-viscosity response does not support the assumptions.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.triboint.2018.10.020</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0301-679X
ispartof Tribology international, 2019-03, Vol.131, p.45-50
issn 0301-679X
1879-2464
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2180872263
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Classical EHL
Elastohydrodynamic lubrication
Lubrication
Pathological science
Pressure dependence
Quantitative EHL
Rheological properties
Rheology
Shear rate
Shear stress
Temperature dependence
Viscosity
title The rheological assumptions of classical EHL: What went wrong?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T03%3A10%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20rheological%20assumptions%20of%20classical%20EHL:%20What%20went%20wrong?&rft.jtitle=Tribology%20international&rft.au=Bair,%20Scott&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=131&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=45-50&rft.issn=0301-679X&rft.eissn=1879-2464&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.triboint.2018.10.020&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2180872263%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-1d594c1ac1c79a2729f76ccd74a8eaed10f273398fe40cd4ec62ca0dfa2ed85b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2180872263&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true