Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236951584
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
183
163
5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Jie Zhang
Katherine Kirk
University of Bristol
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Rob Dwyer-Joyce
The University of Sheffield
154 PUBLICATIONS 1,223 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Bruce W. Drinkwater1
e-mail: b.drinkwater@bristol.ac.uk
Jie Zhang
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bristol,
University Walk,
Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK
Katherine J. Kirk
Jocelyn Elgoyhen
School of Engineering and Science,
University of Paisley,
Paisley, PA1 2BE, UK
Rob S. Dwyer-Joyce
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Sheffield,
Mappin Street,
Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Ultrasonic Measurement of
Rolling Bearing Lubrication Using
Piezoelectric Thin Films
This paper describes the measurement of lubricant-film thickness in a rolling element
bearing using a piezoelectric thin film transducer to excite and receive ultrasonic signals.
High frequency (200 MHz) ultrasound is generated using a piezoelectric aluminum nitride film deposited in the form of a very thin layer onto the outer bearing raceway. This
creates a transducer and electrode combination of total thickness of less than 10 m. In
this way the bearing is instrumented with minimal disruption to the housing geometry
and the oil-film can be measured noninvasively. The high frequency transducer generates
a fine columnar beam of ultrasound that has dimensions less than the typical lubricated
contact ellipse. The reflection coefficient from the lubricant-layer is then measured from
within the lubricated contact and the oil-film thickness extracted via a quasistatic spring
model. The results are described on a deep groove 6016 ball bearing supporting an 80
mm shaft under normal operating conditions. Good agreement is shown over a range of
loads and speeds with lubricant-film thickness extracted from elastohydrodynamic lubrication theory. DOI: 10.1115/1.3002324
Keywords: piezoelectric thin films, rolling bearing, oil-film thickness measurement, reflection coefficient, condition monitoring
Introduction
Journal of Tribology
Background Theory
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
P=
2b
Raceway
z
Rbx
Rby
Rax
Ray
x
Ball
KN =
B
h
Rf2
1 Rf2
2.2 Ball Bearing Lubrication. Figure 1 shows the configuration of a ball bearing outer-raceway and a ball in contact. As
shown, the ball moves along the groove in the x-direction, the ball
and the groove are conformal in the y-direction, and the load is
applied in the z-direction. Subscripts a and b refer to the two
rolling elements i.e., the ball and the raceway, respectively. In
this work, the regression equations of Dowson and Higginson 14
are used to predict the central film thickness hc in the ball-outerraceway contact.
0.67
E0.53
P
E R 2
0.067
1 0.61e0.73k
3
2a
2b
1
1 1 1
=
+
E 2 Ea
Eb
1
1
1
1
1
=
+
+
+
4
R Rax Rbx Ray Rby
where E is Youngs modulus, and is Poissons ratio. The lubricated contact area is elliptical in shape with the minor a and
major b semicontact radii given by
a=
6PR
kE
1/3
b=
6k PR
E
2
1/3
2.3 Lubricant Bulk Modulus. The bulk modulus used to determine the oil-film thickness from the layer stiffness Eq. 1
must be that of the oil under contact pressure. In EHL pressures,
the oil compresses significantly and the local bulk modulus is
several times higher than under ambient pressures. In this work,
the compressibility model of Jacobson and Vinet 16 is used to
determine the influence of pressure on the lubricant bulk modulus.
They gave an equation of state to describe the behavior of the
lubricant under pressure p.
p=
3B0
1 xe1x
x2
B0
2 + 1x x2e1x
x2
hc
U0
= 2.69
R
E R
2a
5W
nb
x=
o
p
10
2
y 2 Rbx Rby
zb = R2bx x2 + Rby
11
The total elastic deflection at the central point of the contact i.e.,
at x , y = 0 is given by 17.
c =
4.5
nR
P
E
1/3
12
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Protective shroud
Electrode(0.3x3mm)
Bearing shell
Electrical connection
Ball
Cage
Housing
80 mm
h = hc + hg + e c
13
a = b =
e
2
1
= c h g
2
where
re =
for
re 1
14
x2 y 2
+
a2 b2
a = b =
1
c
2 r2e sin1
+ r2e 1
re
for re 1 15
= za,b a,b
za,b
16
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
1.8
1.6
Density
kg/ m3
Longitudinal wave
velocity cl
m/s
Bulk modulus B
GPa
876
1044
7900
1460
4500
5900
1.84
21.2
172
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Rf =
0.4
0.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Results
The reflection coefficient data obtained from the piezo thin film
transducer under various load and speed conditions is shown in
Fig. 6. A distance of zero corresponds to the center of the lubricated contact. Away from the central region i.e., at distances
greater than 300 m the reflection coefficient increases toward
unity. Note that at distances of over 1 mm from the center of the
lubricated contact the reflection coefficient remained within
10% of unity. Remote from the contact, signals are reflected
from a steel-air or steel-oil interface depending on whether the
bearing cavity between the balls remains partially filled or fully
flooded with oil. The former would have a reflection coefficient
R 1, the latter of R 0.95.
When the contact is under the measurement location, the reflection coefficient reduces distinctly as a greater proportion of the
signal is transmitted through the oil-film. It might be expected that
since the oil-film in the contact region is largely parallel 17 that
the reflection coefficient should remain at a constant level corresponding to a value predicted by Eq. 2. However, it can be seen
from Fig. 6 that the results particularly at W = 2.5 and 5 kN
appear to exhibit a local reflection coefficient maximum at the
b)
a)
0.4
Amplitude (V)
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
1.32
1.34
1.36
1.38
1.4
1.42
Time (s)
1.44
17
where Amf is the amplitude of the signal reflected from the lubricant film layer, Areff is the amplitude of the reference signal,
and Rref is the reflection coefficient of the reference interface. The
reflection coefficient calculated from Eq. 17 can then be used in
Eq. 2 to extract the lubricant-film thickness assuming all other
material constants, acoustic properties, and the reference reflection coefficient are known. The relevant acoustic properties used
for bearing steel and the lubricant are given in Table 1.
4
this problem a 3 m cable was used to enable the cable reverberations to be separated and hence permit extraction of the first signal, corresponding to the lubricant-layer reflection. Note that the
distance from the transducer to the inner surface of the outerraceway distance was 4.5 mm and so the total return path of the
ultrasonic echo was twice this. The time domain data of the oilfilm reflection shown in Fig. 5a was converted, via a fast Fourier
transform, to the frequency domain. It can then be seen from Fig.
5b that the piezo thin film transducer is extremely wide band,
with energy in the range 50350 MHz and has a center frequency
of around 200 MHz.
The reflection coefficient was measured by comparing the signal reflected from the interface of interest to that from a known
reference interface. In this case the interface of interest was the
lubricant-oil-film between the outer-raceway and the ball and the
reference interface was that from the inner surface of the outerraceway in the absence of both ball and lubricant i.e., a steel-air
interface and so Rref 1. The reflection coefficient was then calculated from
Amf
Rref
Areff
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
1.46
1.48
1.5
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Frequency (MHz)
Fig. 5 Response of pulse-echo signal obtained from a piezo thin film transducer deposited onto the bearing outer-raceway
total propagation distance 9.0 mm. Signal A is used to extract lubricant-layer thickness and signals B are reverberations
in the cable; a time domain and b frequency domain.
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
1
0.9
Reflection Coefficient, R
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100
100
200
300
400
500
Distance, x (m)
Discussion
= tan1
18
Outer-raceway
zb
x
The reflected rays are then traced back to the transducer plane
i.e., z = d and their location on the x-axis xR is given by
Ultrasonic transducer
d
Air
Ball Rax
(a)
Rbx
P
(b)
(c)
Fig. 7 The effect of ball location on ultrasonic reflection; a the reference signal is
recorded when the ball is remote from the transducer location, b the ball directly beneath the transducer, and c the ball just past the transducer location.
Journal of Tribology
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Table 2 Parameters used to calculate contact dimensions, surface deflection, and oil-film
thickness in the test 6016 ball bearing
Reduced
modulus E
GPa
228
Reduced
radius R
mm
Second elliptic
integral
Ellipticity
ratio
k
5.85
1.014
11.5
xR = x + d tan2
19
NR
NR
20
Effective viscosity
for T68
First elliptic
integral
Pressure viscosity
coefficient
for T68 a
GPa1
3.81
20
0.2
increases linearly with distance for both the unloaded and loaded
cases. It can also be seen that, for the loads plotted, the gradient of
this linear increase is almost independent of load. This means that
for the different load cases considered in this paper the geometrical reflection coefficient Fig. 10 has little load dependency in
this central region. In this central region, the geometrical reflection coefficient is 0.7, meaning that the deformed raceway causes
a 30% reduction in the signal amplitude, relative to the undeformed surface.
Away from the central region, the behavior is more complex
and can be seen to exhibit the same local minima as was observed
experimentally see Fig. 6 and also Rg tends to unity for large x.
12
2
Tangent angle, (degrees)
10
8
6
4
N / m2 s
No load
After load
-1
-2
0
No load
After load
-2
-4
-500
-400
-300
(a)
-3
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100
-200 -100
100
200
100
200
300
400
500
Distance, x (m)
300
400
500
Distance, x (m)
0.9
0.8
-10
-15
-20
-25
-500 -400 -300
(b)
-5
No load
Under load
-200 -100
100
200
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
W=2.5 kN
+ W=5 kN
o W=10 kN
x W=15 kN
0.2
0.1
300
400
500
Distance, x (m)
0.7
0
-500 -400 -300
-200 -100
100
200
300
400
500
Distance, x (m)
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.8
100
200
300
400
l
l
0.6
0.4
0.3
l ll
l
l
l
ll l
Rx = RgxRexx
21
when x a
w = 166 rpm
AlN:
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
w = 106 rpm
1.4
1.6
1.8
Rh when x a
w = 364 rpm
0.5
500
Distance, x (m)
Rexx =
w = 506 rpm
l
l
0.7
0.1
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100
l
l
0.9
Reflection coefficient
22
The test bearing was run at a range of loads and speeds during
which measurements of the reflection coefficient were recorded.
The central reflection coefficient was then extracted and corrected
for geometry by division by the relevant geometrical reflection
coefficient 0.7. The result was then used in Eq. 2 to determine
the oil-film thickness. Figure 12 shows the results. At each test
condition, 20 repeat measurements were made and the average
and error bars representing three standard deviations are shown.
The experimental results are compared with the theoretical solution from Eq. 3. Also shown on the graph are results obtained in
previous work where a conventional highly focused, water
coupled, 50 MHz ultrasonic transducer was used 20. From Fig.
12 it can be seen that not only are the piezo thin film results in
agreement with the previous results, they are somewhat more
tightly grouped around the theoretical line than those from the
focused 50 MHz transducer. It should also be noted that the theoretical prediction from Eq. 3 was based on an assumption that
the viscosity of the oil remained constant during the tests. This
was assumed, in the absence of any further information, and because the tests were conducted in rapid succession before the
bearing could equilibrate after an increase in load or speed. It is
likely that at higher speed the oil entering the contact would be
hotter and hence at a lower viscosity. This would mean a thinner
film being formed than predicted, explaining why for the data at
higher speeds the measured film thickness is above the predicted
value. Overall, this demonstrates that slightly improved results
can be achieved using the piezo thin film device. More importantly, the piezo thin film transducer is significantly more convenient due to its low profile nature and direct contact with the
Table 3 Minor semicontact radius a and central oil-film thickness hc for various bearing operating conditions
Bearing load W kN
Minor semicontact radius
a m
Central film thickness hc m
at various bearing speeds w rpm
Journal of Tribology
w = 106
w = 166
w = 364
w = 506
2.5
10
15
163
0.3
0.42
0.71
0.89
210
0.28
0.4
0.67
0.84
267
0.28
0.38
0.64
0.8
307
0.27
0.37
0.62
0.78
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Conclusions
A novel transducer for the measurement of lubricant-film thickness in bearings has been described. This used the thin film piezoelectric material aluminum nitride that was sputtered onto the outside of the outer-raceway of a deep groove ball bearing. This
resulted in a transducer and electrode combination of less than
10 m in thickness and so offers significant potential for integration in bearing systems with minimal disruption. The active area
of the transducer measured 3 0.3 mm2, and it operated with a
center frequency of 200 MHz. Crucially, this resulted in a narrow
columnar ultrasonic beam that had spatial dimensions less than
those of the lubricated contact. Ultrasonic reflection measurements from the lubricant-film formed as the ball passed under the
transducer location were recorded. This reflection was shown to
be susceptible to small geometrical changes due to ball-raceway
contact. A calibration procedure was then described whereby these
geometrical effects can be reduced and the desired lubricant-film
thickness extracted. The results demonstrated that the lubricantfilm thicknesses can be measured to reasonable accuracy and are
comparable, if not an improvement, over those made with the
more bulky ultrasonic transducer systems used previously.
Acknowledgment
This work was funded by the U.K. Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council Grant Nos. GR/S46963/01 and GR/
S46956/01.
References
1 Stachowiak, F. W., and Andrew, W. B., 2001, Engineering Tribology, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Chap. 7, pp. 281313.
2 Cann, P. M., Spikes, H. A., and Hutchinson, J., 1996, The Development of a
Spacer Layer Imaging Method SLIM for Mapping Elastohydrodynamic Contacts, Tribol. Trans., 394, pp. 915921.
3 Hbel, M., and Haffner, K., 1999, An On-Line Monitoring System for OilFilm, Pressure and Temperature Distributions in Large-Scale Hydro-Generator
Bearings, Meas. Sci. Technol., 105, pp. 393402.
4 Baly, H., Poll, G., Cann, P. M., and Lubrecht, A. A., 2006, Correlation Between Model Test Devices and Full Bearing Tests Under Grease Lubricated
Conditions, Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium on Elastohydrodynamics
and Micro-Elastohydrodynamics, R. W. Snidle and H. P. Evans, eds., Springer,
Dordrecht, Vol. 134, pp. 229249.
5 Jardine, A. K. S., Lin, D., and Banjevic, D., 2006, A Review on Machinery
Diagnostics and Prognostics Implementing Condition-Based Maintenance,
Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 207, pp. 14831510.
6 Glavatskih, S. B., 2004, A Method of Temperature Monitoring in Fluid Film
Bearings, Tribol. Int., 372, pp. 143148.
7 Wang, W. Q., Ismail, F., and Golnaraghi, M. F., 2001, Assessment of Gear
Damage Monitoring Techniques Using Vibration Measurements, Mech. Syst.
Signal Process., 155, pp. 905922.
8 Miettinen, J., Andersson, P., and Wikstrom, V., 2001, Analysis of Grease
Lubrication of a Ball Bearing Using Acoustic Emission Measurement, Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng., Part J: J. Eng. Tribol., 2156, pp. 535544.
9 Anderson, W., Jarzynski, J., and Salant, R. F., 2000, Condition Monitoring of
Mechanical Seals: Detection of Film Collapse Using Reflected Ultrasonic
Waves,Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 214, pp. 1187
1194.
10 Dwyer-Joyce, R. S., Drinkwater, B. W., and Donohoe, C. J., 2003, The Measurement of Lubricant Film Thickness Using Ultrasound, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 459, pp. 957976.
11 Dwyer-Joyce, R. S., Harper, P., and Drinkwater, B. W., 2004, A Method for
the Measurement of Hydrodynamic Oil Films Using Ultrasonic Reflection,
Tribol. Lett., 172, pp. 337348.
12 Dwyer-Joyce, R. S., Harper, P., Pritchard, J., and Drinkwater, B. W., 2006,
Oil Film Measurement in PTFE-Faced Thrust Pad Bearings for Hydrodynamic Applications, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 220, pp. 619628.
13 Zhang, J., Drinkwater, B. W., and Dwyer-Joyce, R. S., 2006, Monitoring
Lubricant Film Failure in a Ball Bearing Using Ultrasound, ASME J. Tribol.,
1283, pp. 612618.
14 Dowson, D., and Higginson, G. R., 1977, Elasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication
(SI Edition), Pergamon, Oxford, Chap. 7, pp. 78105.
15 Harris, T. A., 2001, Rolling Bearing Analysis, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, Chap.
25, pp. 9631010.
16 Jacobson, B. O., and Vinet, P. A., 1987, Model for the Influence of Pressure
on the Bulk Modulus and the Influence of Temperature on the Solidification
Pressure for Liquid Lubricants, ASME J. Tribol., 109, pp. 709714.
17 Hamrock, B. J., and Dowson, D., 1981, Ball Bearing Lubrication: The Elastohydrodynamics of Elliptical Contacts, Wiley, New York, Chap. 3, pp. 6879.
18 Cameron, A., 1966, The Principles of Lubrication, Longmans, London, Chap.
8, pp. 189212.
19 Lee, C.K., Cochran, S., Abrar, A., Kirk, K.J. and Placido, F., 2004, Thick
Aluminium Nitride Films Deposited by Room-Temperature Sputtering for Ultrasonic Applications, Ultrasonics, 4219, pp. 485490.
20 Zhang, J., Drinkwater, B. W., and Dwyer-Joyce, R. S., 2006, Acoustic Measurement of Lubricant-Film Thickness Distribution in Ball Bearings, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., 1192, pp. 863871.
Downloaded 09 Jan 2009 to 137.222.187.115. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm