Int. J. Mech. Sci. Pergamon Press Ltd. 1962 .Yol. 4, pp. 159-170.

Printed In Great Britain

A GENERALIZED REYNOLDS EQUATION FOR

FLUID-FILM LUBRICATION

D. Dowsox
Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Leeds, Leeds 2

(Reeeh'ed 21 August 1961)

Summary-In tho analysis of fluid-film bearings the basic equation employed is known
as tho Reynolds equation. This equation, which governs the generation of pressure in
the lubricant film, is encountered in numerous forms each applicable to a particular set
of circumstances only. The study of fluid-film lubrication suffers from this multiplicity
of Reynolds-type equations, and the influence of different physical mechanisms associated
with pressure generation is frequently masked by the difference in form of the initial
equations. In recent years a further mechanism of pressure generation associated with
the variation of fluid properties across the film has been suggested, and this has resulted
in new forms of the pressure equation. In this paper a generalized form of Reynolds
equation is developed which permits the variation of relevant quantities across, as well
as along, the lubricant film. This equation is derived from the fundamental equations of
hydrodynamics with a minimum of restrictive assumptions, and it will be seen that it
can be reduced to any of the forms currently employed in the analysis of fluid-film bearings.

INTRODUCTION
THE differential equation governing pressure distribution in a fluid-film bearing
was presented by Reynolds! in his classical paper in 1886. This equation was
formed by a marriage of the equations of motion and mass continuity for a
viscous fluid. Reynolds neglected inertia and gravitational effects in relation
to viscous action, and he restricted his analysis to an isoviscous, incompressible
fluid: The adequacy of these assumptions was demonstrated repeatedly by
the satisfactory explanation of bearing performance throughout the next half-
century, and even today the majority of bearings can be analysed within the
framework of these assumptions. However, the increased severity of bearing-
operating conditions, the greater use of gas bearings, and the observation that
parallel-surface thrust bearings carry load contrary to the predictions of the
Reynolds equation has called for a re-examination of the basic equation of
fluid-film lubrication.
In 1949 the increased interest in thermal effects in lubricating films and the
thermal-wedge concept proposed by Fogg", led Cope" to a re-statement of the
basic equations concerned with pressure and temperature distribution in fluid
films. Cope relaxed the assumptions made by Reynolds to the extent that he
allowed for variations of viscosity and density along the film. The variation
of pressure and lubricant properties across the film was still neglected. In
addition Cope assumed that the velocity across the film and its derivatives
were negligible. The assumption that the velocity component across the film
is small compared with the components along the film is reasonable, and indeed
it was employed by Reynolds, but it is not correct to neglect the first derivative
159
160 D. Dowsox

of velocity across-the film in relation to the first derivatives of other velocity

components. As a result of an interesting analysis of representative magnitudes
of terms in the basic equations, Cope concluded that inertia effects were small
compared with viscous effects in both liquid- and gas-lubricated bearings.
Wannier! has shown that the basic Reynolds equation can be derived from
the Stokes equations of hydrodynamics without assuming that the pressure
is constant across the film. It should be noted, however, that the other assump-
tions employed were those adopted by Reynolds; the neglect of inertia effects,
compressibility and viscosity variations being implied by Wannier's initial
equations.
In a comprehensive analysis Halton" extended the investigation performed
by Cope by considering representative values of the terms in the basic equations
for various bearing-operating conditions. He concluded that the application of
hydrodynamic theory within the assumptions made by Reynolds is valid over
a much narrower field than is generally supposed. In particular the restrictive
influence of surface roughness, high speed and variable viscosity is emphasized.
Halton derived a generalized form of Reynolds equation in terms of average
values of functions between rough bearing surfaces. His final equation un-
fortunately discounts the effect of fluid property variation across tho film.
Zienkiewicz" drew attention to the importance of viscosity variation across
the lubricant film in his analysis of parallel-surface thrust bearings in 1057.
By numerical methods he solved the reduced equations of motion and con-
tinuity for this bearing together with the energy equation. Though the current
forms of Reynolds equation do not take into account the variation of property
values across the film, Zienkiewioz showed that under some circumstances the
effect is not negligible. Clearly it is important to understand how this develop-
ment fits into the general picture of pressure generation in fluid-film bearings.
The conditions of operation of fluid-film bearings are so varied that the
literature contains many valid forms of the reduced Reynolds equation. The
multiplicity of Reynolds-type equations iis confusing, and the relationship
between different physical mechanisms associated with the generation of
pressure in fluid films is frequently masked by the difference in form of the
initial equation. It is the purpose of this work to derive a generalized form of
Reynolds equation for fluid lubrication which permits the variation of relevant
quantities across, as weil as along, the film. It will be seen that the equation
can be reduced to any of the forms currently employed.
The lubricant in a fluid-film bearing is normally assumed to behave as a
Newtonian fluid. The effect of non-Newtonian behaviour has recently been
examined by several authors (see, for example, 'I'anner"). The analysis suggests
that in all but a very few cases the effect of non-Newtonian behaviour on fluid-
film bearing performance is negligible.

THE BASIC EQUATIONS OF MOTION AND CONTINUITY

The derivation of a differential equation governing pressure distribution in
a fluid-film bearing is based on the equations of motion and continuity. In
their most general form the equations of motion for a Newtonian fluid can be
 A generalized Reynolds equation for fluid-film lubrication 161

referred to cartesian co-ordinates as follows:

Dv _ Y _ oj) +~ ~ (OV _OU) +~ jl~ (OV _OW) +

PDt - P oy 3 oy'T] oy ox 3 oy'Y) ay oz
+-a (Oil OV) +-a (aVOW)
ox'Y) -+-
oy ox oz'Y) -+-
OZ oy
Dw = Z _ op +~ ~ (OW _OU) +~! (OW _OV) +
PDt P OZ 3 oz'T] OZ ox 3 OZ TJ OZ oy
+ oy'T] (OW
oy + av)
oz + ox TJ (OW
ox + Oil)
oz
The terms on the left-hand side arc inertia terms and on the right-hand side
are the body force, pressure and viscous terms in that order.
The equation of continuity, representing mass conservation, is:

DERIVATION OF A GENERALIZED REYNOI~DS EQUATION

Most ofthe assumptions employed will be introduced at an appropriate stage
in the analysis. The first assumption is that the radius of curvature of the solids
bounding the oil film is large compared with the thickness of the lubricant film.
This assumption, which was adopted by Reynolds and later workers, allows
any effects due to curvature of the oil film to be neglected. The oil film can
thus be unwrapped, and one of the surfaces represented by the plane Z = o.
This simplification and solutions in terms of stream functions which do not
depend on the assumption are considered by Wnnniert, The other boundary
will be separated from the plane by a distance It which may be a function of
x, y and t. The geometry and co-ordinate system are shown.in l!'ig. 1. Suffixes
I and 2 will be used to denote conditions on surfaces z = 0 and z = It respectively.
The next. assumption is that inertia and body-force terms in the equations
of motion are small compared. with the viscous and pressure terms. This
assumption, which implies equilibrium between the pressure and viscous forces
within the fluid, is reasonable for most ofthe situations encountered in fluid-film
bearings (see Cope"). The influence of inertia has been examined in general
terms by Milne" and Elrod", :MiIneconcludes that the load capacity of a bearing
is likely to be increased by inertia effects. However, the magnitude of the
inertia correction suggests that the above assumption is acceptable in a general
analysis.
162 D.DoWSON

When the first equation is reduced to comply with this assumption it takes
the form

u x

FIG. 1. Co-ordinate system.

Similar expressions apply for the y and z components. The order of magnitude
of the viscous terms in the equations of motion can be investigated by defining
the following dimensionless terms:
_ x
- y _ z
x= X u> y z=Z
_ u _ v _ tv
u=u v= V tv=JV

- p - p
P=- TJ- = TJ- p=-
Po TJo ])0

- t
t= T

where the basic values U, X, Po' etc., are selected to make the terms ii, X, p, etc.,
less than or equal to unity.. 'Vith these definitions the first equation of motion
can be written as
 A generalized Reynolds equation for fluid-film lubrication 163
Normally X and Yare of similar magnitude (L) and both are several orders
greater than h. Furthermore, for bearings covered by this general specification
U will exceed V and consequently (X/h)2 will be very much larger than (X/Y)2,
(X/Y) (V/U) and unity. The relative importance of the remaining viscous
terms, which are of order of magnitude (X/h) (lV/U), can be judged from the
form of the continuity equation. In dimensionless terms the continuity
equation becomes

X op o(pii) (~\ (V)

o(p.v) (~\ (J~ o(pfiJ) = 0
UT at + ax + Y] U ofj + h-j U] OZ
It can be seen that the maximum order of magnitude of (X/h) (lV/U) will
not exceed unity or the greater of X/UT or (X/Y) (V/U). Since it has been
argued that (X{h)2 is very much greater than unity and (X/Y)(V/U), it is
clear that the viscous terms of order (X/h) (lV/U) can only be of importance if
X/UT is significant in relation to (X/h)2. This condition "ill arise when the
basic time interval defining the rate of change of density is several orders
smaller than the time interval X/U required for part of the bearing component
to travel through the bearing. The frequency of oscillations which could produce
this condition is so high that the situation can be discounted. The third term
on the right-hand side thus emerges as the predominant viscous effect. This
observation could be jeopardized if Y and h. were of similar magnitude, i.e. a
very short bearing. In such a case the second viscous term, and maybe the
terms within the square brackets, would have to be retained. This may account
for some of the anomalies which arise in short-bearing analysis when only the
third viscous term "is considered.
By retaining only the third term the analysis is limited to bearings whose
width is appreciable compared with the film thickness, and exceptionally high
frequency vibrations are discounted. The basic assumption involved at this
stage is that, owing to the geometry of the lubricant film, the velocity gradients
ou/oz and ov/oz are large compared with all other velocity gradients. The
differentials of the product of viscosity and these first derivatives with respect
to z thus dominate the viscous terms. The second equation of motion can be
reduced in a similar manner and the simplified equations take the form:

op = ~ (aU)
ox oz 7J OZ
(1)
op a (OV)
oy = OZ 7J OZ

A similar order of magnitude analysis shows that more of the viscous terms
must be retained in the third equation of motion at this stage. The equation
becomes
op 2 a (OW OU) 2 0 (OW 8V) 0 (OV) a7J (OU)
oz = 3 oz7J az- ox +3 oz7J oz -oy +oy'YJ 8z +ox OZ (2)

By comparing the terms on the right-hand side of equations (1) and (2),
it can be seen that the pressure gradient across the film is only hlL times the
IG4 D. Dowsox

order of magnitude of tho pressure gradient along the film. Since li ~L the
variation of pressure across tho lubricant films is quite insignificant. On inte-
grating (2) we obtain tho following equation for p:
p = o:(x,y,z)+A(x,y)
where

0: = ;~[(~~ - ~:) + (~:- ;;)] + f[~ ~(~i) + ~~(~~)] dz

On integrating again with respect to z and considering the range z = 0
to z = h it can be seen that

1
A(x,y) = li)oPdz- r
1
h

li
f
o:(x,y,z)dz

= 1i - a
where the bar indicates the mean value of the function across the film. Hence
the expression for p becomes
p = p + ex (x, y, z) - a(x, y) (3)

On differentiating (3) with respect to x and equating to the first of (1) we

obtain

'When the full expressions for 0: and a are introduced, it can be seen that the
second term on the right-hand side is only (hJL)2 times the first term. Hence
with the same degree of approximation as we employed in writing (1) we have

oj) = ~( OU)
ox OZ 7J OZ
(4)
op OV)
0 (
oy = oz 7J oz
where the mean pressure across the oil film p has replaced p. The relationship
between p and p is recalled by (3).
The gradients of the velocity components 1 and v across the film can now
be found by integrating (4).
au
-=--+--
z op B(x, y)
OZ 7J ox 7J
(5)
ov C(x, y)
z op
-=--+--
OZ 7J oy 7J

On integrating again and introducing the boundary conditions-

z = 0,
z = Ii,
 A generalized Reynolds equation for fluid-film lubrication 165

-the following expressions are obtained for the velocity components:

TT
U = u l+op- IZ z .uz+ (U-z-- -o.- z-OP)
- - IZ -dz
ex 01] Fo ox 01]
(6)
v = op IZ -dz+
Ti +- z (T~-
- -Ti- z - IZ -dz
- OP)
ey 0 1] F oy 0 1] o
where
F
o
= fh d z ,
Jo 1]

The velocities quoted in the above boundary conditions are normally interpreted
as the surface velocities of the bounding solids. This implies that there is no
slip between the lubricant and the solids at their common boundaries.
Returning now to the continuity equation and integrating with respect to
z between the limits 0 and li,

fh Op dz+ fh o(pu) dz+ fh o(pv) dz+ [pw]g = 0

Jo ct Jo ox Jo oy
This equation can be expanded according to the general result

fh.ox0 f(x,y,z)dz = 0 fh.

h,
~ ~
uX I.,
f(x,y,z)dz-f(x,y,hz)~+f(x,y,hlh,
ohz
uX
ohl
uX

and this gives

Jof" op 0 fit 0 fit oh

ct dz+ ox Jo (pu) dz+ oy Jo (pv)dz- (pU)zox -
oh
(p V)zoy + [pw]g = 0

The integrals of (pu) and (pv) can be evaluated by parts to give

Io ot
I. 0
~dz+h [o(
~+~U) o( V)]
ox oy
--0
ox
lit [OU
0 p j}z
0 ] dz-
z-+zu~
oz

The expressions for u and v and their derivatives can now be introduced
from equations (5) and (6) and the equation then becomes

(7)
166 D. Dowsox
where
Fo = rhdz
Jo TJ
="Z~
hz dz
F1 = r
Jo TJ

i
h
pz -
F2 = -(z-z)dz
o TJ

-Fa = r h
pZ dz
Jo TJ

G1 = J~' [z~~ (J:~dZ-ZfoZ~)] dz

2 J: [z~~ J:~Z] dz
G =
h op
G3 =
io oz
z-dz

Equation (7) represents the generalized form of the basic equation of fluid-
film lubrication. It allows for variations in fluid properties along and across
the film. It will be noted that it is written in terms of two sets of functions F
and G. All the G functions contain op{oz and since the density is sensibly
constant across the fluid film in the great majority of lubrication conditions
they can be neglected. 'I'hey are, however, retained in (7) for generality. The
functional relationship between p, TJ and z must be known before the integrals
can be evaluated. When the variation of p and TJ with z is negligible"the integrals
can be evaluated analytically to give the well-known form of the Reynolds
equation. In other eases the integrals may have to be evaluated numerically,
and in special circumstances the variation of fluid properties across the film
may be the dominant factor in pressure generation. In such cases the solution
of the generalized equation (7), which combines the equations of mass continuity
and conservation of momentum, must proceed simultaneously with a solution
of the energy equation and the equation of state. Before some particular cases
are considered the assumptions made in the analysis will be summarized.

SUl\1MARY OF ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ANALYSIS

(1) The radius of curvature of the bearing components is large compared
with the film thickness.
(2) The lubricant is a Newtonian fluid.
(3) Inertia and body force terms are small compared with the viscous and
pressure terms in the equations of motion.
(4) Owing to the geometry of the fluid film the derivatives of 1 and v with
respect to z are large compared with all other velocity gradients.
(5) There is no slip between the fluid and boundary solids at common
boundaries.
 A generalized Reynolds equation for fluid-film lubrication 167
ENERGY EQUATION
The form offunctions F and G clearly depends upon the variation of property
values across the lubricant film. This variation depends upon the temperature
distribution and this can be determined from a solution of the energy equation.
The general form of the energy equation is

DE
P-
[0ox (O~
Dt--J -. kox oye (OB
- +- koy oza (O~]
- +- - - p (au
koz ov OW)
-+-+-
ox oy oz + 1>
where
2 2
1> = {(OU)2
7) OZ
+ (OU) + (OV)2 + (OV)2 + (OW) + (OW)2 +
oy ox OZ ox oy
+ 2 (au ov + OV ow + ow aU) + ~ [aU (OU _OV) + OV (OV _OW) + ow (OW _OU)]}
oy ox OZ oy ox OZ 3 ox ox oy oy oy oz oz oz ox
The term on the left-hand side is the convection term and on the right-hand
side we have the conduction, compressibility and viscous dissipation terms.
Variations of thermal conductivity are normally negligible in fluid-film bearings
and the conduction term becomes J kV 2 T. If the lubricant can be treated as an
incompressible fluid the second term vanishes. An order of magnitude analysis
clearly shows that the dissipation function can be reduced to

with little error.

The simplified energy equation rarely yields analytical solutions for realistic
boundary conditions. A useful procedure for obtaining numerical solutions
has been outlined by Zienkiewioz",
PARTICULAR CASES
The form of the basic equation of fluid-film lubrication for several particular
conditions encountered in bearing analysis will now be obtained from the
generalized equation. The restrictions imposed will be clearly stated for each
example. The surface-velocity components throughout the analysis can be
interpreted as follows. Owing to the near parallelism of lubricating films the
components U and V can be taken as the surface velocities in the (x, y) and
the (y, z) planes respectively. 'With the same degree of approximation the
boundary velocities in the z-direction become
lJ~ = (Wh }
(8)
lJ~ = (JV+xny-ynxh
(i) opjoz = 0
In many cases the gradient of density across the film is negligible. 'With
opjoz = 0 all the G functions are zero. Equation (7) then reduces to
ox (R2 OJ))
..?- oy (R2 oft)
ox +..?- oy = h[O(PU)2
ox +o(pV)2] ox [Fa
oy _..?- F (u.2 _ U.)]
1
o
_
-~ [~(T~- Ti)] + f:~ dz+ p[JY 2- Wl]
168 D. Dowsox
(ii) op/oz = 0, op/ot = 0, %y = 0 (Zienkiewiczv)
W hen the additional. assumptions of a steady state and two-dimensional
flow are applied the basic equation reduces to

~ (Fo OP)
ox -ox
= 11 o(pU2 ) _~
ox ax
[FF (0. - 0,)] + P[lVo-
3
2 1-
TV ]
1
o
For the thrust bearing analysed by Zienkiewiez U2 = 0 and n~ = n~ = 0;
hence
~
ax zox(R oft) _~ (F 0,) -ox}~
3
1

This form can be integrated and written as

op z-(C/pU1 )
ox FO(Z2_ z2 )
where
Foz =
hZ
- dz and ~Z2
-
= J.h -dz
Z2
J.o 71 0 71
Zienkiewioz used this equation to calculate the pressure distribution in
thrust bearings. The equation was derived from a reduced equation of motion
and the simplified continuity equation in integral form.

(iii) op/oz = o7J/oz = 0 (Halton 5 )

With the neglect of property variations across the film all the G functions
are zero and the D functions become
h hZ ph3 ph2
~ = -, ~ = -, F 2 = -1'" .F; =-;;--
71 27J ~7J ~7J

The function F2 is evaluated with the value of z ( = ~/Fo) of 11/2.

'Yith these expressions the basic equation becomes

~ (ph OP) +~ (ph OP) = 11 [O(pU2 ) + o(pJ~)] _ ~ [p1l(Uz - U1)] _

3 3

ox 127J ax oy 127J oy ox oy ax 2
_~ [P1l(J~ - Ji)] l op [JJ' _ J.JT]
oy 2 + t at + p 2 1

This equation is exactly equivalent to Halton's equation (72). Halton

points out that the property" values should be interpreted as "average" value
at each location in the plane of the slider.
Gas-bearing analysis. With o, = li = J~ =n~ = n; = 0 the above equation
reduces to the form generally employed in the analysis of bearings operating
with a compressible lubricant,

~ (ph OP) . : (ph oj))

3 3
= U1o(ph)
ox 1271 ox oy 1271 oy 2 ax
Thermal-icedqe analysis. Fogg'' suggested that the variation of density
through a parallel-surface thrust bearing could account for the observed load-
carrying capacity of such bearings. The analysis of this condition can, in the
 A generalized Reynolds equation for fluid-film lubrication 109

absence of side leakage, be achieved by integrating the previous equation to

the form

Dynamic-loading analysis. It has been noted earlier that acceleration effects

have been omitted from the equations of motion on which equation (7) is based.
However, if inertia effects in the oil can be safely ignored, bearings subjected
to loads which vary in magnitude and/or direction can be analysed by using
the appropriate values for TV. For steady conditions in which the oil film
geometry is constant Hi = H~ = o. For "squeeze" film effects Hi and H~ may
have constant values. For dynamic loading Hi = H~ = /(t). If the load changes
in direction Shaw and Maoks'" have shown that conditions should be analysed
relative to the load vector.

(iv) 07J/ox = 07J/oy = o7J/oz = op/ox = op/oy = op/oz = 0 (Isooiscous, incom-

pressible) lubricant (Reynoldst)
Finally, the generalized equation (7) will be reduced to the form developed
by Reynolds in his classical paper. For constant property values equation (7)
becomes

~ (h3 Oii) + ~ (h 3O{)) = 12 h[OU + OT~] _

2
ox ax oy oy 7J ox oy

- 67J ! [h(U
uX
2- U1 ) ] - 67J ,;>0
uy
[1z(T~ - Ti)] + 127J[H; -Hi]

Reynolds employed the following boundary values for velocity:

z=O U1 = ti; Ti = 0 Hi = 0

z=h U.2 = TT
VI
TT2 = 0 TrT2 _
-
TT
VI
olz + TTI
oX
hence

This is the equation (17) derived by Reynolds'. It forms the basis for the
vast majority of investigations in hydrodynamic lubrication. For hydrostatic
bearings the equation can be further reduced as follows below.
Hydrostatic-bearing analysis. For purely hydrostatic action h = a constant
and with H~ = 0 the equation becomes
170 D. DOWSON

Often hydrostatic bearings possess axial symmetry, and in such cases the
equation has the simple form
!- (1' OP) = 0 dp a constant
or or or dr = r

CONCLUSION
The analysis has shown that a generalized Reynolds equation can be derived
from the basic equations of fluid mechanics with few restrictive assumptions.
The equation will reduce to any of the equations currently employed in the
calculation of pressure distribution in lubricating films. This provides a
desirable unity in the subject of fluid-film lubrication.

REFERENCES
1. O. REYNOLDS, TrailS. Roy. Soc. 177, 157 (1886).
2. A. FOGG, Proc, Inst. jlIech. Enqre, 155, 49 (1946).
3. W. F. COPE. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 197,201 (1949).
4. G. H. WAN1\IER, Quart. Appl, Math. 8. 1 (1950).
5. J. H. HALTON, Enqineerinq 186. 59 (1958).
6. O. C. ZIE:NKIEWICZ. Proc, GOIlJ. Lubric, Wear p. 135. Institute of Mechanical Engineers.
London (1957).
7. R. 1. TANNER. Int. J. 111ech. Sci. I. 206 (1960).
8. A. A. l\IIL~""E, Amer. Soc. Mech , Enqrs, J. Basic. Engng. 81 (Series D). 239 (1959) .
9. H. G. ELROD, Quart. Appl. sisn: 17, 349 (1960).
10. l\L C. SHAW and F. MACKS. Analysis Gnd Lubrication oj Bearings p. 198. l\leGruw-HilI,
New York (1949).