Tribology Transactions

ISSN: 1040-2004 (Print) 1547-397X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrb20

Numerical Simulations of Lubricating Grease

Flow in a Rectangular Channel with and without
Restrictions

Chiranjit Sarkar, Lars G. Westerberg, Erik Höglund & T. Staffan Lundström

To cite this article: Chiranjit Sarkar, Lars G. Westerberg, Erik Höglund & T. Staffan Lundström
(2017): Numerical Simulations of Lubricating Grease Flow in a Rectangular Channel with and
without Restrictions, Tribology Transactions, DOI: 10.1080/10402004.2017.1285090

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402004.2017.1285090

Accepted author version posted online: 20

Jan 2017.
Published online: 20 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utrb20

Download by: [Indian Institute of Technology - Patna] Date: 02 March 2017, At: 23:36
TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402004.2017.1285090

Numerical Simulations of Lubricating Grease Flow in a Rectangular Channel with

and without Restrictions
€glundb, and T. Staffan Lundstro
Chiranjit Sarkara, Lars G. Westerberga, Erik Ho € ma
a



Division of Fluid and Experimental Mechanics, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden; bDivision of Machine Elements, Lulea University of


Technology, Lulea, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article presents numerical simulations of the laminar flow of lubricating greases in a channel with Received 12 September 2016
rectangular cross section. Three greases with different consistencies (NLGI grades 00, 1, and 2) have been Accepted 16 January 2017
considered in three different configurations composed of a rectangular channel without restrictions, one KEYWORDS
rectangular step restriction, and one double-lip restriction. The driving pressure drop over the channel Lubricating grease flow;
spans from 30 to 250 kPa. The grease rheology is described by the Herschel-Bulkley rheology model, and boundary layer; velocity
both the numerical code and rheology model have been validated with analytical solutions and flow profile; rheology; lubrication;
measurements using micro-particle image velocimetry. computational fluid
dynamics (CFD)

Introduction
Lubricating greases are used to lubricate various machine ele-
ments such as rolling bearings, seals, and gears. Compared to oil,
grease has many advantages due to its consistency because it
adheres to the solid surfaces of the geometry preventing leaking
and corrosion. Understanding the flow dynamics of grease is
crucial for optimum design of an arbitrary confinement geome-
try and for the understanding of lubrication mechanisms. How-
ever, grease flow in a rolling element bearing, for example, is
very complex due to large variations in flow conditions in vari-
ous parts of the bearing, with both wall bounded and free-surface
flows present. Hence, the rate of shear varies enormously with a
span of around eight decades depending on the location within
the bearing. Considering the motion of the grease from the
beginning of the bearing operation, churning takes place, and
through the motion of the rolling elements, the grease is pushed
to the sides of the bearing, onto the seals/shields, and onto the
bearing cage. In the vicinity of the rolling elements, the grease
will act as a reservoir, enabling relubrication of the bearing and
it is the flow motion of grease in the bearing, which determines
the reservoir formation (Westerberg, et al. (1)). The non-Newto-
nian nature of grease rheology (Barnes (2)) increases the com-
plexity of the flow behavior. In addition, phase separation
causing wall slip (Czarny and Moes (3); Czarny (4); Bramhall
and Hutton (5); Vinogradov, et al. (6)) adds to the complexity.
Measuring the grease flow in a real bearing is very difficult and
has not been performed so far. To simplify the problem, qualitative
measurements in rectangular channels have been done by various
researchers (Westerberg, et al. (1); Li, et al. (7); Scarlett (8)) and
direct flow measurements have been performed on grease in rotat-
ing geometry with microparticle image velocimetry (mPIV) but
with double restricting sealings in focus (Green, et al. (9); Baart,
et al. (10)). Direct measurements have also been done by Britton
and Callaghan (11) and Magnin and Piau (12), who visualized the
grease flow in a plate–plate viscometer using nuclear magnetic res-
onance microscopy, confirming a uniform shear flow across the
gap for Newtonian fluids and an anomalous behavior for non-
Newtonian fluids. The shear rate was averaged across the gap, but
this was valid only at relatively high shear rates and not for low
shear rates. At low shear rates, a plug flow in combination with pos-
sible wall slip occurred, which gave rise to a variation of shear rate
across the gap. To measure this in detail, Westerberg, et al. (1) stud-
ied the slip phenomena at low shear rates using mPIV. They mea-
sured the velocity profiles and slip was indicated by large velocity
gradients in a thin layer adjacent to the wall. An analytical model
based on the Herschel-Bulkley rheology model was also developed
for validation.
Having validated numerical models of the flow in a bearing
during operation, including start and stop and phase separa-
tion, would be a great tool in the design of bearings and for the
understanding of the lubrication mechanism. This is, however,
far away, and numerical models of lubricating grease flow are
scarce in the scientific and technical literature. This is not the
case for oil lubrication; the main reason is that oil is a single-
phase fluid with a Newtonian rheology behavior. Lubricating
greases have a non-Newtonian, shear-thinning rheology due to
their two-phase composition composed of a base oil and thick-
ener agent. Lithium hydroxy stearate is the most widely used
thickener (Lugt (13)). In addition, the phases separate depend-
ing on the flow conditions and possibly other effects, implying
gradients of oil and thickener in the flow, which in turn induce
mechanisms such as wall slip and shear banding.

CONTACT Chiranjit Sarkar chiranjit.sarkar@ltu.se

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/utrb.
Review led by Michael Dube.
© 2017 Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
2 C. SARKAR ET AL.
Lubricant flow in a journal bearing supply pocket using a
PIV technique has been performed by Kosasih, et al. (14). They
demonstrated the use of PIV on difficult geometrical configura-
tion and proposed a correction procedure when an endoscope
is used. They also aimed to shed some knowledge about flow
field in journal bearing supply pocket. However, the flow field
inside the journal bearing is missing. The present article aims
at being a first step toward numerical models of lubricating
grease flow during running conditions in a rolling element
bearing configuration. Here a single-phase numerical grease
model is built and validated with flow measurements in a rect-
angular channel without restrictions (Westerberg, et al. (1))
and corresponding measurements of the velocity profiles in a
rectangular channel with a step and double-lip restriction (Li,
et al. (7)). Using the numerically developed models, particle
flow in a restricted channel is investigated.
Methods
Governing equations, rheology model(s), and greases
Comsol Multiphysics v5.2 (15) has been used for the numerical
modeling. Comsol enables user-defined expressions of the appar-
ent viscosity as a function of the built-in shear rate (denoted spf.
sr), meaning that any rheology model can be implemented. As
introduced earlier, the main objective of the numerical modeling
is to validate the model with measured velocity profiles and
developed analytical expressions, thereby ensuring the quality
and validity of the numerical simulations including the accuracy
of the applied rheology model. With a working model, the analy-
sis can be applied to more complex geometries and can also be
extended to flow cases not covered in the experimental work.
The grease is described as a single-phase continuous fluid.
The equations governing the flow are the equation of motion
(the Navier-Stokes equations) and the continuity equation
respectively. For a stationary flow these reads (here shown as
implemented in Comsol)
 
rðurÞu D r½ ¡ pI C m ru C ðruÞT  C F
(1a--1b)
ru D 0;
where u is the velocity vector, r is the density, m is the dynamic
viscosity, p is the pressure, I is the identity tensor, and F is the
volume force(s)—typically gravity and/or centrifugal forces.
The continuity equation (Eq. [2]) yields that the divergence
term in Eq. [1a] vanishes. Comsol enables user-defined rheol-
ogy models, which in turn introduces a great flexibility in the
modeling work. The boundary conditions at the inlet and outlet
are set to fixed pressures with no viscous stresses; that is, p D
pin and p D pout at the inlet and outlet, respectively. In addition,
no viscous stresses in the normal direction are applied, mean-
ing
 
n½m ru C ðruÞT  D 0: (2)
These boundary condition equations hold at the channel
wall. In order to study the effect of the pressure drop on the
flow a parametric solver has been used to vary pin as 50, 100,
and 150 kPa, respectively, for the three greases (NLGI00,
NLGI1, and NLGI2) to match the study by Westerberg, et al.
(1). In this study, a physics-controlled mesh with an extra fine
mesh size was used to discretize the fluid domain. The total
number of elements is 300,904 considering 285,064 triangular
elements and 15,844 quadrilateral elements. There are 8,056
edge elements and four vertex elements. The pressures at the
outlet, pout, is kept as 0 Pa. A steady 2D, single-phase laminar
flow module is used with a PARIDOS scheme to solve the sys-
tems of equations. Comsol has the power law, Carreau, and
Cross rheology models (15) implemented. The Carreau model
reads
h0 ¡ h 1
h D h1 C n¡1 ; (3)
½1 C ðK:g_ Þ2  2
where h 1 is the viscosity plateau at high shear rates, h0 is the
viscosity plateau at low shear rates, g_ is the shear rate, K is the
grease consistency, and n is the power law exponent. Consider-
ing the viscosity plateau at high shear rates, h 1 as zero, Eq. [3]
yields
h0
hd D ; (4)
1 C ðK:g_ Þ1 ¡ n
which is the Cross rheology model. In this article, however, the
modified Herschel-Bulkley (H-B) rheology model (Misoulw
and Abdali (16)) is applied. It reads
t0

hD 1 ¡ e ¡ m:g_ C K g_ n ¡ 1 ; (5)
g_
where t0 is the yield stress, g_ ( D grad(u) C (grad(u)T) the
shear rate, K is the grease consistency, n is the power law expo-
nent, and m is a constant.
The H-B rheology model is shown to work well except for at
the zero and infinite shear rate plateaus (see, e.g., Lugt (13), p.
112) and, based on this the model, fits well for the actual flow
cases in the present study. For flows at really high shear rates
the Carreau model would be a better choice because it also con-
tains the base oil viscosity, which dominates the grease rheol-
ogy at high shear rates. The Carreau and Cross models also
contain the zero shear rate viscosity, making them suitable for
creep flow.
An important issue in numerical modeling in general is
quality and trust. The unrestricted flow case has been modeled
analytically and validated with experimental data. The H-B rhe-
ology model is well suited for analytical modeling because it is
fairly straightforward and has consequently been considered
for the analytical modeling work. Using the H-B model for the
numerical modeling work, we hence have great sources for vali-
dation enabling reliable numerical models of more complex
flows.
The modified H-B model describes the same relation
between the shear rate and the shear stress as the correspond-
ing basic form. However, in the modified version of the rheol-
ogy model the factor in brackets is added. The H-B model is
overall a good engineering model valid in the shear thinning
regime considering the shear rate–viscosity relationship (Lugt

(13)) but it is physically rather crude because the flow in the
model is considered nonyielded (not moving) if the shear stress
in the material is less than the threshold yield stress value and
continuously sheared (fully yielded) for shear stress values
above the yield stress. This singular, discontinuous, transition
description has some obvious physical constraints that will lead
to problems if applied numerically. In order to implement the
transition from unyielded to yielded grease, the modified H-B
model has consequently been considered. Here the transition is
applied through the term in brackets. The constant m sets the
sharpness of the transition. Through a match between the
numerical results with flow measurements, a value of m D 1 is
used.
In this study, the numerical models are validated against
flow measurements of three lithium greases with NLGI grades
00, 1, and 2, respectively. The rheological data based on the
Herschel-Bulkley rheology model are presented in Table 1.
Here our focus is on the relation between grease rheology and
grease flow, not the greases as such. The impact of grease com-
position on the flow is indeed highly relevant and interesting
but is left for future work. Three typical greases used in bear-
ings are consequently used in the present study.
Flow in rectangular channel: Validation with analytical
model and data from flow measurements using mPIV
Microparticle image velocimetry
The PIV technique is a nonintrusive method to capture the
motion of a flowing medium. The main principle is that images
of a particle-seeded flow are taken by a high-speed camera. a
pulsed laser is used as the light source. The laser is synchronized
with the camera in order to capture images separated by a small
time step. The tracer particles are illuminated in a single plane
of the flow with a light sheet whose thickness is less than the
depth of field of the image recording system. In mPIV, the plane
of measurement is set by the focal depth of the microscope. This
means that the velocity profiles are measured in this plane; 3D
PIV systems measuring the velocity component out of the plane
also exist. For the measurements referred to in this article, par-
ticles with a diameter of 7.68 § 0.19 mm have been used. The
particle motion, and ultimately the flow motion, is traced using
a correlation algorithm. For more details about mPIV, the reader
is referred to Westerberg, et al. (1) and Barnes (2).
Rectangular channel without restrictions
The numerical simulations are performed on the same geome-
tries used in Westerberg, et al. (1), where flow measurements of
the flow in a rectangular channel without restrictions are pre-
sented, and in Li, et al. (7), where corresponding measurements
are performed in a rectangular channel with restrictions.
Table 1. Rheological parameters for the grease based on the Herschel-Bulkley rhe-
ological model (Li, et al. (7)).
Grease t 0 (Pa) K (Pa.s) n r (kg/m3)
NLGI 00 0 1.85 1 890
NLGI 1 189 4.1 0.797 910
NLGI 2 650 20.6 0.605 930
TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS 3
Figure 1 shows the rectangular channel with length L D 40 mm
in the x-direction, width w D 1.5 mm in the y-direction, and
height h D 1 mm in the z-direction. The full 3D geometry is
shown in Fig. 1a and a corresponding 2D view is shown in
Fig. 1b. In Westerberg, et al. (1) an analytical model of the flow
has been developed; there, however, a 1D flow is assumed; that
is, the influence of the side walls is neglected as the distance
between the top and bottom channel walls in the y-direction is
considered much smaller than the distance between the side
walls in the z-direction. This means that @/@y >> @/@z, which
in turn enables a flow model where the velocity only is depen-
dent on the y coordinate; that is, a 1D flow. In Westerberg,
et al. (1), the 1D flow model is motivated by the plug flow char-
acter of the grease flow. Because the cross section of the channel
is close to square it is of specific interest to investigate the influ-
ence of the geometry on the flow compared to the ideal 1D
case. This is done in the present study by numerically modeling
the ideal 1D case and comparing the velocity profiles with the
measured velocity profiles and the analytical model in Wester-
berg, et al. (1).
In addition to comparing the influence of the neglected side
walls in the 1D analytical model, the numerical model enables
investigation of the location of the focal plane where the flow
measurements are made. One difference between mPIV and
macro PIV is that in the former the measurement plane is set
by the focal depth of the microscope as the whole geometry
(channel) is illuminated by the laser light. In PIV, the measure-
ment plane is set by imaging optics forming a thin laser sheet
analogous to the focal plane in the microscope. In the work in
Westerberg, et al. (1), the location of the focal plane has not
been determined. In order to determine the location of the focal
Figure 1. (a) Three-dimensional straight channel used in the mPIV measurements
by Westerberg, et al. (1). (b) View of a 2D straight channel where the side walls
not are affecting the flow. The zoomed-in view shows a schematic representation
of the situation close to the wall with slip present in flow. In the slip layer, the
velocity gradient is much larger compared to that in the bulk flow (Westerberg,
et al. (1)).
4 C. SARKAR ET AL.
plane used in the flow measurements, the velocity profile from
the numerical model at a number of different planes in the
geometry is compared to the measured velocity profile from
the mPIV measurements. The channel cross section with corre-
sponding planes is shown in Fig. 2.
Rectangular channel with restrictions
For validation in a more complex geometry inducing a larger span
of shear rates, two additional channels with step and double-lip
restriction are modeled (see Fig. 3). The dimensions of the channels
are identical to the previous case apart from the restrictions being
centered at the middle of the channel in the x-direction. For these
channels, experimental flow measurements in Li, et al. (7) enable
comparison with velocity profiles at different locations in the
geometry. The pressure drop in the simulations was varied from 30
to 250 kPa to match the study in Li, et al. (7).
Results and discussion
Westerberg, et al. (1) clarify that it is possible to obtain a good
match between measured velocity profiles and a developed ana-
lytical model for a 1D flow. A requirement is, however, that the
value of the pressure drop is adjusted together with the rheolog-
ical parameters. One reason for this adjustment, as discussed in
their paper, might be that the rheological measurements are
wrong due to slip in the flow and/or that the measured pressure
drop is incorrect. Another possibility, as addressed in the pres-
ent article, is that the 1D flow model applied is too crude for
the experimental flow in the channel with a nearly square cross
section.
Channel without restrictions
Validation of numerical grease flow model for the ideal 1D
flow case
In order to investigate the impact of the side walls with
(inward) surface normal in the § z-direction in Fig. 2, an ideal
1D flow is first considered. In an ideal 1D flow—that is, where
Figure 2. Cross section view of the rectangular channel used in Westerberg, et al.
(1) with the different planes considered for determining the measurement plane
in the flow measurements. A–A: Mid plane; B–B: 0.15 mm from the mid plane; C–
C: 0.25 mm from the mid plane; and D–D: 0.40 mm from the mid-plane.
the only velocity component is the one in the main flow direc-
tion and only is dependent on the coordinate perpendicular to
the main flow direction—the distance between the top and bot-
tom walls (Figs. 1–3) is much smaller than the distance between
the side walls as described in the previous section. Westerberg,
et al. (1) developed an analytical model for a 1D flow where the
expression for the velocity in the main flow direction (cf.
Fig. 1b) as a function of the coordinate perpendicular to the
main flow direction reads
 n C 1
n 1 1 dp  w t 0 n
u.y/ D y ¡ ¡
n C 1 1 dp K dx 2 K
K dx
(7)
 n C 1
n 1 1 dp  w t 0 n
¡ ys ¡ ¡ C us :
n C 1 1 dp K dx 2 K
K dx
Here n, K, and t0 are the rheological parameters in the H-B
rheology model; w is the width of the channel, and dp/dx is the
pressure gradient. ys is the thickness of the slip layer (if pres-
ent), and us is the corresponding slip velocity. For the case of
no slip, these values are equal to zero. The expression for the
velocity profile is valid in the region ys yyl .yl w 6 2/, where
yl is the location of the yield point where the shear stress in the
flow is below the grease yield stress; that is, the location where
the plug region starts. The velocity profile in the channel is
symmetrical as to y D w/2.
The developed analytical expression for the velocity pro-
file is mathematically an exact solution of the flow. This
yields that with the same rheology model used in the analy-
sis and in the numerical modeling, the analytical model rep-
resents the truth upon which the numerical model is
validated against. The rheology data presented in Table 1
have been considered. The pressure gradient in the analyti-
cal model is calculated from the pressure drops defined in
the numerical model, which in turn are the same as in the
experimental work in Westerberg, et al. (1). The inlet pres-
sures are 50, 100, and 150 kPa for the NLGI 00, NLGI 1,
and NLGI 2 greases, respectively. This corresponds to a
pressure gradient of ¡1.25, ¡2.5, and ¡3.75 MPam¡1,
respectively. Similarly, the slip velocities found in the exper-
imental work in Westerberg, et al. (1) are 0.0073, 0.0021,
and 0.0032 m/s for NLGI 00, NLGI 1, and NLGI 2 greases
respectively. These values of slip velocities are used to plot
Fig. 4. Because the geometry is limited to 2D (x, y), it is
compared to the 1D analytical model. Figure 5 shows the
convergence plot of error with iterations. It confirms that
the level of mesh refinement is sufficient to obtain the con-
vergence plot. Figure 4 shows a comparison between the
analytical and numerical velocity profiles across the channel
for the three greases. The solid line represents the analytical
model and the dotted line is the velocity profile from the
numerical model. As shown in Fig. 4, the match between
the analytical and numerical velocity profiles is excellent.
The numerical model captures the yield behavior of the
grease as shown by the evolution of the plug region when
the NLGI grade increases (see Fig. 4). From these results, it
is concluded that the numerical model works well for the
1D flow case.
 TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS 5

Figure 3. Rectangular channel with (a) step restriction and (b) double-lip restriction. The red zones in (a) represents regions in which the flow is mainly analyzed. The red
lines in (b) are locations for velocity profiles.

2D flow in a channel without restriction
Having validated the numerical model for 1D flow, the 2D full
flow in the channel without restriction is considered. The
impact of the side walls on the flow is investigated and the
numerical model makes it possible to locate the position of the
focal plane where the experimental flow measurements were
made. The latter is of interest, because the exact location in
Westerberg, et al. (1) is not known. For clarification, a 2D
flow—analogous to the 1D flow—means that the flow velocity
component(s) is a function of both coordinates (y and z) per-
pendicular to the main flow direction. The channel geometry
is, however, 2D and 3D for the 1D and 2D flows, respectively.
The numerical velocity profile surface plot for the 2D flow is
shown in Fig. 6. The driving inlet pressures are 50, 100, and
150 kPa for the NLGI 00, NLGI 1, and NLGI 2 greases, respec-
tively. The evolution of the plug region with increasing grease
consistency is clearly shown. Considering the grease shear thin-
ning property, this evolution is analogous for a given grease with
increasing shear rates. Westerberg, et al. (1) show this in the
flow measurements with mPIV for increasing pressure gradients
and in the analytical model for the 1D flow where the width of
the plug region is reduced with increasing pressure gradient.
Figure 7 shows the velocity profiles of the NLGI 00 grease at
the different planes in Fig. 2. The numerical results are

Figure 4. Velocity profiles of (a) NLGI 00 at 50 kPa, (b) NLGI 1 at 100 kPa, and (c) NLGI 2 at 150 kPa. Solid: using 1D analytical model, ~: using 1D numerical model.
6 C. SARKAR ET AL.
Figure 5. Convergence plot of relative error with number of iterations.
compared to the corresponding experimental velocity profile.
Figure 7 also compares the velocity profile for the ideal 1D
flow. It follows that the side walls of the channels definitely
affect the velocity profile, with a maximum velocity in the flow
that is about five times lower than for the 1D case. The effect is
similar for the NLGI 1 and NLGI 2 greases. The difference
between the planes A–A through C–C is, however, not espe-
cially large for the NLGI 00 grease; the trend is a velocity
decrease when going from the mid-plane toward the side wall.
This is logical and in line with the surface plots in Fig. 6 and
the boundary conditions. It can be concluded that the velocity
profile from plane A–A matches best with the measured veloc-
ity profile; that is, the focal plane is likely to be located close to
the mid-plane rather than closer to the side wall (Fig. 2).
The same procedure and analysis is made for the NLGI 1
and NLGI 2 greases. Figure 8 shows the corresponding velocity
Figure 6. Surface plot velocity of the three greases: (a) NLGI 00 at 50 kPa, (b) NLGI 1 at 100 kPa, and (c) NLGI 2 at 150 kPa. The color bar shows the velocity magnitude.
profiles for the NLGI 1 grease as for the NLGI 00 grease in
Fig. 7. It was found that the side walls have a significant impact
on the flow as for the NLGI00 grease, with a significantly lower
maximum speed, again around five times. The plane that
matches the measured profile is in terms of maximum speed is
also the mid-plane.
When performing the mPIV measurements, the pressure
was measured with a manometer as presented in Westerberg,
et al. (1). The pressure is, however, measured upstream of an
elbow fitting attached to the setup geometry that directs the
flow to the channel inlet. The exact pressure at the channel inlet
is hence not known; pressure losses are likely to occur between
the point of measurement and the channel inlet, meaning that
the pressure at the channel inlet is lower than stated in the sim-
ulations. This in turn yields a reduced velocity of the flow. In
Fig. 9, the velocity profile at the mid-plane has been fitted to
the experimental profile by varying the inlet pressure. It was
found that an inlet pressure of 44 kPa makes a good fit with the
experiments, meaning that a pressure loss of 56 kPa is present
between the point of measurement and the actual channel inlet.
The corresponding analysis for the NLGI 2 grease (Fig. 10)
reveals the same behavior as for the NLGI 1 grease; the shape
of the velocity profile indicates that the flow measurements
have been made at the mid-plane for an inlet pressure of
150 kPa. The agreement looks quite good for the NLGI 2
grease; therefore, there is no need for pressure adjustment.
However, investigating the suggested adjustment in pressure
drop for the NLGI 1 grease at 56 kPa, we note that the pressure
drop for a Herschel-Bulkley fluid for the flow in a pipe of length
L and diameter D reads Dp D 4Lty/aD (Lugt (13), p. 140). Here
ty is the yield stress and a is the relative radius of the plug in
the pipe flow. Considering the pressure loss for the full channel
length ( D 50 mm), an equivalent diameter of 1.3 mm (calcu-
lated from the channel cross section dimensions), and a yield
 TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS 7

Figure 7. Velocity profiles of the NLGI00 grease at 50 kPa. The arrow points in the
direction of increasing distance from the mid-plane (plane A–A to C–C). Solid: The
ideal 1D case, numerical result. Dashed: Flow measurements (1); Dash-dotted:
Numerical result of the 2D flow. Velocity profile at the A–A plane (see Fig. 2); Dot-
ted: Same as previous but at the B–B plane; Dash-double dotted: The C–C plane.
Figure 10. Velocity profiles for the NLGI 2 grease at 150 kPa. Dashed (large): From
flow measurements. Scale on the left y-axis. Dash-dotted: The A–A plane (Fig. 2),
numerical results. Scale on the right y-axis for this curve and following ones. Dotted:
The B–B plane, Dash-double dotted: The C–C plane, Dashed (small): The D–D plane.
the same order as the pressure drop through the whole channel.
It is consequently not unlikely that the obtained values of the
rheological parameters are incorrect as suggested in Wester-
berg, et al. (1).

Figure 8. Velocity profiles for the NLGI 1 grease at 100 kPa. Dashed (large): From
flow measurements. Scale on the right y-axis. Solid: The ideal 1D flow, numerical
results. Scale on the left y-axis for this curve and following ones. Dash-dotted: The
A–A plane (Fig. 2), numerical results. Dotted: The B–B plane, Dash-double dotted:
The C–C plane, Dashed (small): The D–D plane.

stress value of 189 Pa (for the NLGI1 grease), the pressure drop
is of the order of 40 kPa considering an alpha value of 0.75. A
pressure drop between the manometer and the channel inlet of
56 kPa is thus extremely large because the adjusted value is on

Figure 9. Velocity profile of NLGI 1. Solid: From flow measurements at 100 kPa; Figure 11. Velocity field of the NLGI 2 grease at 250 kPa inlet pressure. (a) Before
Dotted: when inlet pressure 43.5 kPa, numerical results; Dashed: when inlet pres- restriction at zone 1. (b) Steady flow in the restriction at zone 2. (c) After restriction
sure 44 kPa; Dot-dashed: when inlet pressure 44.5kPa. at zone 3. The color bar shows the velocity magnitude in meters per second.
8 C. SARKAR ET AL.

Rectangular channel with restrictions
Having validated the numerical model for the grease flow in the
straight, rectangular channel without restrictions, the flow in a
rectangular channel with restrictions is now considered. As for
the previous case, the numerical model is validated against flow
measurements with mPIV. Here the work done by Li, et al. (7)
is considered. They performed experiments on a rectangular
channel with step and double-lip restrictions. All of simulations
are made on the actual 3D channel geometry, identical to the
one used in the experiments. The velocity profiles are evaluated
at the mid-plane (A–A; see Fig. 3 and previous subsection).
Validation of numerical grease flow model in channel with a
step restriction
For validation, the velocity profiles at different locations are
compared to corresponding measured velocity profiles.
Figure 3a shows the locations at three zones upstream of the
step, at the top of the step, and downstream of the step. A no-
slip boundary condition is applied in the numerical model
because slip velocity was not considered in the work by Li, et al.
(7). Figure 11 shows the velocity field for the NLGI 2 grease at
250 kPa (maximum velocity 0.45 m/s). The flow rate in the
channel is constant, which together with continuity in the flow
yields an increased velocity as the step is approached and then
a pure straight channel flow. Figures 11a and 11c indicate sym-
metry in the flow before and after the step, and in order to
investigate this further the velocity profiles upstream and
downstream of the flow are plotted as shown in Figs. 12–13.
From Figs. 13a and 13e) it follows that the flow is fully devel-
oped upstream of the step and that the flow has retained its
upstream profile at the corresponding distance downstream of
the step. Figure 13b shows the transition flow as the upstream
corner of the step is rounded, and Fig. 13d shows the mirrored

Figure 12. Positions of cut lines (denoted L) for the velocity profile plots. (a) L1–4 upstream of the step. (b) Zone 1: L5–9 before the restriction. (c) Zone 2: L10–13 at the
top of the restriction.(d) Zone 3: L14–18 after the restriction. (e) L19–22 downstream of the step.

Figure 13. Velocity profiles from the numerical model for the NLGI 2 grease (for an inlet pressure of 250 kPa) at the position of the cut lines presented in Fig. 12. Each sub-
figure corresponds to the same set of cut lines as in the corresponding subfigure in Fig. 12.
case when the flow is leaving the restriction. Figure 13c shows
the unrestricted flow at the top of the step. These results show
that the flow is completely symmetric along a symmetry line
drawn at the centre of the step restriction. The effect of
increased shear on the flow is also shown in the transition as
the flow rounds the corner of the step, going from a fully devel-
oped plug profile, approaching a parabola, and eventually stabi-
lizing at the top of the step reaching a plug formation once
again. The behavior of thinner grease was found to be analo-
gous in terms of symmetry and development of the velocity
profiles considering the difference in the channel without
restrictions. With a less pronounced yield stress, the plug flow
effect is decreasing with NLGI grade.
To compare the velocity profile between the computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation and mPIV measurements, the
velocities along L9 (at zone 1) and L15 (at zone 3) have been
exported. Figure 14 shows a comparison between them; it fol-
lows that there is a discrepancy between the measured velocity
profile and the corresponding profile from the numerical model
TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS 9
for the inlet pressure specified in Li, et al. (7). Following the dis-
cussion in the previous section, the reason behind this result is
a pressure drop between the location where the pressure is
measured and the inlet of the channel. To predict the actual
inlet pressure, the model applied inlet pressure has been varied
in the simulation. It was found that a pressure of 175 kPa
results in a velocity profile that matches well with the measured
velocity profile.
In the work by Li, et al. (7), a circulation area close to the
upstream inside corner of the step restrictions was observed.
Investigating this numerically, the flow streamlines have been
plotted for the three greases and an inlet pressure of 250 kPa;
see Figs. 15a–15c. In Fig. 15d the streamlines are plotted for the
NLGI 2 grease at a reduced pressure of 30 kPa. Figures 15a–15c
show a trend where the circulation area decreases with increas-
ing NLGI grade. There is a visible difference between the NLGI
00 grease and the NLGI 1 grease in terms of the size of the cir-
culations area, though the difference is negligible between
NLGI grades 1 and 2. From Fig. 15d it follows that the
10 C. SARKAR ET AL.
Figure 14. Comparison of velocity profiles of the NLGI2 grease between the CFD
simulations and mPIV measurements along (a) L9 and (b) L15 cutlines. ^: Numeri-
cal results with inlet pressure of 250 kPa, &: mPIV measurements from Li, et al.
(7), D: numerical results with inlet pressure of 175 kPa.
circulation area is larger because the driving pressure has
reduced for the NLGI 2 grease.
As introduced earlier in this article, transverse flow is impor-
tant in bearings and seals during relubrication. The step
Figure 15. Close-up view of the grease flow streamlines in the corner area at 250 kPa inlet pressure. (a) NLGI 00, (b) NLGI 1, (c) NLGI 2, and (d) NLGI 2 at 30 kPa inlet pressure.
restriction and the double-lip restriction in the following sec-
tion are used as simple model geometries to investigate this
type of flow. A major issue in seals is motion of contaminant
and wear particles; circulation zones like the ones presented
here are of interest because particles will be trapped in such
regions. Recalling the shear-thinning property of lubricating
greases, the viscosity is reduced/increases with an increased/
reduced shear, which in this case is induced by the applied
pressure. The nonlinear relation between shear rate and viscos-
ity hence yields a nonlinear development of the Reynolds num-
ber in the flow. In terms of particle transport for the present
geometry, this means that a flow where the grease is creeping
close to the solid boundaries will transport the particles present
in the flow domain.
Grease flow past a double-lip restriction
Continuing with the flow past a double-lip restriction, we recall
Fig. 3b where the distance between the two restriction tips is
1.5 mm, the minimum gap height is 0.9 mm, and the maximum
gap height between the restrictions is 1.5 mm. The maximum
velocity is observed above the two restrictions where the gap
height is small as found in Li, et al. (7). Figures 16a and 16b
show the velocity magnitude at 30 and 250 kPa, respectively,
for NLGI2 grease. In line with the previous results, a higher
pressure drop results in a higher velocity of the flow. Of special
interest here is to investigate the flow depth because particles
stuck between the restrictions—depending on the flow depth—
will either remain stuck or be dragged along with the flow. The
flow depth is defined as the vertical distance the grease flow
between the two restrictions. In terms of application where this
type of flow is present, the flow depth is important for how con-
tamination particles (like road dust) and wear particles are

Figure 16. Velocity field for the NLGI 2 grease at (pressure drop) (a) 30 kPa, red line shows streamline flow, white color particles position at 300 s; (b) 250 kPa in 0.3 s; (c)
250 kPa in 0.3 s with same range of color bar of as in (a); (d) NLGI 00 grease at 250 kPa in 0.3 s; and (e) NLGI 1 grease at 250 kPa in 0.3 s.
transported. To capture the behavior of grease flow depth at
high pressure, Fig. 16b has been redrawn considering the same
scale as for the lower pressure (Fig. 16a). It follows that most of
the domain consists of fully yielded grease. Similarly, Figs. 16d
and 16e show the flow depth of NLGI 00 and NLGI 1 greases,
respectively. From all surface velocity plots, it can be concluded
that flow depth increases as grease consistency decreases.
Particle motion
Considering the application of seals (especially double restric-
tion seals) of which the present double restriction geometry is a
model problem, the motion of particles in the grease flow is of
specific interest by means of the transport of contamination
particles through the seal. In order to investigate particle trans-
port through the double-lip geometry in this article, particles
have been introduced to the flow. This is done by applying a
specified number of particles, with specified size, to be distrib-
uted through the cross section of the channel inlet. Here par-
ticles with 7.68 mm diameter and mass of 7 mg have been
considered. A scale factor of 5 has been applied in the postpro-
cessing to more clearly visualize the motion. The maximum
TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS 11
number of particles has initially been packed across the inlet
cross section (t D 0). For the high-pressure case (250 kPa) the
flow has been run for 0.3 s, whereas for the low-pressure case
(30 kPa) the run time is 300 s, because the particles took less
time to pass through the lips for the high pressure. Comparing
Figs. 16a and 16b it follows that the particles follow the bulk
flow for the lower pressure (equaling low flow rate), whereas
for the higher pressure particles are trapped in the bottom
upstream corner of the lips. This behavior is directly coupled to
the velocity distribution in the channel and around the lips and
inertia effects. For the low-pressure case the velocity is very low
in connection to the lips (blue area in Fig. 16a), whereas for a
higher pressure the low-velocity area is very low in regions sur-
rounding the lips. These observations yield that an optimum
particle transport is supported by low flow rates (low pressure
drop). Consequently, in order to trap particles in the flow, the
restrictions should be designed such that high-shear zones are
present.
Figure 17 shows the velocity profiles for NLGI 00 and NLGI
2 greases at position 1 and position 2 as defined in Fig. 3b. It
can be observed that NLGI 00 grease has a more parabolic flow
12 C. SARKAR ET AL.
Figure 17. Velocity profile measured at position 1 and position 2 in Fig. 3b: (a) NLGI 00 grease, (b) comparison between simulation and mPIV of NLGI 00 grease, (c) NLGI 2
grease, and (d) comparison between simulation and mPIV of NLGI 2 grease. The flow rate q is the flow across the channel height for each corresponding position.
compared to the NLGI 2 grease through position 1, as suspected
based on previous results. There is a close match between simu-
lated and mPIV velocity profiles at the same flow rate.
Summary and conclusions
This article presents numerical modeling of lubricating greases in
rectangular channels with and without restrictions. The numerical
models have been validated with analytical models and compared
with results from flow visualizations using micro-particle image
velocimetry. The main objective of this study is to obtain validated
numerical models for flow simulations in more complicated geom-
etries where analytical models and flow measurements cannot be
obtained. The particle motion in the grease flow has also been ana-
lyzed in the channel with two lip restrictions.
It was found that the simulations match the experiments
and analysis well, capturing the yield- and shear rate–depen-
dent characteristics of lubricating grease flow. The grease flow
has been modeled as a single-phase Herschel-Bulkley fluid that
was found to match well with the bulk motion of grease as mea-
sured using mPIV.
The findings of the present research work can be summa-
rized as follows:
1. The CFD model has been validated with a one-dimen-
sional analytical model and was also found to be consis-
tent with data obtained from measured velocity profiles.
2. It was found that both in restricted and unrestricted
flows the NLGI 00 grease shows a Newtonian-like para-
bolic flow profile, whereas the NLGI 1 and NLGI 2
greases show a characteristic non-Newtonian plug flow.
The plug length was found to increase with increasing
grease thickness (NLGI grade). It was found that a one-
dimensional model does not accurately describe the
velocity profile in a channel with rectangular cross sec-
tion of 1.5 £ 1 mm.
3. The modified H-B rheology model shows a close fit with the
analytical model for both NLGI 1 and NLGI 2 greases.
4. Investigating the pressure drop in the channel through the
numerical simulations it was found that the values of the
rheological parameters obtained from a plate–plate rheom-
eter likely are incorrect as reported in Westerberg, et al. (1).
5. For the flow in the restricted channels it was found that, in
accordance with reported experimental results, the flow
velocity increases as the channel dimensions decrease.
Further, the flow depth—that is, the distance the grease
flows between the two double-lip restrictions—was found
to be heavily dependent on the rheology of the grease and,
consequently, considering the shear thinning rheology,
dependent on the shear rate in the flow.
6. It was found that particles in the flow are gathered at the
low-velocity upstream bottom corners of the double-lip
restrictions.
Acknowledgements
This project is part of Smart Machines and Material (SM2), one of LTU’s
strong research- and innovation areas.
References
(1) Westerberg, L. G., Lundstr€
om, T. S., H€
oglund, E., and Lugt, P. M.
(2010), “Investigation of Grease Flow in a Rectangular Channel
Including Wall Slip Effects Using m;PIV,” Tribology Transactions,
53, pp 600–609.

(2) Barnes, H. A. (2000), “Shear-Thinning Liquids,” A Handbook of Ele-
mentary Rheology, Barnes, H. A. (Ed.), pp 53–61, The University of
Wales, Institute of Non-Newtonian Fluid, Aberystwyth, UK.
(3) Czarny, R. and Moes, H. (1981), “Some Aspects of Lubricating
Grease Flow,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Tri-
bology, 8(3), pp 68–85.
(4) Czarny, R. (2004), “The Influence of Surface Material and Topography
on the Wall Effect of Grease,” Lubrication Science, 14(2), pp 255–273.
(5) Bramhall, A. D. and Hutton, J. F. (1960), “Wall Effect in the Flow of
Lubricating Grease in Plunger Viscosimeters,” British Journal of
Applied Physics, 11, pp 363–369.
(6) Vinogradov, G. W., Froishteter, G. B., and Trillski, K. K. (1978), “The
Generalised Theory of Flow of Plastic Disperse Systems with
Account of the Wall Effect,” Rheologica Acta, 17, pp 156–165.
(7) Li, J. X., H€oglund, E., Westerberg, L. G., Green, T. M., Lundstr€
om, T.
S., Lugt, P. M., and Baart, P. (2012), “mPIV Measurement of Grease
Velocity Profiles in Channels with Two Different Types of Flow
Restrictions,” Tribology International, 54, pp 94–99.
(8) Scarlett, N. A. (1967), “Use of Grease in Rolling Bearings,” Proceed-
ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers A, 182, pp 167–171.
(9) Green, T. M., Baart, P., Westerberg, L.-G., Lundstr€ om, T. S.,
H€oglund, E., Lugt, P. M., and Li, J. (2011), “A New Method to
Visualize Grease Flow in a Double Restriction Seal Using
TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS 13
Microparticle Image Velocimetry,” Tribology Transactions, 54,
pp 784–792.
(10) Baart, P., Green, T. M., Lundstr€ om, T. S., H€oglund, E., and Lugt, P.
M. (2011), “The Influence of Speed, Grease Type, and Temperature
on Radial Contaminant Particle Migration in a Double Restriction
Seal,” Tribology Transactions, 54, pp 867–877.
(11) Britton, M. M. and Callaghan, P. T. (1997), “Nuclear Magnetic Reso-
nance Visualization of Anomalous Flow in Cone-and-Plate Rheome-
try,” Journal of Rheology, 41, pp 1365–1386.
(12) Magnin, A. and Piau, J. M. (1989), “Application of Freeze–Fracture
Technique for Analysing the structure of Lubricating Greases,” Jour-
nal of Materials Research, 4(4), pp 990–995.
(13) Lugt, P. M. (2013), Grease Lubrication in Rolling Bearings, Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, UK.
(14) Kosasih, P. B., Tieu, A. K., and Li, E. B. (2001), “PIV Study of Lubri-
cant Flow in Journal Bearing Supply Pocket,” Proceedings of the 14th
Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Adelaide University, Ade-
laide, Australia, December 10–14.
(15) COMSOL MultiphysicsÒ v. 5.2. Available at: http://www.comsol.com
COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden (accessed January 15, 2016).
(16) Mitsoulw, E. and Abdali, S. S. (1993), “Flow Simulation of Herschel-
Bulkley Fluids through Extrusion Dies,” The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 71, pp 147–160.