World Tribology Congress 2013

Torino, Italy, September 8 13, 2013

Experimental study on a hydrodynamic centered pivot tilting-pad thrust bearing

Jean Bouyer1)*, Yuuta. Nakano2), Mari Nagata2) and Michel Fillon1)
1)

Institut Pprime, CNRS - Universit de Poitiers - ENSMA, Dept GMSC, Futuroscope Chasseneuil, France.
2)
DAIDO METAL Co., Ltd, Tendoh Shinden, Maehara, Inuyama, 484-0061, Japan.
*
Corresponding author: jean.bouyer@univ-poitiers.fr

1. Introduction
The operating characteristics of thrust bearings have
been the aim of numerous studies, both numerical and
experimental and mainly for tilting pad configurations.
Only few of them are devoted to the experimental
measurements of a centered pivot thrust bearing.
Nevertheless, one can cite some studies like that of
Ettles [1] which deals with numerical optimization of
the pivot position or that of Horner et al. [2] who
experimentally investigate temperatures in tilting-pad
thrust bearings. The aim of the present work is to study
experimentally the performance of a centered pivot
tilting pad thrust bearing, which is known to have
theoretically no load carrying capacity, except when a
taper exists at the leading edge [3]. The influence of
materials is also considered for such bearing, coated
either with Babbitt or PEEK, and operating under
adverse condition.

Figure 2

View of the babbitted TPTB

Figure 3

View of the PEEK-faced TPTB

2. Results
The test rig (Fig. 1) is monitored by a data acquisition
system driven by a Labview program. This permits to
control the running conditions and to acquire
simultaneously the measurements of the probes. Thus,
the test rig allows measurements of the friction torque,
the film thickness at the level of the pivot as well as
temperatures at the film/pad interfaces. The bearing
characteristics as well as the operating conditions are
given respectively in tables 1 and 2. Figures 2 and 3 are
respectively babbitted and PEEK faced tilting pad thrust
bearings without a taper which were used for this study.

Table 1 Bearing characteristics

Number of pads
Inner diameter
Outer diameter
Pad angular extent

Table 2
Rotational speed
Load
Oil Supply temperature
Oil supply pressure
Oil type

Figure 1

Overview of the experimental device

m
m

8
0.0285
0.0525
35.9

Operating conditions
rpm
N
C
MPa
-

1000 - 10000
1000 - 5000
45
0.07
ISO VG 46

One can wonder why to use a centered pivot thrust

bearing which is known to have theoretically no load
carrying capacity. The main objective is naturally to
allow the device which is guided by such a component
to rotate in both directions. Thus, the results presented
herein concern the bearing performance for two types of
material, operating in both directions. The friction
coefficient at both startup and steady state operating
conditions has been measured, as well as temperatures
and relative displacements at the film/bearing interface.
A comparison between the thrust bearing characteristics
obtained for babitted and peek-faced pad configurations
is presented and discussed.

0,7

Friction torque (N.m)

0,6

1000N-offset

0,5

1000N-centered

0,4

110
Maximum temperature (c)

2.1. Comparison offset-centered.

Figure 4 to 6 gives the evolution of the performance
of both centered and offset pivots babitted bearings.

100

1000Noffset
1000Ncentered
3000Noffset
3000Ncentered
5000Noffset
5000Ncentered

90
80
70
60
50

3000N-offset

40

0,3

3000N-centered

0,2

2000

0,1

5000N-centered

0
0

2000

Figure 4

4000
6000
8000
Rotational Speed (rpm)

10000

Figure 6

12000

Steady-state friction torques for babbitted

TPTB (offset/centered pivots comparison).

Figure 4 present the steady-state friction coefficient

as a function of speed. The offset bearing has lower
friction torque than the centered bearing for all the load
cases. The difference is globally the same for all the
speeds tested with 0.04 N.m at low load, 0.06 N.m for
3000 N and 0.1 N.m for the high load case. This
represents respectively variation from 25 to 10% at low
load, 25 to 12% at intermediate load and 31 to 8% at
high load.
As could be expected, the relative displacement
(Fig. 5), which is representative of the film thickness at
the level of the pivot, is much higher with offset pivot
bearing than with the centered pivot one. For the higher
speeds over 7000 rpm, the difference reaches 40% at
1000N, 35% at 3000N and 30% at 5000N. Taking into
account that the centered pivot bearing shouldnt have
film thickness, this result was predictable.

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Rotational Speed (rpm)

5000N-offset

Steady-state maximum temperatures for

babbitted TPTB (offset/centered pivot
comparison).

2.2. Reverse rotation.

Figure 7 gives the evolution of the friction torque as a
function of load and speed for the babbitted centered
pivot bearing operating in both nominal and reverse.
Even if the torque is higher than that which was observed
for offset pivot bearing, its value remains in an
acceptable range. Its evolution is normal, increasing with
speed and/or load. In reverse condition (which is not
necessarily the worst case for a centered pivot bearing),
the friction torque is much higher and reaches a very high
value for the low speed-high load case. This is explained
when having a look to figure 8 where it can be noticed
that the values of relative displacement are weak
compared to those of the offset bearing. This trend is
predictable because as stated just before, the bearing load
carrying capacity should be zero with this configuration.
Thus, the small values observed are close to zero.
1

20

1000N-offset
1000N-centered

15

3000N-offset

10
5

1000N

0,7

3000N

0,6
5000N

0,5
0,4

reverse 1000N

0,3

reverse 3000N

0,2
reverse 5000N

5000N-offset

0,8

0,1

3000N-centered

2000

5000N-centered

0
-5

Figure 5

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

4000
6000
8000
Rotational Speed (rpm)

10000

12000

12000

Rotational Speed (rpm)

Steady-state relative displacements for

babbitted TPTB (offset/centered pivots
comparison).

Considering the maximum temperatures plotted in

figure 6, one can observe that they are systematically
higher with the centered pivot bearing. The difference
can reach in some cases more than 10K. More accurately,
the temperatures observed at 1000 N with the centered
pivot bearing are close to those observed at 3000 N for
the offset pivot bearing, and those at 3000 N with the
centered pivot close to those at 5000 N with the offset
bearing. This last comment is valid for all the speeds
tested.

Figure 7

Steady-state friction torques (centered

pivot, babitted pads).

14
12
Relative displacement (m)

Relative displpacement (m)

25

Friction torque (N.m)

0,9

1000N

10
8

3000N

5000N

reverse 1000N

reverse 3000N

0
-2

2000

-4

Figure 8

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

reverse 5000N

Rotational Speed (rpm)

Steady-state
relative
displacements
(centered pivot, babitted pads).
2

As a consequence, temperatures are also higher

than with offset bearing as can be seen in figure 9. It has
to be noted that the behavior of the centered pivot
bearing is completely different in terms of temperature
than that of the offset pivot one. Indeed, figure 9 proves
that the bearing can operate in both directions: the
maximum temperatures values are very close whatever
the rotational direction and only depend on the applied
load.

normally increases with the speed, being weakly smaller

for PEEK faced bearing as observed for offset pivot
bearings. At higher loads, the relative displacements
become small and close to zero. It has to be noted that
the babbitted bearing behaves correctly even at 5000 N
where the values are very small and negative for low
speeds.
14

Maximum Temperature (C)

100
1000N

90
3000N

80
5000N

70

reverse 1000N

60
50

Relative displacement (m)

12
110

10
8

1000N-babbitt

1000N-peek

3000N-babbitt

3000N-peek

reverse 3000N

-2

reverse 5000N

-4

5000N-babbitt

2000

Figure 9

4000
6000
8000
Rotational Speed (rpm)

10000

8000

10000

12000

12000

Steady-state maximum temperatures at

film/pads interface (centered pivot,
babitted pads).

2.3. Comparison PEEK-babbitt.

The next figures allow to compare the
performances of the bearings as a function of the
material, first under steady-state regime and finally for
startup. It has to be noted that the PEEK faced bearing
was also tested under reverse condition but these results
are not presented here because of failures of the
bearings.
Figure 10 gives the friction torque as a function of
speed and load for the two types of bearings. One can
note that the behavior of the bearings for low load is
usual with an increase in friction as the speed and/or
load increases. As was the case for offset pivot bearings,
PEEK faced bearing shows a lower friction coefficient
than the babbitted bearing with a reduction of about
20% at high speeds.

Figure 11 Steady-state
relative
displacements
(centered pivot, babbitt/peek comparison).
Figure 12 gives the maximum temperatures for the
two bearings as a function of the speed. There is no
particular comment on this graph, the maximum
temperature increasing logically with the speed. As for
offset pivot bearings, the maximum temperatures
obtained with the PEEK faced bearing are higher than
that of babbitted bearing for the speeds over 5000 rpm.
110

Maximum temperature (C)

2000

6000

Rotational Speed (rpm)

40
0

4000

100
90
1000N-babbitt

80

1000N-peek

70

3000N-babbitt
3000N-peek

60

5000N-babbitt

50
40
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Rotational Speed (rpm)

0,7

Figure 12 Steady-state
maximum
temperatures
(centered pivot, babbitt/peek comparison).

Friction torque (N.m)

0,6
0,5
1000N-babbitt

0,4

1000N-peek

0,3

3000N-babbitt

0,2

3000N-peek
5000N-babbitt

0,1
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Rotational Speed (rpm)

Figure 10 Steady-state friction torques (centered

pivot, babbitt/peek comparison).
The same comments can be drawn from the figure
11 which gives the relative displacements as a function
of speed. For the light load, the relative displacement

Lets now focus on an important property of the

PEEK faced bearing which is the maximum friction
torque at startup. The procedure applied to realize the
measurements was: a targeted nominal speed of 1000
rpm and a load varying from 500 N to 2000 N.
Results are summarized in figures 13 and 14 which
present the results over two forms, respectively friction
torque at startup and friction coefficient (which is
directly deduced from the previous one). As expected,
the friction torque at startup increases as the load
increases and the PEEK faced bearing shows better
performance on this parameter. Contrarily to this, the
friction coefficient decreases with the load for both
bearings until 2000N which is not the expected behavior.
This proves the instability of the centered pivot solution.
3

Babbitted bearing operated safely whatever the

operating conditions, even reverse or high load.
The startup friction coefficient of the PEEK
faced bearing is about 27% lower than that of
the babbitted bearing.

9
8

Startup torque (N.m)

7
6
5
babbitt

peek

4. References

[1]

2
1
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

[2]

Load (N)

Figure 13 Maximum friction torque at startup

(centered pivot, babbitt/peek comparison).
[3]

0,12

Friction coefficient

0,1

Ettles C., The Development of a Generalized

Computer Analysis for Sector Shaped Tilting Pad
Thrust Bearings, ASLE Trans., 19, 1976,
pp.153-163.
Horner D., Simmons J. E. L. and Advani S. D.,
Measurements of Maximum Temperature in
Tilting-Pad Thrust Bearings, Trib. Trans., 31, 1,
1988, pp 44-53.
Fillon M., Glavatskih S., PTFE-faced center
pivot thrust pad bearings: factors affecting TEHD
performance, Trib. Int., 41, 2008, pp. 1219-1225.

0,08
0,06
babbitt

0,04

peeka

0,02
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank DAIDO METAL
colleagues for their collaboration on these tests analyses
and also for allowing communicating on this subject

2500

Load (N)

Figure 14 Maximum friction coefficient at startup

(centered pivot, babbitt/peek comparison).
3. Conclusions
As a general conclusion on the comparison between
offset and centered pivot technologies for tilting pad
thrust bearing which has small pads, we can say that the
centered pivot bearing performances are logically
beyond those of the offset pivot one, in a range of about
25-30% concerning the friction and the film thickness at
the pivot level with a difference in maximum
temperature which increases linearly with the speed. As
can be deduced from the theory, the centered pivot
configuration lowers the hydrodynamic effect, but allows
the bearing to rotate in both directions.
Concerning the effect of the coating material, this
experimental study allowed us to draw the following
conclusions:
Unlike it could have been thought, even in
steady-state regime and whatever the load
considered, the friction coefficients obtained
with PEEK faced bearing are about 20% lower
than the babbitted bearing.
As could be expected, due to thermal insulation
of PEEK materials, the babbitted bearing shows
for all the cases a significantly lower
temperature than the PEEK faced bearing.
Conversely, the PEEK faced bearing show a
much lower temperature difference through the
pad thickness, leading to smaller thermal
distortions compared to those of the babbited
bearing.
4