Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings
Reduction of Friction and Wear by
Rubbing of Solid Lubricant
Particles into Ground or Textured
Surfaces
▶ Solid Lubricant Films Deposited by Burnishing
Reflection Confocal Microscopy
▶ Confocal Microscopy
Relative Humidity (RH)
▶ Sputtering MoS2-based Coatings
Reliability of Bolted Joints
▶ Fastener Failure and Safety Related Issues
Repeated Loading
▶ Cyclic Loading and Cyclic Stress
Research Engine Test Facility
▶ Engine Oil Test Equipment
Resin Bound Carbon
▶ Materials for Mechanical Seals
Resonant Whip
▶ Self-Excited Gas Bearing Instabilities
R 2759
Restrictors and Compensation of
Hydrostatic Bearings
W. BRIAN ROWE
Liverpool John Moores University,
Liverpool, England, UK
Synonyms
Compensating elements; Flow compensation; Flow
control devices
Definition
Restrictors and other flow control devices are used to
compensate hydrostatic bearing pressures for varying
applied loads. A flow control mechanism is required for
each pad, where each pad must act independently. Flow
control devices ensure a stable fluid film separates the
bearing surfaces and also provide the property of bearing
film stiffness. This entry details the nature and analysis of
hydrostatic bearing compensation, providing greater
depth than presented in the entries “Hydrostatic Journal
Bearings” and “Hydrostatic Thrust Bearings.
Scientific Fundamentals
Basic description A hydrostatic bearing requires a flowcontrol
mechanism so that the lubricant pressures in the bearing can
increase in response to increased load (Rowe 1983, 1989). If
the supplied recess area must carry loads independently, each
recess or entry port requires a flow control mechanism.
A simple laminar flow restrictor reduces pressure in propor-
tion to flow-rate. As the bearing clearance reduces under an
increased load, the lubricant flow rate reduces, and the recess
pressure thereby increases until equilibrium is reached and the R
increased load is supported. Figure 1 shows a bearing recess
and its restrictor; also shown is a graph of pressure distribu-
tions, i.e., the supply pressure, Ps, the initial recess pressure,
pr1, and increased pressure, pr2. The clearance between the
lands and opposite surface is shown greatly exaggerated.
A change in load changes the clearance by a small
amount. The magnitude of the change in clearance
depends on the flow control device and is related to the
bearing film stiffness defined as l ¼ dW =dh, where W is
the load and h is the bearing film thickness at the lands.
Various flow control devices are used in hydrostatic
bearings. Each type yields different bearing film stiffness.
The types include:
● Laminar – capillary, slot, annulus
● Turbulent – orifice
2760 R Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings

Ps Restrictor
Restrictor
FLT

Ps q
pr
Ps
PF

pr2
Strainer
pr1

Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,

Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
Fig. 2 Basic supply circuit
Fig. 1 Control principle of hydrostatic bearing

● Constant flow – valves or pumps lc

● Pressure-sensing valves (PS − pr ).p.dc4
● Inherent flow control – shallow recess, annular orifice dc q=
128.h.lc
Capillary
The first four, listed in order of increasing bearing film
stiffness, are external flow control types. Inherent flow ls
control does not require an external device but relies on
as (PS − pr )as .z 3
pad shape and entry restriction to achieve film stiffness. q=
12.h.ls
Inherent flow control usually yields lower stiffness than z
external control devices. Slot
Restrictor value External restrictors reduce supply
pressure Ps down to recess pressure pr in the bearing. The z
pressure ratio pr/Ps is usually set to a value b ¼ 0:5 at the
(PS − pr )p.z 3
design film thickness ho. The value 0.5 is a good mid-range do di q=
value that allows loads to be either increased or reduced by 6.h.log e (do /di )
a similar extent (Rowe and Stout 1971, 1973). The value b Annulus
may be set anywhere between 0.2 and 0.8 for particular
applications, depending on the nature of variation of Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
applied loads to be withstood. The flow rate of lubricant Fig. 3 Laminar flow restrictors
for one recess is denoted by q.
A basic supply circuit A basic circuit for supply of do
lubricant includes a strainer, a fixed delivery pump,
a pressure control valve, a filter, and a restrictor or other
flow control valve, Fig. 2.
Laminar flow restrictors Fig. 3 shows three types of
laminar flow restrictors. Each type requires that the Reyn- z
olds number be less than 1,000 for predominantly laminar a
flow restriction. The Reynolds number is given by
Re ¼ r:v:d=, or = r v z / , as appropriate, where r is
the lubricant density,  is dynamic viscosity, v is the flow di
velocity through the restrictor, d is the internal diameter ( PS − pr )p.z 3.sin a
q=
for a tube, and z is the gap thickness for slot and annular 6.h.loge( do / di )
restrictors. The length of the flow path through the
restrictor needs to be at least 20 times larger than the gap Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
thickness to minimize entry and exit loss effects. Fig. 4 An adjustable cone restrictor
 Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings R 2761

Restrictors need to be carefully manufactured to l

obtain precise flow restriction. Capillaries are easily do
made from precision hypodermic tubing cut to length. pdo2 2( Ps - pr )
The end faces should be smooth and square to minimize q = Cd
4 ρ
flow disturbances. Slot restrictors mainly used for hybrid
hydrostatic / hydrodynamic bearings can be made using
spacing shims clamped between precision ground plates to Basic orifice
create a small gap or by grinding a shallow groove into one do
of the plates. Another form of laminar flow restrictor is
based on an annular gap, Fig. 3.
Adjustable restrictors allow the flow restriction to be 2( Ps - pr )
q = Cd pdoh
adjusted after assembly to suit or adjust the clearance of ρ
a single-pad bearing. If bearing clearance is constrained, as
in a journal or opposed pad arrangement, the bearing can h Annular orifice
be centered by adjustment of one of the restrictors. In
principle, an annular restrictor may be made adjustable. Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
However, flow restriction for an annulus is strongly Fig. 5 Orifice restrictors
dependent on accuracy of the gap due to the third power
of z in the flow equation. Adjustable flow restrictors may 0.8
also be achieved using two conical surfaces designed to be
moved axially into close proximity relative to each other, 0.7
Fig. 4. The two cones must be concentric for precise
control of pressure ratio. 0.6
Cd

Turbulent restrictors Usually, a turbulent restrictor is

0.5
a basic orifice jet, Fig. 5. Reynolds number should be
greater than 100. A basic orifice has a length/diameter
0.4
ratio that is small and ideally less than 1 so that change
of momentum is more significant than viscous losses.
0.3
Often, the length/diameter ratio may be as great as 5. 2 4 6 10 102 103 104
The inlet and exit should be carefully finished to avoid Re
disturbance to the flow. The orifice exit should be polished
square with no chamfer. The inlet is usually machined at Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
30 to square on to flow, although often the inlet face is Fig. 6 Typical values of Cd
machined square, i.e., at right angles to flow, for ease of
machining and ease of obtaining a smooth surface. Diaphragm R
In a basic orifice, the flow restrictor is a throat of area
pdo2 =4. The annular orifice, by contrast, is designed such
that the flow enters directly into the clearance of a non- Preload
recessed bearing and is not throttled within the entry hole. spring
A flow restriction is formed by the entry annulus of area
pd o h, where this annular area is less than the cross-section Supply Ps
area pdo2 =4 of the entry hole. Annular orifices are
sometimes employed for hole-entry hybrid hydrostatic/
hydrodynamic bearings or for shallow recess bearings.
The annular orifice gives bearing film stiffness that is
two-thirds of the bearing film stiffness of a simple orifice
bearing. When combined with a shallow-recess bearing,
the combined stiffness is increased. To bearing pr
The discharge coefficient of an orifice depends on the
Reynolds number; see typical values in Fig. 6 for an orifice Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
with l/do less than 1. Fig. 7 Mohsin valve for single-pad bearing
2762 R Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings
Supply Ps
Diaphragm
Gap z
Diaphragm valve
pr pr
Journal
bearing
z ¼ z=z o and  pr ¼ pr =P s . Infinite film stiffness of single-
Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
Fig. 8 Rowe valve for journals and opposed pads
Constant flow Constant flow control is attractive for
a single-pad bearing. It only requires a constant flow
pump or a constant flow valve in the supply line. However,
for a large number of recesses, the cost of several pumps or
valves makes this a costly approach. Although the concept
of a supply pressure may seem strange for constant flow, it
is a real issue. A maximum supply pressure must be
ensured at which constant flow can be maintained.
The maximum supply pressure governs the maximum
load, as for other types of flow control.
Pressure-sensing valves Pressure-sensing valves opti-
mized for maximum stiffness increase flow rate in
proportion to bearing load. This maintains clearance con-
stant within the limitations of system linearity and yields
virtually infinite static stiffness of the bearing film. There
are a number of such designs based on spool valves and
diaphragm valves (O’Donoghue and Rowe 1969a, b). The
Mohsin valve was developed for single-pad bearings
(Mohsin 1962), Fig. 7, and the Rowe valve for journals
and opposed pads, Fig. 8 (Rowe and O’Donoghue 1968).
Single diaphragm valve, Fig. 7 Bearing recess pressure
acts on the diaphragm, causing it to deflect. The deflection
allows more flow into the heavily loaded recess. By suitable
selection of diaphragm stiffness or by adjustment of sup-
ply pressure, it is possible to adjust the bearing film
stiffness. The flow restriction offered by a diaphragm
valve is as given above for the annular restrictor where
the diaphragm valve film thickness is z.
If the diaphragm is very stiff, the valve makes a laminar
annular flow restrictor having the same properties as
a capillary. The diaphragm should not be too flexible,
otherwise there is a danger of valve instability, as described
below.
The diaphragm deflects with changes in recess pres-
sure because the annular restrictor area acts as a thrust
pad. Diaphragm stiffness is defined as ld ¼ Ad : dp dz , where
r
Ad is the effective hydrostatic pad area of the diaphragm
and z is the restrictor film thickness. The diaphragm
deflection is linear with load since the deflections are
very small compared with the diaphragm diameter. The
diaphragm film thickness is therefore given by
z ¼ z o þ W d =ld , where the deflection force
W d ¼ Ad ðpr  bÞ for a single-sided diaphragm valve
and zo is the diaphragm film thickness when the bearing
film thickness h=ho, the design condition. The dimension-
less diaphragm stiffness is defined as 
d p
ld ¼ dzr , where
pad bearings is obtained when  ld ¼ 3bð1  bÞ, leading to

ld = 0.75 when b ¼ 0:5.
Double diaphragm valve, Fig. 8 A double diaphragm
restrictor controls two recesses with one diaphragm
(Rowe 1966, 1969). The design is easy to make, and one
restrictor block using a single diaphragm can be designed
to supply a number of recess pairs. For opposed-pad
bearings and journal bearings, the diaphragm must be
made twice as stiff as for a single-pad bearing to achieve
a similar optimum condition. This is because a change in
pressure occurs on both sides of the diaphragm. The
deflection force on the diaphragm is W d ¼ Ad ðp1  p2 Þ,
where p1 and p2 are the opposing recess pressures. The
deflection force for the double diaphragm valve is there-
fore twice as large as for the single-sided diaphragm valve.
Infinite film stiffness of opposed-pad bearings is obtained
when  ld ¼ 6bð1  bÞ or  ld = 1.5 when b ¼ 0:5.
Inherent flow control The most common type is the
shallow recess bearing, Fig. 9. Alternatives are the tapered
recess bearing or the grooved bearing that act in a similar
way. As the bearing film thickness reduces towards zero,
the supply pressure spreads across the whole recess, as
depicted in the pressure plots in Fig. 9. However, when
the film thickness is larger than the recess depth, the
pressure drops rapidly within the recess. The difference
between the two pressure distributions when integrated
represents the load capacity of the pad. The inherent-
controlled film stiffness is lower than for a restrictor-
controlled pad but avoids the need for a restrictor. It is
 Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings R 2763

Ps 2
Capillary

h hr Orifice
q /qo
Constant flow

1
Ps

Infinite
h→0 stiffness
valve

0
0 0.5 pr /Ps 1
Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
Fig. 9 Control principle of shallow-recess bearing Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
Fig. 10 Flow characteristics of control devices

also possible to combine restrictor control with inherent

flow control to achieve higher combined film stiffness.
Stiffness of recessed pads Bearing film stiffness l for Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
recessed pads depends on change of recess pressure pr Table 1 Single pad relationships
with film thickness h. This may be stated as
r ¼ pr =Ps
p
l ¼ dW =dh, where W = prAe. Note that an increase 
X ¼ h=ho l ¼ Plhs Aoe
(positive) change in load will cause a decrease (negative)
change in clearance, leading to a positive film stiffness by Laminar – capillary, slot, annular
this definition. Lubricant flow-rate is related to film thick- r ¼
p 1
3 
l¼ 3:X :b=ð1bÞ
2

1þ1b
b X
 3 =, where B
 is the flow shape factor for ðX 3 þb=ð1bÞÞ
2
ness by q ¼ pr Bh
the particular pad. From these three expressions, a general Turbulent orifice – round, square, annular
bearing film stiffness law is found that applies for all  3:
l ¼ X:ð1þ pr
X ¼ 1p r b2
6
2
p
: 1b  1 pr
2:1
p Þ r
restrictor-controlled recessed pads.
Inherent annular orifice
3pr Ae 
l¼ h i 2:
pr
ð1Þ X ¼ 1
4 pr b
: 1b
2
l ¼ X:ð1þ
 1 p
: r
2 pr Þ
h 1  pqr : dp
dq p 2 1

r
Stiffness depends on the restrictor flow relationships
as stated in Figs. 2–4. Thus,
p dq
If qr : dp < 1 the bearing is stable and stiffness is
r
positive.
p dq
If qr : dp ¼ 1 the bearing has infinite static stiffness.
r
pr dq
If q : dp > 1 the bearing is statically unstable since
r
stiffness is negative.
Flow characteristics of the four main types of control
are shown in Fig. 10. Capillary restrictors give the lowest
stiffness but tolerate small temperature variations better
than other types of control because their resistance ratio is
not a function of viscosity. Orifice restrictors give slightly
higher stiffness values than capillary restrictors and con-
stant flow supply even higher, but both are affected by
changes in viscosity. A pressure-sensing valve tuned to give
a flow-pressure slope of +1 gives infinite static stiffness.
Constant flow
r ¼
p b 
l ¼ 3b
4
X
3 X R
In practice, it is usual to accept slightly lower stiffness than
infinite to ensure stability and avoid the possibility of
limit-cycle oscillations. Valves usually exhibit some non-
linearity across the load range so that stiffness is reduced as
maximum pressure is approached. This applies both to
constant-flow valves and pressure-sensing valves.
Pressure, deflection, and stiffness expressions may be
evaluated using the restrictor flow expressions from
Figs. 2–4 and (1) (Rowe 1980). Dimensionless expressions
for basic restrictor types are listed in Table 1:
Values of dimensionless stiffness at the design condi-
tion are simply obtained writing X  ¼ 1 and  pr ¼ b in the
2764 R Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings
expressions from Table 1. When b ¼ 0:5, the values
obtained are:
Capillary: 0.75
Orifice: 1.0
Inherent orifice: 0.667
Constant flow: 1.5
Double diaphragm valve: Infinite when 
ld ¼ 1:5
Selection of restrictor dimensions The dimensions of
a restrictor are determined from the flow rate for one
recess and the required design pressure ratio. Restrictors
may therefore be designed using one of the expressions
given for flow rate in Fig. 2, at the same time ensuring that
the length/diameter ratio and Reynolds number values
indicate turbulent or laminar flow as appropriate for the
type of restrictor.
Example. A thrust bearing is to support a load at a recess
pressure of 10 bar with a flow-rate of 0.5 l/min. The design
pressure ratio is required to be 0.5. Capillary tubing is
available having an internal diameter of 1 mm. The oil
viscosity is 35 cP and the density is 870 kg/m3. Find the
capillary length.
In consistent units the given data are q = 0.5/(601000)
= 8.33310-6 m3/s, pr ¼ 10  100000 ¼ 106 Pa, the cap-
illary diameter is 0.001 m, and the viscosity is 0.035 Nsm2.
Since pr ¼ b:P s , P s ¼ 2  106 Pa.
From the flow-rate expression in Fig. 2, the length of the
ð2  1Þ  106  p  0:0014
capillary is l c ¼ ¼ 0:084 m
128  0:035  8:333  106
or 82 mm.
The mean velocity of the oil in the capillary is
4  8:333  106
v¼ ¼ 10:61m/s
p  0:0012
Re ¼ 870  10:61  0:001=0:035 ¼ 264: This is low
enough to indicate laminar flow.
Key Applications
Opposed-pad bearings Opposed-pad bearings give twice
the stiffness of a single pad since the total effective bearing
area is doubled. Dimensionless stiffness of capillary-
controlled opposed pads is given in Fig. 11 for various
values of design pressure ratio b. The value 0.5 gives
maximum centered stiffness. Graphs such as Fig. 11
are plotted by writing for Pad 2, that X 2 ¼ 2  X  1.
For other types of restrictor, use is made of the appropriate
expressions in Table 1. The total stiffness of opposed
pads is the sum of the stiffnesses of each pad
l ¼ l1 :P s Ae1 =ho þ l2 :P s Ae2 =ho .
An inherent shallow-recess circular pad A shallow-
recess pad has a smaller load range, approximately
one-half, and also lower stiffness than a restrictor-
controlled pad. There is the advantage, however, that
there is no requirement for a restrictor and reduced con-
cern about the potential for restrictor blockage.
In the example shown, Fig. 12, a recess depth equal to
the bearing clearance or hr /ho = 1 gives a pressure ratio
p2 /Ps = 0.44 at radius R2. This pressure ratio is seen to be
favorable for stiffness at the design clearance h = ho. The
stiffness can be judged by the slope of the load–clearance
curve. Stiffness is low at large clearance and high at small
clearance. With hr = ho, stiffness lho/PsA = 0.24. The
comparable stiffness value for a capillary-controlled pad
with a deep recess is 0.6. Maximum stiffness for the inher-
ent pad example occurs when h = 0.4ho and is 0.55PsA/ho.
A guide to the load range can be given for a maximum
clearance deviation of +/ 50%. From Fig. 12, Wmaxc/PsA
= 0.626 and Wmin/PsA = 0.354.
Flow rate, when h = ho, is given by
p:p2 :ho3 0:437p2 :ho3
q¼ or with R2/R3 = 0.8, q ¼ .
6::loge R 3 =R 2 
Further details on the analysis of shallow-recess and
tapered-recess pads can be found in the literature (Van
Beek 2006).
Orifice restrictor for a journal bearing Restrictors for
journal bearings are designed similarly as for plane pads,
either from the required flow-rate or the required hydrau-
lic resistance. An example of capillary design for a plane
pad is given above. The following example is for orifice
design for a journal bearing.
Example. The flow-rate for a five-recess journal bearing is
0.8 l/min. Supply pressure, Ps, is 2 MN/m2, and pressure
ratio is b = 0.5. The density of the lubricant is 870 kg/m3 and
oil viscosity  is 0.035 Ns/m2. Determine suitable orifice
dimensions.
Flow rate per recess is 0.8/5 = 0.16 l/min. In consistent
units q = 0.16/(1,00060) = 0.00000266 m3/s.
Assume Cd = 0.65. From the orifice expression in Fig. 4:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p:do2 2ð2  1Þ  106
0:00000266 ¼ 0:65  :
4 870
d = 0.33 mm
Check for Re: Lubricant velocity is
4:q 4  2:66  106
v¼ ¼ ¼ 31:1m/s
p:do2 p:0:332  106
870  31:1  0:00033
Re ¼ ¼ 255. This value would
0:035
be too low to ensure turbulence in a long tube
but is suitable for a short orifice of length not
greater than 1 mm. This can be further checked
 Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings R 2765

1.2 Dimensionless load W/PsLD

l.ho 0.25
l = e = 0.5
Ps Ae
1
0.2

0.8 b = 0.2 0.15

λ e = 0.25
b = 0.4
0.6 0.1
b = 0.5
b = 0.6
0.4 0.05 L /D = 1.0
b = 0.8 a /L = 0.25
0
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Concentric pressure ratio b
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,
Bearing gap h1 /ho Fig. 13 Load v pressure ratio for a four-recess journal bearing

Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings,

Fig. 11 Dimensionless stiffness characteristics of capillary the 1 MN/m2 for orifice flow, and, therefore, the assump-
controlled opposed pads tion that turbulent losses predominate is confirmed.
Effect of design pressure ratio on journal bearings
R1 Hydraulic resistance of the restrictors should generally
R3 R2
balance the outflow resistance of the bearing recesses
leading to a design pressure ratio b = 0.5. The effect of
hr pressure ratio on hydrostatic load performance of recessed
h
journal bearings is shown in Fig. 13.
1.2
R1/R3 = 0.1 Cross-References
W/PsA R2 /R3 = 0.8 ▶ Hybrid Hydrostatic/Hydrodynamic Bearings
▶ Hydrostatic Journal Bearings
▶ Hydrostatic Thrust Bearings
0.8 hr /ho
References
1.5
0.6 M.E. Mohsin, The use of controlled restrictors for compensating hydro- R
static bearings, in Advances in Machine Tool Design and Research
(Pergamon, Oxford, 1962)
0.4 1.0 J.P. O’Donoghue, W.B. Rowe, Hydrostatic bearing design. Tribology 2(1),
25–71 (1969a)
0.5
J.P. O’Donoghue, W.B. Rowe, Compensation methods for externally
0.2 pressurized bearings. Eng. Dig. 30(4), 49–61 (1969b)
0 1 2 3 W.B. Rowe, Hydrostatic Bearings, UK Patent Specifications, 1 170 602,
Clearance h/ho Nov 1969 and 2 2072/66, May 1966
W.B. Rowe, Dynamic and static properties of recessed hydrostatic journal
Restrictors and Compensation of Hydrostatic Bearings, bearings by small displacement analysis. J. Lubr. Technol. 102(1),
Fig. 12 Load-gap for a circular shallow-recess pad 71–79 (1980)
W.B. Rowe, Hydrostatic and Hybrid Bearing Design (Butterworths,
London/Boston, 1983)
W.B. Rowe, Advances in hydrostatic and hybrid bearing technology,
by calculating the pressure drop assuming laminar Donald Julius Groen prize paper C07188. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
flow. Capillary flow, using the expression from Fig. 2, is 203, 225–242 (1989)
3
2:66  106 ¼ 320; 000
P s  pr ¼ 128  0:035  1  410 12 W.B. Rowe, J.P. O’Donoghue, Diaphragm valves for controlling opposed
p  0:33  10 pad hydrostatic bearings. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 184(Part 3P), 1–9
(0.32 MN/m2). This pressure loss is substantially less than (1968–69)