Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Search
Collections
Journals
About
Contact us
My IOPscience
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2014 Smart Mater. Struct. 23 045025
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/23/4/045025)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 218.248.46.107
This content was downloaded on 25/02/2015 at 04:17
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/23/4/045025
Abstract
In this paper, it is shown that the MR dampers power dissipation capacity is determined by
the time spent in the pre- and the post-yield damping regimes. This time is determined by its
design, by the MR fluids rheological behavior and by the type of movement applied to the MR
damper. To analyze those working regimes, two types of movement with different amplitudes
have been applied to the MR damper at different magnetic field intensities and excitation
frequencies. The first movement is an imposed harmonic movement, and in the second, power
controlled unrestrained movement is obtained. These unrestrained conditions are equivalent to
those the MR damper handles in a real application. For all the analyzed conditions, the
obtained results have shown that when a harmonic movement is imposed on the damper, the
MR fluid is forced to work in the post-yield regime for the majority of the cycle. In contrast,
when the unrestrained response is measured, the pre-yield behavior becomes more significant.
As a result, for equal maximum displacement, the MR damper dissipates more power when a
harmonic movement is imposed compared to the unrestrained movement.
Keywords: MR damper, characterization, magnetorheology
(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)
1. Introduction
Printed in the UK
J Berasategui et al
Rrs
(1)
2rs
M,
R3
(2)
(rs ) =
and
(rs ) =
2. System description
2.1. MR fluid
= 0 + K n ,
(3)
J Berasategui et al
Yield stress
0 (Pa)
Consistency
K (Pa sn )
Flow
behavior
index n
0
99.47
143.24
175.07
2.75
2975.25
5423.64
6929.32
0.369
30.619
40.556
93.999
0.816
0.573
0.523
0.468
(y) =
1P
(2y h),
2L
(4)
1P 0 =
20 L
.
h
(5)
2.2. MR damper
F0 = 1P 0 Ae =
20 L Ae
,
h
(6)
(7)
J Berasategui et al
(8)
Number of
N750-RB magnets
on each side of the
conduct
Number of PET
spacers on each side
of the conduct
Magnetic
field intensity
H (kA m1 )
0
1
1
1
3
2
1
0
99.47
143.24
175.07
3. Experimental procedure
J Berasategui et al
Figure 5. Imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 3 mm; frequency 1 Hz) for different magnetic intensities from 0 kA m1 to 175.07 kA m1 ;
(a) displacement; (b) damping force.
J Berasategui et al
Figure 6. Unrestrained movement (V0 = 1.0 V; frequency 1 Hz) for different magnetic intensities from 0 kA m1 to 175.07 kA m1 ;
Figure 7. Unrestrained movement (V0 = 0.75 V) versus imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 2.3 mm) at 99.47 kA m1 and 1 Hz;
(a) displacement; (b) velocity; (c) force.
J Berasategui et al
Figure 8. Imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 2.3 mm) and unrestrained movement (V0 = 0.75 V; X max = 2.30 mm) with 99.47 kA m1 at
1 Hz: pre-yield (white background) and post-yield damping region damping region (gray background); (a) damping force; (b) displacement;
(c) velocity.
smaller than the theoretical value Fmin , the applied force is not
enough to overcome the MR fluids yield stress and the static
friction force of the hydraulic seal. Therefore, the damper is
working in the pre-yield damping region. Once the damping
force is larger than the Fmin , both the MR fluids yield stress
and the static friction force of the hydraulic seals are surpassed,
and thus the MR damper works in the post-yield damping
region [3].
For tests carried out under the same testing conditions
as in figure 7, the model-based estimated transition points
between the pre- and the post-yield are indicated in figure 8
by Fmin for the two applied types of movements. For these
testing conditions (H = 99.47 kA m1 and f = 1 Hz), the MR
fluid presents a 2975.25 Pa yield stress (table 1). This yield
stress value is traduced in a 61.34 N yield force according
to equation (6). In addition, the static friction force presents
7
J Berasategui et al
Figure 9. Imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 1 mm) and unrestrained movement (V0 = 0.75 V): working regimes of the MR damper at
1 Hz according to the magnetic field intensity (pre-yield: white background; post-yield: gray background).
J Berasategui et al
Figure 10. Imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 0.5 mm) and unrestrained movement (V0 = 0.5 V): working regimes of the MR damper at
99.47 kA m1 according to the excitation frequency (pre-yield: white background; post-yield: gray background).
J Berasategui et al
Figure 11. Imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 0.5 and 2 mm) and unrestrained movement (V0 = 0.75 and 1.0 V): working regimes of the
MR damper at 175.07 kA m1 and 1 Hz according to the maximum displacements (pre-yield: white background; post-yield: gray
background).
J Berasategui et al
Figure 12. Unrestrained movement (V0 = 0.75 V) and imposed harmonic movement (X 0 = 2.3 mm) at 99.47 kA m1 and 1 Hz;
Acknowledgments
The present study has been partially supported by ACTIMAT and MAGNETOBUSH (UE2013-09) projects and the
Research Group program (IT557-10) from the Basque government, and by the MAGNETO (INNPACTO-020000-2010006) and AVISUINT (DPI 2012-36366) projects from the
Spanish government.
References
[1] Carlson J D and Chrzan M J 1994 Magnetorheological fluid
damper US Patent US5277281
[2] Symans M D and Constantinou M C 1999 Semi-active control
systems for seismic protection of structures: a
state-of-the-art review Eng. Struct. 21 46987
[3] Lindler J E, Dimock G A and Wereley N M 2000 Design of
magnetorheological automotive shock absorber Proc. SPIE
3985 42637
[4] Aydar G, Evrensel C A, Gordaninejad F and Fuchs A 2007 A
low force magneto-rheological fluid damper: design
11
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
J Berasategui et al
12