Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/230942191
CITATIONS READS
29 144
2 authors:
Shivaram Ac Gangadharan K V
Applied Materials India Pvt Ltd National Institute of Technology Karnataka
6 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 385 CITATIONS
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Gangadharan K V on 09 March 2015.
1311
A C Shivaram and K V Gangadharan
Half-Normal Plot
Table 2. Factor levels for 25 factorial design. Table 3. Factorial analysis effects list.
Factors Low High
A—volume fraction (%) 10 40 Term Effect SumSqr % contribution
B—shearing gap (mm) 1.5 2.5 A—volume fraction 1.5248 54.5286 15.4082
C—magneto-motive 0 120 B—shearing gap −0.3139 2.3116 0.6531
force (MMF) C—magneto-motive force 2.5920 157.5810 44.5279
(ampere-turns) D—frequency −1.3466 42.5287 12.0174
D—frequency (Hz) 0.2 8 E—stroke 0.3104 2.6526 0.7495
E—stroke (mm) 1 3 AB −0.1341 0.4217 0.1191
Response variable RMS damping AC 0.5721 7.6773 2.1694
force AD −0.3973 3.4384 0.9716
AE 0.2597 1.3854 0.3914
BC −0.1109 0.2887 0.0815
BD −0.0549 0.1304 0.0368
4. Results and discussion BE −0.2415 1.2641 0.3572
CD −0.7763 14.1357 3.9943
Initially five factors were varied in two levels, force and CE 0.0994 0.3498 0.0988
displacement data were acquired and the RMS damping force DE 0.0556 0.1505 0.0425
was used as the response variable for factorial analysis. These ABC 0.6098 8.7235 2.4650
ABD −0.3487 2.8472 0.8045
factors and their levels are summarized in table 2. Magneto-
motive force was used instead of field strength, as it has a direct
bearing on the field strength and also it is simple to measure As expected, factorial analysis suggests that volume
and control. fraction (A) and MMF (C) have a significant influence on the
To identify the most important factors, a graph showing RMS damping force of an MR damper. Further, it also suggests
least-square estimates of effects and their half-normal that the contribution of frequency (D) could not be neglected.
probabilities (Montgomery 2003) was plotted. Statistics The other two factors, shearing gap (B) and stroke (E), did
suggests that the larger the effect of a particular factor, the not have much effect (within the considered range) on the
larger will be its deviation from a straight line in a half-normal RMS damping force. With these observations as the base, the
plot. Figure 4 shows such a half-normal plot of the above- shearing gap and stroke were held constant and the other three
considered factors and their interactions. From this figure, one factors were considered for the next phase of experimentation.
can observe that factor C (MMF) is most influential, followed The response surface method was used to organize this phase
by factors A (volume fraction) and D (frequency). Along with and face centered central composite design was used to decide
individual factors, their interactions (such as CD, ABC, and the factor levels (Montgomery 2003). The factors considered
AC) also have a considerable influence on the RMS damping and their levels are summarized in table 4.
force. From statistical analysis, the individual effects of these Power transformation has been used to accommodate large
factors and their interactions have been found out, along with differences between minimum and maximum values of the
their percentage contributions. These data are tabulated in response variable. A transformation factor of −1/2 was used
table 3. based on a Box–Cox plot (Montgomery 2003). Figure 5 shows
1312
Statistical modeling of an MR fluid damper
Table 4. Factor levels for the response surface method using central composite design.
Factors Low Mid High
A—volume fraction 10% 25% 40%
B—magneto-motive force 0 ampere-turns 60 ampere-turns 120 ampere-turns
C—frequency 4 Hz 6 Hz 8 Hz
Shearing gap Held constant At 2 mm
Stroke Held constant At 3 mm
the response surfaces of damping force−1/2 versus MMF, like a viscous fluid (Tang and Conrad 1996). As a result,
frequency and volume fraction. From this graph one can with increase in frequency, the damper performance resembles
observe that there is a strong nonlinear relationship between more the hysteretic damping of an viscoelastic material. This
the response variable and the three considered factors. As understanding is very important when designing MR dampers
expected, it suggests that high volume fraction and high MMF for different applications like structural (around 0.1–1 Hz),
will result in high damping force; however, it also suggests automotive (around 0.1–10 Hz) or machine vibration isolation
that such a behaviour is frequency dependent. The lower the applications (around 0.1–10 000 Hz). The same can be
frequency, the larger is the RMS damping force. observed from figure 6.
Equation (1) shows the quadratic modeling equation
obtained from the response surface method. It predicts the
RMS damping force of an MR damper within the considered 5. Summary
factor range.
• An experimental study based on the design of experiments
Damping force−1/2 = +0.199 36 + 9.784 82 × 10−4 × A was conducted, to identify factors that have a significant
− 2.083 68 × 10−4 × B − 0.018 513 × C influence on the RMS damping force of an MR damper.
− 1.857 80 × 10−6 × A × B − 3.000 77 × 10−5 × A × C • As expected, certain factors, namely the magnetic field
+ 8.172 17 × 10−6 × B × C − 3.925 44 × 10−5 × A2 strength and volume fraction of particles in the fluid, were
found to have a significant influence on the RMS damping
− 1.079 44 × 10−6 × B2 + 1.933 76 × 10−3 × C2 . (1)
force.
Figure 6 shows force versus displacement diagrams at • Further, a significant correlation between vibration
different factor levels. From these diagrams it can be observed frequency and RMS damping force was observed.
that, as the frequency increases from 0.2 to 8 Hz, the damping
• At low frequency, the damping nature was more like a
nature changes from Coulomb to hysteretic. Similar results
Coulomb damping, which gradually changed to hysteretic
have been obtained by Snyder et al (2001) and Gamota
nature as the frequency increased.
and Filisko (1991) at various frequencies, however only for
the flows which are predominantly in the pre-yield regime • This frequency dependence would have a lot of bearing
(Sprecher et al 1987). For a given shearing gap, as the on the choice of damping materials to be used in different
oscillating frequency increases, the strain rate also increases. applications.
This would result in a significant portion of the strain cycle • A statistical modeling equation has been formulated based
being spent in the post-yield regime. It has been observed on the experimental data, which can predict the RMS
that MR fluid behaviour in the post-yield regime is more damping force of an MR damper.
1313
A C Shivaram and K V Gangadharan
Acknowledgments
The current work has been sponsored by a research grant,
MHRD, Government of India and TEQIP-NITK. This
assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Choi Y, Cho J, Choi S and Wereley N 2005 Smart Mater. Struct.
14 1025–36
Cox B J, Thamwattana N and Hill J M 2006 Rheol. Acta 45 909–17
Fang C, Zhao B Y, Chen L S, Wu Q, Liu N and Hu K A 2005 Smart
Mater. Struct. 14 N1–5
Gamota D and Filisko F E 1991 J. Rheol. 35 399–425
Gandhi F and Bullough W A 2005 J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
16 237–48
Iyengar V R and Foister R T 2002 Use of high surface area untreated
fumed silica in MR fluid formulation Technical Report, US
Patent No 6451219
Jolly M R, Bender J W and Carlson J D 1998 Proc. SPIE
3327 262–75
Kamath G M, Wereley N M and Melanie K H 1996 Smart Mater.
Struct. 5 576–90
Klingenberg D, Ulicny J and Smith A 2005 Appl. Phys. Lett.
86 104101
Montgomery D C 2003 Design and Analysis of Experiments 5th edn
(New York: Wiley)
Namuduri C, Browne A L and Ulicny J C 2006 Impact energy
absorber and process Technical Report, US Patent No 6983832
B2
Snyder R, Kamath G and Wereley N 2001 AIAA J. 39 1240–53
Sprecher A F, Carlson J D and Conrad H 1987 Mater. Sci. Eng.
95 187–97
Tang X and Conrad H 1996 J. Rheol. 40 1167–77
Ulicny J C, Klingenberg D J, Smith A L and Golden M 2007
Magnetorheological fluid device Technical Report, US Pub No
2007/0023247
Wereley N M, Lindler J, Rosenfeld N and Choi Y T 2004 Smart
Figure 6. Force–displacement diagrams. Mater. Struct. 13 743–52
Winslow W M 1947 Method and means for translating electrical
impulses into mechanical force Technical Report, US Patent No
2417850
Winslow W M 1953 Field controlled hydraulic device Technical
• Response surfaces have been plotted showing nonlinear Report, US Patent No 2661596
variations of the RMS damping force with field strength, Wu W P, Zhao B Y, Chen L S, Wu Q, Sheng L and Hu K A 2006
volume fraction and frequency. Smart Mater. Struct. 15 N94–8
1314