For Peer Review: A Rheological Model For Magneto-Rheological Fluids

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids
Journal: Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

Fo
Manuscript ID: JIMSS-07-276.R1
Manuscript Types: Original Article

r
Date Submitted by the

16-Mar-2008
Author:
Pe
Complete List of Authors: Susan-Resiga, Daniela; West University of Timisoara, Department

of Physics; Politehnica University of Timisoara, National Center for
Engineering of Systems with Complex Fluids
er
Keyword: Magnetorheological fluid, rheological model, continuous flow curve
The paper presents a rheological model for magnetorheological

fluids (MRF) by blending a quasi-newtonian behavior at very low
Re
shear stress with a Herschel-Bulkley model for large shear stress

value where the suspension displays a shear-thinning behavior. The
model parameters allow the identification of a yield point on the
flow curve, where the shear stress reaches a local maximum for
Abstract:
large magnetic field intensity. It is shown that our model accurately
vi
fits the experimental data over a wide range of shear rate and coil
electric current intensity values. A main advantage of our model is
that it can be used in regular CFD codes to compute the MRF flow in
ew
practical applications. We present such a numerical example, and

validate the numerical results against a quasi-analytical solution.
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jimss
Page 1 of 21 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 1/21

1
2
3
4
5 A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids
6
7 Daniela SUSAN-RESIGA*, PhD, Senior Lecturer
8 Department of Physics, West University of Timi oara,
9
10
Bvd. Vasile Pârvan, No. 4, Timi oara, 300223, Romania
11
12
13 ABSTRACT
14
15 The paper presents a rheological model for magnetorheological fluids (MRF) by
16
17 blending a quasi-newtonian behavior at very low shear stress with a Herschel-Bulkley
18 model for large shear stress value where the suspension displays a shear-thinning
19 behavior. The model parameters allow the identification of a yield point on the flow
20 curve, where the shear stress reaches a local maximum for large magnetic field
Fo
21 intensity. It is shown that our model accurately fits the experimental data over a wide
22
23
range of shear rate and coil electric current intensity values. A main advantage of our
24 model is that it can be used in regular CFD codes to compute the MRF flow in
rP
25 practical applications. We present such a numerical example, and validate the

26 numerical results against a quasi-analytical solution.
27
28 Key Words: magnetorheological fluid, rheological model, continuous flow
29
ee
30
curve.
31
32
rR
33 INTRODUCTION
34
35 Magnetorheological fluids (MRF) are suspensions of particles which can be
36
37 magnetized, and exhibit fast, strong and reversible changes in their rheological
ev
38 properties when a magnetic field is applied. Goncalves, Koo and Ahmadian (2006)
39 review the state of the art in magnetorheological technology, and examine various
40 models used to describe the MR fluid behavior. Two models have been particularly
41
iew
well documented in the literature, namely the Bingham Plastic and the Herschel-
42
43
Bulkley models. The focus of the present paper was to develop and validate a
44 rheological model able to capture both pre- and post-yield behavior of MRF, and in
45 the same time be easy to implement in commercially available CFD codes in order to
46 simulate the flow in practical devices.
47 Li, Chen and Yeo (1999) investigate the viscoelastic properties of MR
48 suspension within the pre-yield region, since these properties are considered
49
50 especially relevant for vibration damping applications. They used a German Paar
51 Physica rheometer with plate-plate configuration in strain-controlled mode, and a
52 MRF-132LD suspension produced by Lord Corporation, both the equipment and MR
53 fluid being quite similar to the ones used in the present investigations. Both strain-
54
55
amplitude sweep (frequency 10 Hz and amplitude 10 4 K10 3 ) and frequency sweep
56 (amplitude 10 3 and frequency from 1 Hz to 100 Hz) tests were performed in order to
57 determine the storage modulus and loss modulus as functions of oscillating frequency,
58 strain amplitude, applied coil current (which is proportional to the magnetic flux
59
density) and volume fraction of iron powder dispersed in silicone oil. In a further
60
*
E-mail: dana_resiga@yahoo.com
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures Page 2 of 21

1
2
3
paper, Li et al. (2002) investigated the creep and recovery behaviours of the same MR
4
5 fluid under constant shear stress, using the same experimental equipment. They
6 conclude that i) at low stresses the MR fluid behaves as a linear viscoelastic body; ii)
7 when the applied stress gets close to the yield stress the suspension is almost
8 instantaneously strained without viscous flow, thus the MR fluid behaves as a plastic
9 solid; iii) when the stress is larger than the yield stress the MR fluid behaves as a
10
11
plastic fluid. Ghandi and Bullough (2005) review the behavioral attributes of various
12 models for magnetorheological and electrorheological fluid in the preyield regime,
13 and conclude that the Kelvin-Voigt model is most convenient to represent this solid-
14 like, not fluid-like, behaviour. When examining the implications of using a fluid
15 model for representation of preyield behavior, Ghandi and Bullough conclude that the
16
preyield viscosity has a large variation with frequency, with large values at very low
17
18 frequency and decreasing at higher frequencies when the preyield behavior is
19 effectively represented as a Maxwell fluid. As a result, they argue that the solid model
20 in the preyield regime is more suitable for broad-band excitation problems than a fluid
Fo
21 model which has frequency-dependent parameters.

22 Lange, Richter and Zipser (2001) consider that the behaviour of
23
24
magnetorheological fluid (MRF) flow under the influence of a magnetic field is
rP
25 consistent with the Bingham model. They derived the yield shear stress and the
26 Bingham viscosity from the pressure drop versus the volumetric flow rate in a
27 capillary rheometer at high flow velocity, arguing that such high velocities are
28 relevant for new industrial applications such as shock and vibration dampers.
29
ee
Chadhuria et al. (2005) investigate the rheological flow curves (shear stress vs. shear
30
31 rate) of a nanoparticle cobalt-based magnetorhelogical fluid, and found that either
32 Bingham-plastic or Herschel-Bulkley models can be used to describe the experimental
rR
33 data. Bitman, Choi and Wereley (2002) replace the Bingham model by an Eyring
34 constitutive model to investigate the behaviour of electrorhelogical dampers. Because
35 the two-parameter (yield stress and postyield viscosity) Bingham model has a zero
36
37 shear rate discontinuity, it has been replaced by the Eyring model which has a smooth
ev
38 transition through the zero shear rate condition and also has two rheological constants
39 for a constant field (magnitude of the shear stress and steepness of the shear rate
40 gradient in the preyield region). This is a more convenient alternative to the biviscous
41
iew
model, which has two distinct viscosities and governing equations within the preyield
42
43
(low shear rate) and postyield (high shear rate) regions. In a further study, Choi et al.
44 (2005) investigate the rheological characteristics of ER/MR fluids with respect to both
45 cylinder and parallel disk rotational viscosimeters, and derive the governing equations
46 based on Bingham-plastic, biviscous, and Herschel-Bulkley constitutive models. It
47 has been found that flow curves (shear stress versus shear rate) for the rotational
48 coaxial cylinder viscosimeter are sensitive to the calculation methods since two or
49
50 three distinct flow conditions occur in the gap. However, in the case of rotational
51 parallel disk viscosimeter the flow curve can be obtained directly from fundamental
52 equations without any approximation strategies. This is the viscosimeter also used for
53 the experimental investigations presented in this paper.
54 In an attempt to model the yield behavior of magnetorheological suspensions,
55
56
Bossis et al. (2003) propose a mechanism where, except in some special cases where
57 the forces between the particles and the wall can be larger than the interparticle
58 magnetic force, the aggregates slip on the walls when the stress is increased and begin
59 to rotate before breaking. As a result, we conclude that the a fluid model in the
60 preyield region, with a smooth transition to the shear-thinning behaviour for large
shear-rate values may be valuable for developing and evaluating practical applications

1
2
3
using regular CFD codes. Papanastasiou (1987) investigated numerically the steady
4
5 two-dimensional flow of Bingham fluids by modifying the constitutive relation such
6 that it applies everywhere in the flow field, in both yielded and practically unyielded
7 regions. This approach eliminates the necessity for tracking yield surfaces in the flow
8 field, thus simplifying the numerical algorithm while increasing its robustness.
9 The above analysis led us to the conclusion that a rheological model able to
10
11
capture the variation of the shear stress versus the shear rate, within a large range of
12 shear rate values ( 10 6 K10+3 s 1 ), of a MRF for variable magnetic field intensity is a
13 key issue for developing practical applications. Moreover, since our focus is to
14
develop flow-control MRF devices, it would be convenient from an engineering point
15
16 of view to use a regular CFD code to solve for both the base flow of a newtonian fluid
17 as well as for MRF flow. Such a model is presented in this paper, together with its
18 validation and numerical implementation. In the second section we introduce our
19 MRF rheological model, which is validated against experimental data in the third
20 section. The fourth section is devoted to numerical implementation, with a numerical
Fo
21
22
example for steady laminar flow between parallel plates. The paper conclusions are
23 summarized in the last section.
24
rP
25 A NEW RHEOLOGICAL MODEL FOR MRF

26
27
The experimental investigations we have performed on a MRF-132DG sample
28
29 reveals a quasi-newtonian behaviour in the start-up phase, with very low shear rate,
ee
30 switching in a shear-thinning behaviour as the shear rate increases. As a result, the

31 mathematical model to be used for fitting the experimental data should capture this
32 transition as
rR
33
34 ( &) = N ( & ) W1 ( & ) + HB ( & ) W2 ( & ) (1)
35
36 where the Newtonian behaviour is given by
37
( &) =
ev
38 N 0
&, (2)
39
40 and the shear thinning behaviour is described by the Hershel-Bulkley model,
41
iew
42 HB ( &) = 0 + c &1 n . (3)

43
44 The Hershel-Bulkley model assumes a yield stress 0 , and for shear-thinning fluids
45
46
n < 1 . The consistency constant c is a fit parameter.
47 The weighting functions W1 ( & ) and W2 ( & ) in Eq.(1) should be chosen such
as W1 ( & ) >> W2 ( & ) for very low shear rate, and W1 ( & ) << W2 ( & ) at large shear rate,
48
49
50 with W1 ( & ) + W2 ( & ) = 1 . There are many continuous, with continuous derivatives,
51
52 functions that meet the above general requirements. Note that the function and its
53 derivatives continuity insures a smooth transition between the two different
54 behaviours (2) and (3), as observed in experiments.
55
56 Let us assume that & is a shear rate value in the neighborhood of the
57 transition between the Newtonian and Hershel-Bulkley models. This characteristic
58 value will be used in our model to make the shear rate dimensionless, thus re-writing
59 the Hershel-Bulkley model as
60

1
2
3
4 1 n
&
5 HB ( &) = 0 + 1 . (4)
6 &
7
8 Note that the consistency constant in Eq. (4) has been replaced by the parameter 1
9 with dimension of shear stress.
10
11
The function that blends the two models will depend on the dimensionless
12 variable x & / & , and it can be chosen as tanh ( x ) , or erf ( x ) , or 1 exp ( x ) , or
13
any other function with the qualitative behaviour as in Figure 1. For example, the
14
15 1 exp ( x ) function has been used by Papanastasiou (1987) to modify the
16 viscoplastic fluid models in order to avoid the discontinuity in the flow curve due to
17
18
the incorporation of the yield criterion. As a result, Papanastasiou used a single
19 equation for the entire flow curve, before and after yield, as follows
20
[1 exp( a & )]
Fo
21 ( &) = + y
&. (5)
22 &
23
24
rP
25 1
26
0.9
27
28 0.8
29
ee
0.7
blending function
30
31 0.6
32 0.5 erf(x)
rR
33 tanh(x)
34 0.4
1−exp(−x)
35 0.3
36
37 0.2
ev
38 0.1
39
0
40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
41
iew
x
42
43 Figure 1. Blending functions.
44
45
All the above functions vanish as x 0 and reach the asymptotic value of 1 for
46 x . However, one can control how fast the functions approach the asymptotic
47 value by stretching the abscissa with a parameter multiplying x . The role of this
48 parameter is played in our model by the characteristic shear rate & .
49
50 For the present analysis we have chosen
51
& &
52 W1 = 1 tanh and W2 = tanh , (6)
53 & &
54
55 but similar results are obtained with the other choices mentioned above. As a result,
56 the mathematical model used for representing the mahneto-rheological behaviour of
57 the MRF-132DG samples reads as
58
59
60

1
2
3
4 1 n
& & &
5 = 0 & 1 tanh + 0 + 1 tanh . (7)
6 ! & " & &
! "
7
8
Figure 2 exemplifies the results obtained by replacing tanh( x ) in (6) by either erf ( x )
9
10 or 1 exp ( x ) . The fitted curves are practically identical, but obviously there are
11
12 some small changes in the fit parameter values.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
Figure 2. Flow curve fitted with various blending functions.
40
41
iew
The shear stress vanishes as & 0 , while the viscosity / & has the limit
42
43 value for vanishing shear rate
44
45 lim = 0 + 0
. (8)
46 & 0 &
47
48 Equation (8) clearly reveals that the start-up viscosity incorporates both the
49
contribution from the Newtonian behaviour, 0 , and the contribution from the yield
50
51 stress of the Hershel-Bulkley model, 0 .
52 The shear stress reaches the characteristic value of
53
54
55
(& )= 0
& × 0.2384 + ( 0 + 1 ) × 0.7616 (9)
56
57
at the characteristic shear rate value, corresponding to the shift in the rheological
58 behaviour from quasi-Newtonian to shear-thinning.
59
60

1
2
3
EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND MODEL VALIDATION
4
5
6 We have investigated the behaviour of the MRF-132DG suspension of
7 micrometer-size particles, produced by the Lord Corporation, using the Physica
8 MCR-300 rheometer with a 20 mm diameter plate-plate magneto-rheological cell. A
9
10 0.5mm gap has been chosen for all investigations, corresponding to a 0.157 ml
11 sample volume which was carefully controlled with a micropipette. The magnetic
12 field applied to the MRF was generated by the built-in coil of the magnetorheological
13 cell. The relationship between the magnetic flux density and the coil current intensity
14
15
is exemplified in Li, Chen and Yeo (1999), and it is usually calibrated by the
16 rheometer manufacturer. As a result, we will use the coil current intensity as an
17 independent parameter in this paper, with the following values: 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,
18 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 A . For shear rate values in the range of & = 10 2 K103 s 1 a
19
20 regular flow curve was measured, while for smaller shear rate values we have
Fo
21 performed amplitude sweep tests with angular frequency of 1s 1 and shear strain
22
23
amplitude within the range A = 10 5 K10 . Since for amplitude sweep tests the shear
24 has a sinusoidal variation in time, the average shear rate value & ( 2 / $ ) % A is
rP
25
26 considered for the flow curve. The amplitude-sweep results are shown as hollow
27 circles in the figures below, as well as in Figure 2, while the regular flow curve data
28 are shown as filled squares. One can see that the results of the two tests for each
29
ee
current intensity value overlap very well, thus the whole set of points has been used to
30 find the parameters in Eq. (7). Although our model (7) has five parameters to be found
31
32 by fitting the experimental data, four of them are relevant from practical point of
view: the threshold shear rate & and the corresponding shear stress , the start-up
rR
33
34
35
viscosity , and the shear-thinning exponent n . The latest was found to have
36 practically the same value, n = 0.855 ( ±3% ) for a wide range of electric current
37
intensity in the magneto-rheological cell coil I = 0.1K 3 A , and it has been
ev
38
39 subsequently fixed to a value of n = 0.855 .
40 Figure 3 through Figure 10 show the flow curves (shear stress versus shear
41
iew
rate) and viscosity curves (dynamic viscosity versus shear rate) for variable intensity
42
43
of the electric current in the magnetorheological cell coil. On the flow curve plots
44 both & and are marked with dashed lines, since these values correspond to a
45
46
conventional quasi-yield point. In fact, the point (& , ) on the flow curve
47 conventionally marks the transition from a quasi-newtonian behavior for low shear
48 rate values to the shear thinning behavior for large shear rate. Note that this transition
49
50
is smooth and continuous thanks to the blending functions used in (7), and the point
51 ( & , ) is only an indication of the behaviour change. On the viscosity curve plots
52
53 both both & and are shown explicitly in order to emphasize the start-up viscosity
54
55
level. For large current intensity, Figure 10, the point (& , ) on the flow curve
56 corresponds to a local maximum of the shear stress, supporting once more the
57 interpretation as a quasi-yield point. We conclude that our rheological model (7)
58 accurately fits the experimental data within a large range of shear rate
59
60 & = 10 6 K103 s 1 , and it can be reliably used to further investigate various
engineering applications. Figure 11 presents a synoptic view of the magneto-

1
2
3
rheological behavior fo the MRF 132-DG sample. One can see the steep response at
4
5 low current intensity with an evolution toward saturation at large current intensity
6 values.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Figure 3. Flow curve ( &) and viscosity curve ( &) for I = 0.1 A .
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
59 Figure 4. Flow curve and viscosity curve for I = 0.25 A .
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( &) ( &)
58
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
( & ) , and viscosity, ( & ) , curves for
58
59 Figure 11. Shear stress, I = 0.1K 3.0 A .
60

1
2
3
4 The main parameters, conventionally called the yield stress and start-up viscosity
5 are plotted in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively, versus the electric current
6 intensity. Note the relatively low values without magnetic field, when the MRF
7
8
behaves like a regular suspension and there are no particle aggregates, and the sudden
9 increase in both and once a magnetic field increases in intensity.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31
32
rR
33 Figure 12. Conventional yield stress versus the electric current intensity.
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Figure 13. Conventional start-up viscosity versus the electric current intensity.

1
2
3
Besides the influence of the magnetic field intensity on the MRF flow curve, practical
4
5 applications require the evaluation of temperature influence. We have investigated
6 experimentally the variation of temperature rise on the MRF viscosity for fixed shear
7 rate & = 10 s 1 . The results are shown in Figure 14 for all values of the electric current
8
9
intensity investigated in this paper. As one would expect, the viscosity decreases with
10 temperature increase. However, there is an important question to be addressed: is it
11 possible to separate the temperature influence from the electric current influence? In
12 order to answer that, we fit the experimental data for each current intensity value with
13 the simple exponential relation (the Andrade-Eyring equation, Macosko 1994, p. 510),
14
15 Ea
16 = exp , (10)
17
RT
18
19
where T [ K ] is the absolute temperature, [ Pa ' s ] is a material constant,
20 R = 8.314 J / mol ' K is the gas constant, Ea [ J / mol ] represents the activation energy
Fo
21
for viscous flow. The fit parameters are shown in Table 1, and the corresponding
22
23 curves are plotted in Figure 14.
24
rP
25 Table 1. Fit parameters in Eq.(10) for data from Figure 14.

26
27 I [ A] [ Pa ' s ] Ea [ J / mol ]
28
29
0.1 10.9 2.63 '103
ee
30 0.25 53.9 2.63 '103

31 0.5 58.8 2.63 '103
32
0.75 369 2.63 '103
rR
33
34 1.0 534 2.63 '103
35
36
1.5 996 2.63 '103
37 2.0 1.3 '103 2.63 '103
ev
38 3.0 2.06 '103 2.63 '103

39
40
41 The remarkable result is that the activation energy is practically constant and
iew
42 independent of the electric current intensity, leading to the conclusion that the
43 temperature influence can be included into Eq.(7) simply by multiplying the right-
44 hand term with an exponential factor:
45
46 1 n
( & & & (
47 ( &, T ) = 0 & 1 tanh + 0 + 1 tanh
48
( ! & " & & (
49 ! " T0 (11)
.
50
Ea 1 1
51 × exp
52
!R T T0 "
53
54 where T0 is the absolute temperature at which the flow curves have been determined
55
56 (e.g. room temperature). Our measurements shown in Figure 3…Figure 10 have been
57 made at 20o C ( T0 = 293 K ).
58
59
The physical interpretation of this result is that the temperature influence on
60 the MRF viscosity, at least within the temperature range investigated in this paper
20o C K 60o C , is due to the changes in the carrier liquid viscosity. The magnetizable

1
2
3
particle chains and clusters formation and growth is practically unaffected by the
4
5 temperature change. This is obviously true as long as there is no phase change (e.g.
6 vaporisation) in the carrier liquid.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
29
ee
30
31 Figure 14. Temperature influence on the MRF viscosity for values of electric
32
current intensity used in Figure 3...Figure 10.
rR
33
34 As far as the sedimentation of the MRF-132DG sample is concerned, we have
35
36
performed both qualitative and quantitative tests. The qualitative analysis has been
37 performed on samples held in vertical glass tubes for 7 days, while for the quantitative
ev
38 assessment of the sedimentation properties we have used the frontal method based on
39 X-ray diffraction. The conclusion is that the MRF-132DG sample displays a very low
40 sedimentation velocity in comparison with other MRF samples produced and tested in
41
iew
our laboratory. Moreover, before each measurement a shaker was used to homogenize
42
43 the sample.
44 The magneto-rheological model presented and validated in this paper is a
45 steady one. It does not incorporate the MRF response to the dynamics of the time-
46 dependent electric current variation, as investigated by Laun and Gabriel (2007) with
47 switching times of a few milliseconds. However, for preliminary design of magneto-
48
49
rheological devices and analysis of their performance using regular CFD codes, our
50 model (11) offers a good starting point.
51
52 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
53
54
We use the rheological model (7) to compute the steady laminar flow between two
55
56 plane plates 2 mm apart. Because of the problem symmetry, we consider only half the
57 channel width. The shear stress decreases linearly from the maximum value at the
58 wall to zero at the middle of the channel, as shown in Figure 15. Inserting this shear
stress behaviour in (7) leads to a non-linear equation for & ( y ) , where y denotes the
59
60
distance from the wall.

1
2
3 1 n
4 & & & y
5 0
& 1 tanh + 0+ 1 tanh w 1 = 0. (12)
! & " & & h
6 ! "
7 We solve this algebraic equation using the ZREAL routine from the IMSL library.
Once & ( y ) known, the velocity profile can be found by solving the differential
8
9
10 equation,
11
dV ( y )
12 = & ( y ) with initial condition at the wall V ( 0) = 0 , (13)
13 dy
14 by using the INPRK routine from the IMSL library which implements the Runge-
15
16
Kutta method. A similar approach has been used by Lange, Richter and Zipser (2001)
17 to determine the rheometrical parameters of MRF-132LD from experimental
18 invesigations on a Poiseuille flow, but with a simple Bingham model instead of (12).
19 4e+03 4e−07
20
Fo
21
mass flow rate 1.E−6 kg/s
22 3e+03
ma
3e−07
shear stress [Pa]
23 ss
flo velocity [m/s]
w
24 ra
te
rP
25 2e+03 1.E 2e−07

−6
mas kg
26 s flo
w ra /s
te 1.
27 E−7
kg/s
1e+03 1e−07
28 mass flow rate 1.E−7 kg/s
29
ee
30
0e+00 0
31 0e+00 2e−04 4e−04 6e−04 8e−04 1e−03 0e+00 2e−04 4e−04 6e−04 8e−04 1e−03
y [m] y[m]
32
rR
33 Figure 15. Shear stress profile for Figure 16. Velocity profiles for Poiseuille
34 Poiseuille flow. flow of a MRF.
35
36 As a numerical example, we consider the Poiseuille flow of the MRF-132DG subject
37 to a magnetic field corresponding to a 0.75 A current intensity. Two cases are
ev
38
39 considered, for mass flow rate (per unit span) of 10 7 kg / s and 10 6 kg / s , respectively.
40 The corresponding velocity profiles are shown in Figure 16. The solid lines show the
41
iew
results obtained with the quasi-analytical approach outlined above, while the circles
42 correspond to the numerical solution obtained with the commercial code FLUENT 6.3
43
44 (2006). For the numerical solution, we have implemented the rheological model
45 ( & ) = ( & ) / & through an User Defined Function. One can see that both quasi-
46 analytical and numerical approaches lead to the same results, showing that regular
47
48
commercial CFD codes can be employed to analyze various magneto-rheological
49 applications.
50 If pure Bingham plastic or Herschel-Bulkley models, with yield stress, would
51 be employed, then the CFD code needs to account for solid regions within the flow
52 domain. Moreover, from Figure 6 one can see that without the start-up region
53 included in the present model the MRF is not supposed to flow if the shear stress is
54
55 lower than = 2617 Pa . However, the present model predicts flows with small mass
56 flow rate (e.g. 10 7 kg / s ) even when the shear stress is smaller than the conventional
57
58 yield value, Figure 15. The same is true for larger mass flow rate ( 10 6 kg / s ), where
59 the MRF is supposed to flow only close to the wall (where > ) while behaving like
60 a solid in the middle of the channel where the velocity should be constant. Within the
present model, the velocity profile for mass flow rate of 10 6 kg / s , Figure 15, has a

1
2
3
steep variation near the wall, but it does not become constant in the middle of the
4
5 channel.
6 CONCLUSIONS
7
8 We propose a new rheological model which accurately captures the flow curve of a
9 magnetorheological fluid over large ranges of both shear rate values
10
11 & = 10 6 K103 s 1 , and magnetic field intensity. Our model blends, through weighting
12 functions, a quasi-newtonian behaviour for small shear rate with the Hershel-Bulkley
13 model in the post-yield shead-thinning region of large shear rate values. In doing so,
14
we obtain an analytical description of the flow curve suitable for using in commercial
15
16 CFD codes without the difficulties associated with the viscoelastic solid model in the
17 preyield regime. In our case, the quasi-yield point is automatically captured through
18 the fit parameters and for large enough coil current intensity it corresponds to a local
19 maximum on the flow curve. Although the yield point in our model may depend on
20 the frequency of the oscillatory tests, as pointed by Gandhi and Bullough (2005), the
Fo
21
22
physical model of Bossis et al. (2003) where in the start-up phase the aggregates slip
23 on the walls and then begin to rotate before breaking is consistent with our rheological
24 model. The influence of temperature is shown to be independent from the electric
rP
25 current intensity. As a result, the variation in the MRF viscosity with temperature is
26 due to the changes in the carrier liquid viscosity with temperature.
27
The new MRF rheological model is validated against measurements for the
28
29 MRF132-DG suspension. The fitted flow curves are in very good agreement with
ee
30 experimental data within a wide range of shear stress values & = 10 6 K103 s 1 as well
31 as current intensity in magnetorheological cell coil I = 0.25K 3 A . An example is
32
presented for numerical implementation in the FLUENT 6.3 code, and the computed
rR
33
34 velocity profile for laminar flow between parallel plates is validated with a quasi-
35 analytical solution.
36
37
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ev
38
39
40 The present research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under
41 the SCOPES Joint Research Project IB7320-110942/1, and by the Romanian National
iew
42 Authority for Scientific Research under the CEEX-C2-M1-1185 “iSMART-Flow”

43 Project. Magneto-rheological investigations were performed at the Politehnica
44
45 University of Timisoara – National Center for Engineering of Systems with Complex
46 Fluids. The sedimentation tests for the MRF-132DG sample have been performed by
47 Dr. M. Lita.
48
49 REFERENCES
50
51
52 Bitman, L., Choi, Y.-T. and Wereley, N.M. 2002. „Electrorheological Damper
53 Analysis Using an Eyring Constitutive Relationship,” Journal of Intelligent
54 Material Systems and Structures, 13:633-639.
55 Bossis, G., Khuzir, P., Lacis, S., and Volkova, O. 2003. „Yield behaviour of
56 magnetorheological suspensions”, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic
57
58 Materials, 258-259:456-458.
59 Chaudhuria, A., Wereleya, N.M., Radhakrishnanb, R., and Sudashanb, N.M. 2005.
60 „Viscometric characterization of cobalt nanoparticle-based magnetorheological

1
2
3
fluids using genetic algorithms”, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic
4
5 Materials, 293(1):206-214.
6 Choi, Y.T., Cho, J.U., Choi, S.B. and Wereley, N.M. 2005. „Constitutive models of
7 electrorheological and magnetorheological fluids using viscometers,” Smart
8 Materials and Structures, 14:1025-1036.
9 Gandhi, F. and Bullough, W. 2005. „On the Phenomenological Modeling of
10
11
Electrorheological and Magnetorheological Fluid Preyield Behaviour”, Journal
12 of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 16: 237-248.
13 Goncalves, F.D., Koo, J.-H., and Ahmadian, M. 2006. „A Review of the State of the
14 Art in Magnetorhelogical Fluid Technologies – Part I: MR fluid and MR fluid
15 models”, Shock and Vibration Digest, 38(3):203-219.
16
Lange, U., Richter, L. and Zipser, L. 2001. „Flow of Magnetorheological Fluids,”
17
18 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 12: 161-164.
19 Laun, H.M. and Gabriel, C. 2007. „Measurement modes of the response time of a
20 magneto-rheological fluid (MRF) for changing magnetic flux density”, Rheol.
Fo
21 Acta, 46:665-676.
22 Li, W.H., Chen, G. and Yeo, S.H. 1999. „Viscoelastic properties of MR fluids,” Smart
23
24
Materials and Structures, 8:460-468.
rP
25 Li, W.H., Du, H., Chen, G. and Yeo, S.H. 2002. „Experimental investigation of creep
26 and recovery behaviors of magnetorheological fluids,” Materials Science and
27 Engineering, A333:368-376.
28 Macosko, C.W. 1994. Rheology. Principles, Measurements, and Applications, Wiley-
29
ee
VCH.
30
31 Papanastasiou, T.C. 1987. „Flow of Materials with Yield”, Journal of Rheology,
32 31(5):385-404.
rR
33 *** 2006. FLUENT 6.3 User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, U.S.A.
34
35
36
37
ev
38
39
40
41
iew
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

For Peer Review: A Rheological Model For Magneto-Rheological Fluids

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Peer Review: A Rheological Model For Magneto-Rheological Fluids

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids

Journal: Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

Manuscript ID: JIMSS-07-276.R1

Manuscript Types: Original Article

Date Submitted by the

Complete List of Authors: Susan-Resiga, Daniela; West University of Timisoara, Department

Keyword: Magnetorheological fluid, rheological model, continuous flow curve

The paper presents a rheological model for magnetorheological

shear stress with a Herschel-Bulkley model for large shear stress

practical applications. We present such a numerical example, and

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 1/21

25 practical applications. We present such a numerical example, and validate the

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 2/21

21 model which has frequency-dependent parameters.

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 3/21

25 A NEW RHEOLOGICAL MODEL FOR MRF

30 switching in a shear-thinning behaviour as the shear rate increases. As a result, the

42 HB ( &) = 0 + c &1 n . (3)

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 4/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 5/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 6/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 7/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 8/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 9/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 10/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 11/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 12/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 13/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 14/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 15/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 16/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 17/21

25 Table 1. Fit parameters in Eq.(10) for data from Figure 14.

30 0.25 53.9 2.63 '103

38 3.0 2.06 '103 2.63 '103

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 18/21

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 19/21

25 2e+03 1.E 2e−07

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 20/21

42 Authority for Scientific Research under the CEEX-C2-M1-1185 “iSMART-Flow”

A Rheological Model for Magneto-Rheological Fluids 21/21

You might also like