Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and

Structures
http://jim.sagepub.com/

A review on the simulation and modeling of magnetorheological fluids

Ali Ghaffari, Seyed Hassan Hashemabadi and Mahshid Ashtiani
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures published online 21 August 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X14546650

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jim.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/21/1045389X14546650

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jim.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jim.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jim.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/21/1045389X14546650.refs.html

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 21, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

Review Article

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems

and Structures
1–24
A review on the simulation and Ó The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
modeling of magnetorheological fluids sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X14546650
jim.sagepub.com

Ali Ghaffari, Seyed Hassan Hashemabadi and Mahshid Ashtiani

Abstract
The magnetorheological fluids are classified as smart materials with controllable rheological properties. The fast growing
application of magnetorheological fluids in recent years has increased the demand for simulation and modeling of these
fluids. From the invention of magnetorheological fluids up to now, many experimental and also theoretical investigations
have been carried out to study these types of smart materials; also many attempts have been made to formulate and
simulate their behavior. The aim of this investigation is to present a review on the different models and simulation meth-
ods that were applied in the studying of magnetorheological fluids. In this study, the different simulation methods of mag-
netorheological fluid have been categorized into two general approaches: continuum and discrete phase approaches. The
different rheological and structural models of magnetorheological fluids in continuum approach have been summarized in
this study. The computational framework of discrete approach and the basic models for magnetorheological fluid in this
approach are also discussed.

Keywords
Smart fluid, magnetorheological fluid, magnetorheological modeling, continuum simulation, discrete approach

Introduction the value of yield stress and apparent viscosity of the

The magnetorheological fluids (MRFs) as the smart
materials with varying yield stress were discovered in
the late 1940s by Rabinow (1948). The variation in their
rheological properties (due to their specific composition
and structure) in less than few milliseconds, in the pres-
ence of external magnetic field, makes them appropriate
for many industrial applications. The interest in MRFs
has increased in the last decades due to their promising
characteristics.
The MRFs are composed of susceptible magnetic
particles dispersed in a continuum fluid that is usually
oily fluid. While in the absence of magnetic field, the
MRFs behave like a Newtonian fluid, but with the
application of an external magnetic field, the dispersed
magnetic particles make chain-like structures that resist
against the flow (Omidbeygi and Hashemabadi, 2013).
As a result, the rheological properties of MRFs change
with the application of magnetic field, and the fluid
shows a non-Newtonian behavior which is usually
described with the viscoplastic rheological models
(Lange et al., 2001). The volume fraction of dispersed
magnetic particles in conventional MRFs is around
20%–40% (Sahin et al., 2012; See et al., 2006; Ulicny
et al., 2005). Chain-like structure of particles in the
presence of an external magnetic field causes to enhance
MRF. The value of enhancement depends on the
applied field magnitude and direction. The particle sizes
are around 1–20 mm (Bossis et al., 2003b). A simple
and quite efficient MRF can be synthesized by disper-
sing the iron powder in oil with the use of some surfac-
tant, for instance, stearic acid, in order to prevent
irreversible aggregation (Bossis et al., 2002; Omidbeygi
and Hashemabadi, 2012).
The MRFs should be stable against the settling and
have a high magnetic saturation (Claracq et al., 2004).
Furthermore, the magnetic particles should have a
good resistance against the corrosion. Different types
of magnetic particles have been examined by research-
ers: magnetic latex made of polystyrene particles with
inclusions of magnetite (Lemaire et al., 1992; Volkova
et al., 1999b), polymer-coated nano-sized ferrite parti-
cles (Kormann et al., 1996), meso-scale carbonyl iron
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Research Laboratory, School of
Chemical Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology (IUST),
Tehran, Iran
Corresponding author:
Seyed Hassan Hashemabadi, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
Research Laboratory, School of Chemical Engineering, Iran University of
Science & Technology (IUST), Narmak, Tehran 16846-13114, Iran.
Email: hashemabadi@iust.ac.ir

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

2 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
and nickel–zinc ferrites (Phulé and Ginder, 1999),
Fe3O4 nanoparticles (Zafarani-Moattar and Majdan-
Cegincara, 2013), and the most commonly used carbo-
nyl iron particles (De Vicente and Berli, 2013; Ji Eun
et al., 2012; Park et al., 2011). Among all these, only
the carbonyl iron–based suspensions have already
enough performance to be used in MR devices
(Claracq et al., 2004).
MRFs are used in many different industrial applica-
tions from their invention until now. Linear dampers
(Goldasz and Sapinski, 2012; Parlak and Engin, 2012;
Parlak et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2012), rotor dampers
(Carmignani et al., 2006), rotary brakes (Farjoud et al.,
2008), rotary clutches (Olabi and Grunwald, 2007), and
directional control valves (Böse et al., 2012; Kostamo
et al., 2012; Quoc-Hung et al., 2007; Salloom and
Samad, 2011, 2012) are some of the examples which
have found industrial applications for MRFs. Ma et al.
(2012) have proposed a continuous variable transmis-
sion system based on the MRF and shape memory
alloy for improving the operating efficiency of the cen-
trifugal fans. Nosse and Dapino (2007) have presented
a hybrid actuator based on the rectification of magne-
tostrictive vibrations by means of MR flow control. A
method of jet stabilization based on using MRF in jet
fishing technology has been proposed by Kordonski
and Shorey (2007). Recently, the MRFs were utilized
in the haptic devices (Blake and Gurocak, 2009; Yang
et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). The benefits of MRFs such as
fast response time and low power requirement provide
the ability to size minimization and also elimination of
instabilities in such devices (Yang et al., 2012). The
MRFs were also used for medical applications. Sheng
et al. (1999) have proposed a novel cancer therapeutic
method using MRFs. In this method, the MRF is used
to inhibit the blood supply to a tumor in order to
starve it. The MR effect is also utilized for drug deliv-
ery systems. Therefore, it can be said that MR technol-
ogy has a wide range of applications in human life and
it is increasingly growing. More details on the applica-
tions of MRFs can be found in Bica et al. (2013).
A broad range of possible applications is presum-
ably the reason for the intense research on MRFs in
recent years. Nowadays, modeling and simulation have
become inevitable part of engineering problems in
order to find the optimum design. It can be expressed
that modeling and simulation have significant role in
the development of science and engineering. In addition
to the fast increasing applications of MRFs, modeling
and simulation of these fluids have received much inter-
est from researchers. Modeling and simulation of
MRFs are so challenging due to their complex struc-
tures. Researches in this field indicate that there are yet
no unique and explicit methodologies for simulation
and modeling of MRFs. It is necessary to determine
the effective parameters for studying the behavior of
MRFs for modeling and simulation. The main effective
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
parameters are as follows: volume fraction, size, type,
and shape of dispersed particles; physical properties of
carrier fluids; direction and intensity of applied mag-
netic field; and operational mode. Variation in any of
these parameters leads to a change in rheological prop-
erties of MRF such as yield stress and apparent viscos-
ity. Depending on the operational conditions, there
may also be other effective parameters, but they are in
second degree of importance.
General methods of modeling and simulation of
MRFs can be classified into two categories: the conti-
nuum and discrete approaches. In the first one, the mix-
ture of dispersed particles and suspending fluid is
considered as a one homogeneous phase, and its beha-
vior can be modeled by applying appropriate rheological
equations. In this approach, the coefficients and para-
meters of rheological models are defined as a function of
suspension’s characteristics and applied magnetic field
intensity. The main problem in this approach is to find
an appropriate rheological model that can predict the
behavior of flow in a wide range of shear rates and
applied magnetic field (Omidbeygi and Hashemabadi,
2012). Only the macroscopic properties are evaluated in
this method, and microscopic specifications such as
chain-like structure of dispersed particles are not
tracked. In the second approach (discrete model), MR
suspension is considered as a two-phase particulate flow
consisting of the dispersed particles and the surrounding
fluid. In this approach, the motion of particles and sus-
pending fluid is handled separately by appropriate mod-
els. Modeling in discrete approach is based on the basic
physical laws, and thus, it is more general in comparison
to continuum approach. Discrete approach can also be
divided into two categories according to the methods,
which are used to model the motion of dispersed parti-
cles. In one method, the motion of particles is tracked
by implementation of Newton’s second law, and in
another one, the particles’ trajectories are calculated via
kinetics-based models. The main problem in dispersed
model is complexity of equations and high computa-
tional cost. The discrete and also continuum approaches
are schematically shown in Figure 1.
There are some review articles dealing with the
synthesis, application, and technological aspects of
MRFs (Bica et al., 2013; Bossis et al., 2002; Goncalves
et al., 2006; Mrlik et al., 2013; Park et al., 2010; Zhu
et al., 2012). There are also some articles that review
the characteristics and structures of MRFs (Bossis
et al., 2002, 2003b; De Vicente et al., 2011a). Even
though many attempts have been made by numerous
authors for simulation and modeling of MRFs, based
on our knowledge, there is no comprehensive review on
this field published yet. Therefore, the aim of this
review article is to survey the MRF simulation and
modeling approaches and also to classify and categor-
ize these approaches. The main modeling approaches
(continuum and discrete approaches) with their
Ghaffari et al.
Figure 1. Schematic of the two main modeling approaches for MRFs. The suspension in continuum approach is considered as a
one-phase fluid with new density and viscosity. In discrete approach, particles and surrounding fluid will be tracked separately.
MRF: magnetorheological fluid.
computational frameworks and necessary correlations
and models are discussed in this article. The main sec-
tions and subsections of this article are listed in tree
chart of Figure 2.
MRF operational modes
Determination of the MRF operational mode is neces-
sary because the rheological models in continuum mod-
eling approach are derived based on the flow mode
(Nicholas and Norman, 2004; Quoc-Hung et al., 2007).
MRFs may be operated in different ways depending on
the requirements of an application. The three common
operational modes include valve mode, shear mode,
and squeeze mode, all shown in Figure 3.
The valve and shear modes are more common in
MR devices. The squeeze mode is less common, and
hence, it is less studied in the literatures. MR devices in
valve mode contain stationary poles, whereas in shear
mode these poles are moving. Servo valves, dampers,
and shock absorbers are examples of MR devices which
operate in valve mode (Ahmadkhanlou, 2008; Farjoud
et al., 2011; Grunwald and Olabi, 2008; Kostamo et al.,
2012). The valve operational mode of MRFs was exten-
sively studied by numerous researchers (Grunwald and
Olabi, 2008; Nicholas and Norman, 2004; Quoc-Hung
et al., 2007; Sahin et al., 2012; Salloom and Samad,
2011), to improve the efficiency and/or to find the opti-
mum geometry. In most of these studies, the Bingham
plastic rheological equation with a variable yield stress,
which is dependent on the magnetic field strength, has
been used to describe the flow behavior. The total pres-
sure drop in the MR devices operated in the valve
mode is evaluated by summing the viscous component
DPh and the yield stress component DPt (Salloom and
Samad, 2011)
12hQL ct y L
DP = DPh + DPt = + ð1Þ
g3 W g (Farjoud et al., 2011). This mode places the acting force
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
3
where L, g, and W are the geometric length, gap, and
width of the flow rectangular channel between the fixed
poles, respectively; Q is the flow rate; h is the fluid visc-
osity in the absence of magnetic field; and t y is the yield
stress resulted from the applied magnetic field. The
parameter c is a coefficient depending on the ratio of
DPt =DPh . The minimum value of the c is 2 (for
DPt =DPh less than ;1) and its maximum value is 3 (for
DPt =DPh greater than ;100) (Salloom and Samad,
2012).
In shear mode, also referred to as direct shear mode,
the MRF experiences a relative shearing force from one
of the plates enclosing the fluid gap (Figure 3(b)).
Clutches and rotary brakes are examples of devices
which utilize the MRFs in shear mode. The total force
in the shear mode can be split into two parts: a viscous
term Fr which is only dependent on the rheological
properties of fluid in off state and a magnetic field–
dependent component Fmr (Olabi and Grunwald, 2007).
Accordingly, the total shear force can be approximated
hSA
F = Fr + Fmr = + t mr A ð2Þ
g
where h, S, and A are the dynamic viscosity, the relative
speed, and the working interface area, respectively. tmr
is the yield stress developed in response to the applied
magnetic field.
Most of the studies on the rheometry of MR suspen-
sions are in the direct shear flow mode (Joung and See,
2008; Ramos et al., 2011; Sedlacik et al., 2013; Ulicny
et al., 2005). This is perhaps due to the widespread use
of MRF in this operational mode and/or due to the fact
that the results obtained in this mode can be generalized
to find the constitutive equation of flow which can be
used in other operational modes.
The squeeze mode of operation (Figure 3(c)) is the
least common and maybe the least understood
4 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

Figure 2. The main sections and subsections of this article.

MRF: magnetorheological fluid.

Figure 3. MR fluid operational flow modes: (a) valve mode, (b) shear mode, and (c) squeeze mode.
MR: magnetorheological.
Adapted from Farjoud et al. (2011).

in line with the magnetic field direction and the particle and MRF–elastomer vibration isolators. Among the
chains (Carmignani et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2005). three modes, the squeeze flow mode provides the larg-
The squeeze mode has been explored for use in the est yield stress under the same field (Ruiz-López et al.,
small-amplitude vibration control, impact dampers, 2013). However, understanding the behavior of MRFs

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

Ghaffari et al.
under squeeze flow mode is still far to be complete,
mainly because of the lack of both a thorough under-
standing of the basic MR mechanisms and reliable
experimental data (Ruiz-López et al., 2012). A compre-
hensive review of squeeze flow magnetorheology has
been presented by De Vicente et al. (2011).
In practice, MR devices may utilize a combination
of the three operational modes. In fact, conventional
applications involve the presence of complex flows.
However, in order to get a full understanding of the
complex flows, it is necessary to simplify the flow beha-
vior by considering the overall complex flow as a result
of a superposition of standard flows such as valve,
shear, and squeeze flows (De Vicente et al., 2011). A
center MR bearing from a driveshaft line is an example
of MR device which includes the combined squeeze and
shear modes. Kulkarni et al. (2003) have investigated
the properties of MRFs under the squeeze combined
with torsional mode. Their results showed that introdu-
cing oscillatory shear (torsional mode) in pure squeeze
mode can improve the damping force and performance
of a typical damper. An investigation on the combined
shear and squeeze mode of MRF is also reported by
See and Tanner (2003). They observed that in the
absence of shear forces, the squeezing normal force was
increased with the magnetic flux density. But it was
decreased by applying the shear forces. This behavior
was referred to the breakage of the chain-like structure
of particles due to the shear forces. In a similar work,
See et al. (2006) investigated the behavior of MRF
under a combination of squeeze and shear modes. They
found that the compression effects are less significant
than shear strains. But, however, they have not pro-
posed any constitutive model. It should be declared
that there are a few reported works in the literature
concerning combined flows in spite of their importance
in practical MR devices. The development of a general
constitutive framework for the combined operational
modes will be very helpful for modeling of real MR
devices.
Rheological models
As mentioned above, the main problem in continuum
approach is to determine an appropriate rheological
model for MRF (Omidbeygi and Hashemabadi, 2012).
Accordingly, experimental studies are needed to derive
the rheological model and its coefficients for different
operational modes of MR suspensions. There are few
commercial rheometers to study the behavior of
MRFs, and consequently in most of the researches, the
common commercial rheometers were modified
and developed to study the MRF behavior (Laun et al.,
1996). An MR rheometer has been provided by
Anton Paar Company (http://www.anton-paar.com/
Magnetorheology/Rheometer/60_Corporate_en?product_
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
5
id=57#Features) to investigate the influence of magnetic
field on the MRFs. A wide variety of modified versions
of conventional stress- and strain-controlled rheometers
can be found in the literature for studying MR suspen-
sions: concentric two cylinders (Klingenberg et al., 2007b;
Wang and Gordaninejad, 2006), two parallel plates
(Bossis et al., 2003a; De Vicente et al., 2004; See, 2003),
and cone-plate geometry (Claracq et al., 2004; Volkova
et al., 1999a).
Extensive studies have been performed to under-
stand the rheological properties of MR suspensions at
different operational modes (Fang et al., 2009;
Klingenberg and Ulicny, 2011; Laun et al., 1996;
Martin, 2001; Park et al., 2010; Rankin et al., 1999;
Santiago-Quinones et al., 2013; Sim et al., 2013). The
parameters of MRFs rheological models are found to
be dependent on the operational conditions, especially
the intensity of the applied magnetic field. The MRFs
resist the flow by applying a magnetic field, and thus,
the yield stress and apparent viscosity of MRF increase
with increase in the magnetic field intensity. Therefore,
due to the yield behavior, it is convenient to use visco-
plastic rheological models in order to describe the
behavior of MRFs (Huang et al., 2012). Mitsoulis
(2007) has presented a detailed review on the rheologi-
cal models of viscoplastic fluids. Some of the most con-
venient reported rheological models for MRFs are
biviscous model, Bingham model, biplastic Bingham
model, Herschel–Bulkley model, Casson model, and
Papanastasiou model. Table 1 presents different rheo-
logical models that have been used for MRFs.
Analytical and numerical simulations for viscoplastic
fluids under different operational modes can be found
in the literature (for instance, see Firouzi and
Hashemabadi, 2008, 2009). The viscoplastic models
presented in Table 1 are depicted in Figure 4(a) to (d).
Application of rheological models
Even though a wide variety of viscoplastic rheological
models were examined to describe the behavior of
MRFs (Table 1), it should be noted that the Bingham
plastic and Herschel–Bulkley models are the most com-
monly used. This may be due to the simpler form of
these two models in comparison with the other visco-
plastic models. Especially the linear form of Bingham
model makes it appropriate for high computational
problems. A list of rheological models that are used for
MRFs at different operational modes is tabulated in
Table 2. The flow mode and the main obtained results
are summarized in this table. A review on this table will
be useful for the selection of appropriate rheological
model for different operational modes.
Li et al. (2002) studied the rheological behavior of a
standard MRF, 132LD MRF, at different operational
modes, and they have observed a linear viscoelastic
behavior at low values of stresses. They have
6 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

Table 1. Different viscoplastic rheological models that are used for magnetorheology.

Rheological model Reference Equation

Bingham plastic Mitsoulis (2007) t = t y + hg_ jt j.t y (3)

n
Herschel–Bulkley Mitsoulis (2007) t = t y + h(g)_ jt j.t y (4)
pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Casson Mitsoulis (2007) t = t y + hg_ jt j.t y (5)

hr g_ t<t1
Biviscous Goldasz and Sapinski (2012) t= (6)
t y + hg_ t.t 1

t 1 + hr g_ t<t 2
Biplastic Bingham Goldasz and Sapinski (2012) t= (7)
t y + hg_ t.t 2
Papanastasiou Papanastasiou (1987) _ = t N (g)W
t(g) _ 1 (g)
_ + t Bn (g)W
_ 2 (g)
_ (8)

Figure 4. Viscoplastic rheological models: (a) biviscous model; (b) biplastic Bingham model; (c) Bingham, Herschel–Bulkley, and
Casson models; and (d) Papanastasiou model.

demonstrated that nonlinear viscoelastic properties will
be dominated by increasing the applied stress. Gandhi
and Bullough (2005) have investigated the behavior of
MRF at stresses less than the yield point and observed
a solid-like behavior for fluid in this stress range which
may be described with Kelvin–Voigt model.
Viscoelastic behavior of MRFs is also investigated by
some other researchers (Claracq et al., 2004; Segovia-
Gutiérrez et al., 2012). Numerous studies on the viscoe-
lastic fluids can be adapted for modeling and

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

Ghaffari et al. 7

Table 2. Rheological models for MRFs in some investigations.

Reference Description Flow mode Rheological equation, Table 1

Berli and De Vicente
(2012)
Goldasz and Sapinski
(2012)
Omidbeygi and
Hashemabadi (2012)
Kim et al. (2011)
Farjoud et al. (2011)
Farjoud et al. (2008)
Wang and Gordaninejad
(2006)
See (2003)
A structural viscosity model on the Shear mode Equations (3) and (5)
basis of Bingham plastic and Casson
models was proposed
A robust set of non-dimensional Valve mode in dampers Equations (3), (4), (6), and (7)
parameters for the purpose of
modeling of MR/ER dampers was
proposed
CFD simulation of rotational eccentric Shear mode Equation (3)
cylinder in MRF
MR characteristics of the nano-sized Shear mode in rotational Equation (5)
magnetic particle–based MRF was rheometer
investigated
Analytical investigation of MRFs in Squeezing flow in Equation (8)
squeezing flows was performed low shear rate
At high shear rates, most of the MRFs MR brakes Equation (4)
are shear thinning and Bingham plastic
model is inappropriate to use.
Herschel–Bulkley model is more
appropriate in high shear rates
Rheological properties of MR materials Squeeze flow Equation (3)
at high shear rates
A comparison study on the behavior of Shear and squeezing flow Equation (4)
an MR suspension under steady shear
flow and constant velocity squeezing
flow

MRF: magnetorheological fluid; ER: electrorheological; CFD: computational fluid dynamics.

simulation of viscoelastic behavior of MRFs
(Hashemabadi et al., 2003; Hashemabadi and
Mirnajafizadeh, 2010)
In fact, the viscoplastic behavior of MRFs is
observed when the applied stress is more than the yield
point. However, most of the studies on the MRF beha-
vior deal with its viscoplastic behavior; that is, the
MRFs were investigated more under the stresses more
than the yield point.
Lange et al. (2001) have studied the rheological
behavior of MRF by a capillary rheometer at high val-
ues of stresses in flow mode and observed a viscoplastic
behavior. They have also used Bingham plastic equa-
tion (equation (3)) to describe the flow of MRF. In a
research done by Choi et al. (2005), the flow behavior
curve (shear stress vs shear rate) of MR and electro-
rheological fluids were theoretically analyzed by means
of a rotational coaxial cylinder and a rotational parallel
disk viscometer. In their study, some relations between
shear stress and torque as well as shear rate and angu-
lar velocity were derived on the basis of the Bingham
plastic (equation (3)), Biviscous (equation (6)), and
Herschel–Bulkley (equation (4)) constitutive models.
In steady state, the MRF flow is commonly modeled
as a Bingham plastic fluid. However, most of the stud-
ies deal with the investigation of rheological behaviors
of MRF and work in approximately low shear rates
(below 1000 s21). By knowing the fact that the MR
devices in some applications such as rotary brakes
experience shear rates more than 10,000, it is necessary
to find the appropriate rheological models to describe
the MRFs’ behavior at such shear rates too. Farjoud
et al. (2008) have studied the behavior of MRFs at high
shear rates, up to 12,000 s21. They observed a shear
thinning behavior for MRF at high shear rates.
Accordingly, they have concluded that the Herschel–
Bulkley model is more appropriate than the Bingham
plastic model in the case of high shear rates. Omidbeygi
and Hashemabadi (2013) have also used the Herschel–
Bulkley model to investigate the hydrodynamic charac-
teristics of MRF flow within an eccentric annulus.
Their analytical and numerical simulations showed a
good consistency at high shear rates in a wide range of
applied magnetic field intensities. Bingham plastic,
biviscous, biplastic Bingham, and Herschel–Bulkley
models are used by Goldasz and Sapinski (2012) to
analyze the flow mode behavior of an MR damper.
They have compared the analytical results with the
experimental results and observed a good consistency
between the results obtained from biplastic Bingham
model and experimental data.
Casson rheological equation (equation (5)) is also
used by some authors. A Casson-like structural viscos-
ity model was proposed by Berli and De Vicente (2012).
They have demonstrated that the Casson-like model
can account the deviations from Bingham plastic model
predictions. Kim et al. (2011) have investigated the
characteristics of the nano-sized magnetic particle–

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

8 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

based MRF dispersed in a non-magnetic carrier fluid The value of n shows how fast or slow the transition
using a rotational rheometer under different external from low shear rate quasi-Newtonian behavior to a
magnetic field strengths. Based on the investigation of Bingham plastic behavior occurs (Farjoud et al., 2011).
flow behaviors at a steady shear mode and yield stress, Also, a Papanastasiou–Herschel–Bulkley model was
they found that the flow curve can be predicted well presented (Susan-Resiga, 2009) as a rheological model
with the Casson equation. for MRFs by blending a quasi-Newtonian behavior at
Claracq et al. (2004) have presented experimental very low shear rates with a Herschel–Bulkley model for
study of the viscoelastic behavior of MRFs under small high shear rates. This model has been validated with
deformations. They have observed that the yielded fluid experimental data for shear rates lower than 1000 s21
models such as Bingham plastic, Casson, and Herschel–
Bulkley have no acceptability at low shear rates. A _ = t N (g)W
t(g) _ 1 (g)
_ + t HB (g)W
_ 2 (g)
_ ð14Þ
cross model defined by the following equation has been
where
used to fit their experimental rheometry results
  t N (g)
_ = h0 g,
_ _ = t y + cg_ 1n
t Bn (g) ð15Þ
h0  h ‘
t = h‘ + g_ ð9Þ
1 + lg_ With the following weighting functions
   
where h0 is the viscosity at very low shear rates and h‘ g_ g_
is the viscosity at high shear rates (i.e. plastic viscosity). _ = 1  tanh 
W1 (g) W2 (g)
_ = tanh  ð16Þ
g_ g_
The relaxation time l is related to the transition from
the ‘‘solid state’’ to the ‘‘liquid state.’’ In low shear rates here, g_  is a shear rate value in the neighborhood of
(when g_ ! 0), the fluid has a Newtonian behavior, and the transition between the Newtonian and Herschel–
in high shear rates (when g_ ! ‘), the MRF behaves Bulkley models.
like a Bingham plastic fluid. Many of the MR devices such as MR dampers in
The cross models based on Papanastasiou’s (1987) automotive applications and also shock absorbers are
constitutive relation were also proposed for MRFs. accompanied by high values of shear rates and veloci-
The advantage of these cross models is their ability to ties. As illustrated in Table 2, some authors who stud-
capture the variation in the shear stress versus the ied the behavior of MRFs at high shear rates (up to
shear rate, within a large range of the shear rate 12,000 s21) (Farjoud et al., 2008) reported that the
(1026–103 s21) (Susan-Resiga, 2009). Herschel–Bulkley model could appropriately be used
A cross model known as Papanastasiou–Bingham for modeling the flow behavior of MR Brakes.
rheological equation was used by Farjoud et al. (2011) Goncalves and Ahmadian (2005) also investigated the
to model the MRFs at low shear rate squeezing flows. behavior of MRF subjected to high rates of shear and
This cross model includes the combination of high flow velocities. They used a custom-made high
Newtonian fluid behavior at low shear rates and shear slit flow rheometer to investigate the MRF
Bingham plastic behavior for high values of shear rates response at velocities ranging from 1 to 37 m/s, with
corresponding shear rates ranging from 0.14 3 105 to
_ = t N (g)W
t(g) _ 1 (g)
_ + t Bn (g)W
_ 2 (g)
_ ð10Þ 2.5 3 105 s21. A yield behavior of MRF was reported
in their observations in the presence of magnetic field,
t N (g)
_ = h0 g,
_ t Bn (g)
_ = t y + h0 g_ ð11Þ while a nearly Newtonian post-yield behavior was
reported for high shear rate tests in the absence of mag-
The weighting functions W1 (g)
_ and W2 (g)
_ in equa- netic field. In order to model the yield stress, a new
tion (10) should be chosen so that W1 (g)_  W2 (g)
_ at term called the ‘‘dwell time’’ was introduced and
_  W2 (g)
very low shear rates and W1 (g) _ at high shear defined as ‘‘the amount of time the fluid spends in the
rates, with W1 (g)
_ + W2 (g)
_ = 1. Some of the continuous presence of a magnetic field.’’ The authors indicated
functions that meet these general requirements can be that the normalized yield stress is predominantly a
found in Mitsoulis (2007). Farjoud et al. (2011) have function of dwell time. To date, little studies have been
used the following weighting functions reported to investigate the MRFs in such high velocity
and high shear applications. There is a need to more
_ = eng_
W1 (g) _ = 1  eng_
W2 (g) ð12Þ experimental and theoretical works to obtain a com-
plete model for MRFs at high values of shear rates and
After substitution of these functions in equation (10)
strains.
and rearrangement, the following stress–strain relation
In summary, it can be said that the Bingham plastic
is obtained
equation is the most common model which has been
   applied by the authors to describe the rheological beha-
t y 1  eng_
t = h0 + g_ ð13Þ vior of MRFs at moderate shear rates. Good consis-
g_ tency with experimental data and also the linear

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

Ghaffari et al. 9

formulation of this model might be the reason of its

abundant use. But this model loses its validity at high
values of shear rates, due to the shear thickening beha-
vior of MRFs at high shear rates. Herschel–Bulkley
and Casson models have shown a good consistency
with experimental data at high shear rates. Also, it
should be noted that a Newtonian behavior is observed
for MRFs at low values of shear rates. Therefore, there
is a need for a rheological model that can describe the
behavior of MRF at a wide range of shear rates. The
cross models such as Papanastasiou models have been
used by the authors for this aim.
The main problem in all these rheological models is
to find the values of their parameters which are depen-
dent on the operational conditions and the magnitude
of applied magnetic field. To determine the coefficients
of rheological models for each application, some experi-
mental works are necessary. Accordingly, finding the
correlations to derive the functionality of coefficients
from the basic properties of MRF and its operational
conditions is an urgent need in studying of MRFs.

Figure 5. Forces acting on an MR fluid.

Rheological models based on the MRF structure
It should be noted that the rheology of MRFs is
strongly dependent on the state of structuration of the
suspension (Volkova et al., 2000). As mentioned in the
previous section, the main problem in the case of rheo-
logical models is to find the correlations for depen-
dency of coefficients on the operational conditions and
fluid structural properties. The aim of this section is to
review the different studies that have investigated the
dependency of rheological coefficients on the structural
properties of MRFs at different operational conditions.
From the design perspective, it is important to estab-
lish a quantitative relationship between the rheological
properties (viscosity, yield stress, etc.) and variables
such as the volume fraction of the particles, their mag-
netic properties, and the intensity of the applied exter-
nal field.
It is common to use the dimensionless numbers to
formulate the behavior of MRFs. In order to obtain
these numbers, by ignoring the inertial forces (Bossis
et al., 2003b), it can be started from the equation of one
particle motion according to Newton’s motion law. The
procedure to obtain the dimensionless numbers was dis-
cussed by Bossis et al. (2003b). To find the dimension-
less parameters of system, knowledge of the acting
forces will be essential. Hydrodynamic, magnetic, and
Brownian forces are the main acting forces in MRFs.
These forces are schematically shown in Figure 5.
Mason number (Mn), Peclet number (Pe), and
Lamda (l) are the main dimensionless numbers which
were used by many authors to formulate the rheologi-
cal behavior of MRFs based on the fluid structure
(Bossis and Cebers, 1999; Lemaire et al., 1993; Melrose
MR: magnetorheological.
and Heyes, 1993). These dimensionless numbers are
discussed in the following subsection.
l number. The magnitude of the magnetic interaction
energy between the two magnetic moments in the linear
regime relative to the thermal energy is the so-called l
parameter (De Vicente et al., 2011). When an isolated
particle that is surrounded by a fluid is exposed to an
external magnetic field H0 , this particle will acquire a
magnetic moment as (Bossis et al., 2003b)
mp  mf
m = 4pm0 mf ba3 H0 , b= ð17Þ
mp + 2mf
where mf , mp , and m0 are relative magnetic permeability
of fluid, particle, and vacuum, respectively, and a is the
radius of the particle. This magnetic moment causes
aggregation of magnetic particles and their alignment
in the direction of applied magnetic field. On the other
hand, the thermal energy, which is proportional to the
product of Boltzmann constant (k) and temperature in
Kelvin (T), leads to disruption of particle chains.
Accordingly, the formation of aggregates of particles
depends on the ratio of magnetic interaction energy to
kT. This ratio is known as l parameter
 
1 m2 1 2 3 2 1
l= = 4pm0 mf b a H0 ð18Þ
4pm0 mf a3 kT kT
For sufficiently large values of l, magneto-static par-
ticle interactions dominate over thermal motion,

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

10
resulting in chain-like particle aggregates. Bossis et al.
(2002, 2003b) have declared that at l = 1, the inter-
particle magnetic forces dominate Brownian forces.
For 1 mm particles with large permeability (b’1) at
moderate magnetic field intensity (H = 127 A=m) and
T = 300 K, the value of l obtained is equal to 1.
Mason number. The primary forces governing the beha-
vior of MR suspensions are magneto-static polarization
forces induced by the applied magnetic field and the
hydrodynamic forces caused by the particle motion rela-
tive to the continuous phase. The ratio of hydrodynamic
to magnetic forces is known as Mason dimensionless
number, Mn, which is defined as (Bossis et al., 2002)
_ 2
6phf ga 8hf g_
Mn =  = ð19Þ
fp m0 mf b2 H02
here, in this equation, hf is the viscosity of the sur-
rounding fluid. It should be noted that in different lit-
eratures, the definition may differ by a multiplicative
factor. Similar Mason numbers employing the particle
magnetization or magnetic moment have been defined
by other authors (De Gans et al., 1999, 2000).
Klingenberg et al. (2007a) have developed a relation
for Mason number that is defined in terms of the sus-
pension magnetization as
_ 2
9hf gf
Mn[
2m0 mf h M i2
where f is the volume fraction of dispersed particles
and h M i represents the suspension magnetization. They
have declared the Mason number that is defined in
terms of the suspension magnetization can be employed
to produce a collapse of experimental data at various
magnetic field strengths and shear rates.
Peclet number. The ratio of hydrodynamic to Brownian
forces is expressed as Peclet number. In fact, it is an
index to determine the significance of Brownian forces
in comparison with shear forces. The Brownian forces
can be neglected in the case of large values of Peclet
number. This dimensionless parameter may be defined
as (Bossis et al., 2003b)
_ 3
6phga
Pe =
kT
In summary, it can be said that these three dimen-
sionless parameters, l, Mn, and Pe, represent the ratios
between the main forces acting on a conventional
MRF. Also, these parameters can be related to each
other as
2Pe
Mnl =
3 specific assumptions and/or simplifications in the
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
Accordingly, it can be concluded that for a given
MR suspension with a specified concentration, two of
these three dimensionless parameters are sufficient to
describe the dependency of structural properties. Some
researchers have developed theoretical and empirical
correlations to describe the dependency of rheological
parameters as a function of the structural properties of
MRF. The viscosity and yield stress of MR suspensions
are the most important rheological characteristics in
magnetorheology.
Some investigations declared that for MR suspen-
sions with large enough magnetic fields and in the case
of negligible short-range inter-particle forces, all the
rheological properties—and in particular the
viscosity—show the same magnitude for the same val-
ues of Mn, l, and volume fraction of particles, f
(Bossis et al., 2002, 2003b; De Vicente et al., 2011). The
equilibrium structure of MRFs in the absence of flow
also can be determined only by the particle volume
fraction f and the l parameter (De Vicente et al., 2011;
Furst and Gast, 2000).
Accordingly, some correlations and structural mod-
els were proposed to describe the dependency of rheo-
logical properties of MRF on its structural properties.
Most of these structural models deal with determina-
tion of viscosity and yield stress dependency on the
magnetic field intensity. The proposed models for visc-
osity and also yield stress have been reviewed in the fol-
lowing subsections.
ð20Þ
Viscosity structural models
As mentioned above, the Bingham plastic model is the
most common equation used to describe the flow beha-
vior of MR suspensions. An equation for the dimen-
sionless viscosity can be derived by starting from
Bingham plastic model
 
h Mn 1
=1+ ð23Þ
h‘ Mn
The shear viscosity is defined as the ratio of shear
_ h‘ is the high shear
stress to shear rate (h = t=g);
viscosity (field strength–independent) in Bingham
plastic model; and Mn is the critical Mason number
that determines the transition from magnetization to
hydrodynamic control of suspension structure (Berli
and De Vicente, 2012). The critical Mason number is
ð21Þ a function of the volume fraction f. Several models
have been presented in the literature to describe this
dependency as follows (De Vicente et al., 2004;
Martin and Anderson, 1996)
Cfhf
Mn = ð24Þ
h‘
here, C is a coefficient which is derived according to
ð22Þ
Ghaffari et al. 11

Table 3. Different values of D in equation (25) and C in strength of the field-induced structure (Bossis et al.,
equation (24). 2002, 2003b).
Applied magnetic field intensity, volume fraction of
Reference. D C
particles, viscosity of carrier fluid in the absence of
Volkova et al. (2000) 20.87 \ D \ 20.74 1.91 external field, the magnetic particle size, and the type
De Gans et al. (1999) 20.9 \ D \ 20.8 5.25 are the main parameters that may influence the yield
Martin and Anderson (1996) – 8.82 stress of MRFs. Several researches have focused on the
De Vicente et al. (2004) – 8.485 determination of the dependency of yield stress on
Felt et al. (1996) 20.83 \ D \ 20.74 –
these effective parameters. Even though several differ-
ent models are presented in the literature to formulate
the dependency of yield stress, there are no comprehen-
mechanical stability conditions of MR suspensions. sive and unique correlations that can predict this
The range of C has been tabulated in Table 3. In order dependency. The effect of applied magnetic field was
to capture the experimental data trend, a more general given more attention in comparison to other influen-
form of equation (23) has been used in the literature as cing parameters. Numerous studies in the field of mag-
below netorheology have been focused on the effects of the
applied magnetic field (Agustı́n-Serrano et al., 2013;
h Bica, 2012; Bossis and Cebers, 1999; Chin et al., 2001;
= 1 + Mn MnD ð25Þ
h‘ Fang et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2011; Park et al., 2011;
Promislow and Gast, 1996; Santiago-Quinones et al.,
Table 3 presents different values for exponent D. But 2013). The effects of the other parameters such as vol-
it must be noted that this equation fails to describe the ume fraction, viscosity of surrounding fluid, and size of
low shear regime and also predicts a too sharp solid– particles have been less reported in comparison with
liquid transition (Berli and De Vicente, 2012; De the field strength (Kittipoomwong et al., 2005; Lemaire
Vicente et al., 2011). A modified more complex struc- et al., 1995; Ruiz-López et al., 2012; Zafarani-Moattar
tural model for viscosity of MRF was derived by Berli and Majdan-Cegincara, 2013). Table 4 presents some
and De Vicente (2012) based on the concept of the of these models and correlations which were proposed
effective volume fraction and viscosity function of non- based on the structure of MRFs. The operational
Newtonian suspensions. This structural model for visc- mode, MRF composition, and also the range of effec-
osity of MRFs is expressed as tive parameters are reported in this table.
!2 The rheological behavior of MR suspensions con-
h 1 + ðMn=Mn Þ1=2 taining magnetic micro-particles was investigated by
= ð26Þ Bossis et al. (2003a). They proposed a mechanism for
h‘ ðh‘ =h0 Þ1=2 + ðMn=Mn Þ1=2
determining the yield point of MRFs under shear load
where h0 is the low shear viscosity, and other para- and magnetic field. Based on their theory, the aggre-
meters are the same in equation (25). It was declared gates of particles which are formed due to the presence
(Berli and De Vicente, 2012) that this structural model of external magnetic field begin to rotate after some
is capable to explain deviations in the experimental friction on the walls and break at a strain smaller than
data from the Bingham model predictions. unity. This critical strain is the value when hydrody-
A simplified dimensionless form of the Casson plas- namic shear forces overcome the magnetic force and
tic equation can also be obtained by expanding equa- cause breakage of chain-like aggregates. In this theory
tion (26) for h0  h‘ as following expression a linear chain structure is supposed to the aggregates.
By neglecting the interactions between chains, the fol-
h lowing correlation is obtained to describe the depen-
= 1 + ðMn=Mn Þ1 + 2ðMn=Mn Þ1=2 ð27Þ
h‘ dency of Bingham yield stress

A good consistency between the predictions of this ty 9fr gc

structural model and experimental results has also been =   ð28Þ
ðm0 H 2 fÞ 8 1 + g2 2
c
reported.
here, g c and fr are the critical strain and a coefficient,
respectively, which are dependent on the magnetic per-
Yield stress dependency meability of the particles. Typical values for the particle
The yield stress, a critical value of shear stress when a with high permeability are g c = 6 and fr = 2 (Bossis
viscoplastic fluid begins to flow, is an important para- et al., 2003a).
meter of MRFs. The efficiency of an MRF is first In the case of high values of permeability
judged through its yield stress, ty , which measures the (a = mp =mf  1), an analytical equation for prediction

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

 12
Table 4. Different structural models proposed in the literatures.

Operational H (kA/m) Particle types (size, mm) Base fluid (viscosity, Pa s) u (vol. %) g_ (s21) Correlation Reference
mode

Squeeze flow 0–354 Carbonyl iron Silicone oil (0.02–0.5) 5–30 0.03–0.2a t CE }h0:33 f2:0 H2:0 Ruiz-López et al. (2012)
3=2
t y }H0
Shear flow Up to 0.8 Magnetite (;5), Silicone oil (0.1) 0.1–0.6 0.1–100 Chin et al. (2001)
and ;8–800 carbonyl iron (;4.5–5.2) t y }f (f\0:2)
h‘ }f0:45 H2:9
0
Shear flow 7–30 Carbonyl iron (;7) Silicone oil (13 and 606) 5–30 \2.5 Claracq et al. (2004)
t y }f0:5 H1:5
0
Shear mode 0–800 Polystyrene (;0.5–1) Distilled water and 0.014–0.12 \200 t y }f:H2 Felt et al. (1996)
excess SDS (0.001)
Shear flow 0–300 Carbonyl iron (1–2) Silicone oil 0–0.5 0.01–1000 D = 20.74, 20.81, 20.83, and 20.87b Volkova et al. (2000)

t y (H0 ) = aH20
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
Shear flow 0–343 Carbonyl iron (4.25) Lubricant oil ;20 0.1–500 tanh H0 =Hc Fang et al. (2009)
3 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H0 =Hc

SDS: sodium dodecyl sulfate.

a
Elongational rate range.
b
Din equation (25).

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
Ghaffari et al. 13

of the yield stress based on the standard structural of volume fraction of particles. They have deduced a
models has been presented (Bossis et al., 2002, 2003b) power law correlation, with exponent 1.5, for depen-
dency of yield stress as
3=2
t y = 2:31fm0 Ms1=2 H0 ð29Þ
t y }f0:5 H01:5 ð35Þ
here, Ms is the saturation magnetization. For the case
of low values of permeability (a = mp =mf \5), the yield Vereda et al. (2011) have used
 the
concept of the
stress can be calculated by the following relation average particle magnetization Mp for the scaling of
pffiffiffi the yield stress of dilute MRFs. They have shown that
ty 3 3   2 f(1  f) the average particle magnetization, as obtained from
= ms ð30Þ
m0 mf H 2 16 Cs + ms (1  f) the magnetization measurements of suspensions, can
ms be a good parameter for the scaling of the yield stress
ms = 1 ð31Þ (static as well as dynamic) of conventional MRFs at
mf
low particle concentration. A correlation for the
where Cs = 1 if the particles are gathered into stripes dependency of the static yield stress has been pro-
and Cs = 2 if they form cylinders. It is clear from this posed as
equation that the yield stress of materials with low per-  2:0
meability is proportional to the magnetic field strength t ystatic = 2:19 3 103 f Mp ð36Þ
squared. Also at low field strength, a similar depen-
dency has been reported (De Vicente et al., 2011; And also the correlation for the dynamic yield stress
Ramos et al., 2011). based on Bingham plastic model was obtained
A universal hybrid equation has been adopted from  2:1
the electrorheological structural models to find the field t ydynamic = 1:824 3 103 f Mp ð37Þ
dependency of the yield stress as (Fang et al., 2009;
Kim et al., 2011) The average particle magnetization can be obtained
by dividing the measured suspension magnetization by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! the volume fraction as follows (Klingenberg et al.,
tanh H0 =Hc
t y (H0 ) = aH02 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð32Þ 2007a; Vereda et al., 2011)
H0 =Hc
 MS (H)
here, a is a constant related to the susceptibility of the Mp (H) = ð38Þ
fluid, and volume fraction and other analogous physi- f
cal parameters; Hc is the critical magnetic field strength Using the average particle magnetization instead of
which satisfies H0 leads to validity of the correlations in a wide range
 3=2
of the field strengths. A good consistency has been
t y } H02 H\Hc ð33Þ reported between the predictions of proposed equations
H0 H.Hc (36) and (37) and the experimental results in a wide
Based on equation (32), two limiting behaviors with range of the magnetic field intensities (Vereda et al.,
respect to Hc can be obtained 2011).
In summary, it can be expressed that the field depen-
 dency of the yield stress is usually represented by a
aH02 H0  Hc
ty = pffiffiffiffiffiffi 3=2 ð34Þ power law relation (ty ;H n ) (Bossis et al., 2003b; De
a Hc H0 H0  Hc
Vicente et al., 2011). Due to the nonlinearity of the dis-
A good consistency between experimental results persed materials’ magnetization, different exponents (n)
and predictions of equation (34) was observed (Fang are reported for small, intermediate, and high values of
et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2011). Fang et al. (2009) in their applied magnetic field strength. The case of n = 2 is
experimental work on a carbonyl iron–based MR sus- expected for a linear magnetic material at low fields or
pension have obtained the value of Hc = 151:74 kA=m. for particulates of low permeability (Ginder et al., 1996;
Even though in most of the proposed correlations, a Vereda et al., 2011). For intermediate fields, n = 3/2
squared variation with the magnetic field strength is was reported (Bossis et al., 2002). The smaller value of
observed for yield point at relative small field strengths, n may be the result of the saturation of polar regions of
some observations do not confirm this relationship. each particle under the effect of intermediate fields
Claracq et al. (2004) have experimentally investigated (Ginder et al., 1996). The yield stress at the magnetic
the rheological properties of MRFs at low shear rates, saturation regime, which occurs at the strong external
less than 3 s21, and also at a wide range of magnetic fields, becomes field independent and scales with the
field strengths, 7 kA/m \ H0 \ 30 kA/m. Their square of saturation magnetization of particles (De
experimental work included 5%, 10%, 15%, and 30% Vicente et al., 2011; Fang et al., 2009).

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

14
Particle size effects
Lemaire et al. (1995) have investigated the effect of par-
ticle size on the rheological behavior of the MR suspen-
sions composed of monodisperse and polydisperse
spherical particles. Their observations revealed that for
small particles where the parameter l is still larger than
unity (l’102  103 ), the yield stress is strongly
enhanced with the increase in the particle size. Some
authors have demonstrated that only for very high val-
ues of l (l’109 ), there will be no dependency on the
size of the particles. De Gans et al. (2000) have also
reported a strong increase in MR properties with the
increase in the particle size for MR suspensions con-
taining small particles. The decrease in the yield stress
for smaller particles may be due to the relatively
smaller magnetization of these particles (Genc x and
Phulé, 2002).
Particle size effects on the MR properties can be
related to the influence of the Brownian motions which
are significant in the case of small particles. However,
at high values of l, Brownian forces can be neglected in
comparison with magnetic forces. Felt et al. (1996) have
also investigated experimentally the effect of particle
size on a monodisperse MR suspension. Although their
investigations included dilute suspension with small
particle size range, they have demonstrated that both
apparent viscosity and the yield stress show strong par-
ticle size dependency. A linear relationship between
apparent viscosity and particle diameter and also simi-
larly for yield stress and particle diameter was reported.
Particle volume fraction
Experimental study by Chin et al. (2001) on the rheol-
ogy behavior of MRFs composed of magnetite and car-
bonyl iron particles has revealed a linear dependence of
yield stress on the volume fraction of the particles, f.
They have demonstrated that at low concentration
(f \ 0.2), the yield stress increases linearly with parti-
cle concentrations but it grows faster at high volume
fractions. The effect of magnetic field intensity was also
investigated in this study, and they have found the fol-
lowing relation for considering the effect of parameters
on the yield stress
3=2
t y } fm0 Ms1=2 B0
The magnetic induction B0 can be related with the
external field H0 by the following equation
B0 = m0 (H0 + Ms )
In most of the studies implemented in the field of
magnetorheology, a linear dependency of the yield
stress on the particle volume fraction has been reported
(Bossis et al., 2003b; Chin et al., 2001; Felt et al., 1996;
Ginder et al., 1996). However, in some studies, a
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
nonlinear dependency, as it can be seen in Table 3, has
also been discussed. For instance, Ruiz-López et al.
(2012), who have investigated the performance of
MRFs in low compression rate, have proposed a quad-
ratic dependency. Also, Tang and Conrad (2000) have
reported a nonlinear polynomial dependency on the
volume fraction for the yield stress.
Medium viscosity
Even though the medium viscosity has influence on the
sedimentation rate of the dispersed particles, its effect
has not often been investigated in MR studies. Ruiz-
López et al. (2012) considered a power law dependency
for yield stress on the medium viscosity as
ty ;h0:3360:008 . They have declared that the effect of
particle concentration is found to be significantly more
important than the effect of surrounding fluid
viscosity.
Summary
Yield stress is the most important parameter in the
characterization and studying the magnetorheology so
that the MRF performance is judged through this para-
meter. Yield stress, ty , which is dependent on the
applied magnetic field intensity, H0, has been investi-
gated experimentally in several researches. A power
law relation, ty ;H0n with 0 6 n 6 2, was usually pre-
sented by researches to formulate this dependency. The
n = 2 was reported in the case of a linear magnetic
material at the low fields or particles with low perme-
ability. Yield stress becomes field independent when
the particles reach saturation magnetization, that is,
n = 0. In the saturation regime, the yield stress scales
with the square of the saturation magnetization of the
particles. For intermediate fields, n = 3=2 has been
reported in most of the researches.
The influence of other effective parameters such as
volume fraction, size of particles, and medium viscosity
has been less often discussed in the literatures. Hence,
there is a need for more experimental works to investi-
gate their effects more comprehensively. However, in
general, it can be concluded from the open literatures
that at low values of volume fraction, the yield stress
ð39Þ shows linear dependency on the volume fraction. On
the contrary, a power law relation has been proposed
for this dependency at moderate and high volume frac-
tions. The influence of particle size is characterized by l
ð40Þ dimensionless number so that the particle size effect can
be neglected at high values of l number. Increasing the
particle size causes enhancement in the yield stress at
low l number. The medium viscosity effects have rarely
been reported, but a power law dependency with the
exponent 0.33 is more common, ty } h0:33 (Ruiz-López
et al., 2012).
Ghaffari et al. 15

A review on the different rheological and structural
models that are applied in the continuum approach of
the simulation of MRFs was presented. All models in
this approach are macro-scale and consider the MR
suspension as a single continuum. The continuum
approach suffers from some weaknesses; the rheologi-
cal constants are derived from fitting the experimental
measurements, consequently their application is limited
to a narrow range of applicability (Ahmadkhanlou
et al., 2010). Most of the rheological models are almost
inaccurate at low values of stress because of assuming a
strict yield stress.
Discrete approach
The discrete approach, due to its accuracy and funda-
mental construction, is a growing simulation method
for particulate flows. The flow field of continuous
phase, motion and interaction of particles in discrete
phase, and magnetic field distribution are the three
main phenomena which should be considered simulta-
neously in MRF simulation. The discrete approach
based on the basic physical laws can be used to model
these three phenomena and their interactions. Modeling
in this approach is mostly adopted from the numerical
simulations of particulate flows and tends to a set of
complex equations that need to be solved by the numer-
ical techniques.
Discrete approach in the simulation of MRFs can
be divided into two general categories according to the
simulation methods of particles’ motion. The first view
is adopted from the molecular dynamics method and is
mostly known as discrete element method (DEM). In
this vision, Newton’s second law is used to model the
discrete particles’ motion. The second approach is
based on the kinetic theory which considers the pair of
particles as dumbbells (Ahmadkhanlou et al., 2010). In
both these methods, the hydrodynamic of the sur-
rounding fluid and its interaction with discrete phase
can be obtained via solution of Navier–Stokes equa-
tions. It should be noted that the first category is more
convenient and also more reported in the literatures.
Because of using the basic physical laws, there are
fewer assumptions in the discrete approach modeling,
and consequently, this approach will be more accurate
in comparison with the continuum approach. But high
computational cost is the main problem which has lim-
ited the use of this method.
hydrodynamic interactions between carrier fluid and
particles and also particle–particle interactions.
The computational framework and relevant models
and correlations in discrete modeling approach of
MRFs will be discussed below, and also the general
equation of motion for each particle in a typical MRF
and different effective forces will be introduced.
The particles’ motion equation
The governing equation for the translational motion of
particle i with mass mi, based on Newton’s second law,
can be written as
dvi X X
mi = Fijc + Fiknc + Fif + Fiext ð41Þ
dt j k
dxi
ui = ð42Þ
dt
where Fijc is the contact force acting on particle i by par-
ticle j and Fiknc is the non-contact force acting on parti-
cle i by particle k. Indeed, the first two terms on the
right-hand side of equation (41) are the summation of
particle–particle interactions. The particle–fluid interac-
tion forces are represented as the term Fif , and finally,
the term Fiext is the representative of the acting forces
on particle i by external fields such as gravitational and
magnetic or electric fields. Also, Brownian forces may
be included in this term (Li et al., 2011). Forces acting
on particles in discrete approach computational frame-
work are schematically presented in Figure 6.
Fluid–particle interactions
Various forces can be generated due to the interaction
between the particles and the carrier fluid. Some of
these forces are drag force, pressure gradient, virtual
mass, Basset, and lift forces (Zhu et al., 2007). Among
these forces, the drag force is more significant and com-
monly the simple form of Stokes law which has been
implemented by the authors (Han et al., 2010b). But

Discrete approach based on Newton’s second law

In principle, the behavior of any suspension flow can
be obtained by the solution of Newton’s equations of
motion for discrete particles and the Navier–Stokes
equations for continuum fluid together with appropri-
ate boundary and initial conditions. Furthermore, there Figure 6. Forces acting on a particle in the discrete approach
is a need for appropriate relations in order to model computational framework.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

16
other forces, in the spite of their importance in some
specific particulate flows, are usually ignored in the
simulation of MRFs.
The drag force coming from the hydrodynamic fric-
tion is the main force acting on particles by the sur-
rounding fluid. Several models have been developed to
calculate accurately the drag force in different particu-
late flows. For an isolated particle in a fluid, the equa-
tion to determine the drag resistance force is well
described by simple Stokes law as (Li et al., 2011)
F drag = 6phaðu‘ (xi )  ui Þf
here, u‘ (xi ) is the velocity of continuous phase at posi-
tion xi , ui is the particle’s velocity, and finally f is a cor-
rection factor.
Due to the fact that computational costs must be
minimized and also in most cases the MRF flow field is
laminar and/or stationary (very close to Stokes flow
Re \ 0.1), this straightforward relation ( f = 1) has
been implemented in most of the studies for the simula-
tion. In most of the reported studies, which have used
discrete approach as their simulation method, the main
concern is the equilibrium state of MRF and chain-like
structure of the particles (Han et al., 2010a). Even in
some cases where the dynamic behavior of particles
and the fluid flow field were investigated together, the
flow was also considered in laminar regime; therefore,
   ð46Þ
the assumption of Stokes drag law is reasonable for
these conditions. However, some modifications were
employed in the Stokes equation in order to meet pre-
dictions for different particulate flows well. To achieve
this aim, a correction factor f is multiplied to Stokes
equation (equation (43))
f = CI CC CF
where CI is the inertial correction factor which
accounts the effects of inertial forces on the particles.
CC is known as the Cunningham factor and is used to
modify the assumption of no-slip boundary condition
which has been implemented in the derivation of
Stokes equation. The drag force is influenced by the
presence of other particles in the vicinity of the given
particle. This particle hindering effect is addressed
through the correction factor CF . There are a wide vari-
ety of expressions for these correction factors for differ-
ent particulate flows under various conditions (Li
et al., 2011).
In order to quantify the fluid–particle interaction, it
is necessary to solve the fluid flow field coupled with
discrete particle motions. Therefore, understanding the
fundamentals of the flow, governing equations, and
constitutive relationships is very important. Just as the
fluid exerts forces on the particles in the flow field, the
momentum is exchanged from the particles to the fluid.
So, these reaction forces and also volume fraction of
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
particles should be included in the fluid flow equations.
Particle-induced forces can be included as source term
in momentum equation, and also volume fractions can
be considered in Navier–Stokes equations for continu-
ous phase. Details of coupling schemes and related
equations in particulate flows can be found in Li et al.
(2011) and Zhu et al. (2007).
In most of the studies in the discrete approach for
simulation of MRFs, the effect of particles on the flow
field has been ignored (Kittipoomwong et al., 2005;
Klingenberg et al., 2010; Mohebi et al., 1996; Ukai and
ð43Þ Maekawa, 2004). Nevertheless, there are few studies
that have considered the effect of particle forces on the
flow field. Pappas and Klingenberg (2006) studied the
MRFs in plane Poiseuille flow with particle-level simu-
lations. Indeed, they have used discrete approach
method in their simulation. They considered the effec-
tive forces on the flow field due to the particles as a
source term in Stokes equation
hr2 u‘ (x) = rP  fbulk (x) ð45Þ
where fbulk is the body force. Analytical solution of
equation (45) in the flow direction was presented by
Tamura (1992)
t w 1 X nhyd
u‘x (z) = zðz  Lz Þ + F
hLz hLx Ly k k, x
zk
3 1 z  ðz  zk ÞHevðz  zk Þ
Lz
where Lx, Ly, and Lz are the lengths of plane in x-, y-,
and z-directions, respectively; Hev(z) is the Heaviside
step function; and Fk,nhyd
x denotes the x component of all
non-hydrodynamic forces acting on particle k. Shear
ð44Þ stress at the wall (tw ) is calculated as
 
dp Lz
tw =  ð47Þ
dx 2
Joung and See (2007) have used Rotne–Prager–
Yamakawa (Yamakawa, 1970) tensor to determine the
long-range hydrodynamic velocity perturbation of
spheres. Accordingly, in this way, they have considered
the effect of particles on the flow field. Due to the large
number of particles, enormous equations are required
to be solved for the motion of each particle. Therefore,
the resolution of the flow field has to be fine enough to
resolve the flow of continuum fluid through the pores
among closely spaced particles. As a result, depending
on the time and length scales of interest, simplifications
have to be made when this theoretical approach is fol-
lowed. In most of the practical cases, simplifications in
order to obtain an analytical solution for the flow field
are not possible. In these cases, numerical methods
such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can be
used. Different coupling schemes such as direct
Ghaffari et al.
numerical solution (DNS)–DEM, lattice Boltzmann
modeling (LBM)–DEM, CFD–DEM, and large eddy
simulation (LES)–DEM have been used by many
researchers to study the particulate flows (Zhu et al.,
2007). CFD–DEM coupling is one of the useful methods
in discrete approach modeling that is used extensively in
the simulation of particulate flows. But this method has
been less reported in the case of MRF simulations.
Nevertheless, the other coupling methods like LBM–
17
where rij is the distance between the particle centers and
rmin is the minimum distance between the surfaces of
particles. The parameters k and F0rep should be adjusted
to equilibrate the repulsive contact force with attractive
magnetic interaction forces (Martin, 2001).
The classic Hertzian contact model was also used by
some authors (Han et al., 2010a, 2010b)
0 1
4pE
DEM have been implemented to study the MRFs by
d3=2
some authors (Han et al., 2010a; Han et al., 2010b).
Particle–particle interaction forces
A particle in MRF maybe exposed to two types of inter-
action forces with other particles: contact forces and
non-contact forces. Contact forces are referred to tan-
gential and normal forces between two contacting parti-
cles and are short-range forces. Non-contact forces,
known as long-range forces, include inter-particle forces
that are applied from a distance. Inter-particle magnetic
forces are the main non-contact forces acting in MRFs
X X
FI = Fijc + Fiknc ð48Þ
j k
here, Fijc is the contact force acting on particle i by parti-
cle j and Fiknc is the non-contact force acting on particle i
by particle k.
Inter-particle contact forces
When two particles are close enough to each other, a
contact area can be found between them. Contact inter-
actions over this area can be decomposed into a com-
ponent in tangential plane and one normal to the plane.
Due to its difficulty in accurately describing these con-
tact interactions, it is necessary to use adopted simpli-
fied models or equations to determine the resulting
forces and torques. Various approaches have been pro-
posed for this aim. The models such as linear spring-
dashpot model (Cundall and Strack, 1979) are the most
intuitive and commonly used. More detailed discus-
sions on the contact models that have been proposed
for various kinds of particulate flows are addressed
elsewhere (Li et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2007).
Tangential component of contact forces has been
ignored in all reported studies in the field of MRFs and
just normal component has been included in the mod-
els. In most investigations, an exponential form of hard
sphere interaction force was applied by the authors to
describe the normal contact forces (Kittipoomwong
et al., 2005; Mohebi et al., 1996; Pappas and
Klingenberg, 2006; Ukai and Maekawa, 2004)
 
rij  rmin
Fijrep = F0rep expk er
rmin
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Fijc =  Fjic = @ 
ij
Aer ,
3R 1  v2p ð50Þ
 
dij = 2R  rij , rij = xj  xi
where E and vp are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s
ratio of the particles, respectively.
A quasi-hard-sphere model was also employed by
Martin (2001) to determine the repulsive contact forces
between particles in an electrorheological fluid
A
Fh, s (rij ) =  a , c = 0:97, a=6 ð51Þ
rij  cd
where d is the particle diameter and parameter A is an
adjustable coefficient.
Inter-particle magnetic forces
A magnetic moment can be induced on each magnetiz-
able particle in the presence of external magnetic field.
Consequently, there will be a force acting on each parti-
cle as a result of the magnetic fields of adjacent particles
in the carrier liquid. Precise and also computationally
efficient equations are needed to describe these inter-
particle magnetic forces. Dipole and mutual dipole
models are the most common models in this area. Some
relevant magnetic theories and different models for
simulation of MRFs are briefly summarized in this sec-
tion; more details can also be found elsewhere in elec-
tromagnetic textbooks (Durney and Johnson, 1969;
Jackson, 1998). A comprehensive review of the existing
models for describing magnetic interactions in MRFs
was also presented in Han et al. (2010b) and Keaveny
and Maxey (2008).
Accurate magnetic model. The general solution of poten-
tial f for Laplace equation in a system containing N
particles at a uniform magnetic field was presented in
Clercx and Bossis (1993). Within each domain of the
particles, Oi , the potential fip takes the form of
X
fip ðri Þ = ci + f0 ðri Þ + bilm ril Ylm ðui , ui Þ
ð52Þ
r 2 Oi (i = 1, . . . , N )
ð49Þ And the potential in fluid domain
18
X 1
ff ðri Þ = ci + f0 ðri Þ + Qilm ri(l + 1) Ylm ðui , ui Þ
l( > 0), m
2l + 1
X X 1 netic field. The unit vectors in the r and u directions are
+ Qjlm bilm rj(l + 1) Ylm ðui , ui Þ
j6¼i l( > 0), m
2l + 1
where ri is the position vector related to the center of
particle i; f0 (ri ) is the potential due to the external
applied magnetic field; and ci = f0 (xi ) is the external
potential at the center of particle i. Ylm (u, u) represents
the spherical harmonics defined with respect to the cen-
ter of particle i. bilm are unknown coefficients to be
determined and Qilm are the so-called multi-pole
moments. In theory, after determination of bilm , the
inter-particle magnetic forces can then be resolved
according to the integration of magnetic tension over
each particle (Han et al., 2010a).
In this analytical model, both the multiple particle
interactions and multi-poles effects are considered in the
calculation of the magnetic field. Resolving unknown
coefficients b and multi-poles Qilm in the series (equation
(53)) is the key problem in this approach. Higher multi-
dipole terms could be neglected due to the truncation of
series in numerical solutions. High computational cost
and tedious computational procedure are considered as
the main limitations of this model. Therefore, accurate
magnetic modeling approach is difficult to apply for
MRFs, particularly for cases with large number of parti-
cles. The simplified versions for the solution of problems
containing two particles were presented in Keaveny and
Maxey (2008). The numerical solutions for some special
configurations were also considered in Clercx and Bossis
(1993), Keaveny and Maxey (2008), and Klingenberg
et al. (1991). It should be noted that the computational
cost to obtain a numerical solution for a two-particle
case is still substantial.
Fixed dipole model. The point dipole model is the most
common magnetic interaction model used in the simu-
lation of MRFs. In this model, the magnetic field pro-
duced by other particles is neglected and only the effect
of externally applied magnetic field is considered.
External magnetic field induces dipole moments on
each particle. In this approach, each particle is virtually
replaced by a point dipole located at its center, thus
inter-particle magnetic forces will be equal to magnetic
forces between point dipoles. The force on sphere i at
the origin of a spherical coordinate due to sphere j, in
the presence of the magnetic field H = H0ez, can be
expressed as (Joung and See, 2008)
 4
d   
Fijd = F0 3 cos2 uij  1 er + sin 2uij eu
rij
3 Some improvements to the mutual dipole model
F0 = pm0 mf d 2 b2 H02
16
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
where uij is the angle between particle centerlines and
magnetic field direction and H0 is the intensity of mag-
er and eu , respectively; b is defined in equation (17).
Multi-pole and multi-body interactions are neglected
ð53Þ in the point dipole approximation. However, it becomes
accurate in the magnetic saturation regime (Pappas and
Klingenberg, 2006) and also when the two particles are
far apart. But it becomes inaccurate when the separa-
tion distance of the particles is less than particle dia-
meter (Keaveny and Maxey, 2008). The error is mainly
due to the neglected strong interaction between the two
close magnetized particles and reaches maximum when
two particles are in contact.
Mutual dipole model. In the mutual dipole model, the
induced magnetic fields by other neighbor particles are
considered in the magnetization of each spherical parti-
cle. Therefore, each sphere behaves as though isolated
and immersed in a field whose strength is equal to the
sum of the external field and the fields due to the other
beads evaluated at the sphere’s center. An individual
particle in mutual approach is still considered as a
point dipole, but it is subjected to a secondary magneti-
zation from the other particles. The mutually magne-
tized moment of particle i in a system containing N
magnetizable particles in a uniform magnetic field H0 is
given by
mp + mf
mi = 4pa3 ðH0 + H(xi )Þ, (i = 1, 2, . . . , N )
mp + 2mf
ð56Þ
where H(xi ) represents the total secondary magnetic
field generated by the other magnetized particles and
can be expressed as (Han et al., 2010a, 2010b; Keaveny
and Maxey, 2008)
 
X
N   X N
1 3^rij mj :^rij  mj
H(xi ) = Hj mj , rij =  3 ð57Þ
j, j6¼i j, j6¼i
4p rij 
where ^rij = ^xi  ^xj . All the mi can be determined by sol-
ving a linear system of equations containing equations
(56) and (57) for N particles. These equations have to
be solved simultaneously for N particles at each time
steps. Unfortunately, the high computational cost asso-
ciated with the solution of this linear system of equa-
tions has limited the application of this model (Han
et al., 2010a, 2010b). Although the accuracy in the
mutual dipole model is more improved in comparison
with fixed dipole model, there is still overestimations
and/or underestimations in this model, particularly for
ð54Þ the contacting particles in suspensions with high vol-
ume fraction of magnetic particles.
ð55Þ
have been presented by Keaveny and Maxey (2008). So
Ghaffari et al.
that after the determination of total magnetized
moments, the magnetic force between any two particles
is calculated by incorporating the two-body exact solu-
tion. Although some additional improvements have
been achieved, the exact solution has still not been
obtained and the computational cost is also high in this
method. An alternative approximation for improving
the accuracy but retaining the computational simplicity
of fixed or mutual dipole model is to use some empiri-
cal correlations to describe the magnetic interactions
when the particles are close to each other (Han et al.,
2010b; Klingenberg et al., 1991).
However, this procedure needs substantial pre-
computations and have to be repeated for different sus-
ceptibility values, particularly for a large number of
particles it will be more tedious. Therefore, finding
computationally efficient models that can account for
the accurate magnetic interaction is still open to chal-
lenge and further works are needed in this area.
Brownian forces
Due to the large sizes of dispersed particles, Brownian
forces are usually neglected in the simulation of MRFs.
Experimental observations show that for usual mag-
netic fields, the magnetic forces dominate the Brownian
forces (Bossis et al., 2003b; De Vicente et al., 2011).
Ocalan and McKinley (2013) have declared that the
magnetic forces in common flow situations of MRFs
dominate over Brownian forces even at the elevated
temperatures. However, in some studies, this force was
considered in spite of the large sizes of particles (Peng
et al., 2012; Segovia-Gutiérrez et al., 2013a, 2013b).
The Brownian force, FB , is a vector stochastic force,
and the statistics of its component is formulated as
(Drayton and Brady, 1996; Peng et al., 2012)
E½FB (t) = 0, E½FB (t)FB (t + t) = 2Dd(t)
where t is the correlation time, d is the Dirac delta func-
tion, and D is the translational diffusion coefficient,
given by the Stokes–Einstein relation
kB T
D=
h
here, kB is Boltzmann’s constant
(kB = 1:38 3 1023 JK1 ) and T is the absolute tem-
perature in Kelvin.
In summary, in this section, we discussed on the dis-
crete phase approach in the simulation of MRFs. The
computational framework in this approach and the
necessary models were illustrated. Different forces’
equations and models that have used by the authors
for the prediction of different interactions in a common
MRF were also reviewed. A brief summary of different
researches of MRFs that have implemented the discrete
approach is tabulated in Table 5.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
19
Conclusion
The magnetic field, particles’ flow, and continuous fluid
flow field should be simultaneously handled in model-
ing and simulation of MRFs. Different modeling meth-
ods have been used to study MRF which can be divided
into two main approaches: continuum and discrete
approaches. In continuum approach, the MR suspen-
sion is considered as a one-phase homogeneous fluid,
and viscoplastic rheological models are used in this
approach to model its motion. Bingham plastic and
Herschel–Bulkley models are the most common rheolo-
gical models used in continuum approach. The relative
simplicity of these rheological models is considered as
their advantages in modeling of MRF. However, their
limitation in prediction of MRF behavior for a wide
range of operational conditions causes limitation in use.
Many investigations have been carried out by
researchers to find the relation between the coefficients
of rheological models and the effective parameters of
the MRF. Structural models have been proposed in the
literature to identify the dependency of yield stress and
also apparent viscosity of MRF on the applied mag-
netic field intensity and structural specifications of fluid
such as concentration and size of particles. These struc-
tural models present good estimations of the fluid beha-
vior in the specified range of applications. However,
the application of these empirical models will be limited
to the narrow range of operational conditions in experi-
mental measurements. Accordingly, finding the macro-
scale structural models that can be validated for a wide
range of applications is still a challenging matter in the
continuum approach. Also, finding a rheological model
that can be applied for a wide range of shear rates is in
demand.
Although the macro-scale models in the continuum
approach are relatively simple for application, they
ð58Þ have no particle-level insight, they are incapable to dif-
ferentiate between particles and carrier fluid, and they
have no explicit relation to fundamental first physical
principles. Therefore, the particle-level simulations (dis-
crete approach) will be needed for design and control
of MRF-based devices. Unfortunately, the discrete
ð59Þ approach model suffers from high computational cost.
Accordingly, the investigation for finding models and
correlations that decrease the computational cost while
increasing the accuracy in the discrete approach is an
open area to research. Even though numerous models
for calculation of magnetic forces are proposed, there
still is a demand for models that increase the accuracy
and applicability in the numerical solutions. In all the
reported MRF simulations that have used discrete
approach, the classical Hertzian contact model was
implemented. Using the other contact models may
improve the accuracy of predictions. In coupling the
fluid flow and particle motions, only the drag force is
considered. However, a sensitive analysis on the
20 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

Table 5. Different studies in the field of using discrete approach simulation for MRFs.

Reference Description of models Case study

Ahmadkhanlou et al. (2010) Particle dynamics: kinetic theory–based
model; hydrodynamic: Maxwell velocity
distribution; internal forces: linear spring
model; magnetic forces: fixed dipole
Han et al. (2010b) Particle dynamics: Newton’s second law,
discrete element approach; hydrodynamic:
LBM; contact forces: Hertzian contact model;
magnetic forces: mutual dipole model
Feng et al. (2010) Particle dynamics: Newton’s second law,
discrete element approach; hydrodynamic:
LBM; contact forces: Hertzian contact model
Ciocanel et al. (2006) Particle dynamics: kinetic theory–based
model; hydrodynamic: Stokes drag law;
internal forces: linear; magnetic forces: fixed
dipole model
Tao (2006) Particle dynamics: Newton’s second law,
discrete element approach; hydrodynamic:
stokes drag law; contact forces: not
mentioned; magnetic forces: fixed dipole
model
Brigadnov and Dorfmann (2005) Full system of equations for moving isotropic
MRFs in an electromagnetic field is presented
Cook et al. (2004) Particle dynamics: Newton’s second law,
discrete element approach; hydrodynamic:
LBM; internal forces: linear
Ly et al. (1999) Particle dynamics: Newton’s second law;
hydrodynamic: Stokes drag; contact forces:
hard sphere rejection; magnetic forces: multi-
pole model
Shear mode, carbonyl iron powder in silicone
oil, comparison with two rheological models:
Bingham and Herschel–Bulkley
Shear mode. Representative volume element
of an MRF
Combined three-dimensional LBM and
discrete element method for modeling fluid–
particle interactions.
Shear and elongational flows
Shear mode, representative volume element
The flow of an MRF between two parallel
fixed plates under the influence of a constant
magnetic field perpendicular to the flow
direction was considered
A direct two-dimensional simulation method
for particle–fluid systems without magnetic
force
A two-dimensional rectangular framework in
valve mode was simulated

MRF: magnetorheological fluid; LBM: lattice Boltzmann modeling.

different forces acting on particles can declare the con-
tribution of each force. This will be helpful for the deci-
sion to ignore or to include such forces. In most of the
studies, the simple Stokes drag model is applied which
will not be so accurate in the flows with high gradients
of velocity.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from
the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Agustı́n-Serrano R, Donado F and Rubio-Rosas E (2013)
Magnetorheological fluid based on submicrometric silica-
coated magnetite particles under an oscillatory magnetic
field. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 335:
149–158.
Ahmadkhanlou F (2008) Design, Modeling and Control of
Magnetorheological Fluid-Based Force Feedback Dampers
for Telerobotic Systems. Columbus, OH: Mechanical Engi-
neering Graduate Program, The Ohio State University, p.
207.
Ahmadkhanlou F, Mahboob M, Bechtel S, et al. (2010) An
improved model for magnetorheological fluid-based actua-
tors and sensors. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 21: 3–18.
Berli CLA and De Vicente J (2012) A structural viscosity
model for magnetorheology. Applied Physics Letters 101:
021903.
Bica I (2012) The influence of the magnetic field on the elastic
properties of anisotropic magnetorheological elastomers.
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 18:
1666–1669.
Bica I, Liu YD and Choi HJ (2013) Physical characteristics of
magnetorheological suspensions and their applications.
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 19:
394–406.
Blake J and Gurocak HB (2009) Haptic glove with MR
brakes for virtual reality. IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics 14: 606–615.
Böse H, Rabindranath R and Ehrlich J (2012) Soft magnetor-
heological elastomers as new actuators for valves. Journal
of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23: 989–994.
Bossis G and Cebers A (1999) Effects of the magnetodipolar
interactions in the alternating magnetic fields. Journal of
Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 201: 218–221.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014

Ghaffari et al.
Bossis G, Khuzir P, Lacis S, et al. (2003a) Yield behavior of
magnetorheological suspensions. Journal of Magnetism
and Magnetic Materials 258–259: 456–458.
Bossis G, Lacis S, Meunier A, et al. (2002) Magnetorheologi-
cal fluids. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials
252: 224–228.
Bossis G, Volkova O, Lacis S, et al. (2003b) Magnetorheol-
ogy: fluids, structures and rheology. In: Odenbach S (ed.)
Ferrofluids. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 202–230.
Brigadnov IA and Dorfmann A (2005) Mathematical model-
ing of magnetorheological fluids. Continuum Mechanics
and Thermodynamics 17: 29–42.
Carmignani C, Forte P and Rustighi E (2006) Design of a
novel magneto-rheological squeeze-film damper. Smart
Materials and Structures 15: 164.
Chin BD, Park JH, Kwon MH, et al. (2001) Rheological
properties and dispersion stability of magnetorheological
(MR) suspensions. Rheologica Acta 40: 211–219.
Choi YT, Cho JU, Choi SB, et al. (2005) Constitutive models
of electrorheological and magnetorheological fluids using
viscometers. Smart Materials and Structures 14: 1025.
Ciocanel C, Lipscomb G and Naganathan NG (2006) A par-
ticle pair model for magnetorheological fluids. Proceedings
of SPIE 6170: 198–206.
Claracq J, Sarrazin J and Montfort J-P (2004) Viscoelastic
properties of magnetorheological fluids. Rheologica Acta
43: 38–49.
Clercx HJH and Bossis G (1993) Many-body electrostatic
interactions in electrorheological fluids. Physical Review E
48: 2721–2738.
Cook BK, Noble DR and Williams JR (2004) A direct simula-
tion method for particle-fluid systems. Engineering Compu-
tations 21: 151–168.
Cundall PA and Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical
model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29: 47–65.
De Gans BJ, Duin NJ, Ende Dvd, et al. (2000) The influence
of particle size on the magnetorheological properties of an
inverse ferrofluid. Journal of Chemical Physics 113:
2032–2042.
De Gans B-J, Hoekstra H and Mellema J (1999) Non-linear
magnetorheological behaviour of an inverse ferrofluid.
Faraday Discussions 112: 209–224.
De Vicente J and Berli CA (2013) Aging, rejuvenation, and
thixotropy in yielding magnetorheological fluids. Rheolo-
gica Acta 52: 467–483.
De Vicente J, Klingenberg DJ and Hidalgo-Alvarez R (2011a)
Magnetorheological fluids: a review. Soft Matter 7:
3701–3710.
De Vicente J, López-López MT, Durán JDG, et al. (2004)
Shear flow behavior of confined magnetorheological fluids
at low magnetic field strengths. Rheologica Acta 44:
94–103.
De Vicente J, Ruiz-López JA, Andablo-Reyes E, et al.
(2011b) Squeeze flow magnetorheology. Journal of Rheol-
ogy 55: 753–780.
Drayton YB and Brady JF (1996) Brownian electrorheologi-
cal fluids as a model for flocculated dispersions. Journal of
Rheology 40: 1027–1057.
Durney CH and Johnson CC (1969) Introduction to Modern
Electromagnetics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fang FF, Choi HJ and Jhon MS (2009) Magnetorheology of
soft magnetic carbonyl iron suspension with single-walled
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
21
carbon nanotube additive and its yield stress scaling func-
tion. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engi-
neering Aspects 351: 46–51.
Farjoud A, Ahmadian M, Mahmoodi N, et al. (2011) Non-
linear modeling and testing of magneto-rheological fluids
in low shear rate squeezing flows. Smart Materials and
Structures 20: 085013 (14 pp.).
Farjoud A, Vahdati N and Fah YF (2008) Mathematical
model of drum-type MR brakes using Herschel-Bulkley
shear model. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Structures 19: 565–572.
Felt DW, Hagenbuchle M, Liu J, et al. (1996) Rheology of a
magnetorheological fluid. Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures 7: 589–593.
Feng YT, Han K and Owen DRJ (2010) Combined three-
dimensional lattice Boltzmann method and discrete ele-
ment method for modelling fluid–particle interactions with
experimental assessment. International Journal for Numeri-
cal Methods in Engineering 81: 229–245.
Firouzi M and Hashemabadi SH (2008) Analytical solution
for Newtonian–Bingham plastic two-phase pressure driven
stratified flow through the circular ducts. International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35: 666–673.
Firouzi M and Hashemabadi SH (2009) Exact solution of two
phase stratified flow through the pipes for non-Newtonian
Herschel–Bulkley fluids. International Communications in
Heat and Mass Transfer 36: 768–775.
Furst EM and Gast AP (2000) Micromechanics of magnetor-
heological suspensions. Physical Review E 61: 6732–6739.
Gandhi F and Bullough W (2005) On the phenomenological
modeling of electrorheological and magnetorheological
fluid preyield behaviour. Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures 16: 237–248.
Genc x S and Phulé PP (2002) Rheological properties of mag-
netorheological fluids. Smart Materials and Structures 11:
140–146.
Ginder JM, Davis LC and Elie LD (1996) Rheology of mag-
netorheological fluids: models and measurements. Interna-
tional Journal of Modern Physics B 10: 3293–3303.
Goldasz J and Sapinski B (2012) Nondimensional characteri-
zation of flow-mode magnetorheological/electrorheologi-
cal fluid dampers. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 23: 1545–1562.
Goncalves FD and Ahmadian M (2005) A study on MR
fluids subject to high shear rates and high velocities. Smart
structures and Materials 2005: Damping and Isolation 5760:
46–56.
Goncalves FD, Koo JH and Ahmadian M (2006) A review of
the state of the art in magnetorheological fluid
technologies—part I: MR fluid and MR fluid models. The
Shock and Vibration Digest 38: 203–219.
Grunwald A and Olabi AG (2008) Design of magneto-
rheological (MR) valve. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical
148: 211–223.
Han K, Feng YT and Owen DRJ (2010a) Modelling of mag-
netorheological fluids with combined lattice Boltzmann
and discrete element approach. Communications in Compu-
tational Physics 7: 1095–1117.
Han K, Feng YT and Owen DRJ (2010b) Three-dimensional
modelling and simulation of magnetorheological fluids.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
84: 1273–1302.
22
Hashemabadi SH and Mirnajafizadeh SM (2010) Analysis of
viscoelastic fluid flow with temperature dependent proper-
ties in plane Couette flow and thin annuli. Applied Mathe-
matical Modelling 34: 919–930.
Hashemabadi SH, Etemad SG, Thibault J, et al. (2003) Ana-
lytical solution for dynamic pressurization of viscoelastic
fluids. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 24:
137–144.
Huang J, Ma J and Wei S (2012) Viscoplastic flow of the mag-
netorheological fluid in a cylindrical-type clutch. Interna-
tional Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology
(IJACT) 4: 458–465.
Jackson JD (1998) Classical Electrodynamics. New York:
Wiley.
Ji Eun K, Jae-Do K, Ying Dan L, et al. (2012) Effect of
medium oil on magnetorheology of soft carbonyl iron par-
ticles. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 48: 3442–3445.
Joung C and See H (2007) Simulation of magneto-rheological
fluids incorporating hydrodynamic effects. Journal of Cen-
tral South University of Technology 14: 271–274.
Joung CG and See H (2008) The influence of wall interaction
on dynamic particle modelling of magneto-rheological sus-
pensions between shearing plates. Rheologica Acta 47:
917–927.
Keaveny EE and Maxey MR (2008) Modeling the magnetic
interactions between paramagnetic beads in magnetorheo-
logical fluids. Journal of Computational Physics 227:
9554–9571.
Kim I, Song K, Park B, et al. (2011) Nano-sized Fe soft-
magnetic particle and its magnetorheology. Colloid and
Polymer Science 289: 79–83.
Kittipoomwong D, Klingenberg DJ and Ulicny JC (2005)
Dynamic yield stress enhancement in bidisperse magnetor-
heological fluids. Journal of Rheology 49: 1521–1538.
Klingenberg DJ and Ulicny JC (2011) Enhancing magnetor-
heology. International Journal of Modern Physics B
(IJMPB) 25: 911–917.
Klingenberg DJ, Olk CH, Golden MA, et al. (2010) Effects
of nonmagnetic interparticle forces on magnetorheological
fluids. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 22: 324101.
Klingenberg DJ, Swol Fv and Zukoski CF (1991) The small
shear rate response of electro rheological suspensions. I.
Simulation in the point-dipole limit. Journal of Chemical
Physics 94: 6160–6170.
Klingenberg DJ, Ulicny JC and Golden MA (2007a) Mason
numbers for magnetorheology. Journal of Rheology 51:
883–893.
Klingenberg DJ, Ulicny JC and Smith AL (2007b) Effects of
body forces on the structure and rheology of ER and MR
fluids. International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
21: 4841–4848.
Kordonski W and Shorey A (2007) Magnetorheological
(MR) jet finishing technology. Journal of Intelligent Mate-
rial Systems and Structures 18: 1127–1130.
Kormann C, Laun HM and Richter HJ (1996) MR fluids
with nano-sized magnetic particles. International Journal
of Modern Physics B 10: 3167–3172.
Kostamo E, Kostamo J, Kajaste J, et al. (2012) Magnetor-
heological valve in servo applications. Journal of Intelli-
gent Material Systems and Structures 23: 1001–1010.
Kulkarni P, Ciocanel C, Vieira SL, et al. (2003) Study of the
behavior of MR fluids in squeeze, torsional and valve
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
modes. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Struc-
tures 14: 99–104.
Lange U, Richter L and Zipser L (2001) Flow of magnetor-
heological fluids. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 12: 161–164.
Laun HM, Kormann C and Willenbacher N (1996) Rheome-
try on magnetorheological (MR) fluids. Rheologica Acta
35: 417–432.
Lemaire E, Bossis G and Grasselli Y (1993) Yield stress and
structuration of magnetorheological suspensions. Journal
of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 122: 51–52.
Lemaire E, Grasselli Y and Bossis G (1992) Field induced
structure in magneto and electro-rheological fluids. Jour-
nal de Physique II France 2: 359–369.
Lemaire E, Meunier A, Bossis G, et al. (1995) Influence of the
particle size on the rheology of magnetorheological fluids.
Journal of Rheology 39: 1011–1021.
Li S, Marshall JS, Liu G, et al. (2011) Adhesive particulate
flow: the discrete-element method and its application in
energy and environmental engineering. Progress in Energy
and Combustion Science 37: 633–668.
Li WH, Du H, Chen G, et al. (2002) Experimental investiga-
tion of creep and recovery behaviors of magnetorheologi-
cal fluids. Materials Science and Engineering: A 333:
368–376.
Ly HV, Reitich F, Jolly MR, et al. (1999) Simulations of par-
ticle dynamics in magnetorheological fluids. Journal of
Computational Physics 155: 160–177.
Ma J, Shu H and Huang J (2012) MR continuously variable
transmission driven by SMA for centrifugal fan in nuclear
power plant. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installa-
tions 2012: 205675 (6 pp.).
Martin JE (2001) Field-induced rheology in uniaxial and biax-
ial fields. International Journal of Modern Physics B 15:
574–595.
Martin JE and Anderson RA (1996) Chain model of electro-
rheology. Journal of Chemical Physics 104: 4814–4827.
Melrose JR and Heyes DM (1993) Simulations of electro-
rheological and particle mixture suspensions: agglomerate
and layer structures. Journal of Chemical Physics 98:
5873–5886.
Mitsoulis E (2007) Flows of viscoplastic materials: models
and computations. In: Binding DM, Hudson NE, Keun-
ings R (eds) Rheology reviews. Glasgow, Universities
Design & Print, pp 135 –178.
Mohebi M, Jamasbi N and Liu J (1996) Simulation of the for-
mation of nonequilibrium structures in magnetorheologi-
cal fluids subject to an external magnetic field. Physical
Review E 54: 5407–5413.
Mrlik M, Sedlacik M, Pavlinek V, et al. (2013) Synthesis and
magnetorheological characteristics of ribbon-like,
polypyrrole-coated carbonyl iron suspensions under oscil-
latory shear. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 128:
2977–2982.
Nicholas CR and Norman MW (2004) Volume-constrained
optimization of magnetorheological and electrorheological
valves and dampers. Smart Materials and Structures 13:
1303.
Nosse DT and Dapino MJ (2007) Magnetorheological valve
for hybrid electrohydrostatic actuation. Journal of Intelli-
gent Material Systems and Structures 18: 1121–1136.
Ghaffari et al.
Ocalan M and McKinley G (2013) High-flux magnetorheol-
ogy at elevated temperatures. Rheologica Acta 52:
623–641.
Olabi AG and Grunwald A (2007) Design and application of
magneto-rheological fluid. Materials & Design 28:
2658–2664.
Omidbeygi F and Hashemabadi SH (2012) Experimental
study and CFD simulation of rotational eccentric cylinder
in a magnetorheological fluid. Journal of Magnetism and
Magnetic Materials 324: 2062–2069.
Omidbeygi F and Hashemabadi SH (2013) Exact solution
and CFD simulation of magnetorheological fluid purely
tangential flow within an eccentric annulus. International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 75: 26–33.
Papanastasiou TC (1987) Flows of materials with yield. Jour-
nal of Rheology 31: 385–405.
Pappas Y and Klingenberg DJ (2006) Simulations of magne-
torheological suspensions in Poiseuille flow. Rheologica
Acta 45: 621–629.
Park BJ, Fang FF and Choi HJ (2010) Magnetorheology:
materials and application. Soft Matter 6: 5246–5253.
Park B, Park B, Hato M, et al. (2011) Soft magnetic carbonyl
iron microsphere dispersed in grease and its rheological
characteristics under magnetic field. Colloid and Polymer
Science 289: 381–386.
Parlak Z and Engin T (2012) Time-dependent CFD and
quasi-static analysis of magnetorheological fluid dampers
with experimental validation. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 64: 22–31.
Parlak Z, Engin T and C xallıI_ (2012) Optimal design of MR
damper via finite element analyses of fluid dynamic and
magnetic field. Mechatronics 22: 890–903.
Peng Y-B, Ghanem R and Li J (2012) Investigations of micro-
structured behaviors of magnetorheological suspensions.
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23:
1351–1370.
Phulé PP and Ginder JM (1999) Synthesis and properties of
novel magnetorheological fluids having improved stability
and redispersibility. International Journal of Modern Phy-
sics B 13: 2019–2027.
Promislow JHE and Gast AP (1996) Magnetorheological
fluid structure in a pulsed magnetic field. Langmuir 12:
4095–4102.
Quoc-Hung N, Young-Min H, Seung-Bok C, et al. (2007)
Geometry optimization of MR valves constrained in a spe-
cific volume using the finite element method. Smart Mate-
rials and Structures 16: 2242.
Rabinow J (1948) The magnetic fluid clutch. Transactions of
the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) 67:
1308–1315.
Ramos J, Klingenberg DJ, Hidalgo-Alvarez R, et al. (2011)
Steady shear magnetorheology of inverse ferrofluids. Jour-
nal of Rheology 55: 127–152.
Rankin PJ, Horvath AT and Klingenberg DJ (1999) Magnetor-
heology in viscoplastic media. Rheologica Acta 38: 471–477.
Ruiz-López JA, Hidalgo-Alvarez R and de Vicente J (2012)
On the validity of continuous media theory for plastic
materials in magnetorheological fluids under slow com-
pression. Rheologica Acta 51: 595–602.
Ruiz-López JA, Hidalgo-Alvarez R and de Vicente J (2013)
Continuous media theory for MR fluids in non-shearing
flows. Journal of Physics Conference Series 412: 012057.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
23
Sahin H, Gordaninejad F, Wang X, et al. (2012) Response
time of magnetorheological fluids and magnetorheological
valves under various flow conditions. Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures 23: 949–957.
Salloom MY and Samad Z (2011) Finite element modeling
and simulation of proposed design magneto-rheological
valve. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 54: 421–429.
Salloom MY and Samad Z (2012) Design and modeling mag-
netorheological directional control valve. Journal of Intelli-
gent Material Systems and Structures 23: 155–167.
Santiago-Quinones D, Raj K and Rinaldi C (2013) A com-
parison of the magnetorheology of two ferrofluids with
different magnetic field-dependent chaining behavior.
Rheologica Acta 52: 719–726.
Sedlacik M, Pavlinek V, Vyroubal R, et al. (2013) A
dimorphic magnetorheological fluid with improved oxida-
tion and chemical stability under oscillatory shear. Smart
Materials and Structures 22: 035011.
See H (2003) Field dependence of the response of a magnetor-
heological suspension under steady shear flow and squeez-
ing flow. Rheologica Acta 42: 86–92.
See H and Tanner R (2003) Shear rate dependence of the nor-
mal force of a magnetorheological suspension. Rheologica
Acta 42: 166–170.
See H, Mackenzie S and Chua BT (2006) Effect of compres-
sion on the response of a magneto-rheological suspension.
Korea-Australia Rheology Journal 18: 121–126.
Segovia-Gutiérrez JP, Berli CLA and de Vicente J (2012)
Nonlinear viscoelasticity and two-step yielding in magne-
torheology: a colloidal gel approach to understand the
effect of particle concentration. Journal of Rheology 56:
1429–1449.
Segovia-Gutiérrez JP, De Vicente J, Hidalgo-Alvarez R, et al.
(2013a) Brownian dynamic simulations and experiments
of MR fluids. Journal of Physics Conference Series 412:
012056.
Segovia-Gutiérrez JP, De Vicente J, Hidalgo-Alvarez R, et al.
(2013b) Brownian dynamics simulations in magnetorheol-
ogy and comparison with experiments. Soft Matter 9:
6970–6977.
Sheng R, Flores GA and Liu J (1999) In vitro investigation of
a novel cancer therapeutic method using embolizing prop-
erties of magnetorheological fluids. Journal of Magnetism
and Magnetic Materials 194: 167–175.
Sim H, Kwon S and Choi H (2013) Xanthan gum-coated soft
magnetic carbonyl iron composite particles and their mag-
netorheology. Colloid and Polymer Science 291: 963–969.
Susan-Resiga D (2009) A rheological model for magneto-
rheological fluids. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 20: 1001–1010.
Tamura H (1992) Electro-rheological effects in a flow through
a narrow slit. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 61:
3984–3993.
Tang X and Conrad H (2000) An analytical model for magne-
torheological fluids. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics
33: 3026.
Tao R (2006) Structure and dynamics of dipolar fluids under
strong shear. Chemical Engineering Science 61: 2186–2190.
Ukai T and Maekawa T (2004) Patterns formed by paramag-
netic particles in a horizontal layer of a
24
magnetorheological fluid subjected to a dc magnetic field.
Physical Review E 69: 032501.
Ulicny JC, Golden MA, Namuduri CS, et al. (2005) Transient
response of magnetorheological fluids: shear flow between
concentric cylinders. Journal of Rheology 49: 87–104.
Vereda F, De Vicente J, Segovia-Gutiérrez JP, et al. (2011)
Average particle magnetization as an experimental scaling
parameter for the yield stress of dilute magnetorheological
fluids. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 44: 425002.
Volkova O, Bossis G, Guyot M, et al. (2000) Magnetorheol-
ogy of magnetic holes compared to magnetic particles.
Journal of Rheology 44: 91–104.
Volkova O, Cutillas S and Bossis G (1999a) Shear banded
flows and nematic-to-isotropic transition in ER and MR
fluids. Physical Review Letters 82: 233–236.
Volkova O, Cutillas S, Carletto P, et al. (1999b) Flow-induced
structures in magnetorheological suspensions. Journal of
Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 201: 66–69.
Wang J, Meng G, Feng N, et al. (2005) Dynamic performance
and control of squeeze mode MR fluid damper–rotor sys-
tem. Smart Materials and Structures 14: 529.
Wang X and Gordaninejad F (2006) Study of magnetorheo-
logical fluids at high shear rates. Rheologica Acta 45:
899–908.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at TULANE UNIV on September 1, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
Yamakawa H (1970) Transport properties of polymer chains
in dilute solution: hydrodynamic interaction. Journal of
Chemical Physics 53: 436–444.
Yang T-H, Koo J-H, Kim S-Y, et al. (2012) Application of
magnetorheological fluids for a miniature haptic button:
experimental evaluation. Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures 23: 1025–1031.
Yang T-H, Kwon H-J, Lee SS, et al. (2009) Conceptual design
of miniature tunable stiffness display using MR fluids. In:
TRANSDUCERS 2009: international solid-state sensors,
actuators and microsystems conference, Denver, CO, 21–25
June, pp. 897–899. New York: IEEE.
Yang T-H, Kwon H-J, Lee SS, et al. (2010) Development of
a miniature tunable stiffness display using MR fluids for
haptic application. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 163:
180–190.
Zafarani-Moattar M and Majdan-Cegincara R (2013) Stabi-
lity, rheological, magnetorheological and volumetric char-
acterizations of polymer based magnetic nanofluids.
Colloid and Polymer Science 291: 1977–1987.
Zhu HP, Zhou ZY, Yang RY, et al. (2007) Discrete particle
simulation of particulate systems: theoretical develop-
ments. Chemical Engineering Science 62: 3378–3396.
Zhu X, Jing X and Cheng L (2012) Magnetorheological fluid
dampers: a review on structure design and analysis. Journal
of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23: 839–873.