See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234116148

Effect of Pressure on the Flow Properties of Magnetorheological Fluids

Article  in  Journal of Fluids Engineering · September 2012

DOI: 10.1115/1.4007257

CITATIONS READS

31 1,752

2 authors:

Andrea Spaggiari Eugenio Dragoni

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
79 PUBLICATIONS   829 CITATIONS    146 PUBLICATIONS   1,829 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Master Level Eng. Lectures on Smart Materials View project

Structural bonded joints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Spaggiari on 24 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


A. Spaggiari1
e-mail: andrea.spaggiari@unimore.it
E. Dragoni
Department of Engineering
Sciences and Methods,
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia,
via Amendola, 2, Padiglione Morselli,
Reggio Emilia, 42122, Italy
Effect of Pressure on the
Flow Properties of
Magnetorheological Fluids
Magnetorheological (MR) fluids are widely used in the industrial world; however, some-
times their properties fail to meet system requirements. In shear mode, MR fluids have
been found to exhibit a pressure dependency called squeeze strengthen effect. Since a lot
of MR fluid based devices work in flow mode (i.e., dampers), this paper investigates the
behavior in flow mode under pressure. The system design consists of three steps: the hy-
draulic system, the magnetic circuit, and the design of experiment method. The experi-
mental apparatus is a cylinder in which a piston displaces the fluid without the use of
standard gear pumps, which are incompatible with MR fluids. The experimental appara-
tus measures the yield stress of the MR fluid as a function of the pressure and magnetic
field, thus, enabling the yield shear stress to be calculated. A statistical analysis of the
results shows that the squeeze strengthen effect is also present in flow mode, and that the
internal pressure enhances the performance of MR fluids by nearly five times.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4007257]

Keywords: magnetorheological fluids, pressure, yield stress, design of experiment

1 Introduction One of the few materials that behaves better than iron in terms of
magnetic permeability and saturation is the so called ml-metal
Magnetorheological fluids are smart and controllable materials
[3], a nickel-iron-molybdenum alloy that has up to ten times the
that are widely used in several devices, such as dampers and
performance of pure iron. However, ml-metal is extremely ex-
clutches [1]. An external magnetic induction field modifies the
pensive; thus, the most commonly used particles in commercial
macroscopic appearance of MR fluids by switching from a viscous
MR suspensions are carbonyl iron (pure iron obtained with a spe-
free-flow liquid when no field is applied to a quasi solid state
cific technology), achieving a maximum sy ¼ 100 kPa. In commer-
when a strong induction is present. The behavior of MR fluids is
cial MR fluids, additives and surfactants are mixed with the fluid
affected by electromagnetic fields, which reversibly modify their
to prevent or limit the deposit of the carbonyl iron particles on the
apparent viscosity. The sudden change in MR behavior (a few
bottom of the inactive device due to gravity forces. Another aspect
milliseconds) when subjected to a magnetic field makes this mate-
that can be used to improve the value of sy is the volume fraction
rial attractive for damping and dissipative devices.
of the particle in suspension; however, it cannot be increased
MR fluids can be used to build integral, silent, and rapid me-
beyond a certain value otherwise the MR fluid would become too
chanical systems, which are enhanced by electronic controls. Sev-
viscous.
eral ferromagnetic materials can be used as magnetic particles
Ginder and Davis [4] used a finite element analysis to study the
dispersed in the carrier fluid (mainly oil or water) in order to pro-
effect of magnetic nonlinearity and saturation of magnetic par-
vide the magnetorheological effect. In fact, when MR fluids are
ticles. They found a limit for the volume fraction at 50% volume,
subjected to any magnetic field, the particles acquire a dipole
which gives a maximum of sy ¼ 210 kPa. In any case for industrial
moment aligned with the flux lines of the field. When this phe-
applications, a value of 50% volume fraction is too high, and the
nomenon is analyzed at a microscale, it can be seen that it leads to
normal volume fraction ranges from 20% to 40%, which corre-
the formation of linear chains of particles, which result, in a mac-
sponds to a typical iron particle content in weight (75–85%) as
roscale, in a solid-like MR aggregate.
reported in LORD Corp. datasheets [5,6]. MR fluids in squeeze
The key parameter for the MR fluids is the yield shear stress
mode have been demonstrated to give a higher force compared to
(sy), which is the maximum stress the fluid can withstand before
shear and flow mode. Unfortunately, squeeze mode enables only
starting to flow. This value is fundamental in MR fluid design
very short strokes to be reached and, thus, cannot be exploited in
because it is directly linked to the maximum power that can be
many applications. Tang et al. [7] reported that the yield stress of
dissipated by an MR device.
MR fluids compressed along the direction of the magnetic field
Clearly, sy is affected by a magnetic field, as shown in Fig. 1(a)
gave an increment of ten times for sy. They proposed the forma-
which shows the technical datasheet supplied by the producer for
tion of thicker and, thus, stronger columns of particles that are
the commercial MR fluid 140-CG, from LORD Corporation [2].
able to sustain the load.
Figure 1(b) reports the saturation of the magnetic particles typical
Zhang et al. [8] designed an apparatus to evaluate the effect of
of MR fluids at high induction flux levels [2]. Thus, no matter
compression on MR fluids in shear mode. Their experimental
how high the magnetic flux, thanks to a smart application of coils
campaign revealed that a very high compression could enhance sy
or permanent magnets, the maximum dissipated power reaches a
by more than 20 times for a given magnetic field, thus, showing a
plateau due to the limitation of sy.
squeeze strengthen effect. The apparatus they used [8], which was
One possible way to enhance the yield stress of MR fluids is,
quite complex and bulky, consisted of a nonmagnetic container
thus, to select a particle material with a larger magnetic saturation.
for the MR fluid compressed through a big bolt, and a metal sheet
1
was used to assess shear stress under several pressure levels. They
Corresponding author
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the
also correlated this behavior not only with the magnetic force of
JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 11, 2012; final manuscript the dipoles formed by the ferromagnetic particles but also with
received July 24, 2012; published online August 22, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Shizhi Qian. the friction between the particles. A hybrid tribological-magnetic

Journal of Fluids Engineering Copyright V

C 2012 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 091103-1

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 1 Experimental properties of MRF-140-CG from Lord Corp. [2]. Yield stress-field correlation (a) and
B-H curve (b).

model provides a good explanation of the very high yield stress

data retrieved in the experiments.
The aim of this paper is to estimate the squeeze strengthen
effect of an MR fluid in flow mode. The flow mode is the most
common application of MR fluids in dissipative systems such as
linear dampers. These devices could easily be improved by
exploiting the internal pressure of the fluid if the MR fluid in flow
mode behaves the same as that in shear mode. The behavior of
LORD 140-CG [2] commercial fluid was investigated under sev-
eral magnetic field and pressure values using an ad hoc apparatus.
A design of experiment technique [9] was applied to the experi-
mental tests in order to verify the influence of the variables statis-
tically and to provide an empirical relationship to link pressure,
the applied field, and yield stress.
The experimental results cover magnetic induction up to the
saturation of the fluid and pressure levels up to 30 bars. They
revealed that the internal pressure influences the yield stress and
that there is a positive interaction between the magnetic field and
the pressure. A surface response was built on the basis of the ex-
perimental points, and a design equation, which correlates yield
stress, pressure, and induction field, was provided. This study,
thus, confirms that the findings of Ref. [8] are also valid in flow
mode and offer a new means to easily enhance the current MR
fluid based devices.

2 Materials and Method

2.1 Experimental Ad Hoc Apparatus. This section
describes the design of the experimental ad hoc apparatus and out-
lines the architecture of the system implemented to test MR fluids.
The ad hoc apparatus provides a flow mode test of MR fluids
under several levels of internal pressure. The design of the system
is completely different from the design of Zhang et al. [8] and is
much more compact and easy to manufacture. The electromag-
netic circuit placed around the hydraulic circuit was used to vary
the magnetic excitation in the fluid (see Sec. 2.2). The system was
placed under a universal tensile test machine, MTS Bionix 858,
which provided information regarding the push-pull force needed
to move the internal rod and measured the displacement of the
system. From this set of data, the yield stress values were calcu-
lated with analytical formulas, and the effect of the pressure was
estimated. The tests were performed at low speed to limit viscous
effects and to focus exclusively on the magnetorheological prop-
erties. The flow rate, the pressure values applied, as well as the
magnetic field values are described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
Figure 2 shows a section of the hydraulic system. The system is
made up of a main cylinder (A) with a central through all bore.
Inside the cylinder, there is an aluminum bar with threaded ends
(B), which is coupled to two sealing systems (C and D).
Each sealing system consists of a housing and a Polypac ring
(Fig. 2 in gray) [10], which is a commercial system for sealing
Fig. 2 Cross section of the hydraulic system
liquids under pressure. The Polypac ring used consists of an inter-
nal O-ring and an external PTFE ring reinforced with glass fibers.
The O-ring energized by the fluid and, thus, compressed inside
the groove pushes the PTFE ring on the cylinder, and the ring ma-
terial provides both the sealing and low friction coefficients
needed to accurately measure the push-pull force.
The push pull force is measured by a load cell of the universal
machine MTS Bionix 858, which is coupled to the system through
the lower frame (L) and the upper threaded bar (J), which is con-
nected to the central bar (B). Two threaded transversal holes were
drilled into the main cylinder (A). The first was used to apply a
pressure transducer (E), while the second hole was needed for the
pressurizing system (F). The pressure transducer (E), is a Keller-
Druck 25 Y piezoresistive flush transducer [11], a particular pres-
sure sensor, which is compatible with MR-fluids thanks to a stain-
less steel flat membrane used as a sensitive element. A standard
pressure transducer cannot be used because the micron-sized par-
ticles dispersed in the fluid could block the thin measuring chan-
nel leading to imprecise measurements.

091103-2 / Vol. 134, SEPTEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 The system used to apply internal pressure consists of the exter-
nal housing (F), an internal regulator (G), a Belleville spring (K),
and a command screw (H). The system is filled with MR-fluid
140-CG by LORD corporation [2], and the internal pressure is
regulated by reducing or increasing the available volume by
means of the command screw (H). The Belleville spring (K) is
used to add a little compliance to the system, which may be too
stiff to be finely regulated. Once the fluid is trapped inside the cyl-
inder, the universal machine moves the central bar (B), and the
MR fluid is forced to flow through the internal annular channel.
The push-pull force measured by the load cell is a function of the
value of the MR fluid yield stress.
Particular care is needed to fill the circuit without trapping gas
inside. This result can be achieved by completely filling the sys-
tem, waiting for the air to come out, and then closing the system
with the central rod. The fillet in the main cylinder, being full of
fluid, ensures no air inside the system and the excess of the MR
fluid is removed after sealing. The level of pressure is monitored
with the sensor (E) in order to guarantee the correct levels to be
reached inside the fluid chamber.
The magnetic system (indicated by the arrows in Fig. 2) and
detailed in Sec. 2.2 is placed as close as possible to the inner chan-
nel, thanks to two millings on the sides of the stainless steel cylin-
der, which itself maintains at least 1.5 mm of wall thickness, in
order to ensure structural integrity even in the case of
overpressure.
2.2 MR Fluid Flow. MR fluids, especially for quasi-static
applications, can be conveniently modeled as Bingham fluids
[12]. Their behavior is described by the solid line in Fig. 3 in
terms of shear stress versus shear rate. The fluid exhibits a yield
stress sy at no shear rate, and only when this value is reached does
it start to flow like a classic Newton fluid. The sy value is a func-
tion of the applied magnetic field. According to Ref. [13], the
equation of the motion of an MR fluid in flow mode can be
derived by analytical considerations. The standard model for
quasi-static applications is called the Bingham model. The model
is described by Eq. (1) and reported in Fig. 3 with a solid black
line. It involves two parameters: sy and the fluid viscosity g. The
Bingham model shows the basic function of the MR fluid but does
not take into account shear thinning or thickening, whereas the
Herschel–Bulkley model does [14].
The crosshead speed is 1 mm/min, so the procedure can be con-
sidered as quasi-static. In fact, considering the MR fluid properties
reported in Ref. [2] the viscosity is influent only at shear rates
over 200 s1, and anyway it is 2–3 orders of magnitude less than
the magnetorheological effect. Considering that the external diam-
Fig. 3 Bingham model, suitable for MR fluids and the classical
viscous Newton model
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
eter of the through all bore of A is Dext ¼ 15 mm, the diameter
of the internal rod B is dint ¼ 8 mm; thus, the active area is
Aa ¼ 1/4p(D2ext  d2int) ¼ 506 mm2, the flow rate is 506 mm3/min.
This very low speed was chosen in order to have a very low shear
rate and to disregard the second term of Eq. (1) and focus exclu-
sively on sy.
s ¼ sy ð BÞ þ gc_ (1)
The pressure p given by the system is constant due to the simulta-
neous displacement of elements C-D. Considering the annular
shape of the duct, the equilibrium equation can be written as
Fcell ¼ FMRF þ FFRIC þ FVISC (2)
The first term is the plug force due to the movement of the system,
which is measured by the load cell. The second term is the extrac-
tion force due to the MR fluid yield stress, the third is the fric-
tional force, and the fourth is the viscous force. The fourth term is
disregarded, mainly thanks to the extremely reduced speed (1 mm/
min) adopted for the crosshead. The influence of the frictional
force is considered to be zero only when no pressure is applied—
its effect is dealt with in the Results and Discussion section.
The yield shear stress acts on the lateral area Al of the annular
channel subjected to the inductive magnetic field, applied with the
system shown in Fig. 2 for an axial length L ¼ 30 mm.
Al ¼ pLDext (3)
Thus, by combining Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) and the viscous term,
the value of the total shear when the liquid starts to flow can be
computed as
Fcell FMRF þ FFRIC
sTOT ¼ sy þ sFRIC ¼ ¼ (4)
A Dext pL
sTOT is the total stress, the sum of the yield stress sy due to the
magnetorheological behavior and the sFRIC due to the friction of
the sealing system. This last term can be disregarded when no
pressure is applied, but as long as the pressure increases, the
PTFE sealing, energized by the O-ring, produces a frictional force
that has to be included in the analysis. Figure 2 highlights that the
behavior of the experimental system is not a pure flow mode
because by definition the fluid must flow between two fixed ele-
ments. However, since the behavior of the MR fluid depends pri-
marily on the friction with the external wall, the system can be
likened to a pure flow mode configuration.
2.3 Electromagnetic System. Applying a magnetic field is a
key point in exploiting the potential of any kind of MR fluid. In
this particular case, since the system needs to measure the MR
fluid properties, the magnetic system must be carefully calculated
to span the entire range of application of the MR fluids from zero
to saturation fields. The main cylinder (A) was made in stainless
steel AISI 304L, which is nonmagnetic and which allows high
pressures to be reached inside with just a thin wall of material.
Being nonmagnetic is a necessary feature because otherwise the
cylinder would shield the flux, thus, preventing the flux lines from
penetrating the MR fluid. The other main components of the hy-
draulic system were also produced in nonmagnetic materials: the
central bar (B) is made of AISI 304L stainless steel, the pressuriz-
ing system cylinder (F) is made of brass, and the piston (G) of
aluminum.
The other components, which are less critical because of their
relative distance from the MR fluid, were made of steel. The shape
of the main cylinder was designed with two deep millings on the
sides in order to deploy the magnetic system as close as possible
to the MR fluids. The magnetic system was designed using finite
element magnetic software, FEMM 4.0 [15], which is useful for
SEPTEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 091103-3
 2D magnetostatic problems (see Fig. 4). For the sake of simplic-
ity, the system was made with a copper coil and a low carbon fer-
romagnetic core, with the traditional magnetic yoke shape.
Initially, the copper coil was made by winding AWG 22 wire (di-
ameter 0.64 mm) with 1700 coils. The system provided a maxi-
mum magnetic induction field in the MR fluid of 800 mT with a
maximum power of 150 W. The magnetic core was obtained sim-
ply by cutting a low carbon steel square bar because there was no
need for more expensive laminated material. This laminated mate-
rial would have been necessary with alternate current in order to
reduce eddy current losses. The magnetic yoke was assembled by
bonding together the parts of the steel bar using a high strength
adhesive and placing the copper coil inside the magnetic circuit.
The simulation of the magnetic system using FEMM 4.0 is
reported in Fig. 4(a), considering a linear relative magnetic per-
meability for the MR fluid obtained from the diagram of Fig. 1(b)
supplied by the producer [2]. According to electromagnetism fun-
damentals, the induction field B is a function of the magnetic field
H and the magnetic permeability, as shown in Eq. (5),
B ¼ l0  lr  H (5)
Thus, by approximating the B-H curve linearly (assumption valid
when H < 200 kA/m) the value of the relative magnetic perme-
ability is
B B
lr ¼ ¼ (6)
l0  H 4p  107  H
Fig. 4 Flux density inside the hydromagnetic system for a current of 2 amp (a),
scale 0–1 T, and flux distribution along the diametral section of the inner channel
(b) with lr 5 5
091103-4 / Vol. 134, SEPTEMBER 2012
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
As can be seen in Fig. 1(b), when H ¼ 125,000 A/m, B ¼ 0.8 T, the
relative permeability is lr ¼ 5.09. The comparison between the
linear approximation and the nonlinear curve is not reported for
the sake of brevity; however, a linear approximation with lr ¼ 5 is
in good agreement (R2 ¼ 0.978) with the manufacturer’s curves
[2] in the hypothesis that H < 200 kA/m. The value of lr ¼ 5 is
considered in the analysis, which is also in accordance with the
literature [16].
The magnetic induction distribution along the vertical diameter
of the inner duct is reported in Fig. 4(b). Since the magnetorheo-
logical fluid has a higher magnetic permeability than the central
rod, the magnetic induction is high in the annular orifice and sud-
denly collapses inside the rod. The average value of 800 mT is
obtained with 2 A, the maximum admissible current for the mag-
netic coil.
Figure 5(a) shows the magnetic circuit before being coupling
with the hydraulic system, made up of the magnetic core (M) in
low carbon steel and the copper coil (N). Figure 5(b) depicts the
complete hydromagnetic system with the same labels as in Fig. 2
and Fig. 5(a). In order to check the finite element simulation, the
magnetic field inside the stainless steel cylinder was measured
with a Gaussmeter Hirst GM05 equipped with a Hall effect probe.
It was not possible to measure the magnetic field inside the MR
fluid in order not to damage the Gaussmeter; thus, measurements
were executed for the various levels of current tested with no fluid
inside the system. The FEMM analyses with no fluid were in good
agreement with the measured values, with an average error of
under 5%.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 5 Magnetic system (a) and complete hydromagnetic setup for the experimen-
tal test of MR fluids under internal pressure (b)
2.4 Design of Experiment. A statistical method is often con-
venient in dealing with problems involving multivariable analysis.
The design of experiment procedure, a well-founded statistical
method based on the analysis of variance analyses (ANOVA)
[17], designed for the analysis of experimental tests, can be
applied to such scientific problems, and an application to MR fluid
is shown in Ref. [18].
In this experiment, the variables involved are the applied mag-
netic induction field (B) and the internal pressure of the MR fluid
(p). Since an interaction between the two variables was found in
shear mode [8], the experiments were designed to verify the same
interaction in flow mode. The most frequent application of the
design of experiment is the two-level factorial experiment, which
is used mainly when there is no way to predict the most important
variables and how they interact. In this work, on the other hand,
we adopted the “general factorial” approach, which consists of
varying only two variables over four levels. This method focuses
only on two parameters that influence the behavior of the system
and is, thus, able to identify the interaction between these varia-
bles more precisely and to provide a more reliable model to
describe how the system behaves. The magnetic induction ranges
from 0 to 800 mT, while the internal pressure spans the 0–30 bars
range. The pressure is regulated using the external command
screw, and when the desired value is reached, the upper bar is
moved by the tensile machine. The pulling force is proportional to
the yield stress of the fluid according to Eq. (4). The complete ex-
perimental plan is reported in Table 1.
The experimental tests were performed following a quasi-static
procedure at a speed of 1 mm/min in order to avoid, or at least
minimize, any dynamic or viscous effects. The head of the univer-
sal machine was maintained in displacement control and provided
a 1 mm ramp. There was no need for a larger displacement
because the behavior of the MR fluid is well described by the
Table 1 Experimental plan
Levels I II III IV
Induction field, B, (mT) 0 200 400 800
Internal pressure, p (bar) 0 10 20 30
Replicates 3 for each combination
Experimental points 16
Grand total 48
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Bingham model in Fig. 3; thus, only the behavior in proximity to
zero is needed in order to estimate the yield stress.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Experimental Results. The experimental curves of the
design of experiment plan are reported in Fig. 6. The solid black
lines reports the experimental curves retrieved from the test
machine, which are grouped in terms of the four different pressure
levels: Fig. 6(a) reports the curves with no internal pressure,
Figs. 6(b), 6(c), and 6(d) show the curves for 10, 20, and 30 bars,
respectively. The curves show a nearly bilinear behavior with
clear pre-yield and post-yield regions. A bilinear regression is
applied in order to calculate the pull out force.
The experimental points are fitted using a bilinear interpolation,
and the coefficients that give the best fit are retrieved following
the procedure. First a linear regression of the post-yield experi-
mental points is applied and the slope is calculated. Secondly the
bilinear regression (gray lines in Fig. 6) is calculated and the y-
intercept is taken as the pull-out force. The slope of the experi-
mental force is quite steep in the post-yield range. Since the
experimental tests were performed at a constant speed, the viscos-
ity of the MR fluid cannot play a role; thus, the slope must be
related to a different phenomenon.
This elastic-like behavior is not due to the presence of the
spring (K) because the stiffness is quite different; thus, a possible
explanation may be the magnetorheological effect in the induction
zone.
When the fluid is pushed through the magnetized area, the fer-
romagnetic particles form chains, which block the fluid movement
until the yield stress value is reached. The chains then start to
move; however, the magnetic attraction causes the accumulation
of the particles near the magnetized area. This phenomenon can
be likened to a filter or a sieve, which becomes finer and finer.
The larger the stroke, the higher the force needed to overcome the
barrier. This behavior explains the increase in the force and the
apparent elasticity of the system in the post-yield zone. By observ-
ing the slopes of the several curves in Fig. 6, this explanation is
confirmed by the flat curves of Fig. 6(a) and the steep curves of
Fig. 6(b), reported using the same scale. Thus, the MR effect is
strengthened by the pressure in the same way the yield stress is
strengthened by compaction of the particles. As can be seen, with-
out the presence of pressure, the filtering phenomenon is not evi-
dent because the fluid is not forced through the magnetic sieve
SEPTEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 091103-5
 Fig. 6 Experimental curves (black lines), four levels of applied magnetic field, and p 5 0, 10, 20,
and 30 bars, reported in (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. Bingham regression curve (gray lines)
used to retrieve the pull-out force.

and, thus, the slopes are nearly flat. In the case of internal pres- can be obtained by recalling Eq. (4). The complete set of calcu-
sure, the MR fluid must flow through the magnetic sieve, and the lated total shear stresses sTOT is reported in Table 2.
gray lines become steeper and steeper as the pressure grows.
The pull-out force values, reported in Table 2, show that even
without a magnetic field, the system provides quite a high force 3.2 Analysis of Variance on the Total Yield Stress. An
due to the effect of the applied pressure. This is because the fric- analysis of the variance was applied using Design Expert 8.0 [19].
tional force of the sealing, which is negligible at zero pressure, ANOVA calculates the variance of a response by considering a
increases as the internal pressure increases. The total shear stress specific variable and the global variance in the responses. Of the
possible approaches to graphically represent the results, one of the
most popular is the normal plot, which is used to estimate whether
Table 2 Experimental pull-out forces and total stresses sTOT a certain set of data follows a Gaussian distribution or not. If the
retrieved using Eq. (4) data approximates a straight line, the phenomenon is statistically
“normal,” i.e., follows a stochastic law. The variables or the inter-
Pull-out force (N) sTOT (kPa) actions affecting the system’s behavior will then fall outside the
normal distribution line; thus, their effect cannot be ascribed to a
P (bar) B (mT) R1 R2 R3 Average Average stochastic process. The greater the deviation of the point from the
normal line, the larger the confidence interval (i.e., the probability
0 0 7.34 3.47 0.00 3.60 2.55
that the variables are significant). The half normal plot used in
0 200 16.16 15.95 11.88 14.66 10.37
0 400 28.06 26.66 26.42 27.04 19.13 this paper is interpreted in the same way as the normal plot but
0 800 35.28 37.01 32.52 34.93 24.71 allows absolute values of the effects to be considered. Since the
10 0 16.68 13.89 7.48 12.69 8.97 half normal line starts at the origin, this produces a more sensitive
10 200 16.62 30.51 24.88 24.00 16.98 scale with which to detect significant outcomes [17], which are
10 400 44.22 48.11 44.32 45.55 32.22 immediately detected at a glance. The half normal plot of the ex-
10 800 85.58 74.76 81.14 80.50 56.94 perimental values of sTOT is shown in Fig. 7.
20 0 125.51 106.17 99.05 110.24 77.98 The straight line is built thanks to replicates (triangles) and pro-
20 200 178.97 138.56 135.03 150.85 106.71 vides an estimation of the normal distribution of the experimental
20 400 163.59 150.08 150.66 154.78 109.48
error, which by definition has a stochastic distribution. The trian-
20 800 201.46 203.07 201.71 202.08 142.94
30 0 133.94 132.79 137.54 134.76 95.32 gles are an expression of the sum of errors [17], which is calcu-
30 200 206.03 161.02 171.66 179.57 127.02 lated via Design Expert [19]. The point that falls far from the line
30 400 216.85 239.97 240.18 232.34 164.34 represents an effect that does not follow a stochastic law; thus, it
30 800 264.69 267.31 275.71 269.24 190.45 has a physical influence on the system under scrutiny. Since both
points representing the two variables (pressure and magnetic field)

091103-6 / Vol. 134, SEPTEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 3 Matrix of coefficient calculated to plot the surface
response of the total stress sTOT

aij (mT1)

i 0 1 2

0 2.632 0.06424 5.195 e-005

1 4.502 0.003251 0
2 0.02566 0 0

Fig. 7 Half normal plot of the effects on sTOT

are far from the error line, ANOVA demonstrates that these varia-
bles influence the process. The interaction between the variables
is also important, which means that there is an enhancement in the
total yield stress due to the pressure.

3.3 Response Surface of the Total Yield Stress. In order to

evaluate the relationship of the variables on the total yield stress,
a response surface can be plotted by fitting the complete set of ex-
perimental points using a second order polynomial interpolation.
Figure 8 shows the experimental points in black dots and the best
fitting surface obtained with the surface fitting MATLAB toolbox
[20].
The agreement with the experimental values is quite good
(R2 ¼ 0.96). Figure 8 shows both the influence of the main varia-
bles and their positive interaction (torsion of the surface). The
points that do not lie on the surface are the replicates used to build
the error line in Fig. 7 and to estimate the experimental error of
the campaign. The polynomial interpolation adopted follows the
following equation:
Fig. 9 Half normal plot of the effects on sy
2 X
X 2
s¼ aij pi Bj (7)
i¼0 j¼0
the coefficient aij is reported in Table 3 (pressure is expressed in
bars, magnetic field in mT).
3.4 Analysis of Variance of the MR Fluid Yield
Stress. The variable that affects the total yield stress most is the
pressure, which is mainly because at high pressure the friction of
the sealing contributes to the total stress. In order to obtain more
information on the MR fluid yield stress, the contribution of the
frictional force needs to be eliminated. This correction can be
obtained by means simply subtracting the pull-out force values.
The influence of the pure friction force, which varies with the
applied pressure, can be taken from Table 2 considering the levels
with no magnetic field applied. The equation used to obtain the
MR yield stress sy is

Fðp; BÞ  Fðp; 0Þ
sy ¼ sTOT  sFRIC ¼ (8)
A

The new set of yield stresses sy is computed following once again

an ANOVA procedure. The procedure following the new half nor-
mal probability plot is reported in Fig. 9. The most important vari-
able is now as expected the applied magnetic field, and both the
pressure and the interaction play an important role.

3.5 Response Surface of the MR Fluid Yield Stress. The

Fig. 8 Surface response (grid) and experimental points (black response surface for the yield stress sy is reported in Fig. 10,
dots) for the total stress sTOT where it is important to observe that there is no pressure

Journal of Fluids Engineering SEPTEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 091103-7

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 10 Surface response (grid) and experimental points
(single dots) for total stress sy Fig. 11 Bypass magnetorheological damper [24]

Table 4 Matrix of coefficients calculated to plot the surface
response
aij (mT1)
j the cutting process. Secondly the MR fluid 140-CG shows a
i 0 1 2
0 0.956 0.059 3.84-005
1 0.549 0.0029 0 is 3.5 mm, which explains the lower values compared to those of
2 0.026 0 0
dependence and no magnetic field applied. The response surface
follows the law expressed in Eq. (4), with the coefficient reported
in Table 4.
Also for sy, the interaction between the two main variables is a
positive influence (warping of the surface in Fig. 10). This means
that the combined presence of the magnetic field and the internal
pressure gives a value of sy that is higher than the simple sum of
the two variables considered by themselves.
These are the key outcomes of this work because they clearly
testify the presence of the squeeze strengthen effect for magneto-
rheological fluids, not only in shear mode as demonstrated in Ref.
[8], but also in flow mode. The strong effect of the pressure on the
yield stress of an MR fluid confirms the findings of Ref. [21],
which highlights that sy is not an intrinsic property of the fluid
itself but of the whole system.
In order to assess and validate the procedure adopted, our
results in the case of no internal pressure can be compared with
the datasheet provided by the producer [2] and reported in Fig. 1.
For a given induction field B, using Fig. 1(b), it is possible to
obtain the values of the magnetizing field H expressed in kA/m,
then enter the diagram reported in Fig. 1(a) and calculate the cor-
responding yield stress value. It transpires that the measured yield
stresses are lower than the datasheet values with an average differ-
ence of around 30%. Table 5 shows the numerical values and the
relative errors between the datasheet and the experiments. The dif-
ference between the measured values and the datasheet is quite
high and the reasons are twofold. First a slight magnetization of
the AISI 304L may have occurred. As reported in the technical lit-
erature, the behavior of the AISI 304L steel may become ferro-
magnetic due to plastic deformation [22]. The machining of the
main cylinder may have led to a little plastic deformation during
behavior that is thickness dependent. In Ref. [23], Wereley
showed that the behavior of the fluid is similar to the datasheet
value for a thickness of 0.25 mm. The smaller the thickness, the
higher the yield stress. In the system shown in Fig. 2, the thickness
the manufacturer [1].
Nevertheless the experimental tests show the effects of the in-
ternal pressure on the properties of 140-CG. The yield stress val-
ues under the highest level of pressure tested are eight times the
values with no applied pressure. Since there is a positive interac-
tion between the applied magnetic field and pressure, the effect
can be improved greatly with a higher pressure level. This may be
explained with the magneto-tribological model proposed by
Zhang et al. [8] and is in good accordance with the test carried out
by Tang et al. [7] using aluminum to test the shear properties of
the MR fluid.
This property of the MR fluid may lead to the design of
enhanced MR-based devices without complex architectural
changes by relying on the improved performance of the material
when subjected to an internal pressure. Even though the perform-
ances can be highly improved using the pressure as an additional
parameter, a pressurized MR fluid system has two drawbacks as
well. The first one is the higher off state force, which can be detri-
mental for some application, and the second one is the increased
system complexity due to the presence of sealing rings able to
contain the higher pressure.
For example, this behavior could be used to enhance one of the
first magnetorheological devices presented in the technical litera-
ture: the bypass damper [24] depicted in Fig. 11. This architecture
comprises a reservoir, which can be equipped with an additional
pressurizing system to exploit the advantages of the higher yield
stress of the MR fluids in flow mode under pressure. This kind of
system, which is not common in the industrial world because it is
not compact enough, can be renewed and improved thanks to the
squeeze strengthen effect.

Table 5 Comparison between measured yield stress with no 4 Conclusions

applied pressure and datasheet values [1] This paper has explored the behavior of magnetorheological
fluids in flow mode under the combined action of a magnetic field
Induction B (mT) 0 200 400 800
Magnetic field (kA/m) 0 38 64 123 and internal pressure. An ad hoc experimental apparatus was
Measured sy (kPa) 2.55 10.37 19.13 24.71 designed and developed to characterize the MR fluids. The experi-
sy datasheet (kPa) 3.00 15.40 28.10 44.00 mental tests showed the influence on the shear yield stress both of
Relative error (%) 15 33 32 44 the magnetic field and of the applied pressure. In addition, analy-
sis of variance revealed a positive interaction between the two

091103-8 / Vol. 134, SEPTEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 factors considered in the experimental plan. The yield stress val-
ues under pressure were found to be around five times the values
reached with no pressure. This means that the performances of a
pressurized MR fluid device can be greatly improved even though
the off-state force would be higher than in a traditional system.
These results confirm the findings of other research conducted in
shear mode and provide a straightforward method to exploit MR
fluids with few changes to the system architecture.
References
[1] Jolly, M. R., Bender, J. W., and Carlson, J. D., 1998, “Properties and Applica-
tions of Commercial Magnetorheological Fluids,” Proceedings of the SPIE 5th
Int. Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, San Diego, CA.
[2] Lord Corporation, 2008, “MRF-140CG Magneto-Rheological Fluid,” http://
www.lordfulfillment.com/upload/DS7012.pdf
[3] The MuShield Company, “Ml-Metal,” http://www.mumetal.com/mumetal
_specifications.html
[4] Ginder, J. M., and Davis, L. C., 1994, “Shear Stresses in Magnetorheological
Fluids: Role of Magnetic Saturation,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 65, pp. 3410–3412.
[5] Lord Corporation, 2006, “MRF-122-2ED Magneto-Rheological Fluid,” http://
edge.rit.edu/content/P07307/public/LORD%20MR%20Fluid
[6] Lord Corporation, 1999, “RheoneticTM MagnetoRheological Fluid MRF-
132LD,” ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/users/Luigi.Piroddi/MRD/LORD/MRF132LD.pdf
[7] Tang, X., Zhang, X., Tao, R., and Rong, Y., 2000, “Structure-Enhanced Yield
Stress of Magnetorheological Fluids,” J. Appl. Phys., 87, pp. 2634–2638.
[8] Zhang, X., Gong, X. L., and Zhang, P. Q., 2004, “Study on the Mechanism of
the Squeeze-Strengthen Effect in Magnetorheological Fluids,” J. Appl. Phys.,
96, pp. 2359–2363.
[9] Montgomery, D. C., 1997, Design and Analysis of Experiments, Wiley, New York.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 07/31/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
[10] Dilanda, “Polypac Sealing Systems: Polypac Ring E/GR,” http://www.dilanda.
it/www.dilanda.it/documents/ring.pdf
[11] KELLER AG für Druckmesstechnik, 2000, “Piezoresistive Pressure Trans-
mitter,” http://tinyurl.com/3u7p6or
[12] Bingham, E. C., 1922, Fluidity and Plasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[13] Lange, U., Richter, L., and Zipser, L., 2001, “Flow of Magnetorheological Flu-
ids,” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 12, pp. 161–165.
[14] Zubieta, M., Eceolaza, S., Elejabarrieta, M. J., and Bou-Ali, M. M., 2009,
“Magnetorheological Fluids: Characterization and Modeling of Magnetization,”
Smart Mater. Struct., 18, p. 095019.
[15] David Meeker, 2011, “Finite Element Method Magnetics,” http://www.femm.info/
wiki/HomePage
[16] Forte, P., Paternò, M., and Rustighi, E., 2004, “A Magnetorheological
Fluid Damper for Rotor Applications,” Int. J. Rotating Mach., 10(3), pp. 175–182.
[17] Anderson, M. J., and Whitcomb, P. J., 2007, “DOE Simplified: Practical Tools
for Effective Experimentation,” Productivity Press, New York.
[18] Ierardi, R. F., and Bombard, A., 2009, “Off-State Viscosity and Yield Stress
Optimization of Magnetorheological Fluids: A Mixture Design of Experiments
Approach,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 149, p. 012037.
[19] Stat-Ease, Inc., “Design-Expert 8: The Latest in DOE Software,” http://tinyurl.
com/yers2w6
[20] Mathworks, “Matlab: The Language of Technical Computing,” http://tinyurl.
com/jof3k
[21] Whiteley, J., Gordaninejad, F., and Wang, X., 2010, “Magnetorheological Fluid
Flow in Microchannels,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 77, p. 041011.
[22] Tavares, S. S. M., da Silva, M. R., Neto, J. M., Miraglia, S., and Fruchart, D.,
2002, “Ferromagnetic Properties of Cold Rolled AISI 304L Steel,” J. Magn.
Magn. Mater., 242–245, pp. 1391–1394.
[23] Hu, W., and Wereley, N. M., 2011, “Behavior of MR Fluids at High Shear
Rate,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 25(7), pp. 979–985.
[24] Lindler, J., and Wereley, N. M., 1999, “Analysis and Testing of Electrorheo-
logical Bypass Dampers,” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 10(5), pp. 363–376.
SEPTEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 091103-9