0
Research Papers

A Unified Approach for Flow Analysis of Magnetorheological Fluids

[+] Author and Article Information
Barkan Kavlicoglu

 Advanced Materials and Devices, Inc., Reno, NV 89502

Faramarz Gordaninejad

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557faramarz@unr.edu

Xiaojie Wang

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557

J. Appl. Mech 78(4), 041008 (Apr 13, 2011) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003346 History: Received July 03, 2009; Revised September 27, 2010; Posted January 04, 2011; Published April 13, 2011; Online April 13, 2011

This study presents a new approach for flow analysis of magnetorheological (MR) fluids through channels with various surface topologies. Based on an experimental study an analytical method is developed to predict the pressure loss of a MR fluid as a function of the applied magnetic field strength, volumetric flow rate, and surface topology, without utilizing the concept of shear yield stress. A channel flow rheometer with interchangeable channel walls is built to demonstrate that the pressure loss across the MR fluid flow channel is significantly affected by the channel surface properties. Based on the experimental study it is concluded that a unique shear yield stress cannot be defined for a given MR fluid, since its pressure drop depends on the surface topology of the device. Therefore, a relation for nondimensional friction factor associated with MR fluid channel flow is developed in terms of a modified Mason number and dimensionless surface topology parameters. Using the nondimensional model, the pressure loss for various magnetic fields and volumetric flow rates can be represented by a single master curve for a given channel surface topology without the assumption of a constitutive model for MR fluids.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Two-piece test channel with interchangeable wall sections

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Grooved channel cross-section and dimensions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Pressure drop and displacement profile for 3.2 μm surface roughness for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of pressure drop for plastic 1.6 μm, 3.2 μm, and 12.7 μm rough surfaces for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of pressure drop for nickel 0.8 μm, 1.6 μm, and 12.7 μm rough surfaces for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of pressure drop for steel 1.3 μm, 4.5 μm, and 11.9 μm rough surfaces for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of pressure drop for aluminum grooved channel wall Configurations G0, G1, G2, and G3 for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of pressure drop for aluminum groove Configurations G3, G6, and G9 (same depth but different width) for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of pressure drop for steel grooved channel wall Configurations G0, G1, G2, and G3 for various magnetic fields

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Magnetic field distribution along the channel for a grooved configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Magnetic field strength value distribution along the channel for a grooved configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Nondimensional friction factor of MR fluid as a function of Mason number at the wall for cold-rolled steel surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of the friction factor from the experimental results and Eq. 9 for plastic rough surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of the friction factor from the experimental results and Eq. 9 for nickel rough surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of the friction factor from experimental results and Eq. 9 for a 4.5 μm rough steel surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of the friction factor from the experimental results and Eq. 11 for aluminum grooved surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of the friction factor from the experimental results and Eq. 12 for steel grooved surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Normalized apparent viscosity as a function of Mason number obtained from the MCR-300 shear rheometer

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Normalized apparent viscosity obtained from the MCR-300 shear rheometer tests as a function of modified Mason number

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In