Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

A new magnetorheological damper for seismic control

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2013 Smart Mater. Struct. 22 115003
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/22/11/115003)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 140.254.87.149
This content was downloaded on 09/06/2014 at 08:57

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING

SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003 (12pp)

doi:10.1088/0964-1726/22/11/115003

A new magnetorheological damper for

seismic control
Yang Ding1,2 , Lu Zhang1 , Hai-Tao Zhu1,2 and Zhong-Xian Li1,2
1

School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, Peoples Republic of China
Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety (Tianjin University), Ministry of Education,
Tianjin 300072, Peoples Republic of China
2

E-mail: htzhu@tju.edu.cn

Received 5 April 2013, in final form 16 July 2013

Published 19 September 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/22/115003
Abstract
This paper proposes a new MR damper with bidirectional adjusting damping forces to
enhance the fail-safe property of the MR damper. The structure of the composite magnetic
circuits is improved for the new damper. Four prototype dampers are fabricated and tested by
magnetic field tests and dynamic tests. The magnetic field distribution in the damping path and
the dynamic properties of the dampers with different input currents are obtained. The
Gompertz model is proposed to portray the dynamic behavior of the prototype dampers. The
study shows that, due to the improved structure of composite magnetic circuits, the prototype
dampers can maintain a medium damping force with zero current input. This behavior may
ensure a better fail-safe property and avoid settlement of MR fluid compared with
conventional MR dampers. Furthermore, the minimum and maximum output powers of the
proposed dampers can be obtained at the states of the negative peak and positive peak of
currents inputs, respectively. In addition, the dynamic range of controllable force is wider than
that of conventional MR dampers. The analysis further shows that the proposed Gompertz
model can precisely portray the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of the proposed dampers without
complicated function forms.
(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction

Yang et al investigated a full-scale MR damper with a

maximum damping force of 200 kN and a dynamic range
of 10 [68]. They also proposed both a quasi-static model
and a dynamic model for this damper. Li and Xu designed
and manufactured a double-ended shear mode combined with
a valve mode MRF-04K damper with a maximum damping
force at a full magnetic field strength of 20 kN. The maximum
power required was less than 50 W [9]. Tse and Chang
designed, manufactured, and tested a small-scale rotary type
of MR damper [10]. They also developed a simplified and
relatively accurate inverse dynamic model. This model can
directly relate the damper force to the input voltage. Chooi
and Oyadiji derived a method for designing, modeling and
testing MR dampers using analytical flow solutions [11]. The
effectiveness of this method was validated by simulation and
test results. The test results came from a double-tube MR
damper fabricated at the University of Manchester. Gavin et al
studied the optimal design of MR dampers [12]. They also

Over the past few decades, magnetorheological (MR) dampers

have attracted much attention because they can significantly
reduce the response of structures excited by seismic and
wind loadings. MR dampers possess the excellent inherent
characteristics of stability and adaptability. Much research
has been done on the control strategy and models for MR
dampers. Dyke et al proposed a clipped-optimal control
strategy for controlling MR dampers to reduce structural
responses due to seismic loadings. The strategy was based
on the acceleration feedback. Both numerical simulation and
experiments have been conducted to verify the effectiveness
of MR dampers on the reduction of seismic response [1, 2].
After studying several idealized mechanical models of
controllable fluid dampers, Spencer et al proposed a
phenomenological model which can portray the behavior
of a typical MR damper effectively and precisely [35].
0964-1726/13/115003+12$33.00

c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

developed an algebraic model utilizing the hyperbolic tangent

function.
MR dampers possess the fail-safe property. This property
is one of the most important advantages of MR dampers,
making them superior to fully active control devices. This
is because the power supply of fully active control devices
may fail during the excitation of extreme seismic and wind
loadings. On the other hand, analytical and experimental
studies have already shown that MR dampers can work with
a power supply as passive control viscous dampers do. Even
under such situation, MR dampers can still offer considerable
control effects. When working without a power supply, MR
dampers cannot provide the best performance compared with
other passive states with power supply at fixed magnitude
most times. This limitation shows that there is still an optimal
state for MR dampers to provide the best passive control
effect. Carlson first theoretically discussed this issue and
whether it was possible to use a permanent magnet to bias
a MR fluid valve or device at a mid-range condition [13].
By this means, MR dampers can be designed as the optimal
passive state for achieving better performance without a power
supply. Du et al and Yan et al utilized a similar structure of
composite magnetic circuit to manufacture a MR damper. It is
called an inverse MR damper, and is capable of maintaining
the damping force at its maximum value due to a magnetic
field excited by the incorporated permanent magnet without
current input. After that, the current can be applied to the
accompanying electromagnetic coil to cancel the magnetic
field and decrease the damping force [14, 15]. However,
the test results on the prototype damper showed that the
dynamic range of the damping force provided by the inverse
MR damper is poor, even below 1.5. This dynamic range is
obviously of no practical significance. The results also showed
that the magnetic field excited by the permanent magnet is
difficult to be reduced. This is due to the magnetic saturation
accruing at the magnetic core, which may be the main
limitation of the composite magnetic structures proposed by
the researchers above.
In this study, a new prototype MR damper is proposed.
The proposed MR damper is developed with bidirectional
adjusting damping forces. The structure of the composite
magnetic circuits is improved for the proposed MR damper
to avoid magnetic saturation accruing at the magnetic core.
Therefore, the dynamic range will not be affected compared
to conventional MR dampers. Four prototype dampers are
fabricated and tested by magnetic field tests and dynamic
tests. The magnetic field distribution in the damping path
and the dynamic properties of the dampers with different
input currents are obtained in the tests. In terms of the
obtained test results, the Gompertz model is proposed to
portray the dynamic behavior of the prototype dampers. The
study shows that, due to the improved structure of composite
magnetic circuits, the prototype dampers can maintain a
medium damping force with zero current input. This behavior
may ensure a better fail-safe property and avoid the settlement
of MR fluid compared with conventional MR dampers. The
comparison further shows that the proposed Gompertz model
can precisely portray the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of the
proposed dampers without complicated function forms.

Figure 1. Composite magnetic circuit.

2. The improved structure of composite magnetic

circuit
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed
composite magnetic circuit and figure 2 shows the equivalent
magnetic circuit with different current inputs. In figure 2,
NI and Fm are the magnetomotive forces induced by the
electromagnetic coil and the permanent magnet, respectively.
Rm and Rw represent the reluctance of the permanent magnet
and the damping path, respectively, while R0 represents the
variable reluctance associated with the magnetic saturation at
the magnetic core. 81 , 82 , 83 and 84 are the magnetic flux
according to states with different currents inputs, respectively.
As shown in figure 2, the composite magnetic circuit is
governed by
Fm = 82 R0 + 81 rw + (81 + 82 )Rm
Fm NI1 = 83 (R0 + Rm )
Fm + NI2 = 84 (Rm + Rw ),

(1)
(2)
(3)

where I1 represents the negative peak value of current inputs

and I2 represents the positive peak value of current inputs.
(1)(3) correspond to the working states with current inputs
at zero, negative peak and positive peak, respectively.
Improvements to the structure of the composite magnetic
circuit is proposed herein. One improvement concerns
avoiding the difficulties of demagnetization. The secondary
gap proposed by Carlson [13] incorporated in the composite
magnetic circuit is removed. Instead, by means of controlling
the thickness of the magnetic core and utilizing the magnetic
saturation, the magnetic flux can be restricted when passing
through the magnetic core. When there is no current input,
the magnetic flux of the permanent magnet is supposed to be
proportionally distributed between the circuit passing through
the magnetic core and the other circuit passing through
the damping path. In this way it is possible to maintain a
medium damping force, as shown in figure 2(a). A second
improvement addresses how to obtain the minimum and
maximum output powers of the dampers. When the dampers
work in semi-active mode, the minimum and maximum output
power of the dampers can be obtained at the stage of current
input being at negative peak and positive peak, respectively.
When negative current is applied to the electromagnetic coil,
the operating point of the permanent magnet falls along its
operating line as shown in figure 3. The magnetic flux passing
2

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 2. Equivalent magnetic circuit. (a) Zero. (b) Negative peak. (c) Positive peak.

permanent demagnetization. For this reason, NdFeB

permanent magnets are chosen. Because of high intrinsic
coactivity of NdFeB permanent magnets, the thickness
of the permanent should be restricted to 12 mm
for implementing fully magnetizing and demagnetizing
operations. This performance can be fulfilled within limited
turns of electromagnetic coils and limited magnitude of
currents.
In accordance with the above assumption, multiple design
schemes are proposed. As shown in figures 4(a) and (b),
magnets with axial distribution magnetic field are chosen
for schemes 1 and 2. The permanent magnets are installed
outside the magnetic core in scheme 1, which ensures a
bigger cross section area of the permanent magnets. A
bigger magnetomotive force of the permanent magnets can be
obtained. In scheme 2, the permanent magnets are installed
inside the magnetic core, which means a smaller cross
section area. A relatively smaller magnetomotive force of the
permanent magnets can be produced. Because of the different
structural arrangement, schemes 1 and 2 can satisfy different
requirements of MR dampers depending on the magnitude of
damping force. Besides the former two schemes, permanent
magnets with radial distribution magnetic field are chosen for
scheme 3, as shown in figure 4(c). This scheme is considered
to be a particularly simple scheme. However, the fabrication
of permanent magnets with radial distribution magnetic field
is still complicated and relatively costly.
In this paper scheme 1 is used for the damper, considering
the design purpose and process cost. In order to evaluate
the proposed improved structure of the composite magnetic
circuit, finite element analysis is conducted. Figure 5 shows
the magnetic flux distributions of a single section of the
proposed dampers at the stage of current input being at zero,
negative peak and positive peak values, respectively. Figure 6

Figure 3. Operating point motion of permanent magnet.

through the damping path decreases until the left magnetic

flux completely passes through the magnetic core as shown
in figure 2(b). In contrast, when positive current is applied to
the electromagnetic coil, the operating point of the permanent
magnet rises along its operating line as shown in figure 4.
The magnetic flux passing through the damping path increases
until the maximum value is achieved as shown in figure 2(c).
That is, the minimum, medium and maximum values of
the magnetic flux passing through the damping path can be
obtained at the stage of currents input being at negative peak,
zero and positive peak values, respectively. The corresponding
minimum, medium and maximum output power of the damper
can be also obtained.
As shown in figure 3, in order to avoid magnetic property
variation under repeated magnetizing and demagnetizing
operations, the permanent magnet must possess ideal linear
demagnetization property to eliminate the possibility of

Figure 4. Design schemes. (a) Scheme 1. (b) Scheme 2. (c) Scheme 3.

3

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 5. Distributions of magnetic flux. (a) Zero. (b) Negative peak. (c) Positive peak.

Figure 6. Distributions of magnetic induction. (a) Zero. (b) Negative peak. (c) Positive peak.

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of a MR damper with bidirectional adjusting damping forces. (a) Overall structure. (b) Local structure.

shows the induction of the magnetic distributions. As shown

in figures 5 and 6, the simulated results agree well with the
equivalent magnetic circuit diagram shown in figure 2. It is
noted that when current input is at negative peak value, the
magnetic flux passing through the damping path completely
vanishes. This means that the demagnetization is fully
implemented, which ensures a comparable minimum damping
force and a dynamic range compared with conventional MR
dampers.

Table 1. Geometry parameters of the prototype dampers.

h
(mm)

d
(mm)

D
(mm)

L
(mm)

t
(mm)

Turns of the
electromagnetic coils

20

66

20

500

basic geometry of the proposed damper is consistent with

the large-scale seismic MR fluid damper fabricated by Yang
et al [6] and Lord Company. The major difference is that a
piece of permanent magnet is inserted in the middle of the
piston and the thickness of the left magnetic core is reduced
to a small value, as shown in figure 7(b).
By means of finite element simulation on the electromagnetic field, most of the geometry parameters can be
determined. These geometry parameters are listed in table 1.
An illustration of the geometry parameters is shown in
figure 7(b). Two geometry parameters are very important for

3. Design and fabrication of MR dampers

Following the above conceptual design and theoretical
analysis, four prototype dampers with bidirectional adjusting
damping forces are designed and fabricated. Two conventional
prototype dampers are also fabricated to provide a comparison. Figure 7 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed
MR damper with bidirectional adjusting damping forces. The
4

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 8. The curves of B0 versus h1 .

Figure 10. Photo of prototype dampers.

Figure 9. The curves of B0 versus h1 .

Figure 11. The equipment setup for magnetic field tests.

the proposed improved structure of the composite magnetic

circuit. One is the thickness of the magnetic core h1 which is
related to the residual magnetic induction B0 in the damping
path without current input. The other is the thickness of the
permanent magnet t1 which is related to the peak value of
demagnetization current I1 . Both relationships are obtained
by means of finite element simulation on electromagnetic
field. The numerical results are shown in figures 8 and 9.
As shown in figure 8, permanent magnets with both 1.26 T
and 1.37 T remanence Br are selected and B0 is controlled
by h1 . As 500 mT is considered to be the saturation value
of the selected MR fluid (supplied by Chongqing Instrument
Materials Research Institute of China, denoted MR-J), the
range of B0 from 200 to 300 mT is considered to be
appropriate for the medium output powers of the damper.
Considering the difficulty of simulation process and the
proper value of B0 , 1.5 and 3 mm are selected for h1 . As shown
in figure 9, I1 mainly depends on t1 and two processes with
different h1 and Br are simulated. As a dc power supply with
maximum output power of 30 V/3 A is used for the tests, 2 m
is selected for t1 ensuring that I1 for both processes will not
exceed the maximum output power of the dc power supply.
According to the simulated results, MR dampers with
different Br and h1 are fabricated. Meanwhile, the proposed
improved structure of composite magnetic circuit is applied
to dampers with single piston section and multiple piston
sections. Dampers with different numbers of piston sections
n are fabricated. Serial numbers and other kernel geometry
parameters are listed in table 2. Figure 10 is a photo

Table 2. Serial numbers and kernel geometry parameters.

Serial
number

h1 (mm)

Br (T)

t1 (mm)

MR-B1
MR-B2
MR-B3
MR-B4

1
1
3
3

3
1.5
3
1.5

1.26
1.37
1.26
1.37

2
2
2
2

of fabricated prototype dampers with single piston section

and multiple piston sections, respectively. Two conventional
prototype dampers of the same geometry parameters are
designed to provide a comparison. The two dampers are
denoted as MR-C1 and MR-C2 with single piston section and
multiple piston sections, respectively.

4. Magnetic field tests

In order to examine the effectiveness of the proposed
improved structure of the composite magnetic circuit, a series
of magnetic field tests are conducted utilizing the specially
customized testing device designed by the authors as shown in
figure 11. A LZ-610H teslameter is employed in conjunction
with a dc power supply with a maximum output power of
30 V/3 A. Because the designed thickness of the damping
path for the MR dampers is only 1 mm, a specially customized
Hall probe is adopted with a width of 1 mm and a thickness
5

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 14. Comparison of measured results among a MR-B1

damper, a MR-B2 damper and a MR-C1 damper.
Figure 12. Comparison between measured results and predicted
results using a MR-B1 damper.

of the magnetic induction in the damping path are slightly

lower than the measured values. This difference may be due
to the fact that there is flux leakage in the piston shaft. The
piston shaft is made of nonmagnetic stainless iron. The shaft
becomes slightly magnetizable after machining. Figure 14
shows a comparison of measured values among MR-B1
damper, MR-B2 damper and MR-C1 damper. As shown in
figure 14, the measured values of magnetic induction of
MR-B1 and MR-B2 with zero current input achieve 117 mT
and 215 mT, respectively. However, no magnetic field exists
in the damping path of MR-C1 damper. Due to the permanent
magnet of higher remanence and lower-thickness magnetic
core, the residual magnetic induction in the damping path
of MR-B2 damper is obviously higher than that of MR-B1
damper. This phenomenon indicates that the residual magnetic
induction in the damping path can be changed to be in the
desired state by controlling the remanence of the permanent
magnet and the thickness of the magnetic core. Moreover, the
magnetic induction in the damping path of MR-B1 damper
and MR-B2 damper reach zero with 1.2 A and 2.5 A negative
currents input, respectively. Therefore, full demagnetization
can be achieved with limited negative current input and higher
residual magnetic induction at the state of zero current input.
In addition, the maximum magnetic induction in the damping
paths of MR-B1 damper and MR-B2 damper is almost the
same. The maximum induction is still slightly lower than that
of MR-C1 damper. Regarding magnetic induction increase
rate, the increase rates of MR-B1 damper and MR-B2 damper
are lower than that of MR-C1 damper. There is bigger
reluctance of the permanent magnet installed in MR-B1
damper and MR-B2 damper than that of the pure iron piston
of MR-C1 damper. Also, all measurements are obtained in
air circumstance. This condition is different from the actual
operation states of the damping path being full of MR fluid.
The actual magnetic induction will be much higher due to the
higher permeability of MR fluid. Thus, the improvement is
sufficient for the maximum output power of the dampers.

Figure 13. Comparison between measured results and predicted

results using a MR-B2 damper.

of 0.32 mm. Considering that the length of the Hall probe

is limited, only the MR dampers fabricated with single
piston section are tested, i.e., MR-B1, MR-B2 and MR-C1,
respectively. The positive peak value of the input currents is
2.5 A, which is associated with the maximum output power
of the dc power supply. The negative peak value of the
currents input is related to the full demagnetization of the
damping path. That is, the negative peak value leads to the
disappearance of magnetic flux passing through the damping
path. In order to eliminate the influence of the fabrication error
on the thickness of the damping path around the piston, four
testing points are uniformly distributing around the piston.
The average thickness value of these four testing points is
calculated and chosen as the final result.
Figures 12 and 13 show the magnetic field test results of
MR-B1 and MR-B2 dampers and the comparison between
the measured values and the predicted values, respectively.
As shown in figures 12 and 13, the measured values of
the four testing points around the piston are consistent with
each other. The uniform distribution of the magnetic field
in the damping path shows that the fabrication error can be
negligible and the thickness of the damping path around the
piston is nearly constant. It is also noted that the predictions

5. Dynamic tests
Laboratory tests are further conducted to study the dynamic
performance of the proposed MR dampers with bidirectional
6

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Table 3. Maximum output capacities and dynamic ranges of a MR-B1 damper, a MR-B2 damper and a MR-C1 damper.
Series
number

Zero current input

F0 (kN)

Positive peak currents

input Fmax (kN)

Negative peak current

input Fmin (kN)

F0 /Fmax (%)

Dynamic
range

MR-B1
MR-B2
MR-C1

1.729
2.465
0.661

5.789
6.382
6.285

0.591
0.484

29.9
38.6
10.5

9.8
13.1
9.5

Table 4. Maximum output capacities and dynamic ranges of a MR-B3 damper, a MR-B4 damper and a MR-C2 damper.
Series
number

Zero current input

F0 (kN)

Positive peak current input

Fmax (kN)

Negative peak current

input Fmin (kN)

F0 /Fmax (%)

Dynamic
range

MR-B3
MR-B4
MR-C2

3.893
7.593
2.35

20.295
18.721
21.332

1.171
0.882

19.2
40.6
11.0

17.3
21.2
9.1

Figure 15. The setup of a dynamical test equipment.

Figure 16. Maximum output capacities of a MR-B1 damper, a

MR-B2 damper and a MR-C1 damper.

adjusting damping forces. A MTS-810 electro-hydraulic servo

tester is adopted. A MTS Teststar data acquisition system
and dc power supply are used as shown in figure 15. The
dampers are tested under sinusoidal displacement excitation at
the frequencies of 0.25 Hz, 0.5 Hz and 1 Hz with magnitudes
being 5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm, respectively. Several constant
input currents are adopted. The positive peak value of the
input current is 2.5 A when the maximum output power of
the dc power supply is reached. The negative peak value of
the input current depends on the occurrence of the minimum
output power of the dampers. Figure 16 shows the peak value
curves of damping force versus input current for MR-B1
damper, MR-B2 damper and MR-C1 damper. Figure 17 shows
the peak value curves of damping force versus input current
for MR-B3 damper, MR-B4 damper and MR-C2 damper.
Table 3 gives the maximum output power versus different
current input and the dynamic range for MR-B1 damper,
MR-B2 damper and MR-C1 damper. Table 4 presents the
maximum output power versus different current input and
the dynamic range for MR-B3 damper, MR-B4 damper and
MR-C2 damper.
Comparison is made in these figures and tables. MR-B1
damper and MR-B3 damper with zero current input maintain
20%30% of the maximum output power when currents input
is at positive peak. MR-B2 damper and MR-B4 damper with
zero current input maintain about 40% of the maximum

Figure 17. Maximum output capacities of a MR-B3 damper, a

MR-B4 damper and a MR-C2 damper.

output power when current input is at positive peak. This

increase is due to the permanent magnet of higher remanence
and lower-thickness magnetic core. However, MR-C1 damper
and MR-C2 damper, having conventional magnetic structure,
only maintain about 10% of the maximum output power
when current input is at positive peak. The comparison
shows that the proposed improved structure of composite
magnetic circuit is effective. The output power of MR
7

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 18. Comparison between logistic function and Gompertz

function.

Figure 19. Comparison between dynamic models based on the

Gompertz function and the logistic function.

dampers without current input is significantly increased. This

advantage can ensure a much better fail-safe property and
avoid the settlement of MR fluid. Moreover, because full
demagnetization can be achieved, the proposed MR dampers
with bidirectional adjusting damping forces can reach lower
output power with current input being at negative peak
than that of the conventional MR dampers. The maximum
output powers of all the tested dampers are almost the same.
Therefore, the proposed MR dampers have a bigger dynamic
range. In addition, the negative peak of current input for
MR-B2 damper and MR-B4 damper are higher than those
of MR-B1 damper and MR-B3 damper. This result is in
accordance with that of the above magnetic field tests. Finally,
the maximum output powers of MR dampers with three
piston sections are almost three times as large as those of
the MR dampers with single piston section. This indicates
that the proposed improved structure of composite magnetic
circuit can be applicable to the dampers with either single
piston section or multiple piston sections. The output power
is proportional to piston section numbers.

MR dampers have been proposed by researchers [1923]. Li

and Li proposed a double-sigmoid model with a symmetrical
sigmoid function [24]. The corresponding experimental
verification was also conducted.
This study presents an improved dynamic model denoted
the Gompertz model. This model is adopted to simulate the
dynamic behavior of MR dampers with bidirectional adjusting
damping forces. A Gompertz function, named after Benjamin
Gompertz, is a sigmoid function. It is a mathematical model
of a time series with the growth being slowest at the start and
the end of a period. The left-hand or lower-value asymptote of
the function can be approached much more gradually by the
curve than the upper right-hand or future-value asymptote as
shown in figure 18. This differs from the logistic function. The
logistic function has symmetrical asymptotes. The formula of
Gompertz function is given by
ct

y(t) = aebe ,

(4)

where a is the upper asymptote, c is the growth rate, b and c

are negative numbers and e is Eulers number. Considering
the asymmetry of the Gompertz function, it seems to
be more suitable for dynamic modeling of MR dampers.
Figure 19 shows a comparison between dynamic models
based on the Gompertz function and the logistic function. The
experimental result comes from the MR-B4 damper response
under a 15 mm-amplitude sinusoidal displacement excitation
of the frequency of 0.5 Hz. The magnitude of input current is
2.5 A. As shown in figure 19, the dynamic model based on the
Gompertz function is superior to the dynamic model based on
the logistic function, especially in the regions of low velocity
and high velocity.
The proposed Gompertz model is governed by

6. Dynamic modeling of MR dampers

MR dampers have inherent hysteretic characteristics, which
have to be considered in the dynamic model of MR dampers.
For the stressstrain behavior, the Bingham viscoplastic
model was proposed by Shames and Cozzarelli [16].
Similarly, Stanway et al proposed a simplified mechanical
model, denoted the Bingham model, describing the behavior
of electro-rheological (ER) and MR dampers [17, 18]. The
Bingham model has a simplified function form, which is
applicable for the initial design of MR dampers. However,
this model is not adequate for the control analysis due
to its deficiency in describing the nonlinear hysteretic
characteristics of MR dampers. Spencer et al proposed a
phenomenological model of MR dampers which is able
to precisely portray the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of
MR dampers [3]. This phenomenological model considers
forcedisplacement relationship and forcevelocity relationship using a complicated function form. This limitation prevents the practical application of the phenomenological model
to semi-active control systems. Several different models for

F = 2fd (0.5 e ln 2a

xsgn(x)x0

)sgn(x) + x cd ,

(5)

where fd represents the controllable Coulomb damping force;

cd and control the viscous damping at large velocities
and small velocities, respectively; x and x are piston
displacements and velocities, respectively; and xd is the piston
velocity when the damping force is zero. A total of four
parameters (fd , cd , , and xd ) are needed to characterize the
MR damper. Equation (5) can only simulate the damper
8

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 20. The curves of model parameters versus input current I. (a) fd0 . (b) cd0 . (c) xd0 .

Table 5. Relations between model parameters and input current I.

I
2.5
1.5
0
1.5
2.5

fd0

cd0

xd0

0.6
1.45
6
14.5
15.5

0.003
0.006
0.018
0.027
0.035

5
8
14
19.5
21

xd0 = Ax +

Af Bf

(9)

cd = (kc vmax + tc )cd0

xd = (kx vmax + tx )xd0
= k vmax + t ,

(10)
(11)
(12)

Af Bf

(kf vmax + tf )
1 + e(ICf )/Df
Ac Bc
cd = Ac +
(kc vmax + tc )
1 + e(ICc )/Dc
Ax Bx
xd = Ax +
(kx vmax + tx )
1 + e(ICx )/Dx
= k vmax + t .
fd = Af +

(6)

1 + e(ICf )/Df
Ac Bc
= Ac +
1 + e(ICc )/Dc

fd = (kf vmax + tf )fd0

where kf , tf , kc , tc , kx , tx , k and t are undetermined parameters related to vmax , and their values are obtained though the
linear regression analysis of test results. The regression results
of the MR-B4 damper are listed in table 7.
Finally, a total of 20 parameters (Af , Bf , Cf , Df , kf ,
tf , Ac , Bc , Cc , Dc , kc , tc , Ax , Bx Cx , Dx , kx , tx , k and t ) are
needed to characterize the MR dampers with bidirectional
adjusting damping forces. The Gompertz model with input
current I and maximum velocity vmax is given by

First, the relationships between model parameters and

applied current I are studied. The relationships between model
parameters and applied current I are formulated according to
the MR-B4 damper response. A 15 mm-amplitude sinusoidal
displacement excitation of the frequency of 0.5 Hz was
applied. The magnitude of an input current is 2.5 A. Table 5
presents the results. A logistic function is used to fit the data
as shown in figure 20. From the test results and the fitting
function, is kept constant and the other three parameters are
given by

cd0

(8)

where Af , Bf , Cf , Df , Ac , Bc , Cc , Dc , Ax , Bx Cx and Dx are

undefined parameters depending on the test results and the
fitting results. These parameters are listed in table 6.
Second, the relationships between model parameters and
maximum velocity vmax are introduced. The model parameters
depending on vmax are given by

response when the applied current, frequency and amplitude

are held at a constant level. As MR dampers are always used
as semi-active control devices, the adopted dynamic model
has fluctuating current, frequency and amplitude. Therefore
the parameters are defined as the functions of input current I
and maximum velocity vmax .

fd0 = Af +

Ax Bx
,
1 + e(ICx )/Dx

(7)

Table 6. Fitting results of fd0 , cd0 and xd0 .

Af

Bf

Cf

Df

0.76

15.78

0.31

0.52

Ac
0.007

Bc

Cc

Dc

Ax

Bx

0.052

0.771

1.962

2.23

22.64

Cx
0.39

Table 7. Fitting results of undetermined parameters related to vmax .

kf

tf

0.0013

0.8784

kc
0.0141

tc

kx

tx

2.3376

0.0093

0.1123

0.0026

0.6568

Dx

1.15

0.9

(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 21. The behavior of a MR-B4 damper under a sinusoidal excitation of 15 mm-amplitude and 1 Hz-frequency.
(a) Forcedisplacement curve. (b) Forcevelocity curve.

Figure 22. The behavior of a MR-B4 damper under a sinusoidal excitation of 10 mm-amplitude and 0.5 Hz-frequency.
(a) Forcedisplacement curve and (b) forcevelocity curve.
Table 8. Identification results of a MR-B1 damper.
Af

Bf

Cf

Df

Ac

Bc

Cc

Dc

Ax

Bx

Cx

Dx

kf

tf

kc

tc

kx

tx

0.49 4.90 0.45 0.38 0.0008 0.0104 0.315 0.66 4.79 12.07 0.35 0.40 0.0023 0.78 0.026 3.43 0.0095 0.12 0.0034 0.49

A comparison between the measured and predicted

results of the MR-B4 damper is plotted in figures 21 and
22. The red solid line and the black dashed line represent
the measured results and the predicted results, respectively.
The results in the cases of 15 mm-amplitude sinusoidal
displacement excitation at 1 Hz and 10 mm-amplitude
sinusoidal displacement excitation at 0.5 Hz are plotted.
The modeling of the MR-B1 damper is conducted using
the same method. The identification results of the MR-B1
damper are listed in table 8. The results in the cases of
15 mm-amplitude sinusoidal displacement excitation at 1 Hz
and 10 mm-amplitude sinusoidal displacement excitation at
1 Hz are presented in figures 23 and 24.
As shown in figures 2124, the Gompertz model can trace
the measured results well. The Gompertz model can portray
the nonlinear dynamic characteristics of the proposed MR
dampers precisely using a relatively simplified function form
compared with the phenomenological model [3].

tested. An improved structure of the composite magnetic

circuit is proposed. Performance tests, including magnetic
field tests and dynamic tests, were conducted in order to
verify the effectiveness of the proposed improved structure.
For practical application, a Gompertz model is proposed and
adopted to describe the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of the
proposed MR damper.
The test results show that, due to the improved
structure, the proposed dampers are capable of maintaining
a medium damping force with zero currents input. This
advantage may ensure a better fail-safe property and avoid
settlement of the MR fluid compared with conventional
MR dampers. Furthermore, the minimum and maximum
output powers of the dampers can be obtained when input
currents reach negative peak and positive peak values,
respectively. Moreover, the dynamic range of controllable
force is even larger than that of conventional MR dampers.
Meanwhile, by controlling the remanence of the permanent
magnet and the thickness of the magnetic core, the residual
magnetic induction in the damping path can be changed
to accommodate the actual application requirements. The
study further shows that the proposed improved structure of

7. Conclusions
In this study, four prototype MR dampers with bidirectional
adjusting damping forces were designed, fabricated and
10

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

Figure 23. The behavior of a MR-B1 damper under a sinusoidal excitation of 15 mm-amplitude and 1 Hz-frequency.
(a) Forcedisplacement curve. (b) Forcevelocity curve.

Figure 24. The behavior of a MR-B1 damper under a sinusoidal excitation of 10 mm-amplitude and 1 Hz-frequency.
(a) Forcedisplacement curve. (b) Forcevelocity curve.

composite magnetic current is applicable to dampers with

either single piston section or multiple piston sections. The
proposed Gompertz model can precisely portray the nonlinear
hysteretic behavior of the proposed dampers with a simple
function form.

[5] Spencer B F Jr and Soong T T 1999 New applications and

development of active, semi-active and hybrid control
techniques for seismic and non-seismic vibration in the
USA Proc. Int. Post-SMiRT Conf. Seminar on Seismic
Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of
Vibration of Structures (Cheju, Aug. 1999)
[6] Yang G, Ramallo J C, Spencer B F Jr, Carlson J D and
Sain M K 2000 Large-scale MR fluid dampers: dynamic
performance considerations Proc. Int. Conf. Advances in
Structure Dynamics (Hong Kong, 2000) pp 3418
[7] Yang G, Jung H J and Spencer B F Jr 2001 Dynamic model of
full-scale magnetorheological dampers for civil engineering
applications Proc. US-Japan Workshop Smart Structures for
Improved Seismic Performance in Urban Regions (Seattle,
2001) pp 21324
[8] Yang G, Spencer B F Jr, Carlson J D and Sain M K 2002
Large-scale MR fluid dampers: modeling and dynamic
performance considerations Eng. Struct. 24 30923
[9] Li Z X and Xu L H 2005 Performance tests and hysteresis
model of MRF-04K damper J. Struct. Eng. 131 13036
[10] Tse T and Chang C C 2004 Shear-mode rotary
magnetorheological damper for small-scale structural
control experiments J. Struct. Eng. 130 90411
[11] Chooi W W and Oyadiji S O 2008 Design, modeling and
testing of magnetorheological (MR) dampers using
analytical flow solutions Comput. Struct. 86 47382
[12] Gavin H, Hoagg J and Dobossy M 2001 Optima design of MR
dampers Proc. US-Japan Workshop Smart Structures for
Improved Seismic Performance in Urban Regions (Seattle)
pp 22536

Acknowledgments
The present work is jointly supported by the Specialized
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education
of China under Grant No. 20110032110042 and the National
Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) under Grant
No. 2011CB013606.

References
[1] Dyke S J, Spencer B F Jr, Sain M K and Carlson J D 1996
Modeling and control of magnetorheological dampers for
seismic response reduction Smart Mater. Struct. 5 56575
[2] Dyke S J, Spencer B F Jr, Sain M K and Carlson J D 1998 An
experimental study of MR dampers for seismic protection
Smart Mater. Struct. 7 693703
[3] Spencer B F Jr, Dyke S J, Sain M K and Carlson J D 1997
Phenomenological model of magnetorheological dampers
J. Eng. Mech. 123 2308
[4] Spencer B F Jr and Sain M K 1997 Controlling buildings: a
new frontier in feedback IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 17 1935
Special Issue on Emerging Technology
11

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 115003

Y Ding et al

[19] Gavin H P, Hanson R D and Filisko F E 1996

Electrorheological dampers, part 1: analysis and design
J. Appl. Mech. 63 66975
[20] Gavin H P, Hanson R D and Filisko F E 1996
Electrorheological dampers, part 2: testing and modeling
J. Appl. Mech. 63 67682
[21] Kamath G M, Hurt M K and Wereley N M 1996 Analysis and
testing of Bingham plastic behavior in semi-active
electrorheological fluid dampers Smart Mater. Struct.
5 57690
[22] Wereley N M and Pang L 1998 Nondimensional analysis of
semi-active electrorheological and magnetorheological
dampers using approximate parallel plate models Smart
Mater. Struct. 7 73243
[23] Wereley N M, Pang L and Kamath G M 1998 Idealized
hysteresis modeling of electrorheological and
magnetorheological dampers 1998 J. Intell. Mater. Syst.
Struct. 9 6429
[24] Li X L and Li H N 2006 Double-sigmoid model for
magnetorheological damper and corresponding experiment
verification J. Vib. Eng. 19 16872 (in Chinese)

[13] Carlson J D 2002 Permanent-Electromagnet Systems

www.lord.com
[14] Du X L, Niu X D, Liao W Z and Jia P 2006 Design and
experimental studies on the inverse control
magneto-rheological damper J. Vib. Shock 25 4953
(in Chinese)
[15] Yan W M, Ge H J, Dong B and Ji J B 2007 Test of
reverse-effect MR damper Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib.
27 1716 (in Chinese)
[16] Shames I H and Cozzarelli F A 1992 Elastic and Inelastic
Stress Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
pp 1202
[17] Stanway R, Sproston J L and Stevens N G 1985 Non-linear
identification of an electrorheological vibration damper
IFAC Identification and System Parameter Estimation
pp 195200
[18] Stanway R, Sproston J L and Stevens N G 1987 Non-linear
modeling of an electro-rheological vibration damper
J. Electrostat. 20 16784

12