Evaluation of a multi-drum magnetorheological brake via finite element analysis considering number of drums and fluid gap selection in optimization
Source abstract
Abstract
Under the same excitation, the multi-drum magnetorheological brake has a nonuniform distribution of flux density over fluid gaps. Each fluid gap has its own flux density and shear area. Therefore, the number of drums and the fluid gap selection in optimization are two important parameters to be considered in a multi-drum brake design. When a fluid gap is selected in optimization, the brake is optimized to reach the maximum required flux density over this gap. This article focuses on evaluating the influence of these two parameters on the performance of the multi-drum brake. According to the number of drums and the fluid gap selection in optimization, the brakes were marked and optimized via finite element analysis. After all optimal designs were obtained, the performance in terms of torque, volume, mass, and power consumption as well as the torque–volume, torque–mass, and torque–power ratios were calculated and compared. Based on the evaluation results, suggestions on the number of drums and the fluid gap selection in optimization are given.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Vibration Control and Rheological Fluids · Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems · Vibration and Dynamic Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
The State Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, Jiangsu Key Lab of Remote Measurement and Control, School of Instrument Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, P.R. China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s12239-011-0105-x10.1007/s12239-011-0105-x ↗
2. 10.1109/TMECH.2008.201093410.1109/TMECH.2008.2010934 ↗
3. 10.1109/TMECH.2011.215120410.1109/TMECH.2011.2151204 ↗
4. 10.1088/0964-1726/19/3/03502910.1088/0964-1726/19/3/035029 ↗
5. 10.1177/1045389X1348302610.1177/1045389X13483026 ↗
6. 10.1088/0964-1726/19/3/03502310.1088/0964-1726/19/3/035023 ↗
7. 10.1109/AIM.2011.602713810.1109/AIM.2011.6027138 ↗
8. 10.1177/1045389X1350833210.1177/1045389X13508332 ↗
9. 10.1109/ICRA.2014.690759910.1109/ICRA.2014.6907599 ↗
10. Ma H, Liao WH (2015) Design optimization of a magnetorheological brake in powered knee orthosis. In: Proceeding of SPIE Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated Systems 2015, San Diego, CA, 9–12 March, pp. 94311J(94311J-1∼94311J-8). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
11. 10.1109/TMECH.2018.282006510.1109/TMECH.2018.2820065 ↗
12. 10.1177/1045389X0707946310.1177/1045389X07079463 ↗
13. 10.1088/0964-1726/21/1/01501210.1088/0964-1726/21/1/015012 ↗
14. 10.1088/0964-1726/23/1/01502010.1088/0964-1726/23/1/015020 ↗
15. 10.1088/0964-1726/17/2/02502410.1088/0964-1726/17/2/025024 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.03510.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.035 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2012.05.00710.1016/j.mechatronics.2012.05.007 ↗
18. 10.1109/TOH.2017.270932110.1109/TOH.2017.2709321 ↗
19. 10.1177/1045389X1877087810.1177/1045389X18770878 ↗
20. 10.1088/0964-1726/23/2/02502810.1088/0964-1726/23/2/025028 ↗
21. 10.1177/095440701557420410.1177/0954407015574204 ↗
22. 10.12989/sss.2016.17.2.27510.12989/sss.2016.17.2.275 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.02.00610.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.02.006 ↗
24. 10.1109/TMECH.2010.207421010.1109/TMECH.2010.2074210 ↗
25. 10.1177/1045389X1875818610.1177/1045389X18758186 ↗
26. 10.1088/0964-1726/24/8/08500910.1088/0964-1726/24/8/085009 ↗
27. 10.1177/104538918770740.10.1177/104538918770740. ↗
28. 10.1177/1045389X1667902210.1177/1045389X16679022 ↗
29. 10.1088/1361-665X/aa771c10.1088/1361-665X/aa771c ↗
30. 10.1177/1045389X0201301001210.1177/1045389X02013010012 ↗
31. 10.1177/1045389X1243673510.1177/1045389X12436735 ↗