Damping Performance Analysis of Magnetorheological Damper Based on Multiphysics Coupling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aimed to evaluate the performance of the magnetorheological (MR) damper by considering multi-physics coupling. First, mechanical model, electromagnetic field model, flow field model, and structural stress field model of MR damper were individually derived and successively combined in the simulation study. Then, the simulation analysis of electromagnetic field, flow field, structural stress field, and hysteretic behavior is separately carried out to verify the numerical model. The last part of the manuscript verified the proposed MR damper model experimentally; a prototyping damper was tested using the dynamic test rig and the experimental results were compared with the numerical model.

 

Overall, the manuscript is very organized, well-written, and -presented. The study describes a multi-physics coupling simulation for the MR damper and shows the accuracy, yet the manuscript lacks the comparison between the single-field analysis and the multi-field analysis. Therefore, some revisions are needed before it is accepted for publication in the journal. The followings are the comments or issues existing in this version.

 

1. The authors describe the viscous induced damping force in shear and valve mode listed in Equation (3) and Equation (4). Some references should be included for the reader to understand the equations and their physical background.
2. Similarly, the authors are encouraged to provide some references for the magnetically induced damping force in shear and valve mode listed in Equation (6) and Equation (7).
3. In Section 3.2, the parameters σ and ν are undefined. Please add some description about the two parameters.
4. Is the parameters u In Equation (21) also the flow velocity, u₁. If yes, please correct the equation.
5. In Section 3.3, the parameter I is undefined. Please add a detailed description about this parameter.
6. Most of the equations show the τ_y and m_ρ are a function of B; however, those in Equation (24) and Equation (35) aren’t. Please make all the parameters consistent.
7. In Section 4.1, Table 1 is mentioned but it is missed until Section 5. The table should be provided immediately when it’s mentioned.
8. The value of the hottest color in Figure 11(a), Figure 11(b), and Figure 11(c) is different, especially Figure 11(a). This makes readers hard to compare the velocity distribution. The authors are suggested to select the same color bar for these figures.
9. In the simulation study, the viscous and magnetically induced damping force in shear and valve mode can be easily separated. The authors should discuss the contribution of different mechanism under the different cases. This provides useful information for readers to understand the behavior of a MR damper.
10. How the authors deal with the inertial force (or weight) occurred in the dynamic performance, especially the vertical installation, should be described.
11. The authors are encouraged to provide some explanation about the zigzag observed in the hysteresis loop.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is related to the multi-physics-based modeling for MR dampers, including mechanical model, electromagnetic field model, flow field model, and structural stress field model. The topic is interesting and the research work is solid. Basically, it can be considered for journal publication after a minor revision. 

1. Mechanical model, electromagnetic field model, flow field model, and structural stress field model are important for the precise model for the MR damper. Then how about the temperature factor? As far as I could see, it would be one of the most significant factors for the modeling and optimization, should it be taken into the model?
2. As the developed MR shock absorber prototype is double-ended, then why the deformations happen at the top-left-hand and down-right-hand in figure 19?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for a presentation of the damping performance analysis of magnetorheological damper based on multi-physics coupling.

Questions and remarks:

1. Equations (3), (4), (6), (7),  are your own or from scientific articles? Explain parameters and symbols in all equations in your paper.
2. What kind of a magnetorheological fluid is used in your tests?
3. Write more about errors from the experiments results carried out on the dynamic performance test rig.
4. Your test object is a prototype with a magnetorheological fluid. Any problems with a seeling your test objects after experiments?
5. "Experimental results show that the proposed damper can output appropriate damping force and has a wide dynamic range, which can meet the requirements of automotive shock absorber." Write more about the requirements of automotive shock absorber and explain why your proposed damper in proper to use in the automotive shock absorber. Your test object is the prototype. Plany tests are required to obtain a final product.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this work, a new simulation method of MR damper considering multi-physics coupling was proposed. In order to accurately predict the performance of the MR damper, a multi-physics analysis method that replaces the existing single-field analysis method was proposed. The superiority of the proposed method was confirmed by comparing the performance prediction results obtained in the simulation with the experimental results. Followings are comments for this paper.

1. The material properties of the used MR fluid need to be presented.

2. In the title of Figure 17, the description of the figure (b) is omitted.

3. According to the simulation results, the maximum damping force is about 1200N, is the damping force not enough to be used as a damper for automobiles?

4. The structural dimensions of the proposed damper were presented in Chapter 5, but it seems necessary to present them in Chapter 4, where the simulation model and results are provided. It is difficult to understand simulation results such as damping force without information on the size of the damper.

5. In this paper, a complex multi-physics analysis technique for predicting the performance of the MR damper is proposed, and the superiority of the proposed method is confirmed by comparing it with the experimental results. However, in order to confirm the superiority of the proposed method, it is necessary to compare the proposed multi-physics analysis results, the existing single field analysis results, and the experimental results together.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The revision and supplementation for the reviewers' comments were well performed, and the quality of the revised manuscript was much improved.