0
Technical Briefs

Shock Isolation Systems Using Magnetorheological Dampers

[+] Author and Article Information
Young-Tai Choi

Smart Structures Laboratory, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Norman M. Wereley1

Smart Structures Laboratory, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742wereley@umd.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Vib. Acoust 130(2), 024503 (Feb 06, 2008) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2775517 History: Received December 18, 2005; Revised July 03, 2007; Published February 06, 2008

This study addresses the feasibility and applicability of a semiactive magnetorheological (MR) shock isolation system to replace a conventional passive shock isolation system for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment. To this end, an analysis of a shock isolation system with an MR damper was theoretically developed. To improve shock mitigation performance, semiactive control strategies such as skyhook and sliding mode control were incorporated into our analysis. Controlled responses of the semiactive MR shock isolation system were simulated and compared with those of a conventional passive shock isolation system for two different representative shock loads for COTS equipment.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Simulated response of the semiactive MR shock isolation system under the representative shock load of Wave form A; (a) acceleration of the mass and (b) damper stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Simulated response of the semiactive MR shock isolation system under the different representative shock load of Wave form B; (a) acceleration of the mass and (b) damper stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison on the shock mitigation performance of the shock isolation systems against the shock load of Wave form A; (a) maximum acceleration of the mass and (b) range of traveling damper stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison on the shock mitigation performance of the shock isolation systems against the shock load of Wave form B; (a) maximum acceleration of the mass and (b) range of traveling damper stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

The SRS of the shock isolation systems; (a) under Wave form A and (b) under Wave form B

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Simulated responses of the shock isolation system for the variation of the time constant of the MR damper under Wave form A; (a) maximum acceleration of the mass and (b) range of traveling damper stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Maximum acceleration of the mass versus the range of traveling damper stroke

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Representative shock load for COTS equipment (Wave form B). Note that Wave form B has very little high frequency component as compared to Wave form A; (a) velocity and (b) acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Representative shock load for COTS equipment (Wave form A); (a) velocity and (b) acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic diagram of the monotube flow-mode-type MR damper

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of the shock isolation system using an MR damper

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