EMI2019

Novel Eddy Current

Damper

Manuel Miranda
Numerical Analysis and Design Introduction

Optimization of a Novel Eddy Current Theoretical Model

Experimental
Damper Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications
Manuel Miranda Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
Assistant Professor, Department of Engineering, Hofstra University

EMI 2019
Engineering Mechanics Institute Conference
June 18–21, 2019
Caltech, Pasadena, California
 EMI2019
Background and Motivation Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction
Background and Motivation
Advantages and Limitations

Theoretical Model
I Passive energy dissipation systems such as dampers (e.g., Experimental
Verification
friction, viscous-fluid, viscoelastic, hysteretic) are widely Prototype Design
used to control vibrations of structures Optimization

Comparisons and Target

I We’re proposing a novel Eddy Current Damper (ECD) Applications

design as an alternative to traditional dampers Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
I Target applications are civil engineering structures that
require enhanced damping reliability (e.g., due to remote
location, harsh environment, etc.)
I Frequency range of interest 0.1–10 Hz
 EMI2019
Background and Motivation Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction
Background and Motivation
Advantages and Limitations

I ECDs consist of two basic components Theoretical Model

Experimental
1. A non-magnetic electrical conductor Verification
2. An array of one or several permanent magnets (PMs) Prototype Design
Optimization
I Any relative motion of the two components results in
Comparisons and Target
electromagnetic interactions, damping forces, and energy Applications

dissipation through Joule heating of the conductor, without Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
any mechanical contact
I ECD proof-of-concept and promising numerical and
experimental results were presented at EMI 2018
I In this talk, we present further numerical investigations and
design optimizations, and propose a prototype design
 EMI2019
Advantages and Limitations of ECDs Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Advantages Introduction
Background and Motivation
Advantages and Limitations
I No fluid leakage
Theoretical Model
I Minimal mechanical contact between moving parts, so Experimental
Verification
negligible problems with friction and wear
Prototype Design
I No material degradation over time Optimization

Comparisons and Target

I Consistent performance over wide range of ambient Applications

(especially cold) temperatures Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
I Efficient dissipation of generated heat
I No external power or electronic devices required

Limitations
I Relatively small damping forces per unit volume of device
I Maximum size of PMs limited by current magnet fabrication
technologies
 EMI2019
How to Mitigate Limitations Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction
I Use axisymmetric geometry Background and Motivation
Advantages and Limitations
and arrange PMs using the Theoretical Model
Halbach array concept, to Experimental
orient the intensity and Verification

direction of the magnetic field STRUCTURAL SLEEVE

AND MAGNETIC SHIELD
Prototype Design
Optimization
in a way that maximizes the CYLINDRICAL
CONDUCTOR
MAXIMUM
STROKE
Comparisons and Target
damping force Applications

Conclusions
I Use strong
Supplemental Slides
neodymium-iron-boron PMs FLEXIBLE
PERMANENT MAGNETS
AND POLE PIECES ATTACHED
LINEAR
BEARING SPHERICAL
BEARING
BELLOW TO MOVING SHAFT

and mu-metal magnetic shield EFFECTIVE CONDUCTOR LENGTH

I ECDs have potential for

achieving damping densities
(damping coefficient per unit
volume) comparable to those
of silicone fluid-based viscous
dampers
 EMI2019
Induced Eddy Currents and Magnetic Fields Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model
Induced Eddy Currents and
Bind Magnetic Fields

J J Damping Forces

Experimental
Bext Bext Bext Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications
J J Conclusions
Bind
Supplemental Slides

I Left: Conductor (grey cylinder) is moving up relative to the static

PM
I Center: The relative motion induces eddy currents in the
conductor (Faraday’s law)
I Right: The eddy currents induce a secondary magnetic field
(Ampère’s law), which interferes with the primary magnetic field
 EMI2019
Damping Forces Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model
Induced Eddy Currents and
Magnetic Fields

I We ignore the secondary Damping Forces

Experimental
magnetic field so B ≈ Bext Bz Verification

Bz J Br
and the analysis is greatly Prototype Design
Optimization
JxBz
simplified Br
Comparisons and Target
J JxBr
Applications
I For axisymmetric geometry, JxBr
Conclusions
radial force components Supplemental Slides
cancel out, tangential Bz
Br
components are identically Bz
JxBz J
zero, and vertical J
JxBr
components all oppose the Br
JxBr
direction of the motion
 EMI2019
Damping Forces Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

I Damping force Theoretical Model

Induced Eddy Currents and
Magnetic Fields
Z z2 Z r2 
Damping Forces

F = −2πσ Br (r , z)2 r dr dz v Experimental

z1 r1 Verification

Prototype Design
I Damping coefficient Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications
Z z2 Z r2 
c = 2πσ Br (r , z)2 r dr dz Conclusions

z1 r1 Supplemental Slides

I Integral depends only on Br not on Bz

I To maximize c we only need to maximize Br
I Numerical evaluation of the integral is straightforward once
the primary magnetic field of the PM is known (typically
requires magnetostatic FE analysis)
 EMI2019
Measured vs. Predicted Damping Coefficients Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Aluminum ECD

I “Measured” coefficients 56.00

Introduction

Theoretical Model
calculated from areas 54.00

Experimental

Damping Coefficient [N-s/m]

52.00

enclosed by hysteresis loops Verification

50.00

of sinusoidal tests Prototype Design

Optimization
48.00

I “Predicted” coefficients 46.00

Comparisons and Target
Applications
calculated by numerical 44.00
Conclusions
integration of Br2 (FE 1.00E−03 1.00E−02
Magnetic Reynolds Number
1.00E−01

Supplemental Slides
solution) Predicted c = 51 N.s/m
I For Rm ≤ 0.02, measured
Copper ECD

coefficients are close to 130.00

constant and within 6% of 125.00

Damping Coefficient [N-s/m]

predictions 120.00

115.00

I For Rm > 0.02, a clearly

110.00

decreasing trend is observed 105.00

I Largest discrepancy is 100.00

1.00E−03 1.00E−02 1.00E−01

approx. 14% for Rm = 0.09 Magnetic Reynolds Number

Predicted c = 121 N.s/m

 EMI2019
Prototype Design Constraints Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification
I Total length of ECD cylinder fixed at 24” Prototype Design
Optimization
I PM disks limited to 4” diameter and 1/2” thickness, to Design Parameters

ensure commercial availability and mitigate magnetic Magnetostatic FE Analysis

Design Optimization

shielding requirements Comparisons and Target

Applications
I Magnetic field measured 1” away from outer surface of ECD Conclusions
must not exceed 0.0110 T Supplemental Slides

I This necessitates an outer shield of material with very high

magnetic permeability (e.g. mu-metal) to contain the
magnetic field
 EMI2019
Prototype Design Parameters Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction
I Halbach array of PMs (assumed static) Theoretical Model
I Total of 39 disks: OD 4”, ID 1”, thickness 1/2” Experimental
I 19 PMs: NdFeB grades between N40 (remanence=1.26 T) Verification

Prototype Design
and N52 (remanence=1.44 T) Optimization
I 20 low carbon steel pole pieces Design Parameters
Magnetostatic FE Analysis
I Inner copper cylinder (assumed moving) Design Optimization

I Grade 110 (σ = 5.80 · 107 S/m) Comparisons and Target

Applications
I Cylinder ID 4.04”, OD between 4.25” and 6” Conclusions

I Outer mu-metal cylinder (assumed static) Supplemental Slides

I Relative permeability µr = 82910

I Thickness between 1/8” and 1/4”
I Fixed 0.02” air gap between OD of magnets and ID of inner
copper cylinder
I Fixed 0.25” air gap between OD of inner copper cylinder
and ID of outer mu-metal cylinder
 EMI2019
Magnetostatic FE Analysis Novel Eddy Current
Damper

To Calculate Magnetic Field Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization
Design Parameters
Magnetostatic FE Analysis
Design Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

Conclusions

Supplemental Slides

Axisymmetric FE model of ECD with Details of FE mesh

absorbing boundary
 EMI2019
Magnetostatic FE Analysis Novel Eddy Current
Damper

To Calculate Magnetic Field Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model
Axisymmetric geometry of ECD, Halbach array of PMs, and
Experimental
mu-metal shield orient the intensity and direction of the Verification

magnetic field in a way that maximizes the damping force Prototype Design
Optimization
Design Parameters
Magnetostatic FE Analysis
Design Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

Conclusions

Supplemental Slides

Detail of FE solution

Contour lines of FE solution

 EMI2019
Optimal Prototype Design Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

I Optimization performed to Introduction

ECD Damping Density
Theoretical Model
maximize damping density 2000

N40
N52 Experimental
(damping coefficient per

Damping Density [kN-s/m4]

1500 Verification

unit volume of ECD) Prototype Design

1000 Optimization
subject to design Design Parameters

constraints 500
Magnetostatic FE Analysis
Design Optimization

I Optimal design parameters 0 Comparisons and Target

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Applications
obtained Inner Copper Cylinder OD [inches]

Conclusions
I NdFeB grade N52
Supplemental Slides
I Inner copper cylinder ID ECD Damping Coefficient
20000

4.04”, OD 4.75” N40

N52
Damping Coefficient [N-s/m]

I Outer mu-metal cylinder 15000

thickness 1/8”, OD 5.5” 10000

I Optimal damping density

5000

1711 KN-s/m4 and

corresponding damping 0
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Inner Copper Cylinder OD [inches]
coefficient 16 KN-s/m
 EMI2019
Comparisons to Benchmarks Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

I Damping density of optimal ECD prototype is 1711 Prototype Design

Optimization
KN-s/m4 Comparisons and Target
Applications
I Higher than 1061 KN-s/m4 , highest experimentally verified Conclusions
damping density for an ECD (Zuo et al., 2011) Supplemental Slides

I 62% of 2746 KN-s/m4 , damping density of large-scale

silicone-fluid viscous dampers used in the seismic retrofit of
the San Bernardino Country Medical Center (total volume
0.33 m3 , damping coefficient 906 KN-s/m; Taylor, 2003)
 EMI2019
Target Applications Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

I Civil engineering structures Experimental

Verification

that require enhanced Prototype Design

Optimization
damping reliability
Comparisons and Target
(e.g., due to remote Applications

location, harsh Conclusions

environment, etc.) Supplemental Slides

Photo credit: Maurer Söhne

I Most effective when
relatively small-volume
ECDs need to be
distributed throughout the
structure
I Most effective for vibration
frequencies below 5 Hz

Photo credit: Maurer Söhne

 EMI2019
Conclusions Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

I A theoretical model for the proposed ECD has been derived Theoretical Model

Experimental
and verified by experiments Verification

I Axisymmetric geometry, Halbach array of PMs, and Prototype Design

Optimization
magnetic shield orient the intensity and direction of the Comparisons and Target
Applications
magnetic field in a way that maximizes the damping force
Conclusions
I Numerical studies and design optimization efforts were Supplemental Slides
perfomed to obtain an optimal prototype design with
damping density of 1711 KN-s/m4
I Higher than ECD with highest experimentally verified
damping density
I About 60% of benchmark silicone-fluid viscous damper
density
I Design constraints and range of design parameters were
chosen to ensure constructibility of prototype
 EMI2019
Acknowledgements Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

Prototype Design
I Hofstra SEAS for the financial support provided through a Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Faculty Research and Development Grant (DRDG) Applications

I Ms. T. LongJohn and Mr. K. Mackenzie for their invaluable Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
assistance with the fabrication and testing of the test
prototypes
I Profs. A. Pesch, J. Vaccaro, and E. Segal for many fruitful
discussions
 EMI2019
Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

THANK YOU Applications

Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
 EMI2019
Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

SUPPLEMENTAL SLIDES Applications

Conclusions

Supplemental Slides
 EMI2019
Real-World Example of ECD Combined with Novel Eddy Current
Damper

TMD (Lu et al., 2016) Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

Conclusions

1,000 ton pendulum-type TMD (Lu et al., Supplemental Slides

2016)

PMs on underside of TMD (photo

Shanghai Tower (photo credit: Baycrest) credit: Noah Sheldon)
 EMI2019
Relative Magnitude of Induced Magnetic Field Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model
I Interference between primary and secondary magnetic fields
Experimental
is complex Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization
∂B 1 2
= ∇ × (v × B) + ∇ B Comparisons and Target
∂t σµ Applications

Conclusions
where v, σ, and µ are the relative velocity, electrical Supplemental Slides

conductivity, and magnetic permeability of the moving

conductor, respectively; and B = Bext + Bind
I If relative motion is “slow,” secondary field Bind is small and
dissipates quickly, so we can ignore it in comparison to
primary field Bext
I Non-dimensional magnetic Reynolds number (Rm ) is used to
quantify the relative strength of Bind
 EMI2019
Magnetic Reynolds Number Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction
I Non-dimensional magnetic Reynolds number Rm Theoretical Model

quantifies the relative strength of primary and secondary Experimental

Verification
magnetic fields Prototype Design
I For the general case, Rm = τ /T Optimization

Comparisons and Target

I τ = σµL2 is the magnetic diffusion time Applications
I T is the characteristic time-scale of the motion Conclusions

I σ and µ are the electrical conductivity and magnetic Supplemental Slides

permeability of the conductor, L is the characteristic

length-scale of the device
I When Rm  1 the secondary field diffuses very quickly and
can be ignored
I For sinusoidal motion, T = 1/f and Rm = σµL2 f
I Rm is thus proportional to frequency, not amplitude of the
sinusoidal motion (confirmed by our experiments)
 EMI2019
Damping Forces Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
I We ignore the secondary magnetic field so B ≈ Bext and the Verification

analysis is greatly simplified Prototype Design

Optimization

I Eddy current density (Faraday’s law and Ohm’s law) Comparisons and Target
Applications

Conclusions
J = σ (v × B) Supplemental Slides

I Force acting on the conductor occupying volume V at any

instant (Lorentz’s force law)
Z
F= J × B dV
V
 EMI2019
Test Prototypes Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Manuel Miranda

1-11/16" 1-15/32" 1-17/32"

Introduction
Symm.
1
2
5
Theoretical Model
I Two conducting materials Experimental

OD 2.25” (*)
OD 1.00” (*)

ID 1.04” (*)
Verification
I Copper 110
Prototype Design
(σ = 5.80 · 107 S/m) 4

3 Optimization
I Aluminum 6061 3" 3" Comparisons and Target
(σ = 2.46 · 107 S/m) Applications
12"

(*) Fabrication Tolerances:

I Halbach array of NdFeB
grade N40 ring magnets
(remanence=1.26 T) and
low carbon steel ring pieces
OD of Item 1: 2.25” +/-0.034”
Conclusions
ID of item 1: 1.04” +0.001”, -0.000”
OD of item 3: 1.00” +/-0.004”
Sketch SK-101-Rev 01
Date: 2/19/17
Not to scale Supplemental Slides

ID 0.5" (*)

OD 1 " (*)
I 0.02” nominal air gap
between OD of magnets Ring Detail
(*) Tolerance +/-0.004”
5/16” thick, low carbon 3/8” thick, axially magnetized

and ID of conductor steel ring piece (x5) ring magnet (x4)

I Similar prototypes used by

Ebrahimi (2009) 4-15/32" 5 x 5/16” + 4 x 3/8” = 3-1/16"

12"
4-15/32"

Item 3
Magnet Assembly Sketch SK-104-Rev 01
Note: Red arrows indicate Date: 2/19/17
direction of magnetization Not to scale
 EMI2019
Description of Prototypes Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Array of ring magnets sliding relative to cylindrical conductor Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model
1-11/16" 1-15/32" 1-17/32"
Experimental
Verification
Symm.
1 Prototype Design
2
5 Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

OD 2.25” (*)
OD 1.00” (*)

ID 1.04” (*)
Conclusions

Supplemental Slides

3" 3"

12"

(*) Fabrication Tolerances:

OD of Item 1: 2.25” +/-0.034”
ID of item 1: 1.04” +0.001”, -0.000”
OD of item 3: 1.00” +/-0.004”
Sketch SK-101-Rev 01
Date: 2/19/17
Not to scale
 EMI2019
Description of Prototypes Novel Eddy Current
Damper
Detail of axially magnetized ring magnets and low carbon steel ring pieces Manuel Miranda
arranged in a Halbach array
Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

ID 0.5" (*)

OD 1 " (*)
Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

Conclusions
Ring Detail
(*) Tolerance +/-0.004” Supplemental Slides
5/16” thick, low carbon 3/8” thick, axially magnetized
steel ring piece (x5) ring magnet (x4)

4-15/32" 5 x 5/16” + 4 x 3/8” = 3-1/16" 4-15/32"

12"

Item 3
Magnet Assembly Sketch SK-104-Rev 01
Note: Red arrows indicate Date: 2/19/17
direction of magnetization Not to scale
 EMI2019
Sinusoidal Tests Novel Eddy Current
Damper

ADMET eXpert 5952 Dynamic Testing System Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Displacement-controlled sinusoidal tests performed for multiple Experimental

Verification
driving frequencies (0.1–10 Hz) and amplitudes (0.5–21 mm) Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

Conclusions

Supplemental Slides

Array of PMs Aluminum prototype Copper prototype

 EMI2019
Sample Time-Histories Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Copper Prototype, frequency=3 Hz, amplitude=18 mm Manuel Miranda

Introduction

Theoretical Model

Experimental
Verification

Prototype Design
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

Applications

Conclusions

Supplemental Slides

Position (blue) and load (red) time-histories Velocity (blue) and power (red)
(note 90 degrees out-of-phase) time-histories
 EMI2019
Hysteresis Loops Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Copper Prototype, 200 Cycles Manuel Miranda

Introduction
6 20 20

Theoretical Model
15 15

2
10 10

Experimental
Verification
5 5
Load [N]

Load [N]

Load [N]
0 0 0

-2
-5 -5

Prototype Design
-10 -10

-4

-15 -15
Optimization

Comparisons and Target

-6 -20 -20
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [mm] Position [mm] Position [mm]

Freq.=0.3 Hz, Amp.=20.8 mm Freq.=0.9 Hz, Amp.=21.1 mm Freq.=6 Hz, Amp.=3.5 mm Applications

Conclusions
10 40 25

8
30
20
Supplemental Slides
6
15
20

10

10
2

5
Load [N]

Load [N]

Load [N]
0 0

-2
-10

-5

-4

-20
-10
-6

-30
-15
-8

-10 -40 -20

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [mm] Position [mm] Position [mm]

Freq.=0.5 Hz, Amp.=21.1 mm Freq.=2 Hz, Amp.=20.1 mm Freq.=8 Hz, Amp.=3.0 mm

15 15 25

20

10 10

15

10

5 5

5
Load [N]

Load [N]

Load [N]

0 0 0

-5

-5 -5

-10

-15

-10 -10

-20

-15 -15 -25

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [mm] Position [mm] Position [mm]

Freq.=0.7 Hz, Amp.=21.2 mm Freq.=4 Hz, Amp.=4.2 mm Freq.=10 Hz, Amp.=2.6 mm

 EMI2019
Hysteresis Loops Novel Eddy Current
Damper

Aluminum Prototype, 200 Cycles Manuel Miranda

Introduction
3 10

8
10

8
Theoretical Model
2

6 6

1
4 4 Experimental
2 2
Verification
Load [N]

Load [N]

Load [N]
0 0 0

-2 -2

-1

-4 -4
Prototype Design
-2
-6 -6
Optimization
-8 -8

Comparisons and Target

-3 -10 -10
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [mm] Position [mm] Position [mm]

Freq.=0.3 Hz, Amp.=20.8 mm Freq.=0.9 Hz, Amp.=21.1 mm Freq.=6 Hz, Amp.=3.5 mm Applications

Conclusions
5 20 15

4
15 Supplemental Slides
3 10

10

5
1 5
Load [N]

Load [N]

Load [N]
0 0

-1 0
-5

-2

-10

-3 -5

-15
-4

-5 -20 -10
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [mm] Position [mm] Position [mm]

Freq.=0.5 Hz, Amp.=21.1 mm Freq.=2 Hz, Amp.=20.0 mm Freq.=8 Hz, Amp.=3.0 mm

8 8 15

6 6

10

4 4

2 2
Load [N]

Load [N]

Load [N]

0 0 0

-2 -2

-5

-4 -4

-10

-6 -6

-8 -8 -15
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [mm] Position [mm] Position [mm]

Freq.=0.7 Hz, Amp.=21.2 mm Freq.=4 Hz, Amp.=4.2 mm Freq.=10 Hz, Amp.=2.6 mm