See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350801786

Development of A Lumped-Parameter Thermal Model for Electro-Hydraulic

Actuators

Conference Paper · April 2021

CITATIONS READS

8 505

4 authors:

Shaoyang Qu David Fassbender

Bosch Rexroth Tampere University
9 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrea Vacca Enrique Busquets

Purdue University Bosch Rexroth US
212 PUBLICATIONS 1,949 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 247 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

internal gear pump modeling View project

Adaptive Control via Extremum Seeking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shaoyang Qu on 11 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 S0104

DEVELOPMENT OF A LUMPED-PARAMETER THERMAL MODEL FOR

ELECTRO-HYDRAULIC ACTUATORS
Shaoyang Qu1*, David Fassbender1, Andrea Vacca1, Enrique Busquets2

1. Maha Fluid Power Research Center, School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, 1500 Kepner Dr., Lafayette, IN
47905, USA
2. Bosch Rexroth Corporation, 8 Southchase Court, Fountain Inn, SC 29644, USA
* Corresponding author: Tel.: +1 (765) 409-3503; E-mail address: qu82@purdue.edu

ABSTRACT
This paper describes a thermal-hydraulic modeling method of a closed-circuit electro-hydraulic actuator (EHA). Despite the high
energy efficiency of EHAs, it is always important to assess their cooling requirements, to guarantee that the operating temperature
remains within an acceptable range. The method proposed in this paper is based on a lumped parameter approach and simplifies
some of the complex heat transfer processes by introducing empirical correction factors. The model is validated by means of
temperature measurements on an EHA architecture developed by the author. The good match between the simulation results and
experiments confirms the capability of the proposed methodology to predict the temperature performance of the reference EHA
under different drive cycles. The paper presents a detailed analysis of the power losses and passive heat dissipation for the
reference system. Based on this analysis, the cooling requirements of the EHA are studied.
Keywords: Electro-Hydraulic Actuator, Thermal-Hydraulic Model, Heat Transfer.

1. INTRODUCTION
With the current electrification trend on hydraulic mobile
applications, electro-hydraulic actuators (EHA) are becoming
a competitive alternative to conventional hydraulic drives.
However, while in conventional hydraulic drives the cooling
of the working fluid is easily addressed through centralized
heat exchangers, in self-contained EHAs the cooling
requirement might represent a technical challenge,
particularly for cost-sensitive applications such as in mobile
hydraulics. An important technical challenge is not only the Figure 21: EHA drives cooling by passive heat exchange
development of a cooling solution for the EHAs, but also the
evaluation of the cooling needs. An extra cooling aggregate To design an EHA properly, it is important to know the
requires power and space, which is contradictory to the impact of heat dissipation, which enables to predict the
targeted high-efficiency and compactness of an EHA. On the temperature performance of the system. Addressing this
other hand, the high energy efficiency of EHAs opens to the challenge, this paper proposes a thermal-hydraulic model to
possibility to design hydraulic drives without cooling investigate the effects of heat dissipation for a referred EHA
equipment. This paper contributes to the above topic of the system. The oil temperature of the system is simulated in the
analysis of the cooling needs for EHAs, and it assesses the model. By comparing this temperature performance with the
ability to cool an EHA through passive heat transfer, such as measurements on an experimental setup, the simulation model
free convection and radiation through the surface of the could be validated.
components that implement the EHA. Figure 21 gives a Researchers have made efforts to predict the thermal
conceptual schematic showing an EHA drive cooled by behavior of EHA drives. Focusing on the thermodynamic
passive heat exchange. As highlighted in the system block, properties of the oil, a lumped-parameter mathematical model
parts of the power losses stay inside the block as heat, was developed based on the conversation of mass and energy
resulting in an increased system temperature, such as the oil for the system [1]. For systems with a hydraulic accumulator
temperature. On the contrary, other parts of the power losses as the reservoir, a thermal time-constant correlation for the
dissipate to the environment because of the natural heat accumulator was developed based on experimental data [2].
dissipation, including radiation and convection. With these mathematical bases, control volume methods were
broadly utilized for hydraulic units and systems. Efficiency
plays a significant role in the thermal behavior of hydraulic
units. An experimental study was made on an external gear
pump for different wear conditions [3]. The flow temperature
prediction for the piston machine was investigated with a
detailed model of power losses and fluid properties [4]. The
churning losses of a high-speed axial piston pump were
demonstrated, guiding the design of EHA systems used for
aircraft [5]. As for the system level, the temperature prediction

20
 S0104
of a displacement-controlled system and a hydraulic hybrid has a minimum speed limit in operation. The location of the
transmission were conducted in the authors’ lab with control thermocouples is given in Figure 22 as well. As shown in the
volume methods [6], [7], and validated by measurements in figure, the temperatures of the pump ports and ACC inlet are
steady state. Focusing on the heat exchange effects, Michel captured.
and Weber developed a complex thermal resistance network
to predict the thermal performance of an EHA drive [8]. The V
T2
DV1
temperature of the system was captured by thermocouples and
a thermographic camera, and the heat transferred by natural ACC
convection was estimated. A similar thermal node approach RV1 PCV1
was developed for a lumped-parameter EHA model featuring V
timesaving [9]. The thermal behavior prediction of a pump- T3
BPV
controlled actuator was conducted by means of a lumped M CYL
parameter model.[10] Simulation models specifically for EM HP
pipes and accumulators were developed to investigate the RV2
EHU PCV2
energy interaction process [11], [12].
The method proposed in this paper for developing the T1
DV2
thermal-hydraulic model addresses several existing
V

challenges of the mentioned work, which are: Figure 22: Hydraulic circuit of referred EHA system
• For the prediction of thermal behavior in [6]–[8], only
The working principle of the EHA system is given in
steady-state results are validated. The realistic, transient
Figure 23. The bypass valve is opened when the EHA enters
operating conditions in applications are not considered.
low-speed mode. It can be also used in fast retraction mode to
Instead, the proposed simulation model includes validation
avoid oversizing the EHU. More details about the working
both on steady-state and temperature rising phases, with
principle, functionality validation, and energy performance
different loading conditions based on real duty cycles.
can be found in the authors’ other work [13][14].
• In [8], [11], [12] the modeling method requires detailed
information of many nodes in the circuit, which is time- 𝑤 𝑝 𝑑 𝐹
consuming and costly for the sensors. This paper proposed
a lumped-parameter thermal model focusing on the
temperature at the ports of the pump/motor and reservoir,
which is practical and timesaving. M
• In some studies, the simulation results are not validated [9]
or fail to match the measured data in some conditions [6]– 𝐹
[8], leaving a question mark on the accuracy of the thermal
behavior prediction. As a comparison, the method proposed
in this paper introduces some correction factors to improve
the accuracy in different loading conditions.
The paper first introduces the reference EHA system which M
was previously developed by the authors for applications in
mobile hydraulics. Section 2, including the working principle 𝐹
and the setup for experiments. In Section 3, the lumped-
parameter method to develop the model is demonstrated in
detail. The definition and optimization of correction factors
are discussed. Section 4 gives the simulation results in
comparison to the measurements under different loading M
conditions. Section 5 discusses the results in terms of power
losses and gives an analysis of the heat dissipation capability 𝐹
of the referred EHA system. Finally, Section 6 concludes the 𝐹 𝑡 𝑡 𝑡 𝑛
findings of the paper and briefly discusses future work. Figure 23: Working principle of the referred EHA system in
assistive retraction phase
2. REFERENCE ELECTRO-HYDRAULIC
ACTUATOR SYSTEM 2.2. Experimental setup

2.1. Configuration and working principle Figure 24 shows the conceptual schematic of the
experimental EHA setup. The test rig consists of two modules:
A closed-circuit EHA system proposed by the authors [13] one cylinder for the EHA drive, another identical cylinder to
is referred to in this study and shown in Figure 22. The system apply the load force controlled by two proportional reducing-
has a closed circuit, with a variable-speed electric motor and relieving valves. The dual-axis joints couple the two cylinders
fixed-displacement hydraulic pump (HP), which both form and the linear ball rails compensate side forces that may occur
the electro-hydraulic unit (EHU). Furthermore, it uses a low- due to misalignment. Figure 25 gives a picture of the test rig
pressure accumulator (ACC) as the reservoir. The bypass located in the Maha Fluid Power Research Center, Purdue
valve (BPV) is included to address the low-speed actuation University [13].
challenge with the fixed-displacement pump, which usually

21
 S0104
model. The power-related information contributes to the
modeling of power losses, while the geometry of the
components plays a key role in the heat dissipation model.
More details are given in the following sections 3.2 and 3.3.
The parameter setting of the simulation model is provided in
Table 2. Hydraulic oil ISO 46 is used in the simulation.
Table 2: Parameter settings in the simulation model

Figure 24: Conceptual schematic of the experimental setup Parameter Value[unit]

Length of stroke 0.8865[m]

Diameter of piston 𝐷 69.9[mm]

Cylinder
Diameter of rod 𝑑 44.2[mm]

Area ratio 𝜆 1.68[-]

Pump displacement 𝑉𝑝 14.53[cm3/rev]

Figure 25: Picture of the test rig built in the authors’ lab
Pump Pump maximum speed 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 3000[rpm]
Not only thermocouples shown in Figure 22 are installed
on the experimental setup. The test rig is fully instrumented Pump minimum speed 𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 600[rpm]
with sensors prepared for the thermal behavior measurements,
Pre-charge pressure 𝑝0 4.5[bar]
such as position sensors showing the duty cycle of the drives, Accumulator
and pressure sensors showing the loading conditions. Volume of Accumulator 𝑉0 4 [L]

3. THERMAL-HYDRAULIC MODEL Crack pressure 𝑝𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘 0.5[bar]

Valves
3.1. Lumped-parameter model Relief pressure 𝑝𝑟 210[bar]

The authors developed the lumped-parameter thermal- Extension time 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑒𝑥 4.43[s]
Actuation
hydraulic model in the Simcenter Amesim environment requirements
(Siemens PLM Software). The parameter settings in the Retraction time 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑟𝑒 2.63[s]
model are based on component information from datasheets,
Maximum Loading pressure 𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 130[bar]
so the simulation results can reflect realistic conditions.
Loading
Figure 26 provides a graphical representation of the conditions Loading force 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 50000[N]
simulation model. Important information related to the power
losses and component geometries is defined as the input to the

Figure 26: Thermal-hydraulic model developed in Simcenter Amesim environment

and power losses. Based on the first law of thermodynamics,
3.2. Power loss model the enthalpy flow can be given in Equation 1:
Figure 27 shows the control volume of the hydraulic pump, 𝑑𝐸
𝑊𝑠 − 𝜑 = 2 ℎ2 − 1 ℎ1 + (1)
which helps to model the relationship between temperature 𝑑𝑡

22
 S0104
The specific enthalpy ℎ is the sum of internal energy and
work, as given in Equation 2:
ℎ= + 𝑝𝑣 = 𝑝𝑇 + 𝑝𝑣 (2)
In ideal cases, assuming the control volume is in steady-
state with no heat exchange, and the volume change can be
ignored, the enthalpy flow represents the power input as
𝑊𝑠 = (ℎ2 − ℎ1 ). The pressure change in the control volume
is defined as the useful power for the hydraulic pump, so the
temperature change can be obtained in Equation 3:
𝑊𝑠 (1 − 𝜂ℎ𝑝 ) = 𝑝 (𝑇2 − 𝑇1 ) (3)
All power losses will convert to the heating of the fluid,
therefore the efficiency map shown in Figure 26 is an
Figure 28: Graphic representation of the heat dissipation model
essential input of the model. However, the heat interaction
process of the hydraulic pump is complex and varies based on The equations to describe the above process in Figure 28
different types of pumps. To simplify the model and maintain are given as follows [15][16]: Equation 4 describes process 1,
the accuracy, a correction factor is introduced for the pump Equation 5 shows the free convection in process 2 with a
based on the Amesim pump model. More details are provided cylinder shape, and Equation 6 demonstrates the radiation in
in Section 3.4. process 2. The temperature of the thermal mass depends on
the enthalpy flow, as given in Equation 7 for process 3. The
2 geometry information shown in Figure 26 plays an important
2 ℎ2
role in these equations.
𝑅 ∙ 𝑃 1/3 𝜇 0 14
1 86 ∙ ( ) ∙( ) , 𝑅 < 2300
𝐸 ⁄𝑑 𝜇𝑠
𝜑 = (4)
1 𝜇 0 14
𝑊𝑠 0 027 ∙ 𝑅 0 8 ∙ 𝑃 3 ∙ ( ) , 𝑅 ≥ 10000
{ 𝜇𝑠
2
1 1 ℎ1
1
Figure 27: Control volume of the hydraulic pump model (𝐺 ∙ 𝑃 )6
= 0 6 + 0 378 ∙ 8 (5)
With the control volume method, the power loss models of 9 27
0 559 16
other hydraulic components are developed in a similar way, (1 + (
𝑃
) )
such as for the bypass valve and directional valve. ( )
4
𝜑𝑟𝑎𝑑 = 𝜎 ∙ 𝜀 ∙ 𝐴 ∙ (𝑇𝑤4 − 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟 ) (6)
3.3. Heat dissipation model
𝑑𝑇 ∑ 𝑑ℎ
The heat dissipation model describes the heat exchange = (7)
𝑑𝑡 ∙ 𝑝
between the fluid in the system and the air in the environment.
Figure 28 gives a graphic demonstration of the heat By calculating the Nusselt number , the heat exchange
dissipation process. Three layers are shown in the figure: The coefficient can be obtained in Equation 8, where 𝑘 is the
oil layer inside, the air layer outside, and the wall layer in the thermal conductivity, and is the characteristic length.
middle. The heat exchange happens in different ways through ∙𝑘
the surfaces between every two adjacent layers. From the oil ℎ= (8)
to the wall, the process is defined as force convection (process
1). Free convection and radiation are mainly considered for And the heat exchange can be defined as Equation 9:
the interaction between the wall and the ambient air (process 𝜑 = ℎ ∙ 𝐴 ∙ 𝑑𝑇 (9)
2). The wall layer is defined as a simple thermal mass in the
model (process 3). The definition of Reynold number 𝑅 , Prandtl number 𝑃 ,
Grashof number 𝐺 , and Stefan-Boltzmann constant 𝜎 used
in Equation 4-8 are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Parameters in Equation 4-8

Parameter Definition

𝜌
Reynold number 𝑅 𝑅 =
𝜇

𝜇 ∙ 𝐶𝑝
Prandtl number 𝑃 𝑃 =
𝑘

23
 S0104
3 2 condition can be more complex considering both the power
𝑑 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ |𝑡𝑤 − 𝑡𝑓 |
Grashof number 𝐺 𝐺 = loss model and the heat dissipation model of the pump.
𝜇2
Moreover, the heat interaction process may vary according to
Stefan-Boltzmann −8 2 4 the pump types and loading conditions. With the goal to
5 67 ∙ 10 𝑊/( ∙𝐾 )
constant 𝜎 predict the thermal behavior of an EHA system in a
With the geometry information, the heat dissipation model timesaving way without including many details of the pump
of all hydraulic components can be developed. For the fluid design, the heat exchange to the fluid in the pump is assumed
inside the bladder accumulator, the heat exchanges not only to be a proportion of the pump power losses. The heat
with the environment by the wall but also through the gas in dissipation effect is also included in the first equation in Table
the bladder. Figure 29 represents the accumulator model. 4. If a balance can be reached between power losses and heat
dissipation, 𝛼 is equal to zero. Usually 𝛼 varies between 0-
100%.
The second factor ℎ𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 is defined as the equivalent heat
exchange coefficient for hoses, fittings, and connections in the
system. Owing to the quantity of these components, it could
be time-consuming to model each element and use Equation
8 to calculate the heat exchange coefficient. Moreover, the
temperature performance of the hose connections is not as
Figure 29: Graphic representation of the accumulator model important as that of the pump or accumulator. Therefore,
ℎ𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 is introduced to uniform the hose model in a simplified
The gas follows a polytropic process during the working
approach. The overall length and the diameter of the hoses are
cycles, as given in Equation 10:
inputs for the hose model, and then, Equation 9 can be used
𝑝𝑉 𝑛 = 𝑝0 𝑉0𝑛 = 𝐶 (10) to demonstrate the heat exchange, as given in Table 4.
The last factor 𝜑𝑐 is a correction of the overall heat
The polytropic index 𝑛 may vary according to the heat
dissipation model. All correction factors are finally obtained
exchange rate 𝑊 in Figure 29, as shown in Equation 11 and
by optimization conducted in Simcenter Amesim [15], with
12 for the energy balance [2]:
the objective to minimize the difference between the
𝑑 𝑑𝑉 simulated thermal behavior and measured results on the test
= 𝑊−𝑝 (11)
𝑔
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 rig. The next section 4 gives more details.
𝑊 = ℎ𝐴𝑤 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇) (12) The correction factors leave more freedom to improve the
simulation model. When the hydraulic pump in the proposed
In Equation 12, 𝐴𝑤 is the equivalent surface area for the EHA system is changed, which will probably happen because
heat exchange with gas. However, the accumulator used in the the system plans to adopt a novel optimized EH unit in the
proposed system works at a low-pressure level [13], so for the implementation, to adjust the correction factors based on
fluid, the heat exchange with the gas is negligible. optimization is easier. The model method with the correction
factors would not be optimal for the final implemented EHA
3.4. Correction factors set up but is a practical solution for the current configuration.
In order to improve the accuracy of the thermal-hydraulic
model for the temperature prediction and simplify some 4. RESULTS
complex interactive processes, three correction factors are
4.1. Baseline measurements
introduced, as given in Table 4.
Table 4: Correction factors used in the model Two scenarios are included in the baseline measurements,
in terms of the actuation velocity and loading force of the
Correction factor Usage in thermal equations cylinder. The first scenario is to operate the EHA system at
The proportion of heat 50% of the maximum speed with a constant 20kN load force,
generation from the 𝜶 ∙ 𝑊𝑠 (1 − 𝜂ℎ𝑝 ) = 𝑄𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 which is defined as the moderate duty cycles. Figure 30 gives
pump to the fluid 𝜶 % long-term measurements in this scenario. The upper plot
Equivalent heat shows the duplicated cycles with the position of the cylinder,
exchange coefficient for and the lower plot gives the temperature behavior at the pump
hoses, fittings, and 𝜑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 = 𝒉𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 ∙ 𝐴 ∙ 𝑑𝑇 ports and accumulator inlet port highlighted in Figure 22. The
connections purple line 𝑇𝑥 provides an upper bound of all measured
𝒉𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑊/( 2 ∙ ℃) temperatures. Figure 31 shows the measurements within one
duty cycle. Apart from the position of the cylinder and the
Correction of free
∑ 𝜑 = 𝜑𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 + 𝜑𝑐𝑦𝑙 + 𝜑𝑎𝑐𝑐 thermal behavior, the loading force and the pressure
convection and
performance at the temperature measurement points are given
radiation 𝝋𝒄 𝑊 + 𝜑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 + 𝝋𝒄
as well. It is clearly shown that in scenario 1, one extension-
The first factor 𝛼 simplifies the pump model, which is retraction cycle takes about 15 seconds, and the loading force
described in Figure 27 and Equation 1-3. The demonstration is around a constant 20kN.
in Equation 3 is based on the ideal assumption. The realistic

24
 S0104

Figure 30: Long-term baseline measurements in scenario 1

Figure 31: Baseline measurements in scenario 1 within one duty cycle

In scenario 1, a steady state can be reached in the end, as One important reason for this balance is that only half of the
shown in Figure 32, where the time x-axis is rescaled for maximum speed is commanded in scenario 1, and the bypass
expedience. The upper bound of the steady-state temperature valve is never open as shown in Figure 23, so the system
is about 52℃. At that temperature, the heat dissipation and always works in high-efficiency mode and not at maximum
the power losses of the system are in a balance on the test rig. power.

25
 S0104

0 50 100

0 50 100

Figure 32: Baseline measurements in scenario 1: steady-state results

Different from the first scenario mentioned above, scenario power losses stay in the system as heat. The oil temperature
2 considers a more aggressive duty cycle. Figure 33 and increases fast and reaches around 60℃ within 10 minutes
Figure 34 show the measurements long-term and for one duty according to Figure 33, at which point the test was stopped to
cycle separately. In scenario 2, a maximum speed command protect the circuit. Therefore, no steady-state results are given
is given, and one extension-retraction cycle only takes about here for scenario 2. It is expected to reach a steady state, but
8 seconds. Moreover, the loading force increases to 30kN in at a high-temperature point which may harm the hydraulic
the extension phase, as given in Figure 34. As a result, more components on the test rig.

Figure 33: Long-term baseline measurements in scenario 2

26
 S0104

Figure 34: Baseline measurements in scenario 2 within one duty cycle

The errors for three measured locations are given in the figure
4.2. Simulation results
separately, and all errors are less than 0 8℃ in the long-term
Intending to predict the thermal behavior shown in section simulation, showing a good result for the prediction on the
4.1, a series of simulations were run for the 2 scenarios in the thermal behavior. The steady-state results of one measured
baseline measurements. The simulation results with the best point 𝑇1 in scenario 1 are given in Figure 36, which proves a
prediction are shown as follows. good prediction. The errors in transient conditions in the duty
For scenario 1, with the same duty cycle on the cylinder in cycle can be noticed. One explanation could be the oil
terms of loading force and position, Figure 35 gives the temperature distribution is not uniform in the experimental
comparison between the simulation results and the baseline setup with the duty cycles. The oil temperature at one side of
measurements in temperature, corresponding to Figure 30. the circuit is higher than the other. In transient conditions,
𝑇1 , 𝑇2 , 𝑇3 represent the temperatures of the pump ports and the when the oil can go from one side to the other, the temperature
accumulator inlet respectively, as given in Figure 22. To differential is captured by the thermocouples and results in
evaluate the results, the prediction error is defined as the transient errors. However, the main purpose of the model is to
absolute difference in average, as given in Equation 13: predict thermal behavior in the long term, or steady-state, so
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ the transient errors would not impact the results much.
= |𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑚 | (13)

1 = 0 23℃

2 = 0 13℃

3 = 0 72℃

Figure 35: Comparison between the simulation results and the baseline measurements for scenario 1

27
 S0104

Figure 36: Simulation results in steady state for scenario 1

As for scenario 2, the simulation results with the aggressive phenomenon may result from the temperature inconsistency
duty cycle are given in Figure 37, corresponding to the of the fluid on the test rig. The hotter oil and cooler oil in the
measurements shown in Figure 33. The prediction errors are system cannot mix effectively in the closed circuit, and the
provided, and all errors are still less than 2%. The steady-state thermocouples record the transition of the temperature
results are not given here, because the temperature could be variation. However, the goal of the model is to predict the
high and harm the hydraulic system. EHA’s thermal behavior in a long term and the steady-state
During the long-term cycles, the prediction shows small temperature. Therefore, the variation reflected in one duty
errors. But focusing on a single duty cycle, the measurements cycle could be ignored with a small error in the long term.
can show more variation than the simulation. This

1 = 0 71℃

2 = 0 67℃

3 = 0 47℃

Figure 37: Comparison between the simulation results and the baseline measurements for scenario 2
As the correction factors are combining a high number of
5. DISCUSSION
system effects, this phenomenon was expected. For example,
the first factor 𝛼 not only includes the effect of the pump heat
5.1. Optimized correction factors
dissipation but also the exchange rate from the pump power
Based on the results given in Section 4, this section losses to the enthalpy of the oil. These complex interactive
provides a deeper discussion on the modeling method and the processes may vary when the pump works under different
simulation results. The simulation was conducted with loading conditions and speeds. Therefore, to achieve the best
optimized correction factors mention in section 3.4, and the temperature prediction, it could be difficult to keep the factors
objective function is given in Equation 13. The correction all the same in different scenarios. However, these results
factor values used in the simulation are given in Table 5. reflect the motivation to introduce correction factors. The
It can be found that the correction factors show different development of the model, such as the pump, is simplified
values based on two different scenarios in the optimization. without considering many physical characteristics of

28
 S0104
components. Correction factors can summarize the impact of 5.2. Power analysis
these physical phenomena. Furthermore, the hardest part is
Since the simulation model achieves a good prediction on
left to the algorithm in the software. The values of the factors
the thermal behavior, the simulation results can be trusted to
can be obtained by optimization in Simcenter Amesim.
provide more information about the power losses and heat
Moreover, the variation of the factor values is within a small
dissipation of the EHA system.
range, as shown in Table 5, which confirms the optimization
Figure 38 gives a bar graph of the power distribution in
results.
scenario 1 based on the simulation. In the left graph, the first
Table 5: Optimization results of the correction factors bar represents the average input power of the system,
including the extension and the retraction phases. The second
Value (rounded)
bar is the average power of heat generation or power losses of
Correction
factor
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 the system. Parts of the generated heat stay in the system and
(moderate duty (aggressive duty increase the fluid temperature. This part to heat the fluid is
cycle) cycle)
given by the third bar. The average power of heating the fluid
The proportion
is described in Equation 14. According to the mass and
of heat
temperature of the fluid, the internal energy of the fluid at the
generation from 25 % 20 %
initial and end conditions can be obtained. The energy
the pump to the
difference over time is the average power. The results given
fluid 𝜶
in Figure 38 correspond to the period in Figure 35, where the
Equivalent heat
temperature experiences an increasing process.
exchange
coefficient for 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑖 − 𝐸𝑒𝑛𝑑
20 𝑊/( 2
∙ ℃) 30 𝑊/( 2
∙ ℃) 𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 = (14)
hoses, fittings, 𝑇𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑
and connections
𝒉𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 The proportions of the powers shown in bars are given as
Correction of
percentages. The generated heat is 25% of the input power, so
free convection
the overall efficiency of the system is about 75%. And 24.7%
50 𝑊 40 𝑊
and radiation 𝝋𝒄
of the heat generation stays to heat the fluid, meaning most
power losses are dissipated by heat dissipation in scenario 1.
Comparing the obtained correction factor values in two The bar graph on the right shows the distribution of the
scenarios given in Table 5, the heat dissipation effect is more generated heat by classifying it into two types: throttling
obvious in scenario 2 with a greater ℎ𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 and less . One losses and pump losses. As in scenario 1, the bypass valve is
explanation could be that the fluid velocity is high in scenario never open, and the EHA system minimizes the throttling
2 with a higher actuation speed, thus increasing the heat losses. Most losses come from the pump. In the assistive
exchange with the environment. The difference of the factors retraction phase, as more flow rate is required, the proportion
can be explained better with a simulation model with more of throttling losses increases. The values of all power are
details on every hydraulic component. Nevertheless, the highlighted above each bar.
temperature prediction results shown in Figure 35 and Figure
37 provide strong proof for the values given in the table.

25.0%

24.7%

Figure 38: Power analysis based on simulation results in scenario 1

As a comparison, Figure 39 gives the power analysis aggressive duty cycle. Looking at the bar graph on the left, a
results in scenario 2, corresponding to the period shown in larger amount of ‘heat to the fluid’ can be noticed compared
Figure 37. All power levels are increased with a more to the results in Figure 38, both in the absolute value and the

29
 S0104
proportion of the ‘generated heat’. This result reflects the fast of two scenarios considered in the study reflects the advantage
temperature increase shown in Figure 37, and the heat of the thermal behavior for a throttle-less-control system. The
dissipation is not as effective as in scenario 1. The explanation passive heat exchange could be the cooling solution without
of this increase can be given by the bar graph on the right. the bypass valve being opened and the high amount of
Because a 100% speed command is given and the bypass throttling losses. In Figure 38 and Figure 39, the difference
valve is open during the fast retraction phase, as demonstrated between the two bars, the ‘generated heat’ and the ‘heat to the
in Figure 23, much more throttling losses are introduced to fluid’, show the values of effective heat dissipation in the
the system. Not like the losses from the pump, the throttling corresponding scenarios, which should be considered for the
losses have few chances for heat dissipation, resulting in the design of the EHA cooling solution.
large increase of the power heating the fluid. The comparison

30.6%

56.0%

Figure 39: Power analysis based on simulation results in scenario 2

(DOE project DE-EE0008334, ‘Individual Electro-Hydraulic
6. CONCLUSION
Drives for Off-Road Vehicles’).
A lumped-parameter thermal-hydraulic simulation model References
of a referred closed-circuit EHA system is presented in this [1] J. A. Sidders, D. G. Tilley, and P. J. Chapple, “Thermal-
paper. The model is validated by measurements conducted on hydraulic performance prediction in fluid power systems,”
the test rig developed in the authors’ lab, with the capability vol. 210.
to predict the long-term thermal behavior of the system with [2] A. Pourmovahed and D. R. Otis, “An experimental thermal
an average error of less than 0 8℃. Three correction factors time-constant correlation for hydraulic accumulators.,” vol.
are introduced to simplify the modeling process and improve 112, no. MARCH, 1986.
the accuracy of the model. The values of the correction factors [3] E. Dalla Lana and V. J. De Negri, “A new evaluation method
are determined by optimization to minimize the predicting for hydraulic gear pump efficiency through temperature
errors. Power losses of the referred EHA system are analyzed measurements,” SAE Tech. Pap., 2006.
based on the developed thermal-hydraulic model. The [4] L. Shang and M. Ivantysynova, “Port and case flow
variation of the thermal behaviors in different working modes temperature prediction for axial piston machines,” Int. J.
gives guidance on the cooling solution. Fluid Power, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 35–51, 2015.
For future work, the developed model can be used in more [5] J. Zhang, Y. Li, B. Xu, X. Chen, and M. Pan, “Churning
scenarios for this certain EHA system and applied to other losses analysis on the thermal-hydraulic model of a high-
similar EHA solutions to further improve the modeling speed electro-hydrostatic actuator pump,” Int. J. Heat Mass
approach. The definition of the correction factors can be Transf., vol. 127, pp. 1023–1030, 2018.
adjusted further to reflect more physical characters of the [6] E. Busquets and M. Ivantysynova, “Temperature Prediction
hydraulic components. Moreover, by using the prediction of Displacement Controlled Multi-Actuator Machines,” vol.
results from the proposed model, the design process of an 14, no. 1, pp. 25–36, 2013.
EHA system can further be investigated. [7] H. Kwon, M. Sprengel, and M. Ivantysynova, “Thermal
modeling of a hydraulic hybrid vehicle transmission based
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT on thermodynamic analysis,” Energy, vol. 116, pp. 650–660,
The authors wish to thank Simcenter Amesim for the use of 2016.
the simulation software, and Case New Holland Industrial for [8] S. Michel and J. Weber, “Prediction of the thermo-energetic
providing the hardware that was used for the experiments. The behaviour of an electrohydraulic compact drive,” Proc. 10th
project was supported by the Department of Energy, USA Int. Fluid Power Conf., pp. 219–234, 2016.
[9] K. Li, Z. Lv, K. Lu, and P. Yu, “Thermal-hydraulic modeling

30
 S0104
and simulation of the hydraulic system based on the electro-
hydrostatic actuator,” Procedia Eng., vol. 80, pp. 272–281,
2014.
[10] T. A. Minav and M. Pietola, “A study on thermal behavior
of pump-controlled actuator,” in The 15th Scandinavian
International Conference on Fluid Power, SICFP’17, 2017.
[11] B. van der Heijde et al., “Dynamic equation-based thermo-
hydraulic pipe model for district heating and cooling
systems,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 151, no. September,
pp. 158–169, 2017.
[12] P. Puddu and M. Paderi, “Hydro-pneumatic accumulators
for vehicles kinetic energy storage: Influence of gas
compressibility and thermal losses on storage capability,”
Energy, vol. 57, pp. 326–335, 2013.
[13] S. Qu, D. Fassbender, A. Vacca, E. Busquets, and U.
Neumann, “A Closed Circuit Electro-Hydraulic Actuator
With Energy Recuperation Capability,” 12th Int. Fluid
Power Conf.
[14] S. Qu, D. Fassbender, A. Vacca, and E. Busquets, “A High-
Efficient Solution for Electro-Hydraulic Actuators with
Energy Regeneration Capability,” pp. 1–25.
[15] P. L. M. Siemens, Software Simcenter. Simcenter Amesim,
2018.
[16] A. L. TL Bergman, FP Incropera, DP DeWitt, Fundamentals
of heat and mass transfer, 6th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2011.

31

View publication stats