Zajdziński 2018 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 421 022044

IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Real-Time Detection of Fatigue Driving
Energetic model of hydraulic system of refuse Based on Face Recognition
Xingxing Li, Jun Luo, Chao Duan et al.
collection vehicle based on simulation and - Design & Analysis of Assembled Teeth
Spur Gear
experimental data C T Arun Prasath and Abburi
Lakshmankumar
To cite this article: T Zajdziński et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 421 022044 - Reform and Research on Teaching Mode
of Computer Basic Course in College
Jinshan Liu and Xiaojing Yang
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 14.186.80.68 on 30/09/2024 at 06:12

International Automotive Conference (KONMOT2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 421 (2018) 022044 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/421/2/022044
Energetic model of hydraulic system of refuse collection

vehicle based on simulation and experimental data
T Zajdziński2 O Wysocki1,2 J Czyżewicz1,2 and J Kropiwnicki1

1
Gdańsk University of Technology, 11/12 Narutowicza Street, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland
2
Zoeller Tech Sp. z o.o., ul. Nowa 8, 84-123 Rekowo Górne, Poland
E-mail: oskwys@gmail.com
Abstract. This paper presents an energetic model of hydraulic system of a refuse collection
vehicle. First, benefits resulting from implementation of an energetic model in the industry and
operation of a Refuse Collection Vehicle are briefly explained. Then, components of the energy
consumption in hydraulic circuits of compactor and lifting device are described and combined
into a comprehensive model that can be evaluated using basic measurement equipment.
Efficiency of individual components determined through measurement and simulation is also
presented. Finally, potential application of the model and conclusions resulting from the carried
out analysis are presented.
1. Introduction
Collection of the municipal solid waste is probably the most complicated and resource consuming
component of the solid waste management. Refuse collection vehicles (RCV’s) are essential to tackle
this objective. They have to operate regardless of weather, traffic density and condition of the
infrastructure to provide a key utility service, which is often rated as one of the top three priorities faced
by the developing country cities [1]. Due to the nature of this task - frequent stops and continuous low
speed maneuvering, fuel consumption of RCV’s can be as high as 218 dm3/100 km during collection
trips and 40 dm3/100 km during transfer of waste with the daytrip average of 79.5 dm3/100 km [2]. In
spite of ever increasing number of studies of the RCV's operation [3-10] there is still no comprehensive
energetic model of a RCV which would allow to quantitatively assess the performance of particular
components of the system and provide a reliable information to the customers. Creation of such a model
could also direct the development effort of the RCV's manufacturers to the areas with the greatest
potential for improvements. The aim of this paper is to lay out a part of an energetic model that describes
hydraulic system of a rear-loader RCV, present its constituents and suggest a feasible approach to its
implementation in the industry.
2. Components of RCV
Main components of RCV's are: body, ejector plate, tailgate, sweep and slide compactor, lifting device
and bin catcher (Figure 1). They are typically driven by a double chamber hydraulic pump. Compactor
consists of a carriage plate (1), which is mounted on the rails in the tailgate (2) and the packer plate (3),
which is connected via hinges to the carriage plate. Both carriage plate and packer plate are driven by
hydraulic cylinders and realise a four stage motion sequence.
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
10
Figure 1. RCV with sweep and slide compactor; 1 - carriage plate, 2 - tailgate, 3 - packer plate,
4 - hopper, 5 - hydraulic cylinder, 6 - body, 7 – ejector plate, 8 - hydraulic telescopic cylinder,
9 - lifter, 10 - bin catcher
3. Compactor's circuit
3.1. Operation of a sweep and slide compaction mechanism

In the beginning of the compaction cycle (Figure 2) the packer plate opens (4-1) and then the carriage
plate moves downwards (1-2). Then the packer plate pivots to shovel the garbage out of the hopper (2-
3). In the final stage the carriage plate slides upwards compressing the garbage and loading it into the
body (3-4). Inside the body an ejector plate is installed. It is driven along the rails by a hydraulic
telescopic cylinder (8, Figure 1). When the garbage truck is empty the wall is positioned in its most rear
position (telescopic cylinder fully extended). During the loading cycle minimal pressure needed to
retract the telescopic cylinder is adjusted by a pressure control valve. This generates an additional
reaction force, which increases the compaction force. As more waste is being loaded, the ejector plate
slides towards the driver's cab the so the resistance force is provided constantly throughout the entire
vehicle's loading cycle. When the tailgate is opened the ejector plate is also used to empty the body.
Figure 2. Operation stages of a compaction mechanism
3.2. Energy consumption components

Energy supplied by the pump to the compactor's circuit consists of:
𝐸 = 𝐸∆ + 𝐸 (1)
where:
𝐸 – total hydraulic energy supplied to the compactor’s hydraulic circuit (generated in the larger
chamber of the pump)
𝐸∆ – energy lost due to the pressure drop in the hydraulic system
𝐸 – hydraulic energy supplied to the compactor's actuators
2
Hydraulic efficiency at which the power is delivered to the compactor through the hydraulic system
can be defined as:
𝐸
𝜂 = ∗ 100% (2)
𝐸
and it can be calculated from:
𝐸 = 𝑄 𝑝 𝑑𝑡 (3)
Where:
i = 1, SC, etc., depending on calculated value E
𝑄 , 𝑝 – flow rate and pressure measured at the pump's outlet
𝑄 , 𝑝 – flow rate and average value of pressure in the actuators
This allows to measure ηhc of a RCV equipped with fixed displacement pump using pressure sensors
measuring p1 and psc. psc should be measured directly at the actuator’s inlet ports but the its value can be
approximated through installation of a sensor in another location that is possibly close to both actuators.
Q1 is equal to Qsl and it can be approximated based on the pump's size, PTO's speed (or engine speed)
and p1. In case of a variable displacement pump use of additional measurement apparatus is required.
Hydraulic energy supplied to the compactor's actuators - Esc consists of:
𝐸 = 𝐸 +𝐸 + 𝐸 +𝐸 (4)
Where:
𝑬𝒄𝟏 – energy used to open the packer plate (Figure 2; 4-1)
𝑬𝒄𝟐 – energy used to lower the carriage plate(Figure 2, 1-2)
𝑬𝒄𝟑 – energy used to close the packer plate (Figure 2, 2-3)
𝑬𝒄𝟒 – energy used to lift the carriage plate (Figure 2, 3-4)
Ec1, Ec2, Ec3 and Ec4 could be further separated by subtraction of the energy loss in the compactor
mechanism but it is not applicable to a real RCV due to the cost and complication of measurement of
the active force in the cylinders using tensometric pins.
Definition of an explicit formula describing the efficiency of the compactor itself (ηc) is problematic
due to several reasons. During the compaction process useful work is equal to the portion of energy that
contributes to increase of the waste density through deformation. Calculating this value requires
separating this portion of energy from energy lost due to friction of waste against the walls, energy used
to transport the waste within the body of a RCV and the aforementioned energy loss in the compactor
mechanism. One possible practical solution would be definition of the cycle efficiency of the compactor
as:
𝐸
𝜂 = ∗ 100% (5)
𝐸
Because only during lifting of the carriage plate compaction occurs for the analyzed system (Figure
1) and each of the functions is realized separately in a cycle. However, this value still does not take into
account the density of waste before and after compaction. This is why a new performance measure –
a Compaction Curve was suggested. This curve presents density of the waste after compaction [kg/m3]
as a function of compaction effort per cubic meter (Ec4 divided by the volume of the compacted waste)
[MJ/m3].
3.3. Efficiency
3.3.1. Hydraulic System

Efficiency of the compactor's hydraulic system can be estimated based on the pressure drop between
the pump’s outlet and the compactor's actuators inlet. Measurements performed on a single RCV showed
a steady pressure drop of approximately 20 bar in the entire range of tested loads. Efficiency of the
compactor's circuit (5) as a function of the actuator load is presented on Figure 3.
3
3.3.2. Compactor efficiency and Compaction Curve

So far the compactor efficiency (ηc) has not been investigated, but exploitation data from two RCVs
that were equipped with different compactors delivered the results necessary for creation of a
compaction curve:
 Sum of Ec4 from compactor cycles needed to load the body of a RCV
 Volume of waste collected
 Mass of waste collected
Resulting compaction curves are shown on Figure 4. It shows that compactor installed in truck
FF0355 is more efficient because it will achieve greater compression ratio (compacted waste density
over bulk waste density) for the same energy consumption per cubic meter of compacted waste.
100
80
Efficiency [%]
60
40
20
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Pressure in the actuators [bar]
Figure 3. Relationship between efficiency of the Figure 4. Compaction curves for two different
compactor's hydraulic system and load compaction mechanisms
4. Lifter’s circuit
4.1. Operation of a lifting device

Lifting devices have to grab a container at its pick-up height and move it along a trajectory that assures
that all of the waste is emptied into the hopper. They also have to be equipped with a standard interface
for attaching to the containers. Lifter movement is shown in Figure 1Figure 5.
Figure 5. Operation of a lifting device
4.2. Energy consumption components

Hydraulic energy supplied by the pump to the lifter's hydraulic system consists of:
𝐸 = 𝐸∆ + 𝐸 (6)
Where:
𝐸 – total hydraulic energy supplied to the lifter’s circuit (generated in the smaller chamber of the
pump)
𝐸∆ – energy lost due to the pressure drop in the system
𝐸 – hydraulic energy supplied to the lifter’s actuators
4
Hydraulic efficiency at which the power is delivered to the lifting device in the hydraulic system can
be defined as:
𝐸
𝜂 = ∗ 100% (7)
𝐸
and it can be calculated from equation (3).
This allows to measure ηhs of a RCV equipped with double chamber, fixed displacement pump using
pressure sensors measuring p2 and psl. Q2 can be approximated based on the pump's size and PTO's
speed, whereas Qsl can be calculated based on the actuator's dimensions and cycle time. However, under
the assumption that all of the oil in the lifter's circuit is used to drive the actuators, the formula can be
simplified to:
𝑝
𝜂 = ∗ 100% (8)
𝑝
This assumption is only true for full speed operation in systems with low excess oil flow. In case of
a variable displacement pump use of additional measurement apparatus is required.
Hydraulic energy supplied to the lifter's actuators - 𝐸 consists of:
𝐸 = 𝐸 +𝐸 + 𝐸 +𝐸 (9)
where:
𝐸 – overall energy loss in the lifting device
𝐸 – energy used to drive the lifting device
𝐸 – energy used to move the container along its trajectory
𝐸 – energy used to move the waste along its trajectory
El, Ec and Ew can be obtained through multi body simulation conducted on an exact model of a lifting
device loaded with container and waste, operating in a gravity field:
𝐸= (𝐹 + 𝐹 )
(10)
𝑥 −𝑥
∗
2
where:
𝐹– driving force
𝑥 – position of a linear actuator
Energy loss consists of:
𝐸 = 𝐸 +𝐸 + 𝐸 (11)
𝐸 – energy lost in the actuators
𝐸 – energy lost due to friction in the joints
𝐸 – excess energy required to assure continuous, smooth operation at the desired speed
Measurement of the exact values of Ea, Efr has limited application during real operation of a RCV
because it requires a complex measuring apparatus. Determination of Ea requires installing expensive
tensometric pins in the actuators or carrying out comprehensive tests on test benches. Magnitude of Efr
can be estimated by including friction in the joints in the multi body simulation but the results can be
misleading because most of the lifting devices are over-constrained and increase of values of the reaction
forces can occur due to manufacturing inaccuracies.
Component Ee is only present, when the oil flow in the lifter's circuit would make its movement faster
than it is allowed by the safety regulations. In such case, excess flow has to be returned to the tank at
the lifter’s operation pressure.
Evaluation of the efficiency of the lifting mechanism depends on the definition of the useful work.
The aim of the emptying process is to deliver the waste to the hopper (a cavity in RCV’s tailgate where
5
the waste is stored before compaction) which means, that a theoretical efficiency (ηth) of a lifting
mechanism can be described as:
𝐸
𝜂 = ∗ 100% (12)
𝐸
However, since none of the commonly used solutions empties the containers without lifting them,
real efficiency (ηr) of the lifting mechanism should also be considered:
𝐸 +𝐸
𝜂 = ∗ 100% (13)
𝐸
4.3. Efficiency
4.3.1. Hydraulic System

Efficiency of the hydraulic system (8) can be estimated based on the pressure drop between the
pump’s outlet and the lifter’s actuator. Measurements performed on a single RCV showed a steady
pressure drop of approximately 50 bar in the entire range of tested loads (Figure 6) [11].
70 80
60 70
60
Pressure drop [bar]
50
Efficiency [%]
50
40
40
30 30
Lifter only
20 20
20kg
10 10
40kg
0
0
0 50 100 150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Cylinder pressure [bar] Pressure in the actuator [bar]
Figure 6. Pressure drop in the hydraulic system of Figure 7. Relationship between efficiency (7) of
SK350 lifter [11] the SK350 lifter hydraulic system and load
An approximated relationship between hydraulic cylinder load and efficiency of the hydraulic system
resulting from this pressure drop is presented on Figure 7.
4.3.2. Lifting Device

Since the operation of the lifting device depends on numerous factors such as:
 type of the lifting device
 type of waste container
 mass of waste
 centre of gravity of waste
analysis was carried out for the following cases:
 two lifter types: SK350 and DELTA (Figure 8)
 two frequently used containers compliant with EN 840: 240L and 1100L with a flat lid)
 centre of gravity of waste located in 1/3 of the container's height
 four fractions of the solid waste: plastic, dry, mixed, glass
 mass of waste used in the simulation equal to mean, median, 1st and 3rd percentile of each
fraction (
6
 Operation of both lifting devices for all of the described cases was carried out to obtain the
theoretical energy consumption of a lifter operating without friction and resistance forces.
The simulations were then adjusted according to internal simulation guidelines to determine
the real energy consumption by including friction in the joints and resistance force of the
actuators. Procedure that leads to accurate simulation of real operation of SK350 and
DELTA lifters is described in detail in another study [11].
Figure 11 shows the real energy consumption of both lifting devices. Energy consumption of DELTA
lifter is significantly higher than SK350 lifter, due to its higher mass.
 )
Selected lifter and container types are very popular what makes them an interesting target for this
study. Position of centre of gravity of waste was selected arbitrarily due to lack of statistical data. Waste
was simulated as a solid block with a constant cross-section and uniform density and height equal to 2/3
of the container's height. Selection of this value has significant influence on results, what is shown on
Figure 9Figure 1, which shows relationship between location of the centre of gravity of waste and
energy required to lift the 240L filled with 96 kg of waste (with and without bin).
The mass values are based on a statistical analysis of data from a RCV equipped with RFID
containers identification and lifter with a weighing system. Result of this analysis are presented in Table
1 and on Figure 10. It should be noticed that the mass of waste is significantly lower than the maximal
load for both of the considered bins. The difference is especially visible for plastic and dry waste.
Figure 8. DELTA lifter (left, one of two independent units); SK350 lifter (right)
Table 1. Masses of waste used in the simulation

Weight [kg]
Bin mass Max load
Fraction Samples [kg] [kg] Mean 1st quartile median 3rd quartile
Plastic 37 7,3 4 6 10
Dry 1541 13,4 6 10 18
240L 14,4 96
Mixed 5436 23,2 15 21 28
Glass 1497 30,9 18 28 42
Plastic 273 25,7 15 25 35
Dry 13972 43,9 20 35 55
1100L 56 440
Mixed 57500 79,2 45 70 100
Glass 573 117 55 90 160
7
4000
240L bin +
Energy consumption [J]
3000 waste
2000
1000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Center of gravity position [mm]
Figure 9. Relationship between energy consumption Figure 10. Mass of waste depending on the
and height of the centre of gravity of waste fraction and container type
Operation of both lifting devices for all of the described cases was carried out to obtain the theoretical
energy consumption of a lifter operating without friction and resistance forces. The simulations were
then adjusted according to internal simulation guidelines to determine the real energy consumption by
including friction in the joints and resistance force of the actuators. Procedure that leads to accurate
simulation of real operation of SK350 and DELTA lifters is described in detail in another study [11].
Figure 11 shows the real energy consumption of both lifting devices. Energy consumption of DELTA
lifter is significantly higher than SK350 lifter, due to its higher mass.
15000
Energy Consumption [J]
10000 SK350 240L

SK350 1100L
5000 DELTA 240L
DELTA 1100L
0
0 50 Waste 100
mass [kg] 150 200
Figure 11. Total energy consumption of SK350 and DELTA lifting devices
Figure 12 shows relationship between theoretical (ηth) and real (ηr) efficiency of SK350 and DELTA
lifting devices. Since the energy required to lift the components of the mechanism is constant the
efficiency increases with the mass of waste. Significant difference between theoretical and real
efficiency shows that for the tested mass range energy required to lift the waste container is a significant
component of the total energy consumption. Moreover, large disproportion between maximal load of
the containers and the real load, especially for plastic and dry waste shows that both containers and
lifting devices are over-dimensioned for the performed task. This results in a relatively low efficiency,
compared to operation with maximal load.
Figure 13 shows theoretical efficiency of the tested lifters for the characteristic masses of waste.
Application of specialized lifting devices and containers optimized for lighter fractions of waste could
significantly increase efficiency of the process.
8
60
SK350 240L (real)
50 SK350 240L
(theoretical)
40 SK350 1100L (real)
Efficiency [%]
30 SK350 1100L
(theoretical)
20 DELTA 240L (real)
10 DELTA 240L
(theoretical)
DELTA 1100L (real)
0
0 50 100 150 200
Mass of waste [kg]
Figure 12. Relationship between real and theoretical efficiencies of SK350 and DELTA lifters and
mass of waste
Theoretical Efficiency 240L SK350 Theoretical Efficiency 1100L SK350

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Mean Min 25 Median Max 75 Mean Min 25 Median Max 75
Plastic Dry Mixed Glass Plastic Dry Mixed Glass
Theoretical Efficiency 240L DELTA Theoretical Efficiency 1100L DELTA

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Mean Min 25 Median Max 75 Mean Min 25 Median Max 75
Plastic Dry Mixed Glass Plastic Dry Mixed Glass
Figure 13. Theoretical efficiency of SK350 and DELTA lifters for characteristic masses of waste
Summary
9
Compaction
Ep1 Esc Ec4
curve
Pump
Ec
Ep2 Esl
Ew
Figure 14. Energetic model of the hydraulic system of a RCV
Figure 14 lays out the energetic model of the hydraulic system of a refuse collection vehicle. Energy
consumption at each stage of the process can be calculated based on values that are possible to measure
without disrupting RCV's daily operation. Then it is also possible to determine the energy losses even
if they cannot be measured explicitly. Analysis of efficiency of energy transfer between its constituents
can indicate the components with the highest potential for improvements and enables to compare various
existing solutions.
Results of the presented analysis already shows that waste segregation introduced substantial
differences between specific weights of various types of waste and it might be beneficial to optimize the
performance (and consequently mass) of lifting devices and containers for specific fractions.
In the future presented energetic model of the hydraulic system of a RCV could be further developed
by adding the relationship between pump and combustion engine. This comprehensive model should by
then tested by applying it to several different RCV's to model their operation and compare fuel
consumption in various conditions. Future studies could also focus on verification of durability
requirements of waste containers and lifting devices that take waste segregation into account and verify
applicability of fraction specific approach in waste collection.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank the company Ekocel and Zoeller Tech for assistance in preparing this work.
References
[1] Wilson D and Velis C 2015 Waste management - still a global challenge in the 21st century: An
evidence-based call for action, Waste Management Res., vol 33, no 12, pp 1049–1051
[2] Bender F, Bosse T and Sawodny O 2014An investigation on the fuel savings potential of hybrid
hydraulic refuse collection vehicles, Waste Management vol 34, no 9, pp 1577–83
[3] Bielski P, Wysocki O and Czyżewicz J 2018 Failure of cold-formed beam: How does residual
stress affect stability?, Shell Structures: Theory and Applications vol. 4 p 529-532
[4] Czyżewicz J 2011 Badania procesu załadunku śmieci i modyfikacja układu sterowania
mechanizmu załadowczego śmieciarki, PhD Thesis
[5] Czyżewicz J, Łubiński J and Zajdziński T 2015 Wpływ strat mechanicznych w siłowniku
teleskopowym zespołu zagęszczającego w pojeździe do usuwania odpadów z pojemników na
skuteczność prasowania odpadów, Transport Przemysłowy i Maszyny Robocze (4) p 46-51
[6] Czyżewicz J, Kropiwnicki J and Wysocki O 2015 Model of the hydraulic pump powertrain of
refuse collection vehicle compaction mechanism, Combustion Engines 3(162) p 626-630
[7] Wysocki O, Kropiwnicki J and Czyżewicz J 2017 Analysis of the possibility of determining the
general characteristics using the operational data of a vehicle engine, Combustion Engines
4(171) p 33-38
[8] Wysocki O, Czyżewicz J and Kropiwnicki J 2017 Projekt stanowiska badawczego do
wyznaczania charakterystyki ogólnej silnika spalinowego ZS przy wykorzystaniu
hydraulicznego układu odbioru mocy, Autobusy. Technika, Eksploatacja, Systemy
Transportowe 7-8 p 243-246
[9] Czyżewicz J and Wasilczuk M 2015 Wpływ oporów ruchu odpadów w skrzyni zbiorczej pojazdu
10
do usuwania odpadów z pojemników na parametry procesu prasowania, Tribologia no 1(259)

pp 25-36
[10] Wysocki O, Czyżewicz J and Kropiwnicki J 207 Design of a test bench for determining the
general characteristics of an internal combustion engine using a hydraulic power take-off
system, XXIII International Symposium Research-Education-Technology p 196-201
[11] Zajdzinski T 2016 Power demand and efficiency of refuse collection vehicles’ lifting
mechanisms, Master's Thesis, FH Lübeck and Gdańsk University of Technology
11

Zajdziński 2018 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 421 022044

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zajdziński 2018 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 421 022044

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zajdziński 2018 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 421 022044

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Materials

Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 14.186.80.68 on 30/09/2024 at 06:12

Energetic model of hydraulic system of refuse collection

T Zajdziński2 O Wysocki1,2 J Czyżewicz1,2 and J Kropiwnicki1

3.1. Operation of a sweep and slide compaction mechanism

Figure 2. Operation stages of a compaction mechanism

3.2. Energy consumption components

3.3.1. Hydraulic System

3.3.2. Compactor efficiency and Compaction Curve

Pressure in the actuators [bar]

4.1. Operation of a lifting device

Figure 5. Operation of a lifting device

4.2. Energy consumption components

4.3.1. Hydraulic System

4.3.2. Lifting Device

Table 1. Masses of waste used in the simulation

10000 SK350 240L

Theoretical Efficiency 240L SK350 Theoretical Efficiency 1100L SK350

Plastic Dry Mixed Glass Plastic Dry Mixed Glass

Theoretical Efficiency 240L DELTA Theoretical Efficiency 1100L DELTA

Plastic Dry Mixed Glass Plastic Dry Mixed Glass

Figure 14. Energetic model of the hydraulic system of a RCV

do usuwania odpadów z pojemników na parametry procesu prasowania, Tribologia no 1(259)

You might also like