Original Article

Proc IMechE Part I:

J Systems and Control Engineering
1–18
Modeling hydraulic actuator Ó IMechE 2015
Reprints and permissions:
mechanical dynamics from pressure sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0959651814568366

measured at control valve ports pii.sagepub.com

Davide Cristofori and Andrea Vacca

Abstract
The goal of this article is to formulate and validate a model for the prediction of the mechanical dynamics of hydraulic
actuators controlled by means of proportional directional valves (PDVs). The model inputs are the pressure at the PDVs
ports and the current to the solenoids: no further input is required even when additional elements are installed in the
line between PDV and actuator. The model finds application in closed-loop control of mobile electrohydraulic machines
for load handling, construction and agriculture. These machines are typically based on open-loop control of the actuator
speed. Nevertheless, these machines are often characterized by non-cyclical operation, large disturbances (e.g. drive on
uneven ground) and time-varying parameters (e.g. load mass). Due to these features, closed-loop control has potential
to improve the machine dynamics with consequent benefits in terms of productivity and operation safety. However,
because of the harsh working conditions, the installation of feedback sensors in proximity of the hydraulic actuator is
impractical and rarely exploited. The proposed model offers a solution to implement closed-loop control using pressure
sensors in a compact and reliable arrangement, next to PDVs ports. The case study is a hydraulic crane using PDVs in
combination with counterbalance valves (CBVs) to control the mechanical arms. The experiments were performed with-
out altering the basic hydraulic circuit of the commercial crane and using an electronic hardware with performance com-
parable to standard controllers for mobile hydraulics. The results show the accuracy of the model for all operating
conditions, including the assistive load condition.

Keywords
Electrohydraulic systems, electrohydraulics, pressure feedback, proportional valve, counterbalance valve

Date received: 19 July 2014; accepted: 19 December 2014

Introduction (pressurized fluid). Additionally, actuator end-stops

Due to the large power-to-weight ratio, hydraulic tech-
nology is usually the preferred means for transmitting
mechanical power in many engineering applications,
and in particular in mobile machines dealing with large
inertia such as load handling machines (e.g. cranes, tel-
ehandlers), construction machines (e.g. excavators,
wheel-loaders) and agricultural machines (e.g. harvest-
ers, plows). These applications are often characterized
by non-cyclical operation, large disturbances (e.g. oper-
ation on uneven ground) and time-varying parameters
(e.g. load and/or geometrical configuration of the
arms). In many cases, these aspects, together with the
inherent non-linear nature of the hydraulic actuation
systems, make the control of the mechanical arms
through hydraulic actuators a challenging task. As
described by Thomson et al.,1 mechanical vibrations
can occur in hydraulic machines capable of storing
large kinetic (due to large inertia) and potential energy
and other nonlinearities in the hydraulic and mechani-
cal systems are responsible for the discontinuous
motion.2
Figure 1 depicts a simplified schematic of a single
actuator electrohydraulic valve-controlled system (volu-
metric flows are represented according to the positive
direction). The P and T ports represent the pressure
source and the tank connections, respectively.
The current state-of-the art hydraulic machines
adopt several measures to achieve satisfactory control.
Most common methods are pure hydraulic techniques
Maha Fluid Power Research Center, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, USA
Corresponding author:
Davide Cristofori, Maha Fluid Power Research Center, Purdue University,
1500 Kepner Drive, Lafayette, IN 47905, USA.
Email: dcristof@purdue.edu; davide_cristofori@yahoo.com

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
2 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of a single actuator
electrohydraulic valve-controlled system.
based on the addition of elements to introduce hydrau-
lic resistance and/or hydraulic capacitance into the sys-
tem. An example is represented by the cushioning
systems of the hydraulic cylinders used to reduce vibra-
tions by limiting the end-stop discontinuity. Several
designs are available, including specifically shaped pis-
ton surfaces3 and additional restrictions in proximity of
the discharge port.4 Another example of pure hydraulic
method is represented by the so-called automatic ride
control5 used to reduce vibrations of construction
machines driving on uneven ground. In this method,
hydraulic capacitance and resistance are added in the
lines connecting the directional valve to the cylinder by
the use of an accumulator with an orifice at the inlet.
An additional example of pure hydraulic method to
improve the dynamics of mobile hydraulic machines
handling suspended load is represented by the use
counterbalance valves (CBVs) with highly energy dissi-
pative settings (i.e. low pilot ratios), typical in areal
platforms or in hydraulic cranes.6 Normally used to
handle assistive load conditions, CBVs can be treated
as additional hydraulic resistance on the transmission
lines (Figure 2), suitable to improve the actuator
mechanical dynamics but responsible for energy losses.
Although largely utilized in commercial hydraulic
machines because of the high reliability deriving from
decades of development, these pure hydraulic solutions
present the following disadvantages:
 Lack of generality. Each application utilizes a spe-
cifically designed pure hydraulic method character-
ized by a sizing typically based on trial-and-error
procedures.
 Limited range of effectiveness. These methods are
typically characterized by fixed configuration (e.g.
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
Figure 2. Simplified representation of a single actuator
electrohydraulic valve-controlled system with counterbalance
valves (indicated by CBVs).
geometry of the orifices, size and pre-charge pres-
sure of the accumulator). As a consequence, each
solution offers optimal performance only in prox-
imity of the design operating conditions.
 Energy consumption. Additional hydraulic resis-
tances introduce energy losses in the system.
 System slowdown/complexity. Hydraulic capaci-
tance may introduce undesired machine slow-down.
In some cases, to maintain high machine productiv-
ity, additional valves are required to temporarily
close the connection to the capacitive component
(e.g. pilot-operated on/off valve at the accumulator
inlet5).
The diffusion of electrohydraulic technology over
the last decades has permitted the implementation of
electrically operated proportional directional valves
(PDVs). An example of PDV is represented in Figure 3,
where uc represents the operator command and I repre-
sents the electric current.
Advancements in modern electronic controllers offer
the possibility to perform complex real-time algorithms.
The use of closed-loop control schemes through feed-
back of the actuator mechanical dynamics would be a
convenient way to improve the motion of such machin-
ery as in general—compared to open-loop controllers—
it presents several advantages, including better distur-
bance rejection, reduced sensitivity to model uncertain-
ties and time-varying parameters.7
For these reasons, many researchers have been inves-
tigating closed-loop motion control using combinations
of position, velocity and acceleration sensors. Among
Cristofori and Vacca
Figure 3. Standard PDV block with open-loop control of the
actuator mechanical dynamics.
those studies, Honkakorpi et al.8 implemented a full-
state position controller based on the measurement of a
sensor module including micro-electro-mechanical sys-
tem (MEMS) inclinometer, gyro and accelerometer
they have assembled. Tafazoli et al.9 developed a track-
ing control for a hydraulic actuator using acceleration
feedback and a friction observer. Vossoughi and
Donath10 used dynamic feedback linearization to con-
trol the rotation of a hydraulic servo-system using
angular sensors feedback. Examples are also present in
the field of pneumatics, for example, Takosoglu et al.11
presented a full model of the system and fuzzy control
strategy. Currently, similar closed-loop control strate-
gies are used in several industrial machines (especially
in case of motion simulators, hydraulic manipulators
and robots, etc.), but it is still extremely rare in case of
mobile hydraulic machines. In fact, mobile hydraulic
machines are used in applications characterized by
harsh working conditions that can harm the reliability
of feedback sensors installed on the mechanical arms
and hydraulic actuators (subject to large mechanical
and environmental stress). A safe installation of feed-
back sensors on the mechanical arms and hydraulic
actuators of mobile hydraulic machines would require
to re-engineer the machine to include protections for
sensors and relative wiring. Because of these practical
limitations, closed-loop control of actuators mechanical
dynamics has found limited application in commercial
mobile hydraulic machines. Consequently, only very
simple open-loop operations to improve the machine
dynamics are normally used (e.g. dithering of I and
low-pass filtering of uc to smooth down I are functions
often available in commercial controllers12).
The above-mentioned drawbacks would be signifi-
cantly limited by the use of pressure sensors installed
on the directional valve ports providing feedback sig-
nals to determine the hydraulic actuator mechanical
dynamics. This sensors location is safe from environ-
mental hazards and mechanical stress; additionally, the
installation does not require significant modification of
the hydraulic and mechanical architectures of the
machines. However, in this case, the main challenge is
how a reliable estimate of the hydraulic actuator mechan-
ical dynamics can be obtained from pressure sensors
measurement only. This article proposes a viable solu-
tion to this problem.
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
3
Figure 4. Compact assembly of control valve, sensors and
controller required to perform the model presented in this
article.
In particular, this study presents a model to predict
the actuator mechanical dynamics (in terms of instan-
taneous position, velocity or acceleration) whose
input is the signal provided by pressure sensors
installed on the ports of the PDV, as it is represented
in Figure 4. This type of installation constitutes a
compact assembly of PDV, sensors and controller
which from an industrial standpoint could be manu-
factured as a standalone kit.
Although the model here proposed particularly
refers to the case of electrohydraulic PDVs, possible
extension could be made to similar cases in which the
actuator speed is controlled by means of an electrohy-
draulic component (such as the displacement-controlled
system architectures13).
It is worth to point out that the proposed technique
is developed with the aim of being utilized not only for
the simplest case of Figure 1 but also for cases where
additional hydraulic elements are present in the trans-
mission line from the PDV to the actuator. In particu-
lar, in the case taken as reference in this work, CBVs
are present in the transmission lines as shown in
Figure 2.
In the past, other researchers proposed the idea of
using pressure feedback techniques to improve the
dynamics of mobile hydraulic machines through
closed-loop control architectures. Among those, Krus
and Palmberg14 introduced the idea of the pressure
feedback control with application to hydraulic cranes.
The experimental results proved the control method is
suitable to effectively reduce oscillations in the hydrau-
lic system; however, this study does not involve the
analysis of the vibrations of the mechanical arms. The
dynamics of the mechanical arms was later analyzed by
the same authors’ research team with the introduction
of additional position sensors.15
Another relevant pressure feedback control tech-
nique for hydraulic systems was proposed by Garimella
and Yao.16 The reference case for their work was a
hydraulic arm for which they developed an adaptive
4 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering
Figure 5. Block diagram representing the model to predict the mechanical dynamics of the hydraulic actuator.
Figure 6. Schematic representing the metering areas determined by the position of the spool of a 4/3 PDV.
robust control for velocity tracking. Their formulation
was based on the orifice equation to determine the flow
rate at the PDV workports on the basis of the input cur-
rent. The experimental results demonstrated the devel-
oped model was accurate enough for the control targets
of the study; however, several limitations hamper the
general applicability of the technique. In particular, the
bulk modulus was insensitive to pressure variation; no
additional elements between the PDV and the actuators
were considered. These limitations are overcome by the
model presented in this work.
The structure of this article is summarized as follows:
a detailed description of the proposed model is given in
section ‘‘Model description;’’ section ‘‘Case study’’
describes the reference case considered for the experi-
mental validation of the model, a mid-size hydraulic
crane. Section ‘‘Experimental results’’ illustrates several
significant comparisons between the experimental and
estimated values of pressure at the hydraulic actuator
chambers (main boom of the crane) and of the outer
boom accelerations.
Model description
This section describes the proposed model taking as
reference the case of a generic hydraulic actuator.
Guidelines for the application of the model are pro-
vided in the last subsection. The model is composed by
three sub-models as it is represented in the schematic of
Figure 5.
The ‘‘flow model’’ calculates the outlet flow at the
PDV workports QW = ½QWe , QWr  from the value of
the electric current I and the measured pressure
pM = ½pP , pT , pWe , pWr . The ‘‘cylinder pressure model’’
calculates the cylinder pressure pC = ½pCe , pCr  and flow
QC = ½QCe , QCr  from the following inputs: the value of
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
QW , the current I and the pressures measured at the
workports pW = ½pWe , pWr . Then, the ‘‘actuator
dynamics model’’ calculates X = ½x, x,
_ x€ from the val-
ues of pC and QW .
Flow model
The electric current I to the PDV solenoids is typically
a known quantity since it is the output from the control
unit. The spool of a 4/3 open center PDV is schemati-
cally represented in Figure 6 along with the indication
of the flow rates across each metering area.
The current I causes the translation xs of the PDV
spool along its own axis with a dynamics that can be
approximated by the second-order transfer function
below17
xs (s) v2n
H(s) = = 2 ð1Þ
I(s) s + 2§vn s + v2n
The spool position xs determines the metering areas
of each PDV port. According to the classic lumped
parameters modeling approach,2 metering areas can be
described by set of variable orifices whose amplitude
depends on the spool position (see Figure 7).
The general orifice equation2 describes the flow Q
through an orifice with metering area A
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2jDpj
Q = sign(Dp)cd A ð2Þ
r
where Dp represents the pressure differential across the
orifice, cd represents the discharge coefficient and r is
the fluid density.
Considering the relationship between the metering
areas A and the spool position xs to be approximately
linear during the control of the actuator velocity (region
Cristofori and Vacca 5

between the valve deadband and saturation), then equa- APDV (I) = ½APWe (I), AWeT (I), APWr (I), AWrT (I). The
tion (2) can be rewritten to determine the flow rates value of all areas in APDV (I) can be obtained according
from the pressure source port to the workports to the experimental procedure described in section
‘‘Experimental characterization of the proportional
QPWe (I, pP , pWe ) = sign(pP  pWe )cd APWe (I)H(s) valve.’’
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Note that metering areas can be subject to mechani-
2jpP  pWe j
cal wear over time. In most cases, mechanical wear can
r
be neglected as it produces a small variation in the
ð3Þ metering area, especially in case of large valve open-
ings. However, in cases where the mechanical wear is
QPWr (I, pP , pWr ) = sign(pP  pWr )cd APWr (I)H(s) considered to have an effect on the machine behavior,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the above-mentioned experimental procedure can be
2jpP  pWr j ð4Þ repeated.
r With reference to the schematic of Figure 7, it is then
possible to express the final equation for the estimate of
Similarly, the flow from the workport to the return is the flow rates at the workports
represented by
QWe (I, pP , pWe , pT ) = QPWe  QWeT ð7Þ
QWeT (I, pWe , pT ) = sign(pWe  pT )cd AWeT (I)H(s)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi QWr (I, pP , pWr , pT ) = QPWr  QWrT ð8Þ
2jpWe  pT j
r
ð5Þ Cylinder pressure model
QWrT (I, pWr , pT ) = sign(pWr  pT )cd AWrT (I)H(s) In general, the pressure in the cylinder chambers differs
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi from the respective pressure at the PDV workports. For
2jpWr  pT j this reason, the cylinder pressure model is formulated
ð6Þ
r to determine the cylinder chambers pressure from the
values measured at the PDV workports.
The metering areas as a function of the electric cur-
rent I in equations (3)–(6) can be collected in the vector:
Simple transmission lines. The case of simple transmission
lines can be represented as shown in Figure 1. This case
is relative to those machines where no additional ele-
ments (e.g. valves, accumulators) are installed on the
hydraulic line between the PDV and actuator. The sim-
ple transmission lines model is based on the linear
hydraulic impedance formulation,18 and its schematic
is represented in Figure 8.
The hydraulic resistance of the line is representative
of the pressure loss DpR through the line. Assuming lin-
ear flow, it can be written as

DpR = pC‘  pW = R‘ QW ð9Þ

Figure 7. Representation of the lumped parameters model of
the valve in Figure 6.
The hydraulic capacitance of the line is representa-
tive of the pressure build up in the hydraulic control

Figure 8. Schematic representing the simple transmission line model: (a) extension side and (b) retraction side.

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
6 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering
volume. The time derivative of the pressure p_ inside the
control volume can be written as
DQC‘ QW  QC
p_ ‘ = = ð10Þ
C‘ C‘
where DQC‘ is the difference between the volumetric
flow entering and leaving the volume; C‘ is the capaci-
tance of the volume
A‘
C‘ =
b‘
where A‘ is the hydraulic line inner cross area, b is the
bulk modulus of the fluid and ‘ is the length of the line.
The hydraulic inductance of the line is representative
of the inertia of the fluid. The time derivative of the
flow Q_ through the hydraulic line is
DpL‘ pC‘  pC
Q_ CL = = ð12Þ
L‘ L‘
where Dp is the pressure drop across the inductive ele-
ment and L‘ is the inductance
r‘
L‘ =
A‘
Combining the equations above, it is possible to deter-
mine the cylinder pressure and cylinder flow with respect
to the parameters R‘ , L‘ and C‘ and the known variables
pW (measured) and QW (calculated using the flow model)
pCe = pWe + L‘e C‘e p€We + R‘e QWe  L‘e Q_ We
+ R‘e L‘e C‘e Q€We
pCr = pWr + L‘r C‘r p€Wr + R‘r QWr  L‘r Q_ Wr
€Wr
+ R‘r L‘r C‘r Q
QCe = QWe  R‘e C‘e Q_ We  C‘e p_ We
QCr = QWr + R‘r C‘r Q_ Wr + C‘r p_ Wr
In case the transmission lines present limited volume,
equations (14)–(17) can be simplified by neglecting
capacitive and inductive contribution. Considering the
geometry of the hydraulic lines of the crane taken as
reference in this work, this simplification is considered
in the results shown in section ‘‘Experimental results.’’
Differently, more complex transmission lines (e.g. line
constituted by segments with different inner cross area
A‘ ) could be modeled by adding further resistive, capa-
citive and inductive elements.
Additional valves on the transmission lines. In cases where
additional valves are introduced in the transmission line
to obtain specific functionalities, the proposed model
includes sets of equations that are selected by a switch-
ing logic based on the operation of the machine. The
following description takes as reference the case of
Figure 2, where CBVs are used to handle aiding loads
and meet safety requirements of the system. This system
architecture is often used in load handling machines,
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
and in particular in the experimental setup considered
in this work (section ‘‘Case study’’).
Unlike previous effort made by the authors’ research
team toward the detailed modeling of the CBVs,6 in this
study, only one parameter is used to account for such
component, which represents the hydraulic resistance
through the unidirectional valve integrated in the CBV.
Case 1: flow through unidirectional valve integrated in the
CBV. This case is used to calculate pCe when the exten-
ð11Þ
sion of the hydraulic cylinder is commanded (I . 0) and
to calculate pCr when the retraction of the hydraulic
cylinder is commanded (I \ 0).
In this case, the pressure in the cylinder chambers
can be evaluated by adding the pressure drop across the
unidirectional valve of the CBV to the pressure drop of
the transmission line
pCe ðpWe , QWe , (I . 0)Þ
= RUVe Q2We + pWe + L‘e C‘e p€We
ð18Þ
+ R‘e QWe + L‘e Q_ We
€We
+ R‘e L‘e C‘e Q
ð13Þ pCr ðpWr , QWr , (I \ 0)Þ
= RUVr Q2Wr + pWr + L‘r C‘r p€Wr
ð19Þ
+ R‘r QWr  L‘r Q_ Wr
€Wr
+ R‘r L‘r C‘r Q
The hydraulic resistances RUVe and RUVr are repre-
sentative of the pressure drop across the unidirectional
ð14Þ
valve of the CBV on the extension and retraction side,
respectively.
ð15Þ
Case 2: flow through pilot valve integrated in the CBV. This
case is used to calculate pCe when the retraction of the
ð16Þ hydraulic cylinder is commanded (I \ 0) and pCr when the
ð17Þ extension of the hydraulic cylinder is commanded (I . 0).
The hydraulic resistance of the pilot-operated valve
depends on many parameters, including spring charac-
teristics, pilot pressures and pilot areas. Rather than
modeling the entire CBV, in this work, the cylinder
pressure is obtained from an innovative formulation
based on the pressure build up equation derived from
continuity and the state equation for the fluid
!
b X
p_ = Qi + V_ ð20Þ
V
i
where V is the volume of the fluid, b is the bulk modu-
lus of the fluid and Qi is the generic flow entering the
control volume net of leakages. Flow leakages repre-
sented in Figure 2 by Qer could be included in the sum-
mation term, but in several applications, like the one
described in this article, neglecting this term represents
a reasonable assumption.
With reference to the extension and retraction cylin-
der chambers from Figure 2, equation (20) can be
rewritten as
Cristofori and Vacca 7

b on an innovative formulation based on the pressure

p_ Ce = (QCe  V_ Ce ) ð21Þ
VCe build up equation at the chambers of the cylinders
b (equations (21) and (22)). The volumes of the cylinder
p_ Cr = (QCr + V_ Cr ) ð22Þ
VCr chambers can be rewritten as
Consequently, the pressure in the cylinder chambers VCe = VCe, min + xAe ð27Þ
can be expressed as VCr = VCr, max  xAr ð28Þ
pCe ðpCe , QCe , (I \ 0)Þ = pCe (tI \ 0 ) where VCe, min and Ae are the dead volume and the pis-
ð
b ð23Þ ton area of the extension chamber, respectively; VCr, max
+ (QCe  V_ Ce )dt
VCe and Ae are the maximum volume and the piston area
tI = 0 of the retraction chamber, respectively. Plugging equa-
pCr ðpCr , QCr , (I . 0)Þ = pCr (tI . 0 ) tions (27) and (28) into equations (21) and (22), it is
ð possible to obtain the following differential equations
b ð24Þ
+ (QCr  V_ Cr )dt for the pressure in the two cylinder chambers
VCr
tI . 0
b
where pCe (tI \ 0 ) represents the pressure in the extension p_ Ce = (QCe  Ae x)
_ ð29Þ
VCe, min + Ae x
side of the cylinder when I becomes negative; pCr (tI . 0 ) b
represents the pressure in the retraction side of the p_ Cr = (QCr + Ar x)
_ ð30Þ
VCr, max  Ar x
cylinder when I becomes positive. These values are
stored in the control unit as long as their activating The flow rates and the pressures in the cylinder are
condition on I holds. The value of cylinder chambers already obtained according to the method described in
volumes (VCe , VCr ) as well as their derivatives sections ‘‘Cylinder pressure model’’ and ‘‘Hydraulic
(V_ Ce , V_ Cr ) can be evaluated from the actuator stroke x actuator mechanical dynamics,’’ respectively. The para-
whose calculation is described in section ‘‘Hydraulic meters Ae , Ar , VCe, min and VCr, max are constants related
actuator mechanical dynamics.’’ to the actuator geometry. Each one of the differential
equations (29) and (30) can be numerically solved to
Case 3: stop of the hydraulic cylinder motion (I = 0). As it obtain x. In this work, the finite difference approxima-
can be noted from Figure 2, the hydraulic circuit often tion is developed to obtain a set of explicit functions.
differs from the extension to the retraction side (e.g. dif- The time domain is divided in time intervals
ferent volumes of the cylinder chambers). Additionally, (j = 1 . . . k . . . m). The interval amplitude corresponds
for cases in which a large inertial load is handled by the to the sampling time Dt of the data acquisition system.
machine, gravitational force acts on a specific direction, The initial value of the actuator position, x0 , has to be
independent on the direction of motion of the linear set (it also corresponds to the last position at the end of
actuator. the previous cycle of operation, or it can be set to a
These differences, in case of the main boom of the known value every time the actuator reaches an end-
reference machine, are the reason why during the stop stop). For many machines, such as the hydraulic crane
of the hydraulic cylinder, the value of pCe is evaluated used for the experiments of this research (section ‘‘Case
using a different equation compared to pCr study’’), the actuators at rest are fully retracted
ð (xi = 0, 8i) so mechanical constrains can be engaged as
b _
pCe ðpCe (I = 0)Þ = pCe (tI \ 0 ) + VCe dt ð25Þ safety measures to prevent undesired movements of the
VCe
tI = 0 mechanical arms.
pCr ðpWr (I = 0)Þ = pWr ð26Þ Once the initial time step is defined, the motion of
the actuator at each time step can be evaluated accord-
In particular, when no motion of the cylinder is com- ing to
manded (I = 0), the pressure pWe is sufficient to open  
the pilot-operated valve included into the CBV on the be, k (pCe, k )Dt Ae
xk (pCe , QCe ) = + QCe + xk1
retraction side line. Consequently, in this condition, as De, k Dt
it will also be pointed out in section ‘‘Experimental pCe, k  pCe, k1
 Ve, min ð31Þ
results,’’ the pressure in the retraction chamber of the De, k
 
cylinder equals the pressure at the retraction workport br, k (pCr, k )Dt Ar
(see equation (26)). xk (pCr , QCr ) =  QCr  xk1
Dr, k Dt
pCr, k  pCr, k1
+ Vr, max ð32Þ
Hydraulic actuator mechanical dynamics Dr, k
The typical approach to determine the hydraulic actua- The denominator terms De, k and Dr, k group the fol-
tor mechanical dynamics is based on the resolution of lowing variables
the rod-piston
P motion equation (Newton’s second law:  
m€x= Fi ). Differently, the proposed model is based De, k = Ae pCe, k  pCe, k1 + be, k (pCe, k ) ð33Þ

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
8 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering
 
Dr, k = Ar pCr, k  pCr, k1 + br, k (pCr, k )
The pressure dependency of the bulk modulus is con-
sidered as follows19
be, k (pCe, k ) = Kb pCe, k + bp = 0
br, k (pCr, k ) = Kb pCr, k + bp = 0
where Kb = ∂b=∂p is the angular coefficient of the line-
arized curve bulk modulus with respect to the pressure
at a specific temperature, and bp = 0 is the bulk modulus
at the same temperature and 0 bar.
The typical modeling of the actuator mechanical
dynamics (based on Newton’s second law) requires spe-
cific equations to describe the friction force.
Differently, the formulation of the proposed model has
the advantage that there are no equations for the fric-
tion force as its effect is measured by the pressure
sensors.
Model usage and limitations
The applicability of equations (31) and (32) is guaran-
teed as long as a sufficiently fine sampling time Dt is
used, so that
  case study of a midsized hydraulic crane (AtlasÒ, model
jpCe, k  pCe, k1 j \ be, k ) De, k . 0 ð37Þ
jpCr, k  pCr, k1 j \ br, k Dr, k . 0
In this article (as it will be shown in section ‘‘Case
study’’), a sampling frequency of 600 Hz was observed
to largely satisfy the condition of equation (37). It is
out of the scope of this research to determine the mini-
mum sampling frequency required to apply the pre-
sented model; however, the authors consider it to be
largely below 600 Hz since measurements showed that
the maximum frequency of the machine dynamics is
considerably below 100 Hz.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that at each
time step k, the value of xk can be calculated both by
equations (31) and (32). For a specific time step k, the
choice whether using equation (31) or (32) can be based
on several considerations. First consideration is that the
features of the load, the mechanical structure and the
hydraulic circuit may cause a situation where the calcu-
lation of the pressure at one side of the cylinder is more
accurate than the other. Consequently, equation (31)
(dependent of pCe , independent of pCr ) may be prefer-
able when the estimate of pCe is more accurate than the
estimate of pCr (differently, the use of equation (32)
may be convenient). Additional consideration pertains
to possible inaccuracies of the pressure sensors. In par-
ticular, offset in the pressure measurement does not
propagate over the solution of equations (31) and (32)
as they are based on finite difference method. However,
hysteresis and nonlinearity may have an effect on the
solution of those equations in case the pressure mea-
surement varies over a wide range. Consequently, using
equation (31) may be convenient if the value of the
pressure variation in the extension chamber is smaller
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
ð34Þ than the pressure variation in the retraction side of the
cylinder (differently, the use of equation (32) may be
convenient). As an example of application, section
‘‘Validation of the cylinder pressure model’’ shows the
ð35Þ switching logic used for the model of the reference crane
in order to automatically select equation (31) or (32).
ð36Þ It should also be observed that in case the piston
does not reach any end-stop for long time trajectories,
there may be a certain extent of drift in the solution of
the actuator position through the finite difference
method. Since the solution of the actuator velocity and
acceleration is less sensitive to this aspect, the proposed
model finds ideal application for vibration damping
feedback control. Although vibration reduction is the
main concern for mobile hydraulic machines, in case
the proposed model is applied for actuator trajectory
closed-loop control, the drift could be corrected by
means of mechanical switches on the mechanical struc-
ture (in some cases already installed for safety-related
features).
Case study
In this research, the proposed model was applied to the
125.1 A520). This crane was originally mounted on a
truck and afterward, for the scope of this research, was
instrumented at Maha Fluid Power Research Center of
Purdue University. The experimental hydraulic crane
and its hydraulic circuit are shown in Figure 9.
The experimental crane is rigidly connected to a
stand fixed in the ground. The machine is constituted
by swing cylinder, main boom, outer boom and five
telescopic stages. The swing cylinder performs the rota-
tion of the upper part of the crane; the main boom
cylinder performs the relative motion between main
and outer boom; the outer boom cylinder performs the
relative motion between outer boom and the telescopic
stage.
Figure 9 also depicts the hydraulic system of the
machine, only for the actuators considered in this study,
while Table 1 summarizes the main components.
In particular, the hydraulic circuit utilizes a commer-
cial open center PDV with electrohydraulic spool actua-
tion (Parker Hannifin P7021). The PDV is supplied with
a constant flow equal to 40 L/min set by a pressure
compensated flow control valve (indicated by 3 in
Figure 9) connected to an external flow supply unit
(composed by elements 1, 2 and 4 in Figure 9). For each
actuator, CBV valves (indicated by 8, 9, 15 and 16 in
Figure 9) are used with the purpose to control assistive
loads as well as holding the load. For hydraulic cranes,
CBVs are also utilized as resistive oscillation damping
method (low pilot ratios are used to pressurize the cylin-
der chambers above the value required to slowly move
the load). A more detailed description of the effects of
CBV settings on the machine behavior is described by
Ritelli and Vacca.6
Cristofori and Vacca 9

Figure 9. Hydraulic crane taken as reference in this case study (Atlas 125.1 A520): picture and schematic.

Table 1. Description of the components of the hydraulic circuit schematic in Figure 9.

Reference Description Reference to Figure 9 Description

to Figure 9

1–4 Constant flow rate power supply 8, 9, 15, 16 Counterbalance valves

3 Pressure compensated flow control valve 10, 11, 17, 18 Anticavitation valve on the working
port of the directional valve
5–7 Pressure limiter integrated in the 23, 24 Pressure reducing system which
directional valve inlet section determines the inlet pressure of
the pilot stage
13, 14, 20, 21 Pilot stage of the directional valve 12, 19 Main stage of the directional valve
pWe , pWr , pP , pT Pressure sensors (specifications in Table 2) Qr Flow meter (specifications in Table 2)

Table 2. Specifications of the sensors in Figure 9.

Reference to Figure 9 Description Specifications Manufacturer code

pWe , pWr , pP , pT Pressure sensor (piezo-resistive) Range: 0–500 bar Parker-HannifinÒ IQAN SP500
aT Accelerometer Range: 62 g m/s2 MircoStrainÒ G-Link (transmitter)
(tri-axial MEMS and wireless and WSDA base (receiver)
transmitter/receiver)
Qr Flow meter (turbine and hall effect sensor) Range: 4–56 L/m Flo-TechÒ FSC2005

MEMS: micro-electro-mechanical system.

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
10
Figure 10. Test cycle 1: outer boom cylinder is completely retracted; main boom cylinder is operated at full speed.
Table 2 shows the specifications of the sensors used
for the experiments. Being the proposed model only
based on pressure feedback, pressure sensors are
required for the actual implementation of the proposed
method while accelerometer and flow meter are for
validation purpose only. It is important to highlight
that the used pressure sensors are standard components
for mobile hydraulic applications. Differently, the con-
trol unit used for the experiments is rarely used in
mobile hydraulic applications (National InstrumentsÒ
cDAQ-9178 equipped with analog input module NI-
9205). However, same functions can be replicated by
high-end control unit for mobile applications capable
to reach sampling frequency sufficiently close to the
value of 600 Hz used in this study. This confirms how
the proposed method has potentials for being applied
in current machines without requiring substantial hard-
ware modification.
Experimental results
This section presents the validation of every single part
of the proposed model. For this purpose, two particu-
lar test cycles operated on the main boom cylinder were
considered. These cycles are composed by four phases:
raise (extension), stop after raise, lowering (retraction)
and stop after lowering. It has to be observed that the
raise phases are representative of a resistive load opera-
tion while the lowering phases are representative of
assistive load operation.
In particular, test cycle 1 (represented in Figure 10)
was obtained by operating the main boom cylinder at
full speed. In case of test cycle 2 (represented in
Figure 11), the main boom cylinder is operated at 75%
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering
speed. In order to introduce a variability of the inertia
of the machine, in case of test cycle 1 the main boom
cylinder is operated while the outer boom cylinder is
completely retracted, whereas in case of test cycle 2 the
outer boom cylinder is extended so that outer boom
and telescopic boom are aligned. The different geome-
trical configuration causes a much larger inertia of the
machine in case of test cycle 2 compared to the test
cycle 1 (this will also result in a different pressurization
of the main boom actuators, as it will clearly appear
from the following pressure plots).
The temperature was monitored during the tests to be
approximately equal to 30 °C. Although this tempera-
ture may appear low with respect to other fluid power
applications, it is reasonable for truck-mounted hydrau-
lic cranes. In fact, the operation of those machines can
occur in discontinuous fashion and for short periods of
time with consequent limited oil heat up.
Experimental characterization of the proportional
valve
As illustrated in section ‘‘Model description,’’ the model
which computes the flow rate at the PDV workports
requires the characterization of the steady-state meter-
ing area as function of the electric current. For this pur-
pose, tests were performed using the configuration in
Figure 9 to acquire simultaneously electrical current,
flow rate and pressure. The measurements were used in
equation (2) to calculate the curves represented in
Figure 12 (normalized metering areas as a function of
the normalized electric current on the PDV).
The curves were implemented as a set of piecewise
curves into equations (3)–(6). The metering areas are
Cristofori and Vacca
Figure 11. Test cycle 2: outer boom is extended so that outer boom and telescopic boom are aligned; main boom cylinder is
operated at 75% speed.
Figure 12. Normalized metering areas of the PDV for the
reference hydraulic crane obtained experimentally as a function
of the normalized electric current.
equal to zero for current below 42% (representative of
the spool overlap deadband limit). A fourth-order
polynomial fitting was used to interpolate the curves in
the interval from 42% to 87% (representative of the
saturation limit). Within the interval between deadband
and saturation limits, all curves are characterized by R2
values above 0.90 (which justifies the linearity assump-
tion presented in section ‘‘Flow model’’). Above 87%
of the current, the metering areas are equal to the maxi-
mum values. The terms of the transfer function in
equation (1) were obtained from linear analysis of the
model presented by Cristofori and Vacca,22 resulting in
vn = 15 Hz and z = 0:85.
Validation of the cylinder pressure model
In many applications, including the hydraulic crane
taken as reference in this work, because of the limited
diameter and length of the transmission lines
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
11
connecting the PDV to the actuators, inductive and
capacitive effects of the volume of fluid inside the
transmission lines are limited and they can be in first
approximation neglected.
The validation of the cylinder pressure estimate is
provided with the results in Figure 13 (relative to test
cycle 1) and in Figure 14 (relative to test cycle 2). The
two plots report the pressure measured at the PDV
workport, the pressure measured in the cylinder cham-
ber and the estimate of the pressure in the cylinder
obtained using the proposed method. Figures 13(a) and
14(a) are relative to the extension side of the cylinder,
whereas Figures 13(b) and 14(b) are relative to the
retraction side of the cylinder.
These pressure comparisons show that for all test
cycle, the estimated pressure accurately approximates
the measured one. It can be observed that few intervals
show less accurate results, but for those intervals the
pressure of the opposite cylinder chamber remains very
accurate.
As it was described in section ‘‘Hydraulic actuator
mechanical dynamics,’’ the availability of two equations
to determine xk (namely, equations (31) and (32)) gives
the possibility to estimate the actuator dynamics using
the equation corresponding to the most accurate cylin-
der pressure estimate. The switching logic was imple-
mented so that equation (31) is used for the raise and
stop after lowering phases, while equation (32) is used
in the remaining phases.
Validation of the actuator mechanical dynamics
models
This section presents the validation of the actuator
mechanical dynamics model (section ‘‘Hydraulic
12 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering

Figure 13. Validation of the estimate of the cylinder pressure for test cycle 1: (a) extension side of the cylinder and (b) retraction
side of the cylinder.

Figure 14. Validation of the estimate of the cylinder pressure for test cycle 2: (a) extension side of the cylinder and (b) retraction
side of the cylinder.

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
Cristofori and Vacca
Figure 15. Schematics of the kinematics of the reference
machine.
actuator mechanical dynamics’’). In order to compare
the acceleration measured as described in section ‘‘Case
study,’’ a kinematic model of the crane was developed.
This model, based exclusively on the reference crane
geometry, transforms the main boom cylinder motion
X = ½x, x,
_ x€ into the motion of the point of the outer
boom where the accelerometer is located
Xa = ½xa , x_ a , x€a  (see Figure 15).
The validation is based on the comparison between the
tangential acceleration aT ( = x€a ) from the model with the
measured one. The results are presented for test cycle 1 in
Figure 16 and for test cycle 2 in Figure 17. Figures 16(a)
and 17(a) are relative to the case the measured cylinder
pressure is used in equations (31) and (32), whereas
Figures 16(b) and 17(b) are relative to full application of
the proposed method, when the case the estimated cylin-
der pressure is used in equations (31) and (32).
These comparisons show how the estimated accel-
eration accurately approximates the measured accelera-
tion in all tested conditions. In particular, it is possible
to note how the prediction of the arm acceleration is
accurate in case the cylinder pressure is estimated rather
than measured: this confirms the accuracy of the cylin-
der pressure model for the considered application.
Looking closely at the results presented in Figures
16 and 17, it can be observed that the estimated curve
appears to present a certain extent of phase delay with
respect to the measured one. In these plots, the phase
delay is amplified with respect to Figures 13 and 14
since the estimated cylinder stroke is low-pass filtered
and differentiated twice to obtain the acceleration. A
simple Butterworth low-pass filter was used for this
purpose. In case this phase lag is critical for the control
application of the presented method, an interesting
development of this work is represented by the investi-
gation of more sophisticated filtering techniques.23
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
13
Dynamic effect of fluid compressibility
This section illustrates how the compressibility of the
fluid affects the mechanical dynamics of the hydraulic
actuator. In particular, the simulation results presented
in this section are relative to the extension chamber of
the cylinder (similar considerations can be formulated
for the retraction side). With reference to equations (29)
and (30), the velocity of the actuator can be rewritten as
QCe VCe, min + Ae x
x_ =  p_ Ce ð38Þ
Ae bAe
In case of incompressible fluid, the velocity will be
equal to x_ = QCe =Ae . The comparison between the esti-
mate of the actuator velocity in case of compressible
and incompressible fluid is shown in Figure 18(a) for
test cycle 1 and in Figure 18(b) for test cycle 2. The
comparison shows the compressibility amplifies the
mechanical vibrations, and therefore, the incompressi-
ble fluid assumption would lead to inaccurate results.
Additionally, the vibrations during the stop phases of
the machine operation are entirely governed by the
fluid compressibility since no flow is entering or leaving
the cylinder chambers. For these reasons, the value of
the bulk modulus used in the actuator mechanical
dynamics model (equations (31) and (32)) has to be as
accurate as possible.
As it was illustrated above, one of the innovations
of the proposed method is the capability to use a value
of the bulk modulus dependent on the operating condi-
tions of the machine. In particular, the influence of the
cylinder pressure variation on the bulk modulus can be
observed in Figure 19(a) for the test cycle 1 and in
Figure 19(b) for the test cycle 2. In both cases, the var-
iation in the bulk modulus reaches 10% of the constant
value at 30 °C and 100 bar, justifying therefore the
modeling of this phenomenon.
Conclusions
This article describes a model to predict the hydraulic
actuator mechanical dynamics by means of pressure
measurements only. Compared to the direct measure-
ment of the actuator mechanical dynamics (with accel-
erometer or position sensors), the pressure feedback–
based methodology proposed in this work has practical
advantages. In particular, pressure sensors can be
located in proximity of the PDV ports, thus offering
the possibility of a reliable and compact arrangement.
The article presents the method for a generic case in
which the motion of a hydraulic actuator is controlled
by means of a PDV. However, the single models could
be easily formulated for different architectures of the
hydraulic system following the approach presented in
this article.
The actuator mechanical dynamics model is com-
posed by several parts: flow model, cylinder pressure
model and actuator mechanical dynamics model.
Important feature—and element of originality—of the
14 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering

Figure 16. Tangential acceleration of the outer boom for test cycle 1: (a) comparison between experiments and model results
based on cylinder pressure measurement and (b) comparison between experiments and model results based on cylinder pressure
estimate.

Figure 17. Tangential acceleration of the outer boom for test cycle 2: (a) comparison between experiments and model results
based on cylinder pressure measurement and (b) comparison between experiments and model results based on cylinder pressure
estimate.

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
Cristofori and Vacca 15

Figure 18. Comparison between the estimate of the actuator velocity in case of compressible and incompressible fluid: (a) test
cycle 1 and (b) test cycle 2.

Figure 19. Variation in the bulk modulus as a function of the pressure: (a) test cycle 1 and (b) test cycle 2.

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
16
proposed method is the fact that there is no need for
equations to describe the actuator friction force as its
effect measured by the pressure sensors. Additional ele-
ment of novelty of the proposed model resides in the
simple formulation that permits to describe the presence
of additional hydraulic components on the lines connect-
ing the PDV and the hydraulic actuator. In particular,
the article considers the case in which CBVs are used to
control the actuator. The present method only requires
one parameter to account for the CBV dynamics.
A midsized hydraulic crane installed at the authors’
research center was used for the model validation. Two
test cycles of the main boom cylinder operation were
performed to test the method for different operating
conditions. In particular, actuator extensions as well as
retraction were tested in both resistive and aiding load
conditions for different values of the load inertia. For
all conditions, a good prediction of both the pressure
in the actuator chambers and the hydraulic actuator
dynamics was obtained, showing the high fidelity of the
proposed method. More advanced signal processing
techniques could be used to further reduce the phase
shift between model and experiments.
The results also show the importance of fluid com-
pressibility in the application of the proposed tech-
nique. The inclusion of compressibility effects and the
pressure-dependent bulk modulus in the model formu-
lation represents another element of novelty in the field
of pressure feedback techniques for hydraulic machines.
As emerges from the experimental setup used for this
research, the proposed method is easily applicable to
today’s machines, since it does not require significant
hardware modifications or high-performance electronics.
Therefore, it could be used as practical solution for the
estimation of actuator mechanical dynamics as general
tool for control of mobile hydraulic machines: vibration
damping control, velocity or acceleration tracking con-
trol system and force-controlled electrohydraulic systems.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
The authors gratefully acknowledge Parker Hannifin
Mobile System Engineering group (IL, USA) for the
support provided to Maha Fluid Power Research
Center as concern the use of the reference machine
(hydraulic crane). This research was partially supported
by the Center for Compact and Efficient Fluid Power,
a National Science Foundation Engineering Research
Center (project 3B.3) funded under cooperative agree-
ment number EEC-0540834.
References
1. Thomson WT, Dahleh MD and Padmanabhan C. The-
ory of vibrations with applications. 5th ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson, 1997.
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering
2. Merritt HE. Hydraulic control systems. 1st ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
3. Rich BL and Lansky ZJ. Cushioning means for hydraulic
cylinder. US 4064788 A, 1977.
4. Kim HS. Hydraulic cylinder with variable cushion ori-
fice. US 2013/0228070 A1, 2013.
5. Hosseini J. Automatic ride control. Patent
US005147172A, 1992.
6. Ritelli GF and Vacca A. Energetic and dynamic impact
of counterbalance valves in fluid power machines. Energ
Convers Manage 2013; 76: 701–711.
7. Franklin GF, Powell JD and Emami-Naeini A. Feedback
control of dynamic systems. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson, 2009.
8. Honkakorpi J, Vihonen J and Mattila J. Sensor module
for hydraulic boom state feedback control. Int J Fluid
Power 2012; 13(3): 15–23.
9. Tafazoli S, de Silva CW and Lawrence PD. Tracking
control of an electrohydraulic manipulator in the pres-
ence of friction. IEEE T Contr Syst T 1998; 6(3):
401–411.
10. Vossoughi G and Donath M. Dynamic feedback lineari-
zation for electrohydraulically actuated control systems. J
Dyn Syst: T ASME 1995; 117: 468–477.
11. Takosoglu JE, Dindorf RF and Laski PA. Rapid proto-
typing of fuzzy controller pneumatic servo-system. Int J
Adv Manuf Tech 2009; 40(3–4): 349–361.
12. Parker-HannifinÒ. User manual, IQANsoftware G3, 2010.
13. Grabbel J and Ivantysynova M. An investigation of
swash plate control concepts for displacement controlled
actuators. Int J Fluid Power 2005; 6(2): 19–36.
14. Krus P and Palmberg JO. Damping of fluid power sys-
tems in machines with high inertial loads. Linköping
Studies in Science and Technology, Dissertations no. 198,
Linköping University, Linköping, 1988.
15. Krus P and Gunnarsson S. Adaptive control of a hydrau-
lic crane using on-line identification. In: Proceedings of
the 3rd Scandinavian international conference on fluid
power, Linköping, May 1993.
16. Garimella P and Yao B. Nonlinear adaptive robust
observer estimation of hydraulic cylinders using pressure
measurement only. In: Proceedings of ASME interna-
tional engineering congress & expo (IMECE 2002), New
Orleans, LA, 17–22 November 2002.
17. Manring ND. Hydraulic control systems. 1st ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
18. Akers A, Gassman M and Smith R. Hydraulic power sys-
tem analysis (Chapters 13 and 14). Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press—Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
19. Ivantysyn J and Ivantysynova M. Hydrostatic pumps and
motors, principles, designs, performance, modelling, analy-
sis, control and testing. New Delhi, India: Academia
Books International, 2001.
20. Atlas Maschinen GmbH. Atlas 125.1, Catalogue, 1996.
21. Parker-HannifinÒ. P70 mobile directional control valve,
Catalogue HY17-8546/UK, 2010.
22. Cristofori D and Vacca A. Adaptive vibration damping
method for hydraulic machines: the case of a hydraulic
crane. In: 7th FPNI PhD symposium proceedings, Reggio
Emilia, 27–30 June 2012.
23. Shin K and Hammond JK. Fundamentals of signal pro-
cessing for sound and vibration engineers. 1st ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Cristofori and Vacca
Appendix 1
Abbreviations
P hydraulic power supply unit
T tank
Notation
aT tangential acceleration in
correspondence of the outer
boom end (m=s2 )
A generic metering area of a spool
valve (m2)
Ae , Ar area of the actuator piston or rod:
e = extension side; r = retraction
side (m2)
A‘ internal flow area of the
hydraulic transmission line (m2)
APDV vector of the metering areas of
the PDV: APDV = ½APWe , AWeT ,
APWr , AWrT  (m2)
APT metering area connecting the
power source and retraction ports
of the proportional directional
valve (m2)
APWe metering area connecting the
power source and extension ports
of the proportional directional
valve (m2)
APWr metering area connecting the
power source and retraction ports
of the proportional directional
valve (m2)
AWeT metering area connecting the
extension and tank ports of the
proportional directional valve
(m2)
AWrT metering area connecting the
retraction and tank ports of the
proportional directional valve
(m2)
cd discharge coefficient ()
C‘e , C‘r hydraulic capacitance of the
transmission line: e = extension
side; r = retraction side (Pa s2/
m3)
De, k , Dr, k denominator of equations (31)
and (32) (m2 Pa)
H(s) transfer function from to ()
I electric current on the solenoids
of the PDV (A)
Kb angular coefficient of the
linearized curve of the bulk
modulus as a function of the
pressure (constant
temperature = 30 °C) (Pa/Pa)
‘e , ‘r length of the hydraulic
transmission line: e = extension
side; r = retraction side (m)
Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015
17
L‘e , L‘r hydraulic inductance of the
transmission line: e = extension
side; r = retraction side (Pa s2/
m3)
pC vector of the pressure in the
cylinder chambers: pC = ½pCe , pCr 
(Pa)
pCe , pCr pressure inside the cylinder
chambers: e = extension side;
r = retraction side (Pa)
pM vector of the measured pressures:
pM = ½pP , pT , pWe , pWr  (Pa)
pP pressure at the proportional valve
ports: P = flow source port (Pa)
pT pressure at the proportional valve
ports: T = return port (Pa)
pW vector of the pressure at the
workport: pW = ½pWe , pWr  (Pa)
pWe , pWr pressure at the proportional valve
workports: e = extension side;
r = retraction side (Pa)
QCe , QCr inlet flow through the cylinder
ports: e = extension side;
r = retraction side (m3/s)
Qer leakage flow from the extension
side of the cylinder to the
retraction one (m3/s)
Qi ith flow rate entering the generic
volume of fluid V (m3/s)
QP flow through the proportional
valve workports: P = hydraulic
power supply (m3/s)
QPWe flow through the metering area
APWe (m3/s)
QPWr flow through the metering area
APWr (m3/s)
QPT flow through the metering area
APT (m3/s)
QT flow through the proportional
valve workports: T = tank (m3/s)
QW vector of flow through the
proportional valve workports:
QW = ½QWe , QWr  (m3/s)
QWe , QWr outlet flow through the
proportional valve workports:
e = extension side; r = retraction
side (m3/s)
QWeT flow through the metering area
AWeT (m3/s)
QWrT flow through the metering area
AWeT (m3/s)
R‘e , R‘r hydraulic resistance of the
hydraulic transmission line:
e = extension side; r = retraction
side (Pa s/m3)
RUVe , RUVr hydraulic resistance of the
unidirectional valve incorporated
into the CBV (Pa s2/m6)
18 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering

tI . 0 , tI \ 0 , tI = 0 time at which the current b bulk modulus of the fluid (Pa)

becomes: positive, negative, zero bp = 0 bulk modulus at 30 °C and 0 bar
(s) (Pa)
uc user command (%) Dp pressure difference (Pa)
V generic volume of fluid (m3) Dt time interval used for the finite
VCe , VCr volume of the cylinder chambers difference discretization (s)
of the hydraulic actuator: z damping ratio of the spool of the
e = extension side; r = retraction PDV ()
side (m3) r fluid density (kg/m3)
VCe, min minimum volume of the vn natural frequency of the spool of
extension chamber of the the PDV (rad/s)
hydraulic actuator (m3)
VCr, max maximum volume of the
retraction chamber of the Subscript
hydraulic actuator (m3)
e extension side of the cylinder
xs PDV spool position (m)
j=1...k...m steps of the finite difference
X = ½x, x,
_ x€ vector of the hydraulic cylinder
discretization
mechanical dynamics: position,
k value of a specific quantity at the
velocity, acceleration (m, m/s, m/
kth time step
s2)
r retraction side of the cylinder
Xa = ½xa , x_ a , x€a  vector of the arm mechanical
dynamics: position, velocity,
acceleration (m, m/s, m/s2)

Downloaded from pii.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 31, 2015