Article

Comparative Energy Analysis of a Load Sensing

System and a Zonal Hydraulics
for a 9‐Tonne Excavator
Paolo Casoli 1,*, Fabio Scolari 1, Tatiana Minav 2 and Massimo Rundo 3
1 Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, 43124 Parma, Italy;
fabio.scolari@unipr.it
2 Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, IHA Innovative Hydraulics and Automation, Tampere

University, FI‐33720 Tampere, Finland; tatiana.minav@tuni.fi

3 Department of Energy, Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy;

massimo.rundo@polito.it
* Correspondence: paolo.casoli@unipr.it; Tel.:+39‐0521‐905868

Received: 14 April 2020; Accepted: 19 May 2020; Published: 20 May 2020

Abstract: With the rising demand for energy efficiency, displacement‐controlled or so‐called pump‐
controlled systems have become an attractive research topic for applications in construction
machinery and other off‐road vehicles. Pump‐controlled systems can be implemented with
electro‐hydrostatic actuators as electro‐hydraulic zones, which are located next to the end actuator
as a replacement for the traditional valve‐controlled hydraulic actuation systems. In this paper a 9‐
tonne class excavator is utilized as a study case. A mathematical model of the conventional machine,
validated with tests carried out on both the excavator and the single hydraulic components, was
previously developed within the Simcenter AMESim© environment. This mathematical model was
modified with electric components for simulating a zonal hydraulics excavator and compared with
a conventional load sensing (LS) machine. The energy efficiencies of both the LS circuit and the new
solution were evaluated for typical duty cycles, pointing out the obtainable energy efficiency
improvements, which were mainly due to the absence of the directional valves and pressure
compensators. The results also point out the effect of the pipe losses when the circuit layout requires
the pipe for connecting the pump with the actuator; moreover, the effect of a diesel engine
downsizing on the energy saving was evaluated.

Keywords: excavator; electro‐hydrostatic actuator; load sensing; energy saving; pump‐controlled

systems; zonal hydraulics

1. Introduction
The strengthening of air‐quality regulations and combustion engine emission limits in off‐road
mobile machinery has pushed researchers to investigate new energy saving solutions and efficiency
improvement in general. Various research groups have already conducted investigations of the
hybridization of architectures in order to improve the efficiency of the entire powertrain system or
drivetrain. In this well‐established area of research, the authors in [1,2] demonstrate the ways to
improve the efficiency of hydraulic systems by the application of novel system solutions and the
adaption of energy recovery. The most widely adapted approach is the harvesting of potential and/or
kinetic energy. The harvesting of potential energy from the lowering boom motion or kinetic energy
from the turning of the swing drive are state‐of‐the‐art examples for excavator application (for details
refer to [3–6]). Overall, the proposed approaches can be divided based on the utilized form of energy

Actuators 2020, 9, 39; doi:10.3390/act9020039 www.mdpi.com/journal/actuators

Actuators 2020, 9, 39 2 of 19

storage: electric (battery, supercapacitor, etc.) or hydraulic. The balance between the price of the
utilized components and the efficiency becomes a key selection factor for any vehicle or off‐road
mobile machinery applications [7]. Due to the costs of the components, many researchers have turned
to exploring the combination and improvement of all the systems and subsystems of the machine.
Currently, interests in replacing traditional valve‐controlled hydraulic actuation systems [8]
with pump‐controlled or displacement‐controlled electro‐hydrostatics is growing in many areas of
applications such as aeronautics [9,10], ground [11], undersea vehicles [12], and robotics [13]
applications. For instance, the concept of distributed or zonal hydraulics instead of centralized
hydraulics is originated from the aeronautics with concept of a “more electric aircraft (MEA)” [9].
One of the realizations of zonal hydraulics can be implemented with electro‐hydrostatic actuator
(EHA) systems, which offer compactness and high efficiency, in addition to plug‐and‐play
installations. Numerous references describe the advantages and disadvantages of EHA compared to
valve‐controlled conventional hydraulic systems. For instance, in [14] a hydraulic circuit utilizing
two valves to compensate for the differential flow of asymmetrical actuators demonstrated superior
improvement of efficiency when compared to a load‐sensing (LS) circuit. The hydraulic power
delivered by the pump in the proposed circuit was about 23% of the power required by a LS circuit.
In [15], the authors proposed six different self‐contained drive architectures with self‐locking
features, which were directly controlled by pump. The power losses and energy recovery potentials
were analyzed for the proposed architectures, and the results were compared with a conventional
valve‐controlled hydraulic drive architecture. Another electro‐hydraulic self‐contained asymmetrical
cylinder drive with passive load‐holding capability was proposed in [16]. Padovani et al. reported on
a single‐boom crane system implementation, in which the position tracking error remained within ±2
mm and which showed a total efficiency of about 60% during actuation motion.
An actuator directly driven by a linear pump was proposed in [17] for distributed actuation in
an airplane. The proposed solution omits the needs of valves to balance flow in the asymmetrical
cylinder.
Takahashi et al. in [18] proposed an EHA system for double‐acting single rod cylinder system
for landing gear. This concept has been adopted not only in the aerospace field, but several studies
for implementation of EHA for ground vehicles have also recently been completed; for instance, in
[19] the authors present a literature review including the concepts based on variable‐displacement
hydraulic pumps and variable‐speed electric drives, and throughout comparison analysis of the
advantages of each drive class. Authors in [19] spotted a trend towards the novel system architectures
based on electrical prime movers stepping away from diesel engines. The ability of pump‐controlled
drives to harvest energy and to share power afterwards between multiple actuators adds a new role
in future designs of hydraulically actuated multi‐linked applications. According to [20], excavators
as a complex multi‐linked construction machinery, are contribution up to 60% of the CO2 emissions
produced by construction machinery. Subsequently, the cut in greenhouse gases production by
excavators can lead to a significant reduction in the world CO2 emission level. Work by Aalto
university research group in [21,22] demonstrated that an EHA‐type system enables up to 50%
reduction in energy consumption compared to conventional low‐cost Load Sensing valve‐controlled
system. This work was conducted with 1‐tonne excavator test case.
The primary goal of this study is to demonstrate the advantage of zonal hydraulics on a 9‐tonne
excavator. More specifically, in this paper such an architecture will be compared to conventional LS
hydraulics implemented on the same machine. The zonal hydraulics is realized with direct driven
hydraulics (DDH).
The research activity presented in this paper is based on simulations carried out with an
excavator mathematical model developed in an AMESim© environment. The excavator model is
based on a lumped parameter approach that, in the hydraulic version, includes the following models:
diesel engine, pump, directional flow control valves, hydraulic lines and kinematics of the front
equipment. The standard LS excavator model was validated with experimental activities carried out
on the excavator and on the single components, with the engine fuel consumption and many
parameters measured during typical duty cycles. Other modelling approaches that can be found in
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 3 of 19

literature [23–27] focus on more detailed aspects, while the followed approach permits the simulation
of the components with computational run times suitable for circuit simulations [28]. The validated
mathematical model of the standard hydraulic excavator [29–37] was modified and used for
investigating new layout configurations based on zonal hydraulics.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a standard/conventional
hydraulic excavator mathematical model is presented. Section 3 describes the validation
experimental activities with standard/conventional excavator. The results of a solution based on
zonal hydraulics are described in Section 4. Section 5 presents the comparison results obtained with
the standard LS and DDH model. The conclusion and final remarks are presented in Section 6.

2. Standard Hydraulic Excavator Mathematical Model

The 9‐tonne hydraulic excavator in standard version is equipped with a 46 kW diesel engine
(internal combustion engine (ICE)), the hydraulic circuit is a traditional Load sensing system, with a
flow sharing directional valve and axial piston pumps. The attachment boom, arm, bucket and swing
have been modelled. The ISO scheme of system layout of standard excavator, with the installed
sensors for testing, is illustrated in Figure 1.
The mathematical model implemented is based on a lumped parameter approach and the main
assumptions considered are listed below: constant tank pressure; fluid inertial effects in pipes are
neglected; mechanical bodies are considered as rigid; mechanical joints have one degree of freedom;
friction in revolute pairs are neglected. The mathematical model was developed using the AMESim®
software; following a short description of the main features of the implemented sub‐models is
reported. For a detailed explanation refer to our earlier publication [34].

2.1. Pump Model

Two pumps are installed in the system. The pilot pump is an external gear unit that feeds the
pilot hydraulic circuit, for this pump the simulations were carried out assuming the overall efficiency
constant. The pump that feeds the main hydraulic circuit is an axial piston pump, the displacement
is controlled by the pressure compensator (PC), the flow compensator (FC) and the torque limiter
(TL). The pump is simulated with a gray box model composed by the combination of white box
models for its regulators (PC, FC and TL) and a black box model of the pump flow characteristic. The
model was already presented in detail and verified in [29,37], and the volumetric and hydro‐
mechanical efficiency maps were experimentally defined.

2.2. LS Flow Sharing Valve Block Model

The main valve of is a LS flow sharing valve block and its ISO scheme is represented in
Figure 1. The valves permit control of the velocity of the movements, since each post‐compensator
maintains a constant pressure drop across the corresponding metering area, and the LS pressure is
conveyed through the valve to the pump. Moreover, even when the main pump reaches the
saturation condition, the same pressure drop is maintained in all sections (flow sharing).
The mathematical model is based on a lumped parameter approach, and it has been validated
in [31,37] with the comparison between the simulation and experimental results obtained during
laboratory tests carried at the University of Parma, Italy. The LS flow sharing valve block model has
been developed in the AMESim © environment.

2.3. Hydraulic Cylinder Model

The hydraulic cylinders are double acting single‐rod cylinders. The model is based on the
scheme reported in Figure 2. The modelling approach considers the following assumptions: external
cylinder leakages are neglected; the cylinder is considered rigid; to simplify the model the linear
friction model includes the friction in in revolute pairs [37].
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 4 of 19

Figure 1. Standard excavator hydraulic circuit with installed sensors for testing [34].

The hydraulic cylinders have been modelled defining two control volumes for the piston and
rod side, respectively. Applying the continuity equation and fluid state equation, the pressures rise
rates are reported in Equation (1) and Equation (2).
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 5 of 19

Figure 2. Control volumes considered for modelling the cylinder

𝑑𝑝 𝐵 𝑑𝑥
∙ 𝑄 𝑄 𝐴 ∙ , (1)
𝑑𝑡 𝑉 𝑑𝑡

∙ 𝑄 𝑄 𝐴 ∙ . (2)

The leakages flow rate is defined by Equation (3):

𝜋∙𝑑 ∙ 𝑟
𝑄 ∙ 𝑝 𝑝 (3)
12 ∙ 𝜇 ∙ 𝑙
The force exerted by the actuator, FHC, is calculated considering both the pressure and frictional
forces, FF, in Equation (4). While the frictional force is defined by Equation (5), where the Coulomb
friction force, FC, and the viscous friction coefficient, kV, were defined according to experimental
results in [28]:
𝐹 𝐴 ∙𝑝 𝐴 ∙𝑝 𝐹, (4)
𝐹 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑥 𝐹 𝑘 ∙𝑥 . (5)

2.4. Turret Motor Model

The fixed displacement motor for rotating the turret is considered in the present study. The
mathematical model is based on filling and emptying equations [34]. The computation of the real
exerted torque hydro‐mechanical efficiency is considered; when the hydraulic machine works
as a pump, i.e,. during the turret decelerations, the hydro‐mechanical efficiency is properly
accounted [38]. The motors for the tracks have not been considered.

2.5. Hydraulic Pipe Losses Model

The pressure losses in the hydraulic pipes were computed considering the laminar flow based
on the results obtained during the experimental tests. The tests were conducted measuring the fluid
pressure at the beginning of the pipes (close to the directional valves) and at the end of the pipes
(close to the linear actuators). The model computes the losses considering a simple pipe, for each line,
with equivalent diameter that reproduces the measured losses. The average length of the pipes
is 5 m for the boom, 7 m for the arm and 8 m for the bucket, while the pipe internal equivalent
diameter is 10 mm for boom and arm, and 8 mm for the bucket. The pipe pressure losses ∆ were
calculated according to Equation (6). The parameter kL was experimentally defined for each ith
hydraulic line of interest.
∆ 𝑘 ∙𝑄. (6)
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 6 of 19

2.6. Excavator Kinematic Model

The model of the front equipment and turret was developed to consider actual forces and
torques on the respective hydraulic actuators [33,37]. This model remains the same for the DDH
solutions presented in this paper.

2.6.1. Front Equipment

The front equipment model is made of the boom, arm and bucket, assumed as rigid bodies linked
together by revolute pairs and linear actuators. The behavior of these bodies was completely defined
by introducing the following parameters, defined with the aid of the 3D CAD model of the linkage:
mass; center of gravity; moment of inertia of the body relative to an axis passing through the center
of gravity; position of joints.
Using linear spring stiffness and damping coefficient, the forces (𝐹 , 𝐹 ) exchanged between two
bodies in revolute joints are calculated with Equation (7) and Equation (8):
𝐹 𝑘 ∙ 𝑥 𝑥 𝑏 ∙ 𝑥 𝑥 , (7)
𝐹 𝑘 ∙ 𝑦 𝑦 𝑏 ∙ 𝑦 𝑦 , (8)
where (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) are the pivot joint coordinates relative to body 1 and 2. The masses of boom
and arm incorporate the masses of the cylinder actuators. The centrifugal forces and the Coriolis
forces acting on the bodies when the turret rotates have been neglected.

2.6.2. Turret
The turret has been modelled assuming a constant inertia, a constant position of the front
equipment has been fixed, both Coulomb friction and viscous friction terms are considered. The
dynamic equilibrium of the turret is defined by Equation (9):
𝑇 𝐼 ∙𝜗 𝑏 ∙𝜗 𝑇 . (9)
Experimental tests have permitted to define the viscous and Coulomb coefficient, fast and slow
rotation cycles were carried out.

2.7. Internal Combustion Engine Model

The ICE model developed calculates the instantaneous engine fuel consumption from an engine
map as a function of torque and engine speed, as shown in Figure 3. The model includes the engine
regulator behavior during operations, implementing the map reported in Figure 4, where the target
rotational speed is reduced by a coefficient when the torque increases.
The engine map includes data from the manufacturer and data experimentally obtained.
To collect data concerning torque, speed and fuel consumption the engine was loaded changing
the pump output pressure. The torque supplied by the engine to the pump was calculated knowing
the pump efficiency map [32,34].
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 7 of 19

Figure 3. Diesel engine—brake specific fuel consumption map.

Figure 4. Diesel engine—shaft speed variation with torque.

3. Standard Excavator—Experimental Study

An extended experimental study was carried out to validate the mathematical model of the
standard hydraulic excavator.
The pump and valve tests were directly performed on a test rig, as reported in [31–33], while to
validate the hydraulic circuit tests were carried out on the excavator that was instrumented as shown
in Figure 1; for more details refer to [33,34].
With reference to Figure 1, where the installed sensors are indicated, the main variables
measured were: pump delivery flow rate (Qp); pump outlet pressure (p1); actuators pressures
(p5 ÷ p22); turret angular velocity (ns); hydraulic actuators linear positions (y1 ÷ y3); valves main spool
positions (LVDT1 ÷ LVDT6).
The experimental study carried out permitted to set the valves discharge coefficients and
hydraulic line pressure drop characteristic; for the actuators and turret characterization (friction
coefficients) fast and slow single movements were executed. Further detail about the experimental
setup can be found in [34].
The working cycles adopted for the fuel consumption evaluation is based on the JCMAS
standard [39]. To reduce the driver stochastic influence on the measurements each working cycle test
considered by JCMAS was repeated a sufficient number of times in order to minimize the operator
stochastic influence on the mean fuel consumption. The mean fuel consumption and the combined
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 8 of 19

standard uncertainty including the instrument uncertainty (UIN) and the influence of the driver on
fuel consumption ( 𝑠̅ ), were defined for each working cycle with a 95% confidence level,
Equation (10).

𝑈 2 ∙ 𝑠̅ 𝑈 (10)

To evaluate the fuel consumption prediction of the model, experimental data and simulation
results are expressed as a percentage differences, Table 1 shows differences that are in the range of
the standard uncertainty.

Table 1. Results comparison.

𝒎𝒇𝑺𝑰𝑴 𝒎𝒇𝑬𝑿𝑷
Working Cycle UC95 [%] [%]
𝒎𝒇𝑬𝑿𝑷
Trench Digging ±3.6 ‐0.3
Grading ±8.0 ‐1.8
The modelling results are within the combined uncertainty limits experimentally defined in [28].
Starting from the described excavator mathematical model, a new model developing DDH solution
has been studied; many components like diesel engine, front equipment, actuators and pipes (when
considered) remain unchanged.

4. Zonal Hydraulics—DDH Solutions

A solution based on zonal hydraulics has been modelled and the results have been compared
with the standard LS circuit results. In Figure 5 a scheme of system layout is reported: the main
components are two hydraulic pump/motor units at constant displacement both connected to an
electric machine, a hydraulic accumulator, two anti‐shock and anti‐cavitation valves and two on/off
valves.
The same scheme is used for all subsystems of the front equipment, except for the hydraulic
accumulator connection. The hydraulic accumulator has been added for compensating the uneven
flow required by a differential cylinder [19,40,41].
The accumulator has been connected to the cylinder side with lower average pressure during
the duty cycle considered. For the boom cylinder the piston side presents the lower average pressure
value respect to the piston side, while for the arm and cylinder, the accumulator has been placed on
the piston side. For these cylinders, analyzing the cylinder pressure during the duty cycle emerges
that the average pressure is lower on the piston side, because of the higher surface of piston respect
the annular surface of the piston on the rod side. About the turret, a simple electric motor has been
considered instead of the hydraulic motor, Figure 5. The tracks have not been considered. The DDH
solution permits to remove the directional valves and the main variable displacement pump. The
Diesel engine is now connected to a generator that supplies the energy to the electric motors.

Figure 5. Scheme of zonal hydraulic solution.

Actuators 2020, 9, 39 9 of 19

The DDH mathematical model has been developed in the AMESim environment modifying the
mathematical model of the standard hydraulic excavator, in this way the models of the front
equipment, turret, pipe and actuators previously validated. The cylinder models remain the same as
for standard configuration of excavator also for the DDH solutions, as shortly reported in previous
sections, remain suitable for the new model based on the proposed DDH solution. This section is
focused on the new components added to the circuit.
The pumps/motors are external gear machines modelled considering the volumetric and
hydro‐mechanical efficiency as a function of speed and working pressure based on standard library
provided in AMESim© environment. A simple map‐based model has been considered for the
simulation, which is obtained from previous experimental study.
Focusing on a single subsystem, the sizing of the pump/motors has been performed considering
the actual displacement of the double acting actuator, the ratio piston/rod displacement must be not
too far from the ratio between the displacement of the hydraulic machine connected to the piston side
and the rod side. The difference between these ratios should be less than 2% [40,41]. Considering the
internal leakages of each component a flow rate compensation must be adopted, for this reason, the
scheme presents a hydraulic accumulator connected to the actuator to balance this flow difference.
The pressure time derivative inside the hydraulic accumulator volume is calculated considering
an adiabatic gas transformation Equation (11):
𝑑𝑝 𝑝 𝑚
𝛾∙ ∙ (11)
𝑑𝑡 𝑉 𝜌 𝑝
The pump/motor machine permits to recover energy during the overrunning load, the connected
electric machine can work as generator. Two on/off valves have been installed to maintain the
position of the actuator when not used, obviously, these valves must be simultaneously activated and
deactivated. The pressure losses due to the passage through these valves have been considered. Note:
utilized valves are from standard library of AMESim ©.

4.1. Operator Model

The operator mathematical model can reproduce the duty cycle proposed by the JCMAS
standard [39].
In the standard model, in order to reproduce the desired duty cycles, the actuator position is
compared with the target position and a suitable spool position of the directional valve is defined. In
the studied DDH solutions the position of the actuator depends on the delivered flow rates that are
a function of the pump speed, this latter controlled by the electric motor. The required actuator
position and the actual position define an error that is managed by a PI controller to set the electric
motor speed, Figure 6.

Figure 6. Electro‐hydraulic control scheme.

The turret is directly moved by an electric motor. The simulation of the energy required by the
turret is necessary when the digging cycle is considered. During the turret rotation the inertia of the
turret has been calculated considering the front equipment in a fixed position.
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 10 of 19

4.2. Electric Components

The electric circuit is composed of three electric motors/generators, battery and the main
generator connected to the diesel engine. The model was developed in AMESim© environment.
The electric motor/generator model can reproduce the working conditions in all four quadrants
of the torque‐speed map.
A particular working condition the electric motor speed is set to zero, because the actuator
velocity must be zero. In this case the on/off valves are closed, therefore the pressure inside the pump
between valves and pump/motor remain high. The electric machine must supply torque to the
hydraulic machine for keeping the speed equal zero. Utilized AMESim© electric machine model
permits to operate in motoring and generator mode and harvest potential energy if there are any.
In Table 2 the main simulated features of the electric motors are reported, all motors are the same
for all subsystems.

Table 2. Electric components and their main parameters.

Component Parameter Value

Electric motor Voltage [V] 400
Max speed [r/min] 4000
Moment of inertia [kg/m2] 0.049
Generator Min speed [r/min] 1000
Rated speed [r/min] 2200
Voltage [V] 400
Battery Specific Energy [Wh/kg] 130
Specific power [W/kg] 2000
Power [kW] 50
Mass [kg] 25
In Table 2 are also reported the main features of the generator connected to the diesel engine.

4.3. Battery
This paper is not focused on the performance of the battery that is simply simulated as an ideal
storage system without considering its dynamic behavior, ageing problems, thermal effects and so
on. The storage system is essential to permit energy recovery during phases with overrunning loads.
From the literature [42], a suitable Li‐Ion battery could have the main features reported in Table 2.
During simulations, it is important that the state of charge of the battery (SOC) remains always
between the 30% and 80% [42]; the proper sizing of the battery permits to respect these conditions.

5. Results
This section presents the results obtained with the standard LS and DDH model to compare their
performance. About the DDH solution, two configurations have been considered. A first
configuration (DDH pipe) considers the presence of the same pipes adopted for the standard solution,
being the electro‐hydraulic cylinder drives placed on the turret, in order to introduce minimal
modifications to the standard layout. The second configuration (DDH) considers the electro‐
hydraulic units directly connected to the cylinders for reducing the pipes losses, but it will involve a
reduction of the payload capacity. In the following diagrams, the first solution is identified with the
added term “pipe” in the legends. A further configuration considers an ICE downsizing for
evaluating the impact on fuel consumption. A downsizing of the diesel engine is possible because of
the presence of the battery that permits to limit the power peaks required to the ICE during the duty
cycles, and in more efficient solutions, DDH without pipes, the maximum power request is anyway
reduced.
In Figure 7, the response to the digging duty cycle imposed to the front equipment actuators are
represented. According to the Figures, all models, the standard LS and the two DDH, are able to
follow the duty cycles without significant difference in respect to the reference one. Therefore, these
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 11 of 19

results permit a reliable fuel consumption comparison between the LS and DDH architecture. Figure
8 reports the operation sequence of the front implement during the digging cycle and the relative
positions of cylinders during the cycle. The cycle consists of digging a bucket of earth, the bucket
opening and discharging, and going back to the initial position as displayed in Figure 8. Note: The
swinging motion is excluded in this investigation, due to the focus on the front attachment of the
excavator. Figure 8 is obtained from the AMESim© environment.
In Figure 9, the mechanical power required by the pump for the LS system and by the generator
for DDH solutions is reported during a digging cycle. It is evident that the maximum mechanical
power is always reduced in the case of DDH solutions; moreover, for DDH without pipes the power
peak is limited to 26 kW instead of 37 kW. The lower power request will permit the investigation of
a reduction of the diesel engine size.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 7. Actuator response to reference position of duty digging cycle: simulations results (a) boom,
(b) arm, (c) bucket.

Figure 8. Operation sequence of the front implement during digging cycle.

Actuators 2020, 9, 39 12 of 19

Figure 9. Mechanical power course during digging duty cycle.

Figures 10–12 report the electric motor power curves relatively to the actuation of boom, arm
and bucket, respectively. In both cases of arm and bucket duty cycle the power is always positive,
while for the boom case the power becomes negative during the last phase because of the overrunning
load. Both the DDH and the DDH with pipes have been considered. The curves referring to the DDH
with pipes always shows higher values in respect to the case without pipes, confirming the negative
effects of the pipe losses. The pipe losses associated to the bucket are the most relevant, mainly
because of the length/diameter ratio of the used pipes that is twice the ratio of the pipes used for the
boom. Figure 13 reports the boom actuator piston side pressure during the digging cycle for the case
of the DDH with pipes. The pump pressure is also reported and the differences between them are
due to the pressure losses through the pipe. Such a diagram points out the negative effect of the
pressure drop due to the losses through the pipes.

Figure 10. Electric motor power boom actuator— direct driven hydraulics (DDH) and DDH with
pipes.
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 13 of 19

Figure 11. Electric motor power arm actuator—DDH and DDH with pipes.

Figure 12. Electric motor power bucket actuator—DDH and DDH with pipes.

Figure 13. Boom actuator piston side, pressure and flow rate. DDH with pipes model.
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 14 of 19

The main target of the simulations is to compare the energy required by the LS circuit and the
DDH circuits.
In Table 3, the comparison is focused on the mechanical energy required by the pumps. In more
detail, the values represent the energy required by the main pump of the LS solution, while for the
DDH solution the indicated values are the sum of the energy required by all pumps involved during
the considered duty cycle. From the results obtained it is evident that DDH solutions present a strong
reduction of the required mechanical energy, because of the absence of the directional valves and
pressure compensators. In Table 4 the comparison is referred to the diesel engine fuel consumption,
in this case, the efficiency map of the engine is considered. The differences are significant but present
lower values in terms of fuel saving percentage with respect to the mechanical energy saving. The
reason is the effect of the engine efficiency map that presents different values depending on the load
(torque) values. Thanks to the reduced power required, the diesel engines’ average load is lower with
respect to the traditional LS case; unfortunately, as it is well known, at lower loads the engine features
lower efficiency. A significant improvement can be obtained by reducing the engine size (cases
identified with DS in the table), in this way the engine works at average loads closer to the maximum
engine load where the efficiency reaches the higher values.
In Table 5, the mechanical energy supplied by the diesel engine is reported; obviously, the LS
value is equal to the value reported in Table 4, being the diesel engine directly connected to the pump.
For DDH solutions the l engine is connected to the generator that feeds the electric motors, the
differences between Tables 3 and 5are due to the efficiency considered for the electric components.

Table 3. Mechanical energy supplied to the pumps.

Mechanical Energy Mechanical Energy Saving

Solutions (kJ/cycle) (%)
Digging Grading Digging Grading

LS 393.6 72.1 / /
DDH with pipes 185.3 15.7 ‐54.0 ‐78.3
DDH without pipes 96.2 12.2 ‐75.5 ‐83.1

Table 4. Diesel engine fuel consumption.

Fuel Consumption Fuel Saving

Solutions (g/cycle) (%)
Digging Grading Digging Grading
LS 34.5 10.5 / /
DDH with pipes 28.2 8.6 ‐18.2 ‐18.2
DDH without pipes 24.1 8.6 ‐30.1 ‐19.7
DDH (DS) with pipes 23.8 7.3 ‐31.1 ‐31.0
DDH (DS) without pipes 17.0 5.9 ‐50.8 ‐43.6

Table 5. Mechanical energy supplied by diesel engine (for DDH solutions the diesel engine is
connected to the generator).

Mechanical Energy Mechanical Energy Saving

Solutions (kJ/cycle) (%)
Digging Grading Digging Grading
LS 393.6 72.1 / /
DDH with pipes 245.8 26.9 ‐37.5 ‐62.8
DDH without pipes 148.5 23.0 ‐62.3 ‐68.1
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 15 of 19

Figure 14. Sankey diagram for the digging duty cycle—standard LS solution.

Figure 15. Sankey diagram for the digging duty cycle—DDH with pipes.

Figure 16. Sankey diagram for the digging duty cycle—DDH without pipes.
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 16 of 19

In Figures 14–16, the Sankey diagrams representing the energy distribution through the systems
analyzed are reported; these diagrams allow the understanding of the losses distribution. In the
standard configuration (Figure 14), the main losses are due to the valve block, while for the DDH
solution with pipes (Figure 16)—the more efficient solution—the losses through the pipes become
more relevant (27.7%) and similar to the losses generated by hydraulic motor/pump and electric
machines.

6. Discussion
The presented work concentrated on analyzing the possible improvements in a 9‐tonne
excavator with the application of zonal hydraulics realized with DDH.
The results are based on simulations carried out in an AMESim© environment with a validated
excavator mathematical model based on a standard LS system as reference. Two DDH configurations
were considered: the first one with pipes, leaving the pumps in the turret, and a second one without
pipes, assuming the location of the pumps close to the cylinders.
The distributions of the losses (Sankey diagrams) for the system components of the DDH system
(with pipes and without pipes) and conventional LS system were determined for a 9‐tonne excavator.
It was shown that location of DDH (in particular, lengths of the pipes) affects the mechanical energy
requirements by 65% of the studied excavator due to increase of friction losses. This highlights that
circuit layout should be carefully considered as it is affecting efficiency and overall system
consumption. Realization of zonal hydraulics does not bring full advantages if location and
optimization is not taken in account. It is important to notice that the drawback of the proposed zonal
hydraulics solution (identical to any electrification/hybridization) is the overall costs. Since each DDH
unit requires energy source (external (battery, supercapacitor + battery) or generated locally), electric
servo drive, hydraulic accumulator (balance uneven flow and/or replacement for tank), and
fixed displacement pump/motors. However, demonstrated advantages illustrated in this paper
compensate this drawback.
The energy efficiency of both the LS circuit and the new solution was evaluated for typical duty
cycles. Simulations were performed using JCMAS digging cycle. As JCMAC standard regulates,
digging cycles were performed without payloads. This brings simplification to this study, as actual
digging cycles do not have penetration into the earth pile. This was excluded due to the complexity
of the terra‐mechanical interaction and consequent forces.
The developed mathematical model has permitted to quantify the energy saving for the DDH
solution investigated and to identify the sources of losses. This work has demonstrated the potential
of the application of zonal hydraulics to the 9‐tonne excavator, as a scale‐up compared to our
previous study [22]. Future steps, in order to improve the actual mathematical model, are to develop
an electric motor model within the Simcenter AMESim© environment, and in experimental
validation of the proposed concept with a 1‐tonne micro‐excavator as the most affordable scale for
testing. Further solutions will be investigated for compensating the uneven flow requirements for the
differential cylinder application.

7. Conclusions
In this paper an investigation of the implementation of zonal hydraulics with direct driven
hydraulics (DDH) for a 9‐tonne excavator is presented. The results are based on simulations carried
out with a validated excavator mathematical model based on a standard LS system assumed as
reference. Two DDH configurations were considered: the first one with pipes, leaving the pumps in
the turret, and a second one without pipes, assuming the placing of the pumps close to the cylinders.
The mathematical model has permitted to quantify the energy saving for each solution investigated
and to identify the sources of losses.
The absence of the directional valves, with their pressure compensators, has strongly reduced
the hydraulic losses; in this case, it clearly emerges that the pipes losses become relevant. Therefore,
a DDH solution should be developed by locating the pumps as close as possible to the cylinders.
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 17 of 19

In both the DDH analyzed solutions the mechanical power presents the lower maximum values, and
this result permits us to reduce the displacement of the diesel engine, with the main advantages of
increasing the efficiency and reducing the engine mass/size, partially compensating for the presence
of electric components.

Nomenclature

Abbreviation Definition
BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
DS ICE downsizing
DDH Direct Driven Hydraulics
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
JCMAS Japan Construction Machinery Association Standard
LS Load Sensing
Symbol Definition Unit
B Fluid Bulk Modulus (Pa)
bt Turret Viscous Friction Coefficient (N∙m/(rad/s))
bx, by Contact Damping Coefficient (N/(m/s))
dp Actuator Piston Diameter (m)
ey Actuator Position Error (m)
It Turret Moment of Inertia (kg∙m2)]
kx, ky Contact Stiffness Coefficient (N/m)
p Pressure (Pa)
Q Flow Rate (m3/s)
𝑠̅ Standard Deviation of the Mean (kg)
UIN Instrument Uncertainty (kg)
UC95 Combined Standard Uncertainty (kg)
Tt Torque turret (N∙m)
TCt Turret Coulomb Friction Torque (N∙m)
T Hydraulic Machine Torque (N∙m)
V Volume (m3)
ϑ Angular Position (rad)
μ Fluid Dynamic Viscosity (Pa∙s)
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.C. and T.M.; methodology, P.C.; software, F.S.; validation, P.C. and
F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.C., T.M. and M.R.; writing—review and editing, P.C., T.M. and M.R..;
supervision, P.C.; project administration, P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Casappa S.p.A. for the active support given to the
experimental activity on the hydraulic excavator.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Vukovic, M.; Leifeld, R.; Murrenhoff, H. Reducing Fuel Consumption in Hydraulic Excavators—A
Comprehensive Analysis. Energies 2017, 10, 687, doi:10.3390/en10050687.
2. Inderelst, M.; Weidner, F.; Niu D.; Stammen, C. Quantification of Energy Saving Influencers. 21t Excavator
Hydraulic System–A Holistic Investigation? In Proceedings of the 11th International Fluid Power
Conference, Aachen, Germany, 19–21 March 2018.
3. Joo, C.; Stangl, M. Application of Power Regenerative Boom system to excavator. In Proceedings of the 10th
IFK: International Fluid Power Conference, Dresden, Germany, 8–10 March 2016; Volume 3, pp. 175–184.
4. Li, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, X. A Novel Energy Recovery System Integrating Flywheel and Flow Regeneration
for a Hydraulic Excavator Boom System. Energies 2020, 13, 315, doi:10.3390/en13020315.
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 18 of 19

5. Cheng, G.U.; Xiao, X.U.; Xiao, L.I.; Shou‐Hong, W.A. Recovering system of swing braking energy in
hydraulic excavator. J. Zhejiang Univ. 2012, 46, 142–149, doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008‐973X.2012.01.23.
6. Chengqiang, L.; Yong, W.; Yong, D.; Yi, S. Simulation and Experimental Research on Slewing System
Energy Saving of Hydraulic Hybrid Excavator. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 8th International
Conference on Fluid Power and Mechatronics (FPM), Wuhan, China, 10–13 April 2019, pp. 177–182,
doi:10.1109/FPM45753.2019.9035772.
7. Leon‐Quiroga, J.; Newell, B.; Krishnamurthy, M.; Gonzalez‐Mancera, A.; Garcia‐Bravo, J. Energy Efficiency
Comparison of Hydraulic Accumulators and Ultracapacitors. Energies 2020, 13, 1632.
8. Padovani, D.; Rundo, M.; Altare, G. The Working Hydraulics of Valve‐Controlled Mobile Machines:
Classification and Review. J. Dyn. Sys., Meas. Control 2020, 142, 070801, doi:10.1115/1.4046334.
9. Rosero, J.; Ortega, J.; Aldabas, E.; Romeral, L. Moving Towards a more Electric Aircraft. IEEE Aerosp.
Electron. Syst. Mag. 2007, 22, 3–9, doi:10.1109/MAES.2007.340500.
10. Gaile, A.; Lue, Y. Electro Hydraulic Actuation (EHA) systems for primary flight control, landing gear and
other type of actuation. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Aircraft Utility
Systems (AUS), Beijing, China, 10–12 October 2016; pp. 723–728, doi:10.1109/AUS.2016.7748148.
11. Schneider, M.; Koch, O.; Weber, J. Green Wheel Loader–Improving fuel economy through energy efficient
drive and control concepts. In Proceedings of the 10th International Fluid Power Conference, Dresden,
Germany, 8–10 March 2016.
12. Smith, S.; Irving, J.; Irving, J. Electro Hydrostatic Actuators for Control of Undersea Vehicles. In
Proceedings of the Joint Undersea Warfare Technology Fall Conference, Groton, CT, USA, 20–23 September
2006.
13. Ding, B.; Plummer, A.; Iravani, P. A Study of a Compliant Hydraulic Actuator for Running Robots. In
Proceedings of the 2018 Global Fluid Power Society PhD Symposium (GFPS), Samara, Russia, 18–20 July
2018; pp. 1–6, doi:10.1109/GFPS.2018.8472380.
14. Imam, A.; Rafiq, M.; Jalayeri, E.; Sepehri, N. A Pump‐Controlled Circuit for Single‐Rod Cylinders that
Incorporates Limited Throttling Compensating Valves. Actuators 2018, 7, 13.
15. Schmidt, L.; Ketelsen, S.; Brask, M.H.; Mortensen, K.A. A Class of Energy Efficient Self‐Contained Electro‐
Hydraulic Drives with Self‐Locking Capability. Energies 2019, 12, 1866, doi:10.3390/en12101866.
16. Padovani, D.; Ketelsen, S.; Hagen, D.; Schmidt, L. A Self‐Contained Electro‐Hydraulic Cylinder with
Passive Load‐Holding Capability. Energies 2019, 12, 292, doi:10.3390/en12020292.
17. Li, Y.; Jiao, Z.; Wang, Z. Design, Analysis, and Verification of an Electro‐Hydrostatic Actuator for
Distributed Actuation System. Sensors 2020, 20, 634.
18. Takahashi, N.; Kondo, T.; Takada, M.; Masutani, K.; Okano, S.; Tsujita, M. Development of Prototype
Electro‐Hydrostatic Actuator for Landing Gear Extension and Retraction. In Proceedings of the 7th JFPS
International Symposium on Fluid Power, Toyama, Japan, 15–18 September 2008.
19. Ketelsen, S.; Padovani, D.; Andersen, T.O.; Ebbesen, M.K.; Schmidt, L. Classification and Review of Pump‐
Controlled Differential Cylinder Drives. Energies 2019, 12, 1293, doi:10.3390/en12071293.
20. Abekawa, T.; Tanikawa, Y.; Hirosawa, A. Introduction of Komatsu Genuine Hydraulic Oil KOMHYDRO HE;
Komatsu Technical Report; Komatsu: Tokyo, Japan, 2010; Volume 56, No. 163.
21. Niraula, A.; Zhang, S.; Minav, T.; Pietola, M. Effect of zonal hydraulics on energy consumption and boom
structure of an excavator. Energies 2018, 11, 2088, doi:10.3390/en11082088,.
22. Zhang, S.; Minav, T.; Pietola, M. Improving efficiency of micro excavator with decentralized hydraulics. In
Proceedings of the 2017 Bath/ASME Symposium on Fluid Power and Motion Control, FPMC 2017, Sarasota,
FL, USA, 16–19 October 2017.
23. Rundo, M. Models for Flow Rate Simulation in Gear Pumps: A Review. Energies 2017, 10, 1261,
doi:10.3390/en10091261.
24. Borghi, M.; Zardin, B.; Specchia, E. External Gear Pump Volumetric Efficiency: Numerical and
Experimental Analysis. SAE Tech. Pap. 2009, 1, 2844, doi:10.4271/2009‐01‐2844.
25. Frosina, E.; Buono, D.; Senatore, A.; Costin, I.J. A Simulation Methodology Applied on Hydraulic Valves
for High Fluxes. Int. Rev. Model. Simul. 2016, 9, 217, doi:10.15866/iremos.v9i3.9612.
26. Frosina, E.; Senatore, A.; Rigosi, M. Study of a High‐Pressure External Gear Pump with a Computational
Fluid Dynamic Modeling Approach. Energies 2017, 10, 1113–1133, doi:10.3390/en10081113.
27. Altare, G.; Rundo, M. CFD Analysis of gerotor lubricating pumps at high speed: Geometric features
influencing the filling capability. In Proceedings of the ASME/BATH 2015 Symposium on Fluid Power and
Actuators 2020, 9, 39 19 of 19

Motion Control (FPMC), Chicago, IL, USA, 12–14 October 2015; Paper no. FPMC2015‐9539,
doi:10.1115/FPMC2015‐9539.
28. Pintore, F.; Borghi, M.; Morselli, R.; Benevelli, A.; Zardin, B.; Belluzzi, F. Modelling and Simulation of the
Hydraulic Circuit of an Agricultural Tractor. In Proceedings of the 8th FPNI Ph.D Symposium on Fluid
Power, Lappeenranta, Finland, 11–13 June 2014; ASME. Fluid Power Systems Technology, V001T04A004,
doi:10.1115/FPNI2014‐7848.
29. Casoli, P.; Anthony, A. Gray Box Modeling of an Excavator Variable Displacement Hydraulic Pump for Fast
Simulation of Excavation Cycles; Control Engineering Practice; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2013; Volume 21, Issue 4, pp. 483–494, doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2012.11.011.
30. Casoli, P.; Gambarotta, A.; Pompini, N.; Riccò, L. Development and application of co‐simulation and
control‐oriented modeling in the improvement of performance and energy saving of mobile machinery.
Energy Procedia 2014, 45, 849–858, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.090.
31. Casoli, P.; Anthony, A.; Riccò, L. Modeling of an Excavator System–Load sensing flow sharing valve model.
In Proceedings of the SAE 2012 Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress, Rosemont, IL, USA, 13–14
September 2012; doi:10.4271/2012‐01‐2042.
32. Casoli, P.; Gambarotta, A.; Pompini, N.; Riccò, L. Coupling excavator hydraulic system and internal
combustion engine models for the Real‐Time simulation. Control Eng. Pract. 2015, 41, 26–37,
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2015.04.003.
33. Casoli, P.; Pompini, N.; Riccò, L. Simulation of an Excavator Hydraulic System Using Nonlinear
Mathematical Models. Stroj. Vestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2015, 61, 583–593, doi:10.5545/sv‐jme.2015.2570.
34. Casoli, P.; Riccò, L.; Campanini, F.; Lettini, A.; Dolcin, C. Mathematical model of a hydraulic excavator for
fuel consumption predictions. In Proceedings of the ASME/BATH Symposium on Fluid Power & Motion
Control, Chicago, IL, USA, 12–14 October 2015; ISBN: 978‐0‐7918‐5723‐6, Paper No. FPMC2015‐9566,
doi:10.1115/FPMC2015‐9566.
35. Bedotti, A.; Campanini, F.; Pastori, M.; Riccò, L.; Casoli, P. Energy saving solutions for a hydraulic
excavator. Energy Procedia 2017, 126, 1099–1106, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.255.
36. Casoli, P.; Riccò, L.; Campanini, F.; Bedotti, A. Hydraulic Hybrid Excavator—Mathematical Model
Validation and Energy Analysis. Energies 2016, 9, 1002, doi:10.3390/en9121002.
37. Casoli, P.; Anthony, A.; Rigosi, M. Modeling of an Excavator System–Semi empirical hydraulic pump
model. SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 2011, 4, 242–255; ISSN: 1946‐391X, doi:10.4271/2011‐01‐2278.
38. Ivantysyn, J.; Ivantysynova, M. Hydrostatic Pumps and Motors; Technip Books International: New Delhi,
India, 2003; ISBN 81‐88305‐08.
39. Earth‐Moving Machinery—Fuel Consumption on Hydraulic Excavator—Test Procedure; JCMAS
H020:2007; Japan Construction Machinery and Construction Association for Hydraulic Excavators: Tokyo,
Japan, 2007.
40. Järf, A.; Minav, T.; Pietola, M. Nonsymmetrical flow compensation using hydraulic accumulator in direct
driven differential cylinder. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 9th FPNI Ph.D. Symposium on Fluid Power,
FPNI2016, Florianópolis, Brazil, 26–28 October 2016.
41. Minav, T.; Zhang, S.; Pietola, M. Eliminating sizing error in direct‐driven hydraulics. In Proceedings of the
10th JFPS International symposium on Fluid Power, Fukuoka, Japan, 24–27 October 2017.
42. Rahn, C.D.; Wang, C‐Y. Battery Systems Engineering; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA; ISBN: 9781119979500.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).