0
Research Papers

Modeling and Characterization of Rotary Electrohydrostatic Actuators

[+] Author and Article Information
Renato Galluzzi

Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Politecnico di Torino,
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24,
Turin 10129, Italy
e-mail: renato.galluzzi@polito.it

Nicola Amati

Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Politecnico di Torino,
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24,
Turin 10129, Italy
e-mail: nicola.amati@polito.it

Andrea Tonoli

Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Politecnico di Torino,
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24,
Turin 10129, Italy
e-mail: andrea.tonoli@polito.it

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Technical Committee on Vibration and Sound of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF VIBRATION AND ACOUSTICS. Manuscript received May 30, 2015; final manuscript received September 30, 2015; published online November 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Patrick S. Keogh.

J. Vib. Acoust 138(1), 011016 (Nov 19, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: VIB-15-1193; doi: 10.1115/1.4031756 History: Received May 30, 2015; Revised September 30, 2015

Electrohydrostatic actuators are increasingly finding applications in different fields due to their numerous advantages with respect to electromechanical and conventional hydraulic systems. To understand their behavior, potentialities, limitations, and design aspects, the present paper deals with the modeling of such devices. The discussed phenomena are experimentally validated through the stationary and dynamic characterization tests of a rotary electrohydrostatic prototype. Results emphasize the role of mechanical and hydraulic dissipative effects and the fluid bulk modulus.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Kang, K. , Pachter, M. , Houpis, C. H. , and Rasmussen, S. , 1995, “ Modeling and Control of an Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator,” National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON 1995), Dayton, OH, May 22–26, pp. 545–556.
Firschemeier, S. , 1997, “ Electrohydrostatic Actuators for Aircraft Primary Flight Control—Types, Modelling and Evaluation,” 5th Scandinavian International Conference on Fluid Power (SICFP '97), Linköping, Sweden, May 28–30.
Bobrow, J. E. , and Desai, J. , 1995, “ A High Torque to Weight Ratio Robot Actuator,” Robotica, 13(2), pp. 201–208. [CrossRef]
Galluzzi, R. , Tonoli, A. , and Amati, N. , 2015, “ Modeling, Control, and Validation of Electrohydrostatic Shock Absorbers,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 137(1), p. 011012. [CrossRef]
Rupinsky, M. J. , and Dapino, M. J. , 2006, “ Smart Material Electrohydrostatic Actuator for Intelligent Transportation Systems,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2006-14542.
Daher, N. , and Ivantysynova, M. , 2014, “ An Indirect Adaptive Velocity Controller for a Novel Steer-by-Wire System,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Control, 136(5), p. 051012. [CrossRef]
Rabie, G. , 2009, Fluid Power Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Habibi, S. R. , and Burton, R. , 2007, “ Parameter Identification for a High-Performance Hydrostatic Actuation System Using the Variable Structure Filter Concept,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Control, 129(2), pp. 229–235. [CrossRef]
Belloli, D. , Previdi, F. , Savaresi, S. M. , Cologni, A. , and Zappella, M. , 2010, “ Modeling and Identification of Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator,” 5th IFAC Symposium on Mechatronic Systems, Cambridge, MA, Sept. 13–15.
Merritt, H. E. , 1967, Hydraulic Control Systems, Wiley, New York.
Manring, N. D. , 1997, “ The Effective Fluid Bulk Modulus Within a Hydrostatic Transmission,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Control, 119(3), pp. 462–466. [CrossRef]
Owen, W. S. , and Croft, E. A. , 2003, “ The Reduction of Stick-Slip Friction in Hydraulic Actuators,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., 8(3), pp. 362–371.
Karassik, I. J. , Messina, J. P. , Cooper, P. , and Heald, C. C. , 2001, Pump Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Rotary EHA model scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Rotary EHA constituted by (1) input motor, (2) temperature sensor, (3) input pump, (4) accumulator, (5) protection, circuit valve array, (6) output pump, (7) pressure sensors, (8) pipelines, and (9) output motor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Stationary damping response of the rotary EHA at preload pressures of 15 bar (dot), 35 bar (square), and 50 bar (triangle). Experimental results were linearly fitted (solid line) to obtain the parameters listed in Table 3.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Effects of the fluid internal damping variation on the frequency response magnitude of Gτ. The behaviors where cf = 1 × 109 N s/m5 (solid line), cf = 1 × 1011 N s/m5 (dashed line), and cf =1 × 1013  N s/m5 (dashed-dotted line) are shown; cin = cout = 0 in all cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effects of the input and output damping variation on the frequency response magnitude of Gτ. The behaviors where cin = 1 × 10−3 N·m s/rad (solid line), cin = 0.1 N·m s/rad (dashed line), and cin = 1 N·m s/rad (dashed-dotted line) are shown; cin = cout and cf = 0 in all cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Frequency response magnitude of GY for cin = 1 × 10−3 N·m s/rad, cf = 1 × 1011 N s/m5 (solid line); cin = 0.1 N·m s/rad, cf = 1 × 1011 N s/m5 (dashed line); and cin = 1 × 10−3 N·m s/rad, cf = 1 × 1012 N s/m5 (dashed-dotted line); cin = cout in all cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mechanical equivalent model of the hydraulic circuit present in the rotary EHA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effects of the preload pressure on the rotary EHA startup torque. Experimental results (dot) were linearly fitted (solid line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Frequency response magnitude of Gτ at a preload pressure of 15 bar and temperature of 45 °C. Experimental data (dot) are compared to response 1 (dashed line), response 2 (dashed-dotted line), and response 3 (solid line). See Table 4 for information regarding the parameters of each simulation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Frequency response magnitude of Gτ at a preload pressure of 50 bar and temperature of 65 °C. Experimental data (dot) are compared to response 1 (dashed line), response 2 (dashed-dotted line), and response 3 (solid line). See Table 4 for information regarding the parameters of each simulation.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In