Module- 4: ELECTRO-HYDRAULICS VALVES

LECTURE- 16: Proportional Solenoid Pilot Operated Two

Stage Pressure Relief Valve (Contd...)
Continued from Lecture 15.

Figure 1 – Schematic diagram of the original valve Figure 2 – Schematic view of the valve modified
for experiment

3 Analytical method to find pilot poppet displacement

The primary objective of the analysis is to predict the set pressure (supply pressure, Ps) for a given input
voltage to the proportional solenoid and flow rate through the pilot stage. All the intermediate pressures
along with the pilot stage poppet displacement are to be predicted in the sequence.
Referring to Figure 1, at steady state condition the same amount of hydraulic fluid that enters through
orifice A leaves the valve through orifice E and returns to the reservoir assuming that there is no leakage
flow in between. Therefore,

Qd   C  C 2
a
2
con  C 2
a
2
C con P  P 
s a
1/ 2

(21)
 C b Pa  Pc   C p y 2p Pc  Pd   C e Pd  Pr 
1/ 2 1/ 2

In the above equation the coefficients Ca, Cb, Ce for the three fixed orifices A, B and E respectively, are
defined in a general form as:

C i  C di Ai 2   ; for i = a, b, e (22)

where, Cdi can be evaluated from equation (2). The coefficient Ccon for the constriction and bend after
orifice A is expressed as:

C con  Acon 1 K loss 2   (23)

From equation (21), the drain pressure Pd can be readily evaluated if the return line pressure Pr is
known. The return line pressure Pr is experimentally found to be fairly constant (0.05 – 0.08 MPa)
throughout the entire operating range. For the evaluation of Pc, Pa and Ps from equation (21), the pilot
poppet displacement yp has to be determined first. In order to find yp, (Pc-Pd) is replaced by equation (14)
in terms of Qd and yp obtained from equation (21). As a result, equation (14) is transformed into a third
order polynomial of yp and is expressed as:

a y 3p  b y 2p  c y p  d  0 (24)

where, a  k sp C p ;  
b  FDr  k sp  2.8  10 3 C p ; c  C vp  Qd3 / 2 2 d p   sin 2 p and

d   A p Qd . The above equation has three roots one of which is positive and real. It can be taken as the
pilot poppet displacement.

Combining equations (21 and 24) the different pressures are finally expressed as:

Pc  Pb  Qd C p y 2p   Pd 

Pa  Qd Cb   Pb
2
 (25)
Ps  Qd 1 C a  1 C con  Pa 
2 2 2 


4 Characteristics of the different forces

The variation of all the forces, involved in the force balance equation, with the command voltage for the
pilot stage is illustrated in Figure 7. Individual forces are evaluated analytically from their respective
equations. It is observed that throughout the entire operating region, the pressure force Fprp largely
follows the driving force, FDr. The spring force remains nearly constant after some initial increment. The
flow force is found to be increasing with the increase in the command voltage. However, the magnitude
of the flow force is negligibly small in comparison with other forces.

(12)
(18)

Figure 7: Variation of forces with the Figure 8: Variation of different forces with supply
command voltage in the pilot stage. pressure in the main stage.

Unlike the pilot stage, in the main stage the flow force has a significant role on the steady state force
balance of the poppet. Figure 8 shows the characteristics of the forces with change of supply pressure.
The flow forces for different input conditions are evaluated using the expression for flow force in
equation (12). However, from equation (18) a different value of flow force is desirable for steady state

2
equilibrium. The flow forces, obtained from two approaches, are clearly illustrated in both the figures.
This inequality essentially demands for a correction factor, which should be introduced in the expression
of the flow force.
The modified equation of flow force is, therefore,

F fms   0.42 2 Qrv   d s   C v  d s y s sin 2 s ( Ps  Pr )

1/ 8
(26)

where,  the correction factor is the ratio of flow force, obtained from equation (18), to the ideal flow
force given by equation (12). In some previous investigations, (Davies, 1994, Geißler, 1998, Johnston et
al, 2002) introduction of such factor was found. As shown in Figure 8, the factor  is not constant but is
found to be varying with the supply pressure. This phenomenon may be explained in terms of flow angle
and pressure distribution. Due to the typical poppet configuration, the flow angle may not be same as the
half poppet angle, s, for all the input conditions. The actual flow angle seems to be larger than s and
larger flow angle enhances the flow force. The assumption of uniform pressure distribution on the
external poppet surface may not be applicable here. The characteristics of the flow force correction factor
may be used as a reference for the sensitivity analysis of the valve.

5 Determination of the armature displacement of the solenoid

An attempt has been made to calculate the armature displacement of the solenoid after proposing the
analytical model. Without the details of constructional and functional features of the solenoid the
displacement is predicted from the geometrical details of the pilot stage and the developed driving force
model. The spring data such as stiffness (Ksp & khp), free lengths (flsp & flhp) and initial compressions (ys0
& yp0) are measured. As shown in Figure 9, the armature displacement is written as:

     
y arm  Lc  y p  l p li 0  lb  ll  fl hp  y hsp  l c (27)

where the poppet displacement yp and the pilot main spring compression yhsp are the two variables. yp is
evaluated from the analytical model. The driving force is transmitted to the poppet through the pilot main
spring. Therefore, yhsp is found from the equation of spring written as:
y hsp  FDr k hp (28)

Using the above equations yarm and yhsp are evaluated. All the three displacements involved in the pilot
stage are plotted against current in Figure 10. It can be seen that the armature displacement becomes
linear after some initial nonlinear region at smaller current range suggesting presence of inherent
nonlinearity within the valve.

3
6 Sensitivity analysis of the valve for different stiffness values of
main spring of pilot stage
The analytical method for performance analysis developed in the present work has to be modified for this
purpose. It is considered that the armature position for different input currents i.e., for different driving
forces, is independent of pilot main spring stiffness. Based on this consideration, the compression of pilot
main spring becomes a function of the stiffness only. Consequently, the pilot poppet displacement may
be expressed in terms of driving force, pilot main spring stiffness and the armature displacement.
Modifying equation (27), the expression is obtained as:

   
 
y p  Lc   y arm  l p li 0  lb  ll

F
  fl hp  Dr   lc 

(29)
  k hp  

Figure 9: Dimensions required for the determination Figure 10: Displacement characteristics of
of armature displacement. different components in the pilot stage.

In the analysis, the pilot flow rate is no longer an input. It is an unknown quantity which is to be
determined from the analysis. Therefore, the pressure drop across the pilot stage is to be evaluated before
the evaluation of the pilot flow rate. From the force balance equation for the pilot stage [equation (14)],
the pressure drop may be evaluated as:
Pc  Pd  FDr  Fsp  A p  F fps  (30)

From the pilot stage force characteristics, the pilot stage flow force is found to be negligibly small in
comparison to the other forces. Therefore, instead of using equation (13) for the flow force, it is quite
reasonable to express it in terms of pilot poppet displacement and pressure drop assuming constant
coefficients (Cdp and Cvp). The final form of the above equation is written as:

Pc  Pd  FDr  k sp  y sp 0  y p  A p  C dp C vp  d p sin 2 p  (31)

Once the pilot poppet displacement and the pressure drop are evaluated, the pilot flow rate can be found
directly from equation (14). The individual pressures are then evaluated using equations (21 and 25).

4
The analytical results for 5% change in pilot spring stiffness from the original stiffness are shown in
Figure 11. From the illustrations it is found that slight decrease in the pilot main spring stiffness increases
the supply pressure substantially. The pilot flow rate is increased at a much higher rate. However, the
feasibility of using such a low stiffness spring depends on the main stage force balance. It is found that
the required flow force correction factor  at high command voltage rises to an unrealistic value. In the
case of higher spring stiffness, at high command voltage, the same factor becomes negative, which
implies a negative flow force. The analysis suggests that the scope of increasing the performance of the
valve through changing pilot main spring stiffness is limited to a certain command voltage range.

Conclusion
The proposed technique to determine the different flow coefficients of the valve using experimental data
can be used in general provided the geometric dimensions and other parameters of the valve should be
known. The flow coefficients of different constrictions are determined experimentally. The empirical
relations are proposed to estimate the flow coefficients for known geometries and flow conditions. The
method is more general and exhaustive than that proposed by Shin (1991) and Washio (1998). The
analytical method to predict the valve performance needs those coefficients. Such a method, therefore,
can be an efficient way of verifying the coefficients under different operating conditions. The calculated
armature characteristics may be used as a design data for the hardware development of the proportional
solenoid. The driving force – input current relationship could directly be used in simulating system
performance. Thus, in case of online control computing time can be reduced. The characteristics of the
flow forces suggest that it would be reasonable to neglect the pilot stage flow force while modelling such
type of valves. However, the flow force acting on the main stage poppet has to be considered along with
flow force correction factor. In order to change the pressure setting of the valve, the change in spring
stiffness should be accompanied with the change in main stage poppet configuration.

Figure 11: Effect of pilot main spring stiffness on steady state valve performance.

5
References
DAVIES, R. M. 1994. A real-time approach to load adaptive electrohydraulic motor speed control, PhD
thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff, U. K.
GEIßLER, G. 1998. Flow force coefficient – a basis for valve analysis, Proc. of Bath Workshop on
Power Transmission and Motion Control (PTMC’ 98), Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd., UK, pp.
235-250.
JOHNSTON, D. N.; EDGE, K. A., & BRUNELLI, M. 2002. Impedance and stability characteristics
of a relief valve, Proc. IMechE, Part-I, 216(5), pp. 371-382.
LICHTAROWICZ, A.; DUGGINS, R. K., & MARKLAND, E. 1965. Discharge coefficients for
incompressible non-cavitating flow through long orifices. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science,
7(2), pp. 210-219.
MERRITT, H. E. 1967. Hydraulic Control Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SAHA, R. & MAITI, R. 1999. Understanding Direct Acting Proportional Solenoid Directional Control
Valve-Performance study through MATLAB-SIMULINK, Proc. of National Conference on Machines and
Mechanism (NACOMM 99), IIT, Bombay, India, 15-16 Dec., pp. 98-107.
SAHA, R. 2004. Studies on a Pressure Relief Valve with Proportional Solenoid-Controlled Pilot Stage,
PhD Thesis, IIT, Kharagpur, India.
SHIN, Y. C. 1991. Static and Dynamic characteristics of a two stage pilot relief valve, ASME Journal
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 113(2), pp. 280-288.
STONE, J. A. 1960. Discharge coefficients and steady – state flow forces for hydraulic poppet valves,
Trans. of ASME, Journal of Basic Engineering, March, 82, pp. 144-154.
TAKENAKA, T. & URATA, E. 1968. Static and Dynamic characteristics of oil – hydraulic control
valves, Proc. of the Fluid Power International Conference, Day 2 Paper 1.
VAUGHAN, N. D. & GAMBLE, J. B. 1996. The Modelling and Simulation of a Proportional Control
Solenoid Valve, Transaction of the ASME, Journal of Dynamic System Measurement and Control,
118(1), pp. 120-125.
VON MISES, R. 1917. Berechnung von Ausfluss – und – Uberfallzahlin. VDI vol. 71.
WASHIO, S. NAKAMURA, Y. & YU, Y. 1999. Static characteristics of a piston-type pilot relief
valve, Proc. IMechE, Part C, 213(C3), pp. 231-239.