Measurement of Effective

Yang Huayong
e-mail: yhy@zju.edu.cn
Feng Bin
e-mail: abbottfeng@zju.edu.cn
Gong Guofang
e-mail: gfgong@zju.edu.cn
The State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power
Transmission and Control,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Fluid Bulk Modulus in
Hydraulic System
Effective fluid bulk modulus has significant influence on the stiffness and dynamic per-
formance of hydraulic systems. It is always varied with different working parameters as
air content, fluid pressure, and temperature. To estimating effective bulk modulus accu-
rately is very important when designing high performance hydraulic systems. In this
study, a measuring device was developed based on the definition of bulk modulus, and the
measurement accuracy was estimated. Experiments were carried out using L-HM46 anti-
wear hydraulic fluid at approximately constant temperature, the results show that the
good repeatability and pressure resolution can be achieved. Results also show that when
pressure is low, the bulk modulus increases strongly as pressure increases; pressures
over 8.5 MPa have slight influence on the bulk modulus. Effective fluid bulk modulus can
be expressed as a function of working pressure when the air content is certain. [DOI:
10.1115/1.4004783]

Keywords: Effective bulk modulus, measurement, entrapped air, fluid pressure, errors

1 Introduction
Due to advantages as high power-density, fast dynamic response,
and easy reversal control with smoothness, hydraulic systems are
widely used in different kinds of applications [1]. Fluid is an essen-
tial component of hydraulic systems. If the effective fluid bulk
modulus is low, the stiffness of a system is also low causing energy
losses and slow responses. Therefore, the right estimation of effec-
tive bulk modulus is important when high performance hydraulic
systems are designed. Unfortunately, effective fluid bulk modulus
is one of the most ambiguous parameters because it is always influ-
enced by the entrapped air, working pressure, and temperature vari-
ation [2,3]. In addition, it is a difficult task to measure and estimate
the effective bulk modulus in real systems [4].
In this study, a bulk modulus measuring device was developed
based on the definition of bulk modulus. In order to estimate
measuring results, the errors of the measuring device were ana-
lyzed. Experimental tests were carried out to reveal the relation-
ship of fluid pressure and effective bulk modulus. This paper is
organized as follows. In Sec. 2, previous studies about the meas-
uring techniques of effective bulk modulus in different hydraulic
systems are reviewed. The model of effective fluid bulk modulus
varying with fluid pressure and air content is derived in Sec. 3. In
Sec. 4, a measuring device based on the definition of bulk modu-
lus is developed and its detecting errors are analyzed. The rela-
tionship between fluid pressure and bulk modulus are tested in
Sec. 5 and conclusions are presented in Sec. 6.
in pressure. On the basis of Eq. (1), the effective fluid bulk modu-
lus in hydraulic systems can be measured statically in a chamber
with a piston that can change the fluid volume. As the fluid is
pressurized, its compressibility can be determined. Hayward [5]
and Merritt [6] employed this method with the particular appara-
tus in order to explore the relationship between bulk modulus,
pressure, and air content. Due to the equipment limitation, their
measuring results cannot be generalized to different hydraulic sys-
tems, especially at low pressure.
Li et al. [7] developed an online measurement based on the fol-
lowing Eq. (2) that is derived from the definition of bulk modulus.
The measurement was achieved in the R-C network hydraulic cir-
cuits, and the average bulk modulus for different pressure ranges
can be calculated.
V½pðTÞ  pð0Þ
be ðpÞ ¼ ÐT ðpð0Þ  p  pðTÞÞ (2)
0 QðtÞdt
where Q(t) and p are the measured flow rate and pressure. Manr-
ing [2] proposed a similar measuring method within a hydrostatic
transmission. The method referring to Eq. (3) was derived from
the bulk modulus definition and the mass conservation.
pin  pout
be ¼   (3)
ln QoutQþQ
in
leak

2 Review of Bulk Modulus Measurements
2.1 Definition Method. Fluid bulk modulus is a reciprocal of
compressibility and is generally defined as
Dp
b¼V (1)
DV
where V is the original fluid volume, Dp is the change of fluid
pressure, and DV is the relative volume variation. The negative
sign indicates a decrease in volume with a corresponding increase
Manuscript received January 5, 2010; final manuscript received April 17, 2011;
published online November 23, 2011. Assoc. Editor: Rama K. Yedavalli.
where Qin, Qout, and Qleak are the measured flow rates in, out, and
leak of the control volume, respectively. These methods have
been successfully applied in hydrostatic systems. However, the
flow rate is always difficult to be measured accurately due to the
limitation of flow sensors. As a result, the accuracy tolerance for
the fluid bulk modulus measuring results is a near-constant error
of 6 337 MPa throughout the entire pressure range (7–42 MPa).
Recently, Niezrecki et al. [8] proposed a sensing technique to
determine bulk modulus by detecting the displacement of a piezo-
electric stack transducer. The effective bulk modulus was given as
xAf
be ¼ (4)
Flf

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control NOVEMBER 2011, Vol. 133 / 061021-1
C 2011 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 where x is the displacement of the transducer, Af is the area of
fluid, lf is the length of fluid in container, and F is the applied force
induced by the actuator. The measuring apparatus features compact
size and online operation; however, the displacement of piezoelec-
tric stack is a few micro meters and is difficult to be measured
accurately. Kim and Wang [4] pointed out this conflict and
attempted to overcome it by measuring the impedance of piezo-
electric transducer. The impedance could be obtained from the
input and output voltages of the transducer. In this case, the fluid
volume change is not directly detected but calculated from the im-
pedance, and it may lead a secondary error. Furthermore, the meas-
uring results at the pressure lager than 1 MPa is not concerned.
2.2 Sonic Method. Another well-known expression for bulk
modulus is the sonic bulk modulus derived from the wave propa-
gation velocity in fluid.
 2
L DVa ¼ DVd þ DVc ¼ ð1  MÞVa þ 10ad0 Vl DpM
be ¼ qc2 ¼ q
Dt
where q is the density of fluid, c is wave propagation velocity, L
is the traveling length, and Dt is the time delay. Based on this Eq.
(5), Yu et al. [9] employed a method by measuring the propaga-
tion of a pressure wave through a long pipe as shown in Fig. 1.
The comprehensive results of this study were that the bulk modu-
lus is a function of pressure.
The measurement was carried out in a simple pump-pipe-valve
system at approximately 20  C. The fluid was fed into a straight
long pipe, in which two pressure transducers were mounted sepa-
rately with a distance of 2 m. The pressure wave propagation time
from transducers 1# to 2# was calculated by the cross-correlation
of the two pressure signals, and then bulk modulus was obtained.
In this measurement, the constant density of fluid assumed in Eq.
(5) conflicts with the definition of bulk modulus, because the den-
sity of air-mixed fluid varies with pressure and/or temperature
conditions. Cho et al. [10] took notice of the issue and attempted
to improve the model with the pressure-sensitive fluid density.
However, the model assuming the constant air solubility may be
only helpful in the hydraulic systems with low pressure (about 1
MPa) and high temperature (about 130  C).
3 Variation of Effective Fluid Bulk Modulus
According to Ref. [11], the effective bulk modulus can be pre-
sented as follows:
1 Vl 1 Va 1 1 working pressure under the initial entrapped air volume ratio from
¼ þ þ (6)
be V bl V ba bc
where Vl is the volume of air free fluid, bl is the bulk modulus of
air free fluid, Va is the volume of entrapped air, ba is the bulk mod-
ulus of entrapped air, and bc is the bulk modulus of the container.
There is always some dissolved air in the fluid according to Henry’s
law, and it almost has no effect on the bulk modulus under constant
conditions. However, when the working pressure reduces, part of
the dissolved air may separate out and then convert into entrapped
air. When the pressure increases, it is just the opposite. Assumed
that when pressure increases, the entrapped air is first dissolved and
then the residual part is compressed as shown in Fig. 2.
The variation of entrapped air under different working condi-
tions can be expressed as
DVd ¼ 10ad0 DpVl (7)
c c
p0 ðVa  DVd Þ pðVa  DVc Þ
¼ (8)
T0 T
where DVd refers to air volume variation by dissolving, DVc refers
to air volume variation by compressing, a is the volume ratio of
entrapped air (a ¼ Va/V) and d0 is the air solubility of hydraulic
fluid at atmosphere, c is the specific heat capacity ratio, and T is
fluid temperature.
The total volume variation of entrapped air is
(9)
(5)
 
p0 T 1=c
M¼ (10)
pT1
If the fluid temperature is maintained approximately constant and
the pumping condition in the hydraulic system is fixed, Eq. (10)
can be simplified as
1
M ¼ p0 (11)
p
Generally, the bulk modulus of the steel container reaches about
2.1  105 MPa, and it is much higher than the fluid bulk modulus.
Therefore bc can be neglected, in par-ticular, when low working
pressure is concerned. Thus, the effective fluid bulk modulus can
be derived as
1
b e ¼  2 bl (12)
1 1
A þB þC
p p
where A ¼ ap0 bl , B ¼ 10d0 p0 bl a2 þ 10d0 p0 bl a þ bl a, C ¼ 1
a. In Eq. (12), both fluid pressure and effec-tive bulk modulus are
expressed in megapascals.
Equation (12) represents a pressure and entrapped air sensitive
model of effective fluid bulk modulus. Analysis was carried out to
explore the characteristic of bulk modulus variation with different
0.1% to 5%. The bulk modulus of air free fluid was considered as
1700 MPa [9]. As shown in Fig. 3, the result indicates that fluid
pressure significantly affects the bulk modulus of the fluid under
different air conditions. For instance, given 0.5% air entrapped,
bulk modulus increases from 400 to 1400 MPa as fluid pressure
increases from 2.5 to 20 MPa.
4 Design of Bulk Modulus Measurement
4.1 The Method. According to the reviews in Sec. 2, the
measuring method based on the definition of bulk modulus will
give more accurate results in theory. Moreover, the pressure and
displacement sensors were developed to high precision in recent
years. Assisted by the fluid temperature control and measuring

Fig. 1 Measurement with sonic method [9] Fig. 2 Entrapped air varying process at pressure p

061021-2 / Vol. 133, NOVEMBER 2011 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 3 Bulk modulus variation with pressure under different
entrapped air con-tent
process control, an accurate measuring system can be designed in
hydraulic systems.
4.2 The Measuring Device. The hydraulic diagram and the
structure of the measuring equipment are depicted in Figs. 4 and
5. Fluid sample is pumped directly from the reservoir to match the
working environment of real hydraulic systems. In addition, fluid
temperature in the hydraulic system is controlled with its steady
state error less than 6 1  C during the measurements. The temper-
ature control system is described in detail in Ref. [12]. The fluid
sample is kept in a sealed chamber, and there are a check valve
inlet and a poppet type solenoid valve outlet. The volume of the
chamber is 2 l. A hydraulic actuator with its piston loading on
fluid sample is attached to top of the sealed chamber, and its
working pressure is adjusted by a proportional pressure valve.
Therefore, the pressure of the fluid sample is easily controlled by
the working force of the actuator, and it can be determined by a
pressure sensor. The corresponding volume variation in the cham-
ber is proportional to displacement of the cylindrical piston, and it
can be determined by a displacement sensor assembled in the
actuator. The plunger (1) is used to empty the fluid sample out of
the chamber at the end of the measurement.
Employing a programmable logic controller, the measurement
can be carried out automatically. It takes 50 s to accomplish one
measurement, half for compressing the fluid sample in the chamber
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of bulk modulus measurement
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 5 Bulk modulus measuring device
and the other for filling and emptying the fluid sample. The control-
ler provides a 12-bit A/D conversion, the time for every data acqui-
sition and processing is designed 0.1 s. The measurement is
established with procedures summarized as follows: First, supplies
the fluid sample into the measuring device. Second, loads the fluid
sample with a small force to obtain the initial piston displacement,
fluid pressure, and temperature. Next, loads the fluid sample with
the expected force and detects the piston displacement, fluid pres-
sure, and temperature. The effective bulk modulus can be calcu-
lated as follows:
p2  p1  p 
be ¼ p V  d 2 s1 (13)
d2 ðs2  s1 Þ 4
4
where p1 is the initial fluid pressure in the chamber, p2 is the
changed fluid pressure, s1 is the initial displacement of the piston,
s2 is the changed displacement, and d is the diameter of the piston.
4.3 Error Analysis. Since the fluid bulk modulus is calculated
from the fluid pressure, the piston displacement, and the chamber
volume, it is necessary to discuss the expected accuracy of the meas-
uring device. The errors in estimating bulk modulus may primarily
be caused by the deformation of the sealed chamber and the piston,
the determining error of sensors, and the leakage in chamber.
Although the bulk modulus of the chamber is much higher than
the fluid bulk modulus, the detected change in the bulk modulus
measurement is influenced by the deformation of the chamber,
especially at a large working pressure. The wall thickness is
designed as large as 30 mm to improve stiffness of the chamber. Its
deformation at the highest pressure of 20 MPa is analyzed
Fig. 6 Deformation of the chamber and piston
NOVEMBER 2011, Vol. 133 / 061021-3
 Table 1 Technical data of the sensors Table 2 Testing data

Type Measuring range Linearity (%) No. Time be (MPa) p1 (MPa) p2 (MPa) T ( C)

Pressure sensor 0–25 MPa 6 0.15 1 13:30 890 0.605 1.332 40.5
Displacement sensor 0–100 mm 6 0.02 889 0.605 1.325 40.2
907 0.596 1.325 40.1
2 13:45 894 0.619 1.344 39.8
923 0.618 1.339 39.5
employing the ANSYS software. Except for the piston and bottom 905 0.612 1.332 39.9
part of the chamber, the largest radial deformation in most part of 3 14:45 900 0.612 1.338 40.5
the chamber is less than 1.55  10 2 mm as shown in Fig. 6. It 910 0.608 1.332 40.7
can be calculated that the volume increased is about 497 mm3 at 904 0.605 1.328 41.0
pressure of 20 MPa, and it is about 0.025% of the chamber volume
(ec) and 2.06% of the changed fluid volume (ef). Moreover, when
the fluid pressure is lower, the deformation should be much lower. tent is 12.4% (volume ratio), but each volume of the dissolved air
Two high precision sensors are employed to determine the fluid and the entrapped air cannot be detected. Figure 7 illustrates the
pressure and the piston displacement, respectively. The technical photograph of the bulk modulus measuring system. Experiments
data of the pressure sensor and the displacement sensor are listed were carried out using L-HM46 antiwear hydraulic fluid under the
in Table 1. The error due to the sensors can be estimated using temperature condition 40  C 6 1  C, with focus on the measuring
Eqs. (14) and (15). accuracy. The measurement was divided into three groups with an
hour interval between the third test and the previous two. Fluid
pr pressure in the sealed chamber produced by the piston of hydrau-
ep ¼ epsen (14)
p lic actuator was limited to 2 MPa. The testing data were summar-
sr ized in Table 2.
es ¼ essen (15) As the effective fluid bulk modulus is always expressed with
s fluid pressure, the testing data were evaluated adopting the paral-
lel secant method [13]. Its evaluation, shown in Table 3, indicates
where ep, pr, and epsen are the error, measuring range, and linearity
that the measuring results can agree with each other under similar
of the pressure sensor; es, sr, and essen are the error, measuring
test conditions. The measuring device is accurate and its repeat-
range, and linearity of the displacement sensor.
ability is as high as 98.7%.
The error caused by leakage in the chamber is difficult to calcu-
The effective fluid bulk modulus variations with fluid pressure
late because of the different sealing rings, fluid pressure, and tem-
are measured under temperature condition 25  C. In Fig. 8, the two
perature conditions. Here, a couple of U-type seal rings are used
group of measuring results can agree with each other under similar
to prevent the leakage from the camber to the cylinder. The testing
pressure conditions, and the measured values are plotted as a func-
results show that there is almost no leakage in 30 s under fluid
tion of pressure from 0 to 20 MPa. When fluid pressure is below
pressure of 25 MPa. Because the compressing process is accom-
8.5 MPa, the bulk modulus varies strongly with pressure. When
plished within 30 s, this error can be ignored. In addition, owing
fluid pressure increases from 8.5 to 20 MPa, the bulk modulus is
to the accurate fluid temperature control during the measurement,
kept around 1670 MPa that is close to the one of air free fluid.
fluid volume changing with temperature can either be ignored.
According to Eq. (12), when the air content is certain, effective
Therefore, the total error of the measuring device, expressed in
fluid bulk modulus can be expressed as a function of working pres-
Eq. (16), is a combination of the errors mentioned above. The
sure. On the basis of the values measured, the relationship between
value calculated is as low as 2.55%.
the effective bulk modulus and fluid pressure can be fitted as
ð16ep Þð1 þ ec Þ follows:
e¼ 1 (16)
ð16es Þð1  ef Þ
1700
be ¼  2 (17)
5 Results and Discussion 1 1
0:041 þ 0:949 þ 0:963
A large hydraulic test rig is employed, and the hydraulic system p p
is sealed to keep the total air content constant. The total air con-
According to Eq. (17), the effective bulk modulus varying with
fluid pressure is in good agreement with the theoretic analysis
when fluid pressure is higher than 8.5 MPa. However, the bulk
modulus measured is influenced by the temperature differences
and the deformation of the container and the seals, but these influ-
ences were ignored when deriving the theoretic model. As a
result, the errors between the bulk modulus measured and the the-
oretic model under low pressure condition is about 150 MPa. It is
probable and favorable to modify the parameters (A, B, C) by
detecting those influences to improve the accuracy of Eq. (17)
[14]. Therefore, the equation has only one fluid dependent

Table 3 Data treatment

No. Time be (MPa) P (MPa) T ( C)

1 13:30 895 1.93 40.2

2 13:45 907 1.95 39.8
3 14:45 904 1.94 40.7
Fig. 7 Photograph of bulk modulus measuring device

061021-4 / Vol. 133, NOVEMBER 2011 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 6 Conclusions
(1) A compact device for measuring effective fluid bulk modu-
lus in hydraulic systems is proposed. Due to the adoption of
high precision sensors, design of thick chamber wall, and
temperature control, the device can provide accurate result
with its error less than 2.55%. The value measured reaches
a high repeatability of 98.7%.
(2) The experimental results show that effective bulk modulus
varies strongly with fluid pressure when pressure is below
8.5 MPa; otherwise it almost retains the value of air free
fluid. When the air content is certain, effective fluid bulk
modulus can be expressed as a function of working pressure
as shown in Eq. (17).

Acknowledgment
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
Fig. 8 Bulk modulus varying with pressure
dation of China (Grant No. 50975252). The authors wish to thank
Professor Tapio Virvalo, Tampere University of Technology,
Wang Jing, Shi Hu and Wang Lintao, Zhejiang University, for
parameter, which can be easily determined with a pressure sensor. their valuable suggestions. Many thanks also go to the reviewers
It may be practical enough to be used in designing and analyzing of this paper for their helpful comments.
the behavior of hydraulic systems under pressure condition lower
than 20 MPa. Nomenclature
The comparisons of bulk modulus measured under 25  C and V ¼ the original fluid volume (m3)
that given in Ref. [9] are shown in Fig. 9. The two curves can Dp ¼ the change of fluid pressure (MPa)
agree with each other when fluid pressure is higher than 7.5 MPa. DV ¼ the relative volume variation (m3)
But when fluid pressure is below 7.5 MPa, the values Yu meas- Vl ¼ the volume of air free fluid (m3)
ured are much higher. The errors are probably caused by the dif- bl ¼ bulk modulus of air free fluid (MPa)
ferent methods employed and some measuring conditions as Va ¼ volume of entrapped air (m3)
different fluid types, seals, and air content. Furthermore, the effec- ba ¼ bulk modulus of entrapped air (MPa)
tive fluid bulk modulus for pressure less than 5 MPa is not suffi- DVd ¼ air volume variation for dissolved (m3)
ciently mentioned by Yu. As shown in Fig. 9, this study has been DVc ¼ air volume variation for compressed (m3)
concentrated on measuring the bulk modulus at the low pressure a ¼ the volume ratio of entrapped air (a ¼ Va/V)
range. The results show that the bulk modulus decreases to as low d0 ¼ the air solubility in hydraulic fluid at 0.1 MPa
as 600 MPa when the fluid pressure is very low. As fluid pressure c ¼ specific heat capacity ratio
increases, the bulk modulus increases heavily. p1 ¼ the initial fluid pressure in the chamber (MPa)
In addition, the comparisons of effective fluid bulk modulus at p2 ¼ the changed fluid pressure (MPa)
25  C and 45  C are shown in Fig. 9. It is either indicated that the s1 ¼ the initial displacement of the piston (mm)
effective fluid bulk modulus is almost irrespective of temperature s2 ¼ the changed displacement (mm)
change when fluid pressure is higher than 8.5 MPa. For lower d ¼ the diameter of the piston (mm)
pressure, effective fluid bulk modulus reduces by about 100–300 ec ¼ the error of chamber volume
MPa as fluid temperature increases from 25  C to 45  C. Since the ef ¼ the error of fluid volume
air content under lower pressure is more abundant, the effective epsen ¼ the linearity of pressure sensor
bulk modulus errors are probably caused by the bulk modulus var- ep ¼ the error of pressure sensor
iation of entrapped air with the different temperature. pr ¼ the measuring range of pressure sensor (MPa)
essen ¼ the linearity of displacement sensor
es ¼ the error of displacement sensor
sr ¼ the measuring range of displacement sensor

References
[1] Akkaya, A., 2006, “Effect of Bulk Modulus on Performance of a Hydrostatic
Transmission Control System,” Sadhana, 31(5), pp. 543–556.
[2] Manring, N. D., 1997, “The Effective Fluid Bulk-Modulus Within a Hydrostatic
Transmission,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 119(3), pp. 462–466.
[3] Chinniah, Y., Burton, R., and Habibi, S., 2003, “Viscous Damping Coefficient
and Effective Bulk Modulus Estimation in a High Performance Hydrostatic
Actuation System Using Extended Kalman Filter,” Int. J. Fluid Power, 3, pp.
27–34.
[4] Kim, G. W., and Wang, K. W., 2007, “On-line Monitoring of Fluid Effective
Bulk Modulus Using Piezoelectric Transducer Impedance,” Proceedings of
IMECE’07, Seattle, Washington, DC.
[5] Hayward, A. T. J., 1967, “Compressibility Equations for Liquids: A Compara-
tive Study,” Br. J. Appl. Phys., 18, pp. 965–977.
[6] Merritt, H. E., 1967, Hydraulic Control Systems, Wiley, New York.
[7] Li, S. N., Ge, S. H., and Shi, W. X., 1989, “The Technique for the On-line Mea-
surement of the Bulk Modulus of Hydraulic Fluid,” Chin. J. Mech. Eng., 25(3),
pp. 88–93 (Chinese).
[8] Niezrecki, C., Schueller, J. K., and Balasubramanian, K., 2004, “Piezoelectric-
Based Fluid Bulk Modulus Sensor,” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 15(12), pp.
Fig. 9 Comparisons of bulk modulus measurements 893–899.

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control NOVEMBER 2011, Vol. 133 / 061021-5

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 [9] Yu, J. H., Chen, Z. N., and Lu, Y. Z., 1994, “The Variation of Oil Effective
Bulk Modulus With Pressure in Hydraulic Systems,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst.,
Meas., Control, 116(1), pp. 146–150.
[10] Cho, B. H., Lee, H. W., and Oh, J. S., 2002, “Estimation Technique of Air Con-
tent in Automatic Transmission Fluid by Measuring Effective Bulk Modulus,”
Int. J. Automot. Technol., 3(2), pp. 57–61.
[11] Lu, Y. X., 2002, Hydraulic and Pneumatic Technology Manual, China
Machine, Beijing, China (in Chinese).
[12] Feng, B., Gong, G. F., and Yang, H. Y., 2009, “Self-Tuning-Parameter Fuzzy
PID Temperature Control in a Large Hydraulic System,” Proceedings of 2009
061021-6 / Vol. 133, NOVEMBER 2011
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics,
Singapore, pp. 1418–1422.
[13] Wang, J., Gong, G. F., and Yang, H. Y., 2008, “Control of Bulk Modulus of
Oil in Hydraulic Systems,” Proceedings of 2008 IEEE/ASME International
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, XIan, China, pp. 1309–
1395.
[14] Karjalainen, J. P., Karjalainen, R., and Huhtala, K., 2009, “Second Order Poly-
nomial Model for Fluid Dynamics in High Pres-sure,” Proceedings of the
ASME 2009 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference (DSCC2009), Holly-
wood, CA, pp. 9–15.
Transactions of the ASME