Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Randall T. Anderson2
e-mail: randalltanderson@eaton.com
Spool Flow Control Servovalve
Perry Y. Li
e-mail: pli@me.umn.edu
Using a Pressure Control Pilot1
A nonlinear dynamic model for an unconventional, commercially available electrohydrau-
Department of Mechanical Engineering, lic flow control servovalve is presented. The two stage valve differs from the conventional
University of Minnesota, servovalve design in that: it uses a pressure control pilot stage; the boost stage uses two
111 Church St. SE, spools, instead of a single spool, to meter flow into and out of the valve separately; and
Minneapolis, MN 55455 it does not require a feedback wire and ball. Consequently, the valve is significantly less
expensive. The proposed model captures the nonlinear and dynamic effects. The model
has been coded in Matlab/Simulink and experimentally validated.
DOI: 10.1115/1.1485287
I Introduction the physical design of the valves. Anderson who holds the patent
on the design presented simplified linear models in 5. A com-
The vast majority of flow control servovalves in existence em-
plete derivation of the model, such as the loading effect of each
ploy a double flapper nozzle pilot stage and a single spool boost
subsystems on each other is, however, not presented. Although the
stage. A stiff feedback spring is generally used to provide feed-
importance of the nonlinearities associated with the valves is men-
back from the boost stage to the pilot. These types of servovalves
tioned, they are not included in these simplified models. In this
tend to be difficult to manufacture and expensive. A less conven-
paper, an experimentally validated physical model of the valve is
tional, less costly type of flow control servovalve 1,2 utilizes a
presented. The model takes into account nonlinear effects such as
two-spool boost stage and a flapper nozzle pressure control pilot.
flow forces, nonlinear magnetic effects, and chamber fluid com-
Because a feedback wire between the nozzle flapper pilot and the
pressibility. The model is capable of predicting the dynamic out-
boost stage is not needed, assembly is simplified. The two spools
put flow rate when time trajectories of the electrical current input
in the boost stage are spring loaded and meter flow into and out of
and of the work port pressures are given. The model prediction
the valve separately. The main advantages of the two-spool/
compares favorably with experimental data. In a companion paper
pressure control pilot design are: 1 ease of manufacturing; 2
6, the model is used to provide a basis for the analysis for
lower costs; 3 higher degree of adjustment; and 4 greater
performance limitation and for the dynamic redesign to improve
safety. Because flow into and out of the valve are metered sepa-
performance. It will be demonstrated how the structure of
rately using separate spools, the required machining accuracy of
the interconnection of the subsystems limits the dynamic
the land lengths and of the metering edges are significantly re-
performance.
duced. The shorter bore lengths enable better machining of the
After this paper was first submitted, the authors were made
metering edges. Electrical displacement transducers are not nec-
aware of the earlier modeling efforts by Akers and co-workers on
essary. The main cost advantage stems from the fact that the two
valves related to the one investigated here. They presented a
porting edges can be independently machined, so that each bore
model for a two-stage, two-spool pressure control valve in 7. A
only has one critical axial dimension, in contrast to a conventional
model for the two-spool two-stage flow control valve similar to
design in which three critical dimensions are interrelated to each
the one in this paper was presented at the ASME Winter Annual
other. In addition, the two spool design allows the use of modular
Meeting in 8. Differences between the two models will be dis-
components, the boost stage housing needs machining only from
cussed after the presentation of the model.
two sides. The valve can also be easily adjusted for different ap-
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The basic opera-
plications since each spool can be independently positioned. The
tion of the valve is given in Section II. The models for each
two-spool design is also potentially safer because unless both
subsystem are then developed. The models for the pilot and the
spools are jammed open, flow can be shutoff by either spool.
boost stages are presented in Sections III and IV, respectively, the
Servovalves that utilize the two-spool/pressure control pilot de-
chamber pressure dynamics are given in Section V, and the output
sign have a better cost/performance ratio, although they do have
flow equations are given in Section VI. In Section VII, simulation
lower performance open loop bandwidth than their conventional
issues are discussed. Simulation and experimental results are
counterparts.
shown in Section VIII. Conclusions are given in Section IX. A
The objective of this paper is to present a complete and vali-
table of nomenclature appears at the end of the paper.
dated nonlinear dynamic model for this unconventional two-stage
two-spool valve, with similar details as in the models for conven-
tional servovalves, which are readily available e.g. 3,4. This is
II Operation of the Two-Spool Valve
needed in order to predict system performance and stability, and to A schematic of the flow control servovalve using a two-spool
design control systems in high performance applications. A math- boost stage, and pressure control pilot design is shown in Fig. 1. It
ematical model relating the various physical parameters to perfor- consists of two distinct stagesa pilot and a boost stage, sepa-
mance can also be used to predict and improve the performance in rated by a simple transition plate and connected via two pressure
chambers. The pilot stage is a pressure control pilot 9, which
1
An abridged version of this paper was first presented at the ASME IMECE 2000 uses a double nozzle flapper design. The boost stage of the valve
in Orlando, FL. consists of two separate spring centered spools which meter flow
2
R. Anderson is currently at Eaton Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN. into and out of the valve separately.
Contributed by the Dynamic Systems and Control Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript
Roughly speaking, the pressure control pilot stage generates a
received by the Dynamic Systems and Control Division February 2001. Associate differential pilot pressure i.e., the pressure difference between the
Editor: N. Manring. two pressure chambers proportional to the electrical current input
420 Vol. 124, SEPTEMBER 2002 Copyright 2002 by ASME Transactions of the ASME
Fig. 1 Schematic of the two spool flow control valve using a pressure control pilot
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 421
displacement. Thus, it presents itself as a negative stiffness. By
magnetizing/demagnetizing the permanent magnet in the torque
motor, this negative stiffness is used to cancel out the mechanical
stiffness of the pivot 5. When this is true, the torque generated in
the torque motor will be balanced predominantly by the differen-
tial pressure P 2 P 1 . Consequently, in the steady state, the dif-
ferential pressure will be roughly proportional to the input current.
The pilot pressures, P 1 and P 2 , act on the two ends of each
spool. A positive negative differential pressure P 2 P 1 causes
both spools to move in the upward downward direction. As
spools A and B move upward downward, hydraulic oil is ported
from the supply to port B A on one side, and from port A B
into the tank on the other, creating flows Q b and Q a , respectively.
As the spools displace, flows Q 1 to and Q 2 from the pilot stage
are also created.
The regulation of the spool displacements hence the flow rate
is achieved in two ways. Primarily, displacements of the spools
are resisted by the compression of the springs. Thus, in the steady
Fig. 3 Free body diagram of the armature-flapper
state, the displacement of each spool would be proportional to the
differential pilot pressure and inversely proportional to the spring
stiffness. Secondarily, the displaced fluid volume above and below
the spools also tend to reduce the differential pressure. Therefore, 3 2 r-plateA a A b NM o
the upward downward spool displacement and velocity tend to
decrease P 2 P 1 . These effects in turn affect the flapper displace- 4 r-plateA a A b G g M 2o r-siliconA a A g G b M 2o
ment and the differential pilot pressure. If the system is stable, the
spool will reach an equilibrium displacement. 2 r-plateA b A g G a M 2o
1 r-plateA a A b G 2g r-siliconA a A g G b G g 2 r-plateA b A g G a G g
2 r-plateA a A b .
III Pilot Stage Dynamics
Next, the moment due to the trim spring is considered. Because
We now derive the physical model for each subsystem, begin-
there are two trim springs with spring constant K k , the total coun-
ning with the pilot stage. The free body diagram of the armature-
terclockwise moment due to the trim spring is:
flapper assembly is shown in Fig. 3. Note that O is the pivot point
supported on a torsional beam spring, and is the anti-clockwise L k F k 2K k x k 2K k L k . (3)
angular displacement of the armature-flapper, which is assumed to
be small. Nozzle forces on the flapper are given by 3:
The armature-flapper is subjected to the magnetic force, F g , F f P 2 P 1 A n 4 C d2 f x f o x f 2 P 2 x f o x f 2 P 1 (4)
generated at the top air gap, the trim spring force, F k , at the top
end of the armature, the damping moment B f on the armature where the first term corresponds to the static pressure force, and
created as the armature moves in the silicon oil that fills the area the second term corresponds to the flow forces at the nozzle, and
above the flapper, the moment K p due to the pivot stiffness, and x f L f is the displacement of the flapper.
the flow and pressure forces due to the nozzle, F f . L k , L g , and The pivot spring of the armature-flapper is a rectangular beam,
L f are the moment arms about the pivot O for the trim spring therefore, the pivot stiffness in-lb/rad is 10:
force, the magnetic force F g and the nozzle flow force F f ,
respectively.
The magnetic force, F g , is found by analyzing the magnetic
K p 2
16 3
h t w t3 16
3.36
wt
ht
1
w t4
12h t4
G
Lf
(5)
circuit shown in Fig. 4. R a is the reluctance due to the lower air which is valid for w t h t .
gap between the magnetic plate and the armature, while R b is the Summing moment about the pivot, we obtain:
reluctance between the polepieces and the magnetic plate. R 1 and
R 2 correspond to the reluctances at the two top air gaps between
the polepieces and the armature. They are functions of the linear
armature displacement, x g L g .
Referring to Fig. 4, the magnetic force in the air gap is given by
3:
F g 4.42108 0A g
21 22
lb, (1)
J F g L g F k L k F f L f K p B f (6)
where J is the moment of inertia of the armature-flapper. L p C d j w 2 P sb P a x a x a 0
Using the relationships x f /L f x g /L g , 6 can be written in F F,A (10)
C d j C w P sb P a cos j x a
terms of x f and x f . This way, we obtain a second-order model for
the pilot stage in the form of L p C d j w 2 P sb P a x a x a 0.
x f f pilot x f ,x f ,i, P 1 , P 2 (7) where the first term corresponds to the steady-state flow force, and
where x f and x f are states, and i, P 1 and P 2 are the inputs. the second term corresponds to the transient flow force. In Eq.
10, the effect of clearance can be taken in account by replacing
IV Boost Stage Dynamics x a by sign(x a ) x 2a C r2 in the first term. Notice that regardless of
the sign of x a , the steady-state flow force is always restoring and
The model for the boost stage is developed next. We need to acts like a spring to close the valve. On the other hand, the tran-
derive the dynamic equations that describe the two spools. We sient flow force is proportional to the spool velocity. It acts like a
will analyze spool A in Fig. 5 in detail. The equations for spool B positive stabilizing damping when x a 0 when flow is being me-
can be similarly derived. We assume the spools are designed to be tered out of the valve. However, when x a 0 when flow is being
critically centered. In Fig. 5, the spool is subjected to the differ- metered into the valve, it acts like a negative, unstable damping.
ential pilot pressure, a force due to the centering spring, viscous Transient flow forces therefore can be a source of valve instability.
friction and flow forces. Equating forces on the spool yields the A recent investigation into the benefits of exploiting the instability
following: induced by transient flow force is given in 11.
M s x a P 2 P 1 A s 2K s x a F V F F,A (8) In Eq. 10, L p , is the damping length, which is the length of
the fluid column that undergoes acceleration. The transient flow
where RHS are forces due to the differential pressure, 2K s x s is the force is therefore proportional to the damping length. For the
force due to the two centering springs of stiffness K s , F F,A cor- valve being considered, L p depends on the spool displacement:
responds to the flow forces, and F V is the viscous damping force.
Assuming a perfectly centered spool in a bore 3, the viscous 1
damping force is: L p L po x
2 a
D sL s
F V x a . (9) where L po is the damping length when the spool displacement is
Cr
zero. Since the stroke lengths of the main spools are about 20% of
The fluid flow forces F F that the spool encounters are sometimes L po , the transient flow force can be underestimated by as much as
called Bernoulli forces which arise due to the dynamics of the 10% if L p is assumed to be L po .
fluid flow. There are two types of flow forces: steady-state flow In Eq. 10, j is the fluid jet angle of the vena contracta. It is a
forces and transient flow forces. Steady-state flow forces are due nonlinear function of x a /C r 3. j varies from 69 deg at large
to the angle of the vena contracta as the fluid is metered into or spool displacements to 21 deg at small orifice openings. These
out of the valve. They depend on the flow rate and hence the spool differences can cause large deviations in the steady-state flow
displacement. Transient flow forces, on the other hand, are the force term (cos(21deg)/cos(69deg)2.6). Thus, using only a
reactive forces associated with the acceleration of the fluid in the constant jet angle throughout the range of spool displacements
spool chamber. Thus, they are dependent on the rate of change of may not be adequate. To account for this variation, the variation in
flow and the spool velocity. The signs of the steady-state and jet angle when the orifice opening varies is explicitly modeled
transient components depend on the spool displacements, veloci- using a high order polynomial to represent the nonlinear depen-
ties, and on whether the spool is metering flow into or out of the dence of j on x s /C r as shown in 3.
valve. Following 3, the fluid flow forces on spool A are given The dynamics for spool B can be similarly obtained:
by:
D sL s
M s x b P 2 P 1 A s 2K s x b x b F F,B , (11)
Cr
C d j C w P sb P b cos j x b
F F,B
L p C d j w 2 P sb P b x b ,
C d j C w P b P T cos j x b
L p C d j w 2 P b P T x b ,
x b 0
x b 0.
(12)
x a f sp1 x a ,x a , P 1 P 2 , P a (13)
x b f sp2 x b ,x b , P 1 P 2 , P b (14)
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 423
V Chamber Pressure Dynamics VI Flow Equations
The pilot pressures P 1 and P 2 are needed as inputs to both the As the spools in the boost stage move, flow is either metered
pilot Eq. 7, and the boost stage Eqs. 1314 dynamics. These into or out of the valve through the orifice. In addition to the
are determined by the compressibility of the fluid in the chambers orifice flow, the total flow at the work ports is also contributed by
between the pilot stage and the boost stage. leakage flows through the spool-bore clearance see Fig. 6. Leak-
The chamber pressures P 1 and P 2 are determined by the basic age is again modeled by laminar flow in an annulus between an
hydraulic compressibility equations: annular shaft and a concentric cylinder.
For spool A in Fig. 6, when the spool displacement is positive
Q 1 V 1 upwards, the flow paths 1, 5, 6 are active; and for negative
P 1 (15) displacements, flow paths 3, 5, 6 are active. Therefore, the flow
V 1 t
into the valve from the work port A is:
P 2
Q 2 V 2
V 2 t
, (16) C d wx a 2 P a P T D b C r3 P a P T
12 L li x a
where V 1 (t) and V 2 (t) are the volumes of the chambers between D b C r3 P sb P a
the top of the spools and the left flapper face, and between the x a 0
bottoms of the spools and the right flapper face, respectively, Q 1 12 L li x a
Q a
and Q 2 are the total flows into the chambers. Recall that an up-
ward spool displacement is defined to be positive. The chamber 2 P sb P a D b C r3 P a P T
C d wx a
volumes and their derivatives are therefore given by: 12 L li x a
V 1 V 1o A s x a A s x b , (17) D b C r3 P sb P a
x a 0.
12 L li x a
V 2 V 2o A s x a A s x b (18) (25)
V 1 A s x a A s x b , (19) The first term in each of the two cases correspond to the orifice
flow, and the other terms correspond to the leakage. Notice that
V 2 A s x a A s x b (20) when x a 0, the orifice flow term Q a is negative indicating fluid
flows out of the valve.
where V 1o and V 2o are the fluid volumes in all the lines and For spool B and for positive spool displacement, the flow paths
chambers between spool ends and the flapper when the spools are 2, 7, 8 are active in Fig. 6. When the spool displacement is nega-
centered (x a x b 0). tive, flow paths 4, 7, 8 are active. Hence,
The flows Q 1 and Q 2 into the chambers comprise of the flow
from the pilot supply orifice, leakage past the nozzle, and leakage 2 P sb P b D b C r3 P sb P b
C d wx b
12 L li x b
past the spools. Combining these three contributions, we get:
D b C r3 P b P T
2 2 x b 0
Q 1 C d0 A 0 P P 1 C d f D n x f 0 x f P 12 L li x b
sp 1 Q b
D b C r3 P 1
D b C r3 P sb P 1
(21)
C d wx b 2 P b P T D b C r3 P sb P b
12 L li x b
12 L l0 x a 12 L l0 x b
D b C r3 P b P T
x b 0.
2 2 12 L li x b
Q 2 C d0 A 0 P P 2 C d f D n x f 0 x f P (26)
sp 2
D b C r3 P sb P 2 D b C r3 P 2
(22)
12 L l0 x a 12 L l0 x b
where the leakages are modeled to be laminar flows in an annulus
between a annular shaft and a concentric cylinder 3. From 15
and 21 and 16 and 22, one can see that the chamber pres-
sure dynamics are stable since increase in P i decreases flow Q i ,
which in term decreases P i .
Substituting Eqs. 1722 into Eq. 1516, we have
P 1 f cham1 P 1 ,x f ,x a ,x b ,x a ,x b (23)
P 2 f cham2 P 2 ,x f ,x a ,x b ,x a ,x b (24)
where P 1 and P 2 are the respective states, and the flapper dis-
placements and the spool displacements and velocities are the
inputs.
At this point, all of the necessary differential equations have
been developed to describe the pilot stage, spool A, spool B, and
the chamber pressures, P 1 and P 2 . There are, in total, eight state
variables. Next, we describe how the output flows at the work Fig. 6 Flow paths when spools are displaced from null
ports are related to the states of the valve. positions
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 425
Fig. 9 Steady-state response. Top: flow Q a versus input cur-
rent; bottom: flow Q a versus load pressures P L at various cur-
rents i .
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 427