Energy 155 (2018) 242e251

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Potential energy directly conversion and utilization methods used for

heavy duty lifting machinery
Yunxiao Hao, Long Quan*, Hang Cheng, Lianpeng Xia, Lei Ge, Bin Zhao
Key Lab of Advanced Transducers and Intelligent Control System of Ministry of Education and Shanxi Province, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan,
030024, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Hydraulic driven heavy duty lifting machinery is widely applied in mobile machinery. In traditional
Received 18 August 2017 systems, the gravitational potential energy (GPE) is usually dissipated as heat through the throttling
Received in revised form effect of the control valve, resulting in huge energy waste. To address the above issue, this paper pro-
26 April 2018
poses two direct GPE recovery (GPER) solutions based on hydraulic-pneumatic energy storage (HPES)
Accepted 2 May 2018
Available online 3 May 2018
principle. For system driven by double hydraulic cylinders, an independent HPES hydraulic cylinder is
added to the system. For system driven by single hydraulic cylinder, the HPES is integrated into the
original single rod hydraulic cylinder, functioning as a storage chamber. In both schemes, the HPES
Keywords:
Hydraulic excavator
hydraulic cylinder or chamber is directly connected to an accumulator. With the self-weight of the lifting
Hydraulic-pneumatic energy storage machinery is balanced by the precharge pressure of the accumulator, the GPE and hydraulic energy can
Three-chamber cylinder be directly converted mutually. Both schemes have been analyzed in detail. Experimental prototypes
Gravitational potential energy recovery have been constructed based on one 76-ton and one 6-ton hydraulic excavator. Experimental results
indicate that as compared to the original system, 49.1% GPE recovery rate and 26.2% energy consumption
reduction per operation cycle can be achieved for the 76-ton excavator. For the 6-ton excavator, the GPE
recovery rate reaches 70.9% and 44.4% energy consumption reduction rate can be achieved for each
operation cycle. Besides hydraulic excavator, the proposed solutions can also bring significant energy
saving for all other lifting machinery.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Hydraulic excavator, wheel loader, various forklift and other
mobile machinery use heavy duty lifting machinery controlled by
hydraulic cylinder to drive the load. During working process, the
lifting machinery lifts and lowers with high frequency. A large of
the accumulated GPE is converted into heat and dissipated through
the throttling effect of the control valve. That not only causes huge
energy loss but also increases the hydraulic oil temperature rapidly,
the cooling device should be added to lower the temperature which
further aggravates the energy loss. Taking hydraulic excavator as an
example, the wasted GPE accounts for 15% of the main hydraulic
pump output energy during one standard work cycle [1]. Therefore,
recovery and reutilization of this part of the wasted energy will
significantly improve the energy efficiency of mobile machinery.
There are hydraulic and electric two methods to recover and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: quanlong@tyut.edu.cn (L. Quan).
reutilize the GPE of the heavy load lifting machinery. Regarding
electric recovery method, it is mainly applied in oil-electric hybrid
[2,3] or pure electric driving mobile machinery [4,5]. Its funda-
mental principle is that the hydraulic oil of the rodless chamber of
the hydraulic cylinder is discharged to drive a hydraulic motor
during lowering process, then the hydraulic motor drives an elec-
tric generator to convert the GPE into electric energy stored in
supercapacitor or storage battery. To make up the shortcomings of
slow torque building speed of the electric motor/generator, Ahn
et al. developed a scheme that a bypass throttle valve is set parallel
to the hydraulic motor to improve the lifting machinery control
performance [6]. In Lin's study, a proportional throttle valve is in
parallel and proportional directional valve is in series with the
hydraulic motor to control the boom lowering velocity and improve
the operation stability. The GPE recovery efficiency is 39% [7]. To
eliminate the bypass throttling loss, Wang et al. studied a scheme
that a throttle valve and a hydraulic motor are set in series. The
valve pressure difference control strategy is used to improve the
boom operation performance, and the GPE recovery efficiency is
enhanced to 40%e50% [8]. Lin et al. used a hydraulic accumulator to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.015
0360-5442/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251
separate the energy recovery and the conversion process. By pro-
longing the conversion time, the installed power of the hydraulic
motor and electric motor/generator can be decreased by 60% and
39% of the potential energy is stored [9]. The closed pump
controlled system can eliminate the throttling loss and improve the
energy efficiency of the electric recovery system [10]. Yoon et al.
studied the characteristics of a pump controlled system that a
servomotor drives a pump to control the hydraulic excavator boom
and the electrical battery is used to recover and store GPE. The
energy consumption of the boom system is reduced by 47.8%
compared with the load sensing system [11]. Zhang et al. studied a
speed variable pump controlled hydraulic excavator scheme that
each hydraulic cylinder is controlled by two pumps driven by a
variable speed electric motor and GPE is stored by supercapacitor
[12].
In the hydraulic recover system, to control the lifting machinery
velocity, the simple way is to use a throttle valve to introduce the
high-pressure oil of the hydraulic cylinder into the hydraulic
accumulator to recover GPE. For energy regeneration, the stored
energy can be used to drive the cooling system and other auxiliary
equipment [13], or be used to drive the hydraulic pump by dis-
charging the high-pressure oil of the accumulator into the suction
port of the main hydraulic pump [14]. However, there is large
throttling loss during the energy recovery process, and the regen-
eration of stored energy also causes secondary throttling loss. The
hydraulic transformer [15] or closed pump controlled hydraulic
cylinder system [16] can be used to solve the above issues. Zhang
studied the scheme that hydraulic transformer is used to recover
the GPE of a hydraulic excavator. The test results show that the GPE
recovery efficiency reaches to 50% [17]. Daniel and Chen respec-
tively studied the schemes that the hydraulic excavator boom is
driven by two variable displacement pumps or two variable speed
pumps, and the accumulator is used to recover GPE. The energy
consumption of the boom system is reduced by 39% in Daniel's
study [18] and 33.1% in Chen’ study [19]. Kim studied a GPER
scheme that the high-pressure oil in the hydraulic cylinder is
introduced into a variable displacement hydraulic motor to assist
the engine to drive the main hydraulic pump when the hydraulic
excavator boom lowers. The fuel consumption of hydraulic exca-
vator can be reduced by 7% in the 90
truck loading tasks [20].
It is known from the above analysis that considering the
regeneration of the stored energy, there are many energy conver-
sion links and long energy transfer chain in electric recovery system
and the overall energy efficiency is low. Although the hydraulic
transformer has good GPER effect, no available commercial com-
ponents can be used as yet, and the system with hydraulic trans-
former is complicated and costly [21]. In terms of the closed pump
controlled system, the asymmetric area of the hydraulic cylinder
should be compensated, and the system is complicated. Moreover,
each hydraulic pump needs to be configured according to the peak
flow rate of the driven hydraulic cylinder, which increases the
installed power and cost of the system.
To overcome the shortage, Liang proposed the principle of in-
dependent HPES hydraulic cylinder balancing the weight of lifting
machinery in his doctoral thesis. The working performance and the
energy saving effect of lifting machinery driven by two HPES hy-
draulic cylinders and one working hydraulic cylinder were
analyzed and tested by him [22]. After that, the Germany Liebherr
GmbH [23,24], the China Changlin Company [25] and Sunward
Equipment Group [26] applied for the patents that the method is
used to hydraulic excavator. Quan et al. proposed the scheme that
the lifting machinery is driven by three-chamber cylinder con-
structed by integrating the HPES hydraulic cylinder into the original
driving cylinder, and applied for and be authorized the patents that
the three-chamber cylinder is used in the hydraulic excavator,
243
wheel loader and other mobile machinery [27,28]. Zhao et al. also
simulated the characteristics of the scheme that three-chamber
cylinders are applied to hydraulic excavator boom and whole ma-
chine [29].
The HPES method has less energy conversion links and shorter
energy transfer chain. However, so far only Liang has done funda-
mental research about the scheme with HPES hydraulic cylinder in
his doctoral dissertation. The study of the three-chamber cylinder
applied to the lifting machinery is only limited to simulation
research. There are no research reports about the energy saving
effect of the above two schemes applied to the real machine in the
actual operation. To provide guidance and evidence for the further
popularization and application of the HPES principle in heavy duty
lifting machinery, the actual energy saving effect, the correspond-
ing application situations and energy efficiency of the two GPER
schemes based on HPES principle are all should be analyzed and
compared through the experiment in the real machines. Therefore,
in this paper, the prototypes of the boom driven by the HPES hy-
draulic cylinder of a 76-ton large hydraulic excavator and the boom
driven by the three-chamber cylinder of a 6-ton small hydraulic
excavator [27] are built, the characteristics of the two schemes are
tested and researched. The remainder of this paper is organized as
follows. In Section 2, the working principles are described and
analyzed. In Section 3, the energy efficiency calculation model is
presented and analyzed. The energy efficiency characteristics of the
hydraulic excavator boom driven by HPES hydraulic cylinder are
studied in section 4. In section 5, the energy efficiency character-
istics of the hydraulic excavator boom driven by three-chamber
cylinder are studied. In section 6, the energy saving effect of the
proposed systems is compared and discussed. Finally, the conclu-
sions are presented in Section 7.
2. Working principles
2.1. GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder
The working principle of the GPER system with HPES hydraulic
cylinder is illustrated in Fig. 1. The negative flow system is used as
the hydraulic control circuit. Compared with the traditional driving
system, one hydraulic cylinder used as an HPES hydraulic cylinder
is set parallel to the original boom working hydraulic cylinders in
the GPER system. The energy storage chamber C of the HPES hy-
draulic cylinder is connected to an accumulator to balance the
weight of the working device by setting appropriate pressure of the
accumulator. The rodless chamber A and rod chamber B of the
working hydraulic cylinders are connected with the valve to control
the boom. When the boom lowers, the high-pressure oil in the
energy storage chamber is charged into the accumulator under the
effect of the working device gravity. The GPE can be directly con-
verted into hydraulic energy and stored in the accumulator. When
the boom lifts, the accumulator discharges high-pressure oil into
the energy storage chamber, the HPES hydraulic cylinder extends
along with the working hydraulic cylinders to drive the boom.
During this process, the stored hydraulic energy is directly con-
verted into the GPE of the working device.
2.2. GPER system with three-chamber cylinder
It is known that all the existing HPES schemes are added HPES
hydraulic cylinder to balance the weight of the working device.
These schemes are not suitable for the small lifting machinery
driven by single hydraulic cylinder because of the restriction of the
compact installation space. Therefore, a GPER system with three-
chamber cylinder is presented to address this issue. The working
principle of the GPER system with three-chamber cylinder is shown
244 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251

A-rodless chamber, B-rod chamber, C-energy storage chamber

Fig. 1. Working principle of GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.

in Fig. 2.
As shown in Fig. 2, the external shape of the three-chamber
cylinder is the same as that of the single rod hydraulic cylinder,
which makes the three-chamber cylinder can directly replace the
original working hydraulic cylinder in the small hydraulic exca-
vator. The three-chamber cylinder is formed by integrating the
HPES hydraulic cylinder in the single rod hydraulic cylinder. The
energy storage chamber C is connected to an accumulator with
appropriate pressure to balance the working device weight. The
rodless chamber A and rod chamber B are connected with the
control valves to drive the boom. The GPE recovery and reutilization
principle of the GPER system with three-chamber cylinder is the

A-rodless chamber, B- rod chamber, C-energy storage chamber

Fig. 2. Working principle of the GPER system with three-chamber cylinder.
 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251 245

same as that of the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.
The separate meter-in and meter-out system is adopted as the
hydraulic control circuit. An electric joystick and a controller are
used to control the electric proportional valves and an electric
proportional variable displacement pump. According to the control
signal of the electric joystick, the controller calculates the real-time
required flow rate of the system to control the displacement of the
pump. The pump outputs the required flow to meet the flow rate
and pressure requirements of the system.
pressures of the rodless chamber, rod chamber, and energy storage
chamber of the hydraulic cylinders in the system with GPER device;
m is the working device mass, B is the damping coefficient, x is
boom displacement, FL is load force.
In the system without GPER device, the piston cylinder A is
connected to the pump, and the piston extends to lift the boom.
Meanwhile, the piston cylinder B is connected to the tank, and the
piston retracts. The energy consumption of the system during the
boom lifting process can be calculated as follows:

3. Energy efficiency calculation model Z

To analyze the energy characteristics of the proposed systems,
the rodless chamber A and rod chamber B in the system without
GPER device are equivalent to two piston cylinders A and B. The
hydraulic cylinders in the system with GPER device are equivalent
to three piston cylinders A, B, and C which respectively represent
the rodless chamber A, rod chamber B and energy storage chamber
C. Fig. 3 shows the operation principle of the systems with and
without GPER device.
As shown in Fig. 3, the force equilibrium equations of the sys-
tems with or without GPER device are expressed respectively as
follows:
Eup ¼ pp qA dt (3)
where pp and qA are the pump pressure and rodless chamber flow
rate in the system without GPER device.
In the system with GPER device, the accumulator discharges
high-pressure oil into piston cylinder C; the piston extends along
with the piston cylinder A. Neglecting the pressure loss between
the accumulator and the piston cylinder C, the pressure of the
piston C is the same as that of the accumulator. Because of the short
operation cycle time of the boom, the gas state change in the
accumulator is an adiabatic process, and the gas state change
equation is described as follows:

pA AA  pB AB ¼ mx€ þ Bx_ þ FL (1)

PA AA  PB AB þ PC AC ¼ mx€ þ Bx_ þ FL
where AA, pA, pB, and AB are the areas and pressures of the rodless
chamber and rod chamber of hydraulic cylinders in the system
without GPER device; A0 A, p0 A, p0 B, A0 B, p0 C, and A0 C are the areas and
p0C V n ¼ p0 V0n ¼ Const (4)
(2)
where V is the gas volume of the accumulator at any time, p0 is the
initial pressure of the accumulator and V0 is the corresponding gas
volume, n is the gas index, n ¼ 1.4.
During the boom lifting process, the gas volume of the accu-
mulator is gradually increasing as shown in Fig. 3. The discharged
energy of the accumulator is calculated as follows:

Z
p1 V1n AC v
Edis ¼ dt (5)
ðV1 þ vtÞn

where p1 is the highest pressure of the accumulator and V1 is the

corresponding gas volume, v is the velocity of the cylinders.
The energy consumption of the system with GPER device is
calculated as follows:

Z
0
Eup ¼ p0p q0A dt (6)

where p0 p and q0 A are the pump pressure and rodless chamber flow
rate in the system with GPER device.
During the boom lowering, the piston cylinder A in the system
without GPER device is connected to the tank; the GPE is wasted
through the throttling effect of the control valve. The system energy
consumption and the wasted GPE are respectively shown as
follows:

Z
Edown ¼ pp qB dt (7)

Z
Epe ¼ ðpA AA  pB AB Þvdt (8)

In the system with GPER device, the GPE is mostly converted

into hydraulic energy to be stored in the accumulator. Also, the
accumulator stores energy from the piston cylinder B. The charged
energy and recovered GPE of the accumulator are respectively
Fig. 3. Equivalent operation principle of systems with and without GPER device. calculated as follows:
246 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251

Z pressure of the accumulator is too low, the GPE of the working

p2 V2n AC v device cannot be fully recovered.
Echa ¼ dt (9)
ðV2  vtÞn Fig. 4 shows the rod-less chamber testing pressure of the boom
working hydraulic cylinders in a 76 t hydraulic excavator without
Z
HPES hydraulic cylinder. The rod-less chamber pressure of the
Er ¼ Echa  p0B q0B dt (10) working hydraulic cylinders is about 13 MPae16 MPa during the
lifting process and about 12 MPa during the lowering process. To
where p2 is the lowest pressure of the accumulator and V2 is the recover the GPE as fully as possible and also not cause additional
corresponding gas volume. energy consumption, the maximum working pressure of the
The energy consumption of the system with GPER device is accumulator is selected 21 MPa, and the minimum working pres-
calculated as follows: sure of the accumulator is selected 13 MPa. According to
Z 0.25p2<p0 < 0.9p1, the precharge pressure is set about 10 MPa.
0
Edown ¼ p0p q0B dt (11) When the boom lowers from the highest point to the lowest point,
the volume change of the energy storage chamber is about 52 L.
According to the above equations, the energy recovery efficiency According to Eq. (4), the capacity of the accumulator is calculated
of the systems with GPER device is calculated as follows: about 226 L.
When the minimum pressure of the accumulator is 13 MPa, the

hr ¼ Er Epe (12) simulation results of the energy stored by the accumulator and the
energy consumption of the GPER system under different accumu-
During the boom lifting and lowering one cycle, the energy lator capacities are shown in Table 1. It displays that the larger the
saving rate of the system with GPER device is calculated as follows: accumulator capacity is, the more the stored energy becomes. The
 . 0 0
 capacity of the accumulator has little influence on the energy
hc ¼ Eup þ Edown Eup þ Edown (13) consumption of the system. Considering the installation space and
the nonlinear characteristics of the accumulator, 240 L is deter-
mined as the capacity of the accumulator.
Table 2 presents the simulation results of the energy stored by
4. Characteristics of GPER system with HPES cylinder the accumulator and the energy consumption of the GPER system
under different accumulator minimum working pressures when
In the GPER system, the structure parameters of the working the capacity is 240 L. The energy stored by accumulator increases
hydraulic cylinders and HPES hydraulic cylinder are the same. The along with the increasing of the minimum working pressure. When
piston diameter of the hydraulic cylinders is 190 mm, and the pis- the minimum working pressure is set as 11 MPa, the energy stored
ton rod diameter is 130 mm. by accumulator is less which means a large of potential energy is
wasted. Although more energy can be stored by accumulator when
the minimum pressure is 15 MPa, the system has larger energy
4.1. Parameters matching of accumulator consumption. As shown in Table 2, the GPER system has the least
energy consumption with the minimum accumulator pressure of
As a key element of the proposed system, the accumulator has 13 MPa.
significant influences on the system's energy efficiency character-
istics. During the boom lifting, the higher the pressure of the 4.2. Experimental research
accumulator is, the larger the force of the energy storage chamber
acting on the boom becomes. Moreover, the rod-less chamber's Fig. 5 shows the test principle and test rig picture of the GPER
pressure of the working hydraulic cylinders is lower, and the energy system with HPES hydraulic cylinder for the boom in the 76-ton
consumption also becomes lower. However, if the initial pressure of hydraulic excavator. The Park Service Master Plus is adopted as
the accumulator is too high, the rod chamber's pressure of the date acquisition to record the flow and pressure signals of the hy-
working hydraulic cylinders should be increased to drive the boom draulic pumps, hydraulic cylinders and accumulator. The negative
move down, which increases the system energy consumption. If the flow system is used as the hydraulic control system, where two
hydraulic pumps supply flow for the system. An on/off valve is set
Lowering between the accumulator and tank to make the test system as the
35 Lifting
original system or GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.
When the boom lifts, the pump 1 and pump 2 together supply
28 hydraulic oil for the rodless chamber of the working hydraulic
cylinders. When the boom lowers, the pump 1 supplies oil for the
Pressure p/MPa

rod chamber of the working hydraulic cylinders and HPES hydraulic

21
cylinder.
During the testing process, the on/off valve is set in the left
14 position firstly, the accumulator and the energy storage chamber
are connected to the tank. The operation and energy efficiency
characteristics of the original system were tested. Then the on/off
7
valve is set in the right position, the accumulator charged with
appropriate pressure is connected to the energy storage chamber.
0 Under the same conditions, the operation and energy efficiency
0 4 8 12 16 20 characteristics of the GPER systems are tested.
Time t/s During the testing process, the boom lifts firstly and then
Fig. 4. Rod-less chamber pressure of the working hydraulic cylinders in the original lowers, the operation displacement of the boom is about half of the
system. hydraulic cylinders' maximum stroke 1730 mm. Fig. 6 shows the
 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251 247

Table 1
Simulation results of the energy stored by the accumulator and the energy consumption of the GPER system under different accumulator capacities.

Accumulator Capacity (L) 220 240 260

Stored energy (kJ) 519 495 474

System energy consumption (kJ) 1173 1182 1185

Table 2
Simulation results of the energy stored by the accumulator and the energy consumption of the GPER system under different accumulator pressures.

Accumulator pressure (MPa) 11 13 15

Stored energy (kJ) 397 495 564

System energy consumption (kJ) 1310 1182 1267

Working hydraulic
Working hydraulic
cylinders
cylinders

HPES hydraulic
cylinders

(a) Test principle (b) Test rig picture

Fig. 5. Test principle and picture of the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.

35 Lifting Lowering 35
Lifting Lowering

28 Peak
28 Peak pressure
Accumulator pressure
26 MPa
Pump 1 22 MPa
Pressure p/MPa
Pressure p/MPa

21 21 Pump 1
Pump 2

14 Pump 2 14 Rod
chamber
Rodless chamber
7 Rod chamber 7

Rodless chamber
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Time t/s Time t/s

(a) Original system (b) GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder
Fig. 6. Pressure curves of the original system and the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.
248
pressures of the hydraulic cylinders and pumps in the original
system and the GPER system. The accumulator pressure has an
obvious feature that it decreases along with the boom lifting
displacement from 18.5 MPa to 13 MPa, and increases along with
the boom lowering displacement from 13 MPa to 18.5 MPa as
shown in Fig. 6b.
When the boom lifts, the pressure of the pump 1 in the two
systems is basically the same as that of the pump 2. Because the
HPES hydraulic cylinder balances the weight of the working device
to a great extent, the pump peak pressure of the GPER system is
lower than that of the original system. Moreover, if the pressure
fluctuation is neglected, the average rodless chamber pressure of
the working hydraulic cylinders in the GPER system is about
7.5 MPa which is about half of the original system whose average
rodless chamber pressure is about 15 MPa. At the end of the lifting
process, the cylinders reach the limit position which leads to a peak
pressure 31.5 MPa in the rodless chamber. To make the boom
lowering velocity track the control signal of the joystick, the pump
1 and the rod chamber of the hydraulic cylinders keep high pres-
sure to accelerate the boom when the boom begins to lower. In the
GPER system, the energy storage chamber charges oil into the
accumulator by working device gravity. According to Eq. (1) and the
pressure curves shown in Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b, it is easy to understand
that the rodless chamber pressure of the working hydraulic cylin-
ders in the GPER system is apparently lower than that of the
original system during the lowering process.
Fig. 7 shows the power and energy curves of the original system
and the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder. During the
lifting process, the HPES hydraulic cylinder follows with the
working hydraulic cylinders. The accumulator outputs high-
pressure oil into the energy storage chamber, and the stored en-
ergy is converted into the GPE of the working device, which reduces
the total average output power of the pumps. It can be seen in Fig. 7
that the total average power of the pumps in the original system is
about 225 kW. Under the same work conditions, the total average
power of the pumps in GPER system is reduced to 145 kW.
During the lifting process, the energy of the rodless chamber
supplied by the hydraulic pumps is about 1131 kJ in the original
system. In the GPER system, the energy of the rodless chamber
supplied by the hydraulic pumps is about 652 kJ, and the energy
provided by accumulator is about 510 kJ. The accumulator un-
dertakes about 43.9% of the required energy to drive boom up.
Because of no energy recovery device in the original system, about
890 kJ gravitational potential energy is wasted in the original. In the
GPER system, the high-pressure oil of the HPES hydraulic cylinder is
450 Pumps total
Pumps total
power energy
300
225 kW
150
Power P/kW
0 100
Pumps
-150
loss power
Potential energy
-300
loss power
-450
0 4 8 12
Time t/s
(a) Original system
Fig. 7. Power and energy curves of the original system and the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.
Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251
charged into the accumulator, and the energy stored by the accu-
mulator is 570 kJ, of which 133 kJ energy is supported by the rod
chamber. According to Eq. (10), the GPE recovered by the accu-
mulator is about 437 kJ. Therefore, the GPER efficiency of the GPER
system with HPES hydraulic cylinder is 49.1%.
5. Characteristics of GPER system with three-chamber
cylinder
Fig. 8 shows the test principle and test rig picture of the GPER
system with three-chamber cylinder for the boom of a 6 t hydraulic
excavator. During the testing process, the original system using
single rod hydraulic cylinder is tested firstly, and the GPER system
with three-chamber cylinder is tested secondly. The hardware-in-
the-loop control system dSPACE 1103 is used to control the sys-
tems and record the test signals. Table 3 shows the parameters of
the three-chamber cylinder and single rod hydraulic cylinder used
in the 6 t hydraulic excavator. By the same method used in section
4.1, the accumulator parameters are determined as follows: pre-
charge pressure 6 MPa, minimum working pressure 8 MPa, capacity
20 L.
Fig. 9 presents the tested velocity and pressure curves of the
original system and GPER system with three-chamber cylinder. In
the original system, the pump is connected to the rodless chamber
of the single rod hydraulic cylinder to lift the boom, the pump
pressure is 13 MPa, the rodless chamber pressure is about 10.5 MPa,
and the pressure is about 0.5 MPa in rod chamber. The rodless
chamber pressure increases to 25 MPa at the end of the lifting
process due to the cylinder reached its limit position. During the
lowering process, the rodless chamber is connected to the rod
chamber through the control valves to realize flow regeneration,
and the rodless chamber supplies hydraulic oil to the rod chamber.
The rod chamber pressure maintains at a low level, and the rodless
chamber pressure is about 8 MPa to balance the weight of the
working device.
In the GPER system, because the rodless chamber area of the
three-chamber cylinder is smaller than that of the energy storage
chamber, a small pressure change of the accumulator leads to a
large pressure change of the rodless chamber during the lifting
process. As shown in Fig. 9b, when the accumulator pressure de-
creases from 11 MPa to 8 MPa, the rod-less chamber pressure in-
creases from 0.5 MPa to 18 MPa. During the lowering process, the
accumulator is charged into high-pressure oil from the energy
storage chamber. The rodless chamber is connected to the tank, and
the rod chamber is connected to the pump through control valves
2000 400 Accumulator Accumulator Pumps total energy 1600
power Energy
300 Pumps total
1200
1500 power
200
Power P/kW
Potential
Energy E/kJ
Energy E/kJ
1000 145 kW 800
energy
loss
500 power 400
0
0 0
-100
Pumps loss
power
-500 -200 -400
16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Time t/s
(b) GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder
 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251 249

dSPACE 1103

Accumulator

Three-chamber
cylinder

(a) Test principle (b) Test rig picture

Fig. 8. Testing principle and test rig picture of the GPER system with three-chamber cylinder.

Table 3
Parameters of the three-chamber cylinder and single rod hydraulic cylinder.
AA/mm2 AB/mm2
Three-chamber cylinder 1963.5 3141.6
Single rod hydraulic cylinder 7850 3846.7
to drive the boom. The rod chamber pressure increases along with
the increasing of the accumulator pressure. Due to the function of
the energy storage chamber, the rodless chamber pressure of the
three-chamber cylinder is about 1.5 MPa which is obviously lower
than that of the single rod hydraulic cylinder.
Fig. 10 shows the power and energy curves of the original sys-
tem and the GPER system with three-chamber cylinder. During the
lifting process, the discharging power of the accumulator is
decreasing gradually, and the pump output power of the GPER
system is increasing gradually to compensate the nonlinear char-
acteristic of the accumulator. It can be seen in Fig. 10b that the
output power and energy of the accumulator are obviously larger
than those of the hydraulic pump. The energy supplied by the hy-
AC/mm2 draulic pump is 8.9 kJ, and the discharged energy of the accumu-
7539.8
lator is 20.7 kJ which is about 69.9% of the total energy required for
lifting the boom up. The pump peak powers of the original system
and the GPER system are 13.8 kW and 4.65 kW respectively. Thus,
compared with the original system, the peak power of the pump is
reduced by 66.3% by using the three-chamber cylinder.
In the original system, by using the flow regeneration method,
the pump does not provide energy during the lowering process as
shown in Fig. 10a. For no energy recovery device, the GPE loss
power is high about 6 kW. According to Eq. (8), the wasted GPE of
the working device is about 17.5 kJ in the original system. In the
GPER system, the pressure of the rod chamber and the gravity of the
working device drive the three-chamber cylinder to charge oil into
the accumulator. The stored energy of the accumulator is about
21.1 kJ, of which 8.7 kJ energy is supplied by the rod chamber of the
three-chamber cylinder. By calculating according to Eq. (10), the

21 200 25 150
Pump pressure
100 Rodless chamber 100
20 pressure
Velocity Pump
Velocity
Velocity v/(mm/s)

pressure
Velocityt v/(mm/s)

14 0 50
Pressure p/MPa

Pressure p/MPa

Accumulator
15
pressure
-100 0
10
7 -200 -50
Rod
Rod chamber Rodless chamber chamber
-300 5 pressure
pressure pressure -100

0 -400
0 -150
0 4 8 12
Time t/s 0 4 Time t/s 8 12

(a) Original System (b) GPER system with three-chamber cylinder

Fig. 9. Pressures and velocities of the original system and GPER system with three-chamber cylinder.
250
20
Peak power
13.8 kW
Pump Energy
10
Power P/kW
Pump Potential energy
power loss power
0 5
Pump loss
power
-10
0 4 8 12
Time t/s
(a) Original system
Fig. 10. Power and energy curves of the original system and GPER system with three-chamber cylinder.
recovered GPE of the working device is about 12.4 kJ. Therefore, the
potential energy recovery efficiency of the GPER system with three-
chamber cylinder is about 70.9%.
6. Comparison and discussion
As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, the energy consumption and energy
loss of the original system in the 6 t hydraulic excavator is reduced
by using the separate meter-in and meter-out system and flow
regeneration method. Through calculating, the energy consump-
tion is about 33.8 kJ, and the energy loss is about 6.1 kJ which is
about one-fifth of the energy consumption. In the GPER system
with three-chamber cylinder, the areas of the rodless chamber and
the rod chamber are smaller than those of the single rod hydraulic
cylinder. Therefore, the flow rate of the three-chamber cylinder is
less, and the pressure loss on the control valve can be reduced. The
maximum pressure loss on the control valve is about 1.4 MPa. As
shown in Fig. 10, the energy loss between the pump and the three-
chamber cylinder is very small, which about 1.22 kJ. During the
boom lifting and lowering one cycle, the energy consumption of the
GPER system with three-chamber cylinder is about 18.8 kJ. By using
the three-chamber cylinder, the energy loss is reduced to 6.4% of
the pump hydraulic output energy. According to Eq. (13), the GPER
system with three-chamber cylinder can reduce the energy con-
sumption by 44.4% per operation cycle compared with the original
system.
Fig. 7 presents the energy loss of the original system and the
GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder in the 76-ton hydraulic
excavator. When the boom does not work, in the two systems, the
flow rates of the pump 1 and pump 2 are both 50 L/min and the
pressures are both 4 MPa, which causes a large of energy loss.
When the boom works, there is large pressure loss on the control
valve. For example, when the boom lowers, the pressure loss is
about 8 MPa which means most of the output energy of the pumps
is wasted. Through calculating, the energy consumption of the
original system and the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder
are respectively 1854 kJ and 1369 kJ during the boom lifting and
lowering one cycle, about 485 kJ energy can be saved. However, the
energy losses between the pumps and the working hydraulic cyl-
inders of the original system and the GPER system are respectively
630 kJ and 430 kJ, which are both one-third of the energy con-
sumptions of the two systems. It means that one-third of the en-
ergy saving effect of the GPER system is offset by the energy loss.
Although the GPE of the working device recovered by the
Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251
40 10 25
Peak power 4.65 kW Pump
Pump energy
20
30 power
5 Accumulator
energy 15
Energy E/kJ
Energy E/kJ
Power P/kW
20 0 10
10 -5 Pump Accumulator
loss power power 0
0 -10 -5
0 4 8 12
Time t/s
(b) GPER system with three-chamber cylinder
accumulator can reach 437 kJ which is about 49.1% of the total
recoverable gravitational potential energy, the energy consumption
of the hydraulic system in GPER system is reduced by 26.2%
compared with the original system. It's known from the analysis of
the ratios of energy loss to system energy consumption, because of
the using of separate meter-in and meter-out energy-saving
method, the energy loss in the 6-ton hydraulic excavator is much
lower than that of the 76-ton hydraulic excavator. The energy
saving effect of the GPER system with three-chamber cylinder is
higher than that of the GPER system with HPES hydraulic cylinder.
Thus, taking the two aspects of recovering GPE and optimizing
hydraulic control system into account, the energy efficiency of the
boom system can be further improved.
The outcomes of this paper have universal significance to
remarkably improve the energy efficiency of the heavy load lift
machinery. Taking the 76-ton hydraulic excavator using HPES cyl-
inder for example, when the excavator is operated for 90
excava-
tion cycle for 6 h/day, the fuel consumption is reduced by 25 L/day
compared with the original system. If the hydraulic excavator
works 300 days per year, the fuel consumption can be reduced by
7500 L/year. According to the carbon emission of diesel oil 2.63 kg/
L, one 76-ton hydraulic excavator can reduce carbon emissions by
19725 kg per year. Considering the large amounts of the heavy duty
lifting machinery, the popularization and application of this tech-
nology will significantly contribute to the energy saving and
emission reduction of the entire mobile machinery industry.
7. Conclusion
Based on the theoretical analysis and experimental results, the
following conclusions can be obtained.
(1) Compared with the existing gravitational potential energy
recovery (GPER) schemes, the proposed schemes feature less
energy conversion links and shorter energy transfer chain, as
the recovery and reutilization of gravitational potential en-
ergy (GPE) can be realized by the same device. Also, the
energy recovery and reutilization efficiency is high. The new
schemes are suitable for various types of hydraulic driven
heavy duty lifting machinery.
(2) By adding HPES hydraulic cylinder to the 76 t hydraulic
excavator, 49.1% of the GPE can be recovered. During the
boom lifting process, the stored energy can be reused
through the energy storage hydraulic cylinder to drive the
 Y. Hao et al. / Energy 155 (2018) 242e251
working device directly. Around 43.9% of the total required
energy for lifting operation is supplied by the recovered
energy. Compared with the original system, the energy
consumption of the hydraulic system is reduced by 26.2% for
the same working cycle. The energy consumption can be
further reduced through matching and optimizing the hy-
draulic system and energy storage hydraulic cylinder.
(3) By adopting the three-chamber cylinder in the 6 t hydraulic
excavator, the GPE recovery efficiency of the boom can reach
70.9%. During the boom lifting process, the stored energy can
be reused through the three-chamber cylinder to drive the
working device. The supply from the recovered energy ac-
counts for 69.9% of the total energy required for lifting boom
up. Compared with the original system, the peak power of
the hydraulic system is decreased by 66.3%, and the energy
consumption of the hydraulic system is reduced by 44.4% to
complete the same working cycle. The external structure of
the three-chamber cylinder is the same as that of the single
rod hydraulic cylinder. If the structure strength meets the
operation requirements, three-chamber cylinder is suitable
for the heavy load lifting machinery driven by double hy-
draulic cylinders or single hydraulic cylinder.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant number 51675364, U1510206 and
51775363).
References
[1] Lodewyks J, Zurbrügg P. Decentralized energy-saving hydraulic concepts for
mobile working machines. In: 10th international fluid power conference,
Dresden, Germany; March 8-10, 2016. p. 79e90.
[2] Hegazy O, Barrero R, Bossche PVD, et al. Modeling, analysis and feasibility
study of new drivetrain architectures for off-highway vehicles. Energy
2016;109:1056e74.
[3] Wang L, Zhao D, Li Y, et al. Energy management strategy development of a
forklift with electric lifting device. Energy 2017;128:435e46.
[4] Wang H, Huang Y, Khajepour A, et al. A novel energy management for hybrid
off-road vehicles without future driving cycles as a priori. Energy 2017;133:
929e40.
[5] Ge L, Quan L, Zhang X, et al. Efficiency improvement and evaluation of electric
hydraulic excavator with speed and displacement variable pump. Energy
Convers Manag 2017;150:62e71.
[6] Ahn KK, Truong DQ. Development of energy saving hybrid excavator using
hybrid actuator. In: 7th international conference on fluid power transmission
and control, Hangzhou, China; April 07-10, 2009. p. 205e9.
[7] Lin T, Chen Q, Ren H, et al. Boom energy recovery system with auxiliary
251
throttle based on hybrid excavator. Proc IME C J Mech Eng Sci 2017;231(22):
4250e62.
[8] Wang T, Wang Q. Efficiency analysis and evaluation of energy-saving pressure
compensated circuit for hybrid hydraulic excavator. Autom ConStruct
2014;47:62e8.
[9] Lin T, Huang W, Ren H, et al. New compound energy regeneration system and
control strategy for hybrid hydraulic excavators. Autom ConStruct 2016;68:
11e20.
[10] Minav T, Immonen P, Laurila L, et al. Electric energy recovery system for a
hydraulic forkliftetheoretical and experimental evaluation. IET Electr Power
Appl 2011;5(4):377e85.
[11] Yoon JI, Truong DQ, Ahn KK. A generation step for an electric excavator with a
control strategy and verifications of energy consumption. Int J Precis Eng
Manuf 2013;14(5):755e66.
[12] Zhang S, Minav T, Pietola M. Improving efficiency of micro excavator with
decentralized hydraulics. In: ASME/BATH 2017 symposium on fluid power
and motion control. Florida, USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers;
October 16-19, 2017. p. 1e8.
[13] Jan A, Uwe N. PRB - regeneration of potential energy while boom-down. In:
8th international fluid power conference. Dresden, Germany, vol. 3; March
26-28, 2012. p. 26e8.
[14] Zhao D, Chen D, Dai Q, et al. System of arm potential energy recovery in
hybrid hydraulic excavators. J Jilin Univ (Eng Technol Ed) 2011;41(13):150e4.
[15] Shen W, Jiang J, Su X, et al. Control strategy analysis of the hydraulic hybrid
excavator. J Franklin Inst 2015;352(2):541e61.
[16] Hippalgaonkar R, Ivantysynova M. Optimal power management of hydraulic
hybrid mobile machinesepart I: theoretical studies, modeling and simulation.
J Dyn Syst Meas Contr 2016;138(5):1e12.
[17] Zhang S. Study on boom energy saving for hydraulic excavator based on hy-
draulic energy recovery. Ph.D. Thesis Southwest Jiaotong University; 2011.
[18] Daniel B, Claus H, Thomas L. Hybrid-Antriebe bei Raupenbaggern e Konzepte
und Losungen. In: 3th Hybridantriebe Fur Mobile Arbeitsmaschinen Fachta-
gung, Karlsruhe, Germany, vol. 2; 2011. p. 117e24.
[19] Chen M, Zhao D, Ni T. Boom energy-saving system with closed oil circuit in
hydraulic excavator. J Jilin Univ (Eng Technol Ed) 2012;42(5):1140e4.
[20] Kim YB, Kim PY, Murrenhoff H. Boom potential energy regeneration scheme
for hydraulic excavators. In: BATH/ASME 2016 symposium on fluid power and
motion control bath, UK; September 7e9, 2016. p. 1e10.
[21] Vukovic M, Sgro S, Murrenhoff H. STEAMea holistic approach to designing
excavator systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international fluid power con-
ference, Aachen, Germany; March 24-26, 2014. p. 24e6.
[22] Liang X. On improving energy utilization in hydraulic booms. Ph.D. Thesis
Tampere University of Technology; 2002.
[23] Liebherr-Hydraulik bagger GmBH. Piece of working equipment US. 2010.
US2010/0018195A1 [P].
[24] Asam D, Fehse J. Method of operating an energy recovery cylinder US. 2015.
US8938956 [P].
[25] Ying X, Li Y, Zhang J, et al. Excavator and movable arm potential energy
recycling system CN. 2015. CN105421507A [P].
[26] He Q, Gong J, Zhang D, et al. An energy saving system for working device CN.
2012. CN 201210188828.5 [P].
[27] Quan L, Xia L, Hao H, et al. Control loop of working device of engineering
operation equipment CN. 2015. CN105604121A [P].
[28] Quan L, Dong Z, Hao H, et al. A lifting machinery working device control
circuit CN. 2015. CN 105523478A [P].
[29] Zhao P, Chen Y, Zhou H, et al. Potential energy recovery and energy man-
agement strategy of hydraulic hybrid excavator. J Zhejiang Univ (Eng Sci)
2016;50(5):893e901.