See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264858388

ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR WORKING CYCLE

Conference Paper · October 2009

CITATION READS

1 17,550

6 authors, including:

Roberto Paoluzzi
Italian National Research Council
365 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CFD Study of Forced Lubrication in Agricultural Transmissions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roberto Paoluzzi on 19 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 11th European Regional Conference of the International Society for Terrain-Vehicle Systems – Bremen, October 5-8 2009

ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR WORKING CYCLE

S. Zarotti1 and R. Paoluzzi1 , G. Ganassi2 and F. Terenzi2, P. Dardani3 and G. Pietropaolo3

1
IMAMOTER – CNR – Institute for Agricultural and Earthmoving Machinery of the Italian National Research Council – Via Canal Bianco 28,
44100 Ferrara – ITALY
2
WALVOIL Spa – R&D department – Via Norvegia 11,
42100 Reggio Emilia – ITALY
3
CASAPPA Spa – R&D department – Via Balestrieri 1,
43044 Cavalli di Collecchio, Parma – ITALY
s.zarotti@imamoter.cnr.it , ganassi.g@walvoil.com , dardanip@casappa.com

Abstract

Being really versatile machinery, hydraulic excavators are widely used in earthmoving applications. A standard test
procedure requires four main working conditions to evaluate machine performance: trench digging, soil levelling,
straight travelling, and low idling standby; for each of them, a standard operating cycle is defined. Among the working
conditions, trench digging can be reasonably considered the most significant, therefore, a method to outline energy use
characteristic in a trench digging cycle is proposed here along with some applications.
The first activity is a real-time acquisition of hydraulic system supply pressure(s) and flow(s) during machine opera-
tion, which provides a cycle load map and defines operational sequence (arm retraction, bucket close, boom up, upper-
structure swing left, bucket dump, upperstructure swing right, and arm extension). A second step is the discrete integra-
tion of hydraulic power values calculated at each acquisition step, which gives a machine energy use characteristic
related to hydraulic system working, for the whole cycle and for each cycle phase. A third step is the comparison of
energy use characteristics of the same machine doing the cycle without actually moving earth (simulated digging) and
moving earth (actual digging). This approach allows the definition of external load influence.
A different approach compares energy use characteristics of different machinery performing the same simulated
digging. This alternative approach highlights effects of different hydraulic system architectures in machine operation.

Keywords: hydraulic excavator, working cycle, energy use

2. soil leveling
3. straight travelling (forward/back)
1 FOREWORD
4. low idling standby.
Hydraulic excavators are usefully employed in sev- A dedicated testing ground has to be set up for each
eral earthmoving applications, from small utility dig- working condition, and a standard operating cycle is
gers to big mining shovels. Versatility of this kind of defined as sequence of basic machine operations [2].
machine relies on a flexible basic framework, that Comparison of two or more machines must be con-
comprises a fully rotating upperstructure and an articu- ducted within one of the dimensional class of Table 1:
lated working equipment; moreover, availability of
different types of attachments (buckets, hammers, Table 1: Excavator class of JCMAS H020:2007
breakers, augers) expands excavators duty compliance. Excavator class Vs Std hoe-type bucket capacity
3
0.28 m 0.28 - 0.36 m3
2 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EXCAVA- 0.45 m3 0.36 - 0.47 m3
TORS 0.5 m3 0.47 - 0.55 m3
0.6 m3 0.55 - 0.7 m3
The japanese technical standard JCMAS
0.8 m3 0.7 - 0.9 m3
H020:2007 [1] sets a comparative test procedure for
hydraulic excavators. 4 working conditions are consi- 0.1 m3 0.9 - 1.05 m3
dered to outline ordinary machine use: 1.1 m3 1.05 - 1.3 m3
1. trench digging 1.4 m3 1.3 - 1.7 m3

© ISTVS 2009
 S. Zarotti and R. Paoluzzi, G. Ganassi and F. Terenzi, P. Dardani and G. Pietropaolo
each class is defined on the basis of machine stan-
dard hoe-type bucket capacity. By the way, environ-
mental and operational conditions would be as homo-
geneous as possible, at least for test sessions related to
each working condition.
Basically, JCMAS H020 relates machine operation-
al efficiency to specific fuel consumption values. A
calculation procedure for such values is defined for
each working condition.
In trench digging test, an overall fuel consumption
has to be measured over a set of 5 consecutive cycles.
Measurements must be repeated for a fixed number of
sets (3 or 5), and completion time recorded for each set.
Fuel consumption data are averaged and processed in
order to get machine-related specific fuel consumption
values:
• kg of fuel per hour of digging
• kg of fuel per digging cycle.
In soil leveling test, an overall fuel consumption has
to be measured over a set of 10 consecutive cycles.
Measurements must be repeated for 3 or 5 sets, and
completion time recorded for each set. Fuel consump-
tion data are averaged and processed as for previous
condition, in order to get machine-related specific fuel
consumption values for leveling.
In straight travelling test, an overall fuel consump-
tion has to be measured over a forward/back constant
speed motion over 25 m distance. Measurements must
be repeated for 3 sets, and completion time recorded
for each set. Fuel consumption data are averaged and
processed in order to get machine-related specific fuel
consumption values for straight travelling.
Idling fuel consumption measurement has to be
done over a fixed time interval (at least 600 sec); as
machine-related specific fuel consumption value, only
kg of fuel per hour of idling is considered.
Such an approach to machine efficiency strictly
binds comparative evaluation to engine own characte-
ristics. As for almost all earthmoving machinery, exca-
vator engine power is mainly used by hydraulic system
for actuations. Therefore influences of power transmis-
sion between engine and hydraulic system would be ac-
counted for, and efficiency-related characteristics of
hydraulic system working would be examined. A me-
thod to outline on-duty energy use of excavator hy-
draulic system is proposed in this paper, and two me-
thod applications are detailed in order to verify compa-
tibility with fuel consumption evidences.
3 METHOD DESCRIPTION
Excavator hydraulic system working performance is
investigated through supply lines monitoring [3].
Therefore, instrumentation for real-time acquisition is
set up referring to machine control valve:
Proceedings of the 11th European Regional Conference of the ISTVS 2009
• pressure transducers (400 bar range, 0.1% accura-
cy) and flow-meters (150 l/min range, 2.5 bar max
drop, external gear type) are installed at pump inlet
ports
• auxiliary pressure transducers (same characteristic
as above) are also installed at significant actuator
connection ports: swing motor, boom cylinder,
bucket cylinder
All sensors are connected by wire to an acquisition
box, and dedicated software application provides PC
control interface, allowing:
• set up of acquisition parameters (sensor specifica-
tions, sampling rate) before machine operation
• real-time reading of pressure and flow values dur-
ing machine operation
• step-by-step complete data recording during ma-
chine operation.
As general set up specification, sampling rate is
fixed at 0.1 sec.
Data base gathered for each test set basically com-
prises time-sequenced columns for supply pressures
and flows, along with additional columns for actuator
pressures.
3.1 Cycle load map
Data base for a representative trench digging
cycle is picked out within complete data base obtained
for a test set.
Given such cycle data base, a representative cycle
load map can be provided plotting supply pressure and
flow traces over cycle time [4]. Variations along supply
traces can be related to operational sequence of the
standard cycle, and duration can be defined for each
operational phase.
This way, representative phase data blocks can be
picked out within representative cycle data base.
3.2 Cycle energy use chart
The calculation of hydraulic system supply energy
can highlight duty level for each of the cycle phases
defined. Basically, energy use over fixed time interval
can be obtained by discrete time integration of total
hydraulic supply power values in kW for each acquisi-
tion step:
1 ⎛ ⎞
⋅ ⎜⎜ ∑ ( pstep ⋅ Qstep )⎟⎟
Pstep = (1)
600 ⎝ pumps ⎠
Integration step is set at 0.1 sec, and total hydraulic
supply energy value in kWh can be calculated for every
cycle phase:
 ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR WORKING CYCLE

bucket edge would be kept near the trench bottom

0,1 ⎛ ⎞
E phase = ⋅ ⎜⎜ ∑ Pstep ⎟⎟ (2) c) 90° bucket closing (arrow 3)
3600 ⎝ phase ⎠ d) boom rising up (arrow 1) to maximum height and
90° upperstructure swing to left/right (arrow 4)
Thus, machine energy use characteristic related to e) 90° bucket opening (arrow 5); discharging height
hydraulic system working is described over the full is about 2 m.
cycle operational sequence.
After discharging, start position must be regained
by 90° upperstructure swing to right/left, boom lower-
ing and arm extension. 5 consecutive cycles must be
4 METHOD APPLICATIONS completed for each test set.
4.2 Fuel consumption measurement
4.1 Machine operation
Fuel consumption is used as reference indication of
Machine operation basically complies with JCMAS machine operational efficiency. For each test set,
requirements for trench digging test. Testing ground JCMAS test procedure prescribes a mass-differential
must be prepared with a trench of about 1 m depth, and measurement, which requires set up of an auxiliary fuel
standard trench digging cycle is outlined in picture circuit with separate suction and return tanks. Figure 2
sequence of Fig. 1: shows installation detail of such circuit:
• dedicated tanks-support bracket is fixed to ma-
chine cabin frame
• both tanks have a quick connection to auxiliary
fuel circuit lines, thus they can be easily removed
from bracket in order to be weighted with bench
scales (10 kg range, 0.1% accuracy).
Mass of both tanks in kg must be measured before
and after each test set. Mass differences related to suc-
tion and return tanks are calculated as:
Msuct = msuct(start)-msuct(finish) (3)

Mret = mret(finish)-mret(start) (4)

then fuel consumption over a test set can be deter-
mined as follows:
Cset = Msuct - Mret (5)
Finally, average fuel consumption value per dig-
ging cycle, as well as specific fuel consumption value
per hour of digging, can be determined:
C set
Ccycle = (6)
5
C set
Chour = ⋅ 3600 (7)
t set
being set completion time measured in sec.

Fig. 1: Operational sequence of trench digging cycle

a) start position with arm fully extended, bucket

surface parallel to arm and bucket teeth placed
near the trench bottom
b) simultaneous boom rising (arrow 1) and arm re-
traction (arrow 2) without moving the bucket;

Proceedings of the 11th European Regional Conference of the ISTVS 2009

 S. Zarotti and R. Paoluzzi, G. Ganassi and F. Terenzi, P. Dardani and G. Pietropaolo
Fig. 2: Auxiliary fuel circuit for consumption measure-
ments
4.3 Energy use in simulated and actual
cycle
As first method application, energy use characteris-
tic of the same machine is outlined:
• doing simulated digging, that is doing the cycle
without actually moving earth from trench bottom
• doing actual digging, that is doing the cycle mov-
ing soft and uncompacted soil picked from trench
bottom.
The test machine is a 5-ton class machine, and it
can be included in the 0.28 class of Tab. 1. The same
professional operator runs all test sets in order to en-
hance significance of comparison.
Fuel consumption data are gathered to define ref-
erence duty effect of moving earth: 3 test set are com-
pleted to get averaged simulated-doing (SD) values,
and 3 more test set are completed to get averaged ac-
tual-doing (AD) values. Both AD Kgfuel/cycle and
Kgfuel/h values are higher than respective SD values:
Table 2 shows Kgfuel/cycle data, as AD value is 21%
higher than respective OC value.
Table 2: Kgfuel/cycle for open center machine in Simu-
lated and Actual Digging
SD AD
0.02226 0.02684
Focus on hydraulic system working variables al-
lows to highlight duty effects along cycle operational
sequence, and provides more indications about ma-
chine energy use characteristic: therefore, representa-
tive trench digging cycle load maps are selected both
for simulated and actual cycle, and they are reported in
Fig. 3.
Proceedings of the 11th European Regional Conference of the ISTVS 2009
Fig. 3: Trench digging cycle load maps in SD and AD
operations
Test machine is equipped with multiple-supply-
pump open center hydraulic system. This means that
each load map shows 3 pressure traces (p1, p2, p3) and 3
flow traces (Q1, Q2, Q3). Such system architecture pro-
vides constant supply flows with torque limiting de-
vice, and sets basic supply relationships between
pumps and actuators: p1 trace can be referred to boom
or bucket motion, p2 trace can be referred to arm mo-
tion, p3 trace can be referred to swing motion. If there
is no swing motion, p3 can be also referred to arm mo-
tion combining to p2.
Supply pressure variations along SD cycle load map
allow to define and tag the operational sequence of
trench digging cycle:
• arm retraction phase (Fig. 1b) ends as combined
p2 and p3 traces drop down
• bucket close (Fig. 1c) lasts until p1 trace has a
drop-peak trend because of boom raise up starting
• swing L/R (Fig. 1d) operation get started as simul-
taneously p1 drop down and p3 raise up
• bucket open (Fig. 1e) starts as p1 trace has new
peak while p2 remains down and p3 drops down
again
• pressure trends similar to swing L/R phase define
the swing R/L operation, and pressure trends simi-
 ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR WORKING CYCLE
lar to arm ret phase (p2 and p3 combined) define
arm extension operation.
AD cycle load map highlights significant duty ef-
fects of moving soil: in fact, AD bucket close opera-
tion completes the breakout of material to dig, and
therefore bucket cylinder supply pressure is forced to
higher values along almost all phase duration. It is
worth noting that the raise up of a loaded bucket caus-
es peak of boom cylinder supply pressure at the begin-
ning of AD boom up operation.
Hydraulic energy use comparison is based on nor-
malization of operational phase durations. A rated
duration is defined for the whole cycle (16.6 sec) and
also for each operational phase: energy usage values
obtained by eq. 2 for each phase of a representative
cycle are modulated in order to obtain a rated phase
energy use for each operational phase:
E phase = E phase + Pstep ⋅ (t phase − t phase )
min
Moreover, gaps in rated energy usage for each op-
erational phase can be time-weighted in order to obtain
a rated cycle energy use gap:
⎛ ⎞
⋅ ⎜⎜ ∑ (ΔE phase ⋅ t phase )⎟⎟
1 0.02226
ΔEcycle =
tcycle ⎝ phase ⎠ Focusing on hydraulic system working variables al-
thus, compatibility with average fuel consumption
evidences can be checked.
Hydraulic energy usage in SD and AD operations
are directly compared in bar chart of Fig. 4:
Fig. 4: Hydraulic energy usage in SD and AD operations
• AD energy use increases significantly in bucket
close operation (+75%) and boom up operation
(+58%)
• a rated cycle energy use increase of about 17% is
related to AD, which is close to average cycle fuel
consumption evidence (+21%).
Proceedings of the 11th European Regional Conference of the ISTVS 2009
4.4 Energy use for different machinery
Energy use characteristics of different machines
performing the same simulated trench digging cycle
comparison is an alternative use of the method. In par-
ticular, the same machine of former application is com-
pared with another 5-ton class machine equipped with
single-supply-pump load sensing flow sharing hy-
draulic system. Again, the same professional operator
runs all test sessions.
In this case, fuel consumption data are gathered to
define reference operation effects of different hydraulic
system architectures [5]. 3 test set are completed to get
averaged open-center (OC) values, and 3 more test set
are completed to get averaged load-sensing (LS) val-
ues. Both LS Kgfuel/cycle and Kgfuel/h values are lower
than respective OC values: Table 3 shows Kgfuel/cycle
data, as LS value is 17% lower than respective OC
(8) value.
Table 3: Kgfuel/cycle for Open Center machine and
Load Sensing machine in simulated digging
OC LS
0.01843
(9)
lows to point out functional effects along cycle opera-
tional sequence. Representative trench digging cycle
load maps are selected for simulated cycle of each
machine, and they are reported in Fig. 5.
As already showed in former application, OC load
map shows 3 supply pressure lines (p1, p2, p3) and 3
supply flow lines (Q1, Q2, Q3). Otherwise, LS load map
comprises single supply pressure line (p) and single
supply flow line (Q): such system architecture provides
a variable supply flow that is basically matched and
proportionally divided on the basis of the actuation
needs.
The operational sequence of the LS representative
cycle can be defined referring both to OC cycle of Fig.
4 and to LS supply flow trace: main pressure trends
defined along OC cycle can be found also in LS supply
pressure trace, as for example p trace has main peaks
related to L swing and R swing operations; moreover,
drop-peak trends along LS supply flow trace help to
define bucket close and bucket open operations, as
well as dome-shaped trends can be reasonably related
to L swing and R swing operations.
Hydraulic energy usage in OC and LS operations
are directly compared in bar chart of Fig. 6:
• LS energy use is significantly lower in arm re-
traction and arm extension operations, respective-
ly by 62% and by 42%; so, as both arm and boom
are simultaneously operated in a speed-controlled
motion, LS architecture provides variable flow that
minimize dissipative effects within control valve,
 S. Zarotti and R. Paoluzzi, G. Ganassi and F. Terenzi, P. Dardani and G. Pietropaolo

5 CONCLUSION

A method to outline energy use characteristic of

hydraulic excavators is described an applied to a stan-
dard trench digging cycle.
The method basically relies on real-time acquisition
of hydraulic system supply pressures and flows during
machine operation; applications aims at relating hy-
draulic energy use to fuel consumption evidences
gained by proven measurement method:
• comparing energy use characteristics of the same
machine doing the standard cycle without actually
moving earth (simulated digging) and moving
earth (actual digging), external load influences are
defined, and compatibility with fuel consumption
evidences is shown
• comparing energy use characteristics of different
machinery performing simulated digging, effects
of different hydraulic system architectures in ma-
chine operation are highlighted, and compatibility
with fuel consumption evidences is again shown.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The activity has been developed and executed

thanks to technical support of R&D divisions and test
staffs of Walvoil company (Reggio Emilia, Italy) and
Fig. 5: Trench digging cycle load maps in OC and LS
operations
Casappa company (Parma, Italy); it has been conducted
within the research project “Evaluation of characteris-
tics of compact excavators equipped with advanced
hydraulic system, and outline of machine innovation”
included in HIMECH PROGRAM of Italian Ministry
of School and Research.

Nomenclature

pstep instant pressure value [bar]

Qstep instant flow rate [l/min]
Pstep instant hydraulic supply power [kW]
Ephase hydraulic energy usage for an opera- [kWh]
tional phase
mret mass of the return tank [kg]
msuct mass of the suction tank [kg]
Fig. 6: Hydraulic energy usage in OC and LS operations Msuct differential mass of the suction tank [kg]
Mret differential mass of the return tank [kg]
allowing overall basic regulation of the hydraulic Cset fuel consumption per test set [kg]
supply energy Ccycle fuel consumption per cycle [kg]
tset duration of test set [sec]
• a rated cycle energy saving of about 20% is re- Chour fuel consumption per hour [kg]
lated to LS machine, again quite close to average t phase rated duration of phase [sec]
Kgfuel/cycle fuel consumption evidence (-17%).
tcycle rated duration of cycle [sec]
E phase rated phase energy usage [kWh]

Proceedings of the 11th European Regional Conference of the ISTVS 2009

 ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR WORKING CYCLE
ΔE phase differential rated phase energy usage [kWh]
ΔEcycle differential rated cycle energy usage [kWh]
References
[1] JCMAS H020:2007 – Earth-moving machinery –
Fuel consumption on hydraulic excavator – Test
procedure
[2] Andrew O. Fonkalsrud, Doyle G. Heyveld, Eric
A. Reiners, Method and apparatus for calculating
work cycle time, US PATENT 5955706 (A), 1999
Proceedings of the 11th European Regional Conference of the ISTVS 2009
View publication stats
[3] Russell W. Henke, Fluid Power Systems and Cir-
cuits, Benton/IPC, 1983, pp 13-18.
[4] Soon-Kwang Kwon, Jae-Jun Kim et al., Hydrau-
lic simulator for an excavator, ‘Proc. of the 7th
JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power’,
Ed. Y. Tanaka, The Japan Fluid Power System So-
ciety, Toyama, 2008, volume III pp. 611-616
[5] Luca G. Zarotti, Intelligent power at work on
mobile applications, ‘Fluid Power Components and
Systems’ Ed. C.R. Burrows & K.A. Edge, Research
Studies Press, Taunton, 1990, pp. 7-23.