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

net/publication/327902760

Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors based upon the Latin
hypercube sampling method

Article  in  International Journal of Hydromechatronics · January 2018

DOI: 10.1504/IJHM.2018.094880

CITATIONS READS
4 1,401

2 authors:

Pawan Panwar Paul W. Michael

University of California, Merced Milwaukee School of Engineering
10 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Experimental validation of latin hypercube sampling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul W. Michael on 10 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Hydromechatronics, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1

Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors

based upon the Latin hypercube sampling method

Pawan Panwar and Paul Michael*

Milwaukee School of Engineering,
Fluid Power Institute – Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, USA
Email: panwarp@msoe.edu
Email: michael@msoe.edu
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The effectiveness of orthogonal and Latin hypercube (LHS)

experimental design strategies was compared in axial piston pump and radial
piston motor testing. Stratified sampling via LHS was used to create test plans
of varying sample size. Pump flow and motor torque-loss models were derived
from the experimental results based on a comprehensive list of physically
significant terms. The effectiveness of the sampling plans was evaluated by
tracking the evolution of model errors using progressively sequenced
regression. Progressively sequenced regression identified the minimum sample
size required to achieve data saturation by incrementally increasing the number
of data points included in the regression analysis. It was found that LHS
produced higher fidelity models but reached data saturation no sooner than the
orthogonal method. These results demonstrate the merit of combining LHS
with progressively sequenced regression to improve empirical model fidelity
and determine minimum sample-size requirements in hydraulic pump and
motor testing.
Keywords: Latin hypercube sampling; LHS; hydraulic pump testing; hydraulic
motor testing; pump modelling.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Panwar, P. and Michael, P.
(xxxx) ‘Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors based upon the
Latin hypercube sampling method’, Int. J. Hydromechatronics, Vol. X, No. Y,
pp.xxx–xxx.
Biographical notes: Pawan Panwar is a Graduate Research Assistant at the
Milwaukee School of Engineering. He earned his Master of Science in
Engineering and Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering in 2018 and
2017, respectively. While working at the Fluid Power Institute, he conducted
numerous piston pump efficiency tests, evaluated the effect of hydraulic fluids
on radial piston motor efficiency, created numerous MATLAB programs to
streamline data conversion and analysis and developed empirical flow and
torque loss models for pumps and motors. He also participated in the US TAG
to ISO TC/131 SC/8.
Paul Michael is the Manager of Tribology Research at the Milwaukee School
of Engineering Fluid Power Institute. He has 40 years of experience
formulating and testing lubricants. He is active in ASTM, ISO, and NFPA
standards committees and serves as a lubrication subject matter expert for the
US Military. He has more than 40 publications on the topics of energy efficient
fluids, hydraulic fluid compatibility, filtration, particle characterisation, and
machinery lubrication.

Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 P. Panwar and P. Michael

1 Introduction

1.1 Background
ISO 4409 ‘hydraulic fluid power – positive displacement pumps, motors and integral
transmissions – methods of testing and presenting basic steady-state performance’
specifies circuit schematics, instrument accuracy ranges, test procedures, and reporting
requirements for characterising positive displacement machine performance (ISO 4409,
2007). It was promulgated by the International Organisation for Standardisation in 1986
to unify methods for testing hydraulic fluid power positive displacement pumps, motors,
and integral transmissions. The intent was to enable the performance of different
components to be compared. The document was revised in 2007 and 2017. The 2007
revision provided additional test method details. The 2017 revision removed the
calculation section and directed the user to reference ISO 4391 for engineering parameter
definitions (ISO 4391, 1986). It also provided additional details regarding hydraulic fluid
requirements. Sample size and test point selection are left to user discretion.
The procedures outlined in ISO 4409 are used for a variety of purposes including
production line quality inspections, commercial product comparison testing, design
validation, and performance mapping for simulation. Data collection, statistical
processing, and modelling strategies vary depending upon the analytical goal.
Well-defined sampling plans and control chart procedures have been developed by
quality scientists for use in production testing (Juran and Gryna, 1988). Confidence
interval charts have been used to compare the performance of fluids at specific speeds,
pressures, and temperatures (Michael et al., 2016). Complex fluid-structure models that
describe thermal conditions within tribological contacts have been created to optimise the
design of positive displacement machines (Murrenhoff et al., 2008; Schenk et al., 2013;
Dhar and Vacca, 2015). Simulations based on steady-state testing via ISO 4409 have
been used to optimise control systems and predict machine performance (Rahmfeld and
Skirde, 2010). Since performance data are needed to support quality control, component
design and machine simulations, it is a challenge for fluid power test facilities to keep up
with demand. In this investigation, we explore the use of Latin hypercube sampling
(LHS) to reduce the number of data points required to produce reliable empirical models
from ISO 4409 data.

1.2 Modelling
The performance of hydraulic pumps and motors is affected by friction, viscous drag,
fluid compressibility and pressure-driven flow losses. Analytical models have been
developed to characterise how these phenomena affect energy dissipation in positive
displacement machines (Wilson, 1950; Schlösser, 1961; Olsson, 1973; Manring, 2005a;
Jeong, 2007). Common physical terms for pump and motor models are listed in Table 1.
Some fluid-structure interactions within positive displacement machines do not readily
lend themselves to the analytical solution. Thermal effects, friction, pressure transients
and fluctuating gap heights create too much complexity. This complexity may be
overcome by using purely mathematical polynomial terms to approximate measured
curves (Ivantysynova, 2001). A variety of methods may be used to select terms and
determine coefficients for regression of ISO 4409 measurements. Ordinary least squares
regression is usually satisfactory though more sophisticated methods for selecting terms
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 3

may be used when higher accuracy models are desired (Tibshirani, 1996; Ulbrich, 2009).
In this investigation, empirical models based on physical terms were used to evaluate data
sets of varying size. The terms were selected, and coefficients were determined using
MATLAB code.
Table 1 Terms for empirical hydraulic pump and motor models

Pressure driven laminar flow loss

⎛ Δp ⎞
Vi ⎜ ⎟ Wilson (1950)
⎝ 2πμ ⎠
Δp
Vimax Bavendiek (1987)
μ

⎛ Δp ⎞⎛ ω ⎞⎛ Δp ⎞
Vi ⎜
2 πμ ⎟⎜ A + B ω ⎟⎜ p ⎟ Dorey (1988)
⎝ ⎠⎝ max ⎠ ⎝ case ⎠

Δp/µω Manring (2005a)

Δp/µ Jeong (2007)
p2
Manring (2016)
μ

( εVi )
2
Δp
Johnson (2018b)
μ
Pressure driven turbulent flow loss

2Δp
Vi 2/3 Schlösser (1961)
ρ

Δp
Manring (2005a)
μω

Δp
Jeong (2007)
ρ

ω3
ρ Jeong (2007)
Δp

p2 Manring (2016)
Compressibility loss
ΔpωViε Zarotti and Nevegna (1981)

( A − Bε ) Vi Δp Olsson (1973)
β
⎛ 1 + ε ⎞ ΔpωVi
⎜ Vr + β ⎟ β Dorey (1988)
⎝ ⎠
Δp
ω Jeong (2007)
β
4 P. Panwar and P. Michael

Table 1 Terms for empirical hydraulic pump and motor models (continued)

Compressibility loss
⎛ p2 ⎞
⎜1 − β ⎟Vi ωε Manring (2016)
⎝ ⎠
Viscous friction
µωVi Wilson (1950)
µω/Δp Manring (2005a)
µω Jeong (2007)
Turbulent friction
ρVi 5/3
ω2 Schlösser (1961)
4π
ρVi 5/3 2 3
ωε Thoma (1969)
4π
µω2 Ivantysyan and Ivantysynova (2003)
ρω2 Jeong (2007)
Coulomb or boundary friction
⎛ Δp ⎞
Vi ⎜ ⎟ Wilson (1950)
⎝ 2π ⎠
Vi p1 + ε′p2
Hibi and Ichikawa (1977)
1 + ( ω / ωo )

μω / Δp Manring (2005a)
2
Δp Jeong (2007)

( μω / Δp )
Michael et al. (2016)
A + ( μω / Δp )

1.3 Test order bias

Pump and motor performance properties are characterised in the ISO 4409 method under
steady-state conditions. Steady state is achieved when input and output conditions are
unchanging with time. The ISO 4409 procedure does not specify the sequence of data
collection. Randomised sample sequences are often used in the design of experiments to
minimise test order bias. In pump and motor testing, randomisation of the test order is not
necessarily desirable because it can prolong the time required to reach steady state.
Pressure transients and inertial effects may stabilise quickly, but thermal equilibration
tends to be time-consuming. Measurement errors due to changing system conditions are
mitigated in the ISO 4409 method by ensuring that the system reaches steady state prior
to data collection. In principle, steady-state experimental conditions eliminate test order
bias, obviating the need to randomise the data collection sequence.
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 5

1.4 Test point selection

Pressure (p), rotational frequency (ω), displacement (V) and temperature (θ) are the
factors or independent variables that define the experimental points in a typical pump or
motor test. Flow (Q) and torque (T) are the dependent variables. ISO 4409 does not
specify the total number of sample points or the structure of the test plan. Full factorial
complete block experimental designs are often employed. In full factorial complete block
experiments, each factor (p, ω, V, θ) is tested at two or more discrete levels, and all
possible combinations of factors and levels are included in the experiment. The total
number of sample points equal the mathematical product of the levels and blocks for each
factor. Blocking is used in experimental design to minimise nuisance factors, such as
lengthy equilibration times. Depending upon the ease of control, independent variables
temperature, displacement, and rotational frequency may all be blocked with each level
measured in sequence. Full factorial complete block experimental designs are attractive
because they are intuitive, orderly and can reveal factor interactions. The disadvantage of
a full factorial complete block sampling strategy is that the number of experimental
points rapidly increases as levels are added. For example, a test plan with seven pressure,
four speed, four displacement levels and two temperature blocks requires 7 × 4 × 4 × 2 =
224 sample points. The experimental sample size grows to 448 when two replications are
performed.

1.5 Random, systematic, and stratified sampling

A variety of statistical sampling methods may be applied to the generation of parameters
from multidimensional distributions. These methods use random or near-random sample
selection techniques to ensure that the population is accurately represented while
minimising experimental bias. In simple random sampling, a subset is selected from the
population, and all possible samples have an equal probability of being chosen. In
systematic sampling, a subset is selected from the population at a random starting point,
and additional points are selected at fixed periodic intervals. In stratified sampling, a
subset is selected from separate strata of the population, rather than at random from the
whole population. The number of data points selected from each stratum is proportional
to its size relative to the population. Stratified sampling enhances the representativeness
of a sample subset when the population is not homogeneous.

1.6 Latin hypercube sampling

Latin hypercube is a Monte Carlo-based method for generating near-random sample
subsets from stratified multivariate distributions (Wyss and Jorgensen, 1998). The LHS
method has proven to be an efficient data sampling method for simulations of computer
code, magnetic field distributions, and engine torque (McKay et al., 1979; Davey, 2008;
Thiruvengadam et al., 2014). A subset of n samples may be selected from a total
population of N samples that are characterised by k input factors via LHS as follows:
1 Divide the k input variables, x1, x2, …, xk with a range ui = [ai bi], where i = 1, 2, …,
k into n non-overlapping strata based on equal probability.
6 P. Panwar and P. Michael

2 Select one value from each stratum at random with respect to the probability density
within the interval.
3 Randomly pair the n values obtained for x1 with the n values of x2.
4 Randomly combine these n pairs with the n values of x3 to form n triplets.
5 Repeat this process until n k-tuplets are formed, thus creating an LHS set of n
samples with k variables from the multidimensional distribution.
Unlike in factorial testing, each sample in the resulting data set will be unique to its
strata. For example, if the range of rotational frequency is 1,000 to 2,200 rpm and the
number of data points n = 100, each strata will have a width of 12 rpm. Under the LHS
scheme, a single data point will be collected within the minimum frequency strata of
1,000 to 1,012 rpm.

2 Methods and materials

2.1 Selection of data points

Full factorial testing was conducted at six pressures, four rotational frequencies and four
displacements. As shown in Figure 1, each point in the full factorial set (*) forms the
vertex of a right angle and is therefore orthogonal to at least two other points. The
orthogonal test plan consisted of 100 data points. The factorial value was 96. To set the
size to 100, four high speed, high pressure data points were added to the test plan.
Likewise, for the LHS data set, 96 data points were sampled using the Latin hypercube
algorithm. All 96 LHS data points (o) were non-orthogonal. Four high speed, high
pressure data points were added to the LHS test plan in order to ensure that boundary
conditions were included in the dataset. Thus, both sample sets contained 100 data points.

Figure 1 Data points for orthogonal and Latin hypercube-based design of experiments (DOE)
(see online version for colours)
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 7

2.2 Pump testing

An open-loop axial piston pump with precision electronic displacement control was
employed in this study. The power to drive the pump was supplied by a variable
frequency drive and a 75 HP inverter type electric motor. The electric motor was
instrumented with a torque transducer and rotary encoder. Rotational frequency, inlet oil
temperature, swash plate angle, and pump outlet pressure were controlled via automation.
System pressure was regulated by a pilot-operated cartridge valve as shown in Figure 2.
The pump outlet flow rate was measured using a gear-type positive displacement flow
meter positioned upstream from the pressure control valve. The ISO VG 46 hydraulic
fluid was cooled and filtered in the return line. The system was operated under
steady-state conditions for 45 seconds and data for each test point were collected over the
final 15 seconds.

Figure 2 Circuit schematic for hydraulic pump test

2.3 Determination of displacement

Volumetric efficiency equals the ratio of actual flow rate to theoretical flow rate. In order
to calculate the theoretical flow rate, it is necessary to measure the rotational frequency of
the pump and determine the volume of fluid displaced per revolution. ISO 4409 specifies
that the displacement is determined via ISO 8426. In the ISO 8426 method, displacement
is determined by measuring the pump flow rate at various pressures and rotational
frequencies, calculating the ratio of flow to pump speed, and plotting the results as a
function of pressure (ISO 8426, 2008). The zero-intercept of the resulting line is defined
as the derived displacement (Vi). The ISO 8426 method has been found to be
unsatisfactory in some instances because it fails to adequately account for the effect of
pressure on flow. This can result in an underestimation of the pump displacement and the
generation of volumetric efficiency values that exceed 100%.
Two methods are routinely used by test facilities to avoid the generation of
volumetric efficiencies greater than 100%; the maximum displacement (Vimax) and Toet
procedures. In the Vimax procedure, displacement is determined from the highest ratio of
flow to rotational frequency under steady-state conditions. When selecting the Vimax, it is
8 P. Panwar and P. Michael

important to verify that the flow rate has stabilised because transient efficiencies greater
than 100% are possible when the pump is decelerating. It also should be noted that the
use of Vimax will yield at least one test point where ηV = 100% (Bramer et al., 2014).
The Toet method uses a two-step process to determine pump displacement (Toet,
1970). In the first step of the process, the ratio of pump outlet flow to rotational
frequency is plotted for each of several test pressures. In the second step, ∂Qout/∂N is
plotted as a function of pressure. The zero-intercept from a linear fit of the data equals the
derived displacement. Hence the derived displacement is 46.12 cc/revolution as shown in
Figure 3.

Figure 3 ∂Q/∂n is plotted versus differential pressure to determine derived displacement (Vi) via
the Toet method (see online version for colours)

Figure 4 Circuit schematic for hydraulic motor test

 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 9

2.4 Motor testing

The torque output of a radial piston motor was evaluated under fixed speed and pressure
conditions per ISO 4392-1 (2002). The circuit incorporated an open-loop variable-
displacement axial piston pump as shown in Figure 4. The pump inlet temperature was
controlled to 50°C or 80°C (±1°C). The pump angular velocity was maintained at
1,200 rpm. Pump displacement was controlled by a proportional electrohydraulic valve
that adjusted the swash plate angle to maintain a desired pump outlet pressure. The pump
supplied fluid power to a fixed displacement motor to yield rotational frequencies up to
200 rpm. The test rig was partially automated, and sample points were manually entered.
As with the pump evaluation, data were collected for each test point over a period of 15
seconds.

2.5 Measurement error analysis

Per ISO 4409 Table B.1, the ‘class A’ limit for the permissible systematic calibration
error for flow, pressure, torque, and rotational frequency sensors is ± 0.5%. The
temperature sensor error limit requirement is ± 1.0°C. All of the sensors used in this
investigation, with the exception of temperature, met Class A requirements. The error
range for the thermocouple sensors was ± 1.1°C. ISO 4409 Section A.2 specifies that the
sensor error, rather than the permissible limit, be used when assessing how the
combination of errors affects measurement accuracy. ISO 4409 does not include
displacement or swash plate angle in the determination of systematic error. In previous
work, sensor error has been treated as a constant value expressed as a percentage of the
full-scale measurement limit. For instance, a flow meter with a ±1% error at full-scale
would be said to have a ±5.5% error range when used to measure flows at 20% of the
sensor’s maximum flow rating (Manring, 2005b). The calibration errors for the sensors
used in this investigation were not constant relative to the full-scale value (e.g., the flow
meter error was ± 0.05% at full scale and ± 0.05% at 20% of the full-scale value). Hence
the combination of errors for the flow loss determination (ηV) was determined using
equation (1), where (∂p) is the pressure sensor error, (∂ω)is the rotary encoder error and
(∂Q) is the flow meter error. The resulting value was 0.59%.

(∂p) 2 + (∂ω)2 + (∂Q) 2 = ∂ηV (1)

2.6 Model selection criteria

Four criteria were used for assessing the model quality: the mean standard error, the
correlation coefficient, Akaike’s information criteria (AIC), and the variance inflation
factor (VIF). The mean standard error (S) is the mean sum of squares of the difference
between experimentally determined flow losses, and the flow losses predicted by the
model. The mean standard error is useful because it expresses the model error in the units
of the dependent variable. The coefficient of determination (R2) is the proportion of the
variation in the dependent variable (flow loss) that is predictable from the independent
variables (displacement, rotational frequency, and differential pressure). AIC and VIF are
useful for screening models that exhibit multicollinearity. Multicollinearity occurs when
there is a high correlation between model terms. This is undesirable because
10 P. Panwar and P. Michael

multicollinearity results in models that over-fit data. Models that over-fit data can
generate high residuals when applied to new or independent data sets (Ulbrich, 2009). To
avoid collinear terms, the MATLAB code that was used to select model terms and
coefficients eliminated models that yielded high AIC and VIF values.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Orthogonal pump flow model

In phase 1, axial piston pump performance was evaluated at 50°C and 80°C. A fluid
conditioning circuit ensured constant inlet pressure conditions. The average inlet pressure
was 34.4 kPa (5.00 psi) with a standard deviation of 0.618 kPa (0.09 psi). Two replicates
of nominally orthogonal data sets were collected at six pressures, four speeds, four
displacements, and two temperatures. Temperature control at 50°C was difficult to
maintain when the outlet pressures were high and the swash plate angles were low. This
is consistent with pump behaviour in practical applications where the fluid quickly
transitions to higher temperatures when the pump is operated under high pressures and
low displacement conditions. Thirty-one data points that failed to achieve steady state
temperature (±1°C) were omitted from the modelling analysis. Hence, two replicates of
the nominally orthogonal experimental design yielded 353 data points.
Best subsets analysis was conducted using the physics-based flow loss expressions
listed in Table 1. Models consisting of four, five, and six terms (excluding the constant)
were evaluated. All the models that contained six terms and yielded a low standard error
were found to exhibit collinearity based upon VIF values. The best four-term model
based on R2 and S is shown in equation (2). Equation (2) includes a constant (β0) and
coefficients for theoretical displacement (β1), turbulent flow losses (β2), compressibility
(β3), and displacement angle squared (β4). The displacement angle squared (ε2)
coefficient has a positive value and therefore it is not a viscous flow loss term. An
analysis of the model residuals suggests that this term arises from a nonlinearity in the
swashplate control.

p ( εVi )
2
ωp
Q = β 0 + β1ωεVi + β 2 p2 + β3 + β4 (2)
K μ

The best five-term model based on R2 and S is shown in equation (3). Equation (3) is
similar to equation (2) except the displacement term (β1) includes the effect of fluid
compressibility. The mean value of (p/K) is 0.0123 so the effect of fluid compressibility
on (β1) is relatively small (1 – 0.0123 = 0.9877). Equation (3) also includes a viscous
flow loss term (β5). As can be seen in Table 2, the addition of this term reduced the
standard error of the model by 0.005 litres per minute. The effect of pressure-driven flow
losses on model fidelity was relatively minor because the leakage flow rate varied little as
the ratio of pressure to dynamic viscosity increased.

p ( εVi )
2
⎛ p ⎞ ωp p
Q = β 0 + β1 ⎜ 1 − 2 ⎟ ωεVi + β 2 p2 + β 3 + β4 + β5 (3)
⎝ K ⎠ K μ ωμ
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 11

As shown in Figure 5, the four-term and five-term models yielded a linear agreement
with measured pump flow rates. The maximum flow rate was approximately 100 lpm.
The mean standard error (S) for both flow models was approximately 0.43 lpm as shown
in Table 2. Hence, the mean standard error was 0.43% of the maximum flow rate.
Caution must be used when comparing the percent mean standard error (0.43%) and the
combination of error values (0.59%) because S is a global average while ∂ηV varies
proportionally with the measured flow rate. Nonetheless, it can be concluded that both
models describe the pump flow behaviour at a level of precision commensurate with the
measurement accuracy.
Table 2 Statistical measures of fidelity for four-term and five-term pump models

Model R2 S (lpm) VIF max

Equation (2) (4 terms) 0.9997 0.4260 3.48
Equation (3) (5 terms) 0.9997 0.4210 3.81

Figure 5 A comparison of the four-term and five-term models shows that the additional
parameter (5th term) had a minimal impact on the correlation with measured values
(see online version for colours)

3.2 Latin hypercube pump flow modelling

In phase 2, the performance of the axial piston pump was evaluated using the orthogonal
and LHS data points depicted in Figure 1. Unlike in phase 1, the system did not
incorporate a fluid conditioning loop, and 80°C data were not collected. The average
fluid temperature was 50.2°C with a standard deviation of 2.0°C. Gravity feed was used
to supply fluid to the pump. Thus, the inlet pressure ranged from 7 kPa (+1 psi) to –27
kPa (–4 psi), decreasing linearly as the pump flow rate increased. Because the inlet
pressure and temperature conditions in phase 1 and phase 2 were dissimilar, the model
selection process was repeated. As before, a physics-based flow model was developed for
12 P. Panwar and P. Michael

the axial piston pump using the mathematical expressions in Table 1. The best four-term
model based on R2 and S is shown in equation (4). Equation (4) includes a constant (β0)
and coefficients for theoretical displacement (β1), pressure-driven flow losses (β2),
compressibility (β3), and displacement angle squared (β4).

p ( εVi )
2
⎛ p ⎞ p ωp
Q = β 0 + β1 ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ ωεVi + β 2 + β3 + β4 (4)
⎝ K ⎠ ωμ K μ

The best five-term model based on R2 and S is shown in equation (5). Equation (5)
incorporates the same terms as equation (4) plus a term for pressure-driven turbulent flow
losses (β5) that includes density (ρ) and rotational frequency cubed (ω3). According to
Jeong (2007), this expression describes piston port leakage flow. As shown in Table 3,
the addition of a fifth term had a negligible impact on the model error.

p ( εVi )
2
⎛ p ⎞ p ωp ⎛ ρ⎞
Q = β 0 + β1 ⎜ 1 − 2 ⎟ ωεVi + β 2 + β3 + β4 + β 5 ⎜ ⎟ ω3 (5)
⎝ K ⎠ ωμ K μ ⎝ p⎠
Table 3 The flow model error (S) was higher for the orthogonal dataset

Model R2 S (lpm) VIF max

Orth (4 terms) 0.9998 0.3486 5.02
Orth (5 terms) 0.9998 0.3485 5.90
LHS (4 terms) 0.9998 0.2560 6.92
LHS (5 terms) 0.9998 0.2549 8.18

Figure 6 Standard error for the pump flow model based upon random subsets of four replicate
100-point LHS and orthogonal runs (see online version for colours)

Four replicate tests were conducted using the orthogonal and LHS methods to yield a
total of 400 data points per sample plan. The sequence of the test results was re-ordered
by assigning a random number between 1 and 400 to each row. This process was repeated
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 13

until 1,000 randomly sequenced sets of test data were created. Twenty equally spaced
subsets were selected from each of the 1,000 randomised sets. For example, one subset
included all of the rows of data with a random number less than or equal to 30; the next
subset included all the rows of data with a random number less than or equal to 50, etc.
up to 400. Each of the resulting 20,000 subsets were regressed using equation (4). The
model coefficients were determined for each subset or iteration, as well as the standard
error. The standard error for both sample schemes was plotted versus the degrees of
freedom (DoF) as shown in Figure 6. Both sample strategies yielded normally distributed
errors. The standard error for the orthogonal data set was more than 30% higher. It is
interesting to note that the error distributions appear to evolve at the same rate, even
though the model accuracy is significantly different.
In order to investigate the effects of test replication, the procedure above was repeated
using two replicate tests rather than four. As shown in Figure 7, the mean standard error
and shape of the error distribution were relatively unchanged. It appears that the
distribution is broader; however, a comparison of the LHS error distribution in
Figures 6 and 7 at 100 degrees of freedom (DoF) reveals that the smaller data set has a
similar error distribution. Hence, a reduction the number of replicate tests did not
increase the uncertainty of the model for orthogonal or LHS datasets that incorporate
100 data points. It is noteworthy that for sample sizes greater than 120, LHS always
generated flow models of higher fidelity.

Figure 7 Standard error for the pump flow model based upon random subsets of two replicate
100-point LHS and orthogonal runs (see online version for colours)

In LHS, data points are randomly selected within each stratum and therefore the
experimental set points vary from one experimental design to another. Experiments were
conducted to determine how randomisation within the LHS strata affected model
accuracy. Two new LHS sample plans were generated using MATLAB code and pump
performance data were collected using the new test points. Random subsets were
generated as previously described and the resulting 20,000 data sets were fitted to
equation (4). The coefficients from the previous LHS data set were used in order to assess
14 P. Panwar and P. Michael

model reliability. As shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, the mean standard error was
essentially unchanged. Note however that the error distributions were skewed to the right,
and fewer instances of extremely low standard errors occurred at low DoF. This is to be
expected when an independent data set is fitted to a model without adjusting coefficients.

Figure 8 Standard error for the original four-term pump flow model from two replicates of an
independent 100-point LHS data set (DOE #2) (see online version for colours)

Figure 9 Standard error for the original four-term pump flow model from two replicates of an
independent 100-point LHS data set (DOE #3) (see online version for colours)

The standard error in Figures 8 and 9 appears to be normally distributed for DoF greater
than 100. In order to determine if fewer samples could yield models of similar fidelity, a
LHS test plan was created using 50 sample points. Performance data were collected for
two replicates of 50 data points using the new DOE. Random subsets were generated as
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 15

previously described and the resulting subsets were regressed using equation (4). The
coefficients from the previous data set were used in order to assess model reliability. As
shown in Figure 10, the mean standard error was essentially unchanged and once again
fewer instances of extremely low standard errors occurred at low DoF. Thus it is
hypothesised that less than 50 data points are required to create an accurate model.

Figure 10 Standard error for the original four-term pump flow model from two replicates of
50-point LHS data set (see online version for colours)

3.3 Latin hypercube motor torque modelling

Orthogonal and LHS experimental designs were constructed to develop a torque loss
model. The orthogonal set consisted of four replicate tests at seven pressures and ten
speeds for a total of 280 data points. The LHS data set consisted of five replicates of 50
non-orthogonal data points for a total of 250 data points. The pressure and speed ranges
were the same for both sample sets.
Table 4 The torque model error (S) was higher for the orthogonal dataset

Model R2 S (Nm) VIF max

Orth (5 terms) 0.9724 10.5761 3.12
Orth (6 terms) 0.9724 10.4370 8.39
LHS (5 terms) 0.9816 6.7699 2.50
LHS (6 terms) 0.9816 6.6160 8.80

As described in Section 1.2, the frictional losses in a hydraulic motor are affected by fluid
properties and operational parameters such as the speed ω, differential pressure Δp,
displacement Vi, and dynamic viscosity μ. A steady-state nonlinear regression torque-loss
TL model for a radial piston motor was developed from the model terms show in Table 1.
Four criteria were used for assessing the model quality: the mean standard error, the
correlation coefficient, AIC, and the VIF. The analytical goal was to produce a model
16 P. Panwar and P. Michael

that had a standard error less than 10 Nm and a low VIF. As shown in Table 4, a
five-term LHS model fulfilled this requirement.
The best five-term model based on R2 and S is shown in equation (6). Equation (6)
includes terms for coulomb friction (β1), turbulent drag (β2), pumping losses (β3), viscous
drag (β4) and boundary or mixed-film friction (β5).

Vi p1 + ε ' p2 μω μω
TL = β1 α
+ β 2 μω2 + β3Vi μω + β 4 + β5 + β0 (6)
1 + ( ω ωo ) p p

As with the pump data, the sequence of the test results was re-ordered by assigning a
random number to each row. This process was repeated until 1,000 randomly sequenced
sets of test data were created. Twenty equally spaced subsets were selected from each of
the 1,000 randomised sets. Each of the resulting 20,000 subsets were regressed using
equation (6). The model coefficients were determined for each subset or iteration, as well
as the standard error. The standard error for both sample schemes was plotted versus the
DoF as shown in Figure 11. Both sampling strategies yielded normally distributed errors
that appear to evolve at a similar rate. As with the pump model, the experimental design
based upon orthogonal sample points produced models with a standard errors that were
more than 30% higher.

Figure 11 Standard error for the torque-loss model [equation (6)] based upon random subsets of
two replicate lhs and orthogonal data sets (see online version for colours)

Note: The orthogonal data set contained 30 more data points.

3.4 Progressively sequenced regression (PSR)

The theory of statistical analysis, and its companion subject, ordinary linear multiple
regression, hold that of the total universe of possible measurements, it is possible to
obtain reliable models by sampling only a limited number of random observations. That
is, it is not necessary to make all possible measurements, because in the case of a pump,
there would be no real physical limits to the amount of data. There is always a practical
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 17

limit that is concerned with costs and time needed to conduct testing. If the theory of
limited sample size is true, then it follows that there must come the point where the
number of samples causes the coefficients and figures of merit to reach terminal values.
That is, both the set of regression coefficients and the chosen figures of merit do not
undergo significant changes with further samples. Beyond this point, the addition of new
samples does not contribute to the regression process and data saturation may be said to
occur.
PSR was used to track the evolution of model coefficients as the number observations
increased to identify the onset of data saturation (Johnson, 2018c). In PSR the source data
array (laboratory test data), is progressively increased, step-by-step, one observation
(sample) at a time. At each step in the progression, a complete regression model is
created, and the coefficients are recorded. Data saturation occurs when the model
coefficients and figures of merit stabilise, exhibiting random variation within a narrow
range of values (similar to a hydraulic control system).
Seven independent LHS data sets consisting of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 points
were collected on the pump. Two replicate runs were acquired for each data set. The data
were randomised and ten iterations of PSR were performed for each set. Figure 12 shows
a plot of the standard error versus DoF for 70 iterations. The results for the 2 × 15 and
2 × 25 data sets skew high, similar to Figure 9 and Figure 10. The evolutionary trajectory
of the standard error suggest that data saturation occurs after two replicate runs of 30 data
points. The standard error for LHS data sets that include 30 or more points is comparable
to the results shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, where multiple runs of 100 data point were
collected. Hence, in this particular instance, additional testing beyond two replicates of
30 LHS test points added nothing to the understanding of the data population.

Figure 12 PSR plots for Latin hypercube experimental designs ranging from 10 to 40 set points
per test (see online version for colours)

Likewise, PSR was used to compare motor torque-loss model evolution. A five-term and
six-term model was compared for five replicates of 50 LHS test results. The entire
18 P. Panwar and P. Michael

sample set was randomised, test points were selected, model coefficients were regressed,
and the standard error was plotted for each degree of freedom. The entire data set was
randomised between each incremental increase of the sample set to ensure thorough
randomisation. As shown in Figure 13, the standard error fluctuated significantly over the
first 80 to 100 data points. Beyond 100 data points, PSR revealed that the standard error
randomly fluctuated within a range of ± 10% of the terminal value for (S). This pattern is
characteristic of data saturation. It is noteworthy that both models reached data saturation
at virtually the same time even though they have different standard errors. The practical
implication is that the method used to sample the population has a larger impact than the
quality of the model.

Figure 13 PSR plots for five- and six-term torque-loss models (see online version for colours)

4 Summary and conclusions

The effectiveness of orthogonal and Latin hypercube experimental design strategies was
compared in axial piston pump and radial piston motor testing. Pump flow and motor
torque-loss models were developed via regression of the experimental results. The
effectiveness of the sampling plans was evaluated by comparing the standard errors of the
models. The standard error for models based on orthogonal sampling was > 30% higher
than models based on LHS designs. Higher fidelity models were produced by the LHS
method because it provided a greater uniformity of sampling distribution throughout the
performance range of the pump and motor.
PSR was used to identify the range in which data saturation occurs. This was
accomplished by plotting evolution of model errors as the number of experimental
observations was incrementally increased. Data saturation was observed in the pump test
upon completion of two replicate 30-point sets. Two replicate 50-point data sets were
required for data saturation in the motor test. Beyond the point of data saturation, model
terms exhibited a small amount of random variation and additional testing added nothing
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 19

to the understanding of the data population. The threshold of data saturation was found to
be independent of the sampling procedure and model accuracy. These results demonstrate
the merit of combining LHS with PSR to improve model fidelity and determine
sample-size requirements in hydraulic pump and motor testing.

Acknowledgements

This investigation was initiated by a request from ISO Technical Committee 131,
Subcommittee 8 (Fluid power systems, Product testing). The committee sought an
objective means of determining the minimum sample size requirements for ISO 4409
testing. We gratefully acknowledge Jack Johnson’s leadership of this effort. His insights
into empirical modelling and progressively sequenced regression served as the foundation
for our research strategy. We also thank Professor Ron Jorgensen (MSOE) and John
Montague for helpful discussions of design of experiments, sample size analysis, and
methods for selecting regression models.

References
Bavendiek, R. (1987) Verlustkennwertbestimmungam Beispiel von hydrostatischen Maschinen
in-Schrägachsenbauweise, Doctoral thesis, VDI-Fortschrittsberichte, Reihe 7 Nr. 122, VDI
Verlag.
Bramer, J., Puzzuoli, A., Michael, P. and Wanke, T. (2014) ‘Hydraulic Fluid efficiency effects in
external gear pumps’, Proceedings of the 53rd National Conference on Fluid Power –
National Fluid Power Association, Paper NCFP I14-13.3, Las Vegas, NV
Davey, K. (2008) ‘Latin hypercube sampling and pattern search in magnetic field optimization
problems’, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.974–977.
Dhar, S. and Vacca, A. (2015) ‘A novel FSI-thermal coupled TEHD model and experimental
validation through indirect film thickness measurements for the lubricating interface in
external gear machines’, Tribology International, Part A, Vol. 82, pp.162–175.
Dorey, R. (1988) ‘Modelling of losses in pumps and motors’, 1st Bath International Fluid Power
Workshop, University of Bath, UK.
Hibi, A. and Ichikawa, T. (1977) ‘Mathematical model of the torque characteristics for hydraulic
motors’, Bulletin of JSME, Vol. 20, No. 143, pp.616–621.
International Organization for Standardization ‘ISO 4392-1 (2002) (E) Hydraulic Fluid Power –
Determination of Characteristics of Motors – Part 1: At Constant Low Speed and Constant
Pressure, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization, ‘ISO 4391 (1986) Hydraulic Fluid Power – Positive
Displacement Pumps, Motors and Integral Transmissions – Parameter Definitions and Letter
Symbols, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization, ‘ISO 4409 (2007) (E) Hydraulic Fluid Power –
Positive Displacement Pumps, Motors and Integral Transmissions – Methods of Testing and
presenting Basic Steady State Performance, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization, ‘ISO 8426 (2008) Hydraulic Fluid Power – Positive
Displacement Pumps and Motors – Method for Determining Derived Capacity, Geneva.
Ivantysyn, J. and Ivantysynova, M. (2003) Hydrostatic Pumps and Motors: Principles, Design,
Performance, Modelling, Analysis, Control and Testing, Tech Books International, New
Delhi, India.
20 P. Panwar and P. Michael

Ivantysynova, M. (2001) ‘Energy losses of modern displacement machines – a new approach of

modelling’, The Seventh Scandinavian International Conference on Fluid Power, Linköping,
Sweden.
Jeong, H-S. (2007) ‘A novel performance model given by the physical dimensions of hydraulic
axial piston motors: model derivation’, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.83–97.
Johnson, J.L. (2018a) Collinearity Can Be Recognized Using Progressively Sequenced Regression
Analysis, Report to ISO TC131, SC8, February 2018.
Johnson, J.L. (2018b) Progressively Sequenced Regression Helps to Establish Minimum Sample
Size at Time of Test, Report to ISO TC131, SC8, January 2018.
Johnson, J.L. (2018c) Progressively Sequenced Regression is Useful When Coupled with
Efficatious Set Point Randomization, Report to ISO TC131, SC8, March 2018.
Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1988) Juran’s Quality Co-trol Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, NY.
Manring, N. (2005a) Hydraulic Control Systems, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Manring, N. (2005b) ‘Measuring pump efficiency: uncertainty considerations’, Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, Vol. 127, No. 4, p.280.
Manring, N. (2016) ‘Mapping the efficiency for a hydro-static transmission’, Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 138, No. 3, p.031004.
McKay, M., Beckman, R. and Conover, W. (1979) ‘A comparison of three methods for selecting
values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code’, Technometrics,
Vol. 21, No. 2, p.239.
Michael, P.W., Mettakadapa, S. and Shahahmadi, S. (2016) ‘An adsorption model for hydraulic
motor lubrication’, Journal of Tribology, Vol. 138, No. 1, pp.014503-1–014503-6.
Murrenhoff, H., Piepenstock, U. and Kohmäscher, T. (2008) ‘Analysing losses in hydrostatic
drives’, Proceedings of the JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, No. 7-1,
pp.103–108.
Olsson, O. (1973) Mathematical Efficiency Model, Kompendium i Hydraulik, Institute of
Technology, Linköping, Sweden.
Rahmfeld, R. and Skirde, E. (2010) ‘Efficiency measurement and modeling – essential for
optimizing hydrostatic systems’, 7th International Fluid Power Conference, pp.1–14.
Schenk, A., Zecchi, M. and Ivantysynova, M. (2013) ‘Accurate prediction of axial piston machine’s
per-formance through a thermo-elasto-hydrodynamic simulation model’, Proceedings of the
ASME/BATH 2013 Symposium on Fluid Power and Motion Control, FPMC 2013, Sarasota,
Florida, 6–8 October 2013, DOI: 10.1115/FPMC2013-4456
Schlösser, W. (1961) ‘Mathematical model for displacement pumps and motors’, Hydraulic Power
Transmission, April 1961, pp.252–257 and 269 and May 1961, pp.324–328.
Thiruvengadam, A., Pradhan, S., Thiruvengadam, P., Besch, M., Carder, D. and Delgado, O.
(2014) Heavy-Duty Vehicle Diesel Engine Efficiency Evaluation and Energy Audit, West
Virginia University Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions, pp.15–16.
Thoma, J. (1969) ‘Mathematical models and effective performance of hydrostatic machines and
transmission’, Hydraulic and Pneumatic Power, pp.642–651.
Tibshirani, R. (1996) ‘Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso’, Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp.267–288.
Toet, G. (1970) ‘Die Bestimmung des theoretischen Hub-volumens von hydrostatischen
Verdrängerpumpen und Motoren aus volumetrischen Messungen’, Ölhy-draulik und
Pneumatik, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.185–190.
Ulbrich, N. (2009) ‘Regression model optimization for analysis of experimental data’, Proceedings
of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibition, AIAA 2009-1344, Orlando, FL,
5–8 January 2009.
Wilson, W.E. (1950) Positive Displacement Pumps and Fluid Motors, Chap. 6 and 7, Pitman
Publishing, NY.
 Empirical modelling of hydraulic pumps and motors 21

Wyss, G.D. and Jorgensen, K.H. (1998) A User’s Guide to LHS: Sandia’s Latin Hypercube
Sampling Software, Sandia National Labs. United States, DOI: 10.2172/573301.
Zarotti, G. and Nevegna, N. (1981) ‘Pump efficiencies approximation and modelling’, 6th Int.
Fluid Power Symposium, Cambridge, UK.

Nomenclature
Symbol Description Units
K Bulk modulus [GPa–1]
n Data points in a subset [-]
N Data points in the population [-]
µ Dynamic viscosity [Pas]
ρ Fluid density [kg/m3]
p1 Inlet pressure [Pa]
v Kinematic viscosity [kg]
S Mean standard error [L/m or Nm]
TL Torque loss [Nm]
p2 Outlet pressure [Pa]
p or Δp p2–p1 pump or p1–p2 motor [Pa]
Ω Rotational frequency [rad/s]
ε Swash plate position [%Vi]
Vi Theoretical displacement [m3/rad]
Qi Theoretical volumetric flow rate [m3/s]
Q Volumetric flow rate [m3/s]

View publication stats