16/20

Computer Lab Report 1

MECH 4310 Fluid Power Systems:
Operation, Circuit Design, and Application

Lai, Tung 7866318

February 10, 2021

 4/5 Report configuration/quality

lab procedure not included or cited

Winter 2021 MECH4310 - Fluid Power Systems

Lab Overview
In this computer lab, the experiment is reconstructed using Automation Studios software,
where the data is recorded and compared with the physical lab.

Part 1: Meter-in Flow Control with Non-Pressure Compensated

Throttle Valves
Recorded data

Table 1: Recorded data part 1

System pressure ps 600 psi System pressure ps 300 psi

Extending Retracting Extending Retracting 1/3
Time s (sec) 4 2 6.9 3.7
System pressure ps (psi) 555.85 549.64 267.12 262.74
Rod end pressure pb (psi) 2.29 56.46 1.83 54.97
Cap end pressure pa (psi) 31.4 2.76 30.94 2.28
throttle valves are backwards in the .prx file
Discuss Variation
The system pressure and extending/retracting time data from the computer are very closed
to the real data in physical lab. However, both rod end pressure and cap end pressure in
all four phased are much lower than the data in the physical lab. This could be due to the
following factors:

• The simulator may over-simulate the pressure drop due to friction in the network.

• The control valves DF2.2 in the physical lab were not ideal, the cracking pressure of
the check valve was not set to zero. This limits the liquid from exiting the system,
induce the high pressure in both rod end and cap end.

Part 2: Meter-in Flow Control with Regenerative Flow Circuit

Recorded data

Table 2: Recorded data part 2

Time (sec) 2/2

Non-regenerative 4
Regenerative 1.7

Discuss Variation
The extending time of the regenerative circuit is similar to the data from the physical lab.

1
Winter 2021 MECH4310 - Fluid Power Systems

Part 3: Meter-in Flow Control with Pressure Compensated Throt-

tle Valve
Recorded data

Table 3: Recorded data part 3

System pressure ps 600 psi System pressure ps 300 psi

Extending Retracting Extending Retracting
Time s (sec) 4 2 4 3.64
System pressure ps (psi) 556.54 549.63 254.09 263.87 3/3
Rod end pressure pb (psi) 2.26 56.26 2.26 54.67
Cap end pressure pa (psi) 31.37 2.64 31.37 2.1

Discuss Variation
Similar to part 1, the system pressure and timing data in the simulation are very close to
the data in the physical lab; the rod end pressure and cap end pressure are much lower than
the physical lab for the same reasons discussed in part 1. Also note that in the simulation,
the pressure compensated throttle valve perfectly stabilized the response of the piston. The
extending time were always 4 seconds regardless of the system pressure.

Part 4: Meter-out Flow Control with Non-Pressure Compensated

Throttle Valves
Recorded data

Table 4: Recorded data part 4

System pressure ps 600 psi System pressure ps 300 psi

Extending Retracting Extending Retracting
Time s (sec) 4 2 6.13 3.80
System pressure ps (psi) 553.38 550.82 264.54 263.42 3/3
Rod end pressure pb (psi) 883.84 548.16 395.59 261.54
Cap end pressure pa (psi) 551.92 293.1 263.45 124.27

Discuss Variation
The simulated data and physical lab data is relatively similar. There are some minor dif-
ferences due to the errors when doing the experiment (loss due to friction, timing error, the
valves were not ideal).

2
 Winter 2021 MECH4310 - Fluid Power Systems

Part 5: Overrunning Load Control with Pilot Operated Check

Recorded data

Table 5: Recorded data part 1

System pressure ps 600 psi

Extending Retracting
Time s (sec) 15 10
System pressure ps (psi) 583.66 586.37 1/1
Rod end pressure pb (psi) 937.67 52.42
Cap end pressure pa (psi) 583.3 1.19

Discuss variation
The pressure data in the extending phase was similar to the physical experiment. It is
observable that the pressure was built up at the rod end. In the retracting phase, the data
were different from the data in the physical lab. This could be due to the following factors:

• The mass attached to the end of the piston was not simulated.

• The valves setting of DS1.1 was not indicated in the physical lab, which led to the
different setups in simulation and physical lab.

• Friction loss and human error when doing the experiment.

1/2
Discussions:

differences between computer and physical lab results can be attributed to the components in the computer lab using
default parameters, ie line id's larger than that on test stand,quick couplers not modelled and different oil etc

.prx files inclusion 1/1