Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

www.elsevier.com/locate/simpat

Modelling of fluid properties in hydraulic positive displacement

machines
Paolo Casoli, Andrea Vacca *, Germano Franzoni, Gian Luigi Berta
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43100 Parma, Italy

Available online 1 November 2006

Abstract

This paper presents a numerical model for the simulation of a swash-plate axial piston pump, focusing on the charac-
terization of fluid properties.
As it is well known, the reduction of flow oscillations (which generates pressure ripples and produces vibration and
noise in the entire circuit) and the avoidance of cavitation are the major problems in the design of these pumps. Developing
a simulation code can be very useful for component optimisation in order to predict and reduce the undesired phenomena.
The paper first gives a quick overview on a previously developed pump model; afterwards four different models of the fluid
are presented: they take into account cavitation in different ways. Their aim at characterizing as well as possible the
unsteady and erratic cavitation features in a simplified manner, in order to apply the models to the simulation of hydraulic
components.
In the second part of the paper an application is shown of these models to an axial piston pump: a few results are pre-
sented and compared with available test data. The effects of the fluid models on the predicted pump performance are
shown and commented.
Ó 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pump; Cavitation; Fluid model

1. Introduction

Axial piston pumps are widely used in modern hydraulic circuits, thanks to their high specific power, effi-
ciency and reliability [1]. Despite these advantages, pump operation is affected by a few drawbacks. In fact, in
positive displacement machines, both the pumping mechanism and the fluid compressibility induce flow oscil-
lations, causing pressure pulsations and leading to vibrations and noise throughout the circuit [2,3].
Besides, when the pump is fed from a tank, the fluid can be in contact with atmospheric air that partially
dissolves into the liquid. During the suction stroke the fluid pressure reduction due to pressure losses and, in
particular, dynamic effects can cause the air to be released in bubbles [4,5]. If the pressure further decreases,

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrea.vacca@unipr.it (A. Vacca).

1569-190X/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2006.09.006
1060 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

Nomenclature

B bulk modulus
C velocity
m mass
m_ mass flow rate
~
m oil vapour molecular mass (average)
N number of cylinders
n shaft speed
p absolute pressure
R bubble radius
RG specific gas constant
eG
R universal gas constant
T absolute temperature
t time
V volume
V_ volume flow rate
v specific volume
Wa friction work
x gas to liquid volume fraction
y gas to liquid mass fraction

Greek characters
X cross sectional area
a air to liquid volume fraction
/ vapour to liquid mass fraction
c isentropic exponent
# angular position
h free gas fraction
q density
r surface tension
n abscissa
n_ linear velocity

Subscripts
A suction side of the casing
c cylinder
D delivery
G gas
i index
id ideal
L liquid
M delivery side of the casing
S suction
SAT saturation conditions
s static conditions
t stagnation conditions
V vapour
VAP saturated vapour
VAPH higher saturated vapour
 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072 1061

VAPL lower saturated vapour

0 reference condition

Abbreviations
IDC inner dead center
ODC outer dead center

besides air-release, vapour cavitation can occur. Cavitation causes the volumetric efficiency to drop and can
damage some parts.
Research on axial piston pumps is being worldwide carried out by several groups; the main topics are the
analysis of the micro phenomena in the gaps [6], the analysis of the forces between the elements in relative
motion [6,7], the evaluation of the flow inside the pump [3,8–13], the reduction of noise [8,12] and the avoid-
ance of cavitation. Regarding this last point, while in CFD-3D tools cavitation is modelled according to Ples-
set and Rayleigh [4,14–17] (whose mostly used version is known as RPNNP), in lumped parameters based
models simpler methods are used to analyze cavitation [11,18]. The numerical model for the simulation of
axial piston pumps developed by authors belongs to the latter category: in order to reach a detailed description
of pump operating conditions, the model focuses on several important aspects, in particular on pump geom-
etry and fluid properties. The model was implemented in a numerical code (source in FORTRAN language)
and was validated on the basis of some experimental data [11–13].

2. The pump model

Fig. 1 shows the basic scheme of a swash plate axial piston pump. The numerical model is based on a finite
volume concept, according to the Filling and Emptying approach: the pump is divided in number of chambers
where the fluid is assigned uniform properties. Fig. 2 represents the framework adopted for pump simulation.
Two constant volumes, VA and VM, represent the internal cavities in the pump casing at the suction and deliv-
ery side respectively, while the cylinder volume is variable as a result of piston motion. The numerical code
considers a generic number, N, of cylinders connected to the VA and VM volumes. Three modelling features
have been carefully considered and deeply investigated, namely portplate geometry, unsteady fluid dynamics
and physical fluid properties [11–13].
When the delivery port suddenly opens, the pressure ripple is produced by the sharp contact of high pres-
sure in VM with low pressure in Vc,i. The pressure peak can be made smoother through a smart design of the
port plate. Hence the ports are carefully modelled.

Fig. 1. Schematic of swash plate piston pump.

1062 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

Fig. 2. Basic model for pump simulation. Flow rates are positive in the marked way.

Fig. 3. Portplate and groove different geometries.

The throat areas of the variable orifices XA,i and XM,i depend on the position of the cylinder block with
respect to the portplate. This latter (Fig. 3) presents two kidney ports connected to the suction and delivery
volumes and two silencing grooves that allow the cylinder to pass smoothly from inlet to delivery. The groove
design has a relevant effect on flow and pressure fluctuations [8,9,11,12]: their dimensions, shape, slope and
length are parameters that have to be optimised to reduce this pressure peaks. For this purpose an accurate
technique, named ‘‘lined surface method’’ [11,13], has been devised to calculate the instantaneous throat area,
generated by the superimposition of either the groove or the kidney port to the cylinder block port. The model
allows the user to define a generically shaped groove, e.g., Fig. 3 reports the case of a triangular and a rect-
angular groove with straight axis.
In the fluid dynamic model the mass exchange occurs through the permeable parts of the control surfaces of
each chamber (that define the area of the orifices in Fig. 2). The fluid flow is calculated by the steady flow
energy equation, under quasi-steady and isothermal conditions:
c dc ¼ v dp  dW a ð1Þ
The equation is solved on the basis of the v(p) function typical of the adopted fluid model, dWa being
accounted for in the coefficient of discharge. The next paragraph describes different solutions corresponding
to four different fluid models.
Considering the continuity equation, the pressure course inside each chamber is determined; in particular,
for the cylinder volume, one obtains:
X V c;i dpc;i
m_ c;i þ    qc;i Xc n_ c;i ¼ 0 ð2Þ
op dt
oq
T

The first term of Eq. (2) is related to the mass exchange with the adjoining volumes (see Fig. 2), the second
to compressibility effects, under isothermal conditions, and the last term considers the rate of volume variation
as produced by piston motion.
 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072 1063

The model has been developed also considering the rate of change of momentum of the fluid in the region
of the delivery groove [8,9,12]. When a cylinder is switching from suction to delivery process, the edge of the
cylinder block port starts uncovering the groove: the dynamic effects, due to the sudden acceleration of fluid in
the restriction, induce further pressure pulsations inside the cylinder. On this process, the model calculates the
flow rate as an independent state variable from the momentum equation, under the hypothesis of 1-D incom-
pressible flow [12]. Consequently the pump cylinder is described with two differential equations, when the cyl-
inder port is uncovering the delivery groove. In this case the flow rate is calculated as a state variable from the
momentum equation, otherwise it depends on the ratio between upstream and downstream pressure. The code
allows the user to define a pump with a generic number N of pistons, so that considering the suction and the
delivery volumes of the pump casing, the system is described with N + 4 state equations when the groove is
working, and N + 2 equations otherwise, as reported in [12]. The code integrates all the equations by means
of a fourth-order Runge–Kutta method, being the method conditionally stable a step size control has been
adopted. The single point method adopted is the best compromise between accuracy and stability, while a mul-
tipoint method could dampen the solution when fast changes occur [19].

3. Modelling fluid properties

The authors developed four different models (in the paper simply identified with the letters A,B,C,D) of the
fluid with the main target of simulating in a simplified manner the behaviour of the fluid when both gas and
vapour cavitation occur. These models are based on continuous mathematical functions with continuous first
derivatives, in order to avoid numerical instability.
Model A is the simplest, the fluid being treated as a uniform gas–liquid mixture; vapour cavitation is not
considered.
The bulk modulus of the liquid is constant; surface tension effects are neglected; fluid pressure and temper-
ature are the same for both gas and liquid.
The assumption of isothermal fluid is consistent with no phase change in the oil, and supported by the
higher heat capacity of liquid comparatively with gas. The gas phase is modelled by the state equation of ideal
gases, thus neglecting both the contribution of oil vapour and the effect of high pressure on compressibility
factor.
The mixture volume, for mass unit, is given by:
v ¼ vL ð1  yÞ þ vG  y ð3Þ

where the gas to liquid mass fraction is:

qG0 V G0 vL
y¼ ffi x ð4Þ
qG0 V G0 þ qL0 V L0 vG

The state equation of the mixture becomes:

RG  T G 1y
v¼ yþ   ð5Þ
p qL0 1 þ pp
B
0

The expression of the first derivative of the pressure against density is:
h   i2
   y þ 1y
RG T G
1  pp0 1
op p qL0 B
¼R T y    2 ð6Þ
oq T
G G
þ Bð1  yÞ qL0 1 þ pp 0
p2 B

Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (1) and integrating, the ideal fluid velocity at the throat results:
Z pt    !
pt Bð1  yÞ qL0 1 þ pt p 0

cid ¼ v dp ¼ RG T G y  ln þ  ln  B  ð7Þ
ps ps qL0 qL0 1 þ ps p
B
0
1064 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

Model B assumes that the air can partially dissolve into the oil, according to Dalton–Henry’s law. The non-
dissolved gas fraction depends on the fluid pressure and it is uniformly mixed with the liquid. Vapour cavita-
tion is not considered.
So far as p > pSAT all the gas is dissolved in the liquid (Eq. (8)), whose mass is affected (yet volume not):
hence the fluid density (at reference conditions) is given by Eq. (9) [2,18]:
h¼0 ð8Þ
x
q0 ¼ qL0 þ q ð9Þ
1  x G0
For conditions different from those referred the mass remains constant but volume changes; hence, consid-
ering the liquid bulk modulus B, and neglecting the influence of temperature on qL, the following expression is
obtained:
pp0
qðpÞ ¼ q0  e B ð10Þ
From Eq. (10), deriving the fluid density against pressure, it is possible to obtain:
 
op B p0 p
¼ x
 eð B Þ ð11Þ
oq T qL0 þ 1x qG0

When p < pSAT only a part of the gas is dissolved. The remaining free gas fraction follows Henry’s law:
p p
h ¼ SAT ð12Þ
pSAT
Consequently the h(p) function’s first derivative is not continuous:

dh 0 if p P pSAT
¼ ð13Þ
dp 1=pSAT if p < pSAT

To get rid of the discontinuity and avoid numerical problems, the h(p) function in Eqs. (8) and (12) has been
substituted by a polynomial expression whose first derivative is forced to zero at p = 0 bar, and at p = pSAT
[18].
Starting from Eq. (9), the fluid density is found as a function of pressure and temperature, under the
assumptions of liquid density independent of temperature and of constant bulk modulus:
ð1  xÞqL0 þ xqG0
qðp; T Þ ¼ p0 p
 1=c ð14Þ
ð1  xÞeð B Þ þ h TxT0 pp0

The free gas is considered following an isentropic process from reference (p0,T0) to actual (p,T) condition.
The first derivative is given by:
8 B p0 p

op
 < q0 e B
> if p P pSAT
¼  1=c  1 ð15Þ
oq T
>
:W
p p
1x 0B Tp0
 B e þ T 0 dp xp dh 1=c xh 1=c1
cp if p < pSAT
P

where:
P ¼ ð1  xÞqL0 þ xqG0
 1 !2 ð16Þ
p0 p xT p0 c
W¼ ð1  xÞe B þh
T0 p

Eq. (15) points out that the first derivative is well defined for p = pSAT because the left and right limits exist
and are equal.
 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072 1065

For p > pSAT the integration of Eq. (1) yields:

Z pT h pt p0 i
ps p0
cid ¼ vdp ¼ q0 B e B  e B ð17Þ
pS

If p < pSAT the solution is sought by means of a numerical algorithm.

Model C upgrades the previous one considering also vapour cavitation. Since the oil is a mixture of com-
ponents of different chemical nature, the phase change occurs in a pressure range defined by a higher (pVAPH)
and a lower (pVAPL) limit [18]. In other words the oil starts evaporating just below the upper limit and com-
pletely finishes when the lower pressure value is reached. Values of pVAPL and pVAPH have been deduced from
[4,18,20].
As far as p > pSAT the fluid is described by means of the same equations as model B, and the parameter h is
null.
If pVAPH 6 p 6 pSAT model C still agrees with model B, but it is assumed that the gas is completely free
when the higher vapour pressure is reached. In fact:
pSAT  p
h¼ ð18Þ
pSAT  pVAPH
Eq. (18) shows that h = 0 if p = pSAT while h is assumed equal to 1 if p 6 pVAPH.
When pVAPL < p < pVAPH the fluid is treated as a uniform mixture of free air, oil vapours and liquid oil. In
this pressure range the vapour to liquid mass fraction is described with a polynomial function:
8
> 0 p P pVAPH
mV <
/¼ ¼ /ðpÞ pVAPH > p > pVAPL ð19Þ
mL > :
1 p 6 pVAPL
where /(p) is chosen according to the data reported in [4,14–18,20]. On the basis of Eq. (19), being h = 1 in the
pressure range considered, the fluid density can be found as a function of pressure and temperature, under the
hypotheses of liquid density independent of temperature and of constant bulk modulus. Vapour reference con-
ditions are assumed considering p0V = pVAPH. It is also assumed that both the free gas and the vapour phases
undergo isentropic processes [18]:

ð1  xÞqL0 þ xqG0
q¼   1  c1  ð20Þ
p0 p
pVAPH cV
ð1  xÞð1  /Þe B þ TT0 qL0 ð1xÞ/
qV0 p
þ x p0 G
p

where:

~
m
qV0 ¼ pVAPH ð21Þ
eG  T 0
R
The expression of op/oq becomes:
     1
op W 1  / d/ p0Bp o/ 1c C 1 þ /C 2 11c
¼ ð1  xÞ  e þ C1p  p ð22Þ
oq T P B dp op c
where:
T 1c
C1 ¼ x p
T0 0
ð23Þ
T 1c
C 2 ¼ ð1  xÞ pVAPH
T0
When the fluid pressure decreases below the lower saturation vapour pressure (p 6 pVAPL), only the gas
phase (mixture of non-dissolved air and oil vapour) exists. The density can be easily determined setting /
= 1 in Eq. (20).
1066 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

As concerns the derivative op/oq:

op 1 P
¼ ð24Þ
oq c ðC 1 þ C 2 Þpc1
c

In this latter case from Eq. (1) one obtains:

Z Pt
C1 þ C2 c h c1 c1
i
cid ¼ vdp ¼ ðpt Þ c  ðps Þ c ð25Þ
Ps P c1

Model D splits the liquid and gas phases: the gas is contained in the liquid in the form of spherical bubbles
with an equal radius R. The pressure equilibrium between the inside of the bubble and the external environ-
ment is given by [4,14–17]:
2r
pG þ pVAP ¼ pL þ ð26Þ
R
where pG is the partial pressure of air.
The air to liquid volume fraction is a = VG/VL. The ratio to the reference condition, by virtue of the ideal
gas state equation [21] and neglecting temperature variations can be expressed as
a p  pVAP þ 2r=R0
¼ L0 ð27Þ
a0 pL  pVAP þ 2r=R

Varying the fluid pressure:

 13
a
R ¼ R0 ð28Þ
a0
Substituting Eq. (27) into Eq. (28) a becomes a function of the liquid pressure:

p0  pVAP þ R2r0
a ¼ a0 2r
ð29Þ
pL  pVAP þ R 1=3
0 ða=a0 Þ

Obviously Eq. (29) is not significant if the liquid pressure is lower than the saturation pressure, because only
the vapour phase exists [4].
Eq. (29) is not explicit, so that the solution must be reached by means of a numerical procedure [19].
The fluid density is determined starting from the mass to volume fraction, and neglecting the contribution
of gas mass in respect to liquid:
mG þ mL 1 pL p0 1
q¼  qL ¼ qL0 e B ð30Þ
VGþVL aþ1 aþ1
The function op/oq can be expressed as follows:
   
op op oa
¼ ð31Þ
oq T oa oq T
where
   
oq oq 1 qL
¼ L 
oa T oa a þ 1 ða þ 1Þ2
  1=3   ð32Þ
op 2ra0 4=3 a0 2r
¼ a  2 pL  pVAP þ
oa T R0 a R0

Model D is defined only above pVAP. This model presents a few drawbacks in that assumptions are required
for both bubble radius and surface tension, which work out to be critical.
 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072 1067

Table 1
Values of main parameters for model comparison
Model
A B C D
T (K) 311 311 311 311
pSAT (bar) – 1 1 1
pVAPH (pVAP) (bar) – – 0.3 0.3
pVAPL (bar) – – 0.25 –
x (%) 9 9 9 9
qL0 (kg/m3) 850 850 850 850
qG0 (kg/m3) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

~ ðkg=molÞ
m – – 200 –
R0 (m) – – – 0.0005
r (Pa) – – – 0.03

Fig. 4. Simulated fluid density.

4. Fluid model comparison

In order to present a significant comparison many common parameters were set at the same value (Table 1).
In the case of model D, p0 = pSAT and a0 = x; the saturated vapour pressure was assumed intermediate
between the values of pVAPH and pVAPL adopted for the model C.
Fig. 4 reports fluid density versus pressure: models B and C show a similar trend and the cavitation is pre-
dicted to appear at a lower pressure comparatively with model A. In fact Eq. (10) confirms how the air fraction
increases while pressure decreases; on the contrary in model A the air fraction is always constant. With model
D cavitation occurs at the highest pressure: this strongly depends on the assumed value for the vapour satu-
ration pressure. Fig. 5 displays op/oq as a function of pressure: all models but C show a constantly increasing

Fig. 5. Simulated op/oq courses.

1068 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

trend. In the range between pVAPL and pSAT the function obtained with model C presents a particular course
with two minima: this is due to the existence of a two-phase fluid (liquid and gas) where the gas phase is a
mixture of air and oil vapour. The figure also shows a different trend for the models B and C, while Fig. 4
indicates that the function q(p) is similar for the two cases.

5. Results

The previously described pump simulation code can be linked with each of the four fluid models. Four
FORTRAN libraries were created for physical properties calculation. A comparison with several sets of exper-
imental data has been very useful to find out which fluid model is more suitable for the simulation of axial
piston pumps. Each model requires a few calibration parameters; the ensuing results refer to the set of param-
eters in Table 1. Experiments were carried out on a stock pump (Casappa LVP48, see Fig. 6), during several
test campaigns. The fluid is a mineral base oil DTE25 (ISO VG32), and its properties are well reproduced by
data reported in Table 1.
Simulation results have been compared to both pressure measured inside the delivery volume of the pump
(reported in [7]), and pump speed characteristic ðn; mÞ_ (provided by Casappa S.p.A.).
Among calibration parameters the coefficients of discharge were chosen from the data reported in [22] for
similar conditions. Later they were slightly adjusted (where the actual throat area differs significantly from
cases reported in [22]) to better match experimental data, referring to the fluid model C. Results obtained with
model D are not presented, because of their strong sensitivity to fluid parameters (e.g., bubble radius), that
makes the adoption of such a model impractical.
Fig. 7 shows a comparison between experimental data and simulation results obtained with models A and
C, highlighting a good agreement of the latter. By contrast carrying out the simulation with model A, a strong
pressure overshoot occurs. Although coefficients of discharge were calibrated with model C, discrepancies with
model A do not appear to depend on this procedure, so far as a reasonable set of coefficients was impossible to
find.
Model A considers the air always undissolved, while, for p > pSAT, in model C air is completely dissolved
into the liquid; this presence of free air induces stronger oscillations.

Fig. 6. The variable displacement axial piston pump Casappa LVP48.

 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072 1069

Fig. 7. Delivery port pressure (n = 2000 r/min, pD  pS = 150 bar; T = 38 °C).

Experimental conditions have been sometimes changed, in order to verify the reliability of the adopted set
of calibration parameters. In Fig. 8 (e.g.,) shaft speed is changed.
Fig. 9 shows speed characteristics of the pump: also here a good agreement with experimental data is
obtained using model C. At higher shaft speeds, model C predicts a significant reduction of the flow rate gra-
dient: during the suction stroke, pressure inside the cylinder falls below the saturation pressure. This causes an
increase of the free air fraction and consequently a reduction in fluid density, as shown in Fig. 4.
Using model A the presence of undissolved air yields lower mass flow rates throughout the range consid-
ered, because the fluid density is always lower. Using model A the numerical curve does not describe the reduc-
tion of flow rate gradient revealed by experiments at about 2800 r/min, due to the unset of cavitation.
If shaft speed increases, during the suction stroke the piston motion causes an increase in the cylinder vol-
ume that could not be compensated by the incoming volume of fluid; as a result pressure decreases and cav-
itation may occur.

Fig. 8. Delivery port pressure (n = 500 r/min, pD  pS = 50 bar; T = 39 °C).

Fig. 9. Simulated and experimental pump characteristics.

1070 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

Fig. 10. Cylinder pressure and density during suction phase.

Since experiments were carried out with pS = 1 bar, saturation pressure was assumed equal to inlet pressure;
consequently gas cavitation always occurs, because pc < pSAT during the suction stroke; this phenomenon is
emphasized at higher speeds.
The effects of the shaft speed are shown, referring to model C, in Fig. 10, where a density reduction, due to
the course of the cylinder pressure during suction, is clearly visible.
Fig. 10 shows that, during a revolution, the cylinder pressure decreases below the assumed saturation pres-
sure but remains above the higher saturated vapour pressure (model C), so that only gas cavitation is predicted
to occur. It was observed that vapour cavitation appears only at very high speed, outside the practical range of
application of the pump. Consequently the same results obtained with the complex model C can be reached
also adopting model B, that is, simpler and makes simulation faster.
As said before, vapour cavitation could occur if the cylinder pressure reached the pVAPH value, during the
suction stroke. In these conditions model C would highlight a sudden decrease of density (Fig. 4); hence the
delivery mass flow rate would be lower than model A, which condition was not met in this paper. Therefore,
while model C agrees with experimental data, model A overestimates cavitation effects in typical operating
conditions (Fig. 9) and undervalues these effects at the highest speeds.
The presence of gas cavitation impairs pump performance: the lower pressure reached inside the cylinder
causes a significant backflow (as displayed in Fig. 11, for different rotational speeds), influencing the flow rip-
ple intensity. This phenomenon looks more relevant with model A (that predicts a lower cylinder pressure).
Fig. 11 shows the delivery mass flow rate for a cylinder: when the piston reaches the IDC, the cylinder slot
starts uncovering the silencing groove placed at the beginning of the portplate delivery port (Figs. 1 and 3).
The initial flow rate is negative because the cylinder pressure is lower than the delivery pressure and the fluid
enters into the cylinder volume.
The amount of predicted backflow depends on several factors, such as portplate geometry, pump speed and
the fluid model adopted. Fig. 11 shows the influence of fluid model and shaft speed: adopting model A gas
cavitation causes high backflow at both considered speeds, while with model C such a negative flow rate
occurs only at the highest speed.

Fig. 11. Mass flow rate leaving the cylinder during the delivery process.
 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072 1071

Fig. 12. Pump characteristics for different values of parameter x.

Fig. 13. Pump characteristics for different values of parameter pSAT.

In Fig. 12 the effects of the parameter x on the characteristic curves are presented using model C. At the
lowest value of x (x = 0.9%) air is present in a negligible amount and the curve is linear. On increasing air
content the effects are clearly visible: the gradient reduction begins at a lower shaft speed, and the predicted
flow rate is lower.
In Fig. 13 the effect of changes in the saturation pressure, using model C, is presented. Reducing pSAT gas
cavitation starts at lower pressures. If pSAT = 0.5 bar, gas cavitation does not occur and the fluid behaviour is
similar to a pure liquid because the lowest pressure reached inside the cylinder is about 0.6 bar (Fig. 10). When
pSAT is set to 1 bar gas cavitation is predicted to appear and the flow rate gradient is reduced above
2500 r/min. At the highest value of the saturation pressure (pSAT = 2 bar) gas cavitation is always present
and flow rate is affected at all speeds.

6. Conclusion

Four hydraulic fluid models (simply named as A,B,C and D) have been presented for the simulation of
hydraulic components. The models differ as to how they take into account cavitation phenomena: not all
of them consider vapour cavitation, while gas cavitation is treated with different approaches. The authors have
developed a numerical code for the simulation of swash-plate axial piston pumps, in which case simulation can
be very useful for the optimisation of component geometry, so as to predict and reduce the flow ripple and
avoid cavitation.
In order to evaluate which model is more suitable for pump analysis, several simulations were carried out
using more than one model and comparing the results with some experimental data available. It was observed
that model C, that takes into account both gas and vapour cavitation, agrees with experiments over a wider
range of conditions. Nevertheless, considering the most common operating conditions of the analyzed pump it
1072 P. Casoli et al. / Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 14 (2006) 1059–1072

was observed that vapour cavitation is never likely to occur; therefore model B can be used as well, thus reduc-
ing the simulation time.
The results presented in the paper also show that model A overestimates cavitation so far as only gas cav-
itation occurs, while undervalues the phenomena when both gas and vapour cavitation take place.

References

[1] N. Nervegna, Oleodinamica e Pneumatica, 3 vol., Politeko, Torino, Italy, 2003.

[2] W.E. Benjamin, V.L. Streeter, Fluid Transient in Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1993.
[3] K.A. Edge, J. Darling, A theoretical model of axial piston pumps flow ripple, In: Proc. of 1st Bath Int. Fluid Power Workshop, Bath,
UK, 1988, pp. 113–136.
[4] W. Tillner, H. Fritsch, R. Kruft, W. Lehman, D.G. Masendorf, The avoidance of cavitation damage, MEP, London, 1993.
[5] W.H. Isay, Kavitation, Schiffahrts-Verlag Hamburg, 1981.
[6] U. Wieczorek, M. Ivantysynova, Computer aided optimization of bearing and sealing gaps in hydrostatic machines – the simulation
tool CASPAR, International Journal of Fluid Power 3 (1) (2002) 7–20.
[7] S. Mancò, N. Nervegna, A. Lettini, L. Gilardino, Advances in the simulation of axial piston pumps, In: Proceeding of the 5th JFPS
International Symposium on Fluid Power, Nara, Japan, 12–15 November, 2002.
[8] A.M. Harrison, K.A. Edge, Reduction of axial piston pump pressure ripple, In: Proceeding of IMechE, vol. 214, Pt I, 2000.
[9] K.A. Edge, J. Darling, The pumping dynamics of swash plate piston pumps, In: Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and
Control, Trans. of ASME, 111 (June) (1989) 307–312.
[10] A. Johansson, J. Andersson, J.O. Palmberg, Optimal design of the cross-angle for pulsation reduction in variable displacement
pumps, In: Proc. of Bath Workshop on Power Transmission and Motion Control, UK, 2002.
[11] G.L. Berta, P. Casoli, A. Vacca, M. Guidetti, Simulation model of axial piston pumps inclusive of cavitation, ASME Int. Mech.
Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Orleans, Lousiana, USA, November 17–22, 2002.
[12] P. Casoli, A. Vacca, Modeling of an axial piston pump for pressure ripple analysis. In: Proc. of The 8th Scandinavian Int. Conference
on Fluid Power, Tampere Finland, May 7–9, 2003.
[13] P. Casoli, A. Vacca, Modello di simulazione di una pompa a pistoni assiali, Atti del Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Pub- 01-1
2001.
[14] Lord Rayleigh, On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity, Phil. Mag. (1917) 34.
[15] M.S. Plesset, Tensile Strength of Liquids, California Institute of Technology, 1969, Rep. 85–47.
[16] B.E. Noltkingk, E.A. Nepiras, Cavitation produced by ultrasonics, Proc. Phys. Soc., Lond, Ser. B. (1950) 63.
[17] H. Poritsky, The collapse or growth of a spherical bubble or cavity in a viscous fluid, in: Proc. 1st U.S. Nation Congr. Appl. Mech.,
New York, 1952.
[18] IMAGINE s.A., AMESimÒ Standard fluid properties, – Indexed elementary fluid properties Report FP01, Roanne, France, 2000.
[19] J.D. Hoffman, Numerical Methods for Engineers and Scientists, Mc Graw Hill, 1992.
[20] G.B. Wallis, One Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, Mc Graw Hill, 1969.
[21] R.W. HaywoodEquilibrium Thermodynamics, vol. I, Krieger, Malabar (FL), USA, 1992.
[22] E. Idel’cik, Memento de pertes de charge, coefficients de pertes de charge singulières et de pertes de charge par frottement, Edition
Eyrolles 1986.