The Parker Community is a knowledge base for anyone using or interested in using the company's technologies, products, and systems. Read more...
If you have a specific question, you can ask it here or ask it within the appropriate technology group.
Parker encourages all users of its social media sites, pages, channels and community to communicate and engage in a constructive, meaningful and professional way. Read more...
As a concept, right-sizing is inherently linked to smart machine design, which brings about rewards such as optimised space, considerable savings on components and installation, inherent safety by design and, oh yes, that all-important future-proofing against ever-changing requirements.
Of course, the design engineers need a sound understanding of standard machine components, as well as knowledge of current machinery safety standards and a firm grasp of the desired outcome in terms of machine function. Meeting all of these requirements when selecting products is a process known as right-sizing. In pneumatic applications right-sizing can impart considerable benefits, especially with regard to valve manifolds.
Valves are generally sized by cylinder bore, actuation speed and required pressure. In the past, the entire valve manifold would be sized based on the largest force/speed requirements to ensure enough flow was present in the pneumatic system, or by splitting between two manifolds (low and high pressure/flow). However, this methodology results in waste, both in terms of compressed air and the expense and size of the manifold, not to mention the labour needed to install two manifolds.
Today, right sizing is achieved by selecting the correct valve for each actuator on one manifold based on speed and bore size for a given flow requirement. In addition, we are pleased to report that some ISO valve manifolds, such as Parker’s H Series, offer a broad range of flows (0.55 Cv up to 3.0 Cv) on one manifold for ease of right-sizing.
Here’s a practical application to consider. Assume a machine that needs the following: four actuators requiring <0.5 Cv; four actuators requiring 1 Cv; and two actuators requiring 2 Cv. This application can be sized several different ways based on the highest flow requirements (solution 1), by splitting the application into two different manifolds for varying flow (solution 2), and by right-sizing each valve to the corresponding actuator (solution 3).
In this example, a cost estimation was produced for a collective hard-wired system and a networked (Ethernet) system in all three solutions. Right-sizing each valve to the corresponding actuator (solution 3), proved to be the most cost effective for both. Beginning with hard wiring, right-sizing saved $92 against solution 2, and $656.60 against solution 1. Similarly, for the networked system, right-sizing produced savings of $552 compared with solution 2 and $656.60 when pitched against solution 1. In addition, labour is not included in these estimations, which would be a particular cost for solution 2, where two manifolds have to be installed.
We can say with certainty that right-sizing works for a number of reasons. Aside from certain valve manifolds offering a broad range of flows, buying just one manifold means purchasing fewer overall components. In addition, the cost of smaller valves is less, installation costs are reduced and less space is consumed within the machine.
Think smarter, lighter and faster.
If you would like to find out more about Parker’s H Series valve manifolds, and the benefits they can bring to machine-building projects, read the white paper "Why Right-Sizing Matters".
Article contributed by Linda Caron, product manager for Factory Automation, Pneumatic Division
24 May 2019
As today’s aviation designers strive for greater aircraft fuel, weight, and space efficiencies, scalable hydraulic powerpacks are taking center stage as innovative and highly reliable solutions that can deliver those desirables and more.
Working as line-replaceable units (LRU), hydraulic powerpacks from the Parker Aerospace Hydraulic Systems Division (HSD) are pre-integrated, compact, and modular products that serve as sources of localized hydraulic power. In military applications they have been used to power flight controls in the tail, as well as to actuate landing gear and cargo doors, removing the need for extensive hydraulic distribution lines and thereby improving aircraft survivability.
Electric motor-driven hydraulic powerpacks fully integrate the hydraulic pump, filters, reservoir, switches, transducers, and ground support couplings, are multi-functional, delivering:
Hydraulic powerpacks offer a powerful advantage for today’s more-electric aircraft (MEA).
“While traditional hydraulic systems rely on engine-driven pumps to supply the pressure needed to distribute hydraulic power throughout an aircraft, our hydraulic powerpacks use highly efficient electric motors to drive the integrated hydraulic pump and provide hydraulic power on-demand. This makes our powerpacks especially well-suited for MEA, which rely on electric power to operate such non-propulsion systems as lubrication, flight control, fuel, thermal management, and more.”
“As today’s aircraft OEMs collaborate with their suppliers to design and implement the new electrical-intensive architectures key to unlocking efficiency improvements, we believe that our hydraulic powerpacks will play an increasingly important role in achieving the lower aircraft weight, better fuel consumption, reduced total life cycle costs, and enhanced maintainability and reliability for which aircraft OEMs are looking.”
— Dr. Rick Klop, engineering manager, research and development, Parker Aerospace Hydraulic Systems Division
When fully utilized, these power-on-demand, compact devices can:
Plus, hydraulic powerpacks provide flexibility in system architectures, avoiding common mode failures and adding protection for zonal hazards such as rotor burst or tire rupture.
Since 1993, 80 percent of the world’s major aerospace hydraulic systems have been awarded to Parker Aerospace. In fact, Parker has designed, developed, and qualified more hydraulic systems and subsystems than any other provider, supporting such aircraft as the:
Known for our ability to provide fully integrated, turnkey systems, our advanced subsystem capabilities are well recognized. Our hydraulic power-generation products have hundreds of applications in commercial and military aerospace markets as well as those in marine and defense. From electrohydraulic power modules and electric motor-driven hydraulic pumps to our integrated hydraulic powerpacks, our enhanced capabilities of in-house electric motor design/manufacturing and power/drive electronics allow us to be more responsive to the marketplace, assuring the most optimized solution for each application. From design and development through integration, manufacture, certification, and lifetime support, we work hard to engineer your success, contributing innovative thinking and significant process improvements – as illustrated by our hydraulic powerpacks.
Are hydraulic powerpacks right for your application? Parker HSD conducts extensive trade studies to answer that question. Our focus is to always provide the best solution for you. We have developed a commercial hydraulic powerpack solution that is scalable for use across many aircraft types, as well as numerous zones within each type. And we are committed to the application of forward-looking technologies and manufacturing methods for our powerpack development.
To learn more about our hydraulic powerpacks, please contact Rick Klop, engineering manager, research & development, Parker Aerospace, Hydraulic Systems Division, at firstname.lastname@example.org or (269) 384-3724.
Attending the 2019 Paris Air Show?
The Paris Air Show is the largest and longest-running aerospace trade show in the world, bringing together all the players in this global industry around the latest technological innovations.
Visit Parker Aerospace in Hall 5, stand C210 to learn about our mastery of flight control, hydraulic, fuel, inerting, fluid conveyance, thermal management, pneumatic, and lubrication systems and components.
This post was contributed by Evan Anderson, engineer, research & development, Parker Aerospace Hydraulic Systems Division.
23 May 2019
Perhaps you know Parker’s newest EPDM material is EM163-80. Featuring breakthrough low temperature functionality, resistance to all commercially available phosphate ester fluids, and the ability to be made into custom shapes, extrusions, and spliced geometries, EM163 represents the best-in-class material for applications needing to seal phosphate-ester-based fluids. The latest news is that EM163 meets the full qualification requirements of both NAS1613 Revision 6 (code A) and the legacy Revision 2 (no code). We’ve been inundated with questions about the specification differences between Revision 6 and 2, enough that it makes sense to devote a blog topic explaining the fluids, conditions, and dynamic cycling requirements which are required to qualify EM163-80 to each specification.
The easiest part of this comparison is evaluating the areas of Revision 6 which are very much a copy and paste from Revision 2. Compression set conditions, aged and unaged, plus temperature retraction requirements, aged and unaged, are identical. Lastly, both specifications require a test to verify the elastomers will not corrode or adhere to five different metal substrate materials. That is pretty much where the similarities end. Now for the contrasts.
The first subtle difference is the specimen size. Both specs require testing to measure the change in physical properties and volume following a heated immersion in phosphate ester fluids. For the most part, No Code qualification requires testing to be completed on test slabs or O-rings, while the newer revision, Code A, requires testing on test slabs AND O-rings. Not a big difference, but still, a difference.
The fluid conditions are very similar in both specs, but not identical. There are only two temperatures for the short term 70 hour exposure: 160°F and 250°F. Another similarity is that the longer soaks are at 225°F for 334 and 670 hours. The more difficult A Code also requires 1000 and 1440 hours at 225°F. We begin to see the requirements for the later revision are more reflective of the industry conditions, right?
Next, we look at the fluids, which truly are a key difference between the two documents. Revision 2 fluid is exclusively for AS1241 Type IV, CL 2 while revision 6 states the elastomers must meet “all commercially available AS1241 Type IV, Class 1 and 2, and Type V”. Table 1 outlines the AS1241 fluids in context of both NAS 1613 revisions.
|Revision 2||Revision 6|
|Low Density Hyject IV A Plus||AS 1241 Type IV class 1||X|
|Low Density Skydrol LD4||AS 1241 Type IV class 1||X|
|High Density Skydrol 500B-4||AS 1241 Type IV class 2||X||X|
|Low Density Skydrol V||AS 1241 Type V||X|
|Low Density Hyjet V||AS 1241 Type V||X|
|Low Density Skydrol PE-5||AS 1241 Type V||X|
Table 1: AS1241 fluids
Basically, to pass Revision 6, the material must demonstrate compatibility for all six commercially available fluids, while Revision 2 only has one fluid which is must be verified for compatibility. Again, we see Revision 6 is much more comprehensive than Revision 2.
Last, we look at the functional testing of the materials, referred to as dynamic or endurance testing. Both specifications require endurance testing on a pair of seals, which have been aged for a week at 225°F. The appropriate fluids are outlined in the table above.
Revision 2 has a gland design per Mil-G-5514. There is a 4” stroke length and the rod must travel 30 full cycles each minute. The rod is chromium plated with a surface finish between 16-32 microinches. PTFE anti-extrusion back up rings are necessary for the 3000 psi high pressure cycling. A temperature of 160°F is maintained for 70,000 strokes and then increased to 225°F for an additional 90,000 strokes.
Revision 6 has a much more demanding endurance test with fives phases and slightly different hardware. The rod must be a smooth 8 to 16 microinches Ra with a cross-hatched finish by lapping, and the cycle is 30 complete strokes per minute but only 3” rather than 4”, which means the speed can be more conservative. A pair of conditioned seals are placed in AS4716 grooves, adjacent to a PTFE back up ring. Similarities to Rev 2 are that there is a pressure of 3000 psi for the dynamic cycling at both 160°F and 225°F, however before and after each high temperature cycle there is a low temperature, -65°F soak. The first soak is static for 24 hours, followed by the 160°F high pressure cycling. The second low temperature soak requires 10 dynamic cycles at ambient pressure followed by 10 cycles at 3000 psi. The final low temperature soak requires one hour static sealing at 3000 psi followed by an 18 hour warm down period.
If you read carefully through the tests, you begin to see the Revision 6 seals must go through a more rigorous test with harsh low temperature, low pressure conditions. However, Revision 2 is not without its own challenges. The required hardware configuration; ie, low squeeze and more rough surface finish, is far from optimum and not what we recommend in actual service conditions. Added to the difficulty is the longer stroke length and faster speed. The fact that EM163-80 has passed both specifications proves it is the next generation EPDM seal material ready for flight.
20 May 2019