[ArticIngerCase]

I have to admit that when I designed and built my articulated loader, I was definitely on a budget so some of the things I did or didn't do might have not have made sense to some of the people following the build. My thoughts were, make it usable first, then since I am FAR from being independently wealthy, find the weaknesses and correct them over time as available funds would allow.

I've spent most of this year making changes. Some of the things I found that needed to change were:
• Ignition, throttle, and gauges needed to be up front and not behind me (DONE)
• More power (DONE-Replaced 16hp Onan w/18hp Kubota diesel)
• Ag tires (DONE)
• Headlights (DONE)
• Roof/snow cab (Roof-DONE)
• Need loader valve with "float." (DONE)
• Needed to be more than just a loader (DONE-quick detachable bucket, and added snow plow)
• Steering wheel instead of a "tiller" type of steering

One of the last things on my list to do is replace the "tiller" type steering with an orbital valve and steering wheel. The tiller steering is very functional and a cheap alternative, however it does not allow you to make small adjustments like a steering wheel will, not to mention that it takes some getting used to.
I wanted to start a thread about how I installed a power steering control unit, or otherwise known as an orbital valve.

Here's the steering "tiller" valve that I've been using since day one:

I mounted the steering unit on the bracket I built:

After everything was mounted, I took measurements and had the hoses made.

I added the steering wheel and tested. Everything works great. It takes several turns of the steering wheel to turn,but I have much more control than I did with the tiller.

Last but not least, I removed the old steering control. I'll need to fill the holes and touch up the paint when it gets warm. I can't wait to try this out so how about sending some of that snow to PA?

 

[bob_hefley]

Which Danfoss orbital valve did you use? or what are the spec of the one you are using?

 

[ArticIngerCase]

Which Danfoss orbital valve did you use? or what are the spec of the one you are using?

I don't have the specs on my home computer, but here's the model:

 

[Hydriv]

When I read the initial post, I had the same question as Bob did because I was surprised to hear that it took several turns to go lock to lock. The next question is.. What diameter steering cylinder did you use, how long of a stroke and did you use one or two?

 

[ArticIngerCase]

When I read the initial post, I had the same question as Bob did because I was surprised to hear that it took several turns to go lock to lock. The next question is.. What diameter steering cylinder did you use, how long of a stroke and did you use one or two?

I used 2 steering cylinders, 1.5" X 8" X 1" found HERE

I know its a lot of fluid to move, and its only connected to a 2 GPM priority flow divider, but I was expecting a little faster response.

 

[Hydriv]

You could cut the number of turns in half by removing one of the cylinders. Give it a try and see if one will do the job.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

You could cut the number of turns in half by removing one of the cylinders. Give it a try and see if one will do the job.

It's worth a shot. I'll have to try that. Thanks.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

You could cut the number of turns in half by removing one of the cylinders. Give it a try and see if one will do the job.

It's worth a shot. I'll have to try that. Thanks.

I was out of town this weekend and wasn't able to try this until this afternoon. I disconnected one of the steering cylinders and it worked exactly like I was hoping for. :thumbup: Now I guess since I have an extra steering cylinder, I need to plan another project :thumbsup:

 

[Hydriv]

You could cut the number of turns in half by removing one of the cylinders. Give it a try and see if one will do the job.

It's worth a shot. I'll have to try that. Thanks.

I was out of town this weekend and wasn't able to try this until this afternoon. I disconnected one of the steering cylinders and it worked exactly like I was hoping for. :thumbup: Now I guess since I have an extra steering cylinder, I need to plan another project :thumbsup:

Do you understand what happened and why?

The OPM 40 is actually a manual pump that receives a constant flow of oil. When your rotate the steering wheel one full turn, you are pumping a fixed amount of oil to the steering cylinders. Two cylinders of the same dimensions require twice as much oil to turn the tractor the lock to lock as what one cylinder needs. Therefore, you either had to get rid of one cylinder to drop your rotations by half OR replace the OPM 40 with an OPM 80 that would pump twice as much oil per rotation.

The cheapest route was to have you take one cylinder out of the equation and see if you were happy with the amount of "input" from you that is needed to turn the wheel. I figured that you'd be OK with just one cylinder because bending the tractor back and forth doesn't take much hydraulic pressure.

I suppose now.... you'll be blaming me when your wife sees that extra cylinder hanging from the rafters and you beginning to assemble a new project around it. :thumbsup:

 

[GoldenCove]

Scott, maybe you should build another Articingercase since you already have the steeriing cylinder :sidelaugh: :thumbsup:

and nice job on the fabrication as usual :ugeek:

 

[ArticIngerCase]

Do you understand what happened and why?

The OPM 40 is actually a manual pump that receives a constant flow of oil. When your rotate the steering wheel one full turn, you are pumping a fixed amount of oil to the steering cylinders. Two cylinders of the same dimensions require twice as much oil to turn the tractor the lock to lock as what one cylinder needs. Therefore, you either had to get rid of one cylinder to drop your rotations by half OR replace the OPM 40 with an OPM 80 that would pump twice as much oil per rotation.

The cheapest route was to have you take one cylinder out of the equation and see if you were happy with the amount of "input" from you that is needed to turn the wheel. I figured that you'd be OK with just one cylinder because bending the tractor back and forth doesn't take much hydraulic pressure.

I suppose now.... you'll be blaming me when your wife sees that extra cylinder hanging from the rafters and you beginning to assemble a new project around it. :thumbsup:

Yes. As soon as you mentioned eliminating one of the cylinders, I had one of those "why didn't I think of that? moments." I had no doubt it would work. Thanks again.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

Scott, maybe you should build another Articingercase since you already have the steeriing cylinder :sidelaugh: :thumbsup:

and nice job on the fabrication as usual :ugeek:

Thanks Tom.

 

[Hydriv]

Yes. As soon as you mentioned eliminating one of the cylinders, I had one of those "why didn't I think of that? moments." I had no doubt it would work. Thanks again.

OK good... I didn't know if you understood or not but I also wanted to be sure that everyone else that was following this thread also had an explanation as to why my suggestion made the difference you were looking for.

After all, what's the point of building something like your articulated, if you don't teach others who aspire to follow in your footsteps?

 

[Nutcase446]

Another way to speed up the steering would be 2 smaller cylinders. The problem with using a single cylinder (unless it has a through rod) is that it turns faster (which can be repaired with a restrictor in the base side) and with more power to one side. You can notice this slightly on a conventional steering axle but it seems to be magnified on articulated steering. This is why most articulated heavy equipment has 2 cylinders. Since cost is a factor for most of us a single cylinder is a reasonable alternative. If I was starting from scratch I would use 2 cylinders. Gregg

 

[Nutcase446]

I just looked at the specs for the cylinders that you have. It should turn twice as fast in one direction as the other.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

I just looked at the specs for the cylinders that you have. It should turn twice as fast in one direction as the other.

How do you figure? I used the tractor just this morning plowing snow, and it takes a little over 2 turns of the wheel to max out in either direction from center. From what you're saying, from center, it should take 2 turns to go to one direction, then 4 turns to get back to center. This is not the case.

 

[Nutcase446]

One side of the cylinder has a lot less volume than the other because one side has the rod in it. On your cylinder the rod side takes .98 cu. inches to move one inch. The base end takes 1.76 cu. inches to move one inch. As far as power goes, the rod end has .98 sq. inchs of piston (the size of the piston less the area of the rod) the non rod end has 1.766 sq. inchs. If you multiply that by available pressure there is quite a difference.
Another way to equalize everything and use what you have would be to make the cylinders one way. Put vents in the rod end and use the cylinders as just pusher cylinders. This would cut the amount of oil required just like using one cylinder. Gregg

 

[ArticIngerCase]

One side of the cylinder has a lot less volume than the other because one side has the rod in it. On your cylinder the rod side takes .98 cu. inches to move one inch. The base end takes 1.76 cu. inches to move one inch. As far as power goes, the rod end has .98 sq. inchs of piston (the size of the piston less the area of the rod) the non rod end has 1.766 sq. inchs. If you multiply that by available pressure there is quite a difference.
Another way to equalize everything and use what you have would be to make the cylinders one way. Put vents in the rod end and use the cylinders as just pusher cylinders. This would cut the amount of oil required just like using one cylinder. Gregg

Gregg,
Thanks for explaining this. I definitely wasn't considering the volume of oil that the rod would displace in one side of the cylinder. I had to prove this to myself by spending some quality seat time when I got home from work. I turned the steering wheel from maximum one direction and then to the other, several times, counting the revolutions each time. I found that to go from an extreme right turn to an extreme left turn, it took just about 4 turns of the steering wheel. However to go the opposite direction (hard left to hard right) it took close to 7 turns, thus proving what you said.

I really like the faster response time of going right to left, so what that means it that I now will have to add the second cylinder back to the tractor, find some vents for the non-rod end of the cylinders, and connect them as single acting cylinders. (Thanks a LOT for causing me more work!!! :wink: ) Seriously though, thanks again for taking the time t0 explain this to me and others. I'll never claim that I know what I'm doing, but I am ALWAYS willing to try and to learn.

-scott

 

[Hydriv]

Gregg is of course, quite correct. The question that you need to answer for yourself is whether the slightly slower response to the one side actually matters to you. The only way to tell, is for you to operate your loader under real world conditions instead of focusing solely on what's happening in your garage when turning from lock to lock.

In real world conditions, you always try to keep the loader in line as much as possible because in-line is where it is most stable. At full lock is where it is most UN-stable, especially with a loaded bucket in the air.

For sure, you can add the vents but as we all know... there is no such thing as a free lunch. Single acting cylinders are more prone to rust damage than double acting cylinders are. When put into single acting operation, the rod never sees any protective lubricant because there is no oil on that side of the piston. Since we are tossing all this info on the table, the above is just one more thing for you to consider.

As I remarked earlier, the OSPM40 is too small for the cylinders you chose if you want fast response to steering input. The OSPM 80 or 100 would have been a better choice. The alternative would have been to select a pair of cylinders that have 1/2 the internal volume BUT... then you have to wonder if they would have enough force to turn the loader under all operating conditions.

Did someone tell you that this would be easy?



They lied. :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh:

 

[Bill.H]

When put into single acting operation, the rod never sees any protective lubricant because there is no oil on that side of the piston. Since we are tossing all this info on the table, the above is just one more thing for you to consider.

First off, let me say I have very very very little experience with hydraulics, and only a mild understanding of the theory. So I am following this more as a learning experience than anything else. (any suggested learning guides? I did a few searches on google and at amazon, but all I came up with was either college textbooks or very basic stuff, nothing inbetween)

That said, it is my understanding that in this case, if Scott were to go back two cylinders they'd be identical and the same side of each would be unused. Also, the problem with venting them is it would eliminate the oil that protects against rust.

So why not fill those two sides and connect them together with a hose, or 'T' them back to the reservoir? It seems to me you'd just be sloshing the same oil back and forth under no significant pressure, so the load would be miniscule and the oil would prevent rust. Seems cheaper & easier than buying two more cylinders.

I figure there's a 90% chance I just suggested something obviously stupid, and a 5% chance I came up with a solution. I don't know where the last 5% went :grin: