All posts by Josh Pieper

Initial dynamometer assembly

Earlier I showed off a torque transducer and the calibration fixture I used for it. I’ve now got enough assembled to make an entire dynamometer:

This has the torque transducer on one end, coupled to the “fixture” moteus controller through a bearing support. Then that is connected via a 3d printed coupler to the “device under test” moteus controller, which is hard mounted to the base plate. Any net torque between the two controllers will be coupled back to the transducer resulting in a measured torque.

I mounted it all to a nicely machined fixture plate I got from ebay. It’s flexible enough that I can build one for the qdd100 on it as well, although I might just get an entire second setup so that I can leave them both assembled all the time.

Measuring voltage ripple on moteus r4.3

In another discord moment, someone was asking about the difference between electrolytic capacitors and multi-layer ceramic capacitors. That, plus some desire to re-rate the moteus, inspired me to do another sweep and measure the DC bus voltage ripple for various power levels. I captured this plot with a 24V power supply, with a 5008 motor with 0.061 ohm of winding resistance or so, and each current being applied for 300ms. The voltage ripple is peak to peak measured at the power connector.

At the peak power I tested of around 740W, the phase current was 114A. At that level, the motor coil was getting hot much faster than the FETs on the moteus, which implies I need even more capacitance to take advantage of the full current capability of the FETs on the board. Also, the voltage ripple at the peak power I tested was higher than some applications could support.

Torque transducer

I’ve been wanting to build a dynamometer for a while to better characterize the performance of the direct drive and geared versions of the moteus controller. I have now started down that path with a torque transducer, which I calibrated with the below fixture:

I got a what ended up being a low quality load cell amplifier to use with it from the same supplier, although discovered it was total garbage and am now using a SparkFun OpenScale board which seems to be working much better. Soon I’ll hopefully have something wired up that actually has a controller or two on it.

Up-rating the qdd100 beta thermal bounds

When I first posted the qdd100 beta on mjbots.com, I performed a simple “continuous torque” test where I measured the torque that could be applied indefinitely without thermal limiting in a lab environment. It has come to my attention that other servos rate their “continuous torque” for a much lower value of “continuous”, sometimes only 30s. To make the situation clearer, I measured the time to thermal limiting at a range of torques and updated the product page.

For this test, at each torque value I started with the qdd100 in thermal equilibrium with an ambient 20C lab environment, then applied the given torque and waited until thermal throttling set in. No forced airflow was present and no conductive or radiative cooling enhancements were used.

TorqueTime to Thermal Limit
12.5 Nm< 5 s
10 Nm30s
8 Nm120 s
6 Nm300 s
4 Nm800 s
2.5NmIndefinite

quad A1 stand-up sequence part N

I’ve worked through a number of different iterations of the stand-up sequence for the quad A1 (2019-05, 2019-09). The version I’ve been using for the last 6 months or so works pretty well, but because it drags the legs along the ground to get them into position, it can have problems when operating on surfaces with a lot of traction, like EVA foam, besides being uselessly noisy.

To make things just a bit more robust, I’ve now tweaked the startup routine so that the shoulders lift legs clear off the ground before positioning the legs, then lowers them back down into place. This makes the stand up routine much more likely to succeed on just about any surface:

Dealing with stator magnetic saturation

In my previous experiments demonstrating torque feedback (full rate inverse dynamics, ground truth torque testing), I’ve glossed over the fact that as the stator approaches magnetic saturation, the linear relationship between torque and current breaks down. Now finally I’ll take at least one step towards allowing moteus to accurately work in the torque domain as motors reach saturation.

Background

The stator in a rotor consists of windings wrapped around usually an iron core. The iron in the core consists of lots of little sub-domains of magnetized material, that normally are randomly oriented resulting in a net zero magnetic field. As current is applied to the windings, those domains line up, greatly magnifying the resulting magnetic field. Eventually most of the sub-domains are aligned, at which point you don’t get any more magnifying effect from the iron core. In this region, the stator is said to be “saturated”. You can read about it in much more depth on wikipedia or with even more detail here. The end result is a curve of magnetic field versus applied current that looks something like this:

To date, moteus assumes that you are operating completely in the “Linear” region, where the torque and current are linearly related.

Operating in the Rotation Region

To operate in the “rotation” region I ended up using the following formula:

\tau = K_T * I_c + ts * log2(1 + (I - I_c) * is)

Where I is the input current, K_T is the motor torque constant, ts, I_c and is are three constants that I fit to measured torque data. With some approximations, this can be calculated relatively efficiently on the STM32G4 that drives the moteus controller, adding only a microsecond to the overall loop time to go in both directions.

I then ran a torque sweep with my load-cell fixture from before, and sure enough, the input and output torque match much better now across the entire range of operation, despite the fact that the phase current needs to start growing very rapidly near the top end:

Testing qdd100 stator windings

My initial design torque for the qdd100 was a little over 17 Nm. However, when I did my first ground truth torque testing, I found that some servos had a lower maximum torque than I had specified. While working to diagnose those, I built a qdd100 that used an alternate stator winding of 105Kv instead of the 135Kv that are in all the beta units. The Kv rating of a stator describes how fast the motor will spin for a given applied voltage. If you assume the same amount of copper mass of wiring, a lower Kv will mean that there are thinner wires that wrap around the stator more turns (or fewer wires in parallel). A higher Kv will have thicker wires with fewer overall turns.

On paper, if you assume a perfect controller, this shouldn’t make much of a difference. The same input power should be required for the same output torque. The only differences should come into play once you have a controller with either a limited maximum voltage or a limited maximum current. The higher Kv motor will be able to go faster given a fixed maximum voltage, and the lower Kv motor will have more torque for a given maximum current.

I wanted to verify that this was true as part of my evaluation to identify the cause of my decreased torque, so I used a slightly upgraded torque testing fixture:

For now, I rigged up the world’s cheapest load cell from amazon to a Nucleo configured to report the load in grams over the serial port. I also wired up my Chroma power supply over USB using the linux USBTMC driver. With those two things hooked up, I was able to run tests that sweeped across torque commands, while recording output torque, phase current, and input power.

At higher torques, the input power was pretty sensitive to the temperature of the windings — hotter windings increased the resistance, which increased the power required to achieve a given phase current, thus my plot isn’t perfect as it was grabbed over several different runs. For the highest power samples I couldn’t use my Chroma, as it is limited to around 600W. Thus those samples don’t record the input power.

Plotting the input power vs output torque on the same chart shows that indeed, modulo some measurement error, they are the same for the two stators:

So, this experiment reaffirmed my understanding of stator magnetics and confirmed that the stator winding was not the cause of my decreased torque.