Final Final Thesis

Carnegie Mellon University
Design, Construction, and Evaluation of

a Ballbot with a Spherical Induction
Motor
by
Greg Seyfarth
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the

degree of Master of Science
in the
Robotics Institute
Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science
August 2016
CMU-RI-TR-16-44
Declaration of Authorship
I, Greg Seyfarth, declare that this thesis titled, Design, Construction, and Evaluation
of a Ballbot with a Spherical Induction Motor and the work presented in it are my own.
I confirm that:
This work was done wholly or mainly while in candidature for a research degree
at this University.
Where any part of this thesis has previously been submitted for a degree or any
other qualification at this University or any other institution, this has been clearly
stated.
Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly at-
tributed.
Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With
the exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work.
I have acknowledged all main sources of help.
Where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made
clear exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed myself.
i
If you cant control your peanut butter, you cant expect to control your life.
Bill Watterson
Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
Robotics Institute
Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science
Master of Science
by Greg Seyfarth
Ballbots are human-sized, dynamically stable mobile robots that balance on top of a
single spherical wheel. They were originally developed to address fundamental problems
with locomotion in statically stable mobile robots - statically stable mobile robots must
have wide bases and low acceleration to avoid tipping over when moving. This results in
slow, clunky, and fat robots. Dynamically stable mobile robots, such as ballbots, avoid
this problem by balancing actively. Traditional drive mechanisms for ballbots have been
mechanically complex, involving either omniwheels or timing belts and steel rollers. This
work details the design, construction, and evaluation of a ballbot driven with a spherical
induction motor (SIM). The SIM is extremely mechanically simple, with only the rotor
moving with respect to the stators; when used as the drive of a ballbot, it results in a
mobile robot with just two moving parts. This work reports both feasibility experimental
results for SIMbot (spherical induction motor robot) as well as power efficiency results
for SIMbot as compared to the original inverse mouseball drive-based (IMB) ballbot.
We show with experimental evidence that SIMbot has comparable performance to the
IMB-based ballbot but is, in general, 2-3 times less efficient.
Acknowledgements
This work was made possible by many people. I want to acknowledge Ralph Hollis, my
advisor, for all of his help and support. I also want to acknowledge Michael Shomin
for his help and guidance. Lastly, I want to acknowledge Dani Solomon and Pickles for
their unending emotional support.
iv
Contents
Declaration of Authorship i
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Figures viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Ballbot drive mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1 Inverse mouseball drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Omniwheel drive systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3 Spherical induction motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Efficiency while balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 Peak acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.3 Point-to-point motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.4 Top speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Related work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Chapter 1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Spherical Induction Motor 8

2.1 Spherical Induction Motor Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.1 Design and construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2 Ball failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.3 Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.4 Control scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Vector Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Vector Driver Rev 3A Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1.1 Control Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1.2 Power board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1.3 Copper plating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
v
Contents vi
3 SIMbot 19
3.1 SIMbot System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.1 Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1.2 Communication and processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1.3 Legs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.4 Power distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.5 Custom electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.5.1 Current monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1.5.2 Voltage monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1.5.3 I 2 C Distribution Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 SIMbot Control and Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2 Planar model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.3 Control Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.3.1 Vector Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.3.2 Balancing Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3.3 Outer Loop Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3.4 Yaw Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Experimental Results 27
4.1 Feasibility results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1.1 Maintaining zero lean angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.2 Stationkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.3 Point to point motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1.4 Initial lean angle recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1.5 Discussion of feasibility results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2 Vector driver performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.1 Six stator torque measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.2 Three phase driver board performance discussion . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 SIM vs IMB power efficiency and performance results . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.2 Power efficiency while balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.3 Peak acceleration and impulse response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3.4 Power efficiency during an aggressive point-to-point motion . . . . 35
4.3.5 Maximum speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.6 Power efficiency and performance comparison discussion . . . . . . 37
4.5 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A Control Board Rev 3A Schematics 40
B Power Board Rev 3A Schematics 47
C Current Sense Schematic 55

Contents vii
D Vector Driver Code 57
Bibliography 74
List of Figures
1.1 IMB-based Ballbot built at CMU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Inverse mouseball drive (IMB) [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 BallIP, an omniwheel-based ballbot. [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Spherical induction motor (SIM) [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 An open loop hyperbolic secant trajectory [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Spherical induction motor (SIM) CAD model from [4] but originally ap-
pearing in [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 On the left: The crack in the ball. On the right: Demonstration of closing
the crack by hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 On the left: The ball with the top hemisphere removed and set aside. On
the right: The top of the ball after having the hemisphere removed. . . . . 9
2.4 Block diagram of entire vector driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Vector driver designed by Masaaki Kumagai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6 Noise on the supply line of the PIC microcontroller with motor running
at a DC current of 5.8A. The nominal PIC supply voltage is 3.3V. . . . . 12
2.7 Photo of the completed Rev 3A vector driver. The control board is stacked
on top of the power board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.8 A block diagram of the control board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9 Photo of the control board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.10 A block diagram of the power board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.11 On the left: Power board Rev 3A, back, with matching copper plates On
the right: Power board Rev 3A, front, with matching copper plates . . . . 17
2.12 Photo of the method used to fasten the plates to the board. The nylon
spacers are not involved in the fastening process and are only used to hold
the plate up in order to show the solder paste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Block diagram of entire SIMbot system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 Photo of SIMbot next to the author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 CAD model of SIMbot and a depiction of the planar model. . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Block diagram of the current sensing board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.5 Block diagram of the voltage sensing board. VIN is the voltage to be
measured, and R1 and R2 form a voltage divider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6 Block diagram of distribution board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7 Balancing and outer loop controller structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.8 Yaw control block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1 Balancing performance for a single axis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2 Position on the floor during 30 seconds of balancing only. . . . . . . . . . 28
viii
List of Figures ix
4.3 On the left: SIMbots position on the floor while stationkeeping. On the
right: Control input while stationkeeping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4 On the left: SIMbots lean angle tracking during a point-to-point motion.
Desired is the feedforward lean angle plus a feedback control, planned is
the feedforward lean angle only, and actual is SIMbots lean angle. On
the right: SIMbots position tracking during the trajectory. . . . . . . . . 29
4.5 Recovering from an initial lean angle of three degrees. . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.6 Amount of force produced on the ball with a moment arm of 0.125 m. . . 31
4.7 Experimental setup for force and torque measurements. . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.8 Amount of torque produced on the ball by six stators at 48 V and at 60 V. 32
4.9 On the left: Power drawn by and pitch of SIMbot while maintaining zero
lean angle. On the right: Power drawn by and pitch of the IMB-based
ballbot while maintaining zero lean angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.10 On the left: Power drawn by and force applied to SIMbot. On the right:
Power drawn by and force applied to the IMB-based ballbot. . . . . . . . 34
4.11 On the left: Speed of SIMbot during impulse. On the right: Speed of
IMB-based ballbot during impulse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.12 On the left: Lean angle tracking and power drawn for SIMbot during an
aggressive point-to-point motion. On the right: Lean angle tracking and
power drawn for the IMB-based ballbot during an aggressive point-to-
point motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.13 On the left: Velocity tracking during a top speed manuever for SIMbot.
On the right: Velocity tracking for the IMB-based ballbot during a top
speed manuever. The IMB-based ballbot fell at approximately 6.1 seconds. 36
4.14 Interposer ball. Figure courtesy of Ralph Hollis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.1 Top level schematic for the control board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A.2 Schematic for I2 C headers and subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.3 Schematic for the flux angle LEDs and hex inverter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.4 Schematic for the isolators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.5 Schematic for power distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.6 Schematic for the microcontroller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
B.1 Top level schematic for the power board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

B.2 Schematic for current sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B.3 Schematic for switching 12V regulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.4 Schematic for the power bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
B.5 High-level schematic for voltage converter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
B.6 Schematic for RC snubbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B.7 Schematic for the bridge driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C.1 Current sense schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Dedicated to Pickles
x
Chapter 1
Introduction
As interest in mobile robots for service

and domestic use grows, the exact form
factor of a general purpose mobile robot
remains an open question. Since one
would likely want such a general purpose
mobile robot to operate in environments
which were designed by and for humans,
a human form factor seems to be one ob-
vious answer. In practice, this presents
many engineering complexities. Modern
legged humanoid robots have many de-
grees of freedom and are extremely me-
chanically, electrically, and algorithmi-
cally complex. A wheeled robot with three
or more points of contact on the floor is
much simpler and much more feasible, al-
though these types of robots come with a
different set of problems. This kind of mo-
Figure 1.1: IMB-based Ballbot built at CMU
bile robot, which does not have to expend
energy to stay upright, is called statically
stable. A tall, slender, statically stable wheeled robot designed to have a human form
factor must have a very wide base or risk tipping over when accelerating or attempting to
pick up a heavy object. If the vector sum of gravity and the robots acceleration vector
passes outside of its wheel base, this kind of mobile robot will experience a torque which
causes it to tip over. As a result, modern statically stable mobile robots must have
a wide wheel base and limited acceleration. This makes them non-ideal for cluttered
1
2
human environments, as their large footprints take up a lot of space on the floor and
cause difficulty in fitting through tight spaces such as doors.
An alternative to static stability is dynamic stability. A dynamically stable mobile

robot actively balances and must expend energy to stay upright but does not need a
large wheelbase to avoid falling over. This makes it possible to build a tall, slender
mobile robot with a human form factor that has a small footprint and is still able to
accelerate quickly and be agile.
Ballbots are dynamically stable mobile robots that balance on top of a single spherical
wheel. They were originally introduced in 2005 specifically to address the problems
with statically stable mobile robots outlined above [5]. A photo of the original Ballbot
developed at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) can be seen in Figure 1.1. In addition to
the primary benefits of a tall, slender form factor, a small footprint, and fast and graceful
motion, ballbots also benefit from omnidirectionality; natural physical compliance -
bumping into a ballbot simply results in the ballbot rolling away; and the ability to use
their own weight to apply forces to objects and people by leaning.
1.1 Ballbot drive mechanisms
Over the years, two primary types of drive

mechanisms have been used in ballbots
- the inverse mouseball drive (IMB) and
omni-wheel based drive mechanisms. The
main focus of this work is the demonstra-
tion of a novel third type of drive mecha-
nism - a spherical induction motor.
1.1.1 Inverse mouseball drive
The CMU Ballbot relies on an inverse

mouseball drive, or IMB. The IMB is Figure 1.2: Inverse mouseball drive (IMB) [1]
shown in Figure 1.2. Four timing belts
connect dc motors to stainless steel rollers.
The stainless steel rollers squeeze the
polyurethane covered ball and transmit the motor rotation to the ball. This drive sys-
tem has proven very successful over the years, but suffers from two main disadvantages.
The first is that it is reasonably mechanically complex; for instance, the timing belts can
3
wear and require maintenance. The second is that it has excessive friction. The rollers
that are parallel to the direction of motion of the ball must slip along the balls surface.
1.1.2 Omniwheel drive systems
The second primary type of drive system used in ballbots is an omniwheel-based system.
In this drive system, typically three omniwheels support the weight of the robot and
rest on top of the ball. The first use of omniwheels in a ballbot that the author is aware
of is BallIP, shown in Figure 1.3 [2]. Rezero is a second example of an omniwheel-based
system and was developed shortly after BallIP at ETH Zurich [6].
Omniwheel drive systems have their own

set of advantages and disadvantages.
They do not suffer from the same friction
problem as the IMB and do not need tim-
ing belts. On the other hand, the omni-
wheels themselves are extremely mechan-
ically complex and consist of hundreds of
tiny moving parts. Furthermore, the om-
niwheels must be of a certain minimum
size to have the load capacity to support
the entire weight of the robot in designs
with omniwheels on the top of the ball.
This makes it difficult to obtain a suffi-
cient speed reduction between the motors
and the ball, which in turn often results in
the use of gears. Note that the IMB ben-
efits from a large gear reduction between
the motors and the ball due to the pres-
ence of the stainless steel rollers. Gears
introduce friction and backlash.
Figure 1.3: BallIP, an omniwheel-based ball-
Additionally, the body of the robot can bot. [2]
turn freely with respect to the ball; this
introduces an additional control challenge
as the robot must use its drive system to maintain a constant heading. In the IMB, the
body does not turn freely with respect to the ball and a separate yaw mechanism is used
to control the heading of the robot.
4
1.1.3 Spherical induction motor
The primary focus of this work explores the application of a novel spherical induction
motor developed previously in the Microdynamic Systems Laboratory as the drive sys-
tem of a ballbot [3]. A short overview is provided here to motivate the primary research
question, but a more detailed and technical overview can be found in Section 2.
The spherical induction motor (SIM) is

shown in Figure 1.4. It consists of a hollow
steel ball with an outer copper shell which
rests on a set of six passive nylon ball
transfers inside the motor frame. Six sta-
tors are positioned around the circumfer-
ence of the ball. Each stator is driven by
a custom three-phase motor driver which
controls the amount of force applied to the
ball by the stator.
The SIM is extremely mechanically simple

and the motivation for using it as the drive
system for a ballbot is to create a high-
performance mobile robot with just two Figure 1.4: Spherical induction motor (SIM)
[3]
moving parts.
1.2 Research question
The goal of this research is to address how a ballbot driven with a spherical induction
motor differs from a ballbot driven with an IMB with respect to power efficiency as well
as performance.
Our working hypothesis is that SIMbots performance will generally fall below that of
the IMB-driven ballbot.
It is known from prior work that the SIM is only capable of generating 8 Nm; this limi-
tation was primarily due to the current carrying capability of the drive electronics. New
drive electronics were designed (see Sec. 2.2) and able to demonstrate up to roughly 14
Nm with the primary limitation being the battery voltage, but this still falls significantly
below the 40 Nm that the IMB-based ballbot is able to generate. Furthermore, the step
response of the SIM with respect to a torque input is on the order of 100 ms, which is
expected to degrade control performance [3]. This rise time is due to the inductance in
5
the stator windings. The SIM also suffers from stator end-effects - the magnetic field at
the ends of the stators cannot be tightly controlled.
From an efficiency perspective, the SIM benefits from much improved friction relative
to the IMB as the SIM has no rollers which squeeze the ball. This may also improve
the performance of the controller. Additionally, the SIM is direct drive, so there is no
power loss due to gearing or a transmission.
To investigate these trade-offs, two sets of experiments were designed and carried out.
The first set was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of a ballbot driven with a spher-
ical induction motor. These are detailed in Section 4.1. The second set was designed
to address the performance and efficiency questions directly. The set of experiments
detailed below were originally proposed by Ralph Hollis. For the experiments described
below which directly compare SIMbot to the IMB Ballbot, additional mass will need
to be added to SIMbot to ensure a fair comparison between the two drive systems as
SIMbot is lighter than the IMB Ballbot.
1.2.1 Efficiency while balancing
A dynamically stable mobile robot must expend energy to stay upright - minimizing
this energy expenditure is important as the robot will likely spend much of its time
simply balancing in one place in normal operation. In theory, the energy expenditure
of a ballbot should approach zero under the condition of no external disturbances while
balancing; in practice, of course, the fact that the robot is balancing about an unstable
equilibrium combined with inevitable error and noise in the orientation estimate will lead
to appreciable energy expenditure while balancing. To compare the energy expenditure
of SIMbot and the IMB-based ballbot while balancing, the current drawn by the motors
and the voltage across the motors will be measured while the robots are operating.
1.2.2 Peak acceleration
A unique advantage of ballbots is that they are naturally physically compliant; if a

person walks into a ballbot, the ballbot simply rolls away. In order to maintain balance
under such a disturbance, the ballbot needs to be able to accelerate quickly enough
to keep the ball under the center of mass of the body. In order to evaluate the peak
acceleration of SIMbot relative to the IMB-based ballbot, an Imada force gauge will
be used to measure impulses applied to the two robots. Energy efficiency as well as
performance will be evaluated during this experiment.
6
Figure 1.5: An open loop hyperbolic secant trajectory [1]
1.2.3 Point-to-point motions
A basic task for robots is to move from point to point. To evaluate energy efficiency and
performance in doing so, hyperbolic secant lean angle trajectories of the form
2t tm t0 2t tf tm
(t) = 1 sech(k ) + 2 sech(k ) (1.1)
tm t0 tf tm
where tm = (tf + t0 )/2 and k and 1 and 2 are constants. A plot of this trajectory can
be seen in Figure 1.5. These lean angle trajectories will be commanded in an open-loop
style with no feedback based on ball position. This will allow for an accurate comparison
between the two robots.
1.2.4 Top speed
A final metric for characterizing the performance of the IMB-based ballbot and SIMbot
is top speed. The IMB-based ballbot has already demonstrated speeds comparable to
human walking. Trajectories with gentle accelerations and over long distances (> 4 m)
will allow for the measurement of the top speed of both robots.
1.3 Related work
A number of ballbots have been built and tested over the past ten years. The original was
the IMB-based ballbot built at CMU [5]. See [1] for the most recent published overview of
this ballbot. BallIP was constructed by Masaaki Kumagai at Tohoku Gakuin University
in Sendai, Japan. It was the first example of an omniwheel based design [2]. Rezero,
another omniwheel-based design, was built at ETH Zurich [6].
7
The SIM itself was originally introduced in 2013 [7]. Prior to its development, the
sensing scheme used to track the ball velocity was developed in [8], and a linear induction
motor was developed in [9]. Vector control methods for linear induction motors were
investigated and developed in [10]. A larger, more capable SIM, intended for driving a
ballbot, was developed in [3].
Prior to the development of the SIM, a number of spherical motors had been developed,
but none of them had the torque or speed characteristics necessary for driving a ball-
bot [11] [12] [13]. To the best of the authors knowledge, this work outlines the first
exploration of a ballbot driven with a spherical induction motor.
1.4 Chapter 1 Conclusion
In this section, the main types of ballbot drive mechanisms were introduced. The two
primary types of drive mechanisms - omniwheel-based systems and the IMB - both
have proven successful over the years, but each is reasonably mechanically complex and
has room for improvement. A new drive system, the SIM, was briefly introduced and
its potential advantages and disadvantages were discussed. It is hypothesized that the
performance of the SIM-based ballbot, or SIMbot, will fall below that of the IMB-based
ballbot due to lower torque, stator end-effects, and a relatively large rise time with
respect to torque control. It is also hypothesized that the efficiency of SIMbot may be
higher than that of the IMB-based ballbot due to lower friction in the drive system. A
list of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of a ballbot driven with the
SIM were presented. The experiments are designed to test top speed, peak acceleration,
and power efficiency while balancing and performing point-to-point motions.
Chapter 2
Spherical Induction Motor
2.1 Spherical Induction Motor Overview
This section outlines the design, construction, modeling, and control of the spherical
induction motor. The particular SIM described in this section was originally presented
in [3], and the details of the SIM are included here for completeness.
2.1.1 Design and construction
A picture of the SIM is shown in Fig. 2.1. Note that this particular SIM was constructed
and described in [3]. The SIM consists of the ball, or rotor, the six stators, the supporting
frame, and a set of three optical gaming mouse sensors which are used to track the
angular velocity of the rotor.
The ball consists of a hollow soft

steel 6.35 mm thick core plated
with a 1.3 mm copper shell. The
hollow soft steel core was con-
structed by oven brazing together
two steel hemispheres and then
electroplating the outside of the
resulting sphere with solder. The
copper hemispheres were simi-
larly electroplated on their interi-
ors. The two copper hemispheres
were then shrink-fitted over the
steel core by cooling the core, Figure 2.1: Spherical induction motor (SIM) CAD
model from [4] but originally appearing in [3].
8
9
(a) Figure A (b) Figure B
Figure 2.2: On the left: The crack in the ball. On the right: Demonstration of closing
the crack by hand
Figure 2.3: On the left: The ball with the top hemisphere removed and set aside. On
the right: The top of the ball after having the hemisphere removed.
heating the copper hemispheres

to just below the melting point
of the solder, and then clamping the hemispheres onto the steel core in an oven in order
to reflow the plated solder and fuse the copper and steel together.
The six stators were constructed from stacks of laser cut electrical steel bonded together
with 3M Scotchcast. They were designed to have a nominal 1 mm spacing from the rotor.
Each stator has 12 slots which are wound with 19 AWG double polyimide insulated wire
in a three-phase, four-pole delta winding scheme. Note that the stators are skewed at
10 from the rotor polar axis; this allows the SIM to produce torques around all three
axes, while biasing it towards motion in the x- and y-axes.
The supporting frame was constructed from 7075-T6 aluminum. It also has mounting
points for the six nylon ball transfers used to support the rotor as well as the three
optical gaming mouse sensors. The main mounting deck has mounting points for the six
vector drivers. Each vector driver runs a variant of a sensorless field oriented controller,
which is described in more detail in Section 2.1.4.
10
2.1.2 Ball failure
In the course of this work, the ball used by SIMbot was discovered to have cracked along
the great circle joining the two copper hemispheres. A photo of the crack is shown in
Fig. 2.2(a). It was hoped that the copper hemispheres were securely bonded to the
iron core by the solder in between the core and the hemispheres, but it was possible to
expand and contract the crack by hand - see Fig. 2.2(b).
In order to diagnose the problem, this particular ball was split open with a screw driver.
One of the copper hemispheres was securely bonded to the iron core, but the other was
not and was removed. A photo of the copper hemisphere and ball with the hemisphere
removed can be seen in Fig. 2.3(a). A noticeable amount of rust can be seen towards
the top of the ball, as well as a liquid-like grey substance on roughly one half of the
hemisphere and the core in Fig. 2.3(b).
2.1.3 Modeling
The modeling scheme for the SIM comes from [3] and was originally developed, though
for a different arrangement of stators, in [7]. The SIM is modeled as having six forces
applied to the rotor, with each force originating at the center of a stator. The forces
are assumed to be parallel to each stator. It is possible [3] to derive a linear mapping
from the six stator forces F to the torque on the ball . Specifically, let F R6 be the
vector consisting of the six stator forces, and let R3 be the three-dimensional torque
applied to the ball. Then we can derive a matrix Ma such that
Ma F = (2.1)
To apply a particular desired torque d to the ball, we use the pseudo-inverse of Ma ,

denoted Ma+ , to obtain the vector F with the shortest L2 norm that satisfies Ma F = d .
This makes sense in practice as we could reasonably assume that the power drawn by
the motor is proportional to the length of the force vector F .
The rotor angular velocity is sensed by the three mouse sensors mounted about the
equator of the rotor. This particular scheme and modeling approach was originally
developed in [8] and re-used again in [3] and [7]. The three mouse sensors sense surface
velocities vxi and vyi for i = 1, 2, 3. We can similarly [3] derive a linear mapping from the
angular velocity of the rotor R3 to the six surfaces velocities contained in a vector
V R6 , resulting in
11
Ms = V (2.2)
where Ms is the sensor matrix. Since Ms R6x3 , this system is overconstrained and
multiplying the pseudo inverse of the sensor matrix, denoted Ms+ , with the measured
surface velocities results in a least-squares solution for the rotor angular velocity.
2.1.4 Control scheme
The six stators are each force-controlled by an associated vector driver. The vector
drivers run a variant of a sensorless field oriented controller previously developed in [10].
At a high level, field oriented control works by splitting the magnetic field generated by
the stators into two components, a q component and a d component, which separately
control the torque and the magnetic field induced in the rotor. Modulating the q compo-
nent then allows for straightforward force (or torque, in a traditional single-axis motor)
control, and the force generated by the stators generally follows
F Iq Id (2.3)
where Iq and Id are the commanded currents along the q and d axes. The d component of
current is generally referred to as the magnetizing current and generates zero torque but
must be present for the motor to work - this results in relatively high power consumption
even at zero torque.
2.2 Vector Drivers
The previously described control scheme

is implemented on a circuit board, re-
ferred to as a vector driver. A high-level
block diagram of the vector driver can be
seen in Fig. 2.4. Block diagrams with
much more detail can be found in sec-
tions 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2. The microcon-
troller (a dsPIC33FJ64MC202-E/SO) im- Figure 2.4: Block diagram of entire vector
plements the control scheme at 10 kHz. driver
It receives current measurements for the
three phases, labeled IR , IS , and IT , for phases R, S, and T, respectively, via three Hall
effect current sensors (Allegro ACS758). These current readings are pushed through
12
the control scheme on the microcontroller, which then sets the duty cycles for three
complementary PWM signals (six total PWM outputs) labeled 1H, 1L, 2H, 2L, 3H, and
3L. These signals are inverted relative to the desired MOSFET states; a high PWM
signal from the microcontroller corresponds to a MOSFET being non-conductive. The
PWM signals are input into a three-phase gate driver which works in conjunction with a
charge pump to apply the PWM signals to the six MOSFET gates. The six MOSFETs
are wired in a standard three-phase power bridge configuration. A shunt resistor on the
low side of the power bridge provides over-current monitoring. The gate driver has an
over-current protection pin which will halt the gate signals if the voltage applied to this
pin is over a certain threshold (generally about 0.4 V).
There have been three different designs of the vector drivers in use by the SIM.
The first version was designed by Masaaki Kumagai, a professor from Tohoku Gakuin
University in Japan who worked in the Microdynamics Systems Laboratory for a year.
In addition to all of his work on the SIM, Masaaki also constructed BallIP [2], shown in
Fig. 1.3. This version of the vector driver worked reliably, but was not designed to carry
high currents. This limits the amount of torque that the SIM can produce. A photo of
this version of the vector driver can be seen in Fig. 2.5.
The second version was designed by Ankit

Bhatia, a masters student working in the
Microdynamics Systems Lab, at the end
of 2014. The major difference between
this version and Masaakis version is the
use of heavier 2 oz copper and much wider
power bridge traces; both of these differ-
ences are intended to facilitate higher cur-
rents. Other small improvements include Figure 2.5: Vector driver designed by Masaaki
Kumagai
on-board rotor flux angle LED indicators,
higher current Hall effect sensors, and a 12 V dc-dc converter that accepts inputs of up
to 140 V.
The main problem with this version was

electrical noise, presumably from the
MOSFET switching. The noise was so
extreme that it consistently caused the
microcontroller to reset itself at currents
past roughly 5 A. A plot of the microcon-
troller supply voltage, measured directly
at the supply and ground pins, can be seen
Figure 2.6: Noise on the supply line of the

PIC microcontroller with motor running at a DC
current of 5.8A. The nominal PIC supply voltage
is 3.3V.
13
in Fig. 2.6. A number of passive filter

solutions were attempted but none were
found which worked reliably. After sev-
eral months of work on this version of the
board, it was finally decided to split the
control and power portions of the board into two boards for isolation purposes. In addi-
tion to electrical isolation, a two board solution also improves modularity - the control
and power boards are all interchangeable and any failures are better isolated.
The third version of the board was designed by the author and Olaf Sassnick, a visiting
student from Austria. The author designed and laid out the control board, and Olaf
Sassnick designed and laid out the power board. After an initial build, the author then
made a number of changes to the power board to improve ringing and fix other signal
conditioning issues, resulting in a version 3A.
2.2.1 Vector Driver Rev 3A Overview
Figure 2.7: Photo of the completed Rev 3A vector driver. The control board is
stacked on top of the power board.
The following two subsections give a more in-depth overview of the control board and
power board. Rev 3A consists of two boards, a control board and a power board, which
fit together with a 6-pin header and a 10-pin header. A photo of the completed board
can be seen in Fig. 2.7.
14
2.2.1.1 Control Board
A block diagram of the control board can be seen in Fig. 2.8, and a photo of the board
can be seen in Fig. 2.9.
Figure 2.8: A block diagram of the control board.
The board is powered from an external 6 V supply, labeled 6VCEN T in the block diagram,
delivered via the RJ45 connectors from the central I2 C distribution board. An external
5 V signal, labeled 5VCEN T , is used only for the differential I2 C signal. The 6 V signal is
converted to 5 V, labeled 5VCB , which exits the board through the lower 6 pin header and
powers the three Hall effect sensors on the power board. The feedback signal from the
Hall effect sensors is dropped to 3.3 V via a voltage divider before connecting to the ADC
on the PIC microcontroller. The 5VCB is also converted to 3.3 V, labeled 3.3VCB , which
powers the microcontroller and the various indicator LEDs. A differential I 2 C signal,
labeled dI2 C, enters the board via the RJ45 connectors, is converted to single-ended
I 2 C via a differential driver (NXP PCA9615), and finally travels to the microcontroller.
The board has pads for differential biasing resistors (R9-R14) which should only be
populated if the particular control board is at the end of a differential I 2 C run. They
help to eliminate signal reflections on the bus. See the NXP PCA9615 datasheet for
additional information.
The microcontroller outputs six PWM signals, made up of three complementary pairs,
into a digital isolator (Silicon Labs Si8660) which electrically separates the control logic
from the high power board. These PWM signals then travel through the 10 pin header,
down to the power board, and into the gate driver.
15
The 10 pin header also

provides a 12 V supply, 6 pin header
labeled 12VP B , from the

power board. This 12 PIC MCU
V supply is converted to I2C
Digital differential
5 V, labeled 5VP B , on isolator driver
10 pin
the control board and header
is then used to supply PicKIT
the power board side of header
RJ45 socket
the digital isolators as
well as six LEDs indi-
cating the rotor flux an-
gle. Note that both of Figure 2.9: Photo of the control board.
these signals physically
exist on the control board but are electrically isolated from the control logic via the
digital isolators. The LEDs are driven by a hex inverter in order to avoid affecting the
PWM signals - it was observed that the presence of the LEDs resulted in a strange
quad-state PWM signal (instead of a binary on-off signal) and using the hex inverter
protects the PWM signals from the LEDs. The microcontroller can be reprogrammed
with a PicKIT via the 6 pin header labeled PICKIT along the right edge of the board.
The control board has 10 LEDs in total. Six are the previously mentioned rotor flux
indicator LEDs. There is also an orange LED indicating the presence of the 6 V supply,
a green LED indicating the presence of the 5 V supply on the control board side, a blue
LED which is connected to a free pin on the microcontroller and which can be used for
debugging, and a red LED which indicates a gate driver fault. If the power board is not
receiving 48 V, then the fault LED will be on.
2.2.1.2 Power board
A block diagram of the power board can be seen in Fig. 2.10. The board receives an
input of 48 V (but should be able to handle 96 V as well) which gets converted to 12
V by a switching DC-DC converter. The 12 V supply powers the gate driver and the
overcurrent amplifier. The gate driver receives the six (inverted) PWM signals via the
10-pin header to the control board. The signals are inverted by the gate driver and sent
to the MOSFET gates. The high side signals operate with a charge pump to bring them
to the input voltage + 12 V in order to turn on the high side MOSFETs.
16
Figure 2.10: A block diagram of the power board.
The six MOSFETs are wired in a standard three-phase power bridge configuration, with
the midpoint of each pair of MOSFETs going out to the motor windings. Each MOSFET
has an RC snubber across its drain and source pins to suppress EMI and avoid overshoot
when they are switched on. The current through each of the three phases is measured
by a Hall effect sensor. The measurement pins of the sensor are isolated from the power,
ground, and output pins. The sensors are powered by the control board and also send
their measurements back to the control board via the 6 pin header.
The MOSFETs used in this revision of the power board have roughly one half of the on
resistance of the MOSFETs used in version 1. This drastically reduces the power lost to
heat and, combined with larger heatsinks and the copper plating described below, helps
to eliminate overheating problems.
2.2.1.3 Copper plating
A main feature of the power board is the copper plating used on the bridge. Manufac-
turing circuit boards from heavy copper (more than 2 oz) is expensive, and it is also
extremely difficult to get heavy copper boards manufactured with plated through holes
and/or fine pitch pads and traces. Only the bridge traces need to support large currents,
but there are a number of supporting components with very finely spaced pins or pads;
the Hall effect sensors, for example, have three finely spaced pins (Vdd, Gnd, and Vout),
and the sensors must be placed physically near the bridge.
17
(a) (b)
Figure 2.11: On the left: Power board Rev 3A, back, with matching copper plates
On the right: Power board Rev 3A, front, with matching copper plates
To allow for high currents on the bridge, plated through holes, and fine pitch components
all on a single circuit board, it was decided to have 20 mil (0.020 inches) thick multi-
purpose 110 copper sheets lasercut into small plates that match the traces on the bridge.
The lasercutting was done by FedTech at a price of $302.40 for 20 sets of plates. The
matching traces on the bridge were left exposed with no solder mask covering them.
Additionally, small holes for rivets were placed in the traces and matching holes were
cut into the copper plates.
Fastening the plates to the boards consisted of 1) applying solder paste to the exposed
bridge traces on the circuit board, 2) fastening the copper plates to the circuit board with
rivets, and 3) baking the board in a reflow oven to heat all of the solder paste uniformly.
As there are plates on both sides of the circuit board, the rivets are necessary to hold
the plates on the bottom of the board during the reflow process. Attempting to solder
the plates to the board by hand would be impractical as the plates are very large and
difficult to heat with a single iron. See Fig. 2.12 for a photo demonstrating the method
of attaching the plates to the board. Note that the nylon spacers in the photo are only
used to hold the plate up to expose for the solder paste for the purposes of the picture.
Copper plate Solder paste Brass rivet

Nylon spacer
Figure 2.12: Photo of the method used to fasten the plates to the board. The nylon
spacers are not involved in the fastening process and are only used to hold the plate up
in order to show the solder paste.
18
To improve solderability and to prevent the copper from corroding over time, the copper
plates were bathed in a liquid tin solution (MG Chemicals Liquid Tin, solution 421) to
plate them in tin. A picture of the tin-plated copper plates can be seen in Figs. 2.11(a)
and 2.11(b).
A more technical overview of the spherical induction motor (SIM) was given. The
construction of the stators, windings, and frame was discussed. The angular velocity of
the SIM is sensed using a set of three optical gaming mouse sensors. Torque control is
obtained by approximating each stator as applying a force parallel to the stators long
dimension and deriving a linear mapping from the set of six stator forces to the torque
applied on the ball. The design of a new set of vector drivers was presented; the new
vector drivers split the high-power and control sections of the board onto two physically
different circuit boards for isolation purposes. The high-power board has custom copper
plates fastened to the power bridge with brass rivets and solder for facilitating high
currents.
Chapter 3
SIMbot
3.1 SIMbot System Overview
48V battery pack

(4 x LC-R1272P)
Figure 3.1: Block diagram of entire SIMbot system.
The previously described SIM was flipped over and bolted to the bottom of a ballbot
frame, resulting in SIMbot. A picture of SIMbot can be seen in Fig. 3.2. A general
19
20
block diagram overview of the entire SIMbot system can be seen in Fig. 3.1. Portions
of this chapter come from a previously published paper [4].
3.1.1 Sensing
SIMbot uses a VectorNavTM VN-100 in-

ertial measurement unit (IMU) for sens-
ing body angles and body angular rates.
The VN-100 has an onboard Kalman fil-
ter which provides estimates of the sensor
attitude.
SIMbot relies on the previously described

set of three AvagoTM ADNS-9800 optical
gaming mouse sensors, shown in Fig. 2.1,
positioned at 120 increments along the
equator of the ball to sense the balls an-
gular velocity. The mouse sensors report
the number of counts of displacement at
134 counts per millimeter by tracking the
surface texture of the balls surface.
3.1.2 Communication and pro-

cessing
SIMbot uses an IntelTM NUC 5i5MYHE Figure 3.2: Photo of SIMbot next to the au-
thor.
running the QNX real-time operating sys-
tem to perform all balancing calculations.
This real-time computer communicates
with the VectorNavTM VN-100 IMU via
serial, the leg motor drivers via an I2C bus, and the SIM vector drivers and mouse inter-
face via a second I2C bus. The mouse interface is an intermediate PIC microcontroller
which reads the three individual mouse sensors via an SPI bus. We convert the real-time
computers native USB to I2C and serial with Devantech USB-ISS modules.
The real-time computer closes the balance controller loop at 200 Hz, currently limited
by overhead introduced by converting from USB to I2C. It is expected that the control
loop rate can be improved by switching to native I2C communication. An IntelTM NUC
D34010WYK performs trajectory generation. This computer will be used for other
21
high-level computations such as navigation and perception in the future. It runs Robot
Operating System (ROS) on Ubuntu Linux, giving access to many existing packages for
navigation and mapping.
3.1.3 Legs
SIMbot has three legs which are concep-

tually identical to those used on the IMB-
drive ballbot. The legs are used only for
stability when SIMbot is powered down.
Each leg is driven by a linear drive screw
powered by a dc motor with an attached
quadrature encoder. The end of each leg
has a spring-loaded limit switch with a
ball caster. The limit switch detects con-
tact with the floor and with the body
when the legs are going down and up, re-
spectively. Each leg is run by a separate
motor driver with an integrated PID con-
troller for velocity control of each individ-
ual leg.
Figure 3.3: CAD model of SIMbot and a de-
piction of the planar model.
3.1.4 Power distribution
The main power is supplied by four 12.7

V 7.2 A-h lead acid batteries (Panasonic LC-R127R2P1) wired in series. These batteries
are connected to the six motor controllers to supply them with 48 V as well as an isolated
DC-DC converter (Delta Electronics B62SR12424A) which accepts as input 18-106 V
and outputs 12.4 V. The 12.4 V supplies the three leg motors and their controllers,
both Intel NUCs, and another dc-dc converter which outputs 6V. The 6 V supply is
distributed to the six control boards, and is also converted down to 3.3 V to supply the
ADNS9800 controller. The power distribution scheme can be seen in the general block
diagram for the entire system in Fig. 3.1.
3.1.5 Custom electronics
In addition to the six motor controllers, a number of other custom circuit boards were
developed for SIMbot.
22
3.1.5.1 Current monitoring
To facilitate power efficiency tests, a custom current monitoring board was developed.
The two standard methods of measuring current are 1) measuring the voltage drop
across a small resistor, called a shunt resistor, placed in series with the load and 2) using
the Hall effect. It was decided to use a Hall effect sensor as it has minimal impact on
the circuit under measurement and also allows for isolated measurement; since the Intel
NUC, which receives the current readings via USB, is on the other side of the batteries
relative to the isolated 12 V dc dc converter, an isolated measurement is necessary.
The board uses an ACS758 Hall effect sen-

sor - the same used on the motor con-
I- I+
trollers - which is read by an analog-to- Current Sensor

(ACS758)
digital converter (ADC). Both the sen- Vout

USB USB-SPI 5V
sor and the ADC are powered by a pre- 5V
Bridge
(CP2130) SPI
3.3V
cision voltage reference (REF196). The

ADC outputs its readings via SPI through
a USB-SPI bridge (Silicon Labs CP2130) Figure 3.4: Block diagram of the current sens-
ing board.
which allows the Intel NUC to read the
current measurements and publish them
to ROS. The ADC is read at 700 Hz and low pass filtered with a cutoff frequency of 300
Hz. A block diagram of the board can be seen in Fig. 3.4.
3.1.5.2 Voltage monitoring
The voltage supplied to the motor con-

trollers is monitored by an ADC (Lin-
7805 9V Battery
ear Technology LTC2471) which outputs Regulator 9V
5V2
its readings over I 2 C. A voltage divider USB
FT232H Breakout
5V1
5V1 I2C1 I2C2

drops the motor voltage to the ADCs in-
put range of 0 to 1.25 V. The readings are VIN
passed through a digital isolator in order

to allow the readings to be read by the Figure 3.5: Block diagram of the voltage sens-
ing board. VIN is the voltage to be measured,
high level Intel NUC. The I 2 C signal is
and R1 and R2 form a voltage divider.
converted to USB by an FT232H break-
out board from Adafruit on the Intel NUC side of the isolation barrier. The voltage
readings are then published to ROS by the high level NUC at 100 Hz.
The high-voltage side of the isolation barrier is powered by a 9 V battery, which is input
into a 7805 dc-dc regulator in order to provide 5 V to the ADC and the digital isolator.
23
This board was built by hand to avoid the turnaround time necessary for custom circuit
boards.
A block diagram of the board can be seen in Fig. 3.5.
3.1.5.3 I 2 C Distribution Board
12V
I2C
(from Intel NUC
via USB-ISS)
Figure 3.6: Block diagram of distribution board
The I 2 C bus which runs between the six motor controllers and the mouse master is
distributed via a custom distribution board. A block diagram of the board can be seen
in Fig. 3.6. The board takes as input a 12 V supply and a single-ended I 2 C bus. It
outputs 6 V, 5 V, 3.3 V, a differential I 2 C signal, and the single-ended I 2 C signal. The
6 V rail powers the six control boards. The 5 V rail powers the differential side of the
I 2 C bus. The 3.3 V rail powers the mouse master board.
3.2 SIMbot Control and Modeling
3.2.1 Dynamics
1) Modeling assumptions: Following the approach of the IMB-based ballbot (see [1], the
dynamics of SIMbot are simplified to two linearized planar models, one in the median
sagittal plane and one in the median coronal plane. The model is based on several
assumptions:
The motion in the median and sagittal plane is decoupled
The motion in each of these two planes is identical

24
The ball rolls without slipping
The floor is flat and level
These assumptions are reasonable as the coupling between sagittal and coronal planes
is through products of body angular rates and body lean angles, both of which should
be very small. As a result, the linearized 3D model is, in fact, decoupled in the sagittal
and coronal plane. Using the two planar models, we design two identical stabilizing PID
controllers.
3.2.2 Planar model
The SIMbot in each orthogonal plane is abstracted to a rigid rectangle on top of a rigid
disk. As shown in Fig. 3.3, state variables and define the ball angle and body lean
angle respectively. The equations of motion for the planar ballbot are as follows:
" #

M (q)q + C(q, q) + G(q) + D(q, q) = , (3.1)
0
where q = [, ]T is the generalized coordinate vector, M (q) is the inertia matrix, C(q, q)
is the Coriolis matrix, G(q) defines the gravitational forces, D(q, q) are an approximation
of the frictional forces acting on the ball and is the applied torque between body and
ball. These terms have been worked out in detail in numerous previous works; refer to
[1]. It is interesting to note that although the SIM itself is overactuated, SIMbot is an
underactuated system, having no actuator which directly controls its body lean angle.
3.2.3 Control Architecture
The SIMbot control scheme is based on three nested controllers. The controller at
the lowest level is encapsulated by the balancing controller and finally the outer loop
controller. A nested yaw controller is responsible for achieving the desired yaw angles.
Fig. 3.7 shows the balancing controller nested inside the outer loop controller and Fig.
3.8 details the yaw controller.
3.2.3.1 Vector Controller
The lowest level controller is a field-oriented vector control scheme: one for each of the
six stators in the SIM. This was discussed in more detail previously in Section 2.1.4.
25
3.2.3.2 Balancing Controller
+ +
- + -
Figure 3.7: Balancing and outer loop controller structure
The balancing controller maintains a given lean angle setpoint. This is a conventional
hand tuned PID controller identical to the one used on the IMB-drive ballbot [1]. Two
instances of this controller handle balancing in each of the orthogonal directions. The
balancing controller determines the torque to be generated by the SIM in order to
maintain the lean angle setpoint des . A saturation on output torque prevents the
controller from requesting more than 8 Nm from the SIM to avoid overstressing a vector
driver. After the installation of the new vector drivers (see Sec. 2.2), this limit was
raised to 14 Nm. With the new vector drivers, the primary limitation was found to be
the battery voltage - see Sec. 4.2.1. A block diagram of the balancing controller can be
seen in Fig. 3.7.
3.2.3.3 Outer Loop Controller
The outer loop controller tracks the desired ball position by outputting desired body
lean angles. The error between desired ball position des and the observed ball position
is driven to zero using the PD controller. The outer loop controller can act as a station-
keeping controller which maintains ball position or as a trajectory tracking controller
for point-to-point motions. A block diagram of the outer loop controller can be seen in
Fig. 3.7.
3.2.3.4 Yaw Controller
In order to command a desired yaw azimuth of the robot, a nested PID controller
commands yaw torques through the actuator matrix. The controller (see Fig. 3.8)
consists of an inner loop PI controller that closes the loop on yaw angular velocity
and an outer loop PD controller feeding back yaw angle (integrated from yaw angular
velocity reported by the IMU) and velocity. The output of both controllers is saturated
to prevent high yaw torques.
26
+
-
+ -
Figure 3.8: Yaw control block diagram
An overview of the entire SIMbot system was given. SIMbots main sensor is a VectorNav
VN-100, which outputs filtered attitude estimates. SIMbot has a high-level and a low-
level computer; the high-level computer runs ROS and handles navigation and planning,
and the low-level computer handles the main control loop. Power is provided by four
12V lead-acid batteries wired in series. Custom electronics were developed to measure
and report via ROS the current drawn by the motor and the voltage across the motor.
SIMbot relies on a nested control scheme. At the lowest level, the six vector drivers run
a force controller. The balancing controller, one level above the vector drivers, outputs
desired torques in the x-z and y-z plane according to a PID control law. The outer loop
controller outputs desired lean angles based on ball position or velocity, which get fed
to the balancing controller for tracking.
Chapter 4
Experimental Results
This chapter reports results which 1) demonstrate the feasibility of SIMbot, 2) demon-
strate the performance of the new vector drivers, and 3) compare SIMbot to the IMB-
based ballbot directly on metrics such as top speed, peak acceleration, and power effi-
ciency. These results can be found in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, respectively.
4.1 Feasibility results
This section details a set of experiments published in [4] which demonstrate the feasi-
bility of the SIMbot. Note that all of these experiments were performed prior to the
development of the new driver boards and as such the torque on the ball was limited to
roughly 8 Nm. Four experiments were performed: balancing while maintaining a zero
lean angle, stationkeeping, a short point-to-point motion, and recovery from an initial
lean angle. For all experiments, position data was obtained from the mouse sensors on
the SIM and orientation data was obtained using the IMU on SIMbot. All experiments
were performed on 9.5 mm thick soft foam tiles to protect the soft copper layer of the
ball. The tiles add additional rolling resistance which makes it easier for the robot to
balance, since the tiles damp the motion of the ball.
27
28
Figure 4.1: Balancing performance for a single axis.
4.1.1 Maintaining zero lean angle
See Fig. 4.1 for the pitch angle

and torque used to control the
pitch angle during thirty seconds
of SIMbot attempting to main- End
tain a zero lean angle. This ex-
periment was free from distur-
Time (s)
Y (mm)
bances. SIMbot is able to main-

tain a zero degree lean angle to -
within 0.15. Fig. 4.2 shows SIM-
-
bots position over the same 30 Start
s. Despite not explicitly control- -
-
ling for position, SIMbot stays X (mm)
within 15 mm of its starting po-
sition during the entire balancing Figure 4.2: Position on the floor during 30 seconds of
operation. balancing only.
4.1.2 Stationkeeping
Roughly 10 N of force was applied to the robot for about 2 s, once in each of two
orthogonal directions, while running the stationkeeping controller. After undergoing
initial displacements of up to 0.4 m, SIMbot is able to return to its initial position. See
Fig. 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) for a plot of SIMbots position and the torques applied to the ball
during the experiment.
29
y Position (mm)
4
Torque (Nm)
2
-
2
-
4
-
6 x Torque
Push 1 Push 2 y Torque
- 8
-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
x Position (mm) Time (s)
Figure 4.3: On the left: SIMbots position on the floor while stationkeeping. On the
right: Control input while stationkeeping.
2 0.1
Planned Actual
1.5 Desired 0 Planned
Actual
1
0.1
0.2
Position (m)
0.5
Pitch (deg)
0
0.3
0.5
0.4
1
0.5
1.5
0.6
2
0.7
2.5 0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 2 4 6 8
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.4: On the left: SIMbots lean angle tracking during a point-to-point motion.
Desired is the feedforward lean angle plus a feedback control, planned is the feedforward
lean angle only, and actual is SIMbots lean angle. On the right: SIMbots position
tracking during the trajectory.
4.1.3 Point to point motion
A 0.7 m point-to-point motion was demonstrated with SIMbot using the outer loop
controller described in Section III-B to generate and track desired ball trajectories. See
Fig. 4.4(a) for body angle tracking results and Fig. 4.4(b) for position tracking results.
4.1.4 Initial lean angle recovery
We tested SIMbot's ability to return to a zero degree lean angle when starting from an
initial non-zero lean angle. One experimenter held the robot stationary while another
commanded the desired initial lean angle to SIMbot's outer loop controller. SIMbot
was then released and a recovery trajectory was planned and executed. The recovery
trajectory is designed to take SIMbot from its initial state to a final resting state with
30
zero lean angle and zero ball velocity. As we are primarily concerned with returning
the lean angle to zero degrees in this experiment, we did not include the ball position
feedback term in the outer loop controller. SIMbot was able to recover from initial lean
angles of up to 3 as shown in Fig. 4.5.
4.1.5 Discussion of feasibility results
When attempting to maintain a

zero lean angle, SIMbot's per-
3.5
formance is comparable to the
3
IMB-based ballbot in both zero- 2.5
point motion (the amount of Pitch (deg)
2
position drift while not explic- 1.5
itly attempting to maintain posi- 1
tion) and lean angle error about 0.5
zero degrees. SIMbot's per- 0
formance in behaviors requiring

0.5
1 Actual
more torque such as more aggres-
Planned
sive point-to-point motions and
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (s)
recovery from larger lean angles
is limited by the vector drivers,
Figure 4.5: Recovering from an initial lean angle of three
which can produce torques of up degrees.
to approximately 8 Nm. It is en-
couraging that the pure balancing motion, stationkeeping, and the short-trajectory with
a maximum lean angle of less than 2.5 all feasible with the 8 Nm limit. For comparison,
the IMB-based ballbot operates in a nominal body angle range of 5 and demonstrated
a 12 body lean angle in [3].
4.2 Vector driver performance
Upon completion of the Rev. 3A three phase driver board, a single board was connected
to a single stator and powered with 48 V. The rotor was attached to an IMADA single
axis force gauge, capable of measuring up to 500 N in a single axis, using one of the
aluminum plates which originally clamped the two copper hemispheres together during
the construction of the rotor. A picture of the experimental setup can be seen in Fig. 4.7.
An Extech clamp meter was attached to the power line to provide current measurements.
Force measurements were taken 3-4 seconds after a particular torque was commanded.
A plot of forces obtained vs the current used can be seen in Fig. 4.6.
31
60
50
40
Force (N)
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
RMS Current(A)
Figure 4.6: Amount of force produced on the ball with

a moment arm of 0.125 m.
4.2.1 Six stator torque measurements
The same experiment was re-

peated with all six stators con-
nected. With all six stators, the
torque on the ball was calculated,
using the moment arm of 0.125
m. The same experiment was
again repeated, but with an ad-
ditional 12 V battery connected
Force gauge
in series with the original 48 V to
produce 60 V. The results for this
Mounting plate
experiment can be seen in Fig.
4.8.
Figure 4.7: Experimental setup for force and torque

4.2.2 Three phase driver measurements.
board performance discus-
sion
With regard to the single board results, it is likely that the driver board can handle
upwards of 32 A (the maximum measured in this experiment) but this would not be
feasible with all six stators connected; peak torque with six stators would require, in
the case of a requested torque vector lying directly in between two stators, four stators
32
at maximum force. The power distribution components on SIMbot (terminal blocks,

battery terminal connectors, etc) were in general chosen to handle only up to 100 A,
and four stators operating at over 30 A each could possibly be unsafe as the battery
draw would exceed the rated current values for the distribution components.
With regard to the results for all

six stators, it can be seen in Fig.
4.8 that a large amount of current 18
16
is required to produce any torque
14
at all. This is due to a com-
12
bination of the magnetizing cur-
Torque (Nm)
10
rent and the friction in the drive
8
mechanism. As the magnetizing
6
current produces zero torque, it
4
simply results in a current offset
2 48V
60V
when looking at a plot of torque 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
vs current. Current (A)
Figure 4.8 reveals a curve in the

Figure 4.8: Amount of torque produced on the ball by
torque-current plot. Note that six stators at 48 V and at 60 V.
this shape can also be seen to a
lesser extent in the results for a
single stator in Fig. 4.6. One possible explanation for this is that the power drawn by
the motor approaches the maximum power deliverable by the batteries - a simple model
for power delivered to the motor would be
P = (V 4Rb I)I (4.1)
where Rb is the battery resistance, I is the dc current, V is the nominal voltage, and
the factor of four comes from having four batteries in series. This would give a similar
quadratic shape to the one observed in the data and is also consistent with the increase
in torque observed upon adding an additional battery.
4.3 SIM vs IMB power efficiency and performance results
The final set of experiments performed in this work were designed to compare to the new
SIM-based ballbot directly against the original IMB-based ballbot. These experiments
were originally presented in Sec. 1.2.
33
1000 0.1
1000 0.1
Power (W)
Power (W)
Pitch (deg)
Pitch (deg)
750
750
500 0
500 0
250 250
0 -0.1 0 -0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.9: On the left: Power drawn by and pitch of SIMbot while maintaining zero
lean angle. On the right: Power drawn by and pitch of the IMB-based ballbot while
maintaining zero lean angle.
4.3.1 Experimental setup
All experiments were performed on soft foam tile. All pose data (lean angles, speeds,
etc) were collected using each robots on-board sensors. The IMB-based ballbot uses the
same IMU (VectorNav VN-100) as SIMbot, but uses encoders attached to its stainless
steel rollers to compute its velocity. Voltage and current was sensed on each robot using
the voltage and current sensing electronics described in Sec. 3.1.5. The current sensor
was connected so as to measure only the current which goes to the motor.
As SIMbot weighs less than the IMB-based ballbot, additional weight was added to
SIMbot in an effort to match the inertial properties of the two robots. Two 6.35 kg lead
bricks and a single 8.84 kg solid brass brick were fixed to an extra deck on SIMbot which
was mounted at 0.865 m above the center of the ball. This brings the center of mass of
SIMbot from an unweighted 0.68 m to approximately 0.745 m above the center of the
ball. The bricks bring SIMbots body mass to 63.54 kg. The IMB-based ballbot body
weighs 65.65 kg and has a center of mass 73 cm above the center of the ball. It should
be noted that the weight of the ball used by SIMbot is 7.46 kg while the weight of the
ball used by the IMB-based ballbot is 2.44 kg; the balls were left alone as it would be
nearly impossible to match their inertial properties as well.
4.3.2 Power efficiency while balancing
Each robot was commanded to maintain a zero lean angle while balancing on top of the
soft foam tile. The lean angles and power drawn while balancing for SIMbot can be seen
34
3000 250 3000 250

Power (W) Power (W)
Force (N) 225 Force (N) 225
2500 2500
200 200
175 175
2000 2000
150 150
1500 125 1500 125
100 100
1000 1000
75 75
50 50
500 500
25 25
0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.10: On the left: Power drawn by and force applied to SIMbot. On the right:
Power drawn by and force applied to the IMB-based ballbot.
in Fig. 4.9(a). The lean angles and power drawn while balancing for the IMB-based
ballbot can be seen in Fig. 4.9(b).
4.3.3 Peak acceleration and impulse response
SIMbot was fixed to a frame with a slack line and carabiner for safety and then pushed
by an experimenter with a force gauge. SIMbot was allowed to reach a steady state
lean angle and was then decelerated by a second experimenter to prevent SIMbot from
reaching the end of the line. The experiment was repeated with the IMB-based ballbot.
SIMbot was able to maintain balance for peak forces up to 204 N and a net impulse of
47.01 Ns. SIMbot was not able to recover from a similarly shaped impulse with a peak
force of 214 N and a net impulse of 54.19 Ns. During the 47.01 Ns impulse, SIMbot
accelerated at approximately 3.0 m/s2 . The force applied to SIMbot and the power
drawn during this push can be seen in Fig. 4.10(a). SIMbots speed during the push
can be seen in Fig. 4.11(a). Note that an experimenter caught SIMbot to slow it down
at approximately 1.6 seconds.
The experiment was repeated for the IMB-based ballbot. The IMB-based ballbot began
to fail at roughly the same peak force and impulse as SIMbot. The IMB-based ballbot
withstood an impulse of 46.15 Ns and failed on an impulse of 50.44 Ns. The force
applied and the power drawn by the IMB-based ballbot during the largest successful
impulse can be seen in Fig. 4.10(b), and speed can be seen in Fig. 4.11(b). During this
impulse, the IMB-based ballbot experienced a peak acceleration of roughly 5.3 m/s2 .
An experimenter intervened to slow the IMB-based ballbot down at approximately 1.4
seconds.
35
2 2
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
Speed (m/s)
Speed (m/s)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.11: On the left: Speed of SIMbot during impulse. On the right: Speed of
IMB-based ballbot during impulse.
4 2500
4 2500
Commanded (deg)
Actual (deg) 2000
2000 3
3 Power (W)
1500
1500 2
2 1000
1000
1
1 500
500
0 0
0 0
-1
-1
-2 -2
Commanded (deg)
-3 Actual (deg) -3
Power (W)
-4 -4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(a) (b)
Figure 4.12: On the left: Lean angle tracking and power drawn for SIMbot during an
aggressive point-to-point motion. On the right: Lean angle tracking and power drawn
for the IMB-based ballbot during an aggressive point-to-point motion.
4.3.4 Power efficiency during an aggressive point-to-point motion
Both SIMbot and the IMB-based ballbot were commanded to track a hyperbolic secant
trajectory, as described in Sec. 1.2 and shown in Fig. 1.5. These trajectories were
commanded in an open-loop fashion with no feedback based on ball position. The
parameters used for this trajectory were k = 6 and a final time tf = 12.0 s. The peak
lean angle, , was set to 3.43 . Typical ballbot lean angles range from about 5 to
about 5 , so this would be considered a fairly aggressive trajectory.
It is important to note that ballbots are underactuated and as such are subject to a set
of dynamic constraints. Ballbots are not able to track arbitrary lean angle trajectories
as they may not satisfy these dynamic constraints. The hyperbolic secant trajectory
used in this experiment was used primarily because it ensures that both robots follow
36
2.5 2.5
Commanded (m/s) Commanded (m/s)
Actual (m/s) Actual (m/s)
2 2
1.5 1.5
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity (m/s)
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.13: On the left: Velocity tracking during a top speed manuever for SIMbot.
On the right: Velocity tracking for the IMB-based ballbot during a top speed manuever.
The IMB-based ballbot fell at approximately 6.1 seconds.
exactly the same lean angle trajectory and because it is very easy to adjust its shape
and peak lean angle. Thus this experiment should be used to evaluate power draw only
and not control performance.
The lean angle tracking and power drawn during this 12 second trajectory for SIMbot
can be seen in Fig. 4.12(a). SIMbot drew a total of 2.69 Wh during the 12 second
trajectory. The results for the IMB-based ballbot can be seen in Fig. 4.12(b). The
IMB-based ballbot drew 1.29 Wh during the 12 second trajectory.
4.3.5 Maximum speed
In order to investigate the maximum speed of both the IMB-based ballbot and SIMbot,
feasible velocity trajectories were generated using the differentially flat planner described
in [14] and tracked using the outer loop controller described in Sec. 3.2.3.3. The outer
loop controller used here was a velocity controller which output desired body lean angles
based on the velocity error of the ball. The robots were attached to a frame with a slack
line during this experiment to mitigate failures.
The highest speed that SIMbot was able to achieve was 1.9 m/s over 4 m. The velocity
during this trajectory can be seen in Fig. 4.13(a). The highest speed that the IMB-based
ballbot was able to achieve was 2.25 m/s in the middle of a trajectory. The velocity
during this trajectory can be seen in Fig. 4.13(b). The IMB-based ballbot fell during
this trajectory but was caught by the frame.
The velocity tracking this experiment is very poor; there was no feedforward term in
the velocity controller, so some lag would be expected. Furthermore, recall that the
37
intention of this experiment was simply to have the robots go faster and faster in a
controlled manner until failing, not to demonstrate excellent velocity tracking.
4.3.6 Power efficiency and performance comparison discussion
While maintaining zero lean angle, the IMB-based ballbot is approximately 4-5 times
more efficient than SIMbot, despite having similar lean angle performance. During the
point-to-point trajectory, the IMB-based ballbot proved to be roughly twice as efficient
as SIMbot. During the impulse response experiment, SIMbot drew a peak power of
approximately 2.5 kW, while for a nearly identical impulse, the IMB-based ballbot drew
only approximately 1 kW. In general, the IMB appears to be 2-3 times more efficient
than the SIM when used as the drive mechanism for a ballbot.
With regard to the impulse response experiment, SIMbot did surprisingly well, consid-
ering that its peak torque output ( 14 Nm) is much lower than the IMB-based ballbots
peak torque output ( 40 Nm), although some amount of torque is lost in the IMB due to
friction. While the SIM has friction as well, it is significantly lower than that of the IMB
at 0.4 Nm of Coulomb friction [3] to 3.8 Nm in the IMB [1]. In the impulse response
experiment, it is possible that, although the dc motors on the IMB can create higher
peak torques than the SIM, they are not able to generate enough torque to adequately
accelerate the ball at higher speeds. In Fig. 4.11(b), for instance, the acceleration begins
to decrease after the robot reaches about 1 m/s; this may be due to the rollers slipping
against the ball.
Despite concerns such as stator end effects, a relatively large torque rise time, and
a lower peak torque, SIMbots performance was very comparable to the IMB-based
ballbot. Ballbot dynamics in general are fairly slow, which may be the reason why
the torque rise time did not prevent SIMbot from being feasible. Judging from the
performance of the IMB-based ballbot in the impulse response experiment, being able
to generate large enough torques at moderate speeds may be more important than the
absolute peak torque output of the motor.
With respect to efficiency, it appears that the SIM itself is what causes SIMbot to be
much less efficient than the IMB-based ballbot. This is very consistent with the findings
of [15], which cites the efficiency of their SIM as 2%; this is much lower than conventional
motors. There are many tradeoffs which must be evaluated in the construction of the
SIM and which affect the efficiency of the resulting motor; for instance, thicker wire in
the windings would result in less energy lost to heat but fewer turns of wire in the same
space, resulting in weaker magnetic fields and lower performance. The laminations used
in the construction of the stators, built from electrical steel in the SIM in this work,
38
could be made from a material with a higher magnetic permeability, but at a higher
cost. The thickness of the copper hemisphere could be optimized; thicker copper results
in lower I 2 R losses from eddy currents, but increases the air gap between the windings
and the steel core which would reduce performance.
Experimental results for the feasibility of the SIMbot design, the new vector drivers, and
for power efficiency and performance between SIMbot and the IMB-based ballbot were
presented. Prior to the installation of the new vector drivers, SIMbot was able to hold a
zero degree lean angle to within about 0.15 under no disturbances, which is comparable
to the IMB-based ballbot. It was also able to recover from a 3 lean angle, as well as
execute a short point-to-point motion. The new vector drivers were demonstrated to
be capable of at least 32 A per stator and to improve the torque output of the SIM
from about 8 Nm to about 14 Nm when running at 48 V. After the installation of the
new vector drivers, SIMbot was shown to have a top speed (at least 1.9 m/s) and peak
acceleration (at least 3.0 m/s2 ) comparable to the top speed and peak acceleration of
the IMB-based ballbot (at least 2.25 m/s and at least 5.3 m/s2 , respectively). However,
it was found experimentally that SIMbot is generally 2-3 times less efficient than the
IMB-based ballbot.
4.5 Future Work
With data demonstrating the inefficiency of SIMbot, presumably due to the SIM itself,
it remains to be determined exactly why the SIM is inefficient and what the biggest
sources of energy loss are. A number of speculations were made in Sec. 4.3.6, including
the gauge of the wire used for the stator windings, the thickness of the copper shell, and
the type of laminations used in the stators, but doing a real experimental quantification
of the effect of each of these parameters on the efficiency of the resulting motor, backed
by theory and modeling, would be a first step in understanding how to build a more
efficient SIM.
From a scientific perspective, it would be interesting to study the diffusion of the induced
magnetic fields in the rotor as well as the result of an already magnetized portion of
the rotor rolling underneath a stator in operation. The insight gained from such an
investigation could lead to more efficient or higher performance controllers for spherical
induction motors.
39
One current shortcoming of SIMbot is its

inability to operate on hard surfaces due
to the soft copper shell. A solution [16] to
this would be to use an additional ball, an
interposer ball, on top of which the cop-
per ball could sit. SIMbot would then be
driven in reverse, with only the interposer
ball touching the ground. The interposer
ball could be made from rugged materials
as it does not have to support magnetic
fields or eddy currents. This would also
allow for greater coverage of the copper
ball by stators. This setup is shown in
Fig. 4.14. Figure 4.14: Interposer ball. Figure courtesy
of Ralph Hollis.
Finally, the ball transfers which support
the weight of SIMbot could be replaced
with an air bearing [16]. This would reduce the friction in the drive mechanism to near
zero and result in a ballbot which comes even closer to the approximation consisting of
a cylinder on top of a rigid sphere used for modeling purposes.
Appendix A
Control Board Rev 3A

Schematics
40
1 2 3 4
Headers.SchDoc
NLSCL
SCL Power
NLSDA SCL
A SDA Power.SchDoc A
SDA
6V
6V NL5V
5V
NL6V 5V
6V
NLSigGND 6V
SigGND
NLPwr12V SigGND
Pwr12V
Pwr12V
PwrGND
PwrGND
Pwr5v
NL303V Pwr5V
3.3V
SigGND
3.3V
SigGND
3.3V
CPU
CPU.SchDoc Communication Optocouplers Optocouplers.SchDoc
PwrGND
6V
PwrGND
SCL
COX2
SDA
SigGND X2
AVSS
SigGND
Pwr5V
3.3V 1
Pwr12V PIX201
3.3V
2
PwrGND PIX202
SigGND NLPwr0PWM1L
B Pwr_PWM1L 3
Pwr_PWM1LPIX203 B
3.3V Pwr_PWM1L
4
Pwr_PWM1HPIX204
NLPWM1L
PWM1L NLPwr0PWM1H
Pwr_PWM1H 5
Pwr_PWM2LPIX205
PWM1L NLPWM1H PWM1L Pwr_PWM1H
PWM1H 6
Pwr_PWM2HPIX206
PWM1H NLPWM2L PWM1H NLPwr0PWM2L
PWM2L Pwr_PWM2L 7
Pwr_PWM3LPIX207
PWM2L NLPWM2H PWM2L Pwr_PWM2L
PWM2H 8
Pwr_PWM3HPIX208
PWM2H NLPWM3L PWM2H NLPwr0PWM2H
PWM3L Pwr_PWM2H Pwr_FLT 9
PIX209
PWM3L NLPWM3H PWM3L Pwr_PWM2H NLNC
PWM3H NC 10
PIX2010
PWM3H PWM3H NLPwr0PWM3L
Pwr_PWM3L
Pwr_PWM3L
SSW-110-01-G-S
FAULT NLFaultClr Fault NLPwr0PWM3H
IsR
IsS
IsT
FaultClr Pwr_PWM3H
FAULTCLR FaultCLR Pwr_PWM3H
NLPwr0FLT
Pwr_FLT
Pwr_FLT COX3
X3
NLIsR NLPwr0FLTCLR
Pwr_FLTCLR 1
NCPIX301
IsR
Pwr_FLTCLR
NLIsS 2
IsS
IsRPIX302
NLIsT 3
IsT
IsSPIX303
4
IsTPIX304
Isense_GND SigGND 5
PIX305
C Isense_VCC 6
5VPIX306 C
LEDs
LED.SchDoc
NLPwrGND
PwrGND
PwrGND NLPwr5V
Pwr5V
Pwr5V
Pwr_PWM2L
Pwr_PWM3L
Pwr_PWM1H
Pwr_PWM2H
Pwr_PWM3H
PWR_PWM1L
Figure A.1: Top level schematic for the control board

Title
D TPDriver Daughterboard D
Size Number Revision

A
Date: 7/17/2016 Sheet of
File: TPDriver_Brain_Daughterboard.SchDoc Drawn By: Greg Seyfarth
1 2 3 4
41
1 2 3 4
VDD(B)
PIR902 PIR10 2
NL303V
3.3V COR9
R9 COR10
R10
PO303V
3.3V 600 600 COP3
P3
DSDAP PIR901 PIR10 1 DSCLP
A
PIR1 02 PIR1202 DSDAM 1
PIP301 8
PIP308 DSCLP A
NL6V
6V COR11
R11 COR12
R12
PO6V
6V 120 120 DSDAP 2
PIP302 7
PIP307 DSCLM
DSDAM PIR1 01 PIR1201 DSCLM
NLSigGND
SigGND PIR1302 PIR1402 VDD(B) 3
PIP303 6
PIP306
POSigGND
POSIGGND
SigGND COR13 COR14
R13 R14
600 600 6V 4
PIP304 5
PIP305SigGND
PIR1301 VSS PIR1401
Assmann A-2004-2-4-LPS-N-R
VDD(B)
DSDAM
DSDAP
DSCLP
DSCLM
COP4
P4
10
9
8
7
6
PIU201 PIU209 PIU208 PIU207 PIU206 COU2
U2 NLDSDAM
DSDAM 1 8 NLDSCLP
DSCLP
PIP401 PIP408
NXP Semiconductors PCA9615DPJ
NLDSDAP
DSDAP 2
PIP402
7
PIP407
NLDSCLM
DSCLM
DSCLP
DSDAP
DSCLM
VDD(B)
DSDAM
B B
NLVDD(B)
VDD(B) 3
PIP403
6
PIP406
6V 4
PIP404
5
PIP405
SigGND
VDD(A)
SDA
EN
SCL
VSS
Assmann A-2004-2-4-LPS-N-R
1
2
3
4
5
PIU201 PIU20 PIU203 PIU204 PIU205
NLVSS
VSS
3.3V
PIR702
COR7
R7 COP7
P7
1K PIR802 1
PIP701
PIR701 COR8
R8 2
POSCL
SCL PIP702
1K 3
PIP703
PIR801 4
PIP704
C C
POSDA JST B4B-XH-A(LF)(SN)
SDA
SigGND
Figure A.2: Schematic for I2 C headers and subsystem.

Title
D Headers D

A
File: Headers.SchDoc Drawn By: Greg Seyfarth
1 2 3 4
42
1 2 3 4
A A
CO1L
1L
PwrGND
PWR_PWM1L
POWR0PM1L PI1L01 PI1L02
CO1H
1H
PI1H01 PI1H02
PwrGND
COU11
U11
1
PIU1101
2
PIU1102
PIR1601 PIR1602
B COR16
R16 B
3
PIU1103
4
PIU1104
PIR1701 PIR1702
CO2L
2L
POPwr0PWM1H
POPWR0PWM1H
Pwr_PWM1H
COR17
R17 PI2L01 PI2L02
PwrGND
POPwr0PWM2L
POPWR0PWM2L 5
PIU1105
6
PIU1106
PIR1801 PIR1802
Pwr_PWM2L CO2H
COR18
R18 2H
9
PIU1109
8
PIU1108
PIR1901 PIR1902 PI2H01 PI2H02
NLPwrGND
PwrGND
POPwr0PWM2H
POPWR0PWM2H
Pwr_PWM2H
COR19
R19
11
PIU11011 PIU11010
10 PIR2001 PIR2002
POPwr0PWM3L
POPWR0PWM3L
Pwr_PWM3L
COR20
R20 PI3L01 PI3L02PwrGND
13
PIU11013 PIU11012
12 PIR2101 PIR2102
POPwr0PWM3H
POPWR0PWM3H
Pwr_PWM3H
COR21
R21 CO3L
3L
14
PIU11014
7
PIU1107
VCC GND CO3H
3H
SN74ACT14PWR PI3H01 PI3H02PwrGND
PwrGND
C C
PwrGND
POWwRrGND
Pwr5V
POWwRr5V
Figure A.3: Schematic for the flux angle LEDs and hex inverter
Title
D LED D

A
File: LED.SchDoc Drawn By: Greg Seyfarth
1 2 3 4
43
1 2 3 4
A A
POPWM1L
PWM1L POPwr0PWM1L
POPWR0PWM1L
Pwr_PWM1L
COU6
U6
POPWM1H 2
PIU602
15
PIU6015 POPwr0PWM1H
POPWR0PWM1H
PWM1H A1 B1 Pwr_PWM1H
3
PIU603 14
PIU6014
A2 B2
POPWM2L 4 13
PIU6013 POPwr0PWM2L
POPWR0PWM2L
PWM2L PIU604 A3 B3 Pwr_PWM2L
5
PIU605 A4
12
PIU6012
B4
POPWM2H 6 11
PIU6011 POPwr0PWM2H
POPWR0PWM2H
PWM2H PIU606 A5 B5 Pwr_PWM2H
7
PIU607 A6
10
PIU6010
B6
POPWM3L
PWM3L POPwr0PWM3L
POPWR0PWM3L
Pwr_PWM3L
PO303V 3.3V 1
PIU601
8
PIU608
SigGNDPOSIGGND
POSigGND
3.3V VDD1 GND1 SigGND
POPWM3H 16
PIU6016
9
PIU609 POPwr0PWM3H
POPWR0PWM3H
PWM3H VDD2 GND2 Pwr_PWM3H
POPwr5V
POPWR5V Pwr5V PwrGND POPwrGND
POPWRGND
Pwr5V PwrGND
B Si8660BC-B-IS1 B
COC12
C12
PIC1201 PIC1202
0.1 uF
COC13
C13
PIC1301 PIC1302
0.1 uF
COU7
U7
POFaultCLR
POFAULTCLR 2
PIU702
7
PIU707 POPwr0FLTCLR
POPWR0FLTCLR
FaultCLR A1 B1 Pwr_FLTCLR
3
PIU703 6
PIU706
A2 B2
C
POFault
POFAULT
Fault POPwr0FLT
POPWR0FLT
Pwr_FLT C
NL303V
3.3V 1
PIU701
4
PIU704
NLSigGND
SigGND PIR2 02
VDD1 GND1 NLPwrGND COR22
R22
Pwr5V 8
PIU708
5
PIU705
PwrGND
VDD2 GND2 10K
Si8621BC-B-IS PIR2 01
NLPWR5V
Figure A.4: Schematic for the isolators

COC14
PWR5V
C14
PIC1401 PIC1402
0.1 uF
COC15
C15
PIC1501 PIC1502
0.1 uF
Title
D Optocouplers D

A
File: Optocouplers.SchDoc Drawn By: Greg Seyfarth
1 2 3 4
44
1 2 3 4
A A
6V NLPwr12V
Pwr12V POPwr12V
POPWR12V
Pwr12V
STMicroelectronics LD1117S33TR
COU3
U3
3
3
5V PIU303 2 3.3V PIU403 COU4
U4
VIN VOUT PIU302NLU3TAB NLSigGND
PIC702 4 U3TAB PIC1012 uF ADP3338AKCZ-5-R7 SigGND POSigGND
POSIGGND
VOUT PIU304 SigGND
IN
COC7
C7 COC10
C10
PIC701 0.1 uF GND PIC601 COC6
C6 PIC10 1 1
SigGNDPIU401 4 NLU4TAB
U4TAB
OUT PIU404
GND
B 10 uF PIC1 02 B
1
PIU301 PIC602 COC11
C11 NL303V
3.3V
OUT
PO303V
3.3V
PIC1101 uF
2
5V PIU402 NLPwr5V
Pwr5V POPwr5V
POPWR5V
Pwr5V
SigGND
NLPwrGND
PwrGND
PwrGND
COC8
C8 POPwrGND
POPWRGND
PwrGND
Pwr5v
PIC801 PIC802
0.1 uF
NL6V
6V PO6V
6V
3
2
PIU503 PIU502
COU5
U5
LM340MPX-5.0 NL5V
5V PO5V
5V
OUT
C C
IN
TAB GND
1
4
PIU501 PIUN504 LU5TAB
U5TAB
COC9
C9
PIC902 PIC901
0.22 uF
Figure A.5: Schematic for power distribution

Pwr12V Title
D Power D

A
File: Power.SchDoc Drawn By: Greg Seyfarth
1 2 3 4
45
1 2 3 4
PO303V NL303V
3.3V
3.3V
NLSigGND
POSigGND SigGND
POSIGGND
SigGND
NL6V
6V
A PO6V
6V A
SigGND
PIC1801
COC18
C18 COU1
U1 3.3V
2.2uF
PIC1802
3.3V
COR1
R1 /MCLR 1 28 3.3V PIC102
PIR101 PIR102 PIU101 *MCLR AVDD PIU1028
AN0 2
PIU102 27
PIU1027
COC1
C1
10K AN0/VREF+/CN2/RA0 AVSS
SigGND POAVSS
AVSS
AN1 3
PIU103 26
PIU1026
0.1 uF
PIC101
AN1/VREF-/CN3/RA1 PWM1L1/RP15/CN11/RB15 POPWM1L
PWM1L
NLAN2
AN2 4
PIU104
25
PIU1025
SigGND
PGD1/EMUD1/AN2/C2IN-/RP0/CN4/RB0 PWM1H1/RP14/CN12/RB14 POPWM1H
PWM1H
AN3 5
PIU105 24
PIU1024 POPWM2L
NLAN4 PGC1/EMUC1/AN3/C2IN+/RP1/CN5/RB1 PWM1L2/RP13/CN13/RB13 PWM2L
AN4 6
PIU106
23
PIU1023 POPWM2H
COX1 NLAN5 AN4/RP2/CN6/RB2 PWM1H2/RP12/CN14/RB12 PWM2H
X1 AN5 7
PIU107
22
PIU1022 POPWM3L
AN5/RP3/CN7/RB3 PGC2/EMUC2/TMS/PWM1L3/RP11/CN15/RB11 PWM3L
SigGND 8
PIU108
21
PIU1021 POPWM3H
VSS PGD2/EMUD2/TDI/PWM1H3/RP10/CN16/RB10 NLVDDCORE PWM3H
3
PIX103
9
PIU109
20
PIU1020
VDDCORE
OSCI OSCI/CLKI/CN30/RA2 VCAP/VDDCORE
10
PIU1010
19
PIU1019
SigGND
OSCO/CLKO/CN29/RA3 VSS_1 NLSDA
2
PIX102
/FLT 11
PIU1011
18
PIU1018
SDA POSDA
GND NLFLTCLR SOSCI/RP4/CN1/RB4 TDO/PWM2L1/SDA1/RP9/CN21/RB9 NLSCL SDA
FLTCLR 12
PIU1012
17
PIU1017
SCL POSCL
SOSCO/TICK/CN0/RA4 TCK/PWM2H1/SCL1/RP8/CN22/RB8 SCL
1 3.3V 13
PIU1013
16
PIU1016
PIC202
OSCO PIX101 VDD INT0/RP7/CN23/RB7 COC2
C2
B POFAULT PGD 14
PIU1014
15
PIU1015
PGC B
FAULT PGD3/EMUD3/ASDA1/RP5/CN27/RB6
PGC3/EMUC3/ASCL1/RP6/CN24/RB6
Murata CSTLS20M0X53-B0 SigGNDPIC201
POFAULTCLR
FAULTCLR
SigGND
PIC1601 PIC301 PIC1702

COC16
C16 COC3
C3 COC17
C17
PIC1602 2.2uFPIC302 0.1 uF PIC1701 10uF COP5
P5
3.3V NL0MCLR
/MCLR 1
PIP501
3.3V 2
PIP502
SigGND 3
PIP503
NLPGD
PGD 4
PIP504
COU8
U8 NLPGC
PGC 5
PIP505
1 4 NLAN0
AN0 6
AN4
COT1
T1 POIsR
POISR
IsR PIU801 R1-1 R1-2 PIU804 PIP506
3.3V COR2
R2 SigGND
PIR202 PIR201 PIT101 PIT102
1K -t 2
PIU802 3
PIU803SigGND PICKIT
R2-1 R2-2
TE Connectivity GC4914A-3-100
C COSTAT
STAT R1=1K R2=2K C
AN2 COR3
R3 SigGND COU9
U9
PIR301 PIR302
PISTAT01 PISTAT02
100 1
PIU901
4
PIU904
NLAN1
AN1
POIsS
POISS
IsS R1-1 R1-2
Kingbright APT1608LVBC/D
2
PIU902
3
PIU903
SigGND
CO6V
6V R2-1 R2-2
R1=1K R2=2K
6V COR4
R4 SigGND
PIR401 PIR402
PI6V01 PI6V02
Figure A.6: Schematic for the microcontroller

2K COU10
U10
Kingbright APT1608LSECK/J4-PRV 1
PIU1001
4
PIU1004
NLAN3
AN3
POIsT
POIST
IsT R1-1 R1-2
COFLT
FLT 2 3 SigGND
PIU1002 R2-1 R2-2 PIU1003
3.3V COR5
R5 NLlednet1 NL0FLT
/FLT R1=1K R2=2K
PIR501 PIR502
lednet1 PIFLT01 PIFLT02
750
Kingbright APT2012LSECK/J3-PRV
COR15
R15 Title
D PIR1501 PIR1502 D
10K CPU
CO33V
33V
COR6
R6 NLlednet2
lednet2 SigGND
PIR601 PIR602 PI33V01 PI33V02 A
100
Kingbright APT2012LZGCK Date: 7/17/2016 Sheet of
File: CPU.SchDoc Drawn By: Greg Seyfarth
1 2 3 4
46
Appendix B
Power Board Rev 3A Schematics
A few notes:
L10 and L11 should be shorted with wires. They affect the gate driver signal to
the low side MOSFETs. They should be removed for future revisions.
The overcurrent detection circuit (U7A/U7B) never worked reliably but is still
included on the board for future debugging. Fuses were used for overcurrent pro-
tection. To disable overcurrent protection via the gate driver, ground the Itrip pin
on the gate driver. This was done for the six drivers on SIMbot as of July 2016.
47
1 2 3 4
A A
COJC1
JC1
1 12V
PIJC101
2 SigGND
PIJC102 NLSigGND
3 PWM1L Bridge Driver NL12V
12V
SigGND
BridgeComm
PIJC103
4 PWM1H
PIJC104
bridgedriver.SchDoc
5 PWM2L
PIJC105
6 PWM2H
PIJC106
7 PWM3L
PIJC107
NLPWM1L
PWM1L
POPWM1L
PWM1L PWM1L
12V
8 PWM3H
PIJC108
NLPWM1H
PWM1H
POPWM1H
PWM1H PWM1H
9 Fault NLPWM2L
PWM2L
SigGND
PIJC109 POPWM2L
PWM2L PWM2L
B 10Not Connected
PIJC1010
NLPWM2H
PWM2H Bridge B
POPWM2H
PWM2H NLPWM3L PWM2H
BridgeComm
POPWM3L PWM3L Bridge.SchDoc
Molex 22-28-4100 PWM3L NLPWM3H PWM3L
POPWM3H PWM3H
PWM3H PWM3H HO1 HO1
NLFault HO2 HO2
COJC2 POFault
POFAULT Fault
JC2 Fault FAULT HO3 HO3
1 Not Connected
PIJC201 LO1 LO1
2 IsR
PIJC202 LO2 LO2
3 IsS
PIJC203 LO3 LO3
4 IsT
PIJC204 SWR SWR
5 IsGND
RsenseLow
RsenseHigh
PIJC205 SWS SWS
6 IsVCC
PIJC206 SWT SWT
Molex 22-28-4060
RsenseHigh
RsenseLow
MainPower
BridgeComm
PowerGND
Current Sense
currentsense.SchDoc
NLIsT
IsT
C
POIST
POIsT
IsT IsT C
NLIsS
IsS
POIsS
POISS
IsS IsS
NLIsR
IsR
POIsR
POISR
IsR IsR SWR
NLIsVCC SWS
POISVCC
POIsVCC IsVCC
IsVCC NLIsGND IsVCC SWT
POIsGND
POISGND IsGND
IsGND COJCOIL IsGND
JCOIL
0
PIJCOIL00
NLMainPowerNLBidgeComNLPowerGND
R CoilR
SWS
SWT
SWR
MainPower
BridgeComm
PowerGND
1
PIJCOIL01
S CoilS MainPower
2
PIJCOIL02
T CoilT BridgeComm
Figure B.1: Top level schematic for the power board

JST B03P-VL
snubber.SchDoc
Snubber
U_Power140V
COJPower1
JPower1 Power140V.SchDoc
2
PIJPower102
MainPower 12V Title
D MainPower 12V PO12V
12V D
1
PIJPower101
PICapPol10 TPDriver Power Board
COCapPol1
CapPol1
JST B02P-VL PICapPol102 Size Number Revision
PowerGND SigGND
PowerGND SigGND POSigGND
POSIGGND
SigGND A
Capacitor to filter dc input voltage Date: 7/17/2016 Sheet of
rated at 160V File: TPDriver_Motherboard.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
48
1 2 3 4
A A
COU2
U2 IsVCC POIsVCC
POISVCC
IsVCC
NLSWR
SWR 4
PIU204
1
PIU201
PIC902
POSWR
SWR IP+ VCC COC9
2
PIU202
C9
GND
5
PIU205
3
PIU203
PIC901 0.1 uF
NLCoilR IP- VOUT
POCoilR
POCOILR CoilR IsGND POIsGND
POISGND
CoilR IsGND
ACS758LCB-100B-PFF-T PIC10 2
COC10
C10
PIC10 1 0.01uF
POIsR
POISR
IsR
B B
COU3
U3 IsVCC
NLSWS
SWS 4
PIU304
1
PIU301
PIC1 02
POSWS
SWS IP+ VCC COC11
C11
2
PIU302
GND
5
PIU305 IP- VOUT
3
PIU303
PIC1 01 0.1 uF
NLCoilS
CoilS IsGND
POCoilS
POCOILS
CoilS
ACS758LCB-100B-PFF-T PIC1202 COC12
C12
0.01 uF
PIC1201 POIsS
POISS
IsS
COU4
U4 NLIsVCC
IsVCC
POSWT NLSWT
SWT 4
PIU404 1
PIU401
PIC1302
SWT IP+ VCC COC13
C13
2
PIU402
GND
5
PIU405 3
PIU403 PIC1301 0.1 uF
NLCoilT IP- VOUT NLIsGND
POCoilT
POCOILT CoilT IsGND
C CoilT C
ACS758LCB-100B-PFF-T PIC1402 COC14
C14
0.01 uF
PIC1401 POIsT
POIST
IsT
Figure B.2: Schematic for current sensors

Title
D Current sense D

A
File: currentsense.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
49
1 2 3 4
A A
COL70
L70Coilcraft MSS1246T-224KL
COU70
U70 PIL7001 PIL7002
NL12V
12V PO12V
12V
C
SW
1
PIU7001
PID70 C COD70
D70
PIR70 2
COR70
R70
Diodes Inc. SBR1U200P1-7
Res3
POPOWERIN 3
PIU7003 16
PIU70016
A
POWERIN VIN ANODE PID70 A 200V 267k
9
PIU7009
PIR70 1
VFB
5
PIU7005
FBO
14
PIU70014 RUN
PIC70 2 11
PIU70011
COC70
C70 ISET COC71 COC72 COC73
PIC7102 C71 PIC7202 C72 PIC7302 C73
PIC70 1
Murata GRM55DR72E105KW01L 10
PIU70010
PIR7102
SS COR71
R71 PIC7101 PIC7201 Samsung CL21B106KOQNNNE
PIC7301
12
PIU70012
7
PIU7007
Res3 Samsung CL21B106KOQNNNE
OVLO VPRG1 196k Samsung CL21B106KOQNNNE
B 6
PIU7006
PIR7101 B
GND
GND
VPRG2
17
PIU701 PIU708
Linear Technology LTC7138HMSE#PBF
POSigGND
POSIGGND
SigGND
SigGND
C C
Figure B.3: Schematic for switching 12V regulator

Title
D Power 12V D

A
File: Power12V.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
50
1 2 3 4
A A
NLMainPower
MainPower
POMainPower
POMAINPOWER
MainPower PIC201 PIC301 PIC401 PIC502 PIC602
COC2
C2 COC3
C3 COC4
C4 COC5
C5 COC6
C6
2.2 uF 250 V
PIC202 PIC32.2
02 uF 250 V PIC2.2
402 uF 250 V PIC501 0.1uF PIC601 1uF
NLBridgeComm
BridgeComm NLPowerGND
PowerGND
POBridgeComm
POBRIDGECOMM
BridgeComm POPowerGND
POPOWERGND
PowerGND
NLHO1
HO1 PIR101 PIR102
GHR
POHO1
HO1
R1
COR1 20.0 MainPower
B NLHO2
HO2 PIR201 PIR202
GHS B
POHO2
HO2
2
2
2
R2
COR2 20.0
NLHO3
HO3 PIR301 PIR302
GHT PIQ102 PIQ20 PIQ302
POHO3
HO3 NLGHR COQ1 NLGHS COQ2 COQ3
R3
COR3 20.0 1
GHRPIQ101 Q1 1
GHSPIQ201 Q2 GHT 1
NLGHTPIQ301 Q3
NLLO1
LO1 PIR401 PIR402
GLR FDH055N15A FDH055N15A FDH055N15A
POLO1
LO1
3
3
3
R4
COR4 20.0 PIQ103 PIQ203 PIQ30
LO2
POLO2NLLO2 PIR501 PIR502
GLS
LO2
R5
COR5 20.0 PIC8102 PIC8202 PIC8302 PIC8402
NLLO3
LO3 PIR601 PIR602 GLT COC81
C81 COC82
C82 COC83
C83 COC84
C84
POLO3
LO3 POSWR
SWR POSWS
SWS POSWT
SWT 0.1uF 1uF 0.1uF 0.1uF
R6
COR6 20.0 PIC8101 PIC8201 PIC8301 PIC8401
2
2
2
PIQ402 COQ4
PIQ502 COQ5
PIQ602 COQ6
NLGLR 1
GLRPIQ401 Q4 NLGLS 1
GLS PIQ501 Q5 GLT 1
NLGLTPIQ601 Q6
FDH055N15A FDH055N15A FDH055N15A
3
3
3
PIQ403 PIQ503 BridgeComm PIQ603

C
PORsenseHigh
PORSENSEHIGH
RsenseHigh C
CORsen1
Rsen1 PIRsen102 CORsen2
Rsen2 PIRsen202
TT Electronics OAR5R005FLF
PIRsen101 PIRsen201 PORsenseLow

PORSENSELOW
RsenseLow
PowerGND
Figure B.4: Schematic for the power bridge

Title
D Bridge D

A
File: Bridge.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
51
1 2 3 4
A A
B B
140V to 12V
Power12V.SchDoc
COL10
L10
POMainPower
POMAINPOWER
MainPower PIL1001 PIL1002 PIRfuse01 PIRfuse02 POWERIN 12V PO12V
12V
CORfuse
Rfuse
Abracon AIAP-01-681K-T
C C
SigGND
COL11
L11
POPowerGND
POPOWERGND
PowerGND PIL1101 PIL1102
Abracon AIAP-01-681K-T
POSigGND
POSIGGND
SigGND
Figure B.5: High-level schematic for voltage converter

SigGND
Title
D Power 140V D

A
File: Power140V.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
52
1 2 3 4
A A
POSWR
SWR
POSWS
SWS
POSWT
SWT
COCS1
CS1 COCS2
CS2
CORS1
RS1 NLSWR
SWR CORS2
RS2
B PIRS101 PIRS102 PICS101 PICS102 PICS201 PICS202
PIRS201 PIRS202 B
22 22
22nF 22nF
COCS3
CS3 COCS4
CS4
CORS3
RS3 NLSWS
SWS CORS4
RS4 NLBridgeComm
BridgeComm
POMainPower
POMAINPOWER
MainPower PIRS301 PIRS302 PICS301 PICS302 PICS401 PICS402
PIRS401 PIRS402 POBridgeComm
POBRIDGECOMM
BridgeComm
22 22
22nF 22nF
COCS5
CS5 COCS6
CS6
CORS5
RS5 NLSWT
SWT CORS6
RS6
PIRS501 PIRS502 PICS501 PICS502 PICS601 PICS602
PIRS601 PIRS602
22 22
22nF 22nF
C C
Figure B.6: Schematic for RC snubbers

Title
D Snubber D

A
File: snubber.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
53
1 2 3 4
12V
PIR2802
COR28
R28
A
PIR2801 NL12V
12V A
EN NLVB1
VB1
COR21
R21
PID210A
PIR2101 PIR2102
COU1
U1 PIC2102 PID210C COD21
D21
PIJP10 PIJ 102 NLPWM1H
PWM1H 2
PIU102 27
PIU1027
COC21
C21
POPWM1H
PWM1H HIN1 HO1 POHO1
HO1
NLPWM2H
PWM2H 3 23 NLSWR
SWR PIC2101 4.7 uF 100 V
1
2
POPWM2H
PWM2H PIU103 HIN2 HO2 PIU1023 POHO2
HO2
NLPWM3H
PWM3H 4
PIU104 19
PIU1019
POPWM3H
PWM3H HIN3 HO3 POHO3
HO3 COR22
R22
COJP1
JP1 NLVB2
VB2 PID220A
PIR2201 PIR2202
Harwin M20-9960245 NLPWM1L 5
PWM1LPIU105 28 VB1 PIC2 02 PID220C D22 COD22
POPWM1L
PWM1L LIN1 VB1 PIU1028
SigGND NLPWM2L 6
PWM2LPIU106 24
PIU1024 VB2 COC22
C22
POPWM2L
PWM2L LIN2 VB2
NLPWM3L 7
PWM3LPIU107 20
PIU1020
VB3 NLSWS
SWS PIC2 01 4.7 uF 100 V
POPWM3L
PWM3L LIN3 VB3
NLEN
EN 10 26 SWR NLVB3
VB3 COR23
R23
PIU1010 EN VS1 PIU1026 POSWR
SWR PID230C PID230A
PIR2301 PIR2302
22 SWS PIC2302 COD23
D23
VS2 PIU1022 POSWS
SWS
17 18 SWT COC23
C23
PIU1017 NC VS3 PIU1018 POSWT
SWT
21
PIU1021 NC
NLSWT
SWT PIC2301 4.7 uF 100 V
25
PIU1025 NC PIU1016
16 POLO1
LO1 LO1
SigGND PIU1015
15 POLO2 12V
CORF1
RF1 LO2 LO2
ITRIP PIRF101 PIRF102
9
PIU109
14
PIU1014 POLO3
PIC2402 PIC2702 PIC2602
ITRIP LO3 LO3 COC24
C24 COC27
C27 COC26
C26
PICF102 POFAULT 8
PIU108
COCF1
CF1 FAULT FAULT
B 11
PIU1011
13
PIU1013
PIC2401 4.7 uF 100 V PIC210
701 uF 16.0 V PIC2601 1 uF 25 V B
RCIN COM
PICF101 POBridgeComm
POBRIDGECOMM
BridgeComm
PO12V 1
12V PIU101 12
PIU1012 POSigGND
POSIGGND
12V VCC VSS SigGND
SigGND
SigGND Infineon 6ED003L06-F2
conn
SigGND
ectin
SigGND g
PIC3102 PIC3202 RCin
COC31
C31 COC32
C32 Copal CT6EP103
to COR25 COR26
PIC3101 47uF PIC3201 0.1uF GND PIR2402 PIR2401 PIR2501
1 R25 PIR25033PIR2601R26 PIR2602
R24
shoul COR24
12V PIR2502
d
2
CORA1
RA1 12V
8
R1
disab PIU708
1 8 SigGND
8
PIRA101 PIRA108 le
auto
PIU708 6
PIU706 U7B
2 R2 7 2 COU7A
COU7B
U7A 7 NLITRIP
ITRIP
PORsenseLow
PORSENSELOW
RsenseLow PIRA102 PIRA107 PIU702 mati PIU707
1
PIU701 c
5
PIU705
3 R3 6 3
PORsenseHigh
PORSENSEHIGH
RsenseHigh PIRA103 PIRA106 PIU703 re-en
4
C R4
able PIU704 C
4
PIRA104
5
PIRA105
12V
4
PIC2901 after
fault.
COC29
C29
PIU704
Bourns CAY16-1001F4LF
PIC2902 25 V SigGND
SigGND 1 uF
PIC3 02 PIC30 2
COC33
C33 COC30
C30 SigGND
PIC3 01 0.1uF PIC30 1 47uF
Figure B.7: Schematic for the bridge driver

SigGND
Title
D Bridge Driver D

A
File: bridgedriver.SchDoc Drawn By: Olaf Sassnick
1 2 3 4
54
Appendix C
Current Sense Schematic
55
1 2 3 4
A A
COJ1
J1 COJ2
J2
1
PIJ101 2
PIJ102 2
PIJ202 1
PIJ201
WIREIN PCB PCB WIREIN COC11 SPI ACT
COSPIACT
C11
PIC1101 PIC1102 GND
Phoenix Contact 1932575 Phoenix Contact 1932575 4.7uF COR3

R3 GND
PIR301 PIR302
PISPI ACT01 PISPI ACT02
NLIPP
IPP
NLIPM 2K
IPM
Kingbright APT1608LSECK/J4-PRV
18
17
16
15
14
13
PIU3018 PIU3017 PIU3016 PIU3015 PIU3014 PIU301 COU3
U3
Silicon Labs CP2130-F01-GM
VPP
GPIO4
GPIO5
GPIO6
GPIO7
19
PIU3019 GPIO3 GPIO8
GPIO9
12
PIU3012
B B
COU1
U1 COU2
U2 20
PIU3020
11
PIU3011
GPIO2 GPIO10
1 PIC1201 2
PIU202
1
PIU201
VCC PIU101 COC12 GND VDD
IPP 4
PIU104
C12 21
PIU3021
10
PIU3010
IP+ GPIO1 NC
2 PIC1202 0.1 uF 6
PIU206
GND PIU102 CS COR2
R2 NLVIO
IPM 5
PIU105
5
PIU205
22
PIU3022 PIU309
9
PIR201 PIR202
VIO
IP- SDATA GPIO0 RST
3 3
PIU203
4
PIU204 10K
VIOUT PIU103 VIN SCLK
23
PIU3023
8
PIU308
MOSI VBUS
ACS758C AD7940BRJZ-REEL7
24
PIU3024 PIU307
7
MISO REGIN
PIC701 PIC802
COC6
C6 COC7
C7 COC8
C8
PIC602 PIC601
PIC702 0.1 uF PIC801 1 uF
SCK
GND
D+
D-
VIO
VDD
0.1 uF NLGND
GND
GND
1
3
4
5
6
COC5
C5 PIU301 PIU302 PIU30 PIU304 PIU305 PIU306 0.1 uF
COD3
D3 VIO COC9
C9 COD4
D4
PIC502 PIC501
GND 2
PID301 PID302 PIC901 PIC902 GNDPID401 PID402

10 uF
C COD2
D2 COC10
C10 MBR0530 C
PIC1001 PIC1002
PID201 PID202
GND 4.7uF
NLUSB05V
USB_5V
6
7
8
4
Figure C.1: Current sense schematic

PIU506 PIU507 PIU508 PIU504 COU5
U5 PIU40GND PIU40D PIU40D PIU40VC COU4
NC
NC
REF196GRUZ-REEL7 U4
GND
D-
D+
ASSMANN WSW Components A-USBSA

GND
GND
GND
MH2
MH1 VCC
SLEEP OUTPUT
TP
TP
VS
PIC402 PIC302
COC4
C4 COC3
C3 PIU40MH2 PIU40MH1
3
1
5
2
PIU503 PIU501 PIU50 PIU502 PIC401 10 uF PIC301 0.1 uF USB_5V
Title
D D

A
File: CSENSE.SchDoc Drawn By:
1 2 3 4
56
Appendix D
Vector Driver Code
This appendix has the code that runs the sensorless field oriented controller on the PIC
MCU. It was originally written by Masaaki Kumagai. It was maintained by Ankit Bhatia
and Greg Seyfarth. It can also be found at http://clarinet.msl.ri.cmu.edu:9999/wumple/sim PIC.git.
File: TPHardware.c
# include " TPHardware . h "
# include " main . h "
volatile long PWMsysclock =0;

volatile unsigned int phase =0;
volatile unsigned int phasedelta =0;
volatile int AD [4];
volatile int ADB [4];
void OnPWMCycle ( void )

{
AD [0]= ADCbufferA [0];
ADB [0] = ADCbufferB [0];
PWMsysclock ++;
phase += phasedelta ;
}
void ClockUp ( void )
{
// from dsPIC manual ex39 -1
CLKDIVbits . PLLPRE =2; // N1 =4 /4 20 MHz - >5 MHz
PLLFBD =30; // M =32 x32 5 MHz -> 160 MHz
CLKDIVbits . PLLPOST =0; // N2 =2 /2 160 MHz -> 80 MHz
57
58
_ _ b u i l t i n _ w r i t e _ O S C C O N H (0 x03 );
_ _ b u i l t i n _ w r i t e _ O S C C O N L ( OSCCONL |0 x01 );
LATB =0 x8000 ;
// wait for switch
while ( OSCCONbits . COSC != 0 b011 )
;
LATB =0 xc000 ;
// wait for PLL stable
while ( OSCCONbits . LOCK !=1)
;
// LATB =0;
}
// not needed .
void IORemapping ( void )
{
// setting for UART port
_ _ b u i l t i n _ w r i t e _ O S C C O N L ( OSCCONL &(~0 x40 )); // unlock RP
_ _ b u i l t i n _ w r i t e _ O S C C O N L ( OSCCONL |0 x40 ); // lock RP
}
/* copied from lib src */
void S e t M C P W M 1 D e a d T i m e A s s i g n m e n t ( unsigned int config )
{
P1DTCON2 = config ;
}
void SetupMCPWM ( void )

{
unsigned int period ;
// PWM cycle , Fcy -> prescaler -> count
// 40 M /20 k =2000 , centered PMW /2
period =999;
// interrupt setting
C on fi gI n tM CP WM 1 ( PWM1_INT_EN & PWM1_INT_PR2 &
P W M 1 _ F L T A _ D I S _ I N T & P W M 1 _ F L T A _ I N T _ P R 7 );
/* dead time setting activate - > A innactivate - > B */

S e t M C P W M 1 D e a d T i m e A s s i g n m e n t ( PWM1_DTS1A_UA & PWM1_DTS1I_UB &
PWM1_DTS2A_UA & PWM1_DTS2I_UB &
PWM1_DTS3A_UA & PWM1_DTS3I_UB );
/* deadtime : Fcy tick * DTxS * DTx */
/* see : pwm12 . h */
S e t M C P W M 1 D e a d T i m e G e n e r a t i o n ( PWM1_DTAPS1 & PWM1_DTA40 &
PWM1_DTBPS1 & PWM1_DTB40 );
/* fault sensitive */
/* only A , disabled , if need , remap io required */
S et MC PW M 1F au lt A ( PWM1 _FLTA1_D IS & PW M1_FLTA2 _DIS & PWM1_FLT A3_DIS & PWM1_F LTA1_DIS );
OpenMCPWM1 ( period ,
0, /* special event trigger for ADC -> sec14 MC 70187 , 14 -15 */
PWM1_EN & PWM1_ IDLE_STO P &

PWM1 _OP_SCAL E1 & /* postscaler for interrupt */
P W M 1 _ I P C L K _ S C A L E 1 & PWM1_MOD_UPDN , /* prescaler 1:1 , updown */
59
PWM1 _MOD3_CO MP & PW M1_MOD2_ COMP & PWM1_MOD 1_COMP & /* compli ope */
PWM1_PEN3H & PWM1_PEN2H & PWM1_PEN1H &
PWM1_PEN3L & PWM1_PEN2L & PWM1_PEN1L ,
PWM1_SEVOPS1 & /* special , ADC */

PWM1 _OSYNC_T CY & /* output override timming */
PWM1_UEN ); /* PWM duty set eneble */
}
void __attribute__ (( __interrupt__ , no_auto_psv )) _ MP WM 1 In te rr u pt ( void )

{
IFS3bits . PWM1IF = 0;
OnPWMCycle ();
}
void SetDutyCycle ( unsigned int ph1 , unsigned int ph2 , unsigned int ph3 )
{
SetDCMCPWM1 (1 , ph1 ,0);
}
void S et Ma nu a lO ut pu t ( unsigned int ph1 , unsigned int ph2 , unsigned int ph3 )
{
# define SOL 950
PDC1 = ( ph1 )/32;
PDC2 = ( ph2 )/32;
PDC3 = ( ph3 )/32;
}
void SetOutput ( int ph1 , int ph2 , int ph3 )

{
# define SOL 950

if ( ph1 < - SOL ) ph1 = - SOL ;
if ( ph1 > SOL ) ph1 = SOL ;
if ( ph2 < - SOL ) ph2 = - SOL ;
if ( ph3 < - SOL ) ph3 = - SOL ;
write_16 ( D4 , ph1 );
write_16 ( D6 , ph2 );
write_16 ( D8 , ph3 );
SetDCMCPWM1 (1 ,(1000 - ph1 )&0 x7ff ,0);

LATBbits . LATB7 =( ph1 <0)?1:0;
}
void DisablePWM ( void )
{
Overr ideMCPW M1 ( PWM1_POUT_1H & PWM1_POUT_2H & PWM1_POUT_3H &
PWM1_POUT_1L & PWM1_POUT_2L & PWM1_POUT_3L &
60
PWM1_POUT1H_INACT & PWM1_POUT2H_INACT & PWM1_POUT3H_INACT &

P W M 1 _ P O U T 1 L _ I N A C T & P W M 1 _ P O U T 2 L _ I N A C T & P W M 1 _ P O U T 3 L _ I N A C T );
}
void EnablePWM ( void )

{
Over rideMCPW M1 ( PWM1_GEN_1H & PWM1_GEN_2H & PWM1_GEN_3H &
PWM1_GEN_1L & PWM1_GEN_2L & PWM1_GEN_3L &
PWM1_POUT1H_INACT & PWM1_POUT2H_INACT & PWM1_POUT3H_INACT &
P W M 1 _ P O U T 1 L _ I N A C T & P W M 1 _ P O U T 2 L _ I N A C T & P W M 1 _ P O U T 3 L _ I N A C T );
}
unsigned int __attribute__ (( space ( dma ))) ADCbufferA [17] , ADCbufferB [17];
// buffer [16]= phase
// = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
// ADConversion
int SetupADC ( void )
{
// setup DMA
DMA0CONbits . AMODE = 0; // Configure DMA for Peripheral indirect mode
DMA0CONbits . MODE = 2; // Configure DMA for Continuous Ping - Pong mode
DMA0PAD = 0 x0300 ; // Point DMA to ADC1BUF0
DMA0CNT = 3; // 4 DMA request
DMA0REQ = 13; // Select ADC1 as DMA Request source
DMA0STA = _ _ b u i l t i n _ d m a o f f s e t (& ADCbufferA );
DMA0STB = _ _ b u i l t i n _ d m a o f f s e t (& ADCbufferB ); // not need
IFS0bits . DMA0IF = 0; // Clear the DMA interrupt flag bit
IEC0bits . DMA0IE = 0; // Stop the DMA interrupt enable bit
DMA0CONbits . CHEN =1; // Enable DMA
// setup AD
OpenADC1 ( ADC_MODULE_ON & A D C _ I D L E _ C O N T I N U E & A D C _ A D D M A B M _ O R D E R &
A DC _A D1 2 B_ 10 BI T & A D C_ FO RM A T_ IN TG &
ADC_CLK_MPWM & A D C _ A U T O _ S A M P L I N G _ O N &// trigger source -> MCPWM
A D C _ S I M U L T A N E OU S & ADC_SAMP_ON ,
A D C _ V R E F _ A V D D _ A V S S & ADC_SCAN_ON &

A D C _ S E L E C T _ C H A N _ 0 1 2 3 & // A D C _ C O N V E R T _ C H 0 1 2 3 &
A D C _ D M A _ A D D _ I N C _ 4 & A DC _A L T_ BU F_ O FF &// ########## need to check
ADC_ALT_INPUT_ON ,
// note : A D C _ D MA _ A D D _ I N C _ ( i . e . SMPI bits ) decide number of blocks ,
/ at least number of scan
// where as section DMA said they should be cleared (=1)
// or , simply use register indirect mode in DMA . AMODE
A D C _ C O N V _ C L K _ S Y S T E M & A D C _ C O N V _ C L K _ 3 T c y & // 40 MHz =25 ns -> 75 ns

ADC_SAMPLE_TIME_16 ,
ADC_DMA_BUF_LOC_4 ,
ENAB LE_AN0_A NA & EN ABLE_AN1 _ANA & ENABLE_A N2_ANA &

ENAB LE_AN3_A NA & EN ABLE_AN4 _ANA & ENABLE_AN5_ANA ,
ENABLE_ALL_DIG_16_31 ,
61
0 x0 , 0 x8 // scan setting for ch3 ,4

);
// set PWM driven timing
P1SECMPbits . SEVTDIR = 1; // when count down
PWM1CON2bits . SEVOPS = 0 b0000 ;
P1SECMPbits . SEVTCMP = 900; // 0 -999
// line 1: ch123 = normal input AN012

// line 2: for setting B , not used
// line 3: ( ch0 autoselect ) , default ch3
// line 4: for setting B
SetChanADC1 ( A D C _ C H 1 2 3 _ N E G _ S A M P L E A _ V R E F N & A D C _ C H 1 2 3 _ P O S _ S A M P L E A _ 0 _ 1 _ 2 &
A D C _ C H 1 2 3 _ N E G _ S A M P L E B _ V R E F N & ADC_CH123_POS_SAMPLEB_3_4_5 ,
ADC_CH0_POS_SAMPLEA_AN3 & ADC_CH0_NEG_SAMPLEA_VREFN &
A D C _ C H 0 _ P O S _ S A M P L E B _ A N 3 & A D C _ C H 0 _ N E G _ S A M P L E B _ V R E F N );
return 0;
}
// volatile unsigned int DMAbufferF = 0;

void __attribute__ (( __interrupt__ , no_auto_psv )) _DM A0Interr upt ( void )
{
IFS0bits . DMA0IF = 0; // Clear the DMA0 Interrupt Flag
/* if ( DMAbufferF == 0)
{ // proc buffer A
ADCbufferA [16]= phase ;
}
else
{ // proc buffer B
ADCbufferB [16]= phase ;
}
DMAbufferF ^= 1;
LATBbits . LATB4 =( DMAbufferF )?1:0;*/
}
// input 16 bit output 16 bit

// cos =1 -(79/64) x ^2+(16/64) x ^4 -(1/64)
int Cosine ( int x )
{
// return x ;
int neg =0;
long a , a2 , r ;
if ( x ==0 x8000 ) return -32767;
if (x <0) x = - x ;
if ( x ==0 x4000 ) return 0;
if (x >0 x4000 )
{
neg =1; /* rev */
x =0 x8000 - x ;
}
a=x; // a =x , 14 Fp
a = ( a * a +0 x1000 ) > >13; // x ^2 ,15 FP
a2 = ( a * a +0 x4000 ) > >15; // x ^4 ,15 FP
r = ( a * a2 +0 x4000 ) > >15; // x ^6 ,15 FP
62
r += 79* a ; r -=( a2 < <4);

r =( r +0 x20 ) > >6; // /64 , 15 fix
if ( r &0 x8000 ) r =0 x7fff ;
if (r <1) r =1;
x=r;
if ( neg ) return -(0 x7fff - x );

else return 0 x7fff - x ;
}
File: i2c.c
# include " i2c . h "
volatile char i2cUpdate ;

unsigned char RAMBuffer [256];
unsigned char * RAMPtr ;
struct FlagType Flag ;
void i2c1_init ( void ){

I2C1CON =0 x8200 ;
I2C1ADD = addr ;
IFS1 = 0;
int i ;
for ( i = 0; i < 256; i ++) {
RAMBuffer [ i ]=0;
}
RAMPtr = & RAMBuffer [0];

_SI2C1IF =0;
_SI2C1IP =6;
Flag . AddrFlag = 0;
Flag . DataFlag = 0;
_SI2C1IE = 1;
i2cUpdate = 0;
}
void __attribute__ (( interrupt , no_auto_psv )) _S I2 C1 I nt er ru p t ( void )

{
unsigned char Temp ; // used for dummy read
if (( I2C1STATbits . R_W == 0)&&( I2C1STATbits . D_A == 0)) // Address matched

{
Temp = I2C1RCV ; // dummy read
Flag . AddrFlag = 1; // next byte will be address
}
// Write request
else if (( I2C1STATbits . R_W == 0)&&( I2C1STATbits . D_A == 1)) // check for data
{
if ( Flag . AddrFlag )
{
63
Flag . AddrFlag = 0;
Flag . DataFlag = 1; // next byte is data
RAMPtr = & RAMBuffer [0] + I2C1RCV ;
}
else if ( Flag . DataFlag )
{
* RAMPtr = ( unsigned char ) I2C1RCV ;// store data into RAM
/* Flag . DataFlag = 0; */
Flag . AddrFlag = 0;// end of tx
/* RAMPtr = & RAMBuffer [0]; // reset the RAM pointer */
RAMPtr ++;
i2cUpdate = 1;
}
}
// Read Request
else if ((( I2C1STATbits . R_W == 1))&&(( I2C1STATbits . D_A == 0)||(! I2C1STATbits . P )))
{
Temp = I2C1RCV ;
I2C1TRN = * RAMPtr ; // Read data from RAM & send data to I2C master device
I2C1CONbits . SCLREL = 1; // Release SCL1 line
while ( I2C1STATbits . TBF );// Wait till all
/* RAMPtr =& RAMBuffer [0]; // reset the RAM pointer */
RAMPtr ++;
}
_SI2C1IF = 0; // clear I2C1 Slave interrupt flag
}
inline unsigned int read_8 ( unsigned char buf )

{
return RAMBuffer [ buf ];
}
inline unsigned int read_16 ( unsigned char buf )
{
return ( RAMBuffer [ buf ] + ( RAMBuffer [ buf +1] < <8));
}
inline unsigned long read_32 ( unsigned char buf )
{
unsigned long ch1 = ( unsigned long ) read_16 ( buf );
unsigned long ch2 = ( unsigned long ) read_16 ( buf +2);
return (( unsigned long ) ch2 < <16)| ch1 ;
}
inline void write_8 ( unsigned char buf , unsigned char val )
{
RAMBuffer [ buf ] = val ;
}
inline void write_16 ( unsigned char buf , unsigned int val )
{
RAMBuffer [ buf ++] = val &0 xff ;
RAMBuffer [ buf ] = val > >8&0 xff ;
}
inline void write_32 ( unsigned char buf , unsigned long val )
{
RAMBuffer [ buf ++] = val &0 xff ;
RAMBuffer [ buf ++] = val > >8&0 xff ;
RAMBuffer [ buf ++] = val > >16&0 xff ;
64
RAMBuffer [ buf ] = val > >24&0 xff ;

}
File: main.c
# include < main .h >
// Three phase driver test
// option bits , -> . h

_FBS ( RBS_NO_RAM & BS S _ N O _ B O O T _ C O D E & B W R P _ W R P R O T E C T _ O F F ); // no change
_FSS ( RSS_NO_RAM & SSS_NO_FLASH & S W R P _ W R P R O T E C T _ O F F ); // no change
_FGS ( GSS_OFF & GCP_OFF & GWRP_OFF ); // probably no change
_FOSCSEL ( FNOSC_PRI & IESO_ON ); // clock option 1
_FOSC ( FCKSM_CSECMD & IOL1WAY_OFF & OSCIOFNC_ON & POSCMD_HS ); // clk opt main
_FWDT ( FWDTEN_OFF & WINDIS_OFF & WDTPRE_PR128 & W DT PO ST _ PS 32 76 8 ); // WDT
_FPOR ( PWMPIN_ON & HPOL_OFF & LPOL_OFF // PWM init state , should be condidered
& ALTI2C_OFF & FPWRT_PWR64 ); // not significant
_FICD ( JTAGEN_OFF & ICS_PGD3 ); // ICS should be set to using PG port
_FUID0 (0 x19 ); _FUID1 (0 x74 ); _FUID2 (0 x03 ); _FUID3 (0 x31 ); // user id
// Global Variables
int main ( void )

{
int i ,j , repc ;
long ns ;
long lastclock ;
long cyclerest ;
int enabled , turnon ; // 1 if enabled with life , 1 when just enabled
int vce ; // vector control enable
unsigned int mode =0;
// unsigned int buff [16];
phase = 0;
// I n i t i a l i z e H a r d w a r e -> TPHardware . c
LATB =0 x0 ;
TRISB =0 x037f ; // RB10 -15 out ( PWM ) , RB7 = out ( test point , debug )
TRISA =0 x000f ; // RA4 out ( Fault clear )
PORTAbits . RA4 =1;
ClockUp ();
SetupMCPWM ();
DisablePWM ();
SetupADC ();
i2c1_init ();
for ( i =0; i <16; i ++) ADCbufferA [ i ]= i *0 x11 ;
i =0;
while ( PWMsysclock <2000) ;
PORTAbits . RA4 =1; // fault clear
EnablePWM ();
// / INIT
write_8 ( Omega ,50);
65
write_8 ( Amplitude ,100);

write_8 ( Mode , 1);
write_16 ( Lifetime , LIFETIME_INIT );
// vector control param
write_16 ( LR_Param ,500);
write_16 ( Daxis_Igain ,5000); write_16 ( Daxis_Pgain ,4);
write_16 ( Qaxis_Igain ,5000); write_16 ( Qaxis_Pgain ,4);
ResetVector ();
InitSD ();
ns = PWMsysclock ;
enabled =0; turnon =0; repc =0;

EnablePWM ();
while (1)
{
// lock to 10 kHz , 20 kHz 2 cycle .
ns +=2;
cyclerest = ns - PWMsysclock ; // it should be >=0
// anytime , but single -1 should be fine
while ( ns > PWMsysclock )
;
i +=2;
/* enabled =1; */
write_16 ( Cycle_Count , read_16 ( Cycle_Count )+1);
// LATB =( LATB &0 x03ff )|( i &0 xfc00 );
LATBbits . LATB7 =( phase &0 x8000 )?1:0;
// life count
turnon =0;
PORTAbits . RA4 =1;

if ( read_16 ( Lifetime ) >0)
{
if (! enabled ) { turnon =1; EnablePWM (); phase =0; InitSD ();
PORTAbits . RA4 =0; }
enabled =1;
write_16 ( Lifetime , read_16 ( Lifetime ) -1);
}
else
{
DisablePWM ();
SetDutyCycle (0 ,0 ,0);
if ( enabled ) write_8 ( Mode ,( read_8 ( Mode )&0 xff00 )| CM_Idle );
// -> change mode to Idle when timeout */
enabled =0;
ResetVector ();
}
mode = read_16 ( Mode );

/* mode =2; */
vce =0;
switch ( mode &0 xff )
{
66
case CM_Idle : // idling

SetDutyCycle (0 ,0 ,0);
phasedelta =0;
write_16 ( Cos_Th , Cosine ( read_16 ( Theta ))); // cos func check
break ;
case CM_Manual : // manual output set
phasedelta = read_16 ( Omega );
unsigned long amp = read_16 ( Amplitude );
SetOutput ( SDR16 (( unsigned long ) Cosine ( phase -0)* amp ) , SDR16 (( unsigned long )
Cosine ( phase -21845)* amp ) , SDR16 (( unsigned long ) Cosine ( phase -43691)* amp ));
/* Se tM a nu al Ou t pu t ((( float ) amp /255)*( unsigned int )( Cosine ( phase )+0 x8000 ) ,
(( float ) amp /255)*( unsigned int )( Cosine ( phase -21845)+0 x8000 ) ,
(( float ) amp /255)*( unsigned int )( Cosine ( phase -43691)+0 x8000 )); */
break ;
case CM_Vector : // vector control
vce =1;
break ;
}
j = VectorControl ( vce );
j = CalcSD ();
if ( j )
InitSD ();
w r i t e _ v e c t o r _ i 2 c ();
if ( i2cUpdate ) {
write_16 ( Lifetime , LIFETIME_INIT );
i2cUpdate = 0;
}
}
}
File: vector.c
# include " vector . h "
// = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
// vector detection
int Vectorth ;
long Vid , Viq , Vomega ;
int Er , Es , Et ;
long Ed =30 , Eq =30;
long IEd =0 , IEq =0;
long Emax =100;
void ResetVector ( void )
{ Vectorth =0; IEd =0; IEq =0; Emax =100; };
void w r i t e _ v e c t o r _ i 2 c (){
write_32 ( Vector_TH , Vectorth );
write_32 ( V_Id , Vid );
write_32 ( V_Iq , Viq );
write_32 ( V_Omega , Vomega );
write_32 ( E_r , Er );
write_32 ( E_s , Es );
67
write_32 ( E_t , Et );
write_32 ( IE_d , IEd ) ;
write_32 ( IE_q , IEq ) ;
write_32 ( E_Max , Emax );
write_16 ( AD_0 , AD [0]);
write_16 ( AD_1 , AD [1]);
write_16 ( AD_2 , AD [2]);
write_16 ( AD_3 , AD [3]);
write_16 ( AD_4 , ADB [2]);
}
void VectorDetect ( int iR , int iS , int iT , int outf )

{
int id_c ;// , iq_c ;
long iq_c ;
int ir , is , it ;
long ia , ib , Ea , Eb , e ;
int c , s ;
id_c = read_16 ( Comm_Id );
iq_c = ( long ) read_32 ( Comm_Iq );
int omega = read_16 ( Omega );
// Inverse Clarke transform

// ia =(2* iR - iS - iT )/3
// ib =( iS - iT )/ sqrt3
ia = SDR10 (( long )(2* iR - iS - iT )*21845); // 21845/65536 << 6
ib = SDR10 (( long )( iS - iT )*37837); // 37837/65536 << 6
// vector angle detect

// vectorth = phase ;
// Inverse Park Transform
// Vid = vector id
// Viq = vector iq
c = Cosine ( Vectorth ); s = Cosine (16384 - Vectorth );
Vid = SDR15 ( c * ia + s * ib );
Viq = SDR15 ( - s * ia + c * ib );
// if ( Vid <0) { Vid = - Vid ; Viq = - Viq ; Vectorth +=0 x8000 ; }
if ( Vid ==0) Vid =1;
if ( Vid <0)
{
if ( Viq >0) {
Vid = - Vid ;
Viq = 10* Vid ;
}
else {
Vid = - Vid ;
Viq = -10* Vid ;
}
Emax -=20;
}
if ( Viq > Vid *10){
Viq = Vid *10;
Emax -=10;
68
}
if ( Viq < - Vid *10) {
Viq = - Vid *10;
Emax -=10;
}
Vomega =( Viq < <10)/ Vid ;
Vomega = SDR10 ( Vomega *( long ) read_16 ( LR_Param ));
Vectorth += Vomega - omega ;
Emax ++;
// 22 V , 100/500
if ( Emax <40) Emax =40;
if ( Emax > EMAX_MAX ) Emax = EMAX_MAX ;
if (! outf ) return ;
// vector detection
// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// control output
# define INTMAX 128000 l // 500*256
// vector PI feedback
// Id current on d - axis
e =(( long )( id_c ) - Vid );
IEd += SDR12 (( long )( read_16 ( Daxis_Igain ))* e );
if ( IEd > INTMAX ) IEd = INTMAX ;
if ( IEd < - INTMAX ) IEd = - INTMAX ;
Ed = SDR8 ( IEd + e *( long )( read_16 ( Daxis_Pgain )));
if ( Ed < - Emax ) Ed = - Emax ;
if ( Ed > Emax ) Ed = Emax ;
// Iq current on q - axis
e =(( long )( iq_c ) - Viq );
write_32 ( COMMTEST , e );
// write_32 ( COMMTEST , iq_c );
IEq += SDR16 (( long )( read_16 ( Qaxis_Igain ))* e );
if ( IEq > INTMAX ) IEq = INTMAX ;
if ( IEq < - INTMAX ) IEq = - INTMAX ;
Eq = SDR8 ( IEq + e *( long )( read_16 ( Qaxis_Pgain )));
if ( Eq < - Emax ) Eq = - Emax ;
if ( Eq > Emax ) Eq = Emax ;
// vector output transform

// Park Transform
Ea = SDR15 ( c * Ed - s * Eq );
Eb = SDR15 ( s * Ed + c * Eq );
// Clark Transform
Er = Ea ;
Es =( -( Ea < <7)+ Eb *222) > >8;
Et =( -( Ea < <7) - Eb *222) > >8;
SetOutput ( - Er , - Es , - Et ); // sometimes need - otherwise not
}
69
long ViqS , VidS , VomegaS ;

int VSc ;
int VectorControl ( int outf )
{
int iR , iS , iT ;
iR =( AD [1] -515);
iS =( AD [2] -515);
iT =( AD [0] -515);
VectorDetect ( iR , iS , iT , outf );
if ( VSc >=4096)
{
VSc =0;
write_8 ( D1 ,0 x01 );
VidS = ViqS = VomegaS =0;
}
VidS += Vid ; ViqS += Viq ; VomegaS += Vomega ;
VSc ++;
if ( VSc ==4096) return 1;
return 0;
}
// synchro detection
int SDcycle ;
// (65536/8)/2 65536= base cycle , 8= base freq /2 clock
long SDCS [ SDNUM ] , SDSS [ SDNUM ];
void InitSD ( void )

{
int i ;
SDcycle =0;
for ( i =0; i < SDNUM ; i ++)
{ SDCS [ i ]= SDSS [ i ]=0; }
}
int CalcSD ( void )

{
int i ;
unsigned int ph = phase ;
long c , s ;
c = Cosine ( ph ); // cosine
s = Cosine (16384 - ph ); // sine
for ( i =0; i < SDNUM ; i ++)
{
SDCS [ i ]+= SDR10 ( c * AD [ i ]);
SDSS [ i ]+= SDR10 ( s * AD [ i ]);
}
SDcycle ++;
70
if ( SDcycle == SDSN ) return 1; // finish

else return 0;
}
File: TPHardware.h
# ifndef _TPH ARDWARE _H_
# define _TPH ARDWARE _H_
# include < p33Fxxxx .h >

# include < uart .h >
# include < pwm12 .h >
//# include " slnode11dspic . c "
/* # include " slnode . h " */
# include " adc . h "
// sub source for TPDriver . c
//
// Variables
extern volatile long PWMsysclock ;

extern volatile unsigned int phase ;
extern volatile unsigned int phasedelta ;
extern volatile int AD [4];
extern volatile int ADB [4];
// Functions
void IORemapping ( void );
void S e t M C P W M 1 D e a d T i m e A s s i g n m e n t ( unsigned int config );
void SetupMCPWM ( void );
void __attribute__ (( __interrupt__ , no_auto_psv )) _ MP WM 1I n te rr up t ( void );
void SetDutyCycle ( unsigned int ph1 , unsigned int ph2 , unsigned int ph3 );
void SetOutput ( int ph1 , int ph2 , int ph3 );
void Se t Ma nu a lO ut pu t ( unsigned int ph1 , unsigned int ph2 , unsigned int ph3 );
void DisablePWM ( void );
void EnablePWM ( void );
extern unsigned int __attribute__ (( space ( dma ))) ADCbufferA [17] , ADCbufferB [17];
int SetupADC ( void );
void __attribute__ (( __interrupt__ , no_auto_psv )) _DMA 0Interru pt ( void );
void ClockUp ( void );
int Cosine ( int x );
void OnPWMCycle ( void );

# endif
File: i2c.h
# ifndef _I2C_H
# define _I2C_H
# include < stdint .h >

71
extern unsigned char RAMBuffer [256];
struct FlagType {
unsigned char AddrFlag :1;
unsigned char DataFlag :1;
};
extern struct FlagType Flag ;
void i2c1_init ( void );

void __attribute__ (( interrupt , no_auto_psv )) _S I2 C1 I nt er ru p t ( void );
void write_8 ( unsigned char buf , unsigned char val );
void write_16 ( unsigned char buf , unsigned int val );
void write_32 ( unsigned char buf , unsigned long val );
unsigned long read_32 ( unsigned char buf );
unsigned int read_16 ( unsigned char buf );
unsigned int read_8 ( unsigned char buf );
# endif
File: main.h
# ifndef _MAIN_H_
# define _MAIN_H_
// Includes :
# include " vector . h "
# include " i2c . h "

// Defines :
extern volatile char i2cUpdate ;
# define SDR8 ( a ) ((( a )+ 0 x7f ) > > 8)
# define SDR9 ( a ) ((( a )+ 0 xff ) > > 9)
# define SDR10 ( a ) ((( a )+ 0 x1ff ) > >10)
# define SDR11 ( a ) ((( a )+ 0 x3ff ) > >11)
# define SDR12 ( a ) ((( a )+ 0 x7ff ) > >12)
# define SDR13 ( a ) ((( a )+ 0 xfff ) > >13)
# define SDR14 ( a ) ((( a )+0 x1fff ) > >14)
// I2C Register Map

//16 bit fields
# define Cycle_Count 0
# define Lifetime 2
# define LR_Param 4
# define Daxis_Igain 6
# define Daxis_Pgain 8
72
# define Qaxis_Igain 10
# define Qaxis_Pgain 12
# define Mode 14
# define Theta 16
# define Cos_Th 18
# define Omega 20
# define Amplitude 22
# define Comm_Id 24
//# define Comm_Iq 26
# define AD_0 28
# define AD_1 30
# define AD_2 32
# define AD_3 34
# define Vector_TH 36
# define AD_4 38 // this should be the thermistor
//32 bit fields
# define COMMTEST 42
# define Comm_Iq 46
# define V_Id 50
# define V_Iq 54
# define V_Omega 58
# define E_r 62
# define E_s 66
# define E_t 70
# define E_d 74
# define E_q 78
# define IE_d 82
# define IE_q 86
# define E_Max 90
# define SDCS_0 94
# define SDCS_1 98
# define SDCS_2 102
# define SDCS_3 106
// Debug Flags
# define D1 128
# define D2 129
# define D3 130
# define D4 131
# define D5 132
# define D6 133
# define D7 134
# define D8 135
# define LIFETIME_INIT 9000 // should result in 0.9 s timeout
# endif
// RegFileL [0]= Cycle count

// RegFileL [1]= Lifetime ( in 10 kHz , 0.1 ms )
// RegFileL [3]= LR parameter
// RegFileL [4]= D axis I gain
73
// RegFileL [5]= D axis P gain

// RegFileL [6]= Q axis I gain
// RegFileL [7]= Q axis P gain
// RegFileS [1]= Mode { report mode :16 bit control mode :16 bit }
// control mode 0: idle , 1: manual omega / amp , 2: vector id / iq
// RegFileS [2]=
// RegFileS [3]= Cosine ( RegFileS [2]); in Idle state for test
// RegFileS [4]= Omega in Manual state
// RegFileS [5]= Ampletude in Manual state
// RegFileS [4]= OmegaForward

// RegFileS [6]= Command Id
// RegFileS [7]= Command Iq
File: vector.h
# ifndef _VECTOR_H_
# define _VECTOR_H_

# define SDNUM 4
# define SDSN 4096
# define CM_Idle 0
# define CM_Manual 1
# define CM_Vector 2
# define EMAX_MAX 2200//# Emax acts as a floating torque limit ...
// increase this to increase max torque
extern int Vectorth ;

extern long Vid , Viq , Vomega ;
extern int Er , Es , Et ;
extern long Ed , Eq ;
extern long IEd , IEq ;
extern long ViqS , VidS , VomegaS ;
extern int VSc ;
extern int SDcycle ;

extern long SDCS [ SDNUM ] , SDSS [ SDNUM ];
void ResetVector ( void );

void VectorDetect ( int iR , int iS , int iT , int outf );
int VectorControl ( int outf );
void InitSD ( void );
int CalcSD ( void );
# endif
Bibliography
[1] Umashankar Nagarajan, George Kantor, and Ralph Hollis. The ballbot: An omni-
directional balancing mobile robot. The International Journal of Robotics Research,
33(6):917930, May 2014.
[2] Masaaki Kumagai and Takaya Ochiai. Development of a robot balancing on a ball.
In Control, Automation and Systems, 2008. ICCAS 2008. International Conference
on, pages 433438. IEEE, 2008.
[3] Ankit Bhatia, Masaaki Kumagai, and Ralph Hollis. Six-stator spherical induc-
tion motor for balancing mobile robots. In Proceedings 2015 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 226 231. IEEE, 2015.
[4] Greg Seyfarth, Ankit Bhatia, Olaf Sassnick, Mike Shomin, Masaaki Kumagai, and
Ralph Hollis. Initial results for a ballbot driven with a spherical induction motor. In
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on, pages
37713776. IEEE, 2016.
[5] Tom Lauwers, George Kantor, and Ralph Hollis. One is enough! In Proc. Intl.
Symp. for Robotics Research, pages 1215, 2005.
[6] S Doessegger, P Fankhauser, C Gwerder, J Huessy, J Kaeser, T Kammermann,

L Limacher, and M Neunert. Rezero. Focus Project Report, Autonomous Systems
Lab., ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 2010.
[7] Masaaki Kumagai and Ralph L Hollis. Development and control of a three dof
spherical induction motor. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on, pages 15281533. IEEE, 2013.
[8] Masaaki Kumagai and Ralph L Hollis. Development of a three-dimensional ball

rotation sensing system using optical mouse sensors. In Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pages 50385043. IEEE, 2011.
[9] Masaaki Kumagai and Ralph L Hollis. Development and control of a three dof
planar induction motor. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on, pages 37573762. IEEE, 2012.
74
Bibliography 75
[10] M Kumagai. Development of a linear induction motor and a vector control driver.
In SICE Tohoku chapter workshop material, pages 2629, 2010.
[11] Shegeki Toyama, Shigeru Sugitani, Zhang Guoqiang, Yasutaro Miyatani, and Ken-
taro Nakamura. Multi degree of freedom spherical ultrasonic motor. In Robotics and
Automation, 1995. Proceedings., 1995 IEEE International Conference on, volume 3,
pages 29352940. IEEE, 1995.
[12] Kok-Meng Lee, Hungsun Son, Jeffry Joni, et al. Concept development and design
of a spherical wheel motor (SWM). In IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, volume 4, page 3652. IEEE; 1999, 2005.
[13] K Kaneko, I Yamada, and K Itao. A spherical dc servo motor with three degrees of
freedom. Journal of dynamic systems, measurement, and control, 111(3):398402,
1989.
[14] Michael Shomin and Ralph Hollis. Differentially flat trajectory generation for a
dynamically stable mobile robot. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE
International Conference on, pages 44674472. IEEE, 2013.
[15] Masaaki Kumagai. Torque evaluation method of spherical motors using six-axis
force/torque sensor. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au-
tomation (ICRA), pages 24162421. IEEE, 2016.
[16] Ralph Hollis. personal communication, 2015.

Final Final Thesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Final Final Thesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Carnegie Mellon University

Design, Construction, and Evaluation of

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the

I have acknowledged all main sources of help.

List of Figures viii

2 Spherical Induction Motor 8

A Control Board Rev 3A Schematics 40

B Power Board Rev 3A Schematics 47

C Current Sense Schematic 55

D Vector Driver Code 57

1.1 IMB-based Ballbot built at CMU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.1 Block diagram of entire SIMbot system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1 Balancing performance for a single axis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

A.1 Top level schematic for the control board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B.1 Top level schematic for the power board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

C.1 Current sense schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

As interest in mobile robots for service

An alternative to static stability is dynamic stability. A dynamically stable mobile

1.1 Ballbot drive mechanisms

Over the years, two primary types of drive

1.1.1 Inverse mouseball drive

The CMU Ballbot relies on an inverse

1.1.2 Omniwheel drive systems

Omniwheel drive systems have their own

1.1.3 Spherical induction motor

The spherical induction motor (SIM) is

The SIM is extremely mechanically simple

1.2 Research question

1.2.1 Efficiency while balancing

1.2.2 Peak acceleration

A unique advantage of ballbots is that they are naturally physically compliant; if a

Figure 1.5: An open loop hyperbolic secant trajectory [1]

1.2.3 Point-to-point motions

1.2.4 Top speed

1.3 Related work

1.4 Chapter 1 Conclusion

Spherical Induction Motor

2.1 Spherical Induction Motor Overview

2.1.1 Design and construction

The ball consists of a hollow soft

(a) Figure A (b) Figure B

(a) Figure A (b) Figure B

heating the copper hemispheres

2.1.2 Ball failure

To apply a particular desired torque d to the ball, we use the pseudo-inverse of Ma ,

2.1.4 Control scheme

2.2 Vector Drivers

The previously described control scheme

The second version was designed by Ankit

The main problem with this version was

Figure 2.6: Noise on the supply line of the

in Fig. 2.6. A number of passive filter

2.2.1 Vector Driver Rev 3A Overview

2.2.1.1 Control Board

Figure 2.8: A block diagram of the control board.

The 10 pin header also

labeled 12VP B , from the

2.2.1.2 Power board

Figure 2.10: A block diagram of the power board.

2.2.1.3 Copper plating

Copper plate Solder paste Brass rivet

2.3 Chapter 2 Conclusion

3.1 SIMbot System Overview

48V battery pack