4.4 Article

Comparison between two models of BLDC motor, simulation and data acquisition

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40430-018-1020-0

关键词

BLDC; Simulation; Electric motor; Control; Modeling

资金

  1. Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  3. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  4. Espaco da Escrita-Coordenadoria Geral
  5. University of Campinas (UNICAMP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alternative propulsion motors have been studied to increase the performance/consumption ratio in vehicles. A solution is the HEVs (hybrid electric vehicles), which are becoming important to the automotive industry. The electric motor BLDC (Brushless Direct Current) has been chosen to integrate the HEVs because of its characteristics, such as silent operation and high efficiency. Therefore, the motor operating principle is important to develop studies and research in automotive industries. The aim of this study is to develop a BLDC mathematical model to obtain the physical dimensions, such as current, voltage and torque through the comparison of the simulation time between existing models in the literature and experimental tests to integrate a virtual vehicle model. Two models are studied in this article, a simple one that approximates the three phases of BDLC motor to one single phase, as in a brushed DC motor, and a model that considers all phases and their commutation. Both models are compared in terms of computational effort and accuracy of the results, and the DC motor was the one that best integrated the vehicle model. Furthermore, an experimental measurement is performed to calibrate the model and it is integrally acquired by an Arduino UNO board, an inexpensive board. All models are implemented in the software Matlab/Simulink TM where the voltage is the required input and several variables, such as phase current, speed, friction, and torque, can be the output.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据