Paul and Sabrina's Cheap 3 Phase Inverter (AC Controller) with Field Oriented Control

[MPaulHolmes]

The 6015 has 4 high and 4 low side pwms, which would be perfect for an additional bidirectional boost. I've used it for several projects for my job, and I love it. It's just the people I'm targeting the kit to that aren't fans. It's a deal breaker for the india people. Every stinking thing has to be through-hole for them. They can't source surface mount components, and can't solder them. I wept bitter tears over not being able to use the 6015, since it is so well suited.

[e*clipse]

Cheer up! I'll use it on the round design. :-) We'll pull out all stops - whatever's best for the job will go on the board.

I've found there are a bunch of good options for stuff in general that is only available as surface mount. As long as the pin spacing is reasonably large - about 0.05" or so and Ball grid arrays are avoided - it's all good. Heck, even parts with bottom heat sinks work out ok.

I'll use a lot more space between parts than the resolver driver board required. That makes part placement and soldering with a hot air gun easy.

BTW, in that last e-mail - was that the latest hardware rev?

Take care,

E*clipse

[MPaulHolmes]

I can't figure out which email you are talking about. Do you mean an email that had a schematic/pcb attached?

[e*clipse]

I'm sorry, I screwed up. The e-mail I was thinking about had coding stuff. Is the Wiki version up to date?

I'd like to use one big connector for the control I/O. There are quite a few options available for sealed automotive connectors at Mouser.

If possible, i'd like to make that connector simply stick up through the top, and be soldered directly to the PC board.

The vertical stack-up height above the PC board is about 22mm, limited by the current sensors and the output pins' insulator.

I'm still looking, but the connectors from AMP use a 13mm board > outside surface distance. Something like 25mm would be convenient.

1) can you think of a thinner current sensor? Are there any other parts that may cause an issue?
2) have you used a connector like this that you prefer or can you think of one with more space between the board and outside surface?

- E*clipse

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by e*clipse

2) have you used a connector like this that you prefer or can you think of one with more space between the board and outside surface?

*DISCLAIMER* I have no experience with specifying these types of automotive connectors

Other EV controllers - Netgain Industrial, DMOC, EVTV's GEVCU - appear to use the Ampseal connector.

http://www.te.com/commerce/DocumentD...ocLang=English

The pins are quite stiff and do not appear to bend easily. Alignment works well. There are 2 visible gaskets on the ampseal 13 (which the Netgain Industrial uses)

[e*clipse]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

*DISCLAIMER* I have no experience with specifying these types of automotive connectors

Other EV controllers - Netgain Industrial, DMOC, EVTV's GEVCU - appear to use the Ampseal connector.

http://www.te.com/commerce/DocumentD...ocLang=English

The pins are quite stiff and do not appear to bend easily. Alignment works well. There are 2 visible gaskets on the ampseal 13 (which the Netgain Industrial uses)

I really don't have any experience *spec'ing* them either. I guess most of my experience is in using various types on various automobiles. Since I have older cars, I've dealt with the evolution of these connectors over the years.

That one you linked is an excellent choice, IMHO. Actually I have one sitting on my desk and I'm very happy with it's quality and design. They're also reasonable from a price perspective. I think it's also possible to get various keying combinations to ensure that they aren't mis-matched.

I'd like this controller to be **at least** spray resistant, if not IP67 waterproof. I figure folks may want to put it near the motor in the motor (not passenger) compartment. I'm also trying to stay away from potting the whole thing because it should be "fixable" or "mod-able." After all, this is EcoModder.

- E*clipse

[e*clipse]

A bit more board design stuff:

Regarding connectors - I've found a way to use the one thingstodo linked a couple of posts ago.

They have a board to case measurement of 15mm. If the LEM current sensor is replaced with the Tamura version, it will fit. The Tamura sensor is only 11mm thick.
http://www.tamuracorp.com/clientuplo...L08PXXXD15.pdf
They're also quite a bit cheaper, at about $16 vs $25

I've counted the I/O connectors on the current design. With integrated current sensors and on-board drivers, 32 I/O pins are needed. The AMP 35 pin connector will work fine:
1-776231-1 TE Connectivity / AMP | Mouser

This leaves the controller, which ironically costs less than the I/O connector.

There are two series of controllers that could do the job - the 5015/5016 and the 6010A/6015. The main difference between the series is about 2X the memory, an extra CAN bus and $2 for the 6000 series. I've looked through the pins for all four, and it would be possible to make a pin-compatible 64 pin or 80 pin controller board between the 5000 series and 6000 series.

The big difference between the models in each series is the pin count - 64 vs 80. The extra pins don't really cost any more. In fact the 80 pin 6010A costs less than the 6015. The 80 pin ucontroller is only slightly bigger, with the same pin spacing. I think there would be no advantage to soldering the smaller one. On the other hand, the critical stuff - PWM and analog input - are virtually the same. The main difference is digital I/O connections.

Thoughts?

- E*clipse

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by e*clipse

They have a board to case measurement of 15mm. If the LEM current sensor is replaced with the Tamura version, it will fit. The Tamura sensor is only 11mm thick.
http://www.tamuracorp.com/clientuplo...L08PXXXD15.pdf
They're also quite a bit cheaper, at about $16 vs $25

Sounds good so far. I'll read it in detail later

I've counted the I/O connectors on the current design. With integrated current sensors and on-board drivers, 32 I/O pins are needed. The AMP 35 pin connector will work fine:
1-776231-1 TE Connectivity / AMP | Mouser

3 pins extra is cutting it close, but from what I've seen you've already included most of the bits that others would classify as 'future'

This leaves the controller, which ironically costs less than the I/O connector.

There are two series of controllers that could do the job - the 5015/5016 and the 6010A/6015. The main difference between the series is about 2X the memory, an extra CAN bus and $2 for the 6000 series. I've looked through the pins for all four, and it would be possible to make a pin-compatible 64 pin or 80 pin controller board between the 5000 series and 6000 series.

I'll never say NO to more memory and more communications. $2 seems like a small adder. You mention the soldering would be about the same .. what about the number of layers on the PCB to deal with the extra pins?

Is the CAN hardware the controller only? Do you need a driver chip for the physical interface? I guess I should look for myself

[e*clipse]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

Sounds good so far. I'll read it in detail later

3 pins extra is cutting it close, but from what I've seen you've already included most of the bits that others would classify as 'future'

I totally agree. Unfortunately, that series only has 35 pins max. The reason(s) I like them is that are connected straight off the board with some (15mm) component room, not at 90*. Most of the comparable connectors are 90* to the board and/or cost a fortune..

On one hand, I think the pin count problem can be reduced by sharing ground and vdd pins. Most of the I/O connectors on the board have vdd/vss pins in addition to the data pins.
If that's not a good solution, using an additional connector would work fine, too. However, these connectors take a lot of board space - there's 2mm between rows of pins and 4mm between pins.

I'll never say NO to more memory and more communications. $2 seems like a small adder. You mention the soldering would be about the same .. what about the number of layers on the PCB to deal with the extra pins?

Yeah, more memory can't hurt - and it's cheaper too. I have no idea about needing extra layers for these IC's in general. It would probably be better to use a 4 layer board with a dedicated ground plane, etc. I don't think there's any difference between the 64 pin and the 80 pin chip from that perspective. All the VDD and VSS pins are similarly arranged near the center of the sides. The 80 pin chip has dedicated AVdd and AVss pins near the analog input pins.

Is the CAN hardware the controller only? Do you need a driver chip for the physical interface? I guess I should look for myself

I think the CAN hardware is controller only - it needs a driver IC. The 80 pin 6010A IC has two CAN ports, if that's wanted. If I remember correctly, the driver IC on the Revolt board has resources for two CAN buses.

One really nice thing about the 80 pin 6010A is that there are 16 dedicated analog input pins, compared to 8 for the 4011. These pins are pretty much just analog inputs, except they are shared by the QEI and programming pins. There's no other option for QEI, but the programming pins can be moved.

- E*clipse

[MPaulHolmes]

Yes the CAN needs a little 8 pin $1 or so driver. I included 2 interfaces (CANHI1, CANLO1, GND) & (canhi2, canlo2, gnd) because usually can is chained together. So, canhi1 is connected to canhi2, and canlo1 is connected to canlo2. Then, the 2 that are on opposite ends of the chain only have one (canhi, canlo, gnd) going to it. And those are the ones that get terminated with the 120Ohm resistors. But that's different from the 2 separate can interfaces. If you used 2 separate can interfaces, you would have:

(canhi_1a, canlo_1a, gnd)
(canhi_2a, canlo_2a, gnd)
for one of the interfaces, and for the other CAN interface, just change the a to b. haha.