Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

Optimal selection of motor and gearhead in mechatronic applications

Fredrik Roos *, Hans Johansson, Jan Wikander
Mechatronics Lab, Department of Machine Design, KTH 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden Received 24 January 2005; accepted 2 August 2005

Abstract A method for the selection of motor and gearhead in mechatronic applications is proposed. The method is applicable to any kind of load and helps to nd the optimal motor gearhead combination with respect to output torque, peak power, mass/size and/or cost. The input to the method is the load cycle and component data on candidate motors and gearheads. Output is a set of graphs of all motor/gear ratio combinations that can drive the given load. From these graphs it is easy to read out the peak power, motor torque and energy eciency for all feasible motor/gear ratio combinations. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Design methodology; Gears; Motor drives; Servomotors; Servosystems

1. Introduction The number of electromechanical sub-systems in road vehicles is increasing fast. Many of the in-vehicle systems that traditionally have been powered directly from the combustion engine via gears, chains or belts are being replaced with electric systems. This electrication is primarily driven by the new functionality that can be implemented with electrically actuated sub-systems, but it is also necessary for the transition to electric or hybrid-electric drive trains. An electrically actuated sub-system can be implemented as a mechatronic actuation module, incorporating all necessary actuator components within one physical module (Fig. 1). This research aims at development of integrated design and optimization methods for such mechatronic modules. The dimensioning method presented in this paper focuses on the motor and gearhead within an actuation module, the method is however not delimited to mechatronic module applications. It is in fact applicable to electric actuation systems in general, but most benecial when applied to computer-controlled, variable speed applications, where a signicant part of the motors rated power
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 790 96 41; fax: +46 8 20 22 87. E-mail address: fredrikr@md.kth.se (F. Roos).

may be needed to accelerate and decelerate the motors rotor. This paper focuses on one of the most important design decisions in a mechatronic development project: the selection of electric motor and gearhead. This decision is dicult because it aects both the structure of the system and its dynamic performance. It can also have a signicant impact on the total cost of the system. The method presented here is based on a discrete approach, which aims at nding the best motor and gearhead combination given a discrete set of components with known data (e.g. from motor catalogues). However, it is almost always possible to design application specic components that will be better [8]. Nevertheless, in low production volume applications, it is usually not an option to design a new motor and gearhead, and therefore necessary to use o-the-shelf components. Many methods and rules of thumb for the motor/gear ratio selection problem are proposed in the literature. Cetinkunt [3] gives a good overview of the design issues in high performance servo systems, both from a dynamic and structural point of view. He especially highlights the conict between speed and accuracy. Many of the classical sizing methods are not applicable to general loads, but require some load characteristics, such

0957-4158/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2005.08.001

64

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

Nomenclature gg h _ h h s x xm,max xg,max xl,peak I J Kt m n gear eciency angle [rad] angular velocity dh/dt [rad/s] angular acceleration d2h/dt2 [rad/s2] cycle time angular velocity [rad/s] max allowed motor velocity [rad/s] max allowed gear velocity [rad/s] load peak angular velocity [rad/s] current [A] inertia [kg m2] motor torque constant [N m/A] mass [kg] gear ratio P power [W] R motor winding resistance [X] T torque [N m] gearhead torque on motor side [N m] Tg,in Tg,out gearhead torque on load side (=Tl) Tp motor peak torque rating [N m] Tc motor continuous torque rating [N m] W energy [J] kxk2 root mean square (RMS) norm kxk1 innity norm (maximum) index l load index m motor index g gearhead

Diagnostics

Command from driver or other sub-system

Automatic Control

Software

Electronics Sensors

Controller

Power electronics Converter/Driver

Electromechanical actuator

Transmission/ Linkage

Load

Physical mechatronic module

Energy Source/Buffer

Fig. 1. Block diagram of a mechatronic actuation module.

as purely inertial or constant speed loads (e.g. [4]). In addition, most methods treat the gearhead as ideal. Pash and p Seering [5] derive the optimal gear ratio n J l =J m for a purely inertial load. This gear ratio maximizes the output torque from the actuator, but only in the special case with a purely inertial load and an ideal gearhead. Furthermore, most of the previously published methods are based on a manual iterative approach, making the selection procedure time consuming and cumbersome, e.g. [12].

Van De Straete et al. [13,14] propose a general method for servo drive selection and optimization. Their method is applicable to all possible loads, and many dierent types of electric motors. It is however somewhat complicated and assumes an ideal gearhead, like many other methods. The method presented in this paper is applicable to all load types and it takes all major limiting phenomena of the motor and gearhead into account. The nal selection criterion is the choice of the user, which is important since

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

65

Fig. 2. Electromechanical servo system.

dierent criteria are relevant in dierent applications. In some applications the most important aspect may for example be the weight of the servo drive while in others it is the cost. This method supports the following selection criteria: peak power, output torque, size, weight and energy eciency. Sometimes other criteria like backlash and accuracy can be even more important. They are however not treated here and usually depend more on the component type and conguration than the component sizes. The method assumes that the worst case load cycle is known (i.e. position and torque as function of time). In addition, values on most of the parameters shown in Fig. 2 are needed for each of the candidate motors and gearheads. The method then nds all motor/gear ratio combinations that can drive the specied load. 2. Motor characteristics Many electric motor types are used in mechatronic applications. This paper focuses on permanent magnet motors, even though the method also is applicable to other motor types. Permanent magnet motors can be divided into two groups: brushed DC-motors and brushless motors. The phenomena causing the motor limits are the same for both groups, with the exception of the commutation limit for brushed motors (Table 1). When checking if a motor can drive a given load, at least three limits have to be checked: (a) The root-mean square value of the required motor torque has to be lower than the motors continuous torque rating (Tc), (b) the required peak motor torque has to be lower than the motors peak torque rating (Tp) and (c) the required peak motor speed has to be lower than the maximum allowed speed of the motor (xm,max). The torque data in a motor catalogue is only completely valid in the neighborhood of the motors rated speed. Since some of the losses in a motor are speed dependent (e.g. eddy-currents and hysteresis losses in the magnetic circuit) the motor becomes warmer at higher speeds than at lower while producing the same torque. It is therefore possible for a motor to produce higher (continuous) torques at
Table 1 Permanent magnet motor limits Continuous torque limit Peak torque limit Speed limit

low speeds than at high speeds. This eect is usually not included in motor data sheets and it is therefore disregarded in this sizing method. It is, however, advisable to check the rated speed of the candidate motors. Using a motor with a lower rated speed than the application requires may result in an overheated motor even though the RMS-load is lower than the motors torque rating. The motors physical speed limit is caused by constraints in the mechanical structure, but it is often the application voltage that sets the constraint on the maximum motor speed (motor back EMF = max application voltage). If the motor winding can be adapted to the application it is only the mechanical speed limit that sets the constraint on the maximum speed. However, information about the mechanical speed limit is usually hard to nd in motor data sheets. Also data on the commutation limit in DC motors are rare; therefore will the commutation limit not be included in the analysis presented in this paper. Hence, the peak torque limit is assumed to be independent of speed, for all of the above motor types. 3. Gearhead characteristics The gearhead or gear reducer is often treated as an ideal gear ratio when sizing a servo drive. This is obviously a simplied approach, but sometimes it may be good enough. However, in this method, both gearhead eciency and inertia are included in the analysis. Three gearhead types are frequently used in mechatronic applications: conventional gear pairs with spur or helical gears, three-wheel planetary gear trains and harmonic drives. The choice of gearhead type depends on many factors; perhaps the most important ones are: input speed, backlash, eciency and cost. The choice of gearhead type is however not covered by this method and it is assumed that gearhead data is available. The phenomena behind the torque limits of a gearhead are far more complex than those for a motor. The limiting factors of gears are mechanical stresses: tension, compression, bending shear and Hertzian pressure. All major

Overheating of winding insulation kTmk2 6 Tc where kT m k2 Demagnetization kTmk1 6 Tp where kTmk1 = maxjTmj Commutation (DC) kTmxmk1

q R 1 s 2 s 0 T m dt

Mechanical limit/max supply voltage kxmk1 6 xm,max where kxmk1 = maxjxmj

66

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

gearbox components are subjected to cyclic stresses, even if the external load is constant. The complexity behind the limiting factors of a gearhead makes it hard to dimension and optimize it even for a constant torque and constant speed load. And it is even harder to optimize the gearhead size for a dynamic load. In some gear catalogues a type of root mean cube (RMC) value of the output torque is used as equivalent continuous torque. But for innite life dimensioning (>2 106 load cycles/tooth) it seems, according to [1,7], as if the gearhead has to be dimensioned with respect to the peak load of the load cycle. However this topic is very complex and the authors recommend to either follow the manufacturers method for equivalent load calculation or to use the peak load as equivalent load. In this paper, the peak load of the load cycle will be used for gearhead dimensioning, i.e. T g;eq kT l k1 1

lomb friction only, no viscous friction. In other words, the gear eciency is assumed to be independent of speed. Moreover, in reality, the eciency may be a function of the torque, as in Harmonic Drives. A low eciency will result in a warmer gearhead, which may require cooling. According to [6], the thermal factor can normally be ignored when selecting a gearhead for intermittent duty applications. On the other hand, determining the inner temperature developed by the gears is vital to all continuous duty applications. 4. Load and motor torques The load is here dened as the required output torque and position, Tl(t) and hl(t) of the gearhead shaft as function of time. Fig. 3 shows Tl(t) and hl(t) of an inertial load cycle. The required motor torque to drive the specied load is given by T m t J m J g h l t n T l t ngg 5

The most important parameter of a gearhead is its torque rating, but given that the candidate gearheads can drive the load, the most important parameters are: gear ratio n, inertia Jg (reected to the motor shaft), mass mg and eciency gg. Usually the inertia is small compared to the motor inertia and the weight also tends to be small. However, when the gear ratio is increased, the gearhead tends to get larger while the motor usually decrease in size. Hence, both the weight and inertia of the gearhead can be of signicance. This is obviously dependent of gearhead type. Roos and Spiegelberg [7] compare weight and inertias of single gear pairs with three-wheel planetary gear trains. The required mass and inertia is much lower for threewheel planetary gears than for the equivalent pinion gear-wheel conguration. The simple gear model used in this method only contains three parameters: the gear ratio, n, the eciency gg and the gear inertia Jg. The gear ratio is dened as n xm xl 2

which leads to the following equations for the motor torque limits: v !2 u Z u1 s Tl kT m k2 t J m J g hl n dt s 0 ngg    Tl   kT m k1 max  J J h n g l  m ngg 

6 7

and the eciency gg T g;out Tl nT g;in nT g;in 3

A single gear pair can for example have eciencies up to 98%, and a three-wheel planetary gear train up to about 97%. To achieve high reduction ratios it is often necessary to use two or more reduction steps in series. It is for example hard to design planetary gear trains with a reduction ratio above 10, since it requires a very small sun gear or very large ring gear [11]. The total gearhead eciency will therefore depend on the number of gear stages, s: gtot gs 4 Since gearhead data sheets normally only contain a single gure of the eciency, this eciency model assumes cou-

As seen in the expressions above, the necessary motor torques depend on the load as well as the inertia of the motor and gearhead. This means that the torque calculations have to be made for all candidate motors and gear ratios. The calculations can however be simplied in the RMS case (6), by separating the load from the motor parameters as follows [8]: Z s Z 2 1 1 s 2 2 21 kT m k2 h J J n d t T l dt m g 2 s 0 l n2 g2 g s 0 Z Jm Jg 1 s hl T l dt 2 8 s 0 gg 1 Jm Jg 2 2 kT m k2 J m J g n2 k 1 2 2 k 2 2 k3 n gg gg where k1, k2 and k3 are three constants representing the load Z Z Z 1 s 2 1 s 2 1 s h dt; k 2 hl T l dt k1 T dt; k 3 s 0 l s 0 l s 0 9 For a constant speed load with small accelerations, k2 alone represents the squared load RMS-torque.

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

67

Load profile
15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Ang. Velocity [rad/s] Pos [rad]

time [s]
60 40 Load Torque TRMS 37.8528 Nm
TPeak 60 Nm

torque [Nm]

20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

1.6

1.8

time [s]
Fig. 3. Example of an inertial load cycle, torque and angle (position) as function of time.

5. Required power and energy Usually the peak power of the drive system is important for the sizing and cost of the inverter (driver electronics). The total motor power consists mainly of two parts: the mechanical output power and the power losses in the motor. The losses in the gearhead are here just treated as an increase of the required motor torque by a factor 1/gg. The heat developed in a motor is generated by the motors resistive, magnetic and mechanical losses. The motor power equals P m P loss P mech _ m J m J g _ l n2 T l t h _l P mech T m h hl h gg 10 where the motors mechanical power Pmech, is given by

cycle is of interest. Here it is assumed that none of the regenerated energy during braking is stored; all regenerated electric energy (negative power) is assumed to be converted to heat in resistors in the drive circuitry. The total energy required to drive the load is given by W Z
0 s

P in dt

14

where Pin is given by  P in 0 Pm < 0 Pm P 0 P in P m

15

6. The selection procedure 11 In this section the proposed motor/gearhead selection and optimization procedure is explained. The method is intended to be implemented in a mathematical numerical software tool; a MatlabTM implementation can be downloaded from [9]. An overview of the proposed sizing process is shown in Fig. 4. 6.1. Selection of gearhead type and candidate motors (A) First a family of gearheads that can drive the given load has to be selected. First of all the gearheads need to be mechanically compatible with the candidate motors, other important factors are backlash, available gear ratios, input speed, price and so on (see also Section 3). All gearheads in

The approach taken in this paper assumes that the magnetic and friction losses in the motor are small in comparison with the resistive losses. Hence, the motor losses, Ploss, are given by P loss Rm I 2 Rm T2 m k2 T 12

The peak input power, for a given motor and gear ratio combination, is then given by P peak kP m k1 maxP loss P mech 13

For eciency evaluation, the total energy consumption by the dierent motor/gear ratio combinations over a load

68

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

Select gearhead type and family that can drive the load.

Select Candidate Motors

tors, or, if the motor is the limiting component and a more exact analysis is desirable, one for each motor.

nmax

minxm;max ; xg;max xl;peak

16

6.3. Feasible motors and gear ratios (C)

Determine the speed limit and derive the maximum gear ratio.

Eliminate motor/gear ratio combinations that cannot drive the load. Tm, rms & Tm, peak .

Derive the required RMS-torque as function of gear ratio (1 nmax), for all of the candidate motors (8). Then nd the range of feasible gear ratios by comparing the required RMS torque with each motors continuous torque rating. Eliminate all data points that not can drive the load, i.e. eliminate all points that not fulll (17). T c P kT m k2 17

Numerical software

Derive peak power and required energy for the remaining motor/gear ratios.

Generally, the peak torque limit also has to be checked. Use Eq. (7) to retrieve the required peak motor torque and eliminate motor/gear ratio combinations that do not fulll (18). It is however usually possible to determine beforehand if the peak torque limit will be a constraint or not, by comparing the RMS and peak torque of the load alone, e.g. Fig. 3. T p P kT m k1 6.4. Visualization of the results (D) When all motors and gear ratios that can drive the load have been derived, it is possible to calculate the peak power and input energy requirement for those motor/gear ratio combinations with (13) and (14). The simplest and perhaps the most comprehensive way to display the results is to, for each motor, plot the torque, power and energy requirements as functions of gear ratio (Eqs. (8), (13) and (14)). 7. Selection criteria Depending on application the selection criterion that is most important may vary. For example, in robotic joint actuators, the weight of the actuator may be most important, while in other applications the prime consideration is to minimize the required peak power. This method supports the following selection criteria. 7.1. Minimization of motor torque 18

Plot results, and select the best motor gear ratio for the application.

Fig. 4. Block diagram of the selection procedure.

a series usually have approximately the same eciency. Hence it is possible to use a constant gure of the eciency gg, for all ratios. The gear inertia is also important to check, if it is low in comparison with the candidate motors it can be neglected. Otherwise, it may be approximated as constant for all gear ratios. The choice of candidate motors depends much on the application. Generally no larger motors than one that exactly can drive the load with no gearhead have to be included. A good idea is to run through the sizing procedure once with a small number of motors and an ideal gear to get a rough idea of motor sizes and gear ratios of interest. 6.2. Maximum gear ratio (B) Determine the maximum allowed speed of the motor shaft, xm,max by comparing the speed limits of the motor and gearhead. The motors maximum speed limit depends on if the motors winding can be changed or not (see Section 2). If the winding can be adapted (optimized) to the application, only the mechanical limit is of interest. Derive the maximum allowed gear ratio with Eq. (16). Use either one approximation for all of the candidate mo-

Minimizing the continuous motor torque is equivalent to maximizing the output torque for a given motor current. Using the motor as torque-ecient as possible allows us to increase the accelerations in the load cycle and hence increase the performance of the system. For a given motor and winding, minimization of the motor torque also minimizes the motor current.

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

69

7.2. Minimization of weight and size In many applications, minimization of the actuators weight (motor + gearhead) can enhance the overall system performance. Optimization of weight and size is the same type of problem in this discrete sizing method. Usually lower weight means smaller size and may also lead to lower costs. 7.3. Peak power/peak current A large part of the cost of an electric servo system lies in the driver electronics. Minimizing the required peak power of the actuator may allow a lower power rating of the inverter. The supply voltage is usually xed in an application; therefore minimizing the inverter power rating is equal to minimizing the peak motor (inverter) current. If the winding cannot be adapted to the application, this is, for a given motor, the same as minimizing the motor torque. It is however not certain that the motor/gearhead combination that requires the lowest torque also requires the lowest current when dierent motors are compared, since the torque/current relationship is dependent on the winding. It gets more complicated if the motor is wounded for the application. To minimize the motor current the motor should be wounded so that the peak motor velocity occurs at the supply voltage (this assumes that eld weakening not is used). The gear ratio that minimizes the peak power (13) will then also minimize the peak motor (inverter) current, but only under the condition that peak power occurs at the same instant of the load cycle regardless of gear ratio. If possible, it is nice to avoid modeling the current, since it depends on the winding. However, it may exist load cycles where the peak power occurs at a dierent time instant of the load cycle depending on gear ratio. In those cases the motor current must be analyzed instead of just the power. This is however not investigated further in this paper. 7.4. Energy eciency

8. Examples For simplicity, all motors used in these examples are synchronous AC motors from Danaher Motion, API-Elmo series [2]. Essential parameters of the candidate motors are shown in Table 2. 8.1. Inertial load The goal with this example is to nd the best motor/ gearhead combination for the inertial load shown in Fig. 3. A low backlash harmonic gearhead from HDsystems HPG Series [10] is required (Table 3). As seen in Tables 2 and 3, the gear inertia in this case is of the same magnitude as the inertia of the smallest candidate motor. The gear inertia is, for simplicity, set to 0.5 kg cm2 for all ratios. Also the eciency is set to a constant, 85%, even though it is in reality a function of output torque [10]. The required RMS-torque for each motor is shown in Fig. 5, only motor/gear ratio combinations that can drive the load are shown. As seen in the gure the maximal gear ratio is approximately 45 (max gear input speed = 6000 rpm). The stars indicate the results of applying the classical method of inertial matching p n J l =J m while the boxes indicate the minimum motor torque requirement.
Table 3 Gear data, HPG Series [10] Tg,nom xg,max mg gg n Jg 3560 N m 6000 rpm 2.32.7 kg >0.85 5, 11, 21, 33, 45 0.450.71 kg cm2

Motor RMS torque as function of gear ratio, Tl,rms = 36.4333Nm 4.5 PSA 60/4112 PSA 90/652 PSA 90/679 PSA 90/6105

Torque [Nm]

A measure of eciency is to compare the energy consumption for the dierent motors over the load cycle (14). Here it is assumed that none of the regenerated energy is stored, but rather converted to heat in resistors.

3.5

Table 2 Motor data API-Elmo PSA series ACPM motors [2] PSA 60/4-50 60/4-75 60/4-112 90/6-52 90/6-79 90/6-105 Tc [N m] 0.76 1.20 1.80 2.50 3.60 4.50 Tp [N m] 3.8 6 9 12 18 22.5 xm,max [rpm] 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 mm [kg] 3 3.6 4.4 5.9 7.1 8.2 Jm [kg cm2] 0.79 0.98 1.28 2.86 3.8 4.7 R [X ] 15 9.0 5.9 3.9 1.45 1.10 Kt [N m/A] 0.52 0.62 0.63 0.68 0.58 0.61

2.5

1.5 0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Gear ratio

Fig. 5. Required motor RMS torque. The vertical lines indicate allowed gear ratios (Table 3). The stars indicate the results of the method of inertia balance, the boxes the minimum of the torque curves.

70

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

+ P Motor peak power (P mech loss ) as function of gear ratio, Pl,max = 866.25W 4000 PSA 60/4112 PSA 90/652 PSA 90/679 PSA 90/6105

Table 4 Results of the dierent optimization criteria Optimization criteria Min. peak power Min. current (xed winding) Max. eciency Weight/size Max. output torque Motor/gear ratio PSA PSA PSA PSA PSA 90/6-105, 60/4-112, 90/6-105, 60/4-112, 90/6-105, n = 11 n = 45 n = 11 n = 45 n = 33

3500

Peak Power [W]

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000 0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Gear ratio

Fig. 6. Required motor peak power, the vertical lines indicate allowed gear ratios.

As seen, the dierences between the gear ratios indicated by the boxes and stars are small, which implies that the classical method is quite robust to variations in gear inertia and gear eciency (non-ideal gears). However, if an ideal gear ratio model is used, the required torques will be reduced by approximately 0.5 N m. This may result in the selection of a motor that cannot drive the load. The required peak power (13) for the dierent combinations is shown in Fig. 6, and the required energy (14), in Fig. 7. The largest motor (PSA 90/6-105) and a gear ratio of 11 minimizes the peak power (compare Figs. 6 and 7). If the winding is xed, the peak current rating of the inverter is
Consumed energy W = 190.575J
l

minimized when the current is minimized, which means PSA 60/4-112 and gear ratio 45. But the most energy ecient motor/gear ratio combination is still the PSA 90/6105 with a gear ratio of 11 (Fig. 7). For performance optimization, i.e. the maximum possible increase of output torque or acceleration, the motor gear ratio combination with the largest dierence between required torque and rated torque should be selected. In this case, it is the PSA 90/6-105 at a gear ratio of 33, which has the highest additional torque capability (1.4 N m). To minimize the weight of the servo drive, the smallest motor shall be selected. The total weight is then 4.4 + 2.7 = 7.1 kg. This can be compared with a direct drive conguration (no gear), which requires a motor far above 20 kg (not included in Table 2). Table 4 shows the resulting motor/gearhead combination for each of the optimization criteria. 8.2. Combined load The load used in this example is a combination of an inertial and friction load (Fig. 8). Since this load cannot be classied as either an inertial or constant speed load, it is dicult to use any of the classical sizing methods. The planetary gearhead series used in this example is from ZF Machineantriebe GmbH, PGE 25/1 [15]. Data on these gears can be found in Table 5. As seen in Table 2 and Fig. 8 none of the candidate motors can drive the load directly all have lower continuous torque rating than the load RMS torque. Applying the procedure from previous section to this load and motors results in the following plots. As seen in Fig. 9, the maximum allowed gear ratio is 9. All candidate motors can drive the load even though the smallest one, PSA60/4-50 needs a gear ratio above 8 to do it (indicated by the arrow in Fig. 9). So if the weight is to be minimized the PSA60/4 should be used. Total mass (motor + gearhead) is then 3 + 1.3 = 4.3 kg. In comparison, the smallest motor from the same series that can drive the load directly (gear ratio = 1), has a weight of 9.3 kg (this motor is not included in Table 2 or in the graphs). The motor peak power is plotted in Fig. 10. As seen in this gure the minimization of peak power is not so intuitive. The second largest motor (PSA 60/4-112) has the lowest peak power optimum (1025 W at n = 5). The dierence between the three smallest motors is however not large, approximately 100 W.

800 PSA 60/4112 PSA 90/652 PSA 90/679 PSA 90/6105

700

600

Energy [J]

500

400

300

200

100 0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Gear ratio

Fig. 7. Required energy to drive the load (14), the horizontal line represents the necessary energy to drive the load alone (motor and gear inertia = 0, gear eciency = 1). The vertical lines indicate allowed gear ratios.

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

71

Load profile
100 Ang. Velocity [rad/s] Pos [rad] 50

50

100

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

time [s]

15 10 Load Torque T 5.7079 Nm

RMS

torque [Nm]

5 0 5 10 15 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

TPeak 11.7 Nm

4.5

time [s]
Fig. 8. Combined friction and inertial load.

Table 5 Gear data, PGE 25/1 [15] Tg,nom xg,max mg gg n Jg 12 N m 6000 rpm 1.3 kg 0.97 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 0.059 kg cm2 (n = 10)0.128 kg cm2 (n = 3)

Motor peak power (Pmech + Ploss ) as function of gear ratio, P 1500 1450 1400 1350

l,max

= 819W

PSA 60/450 PSA 60/475 PSA 60/4112 PSA 90/652

Peak Power [W]

1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 1

Motor RMS torque as function of gear ratio, Tl,rms = 5.7079Nm 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 PSA 60/450 PSA 60/475 PSA 60/4112 PSA 90/652

Torque [Nm]

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8

Gear ratio

Fig. 10. Motor peak power requirements.

Gear ratio

Fig. 9. Motor RMS torque as function of gear ratio, the vertical lines indicate allowed gear ratios.

From an energy eciency perspective (Fig. 11), the motors are similar; even though the high rotor accelerations at high gear ratios mean lower eciencies for the larger motors. The ellipse on the curve representing PSA 90/6-52 in Fig. 11 indicates the gear ratio where the deceleration parts of the load cycle changes from requiring positive motor power to negative power (regenerative drive), hence the discontinuity in the graph (Eq. (15)). In other words, for gear ratios above 5.8, the large kinetic energy stored in the rotor

72

F. Roos et al. / Mechatronics 16 (2006) 6372

Consumed energy Wl = 851.7732J 1150 PSA 60/450 PSA 60/475 PSA 60/4112 PSA 90/652

Acknowledgements This research is part of the Green Vehicle/Fuel Cell and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (FCHEV) program, jointly funded by the Swedish government, Scania CV AB, Volvo AB, Volvo Cars and Saab Automobile. References
[1] Antony G. Rating and sizing of precision low backlash planetary gearboxes automation motion control and robotics applications. Available from: www.neugartusa.com/service/faq/gear_rating.pdf. [2] API-Elmo. Danaher motion API-Elmo, Servo motors, motor data sheet. API-Elmo 2003. Available from: http://www.danahermotion.se. [3] Cetinkunt S. Optimal design issues in high-speed high-precistion motion servo systems. Mechatronics 1991;1(2):187201. [4] Crowder RM. Electric drives and their control. Oxford Science Publications; 1995, ISBN 0 19 856565 8. [5] Pasch KA, Seering WP. On the drive systems for high-performance machines. ASME J Mech Transmiss Automat Des 1984;106(1): 1028. [6] Riduttori Epicicloidal Di Precisione, Precision planetary gear reducers, TECNOINGRANAGGI RIDUTTORI. Data sheet. [7] Roos F, Spiegelberg C. Relations between size and gear ratio in spur and planetary gear trains. Technical Report, TRITA-MMK 2005:01, ISSN 1400-1179, ISRN/KTH/MMK/R-05/01-SE, November 2004. [8] Roos F, Johansson H, Wikander J. Optimal design of motor and gear ratio in mechatronic systems. In: Proceedings of 3rd IFAC symposium on mechatronic systems, Sydney, September 2004. [9] Roos F. Method implementation. Available from: http://www.md. kth.se/research/projects/mda/p8.shtml?eng. [10] HD Systems, Harmonic planetary HPG Series. Available from: www.hdsi.net, 2004. [11] Rudt A. Precision speed reducers, smooth servo motion. Power Transmission Design, March 1995. [12] Vaidya J. Motor selection for actuation systems. In: Proceedings of the electrical/electronics insulation conference, 1995. p 38591. [13] Van de Straete HJ, De Schutter J, Belmans R. An ecient procedure for checking performance limits in servo drive selection and optimization. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 1999;4(4):37886. [14] Van de Straete HJ, Degezelle P, De Schutter J, Belmans RJM. Servo motor selection criterion for mechatronic applications. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 1998;3(1):439. [15] ZF Machineantriebe GmbH. ZF-Servoplan Produktinformationen. Product CD-ROM. Available from: www.industrial-drives.zf.com.

1100

1050

Energy [J]

1000

950

900

850 1

Gear ratio

Fig. 11. Required energy to drive the load, the vertical lines indicate allowed gear ratios.

requires the drive system to produce negative torques in order to follow the specied load cycle. 9. Conclusions The method presented in this paper can nd the best motor/gear ratio combination for any given load with respect to weight, size, peak power, torque and eciency. As input to the method, data of the candidate motors and gearheads, as well as a load cycle are required. Including the gearhead inertia and eciency in the sizing method can make a large dierence on the motor/gear ratio selection. Applying a classical sizing method with an ideal gear model when large gear ratios are required can result in a motor/gear ratio selection that cannot drive the load. If the winding can be adapted to the application or not, may have a big impact on the choice of motor and gear ratio. If it is, the peak current rating of the inverter may truly be minimized, since the application voltage can be used more eciently.