HESC V1 150v 600Amp VESC based motor controller

The bus bars still appear to be in the way of the FETs. If you made them wider, they could be thinner (8x2mm copper) and still have less resistance than 6 AWG copper. That way you could place the bus bars under the FETs.

I see significant areas where VDC and GND are next to each other on the same layer - I'd still throw some ceramics in there. 2x100v in series, and as many as will fit in parallel. Cheap and if they aren't needed you can leave some or all of them out in the final version.

Your gate drive traces are still running under a current-carrying trace, but less so. From my experience, inductive turn-on might be an issue. I would use pairs of traces, right on top of one another, running to the gate and source pins. Have the VDD pin of the gate driver connected to the source pin, not directly to ground. Put the capacitor between VDD and GND and place a low-value resistor (2-4 ohm) in between your gate drive supply and VDD. Something like this:View attachment 288105
I'm using twisted pairs for this (total and utter PITA) but you could achieve the same result with traces on adjacent layers.

Other than that it's looking really nice. If you select shorter electrolytic capacitors this controller would be pretty small for the watts it puts out. I'm thinking about putting the FETs horizontally (rather than vertically) on my next design as well. Would save a lot of space.
I know this is old , but I find the figure quiet interesting , the source pin of the mosfets met at 2 point , point 1 switch node where main current is passing and point 2 is at the gate driver leg . doesnot that make a loop / antenna and radiate noise ? doesnot that also welcome the switching node current at least a small part of them to come to your gate driver board ?
 
I wrote this on my build thread but posting it here too maybe one of you can help me.
Also anybody got firmware for cl700? mine is on firmware 5.03



Today I played with the controller a lot.
I tried sensorless mode and this way I am able to spin the motor to 24000 erpm with no load, but with the bike on the ground it cogs and is not able to move the bike. If I put it in encoder low rpm are fine but as soon as it gets over 5000 to 6000 erpm it cogs. There is a négative current spike that stop the motor then it gets going again. So the encoder is good because it works flawlessly in lower rpm. When the cogs happen the motor is already switched to sensorless( I tried différent settings between 1500 to 4000rpm). I even tried to make it switch a 15000rpm and the cog still happens at around 5000 to 6000rpm
 
It should work with the newest vesc firmware off the vesc website, but if the controller is one of the earlier versions, I'd doublecheck with Hackey. New firmware might fix the issue on its own
 
It should work with the newest vesc firmware off the vesc website, but if the controller is one of the earlier versions, I'd doublecheck with Hackey. New firmware might fix the issue on its own
Dont you need a controller specific file too? I dont think Hackey has shared those, so they can be included in the standard vesc package.
 
Can I use the 26-pin ignition wire as an on-off switch and leave the main leads connected?



did u program the motor with wizard? It didn’t work well for me and was told the wizard is no good for big motors.
I programmed the motor with the wizard and also in the motor categorie but both do the same result. Yes pin 26 in on off swith
 
I wrote this on my build thread but posting it here too maybe one of you can help me.
Also anybody got firmware for cl700? mine is on firmware 5.03



Today I played with the controller a lot.
I tried sensorless mode and this way I am able to spin the motor to 24000 erpm with no load, but with the bike on the ground it cogs and is not able to move the bike. If I put it in encoder low rpm are fine but as soon as it gets over 5000 to 6000 erpm it cogs. There is a négative current spike that stop the motor then it gets going again. So the encoder is good because it works flawlessly in lower rpm. When the cogs happen the motor is already switched to sensorless( I tried différent settings between 1500 to 4000rpm). I even tried to make it switch a 15000rpm and the cog still happens at around 5000 to 6000rpm
Update in 6.02 firm
And do the automatic motor setup and after play with the parameters manually to search the good one, 3Shul usually are very bad at the auto dectect, you always need to tune the parameters manually and searching the good one to run properly
Also Ortega Observer is more facile to use and have better tolerance at wrong motor parameters so try to run with Ortega observer first, but MXLEMMING observer with very good settings are more efficient and have better torque per amper than Ortega if you manage to working with it

Typically you need to manually thune in Foc > General :
-Resistor (generally to reduce)
-Inductance (generally to reduce)
-Const Time who change the KP/KI value (in Detect and calculate parameters) (Also to reduce, usually from 1000 to 300~500

That's my expérience with E-trott motor hub and also Surron motors, but i never trying your QS motor
 
I wouldn't use those irfp4568 FETs/if you do be careful with them. The reverse transfer capacitance to input capacitance ratio is only 50 so they are likely to experience parasitic turn on if you start running near their rated voltage.
What would you recommend as a robust limit for Ciss/Crss? I am using IRFB/S/SL3307ZPbF for a project currently, and it is really bad. It has Ciss 4750nF, Crss 190nF (ratio of 25), and it reliably produces the parasitic turn on, so I am in the process of selecting an alternative. I am looking for components with a ratio of around or larger than 200, is this overkill?

Thanks, Thomas.
 
What would you recommend as a robust limit for Ciss/Crss? I am using IRFB/S/SL3307ZPbF for a project currently, and it is really bad. It has Ciss 4750nF, Crss 190nF (ratio of 25), and it reliably produces the parasitic turn on, so I am in the process of selecting an alternative. I am looking for components with a ratio of around or larger than 200, is this overkill?

Thanks, Thomas.
Typically, heuristically, the ratio should be approximately equal to the voltage. It can be better to look at the gate charge at threshold compared to the miller charge. But MOS datasheets do not have a standardised way of quoting these numbers... it can be very hard to calculate exactly whether it will self turn on.

Your MOS is not great though for parasitic turn on, that is sure. Try IPP026N10NF2S which is probably more expensive but I am pretty confident does not self turn on.
 
Thank you for your advice - will try and report out! I already also realized that gate charge plays an important role, but flipping through different FETs in LTspice did also show that the numbers in the datasheet is one story, how the components behave can be a different one...

Greetings, Thomas.
 
Try IPP026N10NF2S which is probably more expensive but I am pretty confident does not self turn on.
Ok so I went off and ordered a few of these FETs. After exchanging them, I did the same pulse tests that I used to characterize my halfbridge with the IRF3307 before to have a direct comparison. And I can truly say that it is a large improvement. The gate voltage (channel 2 on the attached pictures) stays much cleaner during transitions and all other signals are quieter as well. Thank you again for this helpful recommendation.

Thomas
 

Attachments

  • IRF3307.png
    IRF3307.png
    135.8 KB · Views: 9
  • IPP026N10.png
    IPP026N10.png
    132.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Back
Top