Joined

·
756 Posts

301 - 320 of 490 Posts

Joined

·
756 Posts

Jeez, so if 120V can get the peak 80hp @ 4000rpm (tomofreno)1238 shuts down a little over 130V. HPEVS told me their AC31, and presumably the AC50, can go to around 200 Volts. They might even do a custom wind if you ask

200V or 170V sagged should be able to push that peak to 5000rpm

Which would bump the peak HP to about 104, nice!

Doh! I wonder if he's thinking it's 3 times the work (3-phase) or because there are other things like DC/DC on each phase, etc to change.

You can buy a complete 300V, 400A IGBT power module, driver board, caps and current sensors and vector control board for about $1K and an industrial VFD for $300. You can use the AC-50 motor with that and get 80kW input power (at 200V max for AC50). Not much different than the 78kW of the HPEV package and that's why I'm hesitating with a DIY controller. That Curtis controller is a bargain for what you get. When they up the voltage to 144 nominal it will be a killer AC system.

JR

PS: oh yeah, forgot about the 6 months worth of coding and tinkering to get the industrial controller to work nice in a car instead of driving a bandsaw.

Oh, there is that.PS: oh yeah, forgot about the 6 months worth of coding and tinkering to get the industrial controller to work nice in a car instead of driving a bandsaw.

For these tests I set things up for maximum acceleration:

Max_Speed = 8000 rpm (max value for motor rpm)

Accel_Rate = 0.1 (min value)

Gear_Soften = 0 (min value)

Drive_Current Limit = 100% (max value)

Typical_Max_Speed = 6000 rpm (max is 8k, but I think this only has an effect in speed control mode)

Base_Speed = 6000 (set to its max for the base speed test described on manual pg 62, this was factory set to 3200)

AC50 motor/1238-7501 controller running in torque control mode, 36 180Ah CALB cells, full charge at start of test. Suzuki Swift, 2250 lb, http://www.evalbum.com/3060

Results

The Base_Speed test was run twice and values of 4517 and 4663 rpm were obtained. I think I may have let up the throttle a bit on the second test, so have more confidence in the first number. Another estimate of base speed is to directly monitor when the controller is using full battery voltage, i.e. when the Modulation_Depth parameter reaches 100%, or equivalently, when the motor current, Current_RMS parameter, starts to decrease from its max of 550A rms, when accelerating at full throttle (I would guess the controller does something like this in the test).

It is unfortunate that monitored values cannot be data logged and/or that the software does not permit viewing of multiple windows simultaneously. It requires 5 or 6 clicks of the UP arrow key to move from the Modulation_Depth parameter to view the Motor_RPM parameter value. This takes far too much time to give even a rough estimate of the rpm at which Modulation_Depth reaches 100% (controller using full battery voltage) when accelerating at full throttle. So to get a rough estimate, I timed how long it took to reach 100% Modulation_Depth (run1), and how long it took for the rms current to start to decrease (run2), then checked the rpm after this elapsed time (run3). The first two runs gave the same result within measurement error as expected, about 5 seconds. The motor rpm at 5 seconds monitored in the third run was about 5200 (approx, it was increasing fast). A 0.6 second, or 12%, overestimate of time, which I easily could have done, would explain most of the difference between this value and the results in the Base_Speed test. After the test I entered a base speed value of 4550.

The controller frequency at about 5200 rpm (+/-100 roughly) was about 174 Hz (wasn’t possible to hold them constant). It agrees well with the speed as a function of frequency for a 4 pole motor: rpm = 120*f/4 = 5220. So at max speed of 8k rpm should be reached at f = 267 Hz. In an earlier test while accelerating with it floored I saw about 280 Hz, so it must have overshot a bit.

I also did some tests monitoring motor and battery current. At lower motor rpm motor current is greater than battery current and voltage modulation depth is small. At 50% modulation depth motor current is about twice battery current, and at 100% modulation depth (I extrapolated) they are about equal (controller rms current ~battery current), as expected. I only have a 500A shunt so could not directly compare rms current and battery current at 100% Modulation depth. I just extrapolated from several observations at lower than 100% values.So it appears controller output power about equals controller input power minus losses. Time to give the little transmission a rest.

Joined

·
8,126 Posts

Does anyone have the protocol detail for Curtis controllers of this type? Or at least a captured stream of data from the serial port? It should be possible to write a program to capture and display those parameters at once.

JR

Joined

·
4,064 Posts

I know the HPEVS don't stream, they're set to work with the dumb spyglass, so they only spit out one variable at a time.

The motor parameters are all displayed in real time simultaneously in one window, but the controller parameters are not, the value of only one is displayed at a time. And the menu listsYou mention that the software does not allow multiple windows, does a single window display more than one parameter at a time? For example the hand held programmer will display a few different values of a sub menu at once, say motor temp, current, voltage, rpms, or something like that as I remember.

Few comments on the charts:

1) They are all for my Suzuki Swift (http://www.evalbum.com/3060)

which weighs a bit under 2300 lb. Gear ratios are given in the evalbum. Tire diameter (loaded) is about 20.75".

2) All are for a nominal 115V pack

3) The curve at the bottom in all the graphs is the "required wheel torque". This is the wheel torque required to move the vehicle at a constant speed. "Available wheel torque" is the maximum wheel torque obtainable at a given speed if you "floor it". The flat part of these latter curves are determined by the maximum controller current which is 550A for the Curtis controllers for the AC50 (rms) and ADC 8" motors, and 500A for the ADC 9" motor (FB1-4001). The decreasing part of these curves are determined from a second order fit to the torque-speed (motor rpm) curves for the ADC 8" and 9" motors, and the Curtis dyno data for the AC50 (adjusted for 115V since the original data is for 96V). Several torque-speed curves were used for each of the ADC motors to get a fit over as wide of pack voltage range as possible, but of course data doesn't exist on these for very low voltages or very low rpm so the curves are extrapolated there and subject to more error. They seem fairly reasonable though, at least for comparison purposes. All the fits were good, with R squared values over 0.98. The "bumps" at the knee of some of the curves are artifacts of the curve fitting routine.

4) The wheels apply a force, F = ma to the road to accelerate the car. The acceleration is a = F/m = T/rm, where T is the wheel torque, r the "loaded" tire radius, and m the vehicle mass. The wheel torque is the product of the overall gear ratio, transmission and rear end, and the motor torque.

5) Drive train efficiency is assumed to be 90% and is factored into the available wheel torque (available wheel torque = motor torque*dt efficiency*gear ratio). No accounting is made of inertia of rotating drive train parts (I figured the torque for it was negligible compared to the required torque to move the car). Edit: I discovered some time after posting this that actually a good bit of the torque in first gear goes to rotational inertia, affecting acceleration in that gear significantly, not as much in the higher gears.

6) The difference in available wheel torque and required wheel torque is the net wheel torque available to accelerate the vehicle, so comparing available wheel torque for different motor/controller combinations indicates relative available acceleration at a given vehicle speed.

So here is how I interpret the curves. The AC50 and AC31 are fairly close, with the AC31 having significantly higher torque at lower rpms, but the higher power (higher torque at higher rpms) of the AC50 gives a bit better acceleration to 60 mph, and higher top speed (defined as where the available and required torque curves intersect for a given gear).

The 9" ADC has higher torque than the AC50 at lower motor rpms (so lower vehicle speed in a given gear) but it doesn't extend out to as high of rpm or vehicle speed as the AC50. So it looks to me like the AC50 might do better. The AC50 clearly has more available torque and acceleration than the ADC 8" motor.

The AC31 and ADC 9" are fairly similar due to the lower base speed of the AC31 compared to the AC50.

As has been stated on this site many times "amps is torque" (or something like that), so if you use the ADC 9" motor with a 1000A controller the peak torque roughly doubles from what is show for it here with the 500A controller. Then we are in another league altogether.

Also, the "knee" of the available wheel torque curves can be extended to higher motor rpm and higher vehicle speed if a higher voltage pack is used to compensate the increasing motor input impedance at higher rpm, providing the controller can handle it. The knee moves roughly proportional to the fractional increase in voltage. The highest voltage torque-speed curve I could find for the 8" ADC was 132V. This is (132-115)/115 = 0.15 higher, so doesn't change the knee that much - about 15% higher motor rpm and hence vehicle speed. I don't know how high a voltage is safe to use with it. My understanding is that the Warp9 gives similar torque per amp as the ADC 9", but has a number of changes like larger brushes to make it more robust. Considerably higher voltages can be run with the 9" motors, moving the "knee" of the curves to higher speeds, and giving overall higher acceleration.

Edit: According to this post: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19647&postcount=2, and post #4 in the same thread, the max motor input voltage Jim recommends is 160V. This is is about 39% greater than 115V, so for example, it would move the "knee" of the curve for the 9" motor in second gear out to about 35 mph rather than 25 mph. That would be about the same as the knee of the second gear curve for the AC50, but with about 700 ft-lb wheel torque compared to about 590 for the AC50.

Edit: I thought I should add a comment on how I adjusted the AC50 data for 115V. The dyno data is for a 96V pack which sagged to 86V. My nominal 115V 180Ah CALB pack sags to about 110V when I floor it (3C current, would be more sag for lower Ah cells), so (110 - 86)/86 = 0.28. The "knee" of the torque curve in the dyno data is at about 3075 rpm, so I estimated the knee would occur at 3075*(1+0.28) = 3936 rpm, which I rounded up to 4k. I rounded up since when I performed the base speed test as described in the Curtis 1238-7501 manual I initially got values over 4.5k rpm - but there was a slight slope to the road. After repeating the test on level ground I obtained values of about 4400 and 4500 rpm. So I thought 4k was a reasonable value to use. I adjusted the AC31 knee to 1800*(1 + 0.28) = 2300 rpm based on the 96V dyno data for it. I used 90 ft-lb peak torque for the AC50 and 117 ft-lb for the AC31.

View attachment AC50, ADC 8 inch, ADC 9 inch, wheel torque.pdf

GOOD JOB MAN, this should clear up some questions and make it easier for those on the fence trying to decide what to do.Someone recently contacted me regarding performance of the AC50 motor. In an effort to quantify it a bit more I put together a graph comparing the available wheel torque in my car with it compared to an Advanced DC FB1-4001 9" series DC motor, both with 115V pack. It occurred to me it might be useful to others to compare the AC50 to an 8" ADC motor as well as the 9" ADC, and also to the AC31. So I put together charts for them below.

Few comments on the charts:

1) They are all for my Suzuki Swift (http://www.evalbum.com/3060)

which weighs a bit under 2300 lb. Gear ratios are given in the evalbum. Tire diameter (loaded) is about 20.75".

2) All are for a nominal 115V pack

3) The curve at the bottom in all the graphs is the "required wheel torque". This is the wheel torque required to move the vehicle at a constant speed. "Available wheel torque" is the maximum wheel torque obtainable at a given speed if you "floor it". The flat part of these latter curves are determined by the maximum controller current which is 550A for the Curtis controllers for the AC50 (rms) and ADC 8" motors, and 500A for the ADC 9" motor (FB1-4001). The decreasing part of these curves are determined from a second order fit to the torque-speed (motor rpm) curves for the ADC 8" and 9" motors, and the Curtis dyno data for the AC50. Several torque-speed curves were used for each of the ADC motors to get a fit over as wide of pack voltage range as possible, but of course data doesn't exist on these for very low voltages or very low rpm so the curves are extrapolated there and subject to more error. They seem fairly reasonable though, at least for comparison purposes. All the fits were good, with R squared values over 0.98. The "bumps" at the knee of some of the curves are artifacts of the curve fitting routine.

4) The wheels apply a force, F = ma to the road to accelerate the car. The acceleration is a = F/m = T/rm, where T is the wheel torque, r the "loaded" tire radius, and m the vehicle mass. The wheel torque is the product of the overall gear ratio, transmission and rear end, and the motor torque.

5) Drive train efficiency is assumed to be 90% and is factored into the available wheel torque (available wheel torque = motor torque*dt efficiency*gear ratio). No accounting is made of inertia of rotating drive train parts (I figured the torque for it was negligible compared to the required torque to move the car).

6) The difference in available wheel torque and required wheel torque is the net wheel torque available to accelerate the vehicle, so comparing available wheel torque for different motor/controller combinations indicates relative available acceleration at a given vehicle speed.

So here is how I interpret the curves. The AC50 and AC31 are fairly close, with the AC31 having significantly higher torque at lower rpms, but the higher power (higher torque at higher rpms) of the AC50 gives a bit better acceleration to 60 mph, and higher top speed (defined as where the available and required torque curves intersect for a given gear).

The 9" ADC has higher torque than the AC50 at lower motor rpms (so lower vehicle speed in a given gear) but it doesn't extend out to as high of rpm or vehicle speed as the AC50. So it looks to me like the AC50 might do better. The AC50 clearly has more available torque and acceleration than the ADC 8" motor.

The AC31 and ADC 9" are fairly similar due to the lower base speed of the AC31 compared to the AC50.

As has been stated on this site many times "amps is torque" (or something like that), so if you use the ADC 9" motor with a 1000A controller the torque roughly doubles from what is show for it here with the 500A controller. Then we are in another league altogether.

Also, the "knee" of the available wheel torque curves can be extended to higher motor rpm and higher vehicle speed if a higher voltage pack is used to compensate the increasing motor input impedance at higher rpm, providing the controller can handle it. The knee moves roughly proportional to the fractional increase in voltage. The highest voltage torque-speed curve I could find for the 8" ADC was 132V. This is (132-115)/115 = 0.15 higher, so doesn't change the knee that much - about 15% higher motor rpm and hence vehicle speed. I don't know how high a voltage is safe to use with it. My understanding is that the Warp9 gives similar torque per amp as the ADC 9", but has a number of changes like larger brushes to make it more robust. Considerably higher voltages can be run with the 9" motors, moving the "knee" of the curves to higher speeds, and giving overall higher acceleration.

So keep in mind this is for the same 115V pack for all motor/controller combinations, and for 500A (9") or 550A (8", AC50) maximum controller current.The idea is that because there are many more ev's around with DC systems, there are more examples of performance for these. This gives some way to compare that performance to what you might expect from an AC50 or AC31 with similar pack V and max controller amps.

View attachment 10569

Excellent work Tom! Let's hope this gets pinned to reference material section.

JR

JR

Joined

·
8,126 Posts

What Throttle Frequency parameter are you talking about? Be specific.

Joined

·
8,126 Posts

The throttle parameters that are programmable using a 2 or 3 wire pot is the starting point and the ending point of the 0-5v or 0-5k range. You can also program the torque curve by adjusting the knee point. I dont recall a adjustment for frequency. I you find a reference to that, point me in that direction.

Joined

·
8,126 Posts

OUCH! I did something like that as well with a Kelly controller. I plugged in the programming cable from computer while charging and took out all the RS232 stuff including the CPU ports. I believe it is the ground path that took it all out. Advice, when charging, dont connect anything. When this happened, you probably didnt have the spyglass connected as that is where the programming cable goes, so that should not be a problem. If the spyglass doesnt work, I would suspect that there is damage to the controller in the I/O circuit which should not effect the rest of the controller.

If the Curtis' serial port is opto-isolated, it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Best of luck and keep us posted as you can.

JR

301 - 320 of 490 Posts

- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Join the discussion

DIY Electric Car Forums

A forum community dedicated to DIY electric car owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about electric vehicle conversions, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!

Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities

Join now to ask and comment!