See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230688310

Validation of Models for Small Scale Electric Propulsion Systems

Conference Paper · January 2010

DOI: 10.2514/6.2010-483

CITATIONS READS

34 744

3 authors:

David Lundström Kristian Amadori

Linköping University Linköping University
20 PUBLICATIONS   144 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   312 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Petter Krus
Linköping University
298 PUBLICATIONS   1,679 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research on Hydromechanical Transmissions and Hybrid Motion systems, RHYTHM View project

Thermal System and Comfort Managment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Lundström on 04 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Validation of Models for Small Scale
Electric Propulsion Systems

David Lundström(1), Kristian Amadori(2), Petter Krus(1)

(1) Department of Management and Engineering – Division of Fluid and Mechatronic

Systems
(2) Department of Management and Engineering – Division of Machine Design

Post Print Copy

N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article.

Original Publication:

Lundström, D., Amadori, K., and Krus, P., “Validation of Models for Small Scale Electric
Propulsion Systems”, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 4 - 7 Jan. 2010,
Orlando, FL, USA.

DOI: 10.2514/6.2010-483

Copyright © 2010 by D. Lundström

 Validation of Models for… 1

Validation of Models for Small Scale

Electric Propulsion Systems

D. Lundström*, K. Amadori† and P. Krus‡

Linköping University, Linköping, 581 83, Sweden

At Linköping University work has been carried out on automated design and
manufacturing of Micro Air Vehicles (MAV). A dedicated design optimization
framework has been developed. Initial experience has shown that choosing the right
propulsion system has major relevance for the overall performance of the aircraft. The
correctness of the models used to describe each component of the propulsion system is
therefore a matter of great importance. With this knowledge efforts have been made to
validate the propulsion system models. Using a specifically designed test rig a number of
different motors and motor controllers have been tested. The original motor model has
shown discrepancies compared to test data and improvements to the model are
suggested. Furthermore, motor specifications provided by the manufacturers have
proven to be unreliable. Motor controller characteristics have been shown to be complex
and difficult to model.

Nomenclature
BLDC Brushless Direct Current motor
COTS Commercial Off The Shelf
DC Direct Current
EMF Electro-Motoric Force
ESC Electronic Speed Control
I0 Motor zero load current
Kv RPM proportionality constant
n Motor revolution velocity (RPM)
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
Rm  Motor internal resistance
  Period time in PWM signal
  Duty cycle length in PWM signal
 Efficiency

I. Introduction

A. MAV Design Automation

Micro Air Vehicles are an attractive solution for low-cost aerial monitoring/surveillance. Some suitable areas
of use are police, civil rescue, agriculture, meteorology, military, etc. MAVs can be characterized as being
simple and inexpensive to manufacture and, due to their small size, very important to optimize. They also need
to be tailored for the sensors and equipment available at the time of deployment. "Design on demand" is
therefore certainly attractive. For each type of mission and sensor package, there is a unique, optimal, MAV
design. MAV design automation focuses on how to optimally shape the MAV around the sensor/sensors while
fulfilling mission-related performance requirements. This involves geometric design and optimization, choice of
propulsion system components, modeling of flight mechanics, and control system design.
A framework for MAV design automation is being developed at Linköping University1,2,3. A simple to use
spreadsheet is interfaced to a CAD system, an aerodynamic analysis code and a database with low cost, off the
shelf, propulsion system components. By connecting an optimization routine to the framework, the design
process is fully automated. The output result is a CAD model of the final optimized geometry, and a list of
optimal propulsion system components from the COTS database.

*
PhD Student, Department of Management and Engineering, David.Lundstrom@liu.se, AIAA Student Member.
†
PhD Student, Department of Management and Engineering, Kristian.Amadori@liu.se, AIAA Student Member.
‡
Professor, Department of Management and Engineering, Petter.Krus@ liu.se.
2

Figure 1. MAV design automation framework

Finally, the optimal design is manufactured using a 3D-printer. This is an attractive method for MAV
manufacturing that allows complete freedom as regards airframe shape. Figure 2 is an example of a MAV that
was automatically designed/manufactured using the described framework. The pictured MAV has been used for
flight testing to validate the method4.

Figure 2. MAV used for flight testing and design framework validation

The principle behind the described framework has been shown to work well and as a next step the models
implemented in the computations need to be validated and, where necessary, improved. When working with
MAV optimization, it has become evident that the propulsion system has a significant impact on performance.
There seem to be more to gain on optimizing the propulsion system, than fine tuning the optimal aerodynamics
layout. The mathematical models that have been used for propulsion system modeling are fairly straight forward
and in common used. There is, however, little information on how accurate these models are. It is also
interesting to study approximately how trustworthy component specifications from different manufacturers are.
The database of propulsion system components, used in the design framework, is based solely on manufacturer
specifications. The focus of this paper is to validate the models used to simulate the electric propulsion system.

II. Propulsion System Modeling

The propulsion system consists of propeller, electric motor, motor controller, and battery (Figure 3). Each
component is modeled individually. The battery is modeled as an equivalent circuit with a fixed voltage source
and an internal resistance. This is a little simplified but an acceptable model and hence will not be studied in this
 Validation of Models for… 3

paper. More elaborate battery models exist5 which take temperature and dynamic effects into account but would
complicate the optimization process tremendously to little gain. The motor and motor controllers are more
important and are paid most attention in this paper.

Figure 3. MAV propulsion system

A. Motor
The motor characteristics are described with the classical motor constants Kv, I0, and Rm. A model of an
electric motor, using these constants, is shown in Figure 4. The electric motor has its RPM (n) proportional to
motor EMF. Kv is the RPM proportionality constant. Losses in the motor are characterized by its internal
resistance Rm and no load current I0.

Rm
Im

+
I
Uemf
n  U emf  K v (rpm)
Um I0 M P in  I m  U m (W)
P out  I  U emf (W)

Figure 4. Model of electric motor

This is a widely used motor model that was originally developed for traditional brushed DC motors, but
today also is used in brushless DC motors (BLDC). For instance, commercial electric propulsion system analysis
software, such as Motocalc6 and Electricalc7, uses this model. From Figure 4 some basic equations are derived.
The output power and RPM of the motors, can be expressed as functions of motor input voltage and current
according to the following equations.

Pout  I  U emf  ( I m  I 0 )(U m  I m Rm ) (1)

n  K v (U m  I m Rm ) (2)

The efficiency of the motor is Pout/Pin.

Pout ( I m  I 0 )(U m  I m Rm )
m   (4)
Pin UmIm

Figure 5 illustrates the behavior of the motor model. With a constant supply voltage, the model says that the
RPM should drop linearly with load and that the power output increases following a second order polynomial
curve (equation (1) and (2) above). These curves can quite easily be tested and will be the focus for the practical
experiments.
4

90 25000
n = -Rm Kv I + Kv U
80

70 20000
n (rpm)
60
Pout (w)
15000
50

40
10000
30

20 5000
10 2
Pout = -RmI + (U+I0Rm )I - I0 U
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
I (A)
Figure 5. General characteristics of motor model

B. Motor Controller
The motor controller, or as it is more popularly called, electronic speed control (ESC), controls the input
power to the motor using a PWM signal. By varying the pulse length  (or duty cycle length ) the effective
mean voltage to the motor is varied, thereby controlling the power.
T
Uin

t
T

Figure 6. PWM signal

The losses in an ESC are highly dependent on the duty cycle length. The duty cycle length is most easily
described as an electronic throttle. “Throttle” is therefore in layman’s terms used as a synonym for the ESC’s
duty cycle. Power is controlled by varying the duty cycle length between 0% and 100% of the total period time.
At 100% duty cycle, the efficiency of the ESC is close to 100%, but when the duty cycle is reduced, so is
efficiency. An example of what a brushless motor ESC PWM signal looks like in reality is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. PWM signal in ESC measured with oscilloscope

The signal in Figure 7 was recorded using a 3-channel oscilloscope, and illustrates the output voltage on each
motor cable of the ESC. The left image shows the ESC at full power with the duty cycle set to 100%. The middle
picture shows the ESC running at a duty cycle length of 50% and the last image shows the ESC with minimum
duty cycle (approx. 5%).
Modeling losses in the motor’s ESC are complex. Not much detail is given by any motor controller
manufacturers. The losses are dependent on several factors. The most obvious are resistive losses in the
electronics when the controller is running at 100% duty cycle. These are generally stated by the manufacturer.
One known behavior of motor controllers is that their efficiency is dependent on duty cycle length, being highest
at 100% duty cycle and less at lower duty cycle lengths. This behavior is not specified by motor controller
manufacturers and a model properly describing this behavior has been sought but not been found. The losses at
duty cycles less then 100% can be divided into two types: i) increased losses in the electronics due to the
additional switching in FETs and ii) the PWM signal to the motor causes the motor to run with lower efficiency
than when it is fed with a smooth continuous voltage.
 Validation of Models for… 5

III. Experiment
In order to validate the models of the propulsion system a test rig was built (Figure 9). The test rig is built
around a set of carefully arranged strain gauges (Figure 8). A 10 mm diameter aluminum tube of 0.1 mm wall
thickness is used for torque strain measurement. This tube is connected in series with a load cell for thrust
measurement. The strain gauges are connected to a signal conditioner/amplifier which in turn is logged using a
24-bit analog-to-digital converter connected to a laptop.

Torque strain gauges

Thrust strain
gauges

Figure 8. Force measuring in test rig

The electric parameters of the motor are measured using a Medusa Research Power Analyzer Pro8. For correct
current readings also at part throttle, large capacitors are attached to the power analyzer’s output. Table 1
summarizes the different parameters that are measured in the rig and with what resolution each parameter is
measured. The rig can be used to measure the performance of each component in the propulsion system and is
prepared to work in a wind tunnel for dynamic propeller measurements.

Parameter Unit Interval Resolution

Motor current A 0-99 0.01

Motor supply voltage V 0-50 0.001

Motor RPM min-1 0-50000 25

Thrust N 0-40 0.001

Torque Nm 0-0.3 0.0001

ESC input signal % 0-100 1

o
Temperature C 0-200 1

Table 1. Measured parameters Figure 9. Propulsion system test rig

Testing procedures and data analysis for the motor and motor controller are described in the following two
paragraphs.

A. Motor Testing
The motors of interest for MAVs are brushless DC motors and come from the aeromodeling industry. These
motors are preferred to the older type of brushed DC motors because of their higher efficiency and much higher
power density. Both brushed and brushless motors are often described using the same motor model and motor
constants. For brushless motors, however, it is less clear how these motor constants are defined. It is also not
evident that the motor model is as valid for brushless motors as it is for brushed motors, partly because the motor
controller is required to run the motor and consequently affects its characteristics. In order to study the validity
of the motor model, and to get an estimation of the reliability of manufacturers’ motor constants, 7 outrunner
motors, ranging from 4g to 55g, have been tested in the test bench. Table 2 list all motors tested.
6

Motor Kv Io Rm Mass Diameter Length I max cont # Poles L

(RPM/V) (A) (mohm) (g) (mm) (mm) (A) H
Hacker A20 L22 924 0.75 89 55 28 34 14 14 17
Himax HC2808-0980 980 0.4 220 52 28 25 10 14 37
Hyperion HP-Z2205-38 1340 0.4 320 30 28 22 7 14 22
Mfly 180-08 15 1235 0.3 325 25 23.1 22.5 6.5 12 74
Turnigy C2024 Micro 1600 0.2 533 18 20 24 8 12 54
Hyperion Z1705-14 1800 0.57 331 17.5 20.9 17.5 7 12 31
A05 micro motor 2900 0.27 1500 4.2 14 10 2.5 12 64
Table 2. Motors tested

The motors are pictured in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Motors tested

A test on a motor is conducted by running a series of propellers of varying size while for each propeller varying
the input voltage incrementally in steps from the minimum voltage required by the ESC to either the maximum
allowed voltage for the ESC or until the maximum current allowed on the motor is reached. During this testing
the ESC is always set to 100% duty cycle. Each voltage step is timed to about 15s. The data is then averaged for
each step and summarized into one table where each logged variable is expressed as a function of U. An example
is shown in Figure 11.

14 0,07 120,0 1,00

Voltage
Current 0,90
12 0,06
100,0
n 0,80
10 Torque 0,05
0,70
80,0
P(W) / n(rpm/100)

8 0,04 0,60
V/A/Krpm

Nm

Eta

60,0 0,50
6 0,03
0,40
40,0
4 0,02 0,30
Pin
Put 0,20
2 0,01 20,0
n
0,10
Eta
0 0 0,0 0,00
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000
s U (V)

Figure 11. Example data: a) Raw data over time b) Averaged data as function of voltage

By slowly increasing voltage in fine steps of 15s the motor has a chance to stabilize to its operating temperature
for each state. In a previous publication3 it was shown that temperature effects can affect motor efficiency by
several percent. Advancing the voltage too quickly would result in efficiencies being logged at higher values
than is realistic for continuous operation. It is the continuous operation properties that are of interest for these
studies.
The processed data has been compared with predictions using the motor model. The power output of a motor
should, accordingly to the theoretical model (Equation 1), follow the shape of the functions illustrated in Figure
12.
 Validation of Models for… 7

Motor max
ESC max voltage current

No load
current ESC
min U

Relevant area Stall

current

Figure 12. (a) General shape of power output function (b) Relevant area

The RPM (equation 2) and efficiency (equation 3) of a motor should correlate to U and I accordingly to Figure
13.

Figure 13. (a) Motor RPM (b) Motor efficiency

When testing a motor, the entire range of U and I should ideally be mapped to identify the shape of the surfaces
in Figures 12-13. A quick way of mapping some of the functions is to test the motor with a single propeller while
varying the input voltage from min to max. This roughly corresponds to mapping performance along a curved
diagonal cut through the surfaces in Figure 12-13.

B. Motor Driver Testing

When testing motors as described in the previous paragraph, the motor controller is always set to 100%
throttle, thus eliminating any losses depending on the duty cycle length of the motor controller. In flight, the
power is regulated by adjusting the duty cycle length, and it is therefore important to investigate its effect on
controller efficiency. Exact measurement of the efficiency of the motor controller is very complex but one way
to extract the effect of duty cycle length to the total efficiency is to compare the efficiency curves over output
power for a case when the duty cycle is fixed at 100% with varying input voltage, and the case where input
voltage is fixed and the duty cycle length is varied. 6 different controllers have been tested (Figure 14). These are
designed for maximum current levels ranging from 4A to 40A.
8

Figure 14. Motor drivers to be tested

The controllers are summarized in Table 3

Controller PWM freq Mass I max cont

(Khz) (g) (A)
YGE 4 14 4 4
Turnigy Plush 6A 7.4 5 6
Castle Creations Ph10 12 7 10
YGE 12A 14 7 12
Turnigy Plush 12A 7.6 13 12
Turnigy Plush 40A 7.6 33 40
Table 3. List of tested ESCs

It should be mentioned that each controller had its timing programmed to work as efficiently as possible with
high pole outrunner motors. All tested motors are of either the 12 or 14 pole type.
An example of ESC efficiency measurement is shown in Figure 15. The measurement is carried out while a
propeller is driven with the throttle fixed at 100% and as the input voltage is increased. The voltage is then fixed
and a second run is carried out but this time with the throttle varied from 0 to 100% in steps of 8-10%. Figure
15a shows the efficiency of the two runs plotted against propeller RPM. Figure 15b shows the extracted
controller efficiency.
80 1

0,9
70
0,8
60
0,7
50 0,6
Eta

40 0,5
%

0,4
30
0,3
20
0,2
Eta Variable U
10 0,1
Eta Variable Duty Cycle
0 0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rpm Duty Cycle (%)

Figure 15. (a) Efficiency runs 1 and 2 (b) ESC efficiency mapped against duty cycle

One small problem is that when running the first test with the throttle at 100% not all controllers work with
voltages low enough to map the motor’s efficiency down to the same low RPM as in the second step where the
throttle is varied. At small duty cycles the efficiency is not of any particular importance, but in order to get some
values the motor model can be used to extend the efficiency curve for the lower voltages.
The interesting question with controller characteristics is to investigate what parameters affect the
controller’s efficiency. Can a model of an ESC be extracted from test data? To examine the properties of ESC
efficiency each controller was tested on a baseline motor driving the same propeller. A baseline controller was
then tested on several motors. Two controllers were also tested in several operating conditions on the same
motor.
 Validation of Models for… 9

IV. Results

A. Validation of Motor Model

In order to validate the model one motor was chosen to map its entire envelop of input voltages and currents. The
objective was to establish the functions illustrated in Figures 12-13 and to see how well the motor model could
mimic these surfaces. The testing was done with the Mfly motor and a Phoenix 10 controller. The test comprised
running 15 different propellers with sizes ranging from 2.5x1 to 10x4.7 inches. For each propeller the ESC was
set to 100% duty cycle and input voltage was varied from lowest possible (5V) to maximum motor current (7A)
or maximum ESC voltage (16V) was reached. The data was then interpolated for each voltage level. The results
are shown in Figure 16 to 18. Data is presented as a section along every second voltage level (6-16V). The
dotted lines are the theoretical values obtained from the model with the original motor constants.

25000
16V RPM
14V RPM
12V RPM
20000 10V RPM
8V RPM
6V RPM

15000

10000

5000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I (A) 8

Figure 16. RPM as function of current

90
16V P out
80 14V P out
12V P out
10V P out
70
8V P out
6V P out
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I (A) 8

Figure 17. Output power as function of current

10

90 90
 tested  modeled
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30
16V
14V
20 12V 20
10V
10 8V 10
6V
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 I (A)5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 I (A)5 6 7 8

Figure 18. Motor efficiency as function of current

Interestingly, the behavior of the model, in terms of the shape of the curves, seems to be fairly close to reality,
but there are some unacceptable mismatches between the predicted values and the real values. It was unclear if
this was due to incorrectly defined motor constants or the model failing to describe the exact curve shapes. As a
next step an optimization was carried out on the motor constants in order to minimize the difference between
model and measurements. The optimizer was set to minimize the square of the residuals between measurement
data, and model data, for all points on the RPM and Pout curves. The results are given in Figure 19.

20000 80
16V RPM 16V P out
18000 14V RPM 14V P out
70
12V RPM 12V P out
16000 10V RPM 10V P out
8V RPM 60 8V P out
14000 6V RPM 6V P out
50
12000

10000 40

8000
30

6000
20
4000

10
2000

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 I (A) 5 6 7 8
I (A)
90 90
 tested  modeled
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30 16V
16V
14V 14V
20 12V 20 12V
10V 10V
10 8V 10 8V
6V 6V
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 I (A) 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I (A)
Figure 19. Model and measurements after motor constants optimization

In the two top graphs the measurements and model predictions are combined. The model predictions are shown
with dotted lines. In the two lower graphs, representing efficiency, the measurements are shown to the left and
predictions to the right. Some interesting notes: The mismatch between model and measurements is much lower
than with the original motor constants but some characteristics stand out, however. The RPM curves of the
measurements all seem close to linear but their slope is not the same for all voltages as in the model. The output
power curves are close to correct shape but they have a little more curvature (bend downwards) close to
maximum current. The biggest and most severe mismatch is observed on the efficiency curves. The
 Validation of Models for… 11

measurements show a maximum efficiency of about 78% for all voltage levels. The model has a spread of 68-
80%. The difference between original and new motor constants is shown in Table 4 below

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Original 1235 0,3 325
Optimized 1166 0,341 542
Table 4. Motor constants for Mfly 180-08-15

Can the model be improved? The results indicate that the motor constants perhaps should not be constant, but
functions of U and I. To test this, a new optimization was carried out but this time motor constants were
optimized for each voltage level. The motor constants were then plotted against voltage (Figure 20).
Kv (U) Rm (U) Io (U)
1250 700 0,45
600 0,4
1200 0,35
500
0,3
1150 400
mOhm

0,25
Kv

A
300 0,2
1100
0,15
200
1050 0,1
100
0,05
1000 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
U(V) U(V) U(V)

Figure 20. Optimized motor constants as function of voltage

It seemed the model could be improved if motor constants were related to voltage, and the relationship appears
to be fairly linear. The no load current I0 is definitely not a constant which can easily be checked by running the
motor at no load with varied input voltage. Figure 21 shows this for the Mfly motor. Not exactly the same values
as in Figure 20 but the relationship is perfectly linear. This is not surprising since I0 includes the effects of
friction on the motor shaft.
0,50

0,45
I = 0,0159U + 0,2073
0,40

0,35

0,30
I(A)

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10 Measured I0
0,05 Linear curve fit

0,00
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
U(V)

Figure 21. Mfly 180-08-15 measured No Load current

To test if the model could be improved, the equations (1) to (3) were rewritten so that I0 and Rm were expressed
as linear functions of U. The motor parameters (now 5) were then optimized. The results are shown in Figure 22

20000 80
16V RPM 16V P out
18000 14V RPM 14V P out
70
12V RPM 12V P out
16000 10V RPM 10V P out
8V RPM 60 8V P out
14000 6V RPM 6V P out

50
12000

10000 40

8000
30

6000
20
4000

10
2000

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I (A) I (A)
12

90 90
 tested  modeled
80 80

70 70

60 60
 
50 50

40 40

30 30
16V 16V
14V 14V
20 12V 20 12V
10V 10V
10 8V 10 8V
6V 6V
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 22. Results after model modification

The improved equations show much better correlation with test data, especially for the important efficiency
curves. Still more improvements could likely be made if the motor constants’ relationship to current were
investigated. For instance, the power output curves still have a little more curvature at their upper end than the
model suggests. This is likely due to increased motor temperature at higher currents causing increased resistive
losses. In reality, Rm is not constant but dependent on temperature. Slightly simplified, ignoring transient effects,
cooling factors etc, this dependency could be expressed by having Rm as a function of I.

B. Validation of Motor Data

With the already proven flaws in the motor model it was interesting to validate how accurate motor performance
can be predicted using motor constants supplied by motor manufacturers. The motor constants Kv, Io and Rm are
usually given by all motor manufacturers, but it is not clear if all motor manufacturers define their motor
constants in the same way. In order to simplify the testing, compared to the previous mapping of the Mfly motor
characteristics, only one propeller was tested and based on the measured load put on by the propeller, the same
test was mathematically simulated and the results compared. All the motors except the Mfly were tested and the
results are shown in Figures 23 to 28. Each figure shows how RPM, power output, and efficiency are related to
motor input voltage. For each motor a least squares correction of motor constants is carried out to better correlate
the simulated data with the test results. These motor constants are presented in Tables 5 to 10.

Hacker A20 L22:

8000 90,0 90,0
n (rpm) Pout (W) (%)
7000 80,0 80,0

70,0 70,0
6000

60,0 60,0
5000
50,0 50,0
4000
40,0 40,0
3000
30,0 30,0
2000
20,0 20,0
Measured data Measured data Measured data
1000 Corrected parameters 10,0 Corrected parameters 10,0 Corrected parameters
Original parameters Original parameters Original parameters
0 0,0 0,0
2 3 4 5 U(V) 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 U(V) 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 U(V) 6 7 8 9

Figure 23. Results of Hacker motor

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Corrected 1029 0,54 223
Original 924 0,75 89
Table 5. Modified motor constants for Hacker motor
 Validation of Models for… 13

Himax HC2808-0980:
10000 100,0 90,0
n (rpm) Pout (W) (%)
9000 90,0 80,0

8000 80,0
70,0
7000 70,0
60,0
6000 60,0
50,0
5000 50,0
40,0
4000 40,0
30,0
3000 30,0
20,0
2000 Measured data 20,0 Measured data Measured data
Corrected parameters Corrected parameters 10,0 Corrected parameters
1000 10,0
Original parameters Original parameters Original parameters
0 0,0 0,0
2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 14

Figure 24. Results of Himax motor

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Corrected 1113 0,51 427
Original 980 0,4 220
Table 6. Modified motor constants for Himaxx motor

Hyperion HP-Z2205-38:
16000 80,0 80,0
n (rpm) Pout (W) (%)
14000 70,0 70,0

12000 60,0 60,0

10000 50,0 50,0

8000 40,0 40,0

6000 30,0 30,0

4000 20,0 20,0

Measured data Measured data Measured data
2000 Corrected parameters 10,0 Corrected parameters 10,0 Corrected parameters
Original parameters Original parameters Original parameters
0 0,0 0,0
2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12

Figure 25. Results of z2205 motor

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Corrected 1733 0,53 437
Original 1340 0,4 320
Table 7. Modified motor constants for Z2205 motor

Turnigy C2024 Micro:

10000 30 70
n (rpm) Pout (W) (%)
9000
60
25
8000

7000 50
20

6000
40

5000 15

30
4000

10
3000
20

2000
Measured data 5 Measured data Measured data
10
1000 Corrected parameters Corrected parameters Corrected parameters
Original parameters Original parameters Original parameters
0 0 0
2 3 4 5 U(V) 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 U(V) 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 U(V) 6 7 8 9

Figure 26. Results of Turnigy motor

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Corrected 1808 0,026 796
Original 1600 0,2 533
Table 8. Modified motor constants for Turnigy motor
14

Hyperion Z1705-14:
18000 60 80
n (rpm) Pout (W) (%)
16000 70
50
14000
60

12000 40
50

10000
30 40
8000

30
6000 20

20
4000
Measureed data 10 Measured data Measured data
2000 10
Corrected parameters Corrected parameters Corrected parameters
Original parameters Original parameters Original parameters
0 0 0
2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12 2 4 6 U(V) 8 10 12

Figure 27. Results of Z1705 motor

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Corrected 2046 0,015 616
Original 1800 0,57 331
Table 9. Modified motor constants for Z1705 motor

AEOrc A05-2900:
35000 25 80
n (rpm) Pout (W) (%)
30000 70
20
60
25000

50
15
20000
40
15000
10
30

10000
20
Measured data 5 Measured data Measured data
5000 Corrected parameters Corrected parameters 10 Corrected parameters
Original parameters Original parameters Original parameters
0 0 0
2 4 6 8 U(V) 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 U(V) 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 U(V) 10 12 14 16

Figure 28. Results of A05 motor

Motor Constants Kv I0 (A) Rm (m)

Corrected 2922 0,166 2518
Original 2900 0,27 1500
Table 10. Modified motor constants for A05 motor

Some conclusions that can be drawn from the tests: All motors performed with lower efficiencies than could be
predicted with the manufacturer’s motor constants. The RPM curve on some motors deviates from the close to a
straight line suggested by the model. This is likely due to temperature effects as it is particularly noticeable on
the small motors that are close to being overloaded. The method of determining motor constants using
optimization to minimize the difference between the motor data and predicted data was less successful compared
to the previous test on the Mfly motor. Small changes in the test setup, such as two different propellers, yielded
too large variations in motor constants. The optimized constants would be too specific for that particular
operating condition, while lacking accuracy for other operating conditions. Generally, the optimized constants
always resulted in significantly higher Rm values in order to reduce efficiency to the measured values. However,
in order to still satisfy the RPM curve, the Kv values were increased. The I0 constant is the most difficult to
determine. On some motors, the optimized I0 values are unrealistically low. In some tests (not included in the
paper) the optimizer even found I0 to be zero or negative. This again seems to indicate that the original motor
model is not sufficiently accurate and that improvement, as suggested, is needed.
The discrepancy between measurements and predicted results raises the question of how motor constants are
determined. There are a few different methods to determine motor constants. The simplest method consists of
two steps. In the first step, I0 is directly measured when the motor is run at no load and fed with a fixed input
voltage. In the second step, the motor is run at two different voltages for which rpm and current are measured.
Using equation (2) and the measurements from these two operating points, Kv and Rm can be extracted. The
measurements in the second step can be made either with no load or when the motor is driving a propeller. In
order to see how the no-load characteristics of the motors correlate with the manufacturers’ motor constants,
each motor was tested without any propeller attached and then compared with calculations using equation (2).
The results are shown in Figure 29.
 Validation of Models for… 15

Hacker - No Load Himaxx - No Load Hyperion Z2205 - No Load

14000 16000 25000

12000 14000
20000
12000
10000
10000
8000 15000
8000
6000 10000
6000
4000
4000
Measured 5000
2000 Measured Measured
2000
Predicted Predicted Predicted
0 0 0
2 7 12 17 2 7 12 17 2 7 12 17
U(V) U(V) U(V)

Turnigy C2024 - No Load Hyperion Z1705 - No Load AEOrc A05 - No Load

25000 30000 45000
40000
25000
20000 35000
20000 30000
15000
25000
15000
20000
10000
10000 15000

5000 10000
Measured 5000 Measured Measured
5000
Predicted Predicted Predicted
0 0 0
2 7 12 17 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 7 12 17
U(V) U(V) U(V)

Figure 29. No-load characteristics for each motor

In these tests, the prediction and measurement coincide fairly well. It seems that motor manufacturers only use
no load measurement data to establish motor constants. This makes some sense, as it is the simplest form of
measurement. However, motor constants established this way have no guarantee to satisfy equation (1) or (3) in
the motor model.

C. Motor controller efficiency test

As already explained, the duty cycle length of a ESC has a significant effect on the total propulsion
efficiency. To study this behavior for the chosen controllers, 3 different types of tests were carried out.

1. Test 1: All controllers tested on the Mfly 180-08-15 motor.

The purpose of this test was to observe the difference in efficiency between the different controllers running
the same motor. The results are shown in Figure 30.
1

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4
Eta CC Phoenix10
0,3 Eta TGY Plush 6A
Eta TGY Plush 12A
0,2 Eta TGY Plush 40A
Eta YGE4A
0,1
Eta YGE12
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Duty cycle length

Figure 30. ESC efficiency on Mfly motor

16

Remarkably similar results except for the YGE12 and CC Phoenix 10 controllers that exhibit strange
discontinuous efficiency curves. All curves were taken under similar operating conditions with the same load
and voltage.

2. Test 2: Controller under different operating conditions

The discontinuities in the YGE and Phoenix controllers efficiency curves in Figure 30 are interesting. These two
controllers were tested further under different operating conditions by testing different propellers, and different
input voltages. The results are shown in Figure 31.
1 1

0,9 0,9

0,8 0,8

0,7 0,7

0,6 0,6

0,5 0,5

0,4 0,4

0,3 Eta YGE12 p9 8v 0,3

Eta YGE12 p9 12V Eta Ph10 p8 16V
0,2 0,2
Eta YGE12 p8 8V Eta Ph10 p8 10V
0,1 0,1
Eta YGE12 p8 14V Eta Ph10 p11 10V
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Duty cycle length Duty cycle length

Figure 31. (a) YGE12 efficiency (b) CC Phoenix 10 efficiency

The PH10 exhibits very odd efficiency curves where the bowl-shaped discontinuity changes shape and position
depending on operating conditions. The YGE behaves more rationally.

3. Test 3: YGE 12 controller tested on all motors.

As a final test, the YGE 12 controller was tested on all motors to see how the motor parameters affect the
duty cycle length related efficiency.
YGE12 Efficiency for different motors
1

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6
Eta YGE12 Hacker 8V
0,5 Eta YGE12 A05 2510 14V
0,4 Eta YGE12 Himaxx p13 12V
Eta YGE z2205 p85 11V
0,3
Eta YGE12 Z1705 p8 10v
0,2
Eta YGE12 Mfly p9 8V
0,1 Eta YGE12 C2022 p6 12V

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Duty cycle

Figure 32. YGE 12 efficiency tested on all motors

The result is surprising. It is positive to see that the curve shape is relatively similar for all motors. This indicates
that it could be possible to establish a controller model where the curve shape is scaled based on the motor
parameters. Unfortunately, finding a correlation between the curve shapes and motor parameters has proven to
be difficult.

V. Discussion and Conclusions

The presented results of motor and motor controller testing provide some insight into the difficulty of
modeling electric propulsion systems. It is clear that the traditional motor model does not accurately capture the
characteristics of a BLDC motor. With small modifications the motor model, however, can be improved.
Unfortunately, as long as motor manufacturers do not provide motor constants for an improved motor model, the
 Validation of Models for… 17

usage of such a model is limited. For design automation using optimization on COTS components, this means
that the user would have to establish their own motor constants by means of testing. This will complicate the
optimization process as establishing a large database of components is time consuming. Also, if testing needs to
be done anyway, optimization could just as well be carried out using a matrix of real test data, rather than a
model using identified constants.
The testing of different motors has shown that the motor constants (of a traditional model) provided by the
manufacturers does not provide reliable results. None of the motors showed measured efficiencies on the level
predicted using the original motor constants. Typically, the measured efficiencies were 5-10% lower than
predicted. The highest measured efficiency of any of the motors was 79% (Mfly motor). The best way to
determine motor constants for brushless motors appears to be from practical testing where all motor
performances are measured, including efficiency, and where curve fitting is done for the region of interest. The
motor constants will then represent coefficients in a polynomial curve rather than the electrical properties they
were originally defined to represent. Determining motor constants is best done on the entire operating envelop of
U and I. The second-best method is to optimize motor constants along RPM and power output curves for a fixed
voltage. The third tested method of optimizing motor constants based on test data from a test run with a single
propeller has resulted in slightly odd results, especially for I0, and is not a particularly good method of
determining motor constants. Either way, it is important that the constants are optimized to satisfy both the RPM
equation (2), and power output equation (1).
The testing of motor controllers has provided valuable data on efficiencies at part-throttle settings. It is
shown that both operating conditions and motor parameters influence the ESC’s efficiency. For most of the tests
the ESC’s efficiency shows a close to linear relationship for duty cycles of about 40-100%. In flight, throttle
values below 40% are unlikely to be used. For optimization purposes, it therefore seems that a simple linear
model for ESC efficiency could be used. The slope of the linear relationship, however, changes on different
motors and it has not been possible to find a relationship between this behavior and motor parameters. On some
motor controllers, strange discontinuous efficiency curves have been observed and there seems to be no obvious
reason why this happens. It is likely a software-related problem within the ESC. Modeling this behavior seems
very difficult but on the other hand is not very important. A better conclusion is that those controllers should not
be used for MAVs, or any other application where high efficiency is crucial. In order to finally derive a motor
controller model based on test results, a more systematic analysis must be conducted. However, the number of
tests that needs to be carried out in order to investigate how each motor parameter and operating condition
affects the ESC’s efficiency, quickly grows to unmanageable proportions. Considering that the software in the
ESC also impacts its efficiency, it may be impossible to identify a proper model. Investigating a method for
modeling an ESC based on test results will be the subject of future studies.
In the present work, the validation of propeller model has been omitted. In the design framework, the
propeller is modeled using traditional blade element analysis. Future work will also include comparisons
between this and other models with experimental propeller data. Propeller data will partly be acquired in-house
from wind tunnel testing but also from data published by other researchers9,10.

References
1 Lundström
D., Krus P., “Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Optimization Using Mixed Discrete and Continuous Variables”,
11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA.
2 Lundström D., Amadori K., Krus P., ”Distributed Framework for MAV Design Automation”, 46th AIAA Aerospace

Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2008, Reno, NV, USA.

3 Lundström D., Amadori K., Krus P., “Automation of Design and Prototyping of Micro Aerial Vehicles”, 47th AIAA

Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2009, Orlando, FL, USA.
4 Amadori, K., Lundström, D., Krus, P., “Evaluation of Automatically Designed Micro Air Vehicles and Flight Testing”,

48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2010, Orlando, FL, USA.
5 Guzzella L., Sciarretta A., ”Vehicle Propulsion Systems”, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
6 MotoCalc website: www.motocalc.com
7 ElectriCalc website: www.slkelectronics.com
8 Medusa Research website: www.medusaresearch.com
9 Deters R. W., Selig S. M., ”Static Testing of Micro Propellers”, 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Aug.

2008, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

10 Merchant M. P., Miller L. S. “Propeller Performance Measurement for Low Reynolds Number UAV

Applications”.,44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2006, Reno, NV, USA

View publication stats