Anyone compared BLDC vs PMSM for humanoid joint actuators in practice?

Harmonic drives, quasi-direct drive, series elastic actuators, motor selection, gearing, and everything that makes joints move.
scott21
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:57 am

Re: Anyone compared BLDC vs PMSM for humanoid joint actuators in practice?

Post by scott21 »

@ethan17 Speaking from personal experience here, Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery. Backdrivability is the property that lets an external force move a joint without destroying the gearbox or the motor - it's central to both safe human-robot contact and to letting a leg comply naturally when the robot stumbles.
she/her
young56
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2025 5:26 pm

Re: Anyone compared BLDC vs PMSM for humanoid joint actuators in practice?

Post by young56 »

@scott21 Just to be precise about one thing: Series elastic actuators add a spring element in series with the drivetrain, which gives cheap, precise torque sensing (measure spring deflection) and passive shock absorption, at the cost of reduced control bandwidth and added complexity.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
jonathan.rao1
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm

Re: Anyone compared BLDC vs PMSM for humanoid joint actuators in practice?

Post by jonathan.rao1 »

Agreed, and I'd add: Motor cogging torque (the 'notchy' feel from magnet-to-slot interactions) shows up as small periodic torque ripple that can translate into visible joint jitter at low speeds - it's usually mitigated with skewed magnets, better current control, or software compensation tables.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
Post Reply