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