• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 84 subscribers
  • Views 516 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

C2000 vs Stellaris M3

Prakash Krishnaswamy
Intellectual 440 points

Dear All,

Motor control applications can be developed using both C2000 and Stellaris M3 MCUs.

I would like to know which one is the better choice.

Thanks,

Prakash

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 119340 points

    Cop out answer, but it depends on the motor, type of control, host/comm/hmi needed, etc.

    You can see from the solutions that are available that for C2000 the focus is on advanced control (FOC, CL Current/Torque) for ACI and PMSM motors, and the addition of PFC on the same chip.

    Stellaris tends to focus on V/Hz control for three phase machines, and on connected control for Steppers and Brushed motors.

    There is some overlap in the capabilities for BLDC, and at that point you would look at some of the details of the system implementation and other care-abouts.

    More information can be found at www.ti.com/motorcontrol

     

  • 0 in reply to ChrisClearman
    Intellectual 440 points

    For my aplicaton V/Hz control of an ACIM is enough.

    Looks like both Stellaris and C2000 will do a good job.

    But still I feel that C2000 platform is a better choice.

    Am I right?. Any suggesstions are welcome

  • 0 in reply to Prakash Krishnaswamy
    Genius 5885 points

    Hi Prakash,

    From my point of view Stellaris due to ARM based architecture offers more flexibility for the developer as you are not bound to the Code Composer Studio and TI code generation tools (compiler). Therfore you are not bound to windows platform for development tools. There is also more free SW available (RTOS: uC/OS, FreeRTOS, ... instead TI's DSP/BIOS.

    On the other side C2000 peripherals are much more flexible and power conversion oriented. You can implement AC/DC(active rectifier) DC/DC and DC/AC(inverter) conversion with just one C2000 uC. Also you can control exotic power conversion topologies without any additional HW (FPGA, CPLD) e.g. Z-source, phase shifted full bridge, ... The HW available from TI is also better (controlCARD development kits)

    I don't know about specifics of the M3 core, but the C28xx core has a really useful feature called real-time debug which enables to inspect uC memory during run-time.

    Hope this helps

    Regards, Mitja

  • 0 in reply to Mitja Nemec
    Intellectual 440 points

    Hi Mitja,

    Thanks for your valuable opinion.

    My need is just simple open loop motor control. I want to go with any one platform and stick to it for future complex apps too. So C2000 looks obvious to me (a compromise on Stellaris ARM platform, and its extended peripherals though).

    Best,

    Prakash

     

  • 0 in reply to Prakash Krishnaswamy
    Genius 5170 points

    It sounds like both C2000 and ARM can support your motor control application. But you are correct to notice that C2000 offers better roadmap for future expansion. You can start with the smallest C2000 device and select higher devices for more complex application while keeping the software investment to minimum.  I am curious to know more about your application - will it be possible to share more information on your system/application?

  • 0 in reply to Arefeen
    Intellectual 440 points

    Arefeen,

    It's a very simple application. Just drive an ACIM with a hard-coded frequency, and over volt, over current protection. No need for any human interface.

  • 0 in reply to Prakash Krishnaswamy
    Expert 1675 points

    I think the arm-base system is more easy and flex. C2000 has not official easy-to-use RTOS,only the dsp-bios which is hard to use.