• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 767 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.

Original question:

DRV8316: DRV8316 vs DRV8316C

DRV8316: MCF8316 vs DRV8316

Dirk Handzic
Prodigy 205 points
Part Number: DRV8316
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: MCT8316Z, MCF8316A

For a new design I am looking at the DRV8316 alternatively the MCF8316. The application is driving a small 50W pump with 3-phase 24V bldc motor with 3 hall-sensors. over a wide speed range. The MCF8316 seems to be a DRV8316 plus integrated FOC controller and has a lower cost. That is a surprise. Am I missing some important point? 

  • 0
    TI__Expert 5578 points

    Hi Dirk,

    Thanks for your question on the Motor Drives E2E Forum. 

    Only thing that you may want to note is the MCF8316A is a sensorless FOC motor driver. If your project wants to use those hall sensors for rotor position feedback, you may want to consider our sensored trap variant MCT8316Z. 

    However, typically in pump applications we see engineers using the MCF8316A for the highest efficiency and quiet operation. Unless you want to precisely control the commutation algorithm, MCF8316A is a great device that can help you skip over a lot of the software development involved in most BLDC motor driver applications.

    Let me know if you have any additional questions.

    Best,

    Robert

  • 0
    Prodigy 205 points

    Hi Robert,

    we have a legacy solution with 6-step control in software and pumps having 3 hall sensor outputs. It is desireable to support even these old pumps with the new design, but I assume even these pumps could be run by sensorless FOC. A problem we have seen with the old design are "stuck" pumps after long periods without operation and the difficulty to get them running again. I think FOC might be an improvement to solve this problem. Presently we have to increase the allowed phase current up to 15A to get them running again but it is a crude approach since we do not know the position before they move.

    Best

    Dirk

  • +1 in reply to Dirk Handzic
    TI__Expert 5578 points

    Hi Dirk,

    Our integrated control MCF8316A has sensorless start up options available for reliable motor startup. Please check out this video detailing some of the options: https://www.ti.com/motor-drivers/brushless-dc-bldc-drivers/integrated-control-bldc-drivers/overview.html#tab-6

    I am not sure how FOC as a commutation algorithm will impact system reliability at startup, but since the MCF8316A integrates the FOC commutation algorithm, this device can ensure reliable motor startup and accurate rotor position sensing. 

    Best,

    Robert

  • 0 in reply to Dirk Handzic
    TI__Mastermind 18981 points

    Hi Dirk, 

    Closing this thread as it looks like the latest response has resolved your problem.

    Looking at the conversation so far, it makes sense that in your existing solution (Hall sensors w/ Trap commutation) would be able to overcome start-up challenges by just increasing the phase current to maximize torque. 

    With FOC commutation, FOC techniques, and MCx capabilities - this also sounds like it has a fair chance to solve your problem as a main value adder of FOC when compared to Trap is maximizing torque in motor control. 

    Please help mark the thread as resolved if that's the case - and if further debug support is needed, you can click "Ask a related question" to re-open the topic.

    Thanks and Best Regards,
    Andrew