Irritatingly, whenever I try to make a new extruder using my existing one, it always breaks down forcing me to have to repair it, even though it is about to be made obsolete. It is as if they know!
The GM3 motor on my extruder started making a noise like a machine gun. On opening it up I found it has stripped a tooth of the final gear.
Since I moved from the 6V version to the 12V version I have been getting pretty good motor life. I do have to lock the clutch and sometimes glue the splined shaft into the last gear, but so far the gearbox has lasted well.
It is just as well my next extruder uses a stepper motor and an all metal drive chain: -
I have had a few anonymous requests for a new post, so here is an object I made recently: -
It is a whistle downloaded from Thingiverse designed by Zaggo. It must be one of the most printed things on Thingiverse, and in a very short time after its posting. I think the reason it is so popular is that it is a functional item with a moving part (the pea) that is printed in situ. It is attached by one small point at its base and you detach it by pushing a scalpel through the slot.
It is very loud and annoys my wife every time I blow it!
The pea was initially very hairy because I get a lot of ooze with PLA. I had to pick the hairs off it through the slot, a bit tricky. I am currently working on a new extruder (when am I ever not?) with a much shorter melt zone to address this.
The reason I haven't posted for so long, apart from being on holiday in the Spanish Pyrenees, is that I have spent a long time thinking about the design of this one. It will also be super sturdy, so hopefully it will allow me to forget about extruders and move on to other things. I.e. new heads for HydraRaptor as it has spent too long having only two, so not living up to its name.
My wife has a tiny orchard in our front garden, four fruit trees on dwarf stock. This year the espaliered pear tree has got a bit out of hand and has produced pears that are too high for us to reach and too far away to reach from a step ladder. In fact some are actually outside of our garden! The tree should really be 2D but it has gone a bit 3D on us.
So RepRap to the rescue, I made a device to cut pears at a distance and another device to catch them.
The cutter is based on a hook shaped Stanley knife blade No 1996. I made a sliding carrier for it with a hole to attach a string and a peg to take a spring.
This fits inside a casing with a tube to mount it on the end of a 16mm OD pipe. A spring keeps the blade extended. A string is pulled to retract it to cut the stem of the pear.
This drawing shows how the parts fit together inside.
There is a rib in the top that prevents the blade from lifting over its locating bumps. The casing was made upside down and makes heavy use of bridge spanning to avoid the need for support material.
As a mechanism it worked well, but useless for cutting pears as I completely underestimated how tough a pear stalk is. So onto plan B, a pair of secateurs clamped to a pole, with a piece of string threaded through an eye to pull them closed: -
The handle of the secateurs is a horrible shape for making something to mate with it because its surfaces are irregular curves (not arcs or ellipses) in two dimensions. Very difficult to model without a 3D scanner. I made use of a channel in the back to be able to grab it with simple flat parts.
This version works well, with a handle to make the other end of the string easy to pull: -
A cup mounted on a second tubular pole catches the pear.
It is a two person job to use both at the same time. A better design would be to mount both tools on the same pole somehow. A better catcher could be made by a plastic bag sandwiched between two circular hoops of plastic to hold the top open.
Here it is in use: -
The only design issue is that it is hard to see where the jaws of the secateurs are when looking along the length of the pole. Mounting the pole at an angle to the clamp would solve that.
Here are the extra out of reach pears that we cropped with the contraption.
You can see a better view of the drive mechanism fitted on another extruder base here: -
Here is a reminder of what the heater assembly looks like: -
The heatsink is cooled by a tiny fan. When run from 12V it is very noisy and way too powerful. With my new controller I can run it with PWM just a bit faster than its stall speed. That keeps the noise down and still gives more cooling than needed. I attached a thermistor to the heatsink by gluing it into a crimp tag with J-B Weld.
I can tell the controller to keep the temperature below a specified level by turning the fan on and off. I set the trip point to an arbitrary 35°C. It will even turn it on when the extruder is idle, much like the radiator fan of a car runs after the engine is switched off. This is needed to ensure PLA will never soften and jam in the cold part of the tube.
I run the tiny stepper motor at about 300mA to keep it cool enough to touch. It will take more current than that but runs very hot. A good design would use a single fan to cool the motor and the heatsink.
I ran the motor with micro stepping, so even though it has a 15° step, that gives 192 steps per revolution. The GM17 gearbox has a reduction of 228:1 giving a massive 43,776 steps per revolution of the worm pulley. That seems a lot, but the diameter of the pulley is 13mm, so one turn is 40.84mm of feed. That gives 1072 steps per millimetre. In comparison I have been using an 816 step shaft encoder and an 0.8mm pitch thread, which gives 1020 steps per millimetre, almost the same.
I started extruding ABS with my usual feed rate of 16mm/s for 0.5mm filament, which is 3.14 mm3 per second. I kept doubling it until it failed, which was 128mm/s if I have got the calculations right. At that point it mostly worked but something was slipping occasionally. I think it was the clutch in the gearbox. Backing off to 64mm/s it works fine. That is four times faster than the GM3 manages with a screw drive. It is too fast for HydraRaptor but I reckon my Darwin could go that fast. I have no idea what the build quality would be like but it would get the time to print one down to about 24 hours.
Having decided to switch to stepper drive for my extruder I needed to make a new extruder controller for HydraRaptor, the previous one has served me well for two years.
The spec for the new one is: -
I2C or RS485 comms link to the main controller.
Micro stepping bipolar stepper drive.
Heater control from a thermistor.
Fan control output.
Second fan control and second thermistor for controlling extruder heatsink temperature.
A spare output for a solenoid, etc.
A filament empty input.
I designed it in Kicad and got the PCB made professionally. Here is the schematic: -
U4 generates a local 3.3V rail from the 12V supply. C8 and C9 are the bulk low frequency decoupling for the 12V and 3.3V rails respectively. C1, C2, C3, C5, C7, C12 and C13 are the high frequency decouplers placed close to the chips that they are decoupling. D2 is a green LED to indicate the board is powered.
U2 is an RS485 transceiver which I intend to use on my Darwin. It is slew rate limited and ESD protected but somewhat expensive compared to the older 5V versions. R1 ensures the transmitter is off until the micro takes control of it. HydraRaptor uses I2C to talk to its heads at the moment, via K1.
Q3, Q4 Q5 and Q6 are NIF9N05CL protected MOSFETs to control fans, heaters and solenoids, etc. They are protected against over current, over voltage (hence no back EMF diodes), over temperature and ESD. They also have controlled edge rates to minimize RFI. Q1 and Q2, together with R3 and R4, are level translators to increase the gate drive voltage on the two higher current drives. That minimises the on resistance to ensure they stay cool without heatsinks, even at 2A or more. R13 and R14 ensure the drives are off before the micro starts. D6, D7, D8 & D9 are red LEDs to indicate when the outputs are on. Essential for the heater output, but a luxury for the others.
R15, R16, R17 & R18 form the correct potential dividers to give a good approximation to linear temperature response for 10K thermistors, see here for details. For a 100K thermistor they would simply be 10 times bigger. C10 and C11 remove high frequency noise. Probably unnecessary as a little noise actually seems beneficial because it converts bang-bang control to proportional.
The thermistor inputs have their own analogue ground rail, which is only linked to the main ground at one point close to the VSS pin of the MCU. This is done via a zero ohm link, R25, on the schematic. On the PCB this is the smallest footprint available and is shorted by a bit of copper, so no part is actually fitted. The reason for this bodge is to keep the track separate from the ground fill, so that no current from the heater or motors is passing along it. That might cause a small voltage offset that would affect the temperature reading.
U1 is the stepper motor driver. I used the Allegro A3983 as it gives micro stepping with a smaller external part count than the A3977, but as mentioned previously it does have some disadvantages.
C6 and C7 form a charge pump which generates a supply rail for the gate drive that is higher than the main supply voltage (12V). That allows the top transistors of the H-bridges to be N-channel devices, rather than P-channel, which have inferior performance.
R22 sets the off time of the chopper and needs to be different values for different motors as described here.
R23 and R24 are 1W current sense resistors. I found them to be expensive in the 2512 SMT package. It is actually cheaper to use two 1210 0.5W resistors in parallel, or through hole parts mounted vertically, which take up less board area.
The reference voltage for the chopper is generated by a high frequency PWM output on the micro and smoothed to DC by R2 and C4. That allows software control of the motor current. As I had plenty of spare I/O on the micro I also have software control of the step mode (full, half, quarter or eighth), the enable and the reset pin. R5 ensures the stepper is disabled before the micro is running. As with R1 it ensures the circuit is well behaved before the micro is programmed, or when it is being run under a debugger.
D3, D4, D10 and D11 indicate the state of the stepper outputs, a bit of a luxury really. With SMT parts there is not much point in using bi-colour LEDs. It is cheaper to use back to back red and green next to each other.
I used an MSP430F2012 micro on my first extruder controller because you get a full development kit including an excellent C compiler, in circuit programming and source level debugging for $20. I think there is also open source support via gcc, but I have not investigated that yet.
For this one I had to move up to an MSP430F2112 to get a UART for the RS485. As it is the same core with different peripherals I assumed my $20 eZ430 SpyBiWire debugger would still work. Big mistake! It programs OK but it locks up when trying to debug. It also miss-identifies the chip. I have two, and the second one I tried said the firmware needed updating and offered to do it. JUST SAY NO, if you say yes it reprograms the eZ430 and it never talks again. I contacted TI and they have no plans to fix this firmware updating bug so I got an MSP-FET430UIF debugger for $99. It does JTAG as well as SpyBiWire so I should be able to mend my second eZ430, as it has JTAG test points and I read the security fuse is not blown. I also suspect a new eZ430 may well work as the web page has been updated to show it supports the F21x2 now.
D1 and D5 are red and green status lights. I light the green one to show the processor is running and blink it whenever it receives a command. The red one indicates errors.
P3 is a connector for a filament out switch. I haven't implemented one of those yet as a spool of filament usually lasts many months. It uses an internal pullup resistor to pull it high when the switch is open.
P1 is the SpiBiWire connector for programming and debugging.
Even with extravagant motor control I had three spare I/O lines, so I brought them out to a connector with the supply rails for future expansion.
This is what Kicad predicted the populated board would look like: -
I found 3D models for all the parts on the web but the connectors were a bit of a nightmare. I used Tyco MTA100 and MTA156 connectors as they seem to be about the cheapest form of wire to board connector. As usual there is an expensive tool to insert the wires, but you can get away with using a pair of needle nosed pliers, or even make a tool as it is only a metal plate with slots in it mounted in a plastic handle. We should be able to RepRap one.
Tyco have STEP and IGES 3D models on their website. Kicad needs VRML, which should have been no problem as CoCreate can import STEP or IGES and export VRML. But Kicad did not like the VRML from CoCreate, it seems it has to come from Wings3D. Wings can import STL but it does not like the STL from CoCreate or AOI either. In the end I had to do IGES -> CoCreate -> STL -> AOI -> OBJ -> Wings-> VRML -> Kicad! I coloured the body and pins in Wings.
I got five boards made by PCB-Pool in 8 working days for €125 including shipping, certainly not the cheapest, especially as it included Irish VAT at 21.5% (VAT is only 15% at the moment in the UK), but I like the web interface, the quality is good and they include a free solder paste stencil.
They also email pictures of the board being made at five different stages, although two of mine went missing. Here it is before the tin plating was added: -
And here it is finished apart from routing the outline: -
Using the stencil is very easy. You trap the board between two L-shaped pieces of PCB material stuck to a flat surface with some masking tape. You then align the stencil over the pads and stick one edge with masking tape. Spread some solder past along the edge that is stuck and then wipe it across the board with a metal squeegee to force it through the holes and leave it exactly level with the surface of the stencil.
You then lift the stencil carefully from the edge that is not taped down.
Notice how the paste for the heat slug on the A3983 is split into four and reduced in area. This is recommended to stop the chip floating on the paste and sliding across the footprint. It was not easy to do in Kicad. It doesn't seem possible to do it in the component footprint, so I had to draw on the stencil layer of the PCB. That means if I use the chip again I will have to do it again. I had the same limitation when expanding the resist layer around the fiducials. These are the two copper circles bottom left and mid right. They are used for optical alignment of pick and place machines.
The next stage is to place all the parts with tweezers. I used 0805 footprints for all the passives, so they were not too fiddly to do by hand. I hope to be able to automate the pasting and placement with HydraRaptor soon.
Then I cooked the board in a cheap electric oven, a Severin TO 2020 for €45.
I believe you can get these for as little as £15. I expect they give more even heating than using a hotplate, as they heat from above as well as below, but a hotplate has the advantage of taking up a lot less space and probably uses less power. I will be making a heated bed for HydraRaptor, so I might be able to use that.
The temperature profile was controlled by a thermocouple attached to a PID controller that I borrowed from work.
When I have time I will connect one of Zach's thermocouple boards to a spare analogue input on HydraRaptor and plug the oven into the software controlled mains outlet that HydraRaptor has, and then program it as a PID controller. Not another head, but certainly another manufacturing capability. I will also try putting extruded objects through a heat cycle in the oven while they are still attached to the base. It should release the stress so they don't warp further when removed.
This was the finished result after hand soldering the connectors: -
U2 is not fitted because I got the footprint wrong, doh! I can bodge one on when I need RS485. There are two construction faults on this picture, can you spot them?
The reflow was not perfect. The big capacitor did not flow at all. The temperature needs to be a bit higher, or perhaps the warm-up a bit slower. There were solder bridges on the TSSOP chips. That was because you are supposed to shrink the stencil apertures by an amount related to the stencil thickness to get the correct amount of paste. Normally the stencil manufacturer will do that for you but PCB-Pool do not offer it on their free stencils, presumably because they are shared with other designs. Unfortunately Kicad only seems to be able to make them 1:1 with the pads. It is open source, and written in C++, which I know well, so I could have a go at adding that facility if I had the time.
I have tested the board and used it to control one of my experimental extruders, more details tomorrow. The only thing wrong with it apart from the foorprint error is that the A3983 gets too hot to deliver its full rated current of 2A. 1A is no problem, which should be plenty for the extruder designs I have in mind.
The back of the board is nearly all copper to give a good heatsink but at 2A per coil the chip will dissipate 2 × 2A2 × (0.3Ω + 0.3Ω) = 4.8W. The datasheet recommends a 4 layer board with 2oz copper on the outer layers. I am not sure what the extra cost of 2oz is. I will investigate the heat distribution in more detail at some point.
I got some of the 3M blue masking tape that Vik Olliver recommended as a bed material for PLA. It seems to be available up to 50mm wide, so four strips covers the bed of my machine.
Whereas I could not get PLA to stick reliably to MDF, it sticks easily to the tape.
Why is it black? Well my feed of PLA from the overhead hanging basket snapped. It must have got kinked and bent through too sharp a radius. When I pushed the new end into the top of the extruder to restart it, I must have caught some of the grease from the top bearing. The grease is yellow, but as soon as the stainless steel bearings have run for a while it turns black. That small amount of material was enough to turn the first few layers of my object dark grey.
The object was a complicated shape and came out very hairy: -
It took a lot of cleaning up and has some defects and weak spots where there is a lack of material due to the oozing that occurs on the way there. I have some compensation for this effect, which works well for ABS. Basically I estimate the amount of ooze from the time the extruder is off and then run the extruder for a while to replace it before starting a new thread. I think the constants need to be completely different for PLA.
The object was relatively large, but showed no sign of warping, even when removed from the bed. The base of it is completely flat.
I had successfully removed several small objects but I damaged the tape removing this one. It was easy to replace one strip and reducing the temperature of the first layer from 210°C to 180°C seems to allow large objects to be removed easily.
Another problem I had was the PLA started revolving fairly quickly in the extruder, making the hanging basket spin. Each time it revolves it reduces the amount fed by one thread pitch. If it happens too much the object has material missing. I fixed it by applying some oil to a felt washer that the filament passes through. A good reason for moving to a pinch wheel feed though.
I made a 65mm cube shaped box and it showed no sign of lifting from the bed.
It was easy to remove though and this time did not damage the tape. Even after it was removed the base stayed fairly flat.
Much better than my attempt to make the same box in ABS some time ago.
Not only did it curl after it was removed from the base, it also ripped itself open at the corners while it was being built. There is also a wavy distortion on the left face which I had not encountered before.
I think what happened is that when the cracks opened the edges lifted, causing the nozzle to bear down on the wall it had already built. That meant there was excess plastic for the gap between the surface and the nozzle. Normally when that happens blobs are left on the surface. When the next layer is done the nozzle just plows through the blobs. Because the walls are only 1.5mm thick in this case, and tall, they flexed sideways instead. That caused a ripple and the effect seems to build up layer on layer. I could see the wall flexing as the nozzle passed over it.
So PLA allows bigger objects to be made before a heated bed or chamber becomes necessary.
Even relatively large PLA objects can be made without a raft. That saves a lot of time and material, but you do have to get the z-calibration spot on and the bed perfectly level.
The masking tape makes a good, cheap, reusable bed material and it is quick and easy to replace if you do damage it.
Having set the correct off time to suit my motor I can now micro step it with equal spaced steps, but only if I disable the mixed decay mode.
When the chopper switches off it can do it two ways. It can turn on both low side transistors. That short circuits the motor and lets the current recirculate. If the coil was a perfect inductor and the transistors perfect switches, the current would circulate forever and you would have a superconducting magnet. Real coils and transistors have some resistance, which causes the current to decay, but as these are relatively small the mode is called slow decay.
This is fine and efficient until you take the motor's back emf into account. During the rising part of the sine wave the magnet is moving towards the pole piece, so it generates a voltage that causes the current to fall faster. The on time gets longer to compensate and all is well.
On the trailing edge of the sine curve the magnet has gone past the pole piece and generates a voltage that increases the current in the coil. If it is going fast enough it can mean that the current doesn't fall at all during the slow decay period. As I showed previously that can cause a severely distorted waveform which makes the motor noisy.
The Allegro chips offer a mixed decay mode, where they switch to fast decay for part of the chopping cycle on the downward half of the sine curve. In fast decay mode one low side and one high side transistor turn on and reverse the voltage across the motor. That overcomes the BEMF and causes the current to fall much faster. It also returns current to the supply rail, which can upset some power supplies if there isn't some other load to absorb it.
Mixed decay gives a current waveform like this: -
The off time is fixed, so the current falls further making the ripple greater. If you set the percentage fast decay to give a clean waveform at your top speed, then the ripple increases at slower speeds. It is maximum when stationary, when there is no BEMF and fast decay is not required at all.
The problem is that the target current is the trip point of the comparator, so it is the peak of the chopping waveform. That means the average current is less by half the ripple current giving a positional error.
With the low inductance motor I am using, the ripple current has a large amplitude, so the error introduced when the motor is stationary is about the same as a micro step. That means the first step with fast decay is about twice as big as it should be and the last step is virtually zero.
With the A3977 I can disable fast decay and the steps are fairly even, but fast running is then distorted. The PFD setting needs to change with speed.
With the A3983 that I have used on my new extruder controller the PFD setting is fixed at 31.25%. That means I can't get evenly spaced microsteps with the NEMA17's that I have, when running slowly. Not a big problem with the extruder because I plan to gear it down 40:1, which means one micro step is only about 0.02mm. I am only using microstepping to give smooth motion rather than extra resolution.
The problem is exaggerated because not only am I using a low inductance motor, but I am also trying to run it at 1A, whereas it is rated for 2.5A. At 2.5A the off time would be about 2.5 times smaller, so the ripple would be 2.5 times less. The steps in the current waveform would be 2.5 times bigger, so the distortion would be reduced by 6.25 times. As it is about one microstep now, it would reduce to 1/6th of a microstep, so would be acceptable. The temperature rise would then be 6.25 times greater of course.
I was planning to use A3977s for my axis control though, where positional accuracy is important. I am beginning to think I will be better off just using dual H-bridges and doing the rest in software using a powerful micro with a fast ADC.
To be able to cope with a wide variety of motors you need to change the current, the off time setting and the percentage of fast decay. You also need to take the ripple current amplitude into account to control the average current, rather than the peak. All these things could be automated with a software solution.
In a previous post I showed the pitfalls of constant off time choppers like the A3977. Basically you have to set the off time long enough to be able to deliver the lowest current step of the microstepping, otherwise the steps are not equally spaced.
Forrest raised the point of how do you do that without a scope. It is fairly easy to calculate from the target current, supply voltage and motor resistance using nothing more complex than Ohm's law. It did take me a few days to come up with a formula that matched my measurements, but that was because I was accidentally running the chip without synchronous rectification enabled.
The motor current is equal to the reference voltage divided by 8 times the sense resistor. The maximum sense voltage is 0.5V, so a sensible value for the sense resistors is 0.2Ω, giving 2.5A maximum with 4V at the reference pin. My lash up uses two 0.5Ω resistors in parallel giving a 2A maximum.
The minimum current required on the first step of the microstep will be I × sin(π/2n), where n is the number of microsteps. In this case n is 8 so the smallest current step is 19.5% of the full current. To calculate the minimum off time needed we need to be able to work out what the duty cycle will be to get a given current.
Here is what the sense resistor waveform looks like when the current is set to 1A and the motor is stationary. The on period is 3μS and the off period is 20μS. The supply voltage is 12V.
The sloping top of the waveform is actually an exponential curve, but at this scale it is very close to linear and to simplify the calculations I have just used the average value.
So we know that 1A flows from the supply for every 3 out of 23μS. That gives an average current from the supply of 1A × 3 /23 = 130mA. Indeed the supply current measures 260mA as there are two coils energised (I set it to full step mode to make this measurement).
When the chopper is on energy flows into the inductance of the motor, increasing its magnetic field slightly. During the off time the current flows in a loop consisting of the motor and the two low side transistors. Power is dissipated by the motor's resistance, so it loses energy by its magnetic field decreasing slightly. We can calculate the duty cycle by reasoning that the energy going in during the on state must equal the energy coming out in the off state.
The motor is a Lin 4118S-62-07 NEMA17 motor I got from Makerbot. It has a coil resistance of only 0.8Ω. That means the resistance of the sense resistor and the on resistance of the FETs in the chip are significant in the calculation.
During the on state current flows through one top transistor, the coil, one bottom transistor and the sense resistor. All the resistances convert electricity to heat so the power going into the magnetic field is the power drawn from the supply minus the resistive losses in the circuit. Power = VI or I2R, Energy = PT.
So we have (Vsupply × I - I2 × (Rmotor + Rsense + RDS(on) source +RDS(on) sink)) × Ton.
In this example (12 - (0.8 + 0.25 + 0.36 + 0.45)) * 3 = 30.4 μJ.
During the off state the current flows through the motor resistance and two low side transistors, so the energy lost is: I2 × (Rmotor + 2 × RDS(on) sink) × Toff.
In this example (0.8 + 2 × 0.36) × 20 = 30.4 μJ, so theory matches practice (using typical values from the datasheet for RDS(on)), always very satisfying.
So if we call the total resistance in the circuit with the switch on Ron and the total when it is off Roff we have: -
For our example if we set the minimum Ton (Tblank) to be 1μS, I = 0.195A, so Toff is 39μS.
At 1A Ton will then be ~6μS. So the minimum chopping frequency will be ~22kHz and the maximum will be 25kHz.
CT = Tblank / 1400 = 714pF, so use 680pF. RT= Toff / CT =58K, so use 62K.
So in conclusion using the simple formulas above it is easy to calculate the correct values for a given motor, supply voltage and minimum current. I wish the datasheet and apps note had included this formula.
Way back in April last year I tested a sample of PLA and got as far as making a test block with it and establishing that the warping was much less than the other plastics and you don't need a raft. I finally got round to making some objects with it last week.
The first bed material I used was balsa wood. That works well without a raft. The only downside is that when the object is peeled off it takes a few fibers from the wood with it. No big problem for functional objects, but it does spoil the aesthetic appearance a bit. The top and sides of the object are nice and shiny, but the base is cloudy.
I tried MDF, that gives a smoother finish, but I could not get it to stick reliably. Vik suggested 3M blue masking tape, but I didn't have any to hand, so I tried some sticky back plastic instead. That made objects with a nice glossy base but I could not get the outline to stick reliably.
The lid on the left was made on balsa. I think the black flecks are bits of black ABS which was the last plastic I used in the extruder. The one on the right was made on sticky black plastic. It looks much nicer, but on the top right you can see a bit of missing outline.
PLA is very nice to extrude. It has a higher melting point than the other plastics but it viscosity falls rapidly with temperature so you can extrude it at lower temperatures. I did the first outline at 210°C, the first layer infill at 200°C and the rest of the object at 180°C. It does not seem critical.
I run the fan after the first layer to make it set quickly. I also needed a fan blowing on the heatsink of my extruder. Otherwise it can heat up past the glass transition of the PLA, which is only about 70°C. When that happens it jams fast and has to be drilled out.
Not needing a raft saves a lot of machine time and also my time removing it.
Even larger objects don't show any warping. I made this contraption to hold a scope probe in place for a job I am doing at work.
Vias are so small nowadays that attaching a wire is difficult and risks ripping the tracks off. Here it is in operation: -
Having established that I want to move to a stepper driven extruder I set about designing a new extruder controller for HydraRaptor. I fancied using one of the Allegro micro-stepping chopper drivers.
With these chips there are a few things you can adjust by changing component values, like the off time, minimum on time and percentage fast decay. The data sheet explains what they do and gives the formulas but it's not obvious what you should set them to for a particular motor.
Not having any previous experience with Allegro drivers I decided I needed to knock up an evaluation circuit. Fortuitously Zach had sent me some PCBs a long time ago that were his first version of the Stepper Motor Driver v2.0. They used the PLCC version of the A3977.
PLCC packages were a bit of a halfway house between through hole and surface mount. They have leads which come out of the side and then curl underneath.
They are handy for programmable devices because you can either surface mount them or put them in sockets (which can be either SMT or through hole). The problem with them in this application is that using a socket is not recommended for current and heat dissipation reasons.
That makes the package a worst of both worlds solution. It is big and bulky like through hole parts but still difficult to hand solder because the pins are underneath. The surface mount version of the A3977 is a fine pitch (0.65mm) TSSOP with a heat slug underneath, so again not easy to solder by hand, it really needs to be done by the solder paste and oven / hotplate method.
Zach moved to the A3982 on subsequent versions, which is easy to hand solder because it is in a SOIC package with 1.27mm pitch. It also has a lower external component count. The down side is that it does not do micro stepping and is only 2A rather than 2.5A. I will probably use the A3983 (which is like the A3982 plus micro stepping and in a TSSOP package).
I managed to hand solder the PLCC at my second attempt. My first attempt had a short, which damaged the chip. I damaged the board removing it (with a cutting disk), so I had to start again on a second PCB. Lots of cursing! The lesson is always to meter a PLCC for sorts before powering up as you can't see shorts underneath it.
Here is my test lash up: -
I can set the step rate with a signal generator, vary the supply voltage from 8 to 35V, see the temperature of the chip and look at the current waveform on a scope .
The initial results were disappointing due to a couple of problems: -
The first was that the chopping occasionally had glitches in it. With the motor stationary I could hear it clicking, and with a scope I could see some cycles shorter than they should be. It got worse with higher supply voltages. At low speeds it did not make much difference, but it did lower the maximum speed. I tracked it down to a lack of high frequency decoupling on the 12V rail. I added a 220nF de-coupler close to the chip and the problem went away. Adding it further from the chip actually made it worse.
The next problem was that the microstepping was very uneven. I had noticed that same effect with the z-axis of my Darwin using the $800 microstepping drivers (that I got cheap) that I use on HydraRaptor. At the time I put it down to the small, large step angle tin can motors I was using at the time not being very linear. When I moved to larger 7.5° tin can motors I still had the same problem, and even with the Keling NEMA23 1.8° motors it did not seem right. This puzzled me because they are very similar to the NEMA23 motors on HydraRaptor, which work well with the same drivers. The shaft encoders have the same resolution as the ×10 microstepping and they are always spot on or one count out, so pretty linear.
With the A3977 it is easy to get an idea of the current waveform of the motor by measuring the voltage on the sense resistors. It should be a stepped sine wave like this: -
Regardless of which way the coil is energised, the current flows to ground through the sense resistor, so the waveform looks like a full wave rectified sine wave. The current only flows in the sense resistor when the chopper is in the on state though. In the off state the current is circulating through the coil and the bottom two transistors of the H-bridge, so the current in the resistor is zero. That is why there is a bright line along the X-axis. On the falling edge of the wave you can see the sense current goes negative. That is because the chip switches to fast decay mode. When the chopper is in the off state, instead of short circuiting the coil, it reverses the voltage on it, causing the current to flow backwards through the sense resistor onto the supply rail. It only spends part of the switching cycle in fast decay so you see positive current, a lot of zero and some negative current, hence the relative brightness of the lines. This is a case where an analogue scope gives you more information than a digital one.
Initially the waveform looked like this, it was somewhat distorted: -
The current rises too quickly at the start of the waveform. The chopper has a constant off time (20uS in this case) and varies the current by changing the on time simply by turning it on until it reaches the target value. But, there is a minimum on time of about 1.4uS, called the blanking period. During that time it ignores the current sense signal to avoid false readings due to ringing on the switching waveform. That means there is a minimum mark space ratio of 1.4 : 21.4 in this case. That sets a minimum current, which also depends on the ratio of the supply voltage to the motor voltage. If this minimum current is more than the lowest microstep value (19.5% of the peak for 1/8 steps) then you get a distorted waveform as above, and the steps are uneven.
To fix it you can lower the supply voltage, raise the current setting or increase the off time. The latter reduces the chopping frequency. If it is below about 15 kHz it will be audible when the motor is stationary. It can also start to beat with the stepping frequency when running at high speeds, particularly when micro stepping, as the step rate is n times faster.
This form of distortion is analogous to crossover distortion on a class B audio amp. You can also get the equivalent of clipping if you use a high voltage motor on a low supply voltage. If the current setting is set to a value which is more than the motor will draw when connected to the supply, then the top of the waveform is flattened off and again the microsteps will be uneven.
Yet another form of distortion occurs when running at high speed: -
Here the back EMF from the motor acting as a generator is preventing the current from falling fast enough to follow the sine wave. This can be fixed by increasing the Percentage of Fast Decay, set by the voltage on the PFD pin. If there is too much you get excessive ripple as shown here: -
For a particular speed and motor there is a sweet spot which sounds audibly quieter: -
So setting up a microstepping drive is not straight forward unless you have an oscilloscope. You can tune the PFD by ear though, as this video demonstrates: -
You can also see the other forms of distortion if you attach a long pointer and step it round slowly.
Another lesson is that you cannot simply just set the current to accommodate different types of motor. You really need to be able change the off time and the PFD as well, especially if you use different supply voltages.
So I solved the mystery of why microstepping does not work well with the expensive drives on my Darwin. They are rated at 7A but I am only using them at 1A, I am also using low voltage motors on a 36V supply. I bet it is a constant off time chopper and the minimum current is too high.
