Design and development of DC powered BLDC
motor for Mixer-Grinder application
D Kamalakannan, N Jeyapaul Singh, M Karthi, V Narayanan and N S Ramanathan
Advanced engineering,
Lucas TVS Ltd
Chennai, India
kamalakannan.engg@lucastvs.co.in
Abstract— Mixer grinder in a residential application works
with a 230V 1phase AC supply and at present it operates with an
universal motor. The efficiency of this motor is in the range of 40
~ 60%. At the wake of improving the efficiency with more
reliable and easy control, the possibilities of BLDC motors in the
application is explored. The design of a BLDC motor with a
surface mounted rotor and interior permanent magnet is carried
out to meet the performance requirement of mixer-grinder
application. Finite element analysis of this BLDC machine is
performed and results are presented. The performance of a
conventional mixer-grinder with mixer load and dynamometer is
evaluated. A prototype of BLDC with surface mounted rotor
configuration is developed. The performance comparison of
mixer with conventional and BLDC motor is discussed in this
paper. The design of mixer motor with 48V DC and 300V DC
power supply is also done and performance of 300V DC is
evaluated.
Keywords— Mixer- grinder, Universal motor, BLDC motor
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent days, the usage of energy efficient appliance is
gaining interest to address the issue of energy demand and
energy scarcity. In most of the residential appliances, the
system uses either induction motor, DC motor or universal
motor. One such residential electrical appliance, mixer-grinder,
uses universal motor because of its high operating speed and
starting capability compared to induction motor. The stator and
rotor winding are in series and power supply to rotor is
provided by brush and commutator arrangement.
Implementation of universal motor is an inexpensive way to
achieve a very high speed for small devices. However the
efficiency of the motor is less and has a limited life span. It
may needs to be replaced after 2 ~ 3 year of operation. The
mechanical commutation also causes electromagnetic
interference and sparking. The exact speed control is difficult
in case of universal motor; it may be done with an external
circuit. Inrush current of this motor will be very high, because
of that it is not advisable to use it with the battery based
inverter back system [1]-[3].
BLDC motors are compact in size, have high efficiency and
facilitate easy speed-torque control. The recent development in
magnetic material, digital and electronic switches makes it
possible to achieve a very high efficiency and also to
implement sensor less control. It would be possible to operate
in any operating speed torque requirement. In some cases,
978-1-5090-3498-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
mixer has to be operated in a lower speed (2500 rpm),
otherwise it affects the quality of mixing material. This would
be possible with the BLDC motor. If the mixer runs at a higher
speed even after grinding, it consumes higher power. A smarter
algorithm can be implemented to operate the mixer at different
speed depending on the load condition. The efficiency curve of
BLDC motor is almost flat (efficiency vs torque), hence
operating mixer at part load and at lower speeds also yields an
energy saving. With the help of flux weakening control
algorithm it would be possible to operate the BLDC beyond the
rated speed. Because of these advantages of BLDC motors, the
possibility of using them in mixer – grinder application is
being explored [4]-[7].
The motor specification for a mixer-grinder application is
discussed in chapter 2. The suitable motor design with finite
element solution is explained in chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses
experimental test setup of universal and BLDC motor. The test
results of universal and BLDC motors are detailed and
compared in chapter 5.
II. MIXER MOTOR SPECIFICATION
A. Specifications of a typical mixer grinder
The typical maximum operating speed of the mixer –
grinder is 10000rpm. Operating torque depends on the size of
the jar (1.7Litre, 1.2 Litre and 0.4 Litre) and materials used.
From the commercially available mixer-grinder, the torque
requirement would be in the order of 0.2 ~ 0.4 Nm. For some
applications, speed may be increased to 16000rpm ~
18000rpm. However, running the motor at these high speeds
create huge audible noise and vibration.
A BLDC is designed for the above specifications of a
typical mixer grinder (Refer table 1 for Electrical spec). The
input power supply is from a DC bus either from a solar battery
backup or a rectified power from 230 V AC grid connections
[2]. In case of using a single phase 230V AC grid connection
as input power source for the mixer electronic controller , a
rectification section has to be included in between the
controller and power source. From the outer dimensional
constrains of the mixer-grinder arrangement, a suitable stator
and rotor dimensions are derived.
 TABLE I. DIMENSIONAL SPECIFICATION TABLE II. SPM DESIGN

Parameter Value
Supply voltage, V 300V DC/48V DC
Speed, rpm 10000
Torque, Nm 0.4
Outer diameter of stator, 100
mm
Pack length, mm 35
Magnet Ferrite
Drive efficiency >80%

B. Motor and drive selection

For a cost effective solution ferrite magnet based design is Below picture (fig.1) shows the flux density plot without
preferred. As the operating speed of the machine is 10000rpm, any stator excitation. From this plots it is observed that flux
density values at stator portion are below 1.1T. Higher flux
it is advisable to go with lesser number pole for low core loss.
density values like >1.5T will lead to higher iron loss, heating
Hence a 4 pole rotor configuration is chosen. The
and poor torque/ampere.
manufacturing process of concentrated tooth coil winding is
simple and robust and it also helps us to achieve fewer
overhangs thereby reducing the overall copper content. By
considering the above case, a 6 slot stator is chosen. Two
types of rotors, i) surface mounted magnet and (ii) interior
permanent magnet are considered. By comparing the
performance of both machines, a suitable motor design will be
selected for further process
As the BLDC motor is an electronic commutator motor, an
electronic controller is used to drive the motor. A sensor less
based drive algorithm is implemented in this design. The
required operating speed and torque is maintained by suitably
controlling voltage and current. The switching frequency of
controller is set as 20 kHz, since the fundamental frequency is
333 Hz at 10000rpm.
III. FEM ANALYSIS
Finite element analysis was carried out for selecting the
optimum design from multiple design trials. MagNet software
by Infolytica Corporation (Canada) is the tool which is being
used for the performance prediction for design trials. For Fig. 1. Flux desnsity plot of SPM.
performance prediction for this mixer-grinder specification
PMSM mode of analysis is considered. For this, in-house Cogging torque analysis was carried out for the selected
developed program using MathCad, is used which will analyze design and its peak to peak value is 30mNm which is well
the data exported from MagNet tool for its performance below the operating torque and is shown in fig. 2.
evaluation.
Performance was carried out for 300V and 48V DC system
Considering the operating speed (nearly 10000rpm) ,two voltages. Same magnetic design is used for both voltages by
types of rotors were considered, i) surface mounted magnet and changing the number of turns and winding gauge appropriately.
(ii) interior permanent magnet. By comparing the performance The 0.3Nm and 0.4Nm torque points for performance
of both designs, a suitable motor design will be selected for prediction with different speeds at each torque points were
further process. considered. Below picture shows (fig. 3) the efficiency vs.
speed characteristics of the design at 0.4Nm.
A. Surface Mounted Permanent Magnet rotor design:
Surface mounted magnet designs were started with stator
outer diameter of 104mm with appropriate rotor diameter and
0.7mm air gap. Various studies were conducted for different
rotor diameter, pole angle, magnet thickness and different
stator / rotor lengths. From repeated iteration, best design is
arrived and the design details are given in below table (table 2).
 B. Interior Permanent Magnet rotor design:
Interior Permanent magnet designs were started with stator
outer diameter of 104mm with appropriate rotor diameter and
0.7mm air gap. Similar approach of the same was followed
and design details are given below table (table 3).

TABLE III. IPM DESIGN

Fig. 2. Cogging torque of SPM.

Figure 5 shows the flux density plot without any stator

excitation. From this plots it is understood that flux density
values at stator portion are below 1T. Higher flux density
values like >1.5T will lead to higher iron loss, heating and poor
torque/ampere.

Fig. 3. SPM peroformance at 0.4Nm.

Design was also verified for its demagnetization capability

at room temperature (25°C) and ensured that there is no
demagnetization even after applying 3-times the rated current.
Figure 4 shows the magnetic field intensity (due to stator
excitation) values on magnet are well below the intrinsic
cohesive force of magnet values of the magnet at 3-times the
current applied.

Fig. 5. Flux desity plot of IPM.

Cogging torque analysis was carried out for the

selected design and its peak to peak value is 29mNm which is
well below the operating torque and is shown in fig. 6.

Fig. 4. Demagnetization study of SPM .

Fig. 6. Cogging torque of IPM. Fig. 8. Demagnetization study of IPM.

Performance was carried out for 300V and 48V DC. Same
magnetic design is used for both voltages by changing the
number of turns and winding gauge appropriately. The
performance is predicted for the torque values 0.3Nm and
0.4Nm at different speeds. Figure 7 shows the efficiency vs.
speed characteristics of the design at 0.4Nm at 48 V DC and
300V DC.
C. Comparison:
Both SPM and IPM design configurations are carried
out for the same frame size and length. The performance
comparison of SPM and IPM rotor configuration is shown in
fig.9 and 10. It is observed that both arrangements have similar
efficiency. An appropriate design is selected based on the
application and manufacturing requirement.

Fig. 7. IPM performance at 0.4Nm.

Design also verified for its demagnetization capability at Fig. 9. Performnace comparison of SPM and IPM at 300V DC.
room temperature (25°C) and confirmed that there is no
demagnetization even applying 3-times the rated current.
Below picture shown the magnetic field intensity (due to stator
excitation) values on magnet are well below the intrinsic
cohesive force of magnet values of the magnet at 3-times the
current applied (fig. 8).

Fig. 10. Performance comparison of SPM and IPM at 48V DC.

 IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
A. Universal motor
A standard mixer- grinder from a commercial available
market is selected for this study. The universal motor from the
mixer arrangement is shown in fig. 11. The no load and
dynamometer test setups are shown in fig. 12 and 13.

Fig. 14. BLDC motor (stator and rotor).

Fig. 11. Universal motor.

Fig. 15. BLDC mixer test setup (no load) .

Fig. 12. Standard mixer grinder(no load).

Fig. 16. Dynamometer test setup of BLDC motor.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The dynamometer performance of the universal motor is
tabulated in table 4. It is observed that the peak efficiency is
57% at the speed of 5600rpm and 0.4Nm. Table 5 shows the
dynamometer performance of BLDC motor. It observed that,
the maximum efficiency at the speed and torque of 10000rpm
and 0.4 Nm is 80.2% .

TABLE IV. UNVERSAL MOTOR - DYNAMOMETER

Fig. 13. Dynamometer test setup of univeral motor.

B. BLDC motor
For a first prototype development, the finalized design of
SPM rotor with 300V DC supply is chosen. The developed
stator and rotor are shown in fig. 14. The motor assembly with
mixer and dynamometer test setups is shown in fig. 15 and 16.
 TABLE V. BLDC MOTOR - DYNMOMETER
The actual power consumption test is performed at different
speed settings and different loads over universal motor based
mixer and BLDC based ones (shown in table 6 and 7). The
capacity of jar1 is 1.5 L and is loaded with 0.5L and that of jar2
is 0.75L and it is loaded with 0.3L. At full load and high speed
setting, more than 50% power saving is observed and also
similar performance is observed at light load and low speed
condition.
TABLE VI. MIXER PERFORMANCE – UNIVERSAL MOTOR
TABLE VII. MIXER PERFORMANCE WITH BLDC MOTOR
TABLE VIII. MIXER PERFORMANCE – BLDC MOTOR
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Considering the advantages of BLDC machines, a
design of a BLDC motor solution for the mixer grinder
application has been proposed in this paper. The designs of a
SPM and IPM based rotors are evaluated for 48V DC and
300V DC bus system. Based on the results from performance
evaluation, a SPM BLDC is developed. The dynamometer and
mixer performance of existing universal motor has been
compared with the developed BLDC motor and it is observed
that BLDC motor is better. The mixer-grinder with a BLDC
motor helps to achieve a better performance than the
conventional one.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.tenet.res.in/Publications/Presentations/pdfs/Uninterrpted_Po
wer_for_Indian_homes.pdf
[2] V. Gholase, B. G. Fernandes, "Design of effiecnt BLDC motor for DC
operated mixer rinder", IEEE ICIT. Conf, 17-19 Mar 2015..
[3] S Ekram, N Ravi, K R Rajagopal, D Mahajan, “ Design and
development of a high effieciency switched relutance motor for a mixer
grinder application”, IEEE Industrial Electronic society IECON,
Taiwan, Nov 5 -8, 2007, pp 193-197.
[4] D. J. Hammerstrom, "AC versus DC distribution systems-did we get it
right?", Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meet., pp. 1-5, Jun -2007.
[5] M A Rodriguez Otero, E O Neill- Carrillo, “Efficient home appliences
for a future DC residence,” IEEE Energy 2030, Atlanda USA, 17-18,
Nov, 2008.
[6] Y Honda, Y Takeda, “Technical evaluation of permannet magnet
synchronous motor for home appliences”, IEEJ Trans. On Electrical and
electronic engineering, 2007, pp 118-124.
[7] M Sherani, A Aghajani, S Shabani and J Jamali, “A review on recent
applications of brushless DC electric machines and their potential in
energy saving”, Energy eqipment systems, Vol. 3,No 1, Jan 15, pp 57-71