1

Brian Bouma

Overview and Control of DC and AC Motors

Abstract an overview of the differences in form and

function between DC and AC motors. An in-depth analysis of
the general differential equations and transfer functions of DC
and AC motors. Strategies for controlling DC and AC motors
using gain and PID control are discussed and analyzed in depth.
Methods for determining the time constants of DC and AC
motors are discussed and analyzed.

Index Terms AC motors, Control systems, DC motors,

Motor drives.

PID

I. NOMENCLATURE
Proportional Integral Derivative
II. INTRODUCTION

Motors are an integral part of engineering in todays

society. They are used in a wide variety of applications, from
running fans to driving belts to turning wheels. Yet, despite
their prevalence in the designs of undergraduate engineering
students, most such students have very little idea of how
motors actually work, or of how to control them safely and
dependably. This paper describes both DC and AC motors,
analyzes them from a control standpoint, and determines
adequate strategies for controlling them in a manner which is
both safe and reliable. Stepper and servo motors will not be
discussed here, as their form, function, and application are
considerably different from that of DC and AC motors, and
the analysis of those four motor types would be too much
information to cover in this setting.
III. MOTOR OVERVIEW
To the uninformed observer, DC and AC motors appear to
be basically identical. Even though they seem to operate in
essentially the same way, their physical structures, and thus
their range of applications, vary significantly.
The brush DC motor is arguably the simplest variablespeed DC motor design, in addition to being the most
common. For these reasons, the brush design is the one being
described and analyzed here. The brush DC motor (or all DC
motors, for that matter) is made up of a stator and a rotor
(refer to Fig. 1 for all descriptions relating to the brush DC
motor). As the names suggest, the rotor (the circular portion
of Fig. 1 made up of eight T-shaped parts) is the part of the
motor that rotates during operation, while the stator (the dark
blue block and light blue fingers around the rotor in Fig. 1)
remains stationary during operation, relative to the motors
casing and mounting [3]. The stator is made up of either a

This work was done for Engineering 315 at Calvin College in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, in the fall of 2004. All software used in this paper was supplied by
Calvin College. This project was supported financially by Calvin College and
Smiths Aerospace LLC.
Brian Bouma works for Smiths Aerospace LLC and attends Calvin College
in Grand Rapids, MI 49546 USA (e-mail: bbouma83@calvin.edu).

winding or a magnet, which creates magnetic flux in the

magnetic field formed between the stator and the rotor [3].
For the simple analytical purposes herein, it makes no
difference whether a winding or a magnet is used in the
stator, so the use of a magnet will be assumed. The rotor has
a winding on its surface, termed the armature, in which
electromotive forces are induced by the magnetic field formed
between the stator and the rotor [3]. The armature winding is
supplied current through the collector (the yellow cylinder
attached to the rotor in Fig. 1), on which the brushes (the two
brown tabs touching the collector) apply pressure [3]. The
collector is mounted on the same shaft as the armature, and
the fixed brushes are connected to the armature terminals [3].
Thus, the power to the motor runs through the brushes, into
the collector, and through the armature winding to produce
the electromotive forces between the stator and the rotor (the
power cables are the red lines attached to the brushes in Fig.
1). The brush-collector assembly provides current to the
armature windings in such a way that the current flows in one
direction when the windings are under a magnetic North pole
(from the stator magnet), and in the other direction when the
windings are under a magnetic South pole [3]. The rotor
windings are made up of coils, called sections, all sections
being of an equal number of turns (in Fig. 1, the eight colored
sets of line segments, two segments per set, on the front of
the T-shaped parts of the rotor are the ends of the coils; the
coils run through the length of the rotor and wrap around the
opposite end of the T-shaped parts of the rotor) [3]. Each
section has two sides, which are inserted into two slots spaced
apart a distance equal to the distance between the two field
poles [3]. This way, when the conductors of one side of a
section are under the North pole, the conductors of the other
side of the same section are under the South pole [3]. The
sections of armature winding are all connected together, in
series, with the end of the last section being connected to the
beginning of the first section, so that the winding as a whole
is continuous, having no particular start or finish [3]. For
this to work, each slot must contain two sides of sections (half
each of two different sections) [3]. As the rotor rotates, when
a section changes from being under the North pole to being
under the South pole (and hence the current in that section
reverses direction), that section commutates. Commutation
of a section of the winding is the changing of the section from
being under one pole to being under the other pole [3]. Two
sections (two sections that are opposite each other on the
rotor) commutate at a time, one switching from North to
South pole, the other switching from South to North pole.
Because the two poles swap sections simultaneously, half of
the windings are under each pole at all times. The North and
South poles are an effect of the flux in the armature created
by the current flowing through the two sets of windings (each
pole containing one set). When a section commutates, the
brushes, applying pressure on the collector, short-circuit the
two ends of that section together, to release the energy stored
in the coils of the section before the direction of current flow

in the section is reversed [3]. Despite this ingenious design,

sparks are still produced between the brushes and the
collector [3].

grooves, depending on the exact design, but that distinction

makes no difference for this analysis), through which the
windings run (the red arrow in Fig. 3 indicates one such slot)
[3].

Fig. 1. Brush DC Motor

Fig. 3. Winding Slot in AC Motor Stator

The primary advantage of a DC motor is that the

magnitude of the torque produced by the output shaft never
changes [3].
This makes the DC motor perfect for
applications that have large startup loads, particularly
automotive applications (like the drive wheels in electric
vehicles, for instance), where DC power is readily available
under most circumstances.
Today, the asynchronous (or induction) motor is the most
commonly used electric motor in industry and in household
devices [3]. For this reason, the asynchronous motor is the
AC motor design being described and analyzed here.
Electromagnetic induction is the creation of a current through
a conductor that that is within a magnetic field [3]. The
magnetic field is capable of generating a large current in the
conductor without requiring any physical contact whatsoever
[3]. It is this principle that allows the induction motor to
function without having any sliding electrical contacts (such
as the brushes in the brush DC motor) [3]. The stator (the
hollow cylinder in Fig. 2) is essentially a hollow cylinder with
no ends, and may be constructed out of either cast iron or
aluminum [3].

The motors number of poles is determined by the layout of

the windings within the stator (the number of poles will
always be a multiple of two, but, again, that has no impact
here) [3].
The rotor is also cylindrical, though this cylinder does have
a core. The rotor is made of steel disks (the long black
segments in Fig. 4) slotted around the exterior of the cylinder
[3]. A short-circuited winding is placed in the slots between
the steel disks, preventing the need for a supply to be
connected to the rotor [3]. The currents in the rotor are
induced by the interaction between the magnetic fields of the
stator and the rotor, leading to the name for this type of motor
[3]. A copper or aluminum bar (in the case of Fig. 4,
aluminum, judging by the color) is also placed in each slot
between the steel disks [3]. A circular conducting ring is
placed on the end of the cylinder (refer to Fig. 4), to connect
the ends of the bars together (because the conducting ring and
bars resemble a circular cage, this rotor design is called
squirrel cage) [3].

Fig. 4. Squirrel Cage and Steel Disks in AC Rotor

Fig. 2. AC Motor Stator and Rotor

The inner face of the stator is made up of deep slots (or

The interaction between the stator magnetic field and the

rotor magnetic field forces the rotor to spin, relative to the
stator, resulting in a functioning AC motor [3].
There are two varieties of asynchronous motors: three
phase and single phase. Three phase motors are used mainly
in industry, while single phase motors are more common
household appliances [3].

The primary advantage of an induction motor is that it

contains no sliding electrical contacts, resulting in a simple
robust design that is easy to manufacture and maintain [3]. A
secondary advantage is that the available range of induction
motors is from only a few watts to several megawatts, making
the use of induction motors in a wide variety of applications
physically feasible [3].
IV. TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
The differential equations and transfer functions of DC and
AC motors are crucial to the analysis of the control of these
machines. The transfer functions are derived from the
differential equations using Laplace transforms, a method all
too familiar to most engineers.
The differential equations and transfer functions for DC
motors are more complicated than those of AC motors, due to
the fact that DC motors have time lags because of both the
armature inductance and the winding, while AC motors have
only a single time constant. DC motors are described by
three differential equations: The developed torque (T(t)) is
described by
T( t ) K2 if( t )
,
(1)
where if(t) is the current through the field and K 2 is constant
[2]. The field voltage (vf(t)) is described by
d
v f( t ) Rf if( t ) Lf if( t )
dt
,
(2)
where Rf is the field resistance and Lf is the field inductance
[2]. Lastly, the mechanical torque (T(t)) is described by
I

d
( t) B ( t)
dt
dt
,
(3)
where I is the motors moment of inertia, B is the motors
viscous damping, and (t) is the motors angular position [2].
By assuming zero initial conditions and then Laplace
transforming each of these equations, s-domain equations are
reached. The developed torque is now
T( s ) K2 If( s )
,
(4)
the field voltage is now
Vf( s )
Lf s Rf If( s )
,
(5)
and the mechanical torque is now
T( t )

Is 2 Bs (s ),

T( s )
(6)
where all of the constants have the same meaning as in the
time-domain differential equations, I f is used in place of i f and
is used in place of [2]. By substituting and solving, the
transfer function of the motor is found to be
Km
( s )
Vf( s )

s m s 1 e s 1

(7)

where
m

B
is the mechanical time constant of the motor,

(8)

Lf
Rf

(9)
is the electrical time constant of the motor, and
K2
Km
B Rf
(10)
is another constant [2]. This is the transfer function that will
be used for the control analysis of the DC motor in the next
section.
The differential equations and transfer functions for AC
motors are considerably less complicated than those for DC
motors, owing to the fact that AC motors only have a single
time constant while DC motors have two. AC motors are
described by two differential equations: The torque (T(t)) is
described by
d
T( t) K v ( t) m ( t)
dt
,
(11)
where K is a constant, v(t) is the voltage provided to the
motor, (t) is the angular position of the motor, and m is
described by
"stall torque (at rated voltage)"
m
"no-load speed (at rated voltage)" ,
(12)
where stall torque (at rated voltage) and no-load speed (at
rated voltage) are characteristics of any specific AC motor
[2]. The torque is also described by
d

d
( t) B ( t)
dt
dt
,
(13)
which is identical to the third differential equation that
describes DC motors, and has the same meaning [2]. By
equating the two AC motor equations, assuming zero initial
conditions, and then taking the Laplace transform of the
resultant equation, the transfer function of an AC motor is
found to be
Km
( s )
T( t )

V( s )

s s 1 ,

(14)

where
Km

K
m B

(15)

is a constant, and

I
m B

(16)
is the time constant of the motor [2]. This is the transfer
function that will be used for the control analysis of the AC
motor in the next section.
V. CONTROL
Precise control of motors is vital to the use of motors in
any application. Without a system in place to prevent the
motor from operating unchecked, a step increase to the inputs
of a motor would result in the motor accelerating until it
literally broke apart, costing untold amounts of money to
repair and replace damaged equipment, and undoubtedly
ruining someones day.

The first step to safe control is the use of negative

feedback, a concept so common that it warrants no
explanation here, which has been employed in all of the
simulations whose results are shown here.
A control method which is popular because of its
robustness, its simplicity, and its reusability is PID control. A
PID controller contains a proportional gain, an integrator,
and a differentiator (hence its name), all of which are
summed together to produce the output of the controller. The
transfer function of a PID controller has the form
KI

KD s KP s KI

KP
KD s
s
s
,(17)
where KP is the proportional gain coefficient, K I is the
integrator coefficient, and KD is the differentiator coefficient.
The proportional gain is used to amplify the input signal.
The integrator is used to improve the accuracy of the control
system, that is, to minimize the steady-state error (the
difference between the input value and the final output value)
as much as possible. The differentiator is used to increase the
damping in the system, which will decrease both the peak
time and the settling time of the system.
As can be recalled from above, the transfer function of the
DC motor is third order in the denominator, so it has three
poles (roots of the polynomial in the denominator). Likewise,
the transfer function of the PID controller is second order in
the numerator, so it has two zeros (roots of the polynomial in
the numerator). Thus, the PID values may be set so that the
zeros of the PID controller eliminate the poles of the DC
motor. However, since the DC motor has three poles and the
PID controller only has two zeros, only two of the poles may
be eliminated. This raises the obvious question: Which poles
should be eliminated and which one should be left alone?
That depends on which pole, as the only pole in the system,
results in a system with the shortest rise time, the shortest
settling time, and the least overshoot. This system was
modeled and simulated in MATLAB/Simulink (see Fig. 5),
using a unit step input as a standard input.
PID

Fig. 5. Simulink Model of DC Motor Control System with

PID Control
The gain block in this system is used to dramatically speed up
the response of the system, although it does not effect the
location of any of the poles or zeros, so it does not impact the
control aspect of this analysis (even though it decreases the
peak and settlings times for the system). The electrical time
constant of the motor ( e) was assumed to be 1 ms, the
mechanical time constant of the motor ( m) was assumed to be
100 ms, and the motor constant (K m) was assumed to be 0.050
N*m/A, all of which are typical constants for a DC motor [1].
The first two poles to be eliminated were the poles that result
from the electrical and mechanical time constants, leaving
the third pole (at s = 0) alone. This was done by setting the
differentiator coefficient to the product of the electrical and
mechanical time constants, the proportional gain coefficient

to the sum of the electrical and mechanical time constants,

and the integrator coefficient to one. The result of this
simulation is so worthless that it will not be shown here. By
eliminating those two particular poles (hand calculations
would confirm this, but are not necessary here), the overshoot
of the system became 100% (the output was 2 while the
input step was only 1), the peak time became 0.44 seconds
(not terrible, but not great either), and the settling time
became infinite. The system never settled. The output of the
system was sinusoidal and continued for all of eternity (until
the simulation time of ten seconds was reached). This is no
good. In the next simulation run, the two poles eliminated
were the pole at s = 0 and the pole created by the electrical
time constant. This was done by setting the differentiator
coefficient to the value of the electrical time constant, the
proportional gain coefficient to one, and the integrator
coefficient to zero. The output of this simulation is shown in
Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Time Response of System with Mechanical Time

Constant Pole
Fig. 6 shows the time response of the system when the
mechanical time constant and s = 0 poles were eliminated by
the settings of the PID controller. The horizontal axis shows
time, in seconds, and the vertical axis is the output of the
system, normalized to the magnitude of the input step.
Closer analysis of this simulation output shows a settling time
(using 2% criterion) of approximately 0.76 seconds, a peak
time of approximately 0.14 seconds, and an overshoot of
approximately 49%. This simulation shows a better peak
time (0.14 seconds as opposed to 0.44 seconds), a better
overshoot (49% as opposed to 100%), and a much better
settling time (0.76 seconds as opposed to not settling at all).
However, the peak time could still improve (a little), the peak
time could improve quite a bit, and the overshoot has the
most room for improvement. The simulation was run a third
time, this time eliminating the pole at s = 0 and the pole
created by the mechanical time constant. This was done by
setting the differentiator coefficient to the value of the
mechanical time constant, the proportional gain coefficient to
one, and the integrator coefficient to zero. This simulation
output is shown in Fig. 7.

settling time will change if the time constant is changed. For

comparison purposes, the model of Fig. 8 was simulated (see
Fig. 9), using a gain of 135, as that value is roughly midway
between the two gain values discussed earlier which denote
the two endpoints of the range in which optimum output
values are produced.

Fig. 7. Time Response of System with Electrical Time

Constant Pole
The simulation output in Fig. 7 shows that the elimination of
the s = 0 and mechanical time constant poles produces the
best system performance yet. Since the output does not
oscillate, the peak time cannot be characterized as having a
unique value, so the peak time will be considered to be the
same as the settling time. The settling time is approximately
0.073 seconds (73 ms), and there is no overshoot. Note also
that while the system corresponding to Fig. 6 was simulated
for 1 second (with the step input occurring at time t = 0
seconds), the system corresponding to Fig. 7 was simulated
for only 0.25 seconds, because its time response was so fast
that it could scarcely be seen on a 1-second time plot.
From these findings, it appears as though the best way to
use a PID controller in conjunction with a DC motor is to set
the PID values so that the s = 0 pole and the pole created by
the larger of the two time constants (typically the mechanical
time constant) are eliminated.
The transfer function of an AC motor is simple enough
that, even though PID control may be implemented for an AC
motor (as it will be later), acceptable time response values
may be attained by simply adjusting the gain in the system
(see Fig. 8). For all of the AC motor control system
simulations, a time constant () of 0.1 seconds (100 ms) and a
motor constant of 0.050 N*m/A have been assumed.

Fig. 8. Simulink Model of AC Motor Control System

By running this simulation many times, and adjusting the
gain value each time, it can be found that, between the gain
values of approximately 128.957 and 143.076, the overshoot
is less than (or equal to) 10% and the peak time is less than
(or equal to) 0.5 seconds. At a gain of 128.957, the overshoot
is 8.21% while the peak time is exactly 0.5 seconds. At a
gain of 143.076, the peak time is 0.461 seconds while the
overshoot is exactly 10.0%. For gain values between the two
just given, the overshoot and peak time are between the two
extremes given above for overshoot and peak time. It just so
happens that the settling time, regardless of the gain value, is
always 0.8 seconds (two opposing values, both functions of
the gain, cancel out in the calculation of the settling time).
These values are, of course, also dependent on the value of
the motors time constant, so the overshoot, peak time, and

Fig. 9. AC Motor System Time Response with Gain of 135

This simulation output shows a peak time of approximately
0.48 seconds, a settling time of approximately 0.73 seconds,
and an overshoot of approximately 9.0%.
Since the AC motor transfer function is only second order
(as opposed to the third order DC motor transfer function),
those values may be easily changed by adjusting the gain
value. However, better system response may be attained by
placing a PID controller in the control system with the motor
(see Fig. 10), and setting the PID values accordingly.

Fig. 10. Simulink Model of AC Motor Control System

with PID Control
Because the denominator of the AC motor transfer function is
second order, both poles may be eliminated by setting the PID
values strategically.
This was done by setting the
differentiator coefficient to the value of the time constant, the
proportional gain coefficient to one, and the integrator
coefficient to zero. The output of that simulation is shown in
Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. Time Response of System with Both Motor Poles

Eliminated
Closer inspection of Fig. 11 reveals a peak time of 0.14
seconds, a settling time of 0.065 seconds, and an overshoot of
0.4%. The settling time is less than the peak time because the
peak value is less than 2% greater than the final value. In
comparison to the simulation (of Figs. 8 and 9) which was
optimized by adjusting nothing other than the gain, this
simulation exhibited considerable improvement, decreasing
the peak time by approximately 0.34 seconds (from 0.48 to
0.14 seconds), decreasing the settling time by approximately
0.665 seconds (from 0.73 to 0.065 seconds), and decreasing
the overshoot by approximately 8.6% (from 9.0 to 0.4%). A
simpler way to compare the two responses by inspection is to
note the time scale in Figs. 9 and 11. The simulation
represented in Fig. 9 was run for 1.5 seconds, while the
response of the system whose simulation is represented in
Fig. 11 was so much faster that a time scale of only 0.5
seconds had to be used to attain a high enough resolution in
the output graph that the response could be seen without
difficulty.
From these findings, it appears as though the best way to
control an AC motor is the use a PID controller and to set the
PID values so that the poles of the motor are eliminated.
When such equipment is not available, the gain can be
adjusted to optimize the response, although that approach
produces much less favorable results than those ensuing from
the use of a PID controller.

those values must be obtained experimentally.

In the case of a DC motor, this is easier said than done.
First, a system resembling that of Fig. 5 must be constructed,
where the output being measured is the rotational speed of the
output shaft of the motor. Keep in mind that, in this case, the
transfer function of the motor is really a black box; all that is
known about is for certain is that it has three poles, one of
them at s = 0, and the other two created by the two time
constants. Unfortunately, there is no cut and dried, step by
step process by which to determine the time constants of the
DC motor. As such, the system must be run many times,
adjusting the PID values each time. The integrator coefficient
should be set to zero, and the proportional gain coefficient
should be set to one, and both values should left there for all
of the system runs. Only the value of the differentiator
coefficient should be changed between runs. The electrical
time constant will likely be around 1 ms, and the mechanical
time constant will be greater than the electrical. Recall from
earlier that the best system response will be attained when the
differentiator coefficient is equal to the mechanical time
constant. The mechanical time constant may range anywhere
from only a few milliseconds to hundreds of milliseconds, so
that full range should be tested. Thus, when a system
response closely resembling Fig. 7 (no oscillations, no
overshoot, and a very short settling time) is achieved, the
value of the differentiator coefficient for that run is the value
of the mechanical time constant.
To determine the time constants of an AC motor, a system
resembling that of Fig. 8 must be constructed, where the
output being measured is the rotational speed of the output
shaft of the motor. Choose an arbitrary gain value (it should
be somewhat high, to get a relatively fast time response, so a
run will take no more than a couple seconds, but not so high
that separate oscillations are indistinguishable), and then do
not change the gain value again. Keep in mind, again, that
the transfer function of the motor is really a black box, and
the only thing that is known about it for certain is that it has
two poles, one at s = 0 and the other created by the time
constant. The system must be run a single time (after
running it several times to determine a good gain value), and
the peak time, settling time, and percent overshoot all need to
be observed. Fig. 12 shows the output of the model of Fig. 8,
using a gain of 1000 instead of the gain of 135 shown in Fig.
8.

VI. TIME CONSTANTS

A method to control both DC and AC motors with PID
control has been determined. This method is heavily reliant
on the time constants of the motor, and assumes that anyone
trying to implement PID control for a motor knows the values
of the motors time constants. Since the nameplate on most
motors only provides the name of the manufacturer, the
motors serial number, the motors input voltage, the
maximum rotational speed of the motors output shaft (in
RPM), the power of the motor (in horsepower), and the
weight of the motor, another questions arises: How can the
time constants be determined for a motor that one already has
in hand? This is a very good question.
While the data sheets for some motors do contain the
values of the time constants, this is not true in every case, so

Fig. 12. AC Motor System Response with Gain of 1000

Fig. 12 shows a peak time of approximately 0.14 seconds, a

settling time of approximately 0.76 seconds, and an overshoot
of approximately 49%. Next, several calculations must be
made, using the following equations:

PO 100 exp

1 ,
(18)
where PO is the percent overshoot of the response and is the
damping ratio of the system,

Tp
2
n 1
,
(19)
where Tp is the peak time of the response and n is the natural
frequency of system,
4
Ts
n
,
(20)
where Ts is the settling time of the response, and
1
2 n
,
(21)
where is the time constant of the motor. Using the percent
overshoot (in this case, 49%) in conjunction with (18), solve
for the damping ratio, which in this case turns out to be
approximately 0.22. Next, use the value of the damping ratio
and the peak time (in this case, 0.14 seconds) in conjunction
with (19), and solve for the natural frequency, which in this
case turns out to be approximately 23.0 radians/second. If,
for some reason, the value of the peak time is not available or
cannot be gleaned from the time response graph, the damping
ratio and the settling time may be used in conjunction with
(20) to find the value of the natural frequency, but since the
peak time may generally be observed with greater accuracy
than the settling time, (20) should only be used as a last
resort. Similarly, if there is some problem with the value of
the peak time or percent overshoot, any two of (18), (19), and
(20) may be used to solve for the values of the damping ratio
and natural frequency, but since the percent overshoot and
peak time are the two that may be measured the most easily
and with the most accuracy, (18) and (19) should be used
whenever possible. Finally, using the values of the damping
ratio and natural frequency in conjunction with (21), the time
constant may be solved for, in this case turning out to be
approximately 0.10 seconds. Considering that the value used
for the time constant in the simulation was 0.1 seconds, it
appears as though this method works with some degree of
accuracy.
When attempting to determine the time constants of a DC
motor, the best method available is adjust the values of the
coefficients of a PID controller until the result of a run bears
resemblance to that of Fig. 7, and then to use those coefficient
settings from then on. When attempting to determine the
time constant of an AC motor, the system should be run, and
the peak time, settling time, and overshoot observed and used
to calculate the value of the time constant.
2

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of
Paulo Ribeiro, for his help in writing this paper. Without his
support, this process would have been much more difficult.
The author also acknowledges the contributions of John
Washburn, Frank Saggio, Paul Bakker, Matt Husson, and
Nate Studer for their help in the research process.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

Robert H. Bishop, Richard C. Dorf, Modern Control Systems, 9th ed.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001, p. 52-56, 227-231.
D.K. Anand, Introduction to Control Systems. New York: Pergamon Press
Inc., 1974, p. 34-37.
The ST Microcontroller Support Site Motor Control Tutorial,
http://mcu.st.com/contentid-7.html.

IX. BIOGRAPHY

2001.

Brian Bouma was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan

in the United States of America, on September 30,
1982. He graduated from Grand Rapids Christian
High School in 2001, and is currently pursuing his
undergraduate degree at Calvin College. He is
majoring in engineering, with a concentration in
electrical and computer engineering, and currently
holds a minor in mathematics.
His work experience includes Smiths Aerospace
LLC where he works in Digital Design.
He has been a student member of IEEE since