1312 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
Energy-Efficient Induction Motors Performance
Characteristics and Life-Cycle Cost
Comparisons for Centrifugal Loads
Paul S. Hamer, Fellow, IEEE, Debra M. Lowe, Member, IEEE, and Stanley E. Wallace, Member, IEEE
Abstract— When fixed-speed motors (fed directly at power
frequency) are purchased for new installations or for replace-
ments, the loaded shaft speed differences among motor options
are either ignored or overestimated. The most common first-cut
estimate is that the consumed shaft power will vary as the cube
of the ratio of the motor rated nameplate speeds for centrifugal
driven loads that have discharge control valves (on pressure or
flow control). In actuality, this is true only if the motors are
loaded at approximately nameplate output. This paper discusses
the true “control valve loss” factor taking into account actual
speed differences among motor options. A simplified equation and
figure are presented to permit quick evaluation of motor purchase
alternatives for the lowest life-cycle cost based on efficiency
and rated-load speed differences. NEMA standards on slip-speed
variation should be made more stringent to increase the validity
of speed-difference loss evaluations. Additionally, efficiency test
results and loaded speed measurements for standard-efficiency
and premium-efficiency 10- and 100-hp motors are presented,
leading to a conclusion that standard-efficiency motors should
be operated at no higher than rated voltage and that premium-
efficiency motors should be operated at 5%–10% above rated
voltage for best system efficiency.
Index Terms—Design E, efficiency, energy-efficient, evaluation,
motor, NEMA, speed.
I. INTRODUCTION
M ANY ELEMENTS of an induction motor affect overall
“system efficiency” and, ultimately, the power costs to
run a process. This paper examines the following two such
efficiency factors that are independent of the motor itself:
1) the influence of small differences in the loaded shaft
speed of the motor on the shaft power demanded by
centrifugal loads (which can lead to increased power de-
mands by the driven load and lower system efficiency);
2) the magnitude and balance of voltage applied to the
motor and its affect on the motor’s efficiency and full-
load speed.
Paper PID 97–12, presented at the 1996 IEEE Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Technical Conference, Philadelphia, PA, September 23–26, and ap-
proved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS
by the Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry
Applications Society. Manuscript released for publication March 25, 1997.
P. S. Hamer is with Chevron Research and Technology Company, Rich-
mond, CA 94802-0627 USA.
D. M. Lowe is with Occidental Chemical Corporation, Tacoma, WA 98401-
2157 USA.
S. E. Wallace is with Rockwell Automation/Reliance Electric, Athens, GA
30613-1299 USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(97)06554-7.
0093–9994/97$10.00  1997 IEEE
A brief overview is given of the NEMA standard sections
[1] pertinent to the discussion of efficiency, particularly in
the areas of efficiency standards and rated-load speed tol-
erances. Recommendations are made to tighten the NEMA
tolerance on published versus measured rated-load speed for
a motor. An equation and figure are illustrated to assist in
assigning a “control valve loss factor” for centrifugal loads
on discharge pressure or flow control. This is important in
life-cycle cost comparisons and in economic motor selec-
tions.
II. STANDARD-EFFICIENCY, ENERGY-EFFICIENT,
PREMIUM-EFFICIENCY, AND NEMA DESIGN E MOTORS
The Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992
will be implemented on October 24, 1997 and will have
a large impact on integral horsepower, medium induction
motors. Section 122 of Subtitle C of Title I of the Act es-
tablishes minimum standards for motor efficiencies (expressed
as NEMA “nominal” efficiencies) and testing methods. It will
apply to all two-, four-, and six-pole totally enclosed fan-
cooled (TEFC) and open, horizontally footed, general-purpose,
three-phase induction motors from 1 to 200 hp manufactured
after the date given above. The up-to-date reference for the
NEMA reference stated in the Act is NEMA MG 1-12.59 and
Table 12-10 [1], which defines the “nominal” and “minimum”
full-load efficiencies at various speed and output ratings for a
motor to be called an “energy-efficient” motor. Virtually every
motor, except special-purpose and definite-purpose motors as
described in NEMA, will be required to be energy-efficient
after 1997. A “standard-efficiency” motor is a motor that
has a lower efficiency than listed in NEMA Table 12-10.
“High-efficiency” and “premium-efficiency” are terms used
by motor manufacturers for products that exceed the NEMA
energy-efficient standards. Today, most motor manufacturers
offer product lines for standard-efficiency, energy-efficient,
and premium-efficiency motors.
The energy-efficient motor required by the Act is not
a recent development, as shown in Table I [2]. In fact,
most process industries have been purchasing them for over
15 years as a matter of policy, due to the clear economic
benefits of using them. Motor designs exceeding energy-
efficient standards were developed in response to the 1979
increase in energy prices and have been available since 1980.
HAMER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT INDUCTION MOTORS
TABLE I
EVOLUTION OF RATED-LOAD EFFICIENCY FOR A 25-HP MOTOR
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. (a) Segregated loss comparison (as tested by IEEE Std 112-1991,
method B) for 10-hp standard- and premium-efficiency two-pole TEFC motors
at rated shaft load. (b) Segregated loss comparison (as tested by IEEE Std
112-1991, Method B) for 100-hp standard- and premium-efficiency two-pole
TEFC motors at rated shaft load.
The practical effect of the Act is to remove standard-
efficiency motors from the market for most new applications.
An illustration of motor loss reduction is shown in Fig. 1.
Most of the loss reductions have been accomplished in the
stator-copper loss and friction-and-windage loss components.
In addition to copper and friction-and-windage loss reductions
evident for the 10-hp motor, the 100-hp premium-efficiency
motor test data reveal a significant reduction in core loss.
1313
With the addition of Table 12-11 in NEMA MG 1 and
in recognition of the Design E motor in the 1996 National
Electrical Code [3], the motor manufacturers will be testing
the market to assess demand for these motors. NEMA defines
a Design E motor in a similar way as a Design B motor.
The main difference between the Design B motor in general
use today and a Design E motor is that a Design E motor
has a generally higher allowable locked-rotor current, lower
rated-load power factor [4], and slightly lower allowable
locked-rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torques for most ratings.
The Design E motor is intended to harmonize with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) “Design N”
motor. See NEMA MG 1, Part 12, for more details on the
Design E performance standards.
Even though today’s Design B premium-efficiency motors
had not been designed considering Design E efficiency stan-
dards, in many cases their efficiencies already exceed the
requirements stated in Table 12-11 of NEMA MG 1 for
Design E efficiencies. Motor designers will probably attempt
to reduce the rotor losses, in concert with the higher allowable
locked-rotor current and lower required torques, to produce
the next generation of premium-efficiency Design E motors.
This, among other design refinements, may add 1/2%–1%
efficiency to today’s premium-efficiency motors. It is likely
that future NEMA Design E efficiency standards will increase
to even higher levels to improve motor energy efficiency
goals. The reduction of slip, and the consequent increase in
rated-load speed, as the motor design has progressed through
the standard-efficiency, energy-efficient, premium-efficiency,
and Design E types of motors is the efficiency-related trend
that is explored in this paper. If rated-load rotor losses are
significantly reduced with Design E motor redesign efforts, slip
speed could be significantly reduced. The general increase in
rated-load speed affects the efficiency of the fluid system that
the motor is working upon through its rotational shaft energy.
Neglect of this trend in rated-load motor speed as applied to
system efficiency evaluations could lead to erroneous conclu-
sions of the economic benefit of choosing a certain motor type
for a specific application.
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF “CONSTANT-SPEED”
APPLICATION CENTRIFUGAL LOADS WITH
CONSTANT PRESSURE OR FLOW CONTROL
According to the centrifugal pump “affinity laws” for a
fixed-sized pump impeller diameter, a pump’s flow varies
directly with speed, a pump’s head (or pressure) varies
with speed squared, and a pump’s shaft power varies with
speed cubed. A prior paper [5] discusses this in detail in an
adjustable-speed drive context. The pump will operate where
the pump head versus capacity curve intersects the system
(piping and valve frictional resistance and any static head)
resistance curve. If the shaft speed of the pump increases
slightly due to changing the motor from a standard-efficiency
model to a premium-efficiency model, the pump will put out
more flow (in direct proportion to the speed ratio) and pressure
(in proportion to the speed ratio squared). The new operating
1314 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

point is where the new pump curve and system resistance

curve intersect. Most process applications include a control
valve at the discharge of the pump that controls either the
pressure or flow to the process.

IV. CONTROL VALVE LOSS FACTOR

As discussed in Section III, as the shaft rotational speed
increases on a centrifugal-type load the flow increases directly
with speed, the pressure increases as the speed squared, and
the shaft power demanded by the load increases as the speed
cubed. This assumes the centrifugal fan, pump, or compressor
as an isolated entity and not as part of the fluid “system
resistance” that includes piping, valves, etc. If “fixed-speed”
application is assumed, that is, the motor is directly connected
to fixed-frequency power, the centrifugal load will usually
have a discharge control valve in very close physical proximity
to its discharge flange. To maintain process conditions, this
control valve is usually set to maintain constant pressure or
flow to the process. If the driving motor is replaced with
a motor of slightly higher rated-load speed, and no driven-
equipment modification such as the trimming of an impeller
is made, the control valve will close slightly to maintain the
process condition set point, with resulting flow and pressure
reduction, and the additional power resulting from the speed
increase will be absorbed by the control valve and the fluid
as heat. If heat is required by the related process, most of the
Fig. 2. Illustration of speed and load change with two different induction
additional loss is not wasted, but is substituted for heat energy motors of speeds Se and Sb .
that would otherwise be supplied from another source. In most
cases, however, this heat is additional loss that is not required
by the process. calculations, as the speed ratios should be very close to actual:
The most common estimation equates the consumed shaft
power variation to the cube of the motor nameplate speed ratio.
This is only true if the motor is operating near its nameplate (1)
rated output. At shaft output power less than nameplate rating,
the speed ratio is less than that of the nameplate speeds because
the shaft speeds of both motors converge to synchronous speed where
at zero load (see Fig. 2). per-unit power increase due to control valve loss re-
As the speed increases, the shaft load increases, which sulting from shaft speed change;
slows the higher speed induction motor slightly. This, in turn, synchronous speed of the motor (i.e., 3600, 1800, 1200
unloads the higher speed induction motor until an equilibrium r/min, etc.), r/min;
point is reached. As a result, the shaft power does not increase rated full-load speed of the evaluated motor, r/min;
as the nameplate speed ratio. An iterative approximation rated full-load speed used as the basis for evalua-
describes this relationship. For an illustration, see (1), below, tion—usually the quoted rated speed of the driven
and Fig. 2, which assume that the speed of an induction motor equipment or the rated full-load speed of an existing
is inversely proportional to the load in a linear fashion. This motor, r/min;
is an approximation accurate to within about 5% of the actual load factor (driven-load rated horsepower)/(motor
slip speed (generally underestimating the actual motor running nameplate horsepower), at the load used as the basis
speed by 1%–5% of the slip speed). The slight nonlinearity is for evaluation, i.e., at the speed .
primarily due to the highest heating of the rotor cage near With reference to Fig. 2, point 1 is the operating speed and
the rated load point, which increases the slip speed due to the load for the original motor (nameplate speed ), in this
rotor cage resistance increase. Since the ultimate temperature case with an initial load of 75% of motor rated load. When the
of the rotor cage is dependent on the specific motor design, motor is replaced with a motor with nameplate speed , the
it is difficult to express the motor speed as a function of shaft load increases as the ratio of speeds to cubed.
load in other than a linear fashion. The straight-line speed This is the load shown in Fig. 2. This additional load slows
approximation should be adequate for the purpose of loss the motor to the speed . This change of speed from to
HAMER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT INDUCTION MOTORS
Fig. 3. Exponent of (Se =Sb ), as a function of load factor for representa-
tion of speed-dependent power increase for centrifugal loads with constant
discharge pressure or flow control.
additionally unloads the motor slightly, and this process could
be carried another iteration, but the resulting speed correction
is less than a fraction of a revolution per minute change, much
less than the accuracy of (1) or the motor’s published or tested
speed data. The rather complicated (1) is simplified graphically
by Fig. 3, and a loss evaluation only requires knowing the
rated nameplate speeds of the two motors to be compared,
and , and the load factor at the basis speed . From
the load factor data, an equivalent exponent can be applied to
the speed ratios for a “control valve loss factor” to be applied
along with a motor efficiency loss factor. This avoids having
to go through a tedious process of using actual speed versus
load data for each motor in order to complete an evaluation.
This procedure is demonstrated in Section VI.
VARIATION RATED SPEED
V. NEMA STANDARDS ON FROM
The existing imprecision in rated-load speed data requires
additional discussion if this aspect will be used in efficiency
evaluation. Nailen has explored this in detail in [6] and
describes various reasons why manufacturers may not be
precise with published rated-load speed data. NEMA MG
1-12.46, quoted in its entirety, reads as follows:
“The variation from the nameplate or published data
speed of alternating-current, single-phase and polyphase,
medium motors shall not exceed 20 percent of the
difference between synchronous speed and rated speed
when measured at rated voltage, frequency, and load and
with an ambient temperature of 25 C.”
This statement was adopted by NEMA in 1949, and it was
most recently revised in 1959 [6]. This means that a motor with
a rated nameplate speed of 3500 r/min could have a measured
speed between 3480–3520 r/min, under the conditions stated
above, and meet NEMA’s requirements.
1315
Since motor manufacturers know the rotor losses with a
good degree of confidence, especially for energy-efficient and
premium-efficiency motors, and the rotor losses dominantly
affect the slip speed (the difference between synchronous
speed and rated speed of the motor), this NEMA tolerance
on speed variation should be revised. The rotor cage geometry
is well defined by the manufacturing processes (lamination
punching, stacking, and injection die casting for the aluminum-
cage rotors on most medium motors) and should have little
variation in cage material mass or dimensions, hence, losses.
While the 20% total loss tolerance (NEMA MG 1, Table 12-
8) for “nominal efficiency” versus “minimum efficiency” may
justifiably be maintained, tests on a 10-hp energy-efficient
motor demonstrate that, although the tested efficiency was
just 0.1% above the minimum efficiency (20% loss increase)
associated with the motor’s nameplate nominal efficiency, the
rated-load speed (corrected to an ambient air temperature of
25 C) was 3511 r/min versus the typical speed of 3507 r/min
(the motor nameplate reads 3510 r/min). This is less than
5% speed variation from typical data. The 10-hp standard-
efficiency motor had similar results. We recommend that in
today’s energy-conscious environment, NEMA MG 1-12.46
be supplemented or revised for “energy-efficient” and “Design
E” motors to read as follows:
“The variation from the nameplate or published data
speed of alternating-current, polyphase, energy-efficient
and Design E motors shall not exceed 5 percent of the
difference between synchronous speed and rated speed
when measured at rated voltage, frequency, load, at a
stabilized operating temperature, and with an ambient air
temperature of 25 C. For the purpose of complying with
this section, the measured rated-load slip speed shall be
corrected to an ambient air temperature of 25 C per
IEEE Std 112-1991, Section 4.3.2.2.”
This modification necessitates that manufacturers publish
their energy-efficient and Design E rated motor speeds to
the nearest revolution per minute, instead of multiples of 5
r/min, as most are doing today [6]. As discussed in Section
VI, assurance of good accuracy for the rated-load speed of
a motor is important in the evaluation of subtle driven-load
control valve loss effects.
VI. LIFE-CYCLE COST (LCC) COMPARISON BASED ON
EFFICIENCY AND SPEED VARIATIONS AMONG MOTOR OPTIONS
To compare motor options, we propose a simple approach
based on the purchase price of the motor and the present value
of the losses. See (2)–(4):
(2)
where
life-cycle cost, ($);
motor purchase price, ($);
evaluation factor, ($/kW);
evaluated loss, (kW).
1316 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
TABLE II
DATA FOR LIFE-CYCLE COST COMPARISON EXAMPLE
The evaluation factor is defined as
(3)
where
power cost, ($/kWh);
operating time each year, (h);
cumulative present worth factor.
The factor can be made as sophisticated as you want
to make it, to take into account the time value of money,
tax deductions, depreciation, etc., but for most economic
comparisons, setting equal to four is an adequate
simplification. Using in (3) assumes that you
are willing to accept approximately a three-year payback
for energy efficiency. See Section 3.6.2 of API RP 540 [7]
for additional considerations for the , or [8] for an
alternative economic approach:
(4)
where
evaluated loss, (kW);
load factor (driven-load rated horsepower)/(motor
nameplate horsepower);
motor nameplate horsepower, (hp);
rated full-load speed of evaluated motor, (r/min);
rated full-load speed used as the basis for the evalu-
ation, (r/min); usually the quoted rated speed of the
driven equipment;
exponent from Fig. 3;
motor nominal efficiency at the rated driven-
equipment shaft load, (%).
There are two components of loss included in . The
first term, , represents the “control valve loss,” as
previously described for centrifugal loads with control valves.
If the load is noncentrifugal or does not use a control valve,
this evaluation term is zero. The second term, , and coupling changes.
represents the motor internal losses.
As an example of comparing the LCC between two alter-
native motors, take the data from Table II. The comparison
could also be made among several premium-efficiency motors.
Assume the base speed for evaluation is 3510 r/min, the
published performance speed of a centrifugal pump rated shaft
18.75 hp at 3510 r/min. The pump is on flow control with a
discharge control valve.
Fig. 4. Life-cycle cost components for a standard-efficiency and pre-
mium-efficiency motor.
Assume the following:
• power cost of $0.06 per kilowatthour;
• operating hours of 8000 h per year;
• cumulative present worth factor equals 4.
By (3),
kW
By (4), for the standard-efficiency motor, with an exponent
equal to 2.2 for from Fig. 3,
kW
and for the premium-efficiency motor,
kW
By (2), the LCC costs are as follows:
standard efficiency,
premium efficiency,
Fig. 4 illustrates the segregation of the LCC’s for the motors.
The premium-efficiency motor is the clear purchase choice in
this example. It would be the choice even if the standard-
efficiency motor cost nothing, that is, the standard-efficiency
motor could be replaced with the premium-efficiency motor
and still pay out, even with some cost allowance for baseplate
In many cases, if the comparison is among motors of similar
efficiency but different speeds, the control valve loss factor
becomes more significant. For new motor purchases that are
a part of a driven-equipment package, it is important to do
the following:
• make sure the driven-equipment performance curves
match the “base bid” quoted motor speed at the rated
load point;
HAMER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT INDUCTION MOTORS
TEST DATA FOR
TEST DATA FOR
• evaluate LCC for other motor choices using the motor
price differential, the NEMA nominal efficiency, and
rated full-load speed for each motor.
Choose the motor with the lowest LCC. Note in Fig. 4 that
the control valve losses amount to about 20% of the total
(motor plus control valve) losses for this example. When
evaluating alternatives based on motor speed differences, the
1317
TABLE III
10-HP TWO-POLE TEFC 460-V MOTORS
TABLE IV
100-HP TWO-POLE TEFC 460-V MOTORS
accuracy of the motor rated-load speed is crucial to properly
assign control valve losses. By the present NEMA standard
on speed variation, both motors could conceivably have a
published speed of 3525 r/min (3525 75 (0.20) 3510 or
3540 r/min). Motor speeds must be published with greater
accuracy, as recommended previously, or this potentially sig-
nificant energy-loss component could be masked by motor
1318 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. (a) Efficiency versus load for a 10-hp standard-efficiency motor for
various applied voltages in percent of its 460-V rating. (b) Efficiency versus
load for a 100-hp standard-efficiency motor for various applied voltages in
percent of its 460-V rating.
manufacturers providing inaccurate or misrepresented rated-
load speed data.
VII. EFFECT OF VOLTAGE MAGNITUDE AND
UNBALANCE ON MOTOR EFFICIENCY AND SPEED
If speed changes are considered in an efficiency evaluation,
other effects should not overcome their significance. Previous
papers have covered the subjects of variation of voltage and
effects on efficiency and speed [9] and unbalanced voltage
and its effects [9]–[11]. The motors included in these refer-
ences were of standard efficiency pedigree. We embarked to
determine the differences in measured efficiency, power factor,
stator winding temperature rise, and speed for the following
four induction motors:
• 10-hp two-pole TEFC standard efficiency;
• 10-hp two-pole TEFC premium efficiency;
• 100-hp two-pole TEFC standard efficiency;
• 100-hp two-pole TEFC premium efficiency.
Efficiencies were determined by IEEE Std 112, Method
B [12] at voltages of 95%, 100%, 105%, and 110% of the
460-V rating and with 2% voltage unbalance per the NEMA
definition, which is the maximum deviation of a line-to-line
voltage from the average of the three line-to-line voltages,
divided by the average of the three line-to-line voltages. Full
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Efficiency versus load for a 10-hp premium-efficiency motor for
various applied voltages in percent of its 460-V rating. (b) Efficiency versus
load for a 100-hp premium-efficiency motor for various applied voltages in
percent of its 460-V rating.
results are tabulated in Tables III and IV and are illustrated
in Figs. 5–8.
Figs. 5(a) and 6(a) illustrate the measured efficiency for
the 10-hp motors with changes of voltage and load. For the
standard-efficiency motor of Fig. 5, it appears applied voltage
does not make a difference at 75% rated load, but higher
voltage results in better efficiency at 100% rated load. For the
premium-efficiency motor of Fig. 6, a higher voltage appears
more efficient at all loads above 50% rated.
Now, if the speed differences are taken into account with the
relationship of (4), where is the actual measured
speed at each load point at 95%, 105%, and 110% rated
voltage, and is the actual measured speed at each load point
at rated motor voltage, the following different conclusions can
be drawn.
• For best efficiency, operate standard-efficiency motors at
their nameplate voltage, or slightly lower (Fig. 7).
• For best efficiency, operate smaller (10 hp) premium-
efficiency motors at 105%–110% of their rated voltage
[Fig. 8(a)], recognizing that the locked-rotor current in-
rush will probably exceed the NEMA standard values and
motor overcurrent protective may require special provi-
sions [13]. Larger (100 hp) premium-efficiency motors
have best efficiency when operated at rated voltage.
HAMER et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT INDUCTION MOTORS
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. (a) Efficiency versus load for a 10-hp standard-efficiency motor for
various applied voltages in percent of its 460-V rating, corrected for “control
valve losses” due to speed change. (b) Efficiency versus load for a 100-hp
standard-efficiency motor for various applied voltages in percent of its 460-V
rating, corrected for “control valve losses” due to speed change.
Tests results indicate that voltage unbalances of approxi-
mately 2% do not significantly affect the motor efficiency or
speed. The premium-efficiency 100-hp motor is one exception,
where an unbalanced voltage resulted in 0.2%–0.3% efficiency
reduction with little effect on speed.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Speed variations among motor alternatives result in sig-
nificant losses in centrifugal driven load applications that
have discharge control valves set to control a process. These
losses should be evaluated to determine true life-cycle costs.
Comparing motor efficiencies alone is not enough and may
significantly underestimate losses. The techniques given in (2)-
(4) and Fig. 3 will result in accurate evaluation if the motor’s
alternative rated-load speeds and applied shaft load are known
with confidence.
Present NEMA standards do not require motor published
data to be of sufficient accuracy to make the evaluation of
control valve losses meaningful. In order to increase the va-
lidity of this technique, NEMA MG 1-12.46 requires revision
to reduce the tolerance on published versus actual slip speed
from 20% to 5% for energy-efficient and Design E motors.
1319
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. (a) Efficiency versus load for a 10-hp premium-efficiency motor for
various applied voltages in percent of its 460-V rating, corrected for “control
valve losses” due to speed change. (b) Efficiency versus load for a 100-hp
premium-efficiency motor for various applied voltages in percent of its 460-V
rating, corrected for “control valve losses” due to speed change.
Applied voltage affects the efficiency of a motor. Standard-
efficiency motors should be applied at, or slightly below, the
rated nameplate voltage. Small, premium-efficiency motors
could be applied with the supply voltage set 5%–10% above
the rated nameplate voltage, taking into account the effects
of increased locked-rotor current inrush. If there is a mixture
of motor output ratings supplied from a common utilization
bus, application of motors at approximately rated nameplate
voltage is recommended. This supports the common practice
of adjusting the voltage at a substation secondary bus to 480 V
and permitting a 10–20-V drop on the distribution system and
motor feeders. A voltage unbalance of approximately 2% does
not significantly affect the efficiency or speed of a medium
induction motor. This paper presented the results of tests on
two-pole motors. Some minor differences could be expected
for motors of different design or speed, and further tests are
encouraged in this area.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the extensive series of tests made
by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the direction of
J. Kueck and R. Staunton.
1320 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
REFERENCES
[1] “Motors and generators,” NEMA, Washington, DC, NEMA Standards
Publ. no. MG 1, 1993.
[2] D. C. Montgomery, “The motor rewind issue—A new look,” in Conf.
Rec. 30th IEEE/IAS Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conf., Sept.
12–14, 1983, pp. 171–177.
[3] National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70-1996, National Fire Protec-
tion Association, Quincy, MA, 1995.
[4] A. H. Bonnett, “The benefits for allowing for increased starting current
in ac squirrel-cage induction motors,” in Proc. 37th IEEE/IAS Petroleum
and Chemical Industry Conf., Sept. 10–12, 1990, pp. 93–98.
[5] D. E. Rice, “A suggested energy savings evaluation method for ac
adjustable speed drive applications,” in Proc. 34th IEEE/IAS Petroleum
and Chemical Industry Conf., Sept. 14–16, 1987, pp. 249–258.
[6] R. L. Nailen, “Finding true power output isn’t easy,” Elec. App., pp.
31–36, Feb. 1994.
[7] American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 540 (API RP540),
Electrical Installations in Petroleum Processing Plants, 3rd ed., 1991.
[8] D. M. Brethauer, R. L. Doughty, and R. J. Puckett, “The impact of
efficiency on the economics of new motor purchase, motor repair, and
motor replacement,” in Proc. 40th IEEE/IAS Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Conf., Sept. 13–15, 1993, pp. 37–50.
[9] J. R. Linders, “Effects of power supply variations on AC motor
characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. IA-8, pp. 383–400,
July/Aug. 1972.
[10] J. E. Williams, “Operation of 3-phase induction motors on unbalanced
voltages,” Trans. AIEE, vol. 73, pt. III-A, pp. 125–133, Apr. 1954.
[11] R. F. Woll, “Effect of unbalanced voltage on the operation of polyphase
induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. IA-11, pp. 38–42,
Jan./Feb. 1975.
[12] IEEE Standard Test Procedures for Induction Machines, IEEE Std 112-
1991.
[13] D. W. Heath and H. L. Bradfield, “Use of inverse time, adjustable
instantaneous pickup circuit breakers for short circuit and ground fault
protection of energy efficient motors,” in Proc. 42nd IEEE/IAS Petro-
leum and Chemical Industry Conf., Sept. 11–13, 1995, pp. 227–230.
Paul S. Hamer (S’70–M’74–SM’89–F’97), for a photograph and biography,
see p. 388 of the March/April 1997 issue of this TRANSACTIONS.
Debra M. Lowe (S’93–M’95) received the B.S.E.E.
degree from Seattle University, Seattle, WA, in
1995.
She joined Occidental Chemical Corporation in
1995 as an Electrical Project Engineer, following
a three-year student internship with the Transmis-
sion Line System Protection Group, Puget Sound
Energy, Bellevue, WA. Her primary area of interest
is industrial power systems.
Ms. Lowe is a member of the IEEE Industry
Applications Society.
Stanley E. Wallace (M’77) received the B.E.E. de-
gree in electrical engineering from General Motors
Institute, Flint, MI, in 1974, the M.B.A. degree in
operations research and management science from
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1976,
and the Ph.D. degree in engineering management
from Clemson University, Clemson, SC, in 1983.
From 1970 to 1974, he was a Product Engineering
Co-Op Student at the Pontiac Motor Division, Gen-
eral Motors Corporation. From 1976 to 1978, he was
a Design Engineer at the Research Center, Reliance
Electric, working on advanced development of dc motors. In 1980, he joined
the Design Engineering Department, Reliance Electric, Athens, GA, as an
ac motor Design Engineer, where he has been involved in the development
of a number of new ac motor products, ac motor test systems, and design
engineering information systems. In 1992, he became the Design Engineering
Manager at the facility, which is now part of Rockwell Automation, a business
unit of Rockwell International.
Dr. Wallace is a member of the IEEE Industry Applications, IEEE Di-
electrics and Insulation, and IEEE Engineering Management Societies.