When Good Isn't Good Enough
TEFC vs. WPII Motors in Harsh
Petrochemical Applications
The petrochemical industry contains
a variety of harsh, contaminated
environments that can dramatically
affect the life and performance of
induction motors. When employed in
these types of environments, Totally
Enclosed Fan Cooled and Weather
Protected Type II motor performance
will vary due to differences in their
construction and operation. In light of
this fact, it is important to examine
when and where TEFC and WPII motors
are most effectively used.
The dissimilarities in TEFC and WPII
motor construction stem from the
different cooling methods used by each
machine. TEFC motor construction
prevents the free exchange of air
between the inside and outside of the
enclosure. The cooling of the motor is
achieved primarily through convection
across the frame using a shaft mounted
external fan. In contrast, cooling of a
WPII motor is achieved by drawing in
ambient air, circulating this air around
and through the rotor and stator, and
then discharging it to the atmosphere.
Internal shaft-mounted fans are used
to circulate the cooling air through
the motor.
The physical differences between
TEFC and WPII motors inevitably
create a number of issues to consider
when selecting the best enclosure
for a specific application. First, is
maintenance. Outside air contacts
all internal parts of a WPII motor, while
the internal components of a TEFC
machine have much less interaction
with the outside environment. This
means that on a WPII motor, abrasive
materials such as sand or dust can
wear away insulation and shorten its
useable life. Contamination can build up
in the rotor and stator ducts, causing
a loss of cooling capacity as well as
increased vibration.
To combat these effects, WPII units are
usually equipped with filters on the air
intakes. Once placed in service, filters
require regular cleaning or replacement
so that they do not clog, reduce
cooling airflow, and cause an increase
in operating temperature. Unlike WPII
units, the internal components of
a TEFC motor have little or no
interaction with the outside
atmosphere. As a result, there is
less risk of the insulation damage,
internal cooling, or vibration problems.
Other important issues to consider
include ratings and efficiencies. For
a given frame size, WPII motors can
generally achieve a higher rated torque
output than their TEFC counterparts.
However, for a given rating, most
manufacturers’ TEFC motors will
have higher nominal efficiencies
than their WPII offerings. To achieve
a specific rating, the TEFC unit will
typically be larger in frame size (length
or height) than a WPII, because the
TEFC machine must use more active
material to reduce losses and dissipate
heat. The result is a slightly larger, yet
more efficient motor. The published
efficiencies of four major motor
manufacturers show that 71.4% of two-
pole TEFC motors and 86.6% of four-
pole machines had higher published
efficiencies than identically rated open
machines from the same manufacturer.
The motor’s suitability for use in
hazardous environments is another
crucial item that should be considered.
Machines operating in a Division 1
environment must be capable of
withstanding an ignition of material
within the motor enclosure without
allowing that explosion to ignite the
atmosphere outside of the enclosure.
TEFC enclosures are most often used
in Class I and II, Division 1 applications.
WPII enclosures are not approved for
use in Division 1 environments of
any class. In the U.S., both WPII and
TEFC units can be certified for use
in Class I, Division 2 environments.
However, only TEFC units are explicitly
identified for use in Class II and III,
Division 2 environments.
Use in variable speed applications is
also a consideration when determining
a motor enclosure. Both TEFC and WPII
units can be used in variable speed
applications, but their performance
depends on the type of torque required.
When a motor’s output torque changes
within the operating speed range,
it is operating in a variable torque
application. In these applications, the
motor’s friction and windage, core,
stray load, and I2R losses all decrease
as the speed decreases. In fact, the
losses decrease faster than the motor’s
cooling capacity. Therefore, both TEFC
and WPII machines are often used in
these applications.
However, in constant torque operation,
a motor’s output torque does not
change throughout the operating
speed range. In a WPII motor, the
cooling capacity decreases faster than
the motor losses. As a result, WPII
motors are capable of only a very
limited speed range when operating
in a constant torque application. In
a TEFC motor, the cooling capacity
does not fall as rapidly as it does in a
WPII. The reduction in cooling from
the external fan is somewhat offset by
the free convection of heat away from
the finned frame. This allows TEFC
machines to be capable of wider speed
ranges than WPII motors in constant
torque applications.
In addition to the differences caused
by physical structure, the two motors
also have somewhat different life
cycle costs, including the initial price
of the equipment and installation, the
cost of energy, normal maintenance,
repair, and lost production. In general,
the difference in initial purchase price
of low horsepower WPII and TEFC
medium voltage motors is small. The
difference in energy costs, however,
can be greater. For example, a 1,000
horsepower, four-pole motor operates
at 100% load, 24 hours per day, 365
days per year. For five cents per
kilowatt-hour power, the annual savings
of a TEFC motor vs. a WPII motor,
based on published efficiency data for
four motor manufacturers, would range
between $1,634 and $2,287. Over a
20-year life of the motor, the present
value of these savings ranges between
$13,909 and $19,473.
In terms of maintenance costs,
every motor will require periodic
maintenance, the most frequent type
being bearing relubrication. In this
area, the two motors have essentially
identical needs. However, WPII units
do require other attention. For example,
the filters must be cleaned or replaced
every two to three months. This step
is crucial for long-term motor life, as
plugged filters can cause overheating
and failure. The additional costs of
filters, the labor required for changing
them, alarms, and local indication must
be included in a life cycle cost analysis.
Some manufacturers suggest that
WPII units also have the rotor
ends, windings, and internal fan
blades periodically cleaned. In some
environments, users have found that
this type of maintenance is required
as often as every 12-14 months to
help the motor maintain its cooling
and performance capabilities. This
service can involve significant costs
since it may necessitate removing
and reinstalling the motor. Regular
inspection of TEFC units is also
recommended. The cooling fins should
be cleared of any debris, and the
cooling fan should also be inspected
to ensure that there is not a build up of
contamination that would reduce the
effectiveness of the blades.
A final major cost issue to consider
is that of downtime or lost production.
These costs can be the most difficult
to quantify and can range from several
hundred to several thousand dollars
per hour depending on the production
environment. From the earlier
discussion of maintenance needs, it
is apparent that increased downtime
would occur during the maintenance
periods that required the WPII unit
to be removed from service for
cleaning. Whether or not this is the
only difference in downtime depends
on the motors’ reliability records in
harsh environments.
Consider the following example:
a petroleum refining facility on the
American west coast had both a WPII
motor and TEFC motor operating in
the same vicinity of a delayed coker
unit. The refinery’s own annual cost
analysis yielded the results shown in
the table on page 30. During a coke
spill, both motors were completely
engulfed. The WPII unit’s filters clogged
and restricted cooling airflow, and
the motor was taken offline by its
thermal protection devices. The cost
associated with repairing the motor,
including rigging in and out charges,
was $65,000. The TEFC unit remained
in operation during the incident, and no
shutdown occurred.
In another example, a petroleum facility
in the American Midwest employed
a WPII motor in an asphalt pump
application. In this application, there
were frequent failures of the pump
seals that resulted in the motor being
caked with asphalt. This clogged the
motor filters and ultimately caused
failure due to overheating. The cost
to repair the unit after the last failure
was estimated to be 54% of the cost
of a new TEFC motor. The unit was
replaced with a TEFC motor and has
operated without incident or additional
maintenance for almost three years.
In a third application, a petroleum refinery in the
American Midwest used a WPII enclosure motor on a
pump application within a decoking area. The motor was
ingesting coke dust and had to be routinely serviced
to remove this dust. The contamination built up so
that it could no longer be removed using pneumatic
nozzles, and the motor had to be taken out of service
for cleaning. The refinery undertook a cost analysis of
the application in which it determined that the cost of
removing and reconditioning the motor was 15% of
the cost of a new replacement TEFC unit. The refinery
purchased a TEFC unit instead, and that replacement
motor has run without failure or additional cleanings for
two years.
It is clear that there are significant differences between
WPII and TEFC motors. Although there are many motor
applications in which both enclosures are suitable,
TEFC motors from 250-2000 HP typically perform better
in harsher environments. TEFC motors are easier to
maintain, more efficient, better suited for hazardous
duty, and offer more flexibility in constant torque variable
speed applications than WPII motors. Their increased
reliability leads to reduced downtime, and although
the initial cost of the TEFC units can exceed their WPII
counterparts in larger horsepower ratings, the price
differential can most often be recouped through lower
life cycle costs of the motor.
Joe Hillhouse, development engineer, Reliance AC
motors and J.W. Hodson, motor program manager.
TEFC Airflow
Why I Think It Makes
Good Economic Sense
for Oil Refineries to Follow the
Total Cost of Ownership Approach
When Selecting Motors
– By Gary Donner
The use of Weather Protected II (WPII) style motors in
oil refineries is a generally accepted practice throughout
the industry. The reasons seem obvious: these motors
are available from 250 HP to 15,000 HP, and historically
have had a lower initial cost. In an industry pushing to
contain costs, a lower purchase price seems to offer a big
advantage. But does a lower price always translate to a
lower total cost of ownership over the life of the product?
Based on my experience I can honestly say that in the
harsh conditions of a refinery, the lower priced motor
will cost you more money in the long run. I came to this
conclusion after taking a closer look at the actual costs
of keeping WPII motors running reliably year after year.
When you consider the air filters you have to add to the
WPII units, the number of times the filters have to be
changed, and the amount of maintenance that must be
performed on a regular basis, these motors are actually
very expensive. They also cost more to operate because
of their inefficient design.
For those engineers in the industry who have hesitated
to even consider installing a Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled
(TEFC) motor because of the additional expense, I would
advise them to calculate the total cost of ownership of
the WPII unit. I think they’ll discover, just like I did, that
even if they pay a premium price for a TEFC design, they
will still save money over the life of the motor.
By uncovering hidden costs and looking beyond the
purchase price of the motor, it’s clear to me that making
motor purchase decisions based on the total cost of
ownership makes good economic sense.
Gary Donner recently retired as the Supervising Engineer
for Instrument and Electric utilities for Shell Oil Products
Southern California based operations. He holds three
patents, authored several IEEE papers, and is a
registered engineer in the state of California.
Donner is the past committee chairman of the
IEEE PCIC manufacturing sub-committee, the past
chairman of the API 541 induction motor commit-
tee, and is the chairman of the IEEEP 1458 circuit
breaker committee.