Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
500
Agriculture
Transport
Stefan Fassbinder
Mining
Refineries Leonardo ENERGY
400 Power stations
Trade / service sector
Residential use September 2007
300 Industrial consumption
200
100
Once upon a time there was a buyer at a large company who had to purchase a large three-phase induction motor
with a power rating of 1 MW that was to be used in a big machine. As usual, he invited suppliers to submit bids. Before
drafting the tender documents he spoke to the head engineer and technicians at the relevant technical department
about the expected number of operating hours per year, the machine’s level of utilization and its load profile. Talks
then began with potential suppliers about what sort of efficiencies could be achieved. As is normal, the buyer and
supplier agreed on a penalty clause that would allow a price reduction to be imposed should the motor fall short
of the efficiency level agreed in the sales contract. Equally, in the event of the motor exceeding specifications, the
supplier would receive a bonus.
Once upon another time there was another buyer at another large company – or perhaps it was even the same buyer
at the same company. This buyer needed to buy 1000 small three-phase induction motors each with a 1 kW rating that
were to be built into the numerous small machines at his large company. He put out requests for quotes, specifying
the voltage, design and configuration and the number of poles, and then placed his order with the cheapest supplier.
The word ‘efficiency’ was nowhere to be seen: neither in the request for quotes, nor on the motor’s rating plates.
Perhaps it was mentioned in the manufacturer’s catalogue, but, as so often, it remained unread.
The sad thing about these two fairy tales is that they aren’t actually fictional at all, but a fair description of current
industrial practice. Had we swapped the two stories, then we would at least have avoided the most absurd aspect
of the situation: the fact that large motors are inherently far more efficient than small ones (see Fig. 1).
2
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Agriculture
500 Transport
Mining
Refineries
400 Power stations
Trade / service sector
Residential use
300 Industrial consumption
200
100
0
Turnover of el. energy [TWh] Motors usage [1000/a]
Fig. 1: One third of all the electricity consumed is used to power electric motors and drives
60TWh/a
45TWh/a
30TWh/a
15TWh/a
0TWh/a
kW
W
kW
kW
0k
50
.5
75
75
7
>7
...
...
...
W
kW
kW
5k
75
75
7.
0.
Fig. 2: Reviewing efficiency levels is worthwhile whatever the size of the motor
In Germany, about 536 TWh (2005) of electric power is consumed every year, half of which is used for industrial
applications. Two thirds of that energy is in turn converted into useful mechanical energy in motors (Fig. 1). Given
these overall orders of magnitude, it is well worth thinking about how efficiency can be improved – irrespective of
the size of the motor (Fig. 2) – and despite the fact that improvements to an individual motor or drive might appear
negligible at first sight.
The preferential consideration given to the efficiencies of large motors is justified to the extent that, on average, large
motors tend to live longer than smaller ones (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, the lifetime of a small motor is similar to that of an
average car, the difference being that at that the end of its service life, it will have racked up twenty times the number
of operating hours! Clearly, efforts to reduce the power consumption of a small electric motor by 1 % are going to be
more worthwhile than attempts to lower fuel consumption in cars by 10 % (see Fig. 4).
1
Stefan Fassbinder, »Transformatoren erzeugen sinnvolle Spannungsebenen«, »de« 19/2001, p. 30
3
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
20
Average lifetime of three-phase induction motors
18
16
Years Î
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
7.5kW...75kW 7,5kW ... 75kW >75kW
2
www.copper-motor-rotor.org
3
www.cda.org.uk/frontend/download.htm
4
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Fig. 5: Numerous elements have been improved in the new high-efficiency motors
(source: Brook Hansen, adapted by the Copper Development Centre South East Asia and DKI)
35% Losses
Copper wire
25% Aluminium
Magnetic steel
15%
5%
-15%
-25%
-35%
4
www.zvei.org/antriebe/default.htm
5
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
the trade papers and journals were full of articles dealing with energy saving potentials in electric motors and drives.
Another event that helped to publicize the issue was the press conference and discussion organized by the DKI on
26 January 1999 in Hamburg to which representatives from motor manufacturers and regional utilities companies
and journalists from daily newspapers and especially the business press were invited. Relatively brief announcements
noting the existence of energy-efficient drives and motors began to appear in local and regional newspapers and
in business publications. One large company subsequently contacted Siemens and announced that it intended
with immediate effect to replace all motors by high-efficiency models. ABB reported that they received over one
hundred calls and requests all dealing specifically with this issue, and clearly representing only the tip of the iceberg.
The unavoidable question of course was: ‘Why the sudden interest?’
The EU decided against issuing a directive specifying minimum efficiency levels. For their part, 31 CEMEP member
companies signed a voluntary undertaking agreeing to reduce production levels of non-low-loss two- and four-pole
standard motors with ratings of between 1 kW and 100 kW by at least 50% by 2003. But this first required a precise
definition of what a high-efficiency motor and what a standard motor actually are.
4 Classification scheme
A classification scheme was introduced that categorized motors into three efficiency classes depending on motor
type, number of poles, and, most importantly, size (see Fig. 7). The importance of the classification scheme is evident
when one considers the significant differences between the motors shown in the figure. Previously, the higher
efficiency motors would have been found alongside products of supposedly equal quality, either gracing the pages
of the dealer’s catalogue or his shelves – and that undoubtedly is where they would have remained.
Motors above the green line fall within the highest efficiency class EFF1, previously known as HEM. Motors lying
between the green and the red line are the improved efficiency motors, now classified as EFF2 motors, while those
below the red line are in class EFF3 – motors previously referred to as standard motors. According to the voluntary
undertaking these labels and logos should be displayed on the motors, and practically all manufacturers are now
complying. Even manufacturers from Eastern Europe, who previously had not enjoyed the best of reputations, have
been labelling the majority of their products since 2003 – a fact that can be readily verified at the annual Hannover
Messe, the major international trade fair and exhibition in Hanover. Labelling tends to be restricted to motors
whose energy efficiency is of the class EFF2 standard or better. Products in class EFF3 are not being labelled as such,
as motors in this category do not have to comply with any efficiency requirements at all and no manufacturer, unless
expressly obliged to do so, is going to draw his customer’s attention to the fact that these products fall into the lowest
efficiency category.
EFF 1
90%
85%
EFF 2
80% EFF1-EFF2 cut-off
EFF2-EFF3 cut-off
75% ZVEI class 2
EFF 3
70%
1kW 10kW PN 100kW
Fig. 7: Energy efficiency classification scheme for a range of two-pole motors from different manufacturers
6
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Fig. 8: Details about the classification scheme and the associated efficiency levels are available on the internet
6 Measuring techniques
Quantifying what has been said so far requires the exact measurement of the losses that occur in a motor, and that
is something easier said than done. A transformer takes up electrical energy and releases electrical energy and the
measurement of losses is in this case relatively simple. The secondary windings are shorted and the short-circuit
voltage is applied to the primary side. The short-circuit voltage is the voltage required to produce the rated (i.e. full
load) current in the shorted secondary winding. The copper loss in watts is then measured on the primary side at
this voltage. The iron loss is then determined by measuring the power at the rated voltage of the transformer when
operating under no load (open circuit) conditions. With a motor, the situation is not as simple. A motor transforms
electrical energy into mechanical energy and measuring the mechanical energy means measuring the torque and
speed of the motor when running under load. That, roughly speaking, is the approach taken in the direct method of
measurement specified in IEC standard 60034-2 (or in modified form in IEC 61972 CDV, method 1) and in IEEE 112B.
7
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Even when the measurement is performed with the greatest possible care and high-precision instruments are used,
the efficiency can be determined only to ± 0.5 of a percentage point. If a machine has an efficiency of 95%, this
imprecision means that the efficiency can fluctuate between 94.5% and 95.5%; expressed relative to the size of the
overall losses, this represents an uncertainty of ± 10%. That is unsatisfactory and achieving a higher level of precision
is both difficult and costly. Instead of measuring the difference between the (electrical) input and (mechanical)
output power, power losses can be measured directly using the so-called calorimetric method. The motor is run in
an adiabatic chamber and the ensuing heat losses are then determined. However, the complexity of the calorimetric
technique has led to another method, the so-called loss-summation method, being used in practice. This approach
is similar to that used in transformers and involves separate determination of the open-circuit and load losses, which
are then summed and added to an estimate of the stray loss that depends only on the size of the motor and the
frequency. This method is considered to be sufficiently exact by many manufacturers in continental Europe, but is
criticized in the USA, where unsurprisingly they favour their own method, and by the British. The USA and UK believe
that motors tested using the European / German method end up with significantly better energy efficiency ratings
(see Fig. 9). This controversy was the reason why selecting the right measuring technique was the central topic under
discussion at the triennial EEMODS conference (Energy Efficiency in Motor-Driven Systems) in London in September
1999. At the EEMODS conference held in Treviso in September 2002, the subject seemed to have run its course.
At the Treviso meeting, speakers were invited to a special session on ‘Pumps and Fan Systems’ aimed at improving
the efficiency of the overall system. So progress is being made. A view supported by the fact that after the EEMODS
2005 in Heidelberg, the conference will be held every two rather than every three years. The latest one took place
in Beijing in June 2007.
One topic not on the agenda is the influence of poor power quality (undervoltage, overvoltage, voltage asymmetry,
harmonics) on motor performance. The effects of power quality on per formance characteristics such as starting
torque and especially motor efficiency are far greater than initially thought. Poor power quality can more than wipe
out the beneficial effects of deploying a HEM; on the other hand, the difference between motors in the three energy
efficiency classes become even more apparent as the quality of the power supply voltage deteriorates.
85%
80%
75%
Efficiency acc. to IEC EVV
70% Efficiency acc. to IEEE 112 A
Efficiency acc. to IEEE 112 B
65%
60%
0,1kW 1,0kW Motor size 10,0kW 100,0kW
Fig. 9: Differences in the results of motor efficiency measurements using a range of measurement methods
8
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
7 Environmental payback
Any proposal to save energy by using more material is always accompanied by the objection that energy is used in
making the extra material required. Obviously, this energy has to be included in the energy balance and in the case of
copper, the required figures are as follows: Manufacturing copper from ore requires about 50 GJ/t of primary energy,
manufacturing copper from scrap requires 30 GJ/t.5 Approximately 45% of the copper produced in Germany is from
reprocessed scrap. (As most copper products enjoy a long service life that averages about 30 years and as the copper
market thirty years ago was only half as big as it is today, the real rate of recovery and reuse of the copper used at
that time is an impressive 90%. For our purposes here, however, we shall express recovery rates relative to today’s
production levels.) For the sake of simplicity, we assume a recovery and reuse rate of 50% and a mean average energy
consumption of 40 GJ per tonne. The resulting energy loss relationships are shown in Fig. 10. The table can be read
as follows: A current density of, for instance, 3 A/mm2 generates power losses of 17.64 W in 1 kg of copper windings,
as these ohmic losses are dependent only on the size of the current density.1 If the current density is lowered from
some arbitrary higher value to this value of 3 A/mm2, it will take 206 hours operating at full load to save the energy
necessary to produce the additional copper needed in the manufacture of the HEM. This time can be thought of as an
‘environmental payback period’ and is clearly very short, significantly shorter than the already short financial payback
period. However, the environmental payback period is strongly dependent on the target loss level. More ambitious
loss reduction targets are typically far harder to achieve. The first step to achieving improved efficiency is the easiest.
The environmental payback period (in this case: 206 hours) does not depend on how far the starting current density
is from the target current density (in our example: 3 A/mm2). If the desired improvement is small, then the requisite
amount of material (in this case, copper) is also small. The calculation aimed to compute primary energy savings and
assumed an overall efficiency for the generation and distribution of electric power of 33% (i.e. every kilowatt-hour of
electricity saved in the motor saves 3 kWh of primary energy), which approximately reflects the situation in Germany.
9
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
88%
86%
84%
82%
Efficiency Î
80%
78%
76% Copper
Aluminium
74%
Output power Î
72%
0kW 1kW 2kW 3kW 4kW 5kW 6kW 7kW 8kW 9kW
Fig. 11: Comparison of the efficiency of an aluminium and a copper rotor in an otherwise identical motor
88%
86%
84%
82%
Efficiency Î
80%
78%
Copper
76% Aluminium
74%
Output power Î
72%
0kW 1kW 2kW 3kW 4kW 5kW 6kW 7kW 8kW 9kW
6
www.sew.de/deutsch/10_suche/index_suche.htm
10
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Fig. 13: Copper rotors – now available in nearly every shape and size
Fig. 14: The design was revised and simplified compared to that used for aluminium rotors
7
For details see: www.favi.com/accueil.php?msg=rotor
11
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Fig. 15: View of a rotor lamination before assembly (left) and after die-casting with copper (right). (source: Favi)
25W/kg
Unannealed
Specific losses Î
550°C
20W/kg 650°C
750°C
800°C
15W/kg
920°C
1100°C
10W/kg
5W/kg
0W/kg
0.0T 0.5T 1.0T 1.5T B Î 2.0T
Fig. 17: Influence of the higher casting temperature for copper on the rotor lamination: the iron losses get smaller …
2.0T
1.8T
B Î
1.6T
1.4T
1.2T Unannealed
1.0T 550°C
650°C
0.8T
750°C
0.6T 800°C
920°C
0.4T
1100°C
0.2T
0.0T
100A/m 1000A/m H Î 10000A/m
12
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
8
International annealed copper standard
13
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
power input levels (Fig. 20). Theoretically, the design of the motor will effectively determine whether or not more
weight is given to achieving additional torque or a higher motor speed.
m [Nm]
Cu 97
Aluminium
35.7
23.7
RPM
1450 1470
80Nm
70Nm
60Nm
m Î
50Nm
5.5 kW 5.5 kW
40Nm
Aluminium
30Nm
Cu97
20Nm
10Nm
0Nm
1440/min 1460/min 1480/min n Î 1500/min
Fig. 20: Operating points for the same output power (5.5 kW) for Cu and Al rotors
14
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
With a density of 8.9 kg/l copper belongs to the class of heavy metals, whereas aluminium has a density of only
2.7 kg/l and is classified accordingly as a light metal. Because it is the cross-sectional area of the conductor, and
hence its volume, that is relevant, the greater density of copper means that a copper rotor cage will have a much
greater mass, and as the kilogram price of copper is significantly larger than that of aluminium, material costs will be
substantially higher. A copper rotor is thus significantly heavier than an aluminium rotor and, more significantly, its
moment of inertia is greater too, as the extra mass is located around the periphery of the rotor. This may need to be
taken into account when adjusting the control response of the VFD and in extreme cases it may well mean that the
copper rotor cannot be used. Applications involving machine tools, for instance, demand that the rotor is stopped
or reversed extremely frequently, possibly even every second. In this type of application, it is simply not possible to
decelerate and re-accelerate the copper rotor fast enough. And even if it is possible, it wastes the energy saved by
using the copper rotor.
But these are rare cases. As a rule, the greater mass of the copper rotor is beneficial, as the motor can be overloaded
for longer. Despite the fact that aluminium has a significantly larger heat capacity (900 kJ/(kg*K)) than copper
(380 kJ/(kg*K)), when expressed relative to material volume, the order of the heat capacities reverses: 2.43 kJ/(l*K) for
aluminium compared to 3.39 kJ/(l*K) for copper. Using copper for the squirrel-cage rotor therefore provides an overload
capacity some 40% greater. In this context, ‘overload’ includes the start-up phase in which, as already mentioned, the
starting current rises to 7.5 times the rated current. The (ohmic) power loss during ramp-up is thus more than 50 times
greater than that at the motor’s rated operating point. This can cause problems in some applications, as a motor with
an aluminium rotor that was switched off (possibly because of an unscheduled shutdown) and is still warm can only
be switched on again after being allowed to cool for a specified period – and this can prove very costly in today’s
tightly scheduled production environments. In contrast, the copper rotor is better able to store the excess heat loss
without suffering or causing damage and to gradually dissipate this thermal energy once the motor is back up and
running.
9
Stefan Fassbinder: »Elektrische Leiterwerkstoffe in der Praxis«. »de« 23/2001, p. gig 7, und 24/2001, p. gig 5
15
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
10TWh
5TWh
0TWh
W
kW
kW
kW
5k
75
.5
35
>7
7
.. .
...
...
kW
W
kW
5k
37
75
7.
0.
10
»Das Forschungsprogramm Elektrizität des Bundes 2000 - 2003«, Bulletin SEV/VSE 21/2001, p. 13
11
Helmut Greiner: Projektierung von Frequenzumrichter-Antrieben, Elektro-Praktiker 12/2000, p. 1056
12
Hugh Falkner, www.aeat.co.uk
16
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 P /P N Î 1.25
10 Summary
As shows, the efficiency of three-phase induction motors can be improved through optimization of materials and
operational parameters. If these improvements are realized, practically any motor that is operated more than just
occasionally will, over the lifetime of the motor, yield savings equivalent to the purchase of several new motors (see
Fig. 4 and Fig. 24). More detailed analyses are available from DKI13 and from the major motor manufacturers who
also offer programs for selecting the best motors and drives for specific applications. Classifying motors into energy
efficiency bands simplifies product selection and dispenses with the need for statutory control. The new labelling
scheme is a major step forward as up until recently motor rating plates did not contain any information on power
losses and efficiency. It would have been more expedient, however, to assign the label ‘EFF1’ to the lowest rather than
the highest efficiency category, as this would have meant the ‘EFF’ series could be readily extended upward as future
efficiency improvements are introduced. Recent developments in the USA have seen the production of motors whose
losses are now lower than those stipulated in statutory regulations. As a result, these new high-efficiency motors have
received the rather ungainly moniker ‘NEMA Premium™’ and only time will tell what awkward lexical construction
will be created to describe the next phase of motor efficiency improvements. And with motors becoming ever more
efficient, there is clearly going to be little need to extend the existing classification system in the other direction
beyond ‘EFF3’.
1800W
1600W
1400W
1200W Supplementary losses
Rotor Al
1000W Stator Cu
800W Friction
Iron
600W
400W
200W
0W
Standard HEM
Fig. 23: Improvements across the board, if all the elements highlighted in Fig. 5 are optimized
13
DKI Publication No. i1 »Energiesparpotentiale bei Motoren und Transformatoren«, Düsseldorf, 1998
17
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Fig. 24: It’s the running costs and not the purchase price that counts
While there may be a few disreputable suppliers from the Far East (in contrast to the encouraging developments now
seen in Eastern Europe) who will attempt to sell products with fake labels, that cannot be used as an argument against
the labelling scheme itself.
Replacing a standard motor by a HEM does not always lead to lower power consumption. Some users have registered
an increase rather than a decrease in energy consumption due primarily to the smaller slip that accompanies the use
of copper rotors. In view of the quadratic torque characteristics observed for many loads, this is certainly plausible.
Increasing the motor speed by for example 1% (of the nominal value) is equivalent to an increase in output power
of almost 3% (of the nominal value) that more than compensates the reduction in losses from say 5% to 4% (of rated
power). Whether or not this additional input power, which is delivered to the motor’s shaft as additional mechanical
output power, is regarded as a loss depends on the specific application. If treated as a loss and if a power output
of 103% of the rated value is seen as ‘too high’, it is highly improbable that 100% is ‘just right’. In all likelihood the
motor’s output power can be reduced further, at least occasionally. In this case, the motor is wrongly dimensioned or
a VFD should be used. If not treated as a loss, then we are dealing with some kind of process improvement which has
nevertheless been achieved by reducing losses in the motor.
Discussions are still needed concerning the ‘correct’ method of measuring motor efficiency. By far the largest energy
savings are anyway achieved using variable-speed controllers, but using them also makes deployment of the HEM
even more important. The best approach is to optimize the entire drive train and that, as is so often the case, is most
simply and cheaply done during the planning phase, retroactive corrections tend to be expensive and hard to realize.
All this was appreciated during the EEMODS conference in 1999. If the benefits of energy-efficient motors are to be
fully exploited what is needed is a willingness to see the big picture and to venture outside one’s own backyard. Even
though motors and electric power are purchased by different cost centres within a company, it is still the one and
18
Saving energy with high-efficiency motors
http://www.leonardo-energy.org
the same company that actually pays the bills. However, the additional cost of purchasing a high-efficiency motor is
printed on an invoice for all to see, the far greater savings made by deploying that motor are sadly not documented
so directly. Overcoming these inequalities in company-internal market mechanisms is a mammoth task, but history is
on our side: didn’t our ancestors successfully deal with mammoth problems during the ice age?
This publication is subject to copyright and a disclaimer. Please refer to the Leonardo ENERGY website.
19