QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE LEVELS
OF ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORS
AUSTIN H. BONNETT, IEEE FELLOW
U.S. ELECTRICAL MOTORS, DIVISION OF EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
ABSTRACT
The pur pose of this paper is to consider the
differences in quality, reliability and performance
levels of the energy efficient motor when compared
to previous generation motors. Only the three
phase squirrel cage induction motors covered by
t h e 1 9 9 2 E n e r g y A c t a r e c ove r e d i n t h i s
presentation as compared to “standard” motors.
INTRODUCTION
Even though the stage has been set for energy
conservation being one of the major drivers in the
design of General Purpose Industrial Motors, it
was not intended to be at the expense of reliability
or the overall motor performance. Some have felt
t h a t t h e d r i ve fo r i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y wo u l d
diminish motor life and performance. This paper is
based on a review of various industrial motors
available.
D u r i n g t h e p a s t t w o ye a r s, t h e a u t h o r h a s
addressed this subject with numerous audiences
and has observed that the subject of this paper is
gaining interest and close scrutiny from many
sources. Interestingly, in addition to the obvious
energy savings, many users are beginning to see
that the energy efficient motor offers increased
r e l i a b i l i t y a n d l o n g e r l i fe fo r m o s t i n d u s t r i a l
applications.
PRODUCT DEFINITION
The product chosen for this comparison is the
m o t o r t y p i c a l l y u s e d fo r m i l l a n d c h e m i c a l
applications. The basic product is defined as
follows:
B TEFC, Cast Iron Construction
B Horizontal, 1.15 Service Factor
B 460 Volts
B 2 and 4 Pole (3600 and 1800 RPM Sync)
B
Ball Bearing
B 3 through 200 HP
B 180 through 445 Frame
To configure this study to focus on a single motor
manufacturer would dilute its value significantly.
Conversely, to tr y to include all manufacturers
would not be practical. It is also apparent that no
given motor manufacturer uses the same approach
1
on all designs. Hence, although the practices and
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e s c r i b e d by t h e a u t h o r a r e
common, they are not universal. The commonality
i s a c h i eve d p r i n c i p a l l y by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f
existing Institute of Electr ical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE) and National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standards
which describe the constraints that allow various
techniques to be used to achieve the same end
results.
BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The following factors were considered:
1. Efficiency
2. Power Factor
3. Winding Life
4. Speed-Torque Characteristics
5. Starting and Load Current
6. Bearing Life
7. Mechanical Structure and Enclosure
8. Noise
9. Electro-Magnetic Properties
10. Vibration
11. Service Factor
12. Temperature Rise
The author found that there is some variation in the
above parameters based on motor speed which
makes “rules of generalization” rather difficult.
Hence, most of the examples given in this paper
are based on 2 and 4 pole designs since they
account for approximately 85% of the applications
used in the process industry.
Many of these factors are inter-dependent and are
influenced by the motor speed (poles), size and
enclosure. In an attempt to make an accurate
comparison, not only must the motors be of the
same rating, but it is also necessary to make the
comparison for the same application and under the
same operating and maintenance conditions.
Hence, in an attempt to satisfy this requirement,
the General Purpose Mill and Chemical Duty motor
has been chosen. It is understood that there is still
a wide range of application variables. The overall
motor performance includes those listed previously
under the basic design parameters.
The application requirements involving many of
these parameters are such that it is not possible
for the designer to optimize them all at the same
time. In some situations, these parameters conflict
with each other. Therefore, the designer is forced
to make compromises and prioritize.
This study will focus on the effects of optimizing
the efficiency over other design parameters, but
still staying within the acceptable limits for all
parameters. When faced with the decision to
choose between maximum efficiency and
maximum power factor, it is well to remember that
once the motor is built the efficiency becomes an
inherent par t of the machine and is difficult to
improve. Whereas, in most cases there are viable
alter natives for other design cr iter ia, such as
power factor.
BACKGROUND
There is a direct relationship between motor life
and the various stresses acting upon it. As long as
these stresses are properly accommodated and
c o n s t r a i n e d w i t h i n e s t a bl i s h e d d e s i g n a n d
operation limits, the desired motor performance
and life will usually be achieved.
An analysis of some of the more critical stresses is
a useful tool to ascertain the relative performance
and life differences between various designs.
The following is a list of the fundamental stresses
which will be used to compare the new generation
o f e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t m o t o r s t o t h e p r ev i o u s
generations.
B Thermal
B Electro Magnetic
including the fact that all comparisons were made
with the basic assumption that the motors were not
operating outside of the intended design or
standards limits, and on similar applications.
The first major lines of energy efficient motors
were introduced in the mid 1970’s, for the defined
product range, and the estimated penetration prior
to the energy act of 1992 was less than 20% of the
total population purchased over this period.
It is expected that for the product line defined as
general pur pose motors, the transition to the
energy efficient motor will accelerate towards
1 0 0 % by 1 9 9 7 . T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e m o t o r
industry has many years of field service for a very
large population of “standard motors” to compare
against a relatively small population of the new
energy efficient motors. However, an attempt to
q u a n t i f y t h e d i f fe r e n c e i n fa i l u r e ra t e w i l l b e
explored.
DESIGN DIFFERENCES
Tables 1 & 2 provide a comparison of the key
design cr iter ia for the above defined motors.
Where the values are limited by codes, standards
or laws, some may vary slightly from manufacturer
to manufacturer, based on a variety of design
techniques, which can be considered a typical
representation on the product available to the mill
and chemical industr y. For the most par t, the
differences between the electrical designs can be
summarized and generalized as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
TYPE
PART
Electrical Steel 2.5
STANDARD
3.0 Watts/Lb.
ENERGY EFFICIENT
1.5 — 2.0 Watts/Lb.
Lam. Thickness Range .0185” — .035” .0185” — .025

B Dynamic
Slot Comb. of Rtr & Str
Stator Slot Small
SAME
Large
B Mechanical Rotor Slot Single or Double Cage

B Electrical
Rotor Skew
Air Gap
Range from 0 to one slot
Normal Same or Slightly Larger
B Environmental Rotor Construction
Winding
Die Cast Die Cast
Machine or Hand Wound
In most cases, the mechanical structures are made
METHODOLOGY from the same family of parts as shown in Table 2.
The following four factors were considered in TABLE 2
conducting this reliability study: TYPE
PART STANDARD ENERGY EFFICIENT
B Basic Design Differences FRAME SAME

B
BRACKETS SAME
Performance Trade-Offs FAN COVER SAME

B Reported Failure Differences

FANS
SHAFT SEALS
MAY BE DIFFERENT
OPTIONAL IP54 OR IP55
B Test Comparisons OUTLET BOX
BEARINGS
SAME
USUALLY THE SAME
LUBRICANT USUALLY THE SAME
It is acknowledged that a number of assumptions SHAFT SAME
were made to proceed with this approach, BEARING CAPS OPTIONAL REQUIRED

2
As motors evolve to higher efficiency levels, the POWER FACTOR COMPARISON
t r e n d w i l l b e t o o p t i m i ze t h e h e a t t r a n s fe r POWER 1800 RPM, 4-POLE
FACTOR COMPARISON
capabilities of the mechanical parts. Hence, the 90
frame and brackets will usually have more surface 88

% POWER FACTOR
area with improved inter nal air flow and more 86
effective fan arrangements. It is not likely that the 84
82
mechanical structures will be weakened nor will 80
the bearing stress be changed in this process. 78
76
74
72
EFFICIENCY AND POWER FACTOR 70
TRADE-OFFS 3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
HORSEPOWER
The efficiency and power factor trade-offs are
classical for energy efficient motors. The general STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
r u l e fo r a g i ve n a m o u n t o f a c t i ve m a t e r i a l FIGURE 2A
(electr ical steel, copper and aluminum) is to
maximize efficiency and correct power factor as a POWER FACTOR COMPARISON
system, if required. Figures 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B 3600 RPM, 2-POLE
show these typical differences. 100

% POWER FACTOR
EFFICIENCY COMPARISON 95
EFFICIENCY
1800 RPM,COMPARISON
4-POLE
100 90

95 85
% EFFICIENCY

90 80

85 75
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
80 HORSEPOWER

STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.

75
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
FIGURE 2B
HORSEPOWER
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
WINDING THERMAL CAPACITY (LIFE)
FIGURE 1A
A direct comparison of winding life as impacted by
EFFICIENCY COMPARISON thermal aging is shown in Figure 3. These values
3600 RPM, 2-POLE were derived from the fact that winding insulation
100 life is doubled for every 10°C reduction in average
operating temperatures as can be demonstrated by
95
a set of Arrhenius equations for thermal life.
% EFFICIENCY

90
Figure 4A shows that in the 3 to 50 HP range of 4
85
pole motors there is a significant reduction in the
80 average winding temperatures. Figure 4B shows
that this difference is in the 30 to 125 HP range for
75
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
2 pole motors. Note that in Figures 5A and 5B the
HORSEPOWER frame temperatures track closely with the winding
temperatures shown in Figures 4A and 4B.
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.

FIGURE 1B

3
 TEMPERATURE vs. LIFE CURVES FOR MAXIMUM FRAME TEMPERATURE COMPARISON
MAXIMUM FRAME1800
TEMPERATURE
RPM, 4-POLE COMPARISON
INSULATION SYSTEMS (PER IEEE 117 & 101)
50
1,000,000

TEMPERATURE °C
40

30
CLASS F
AVERAGE EXPECTED LIFE-HOURS

100,000 20

10

0
CLASS A CLASS H 3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
10,000
HORSEPOWER

STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.

CLASS B FIGURE 5A
1,000

MAXIMUM FRAME TEMPERATURE COMPARISON

3600 RPM, 2-POLE
50
100

TEMPERATURE °C
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 40
TOTAL WINDING TEMPERATURE - Degrees C
30
FIGURE 3
20
AVERAGE WINDING TEMPERATURE COMPARISON 10
AVERAGE 1800
WINDING TEMPERATURE
RPM, 4-POLE
COMPARISON
0
80
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
70 HORSEPOWER
TEMPERATURE °C

60
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
50
40
30 FIGURE 5B
20
10
0 INRUSH CURRENT
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
HORSEPOWER It can be seen from Figures 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B,
that the locked rotor amps, as described by NEMA,
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
s h ow n o s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e. T h i s i s a l s o
confirmed in Figures 8A and 8B, which compare
FIGURE 4A
the locked KVA/HP or code letter. In Figure 9, a
comparison was made of the air gap densities.
AVERAGE WINDING TEMPERATURE COMPARISON
3600 RPM, 2-POLE Note that they were actually lower on the energy
80
efficient designs! The last item studied was the
ratio of magnetizing to air gap current, which is
70
TEMPERATURE °C

c a l l e d t h e S a t u r a t i o n Fa c t o r ( K i ) . F i g u r e 1 0
60
indicates that although the Ki Factor is slightly high
50
for many ratings, its only significant impact is
40 associated with lower power factors. Similar
30 results could be shown for the 3600 RPM designs.
20
10 Hence none of the above design comparisons
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
would indicate any depreciation in motor life.
HORSEPOWER
Unfortunately design data is not readily available
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF. to confirm or deny any migrations or trend of the
FIGURE 4B above mentioned parameters over the past 20

4
years for the large existing population of motors. A LOCK AMPS COMPARISON
3600 RPM, 2-POLE
number of motor manufacturers have been using
higher inrush currents for many years as they have 1400
been driving towards reduced rotor losses and 1200

CURRENT (AMPS)
higher efficiencies. 1000
800
LOCK AMPS COMPARISON
LOCK1800
AMPS COMPARISON
RPM, 4-POLE 600
300 400
250 200
CURRENT (AMPS)

200 0
50 60 75 100 125 150 200
150 HORSEPOWER
100 STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
50
FIGURE 7B
0
3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40
LOCK KVA/HP COMPARISON
HORSEPOWER
1800 RPM, 4-POLE
LOCK KVA/HP COMPARISON
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
9
FIGURE 6A 8
7
LOCK AMPS COMPARISON 6

KVA/HP
3600 RPM, 2-POLE 5
450 4
400 3
CURRENT (AMPS)

350 2
300 1
250 0
200 3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
150 HORSEPOWER
100 STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
50
0 FIGURE 8A
3 7.5 15 25 40
HORSEPOWER LOCK KVA/HP COMPARISON
3600 RPM, 2-POLE
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
9
FIGURE 6B
8
KVA/HP

LOCK AMPS COMPARISON 7

LOCK1800 RPM,
AMPS 4-POLE
COMPARISON
6
1400
5
1200
CURRENT (AMPS)

1000 4
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
800
HORSEPOWER
600
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
400
200 FIGURE 8B
0
50 60 75 100 125 150 200
HORSEPOWER

STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.

FIGURE 7A

5
 AIR GAP DENSITY COMPARISON STARTING TORQUE COMPARISON
(kilolines
AIR GAP per square
DENSITY inch)
COMPARISON STARTING TORQUE
1800 COMPARISON
RPM, 4-POLE
1800 RPM,
(kilolines 4-POLE inch)
per square
300
40

% STARTING TORQUE
35 250
30 200
25
KL/IN2

150
20
15 100
10 50
5
0
0
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
HORSEPOWER
HORSEPOWER
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
FIGURE 9 FIGURE 11A

SATURATION FACTOR COMPARISON STARTING TORQUE COMPARISON

SATURATION FACTOR
1800 (Ki) COMPARISON
RPM, 4-POLE 3600 RPM, 2-POLE
300

% STARTING TORQUE
1.600
250
1.400
1.200 200
1.000 150
0.800
Ki

100
0.600
0.400 50
0.200 0
0.000 3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150 HORSEPOWER
HORSEPOWER
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
FIGURE 11B
FIGURE 10
FULL LOAD RPM COMPARISON
1800 RPM,
FULL LOAD RPM4-POLE
COMPARISON
SPEED AND TORQUE CHARACTERISTICS
1790
These two variables are difficult to generate rules 1780
FULL LOAD RPM

for because there are a variety of ways to achieve 1770

the same results. Figures 11A and 11B indicate 1760
t h a t t h e t o r q u e fo r t h e s t a n d a r d a n d e n e r g y 1750
efficient motors do not vary significantly. Since 1740
t h e r e i s s u c h a va r i e t y o f r o t o r b a r d e s i g n s 1730
available throughout the motor industry, it is very 1720
difficult to develop any meaningful rules. However 1710
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
i t i s s a fe t o s ay t h a t t h e s p e e d - t o r q u e
HORSEPOWER
characteristics do not significantly reduce the
motor life of energy efficient motors. STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.

FIGURE 12A
The full load RPM (slip) as indicated in Figure 12A
shows that the smaller 4 pole energy efficient
motors 1 - 30 HP do have higher operating RPM’s
or lower slip. These lower slip levels and the
resulting reduction in rotor losses and temperature
(see Figure 13A) will normally yield longer rotor
and bearing life. Similar results can be seen in
Figures 12B and 13B starting with 25 HP for 2 pole
motors. In fact, even the stator temperatures are
impacted since heat is conducted back across the
air gap.

6
 FULL LOAD RPM COMPARISON usually reduced on the energy efficient designs.
3600 RPM, 2-POLE
This rule must be limited to maintaining acceptable
3570 power factor levels. Again, the designer is forced
3560 to make a trade off between efficiency and power
FULL LOAD RPM

3550 factor.
3540
3530 Two side benefits for larger air gaps, for both types
3520 of motors assuming saturation in the magnetic
3510 circuit has not occurred, is that they tend to be
3500 quieter and have less chance of rotor strikes or
3490 pull over. Normally little change occurs in air gap
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
HORSEPOWER for 2 or 4 pole motors regardless of the efficiency
levels since designers are trying to optimize motor
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
losses.
FIGURE 12B
AIR GAP COMPARISON
MAXIMUM ROTOR TEMPERATURE COMPARISON AIR 1800
GAPRPM,
COMPARISON
4-POLE
MAXIMUM ROTOR
1800TEMPERATURE
RPM, 4-POLE COMPARISON
0.07
140.0 0.06
120.0 0.05
TEMPERATURE °C

INCHES
100.0 0.04
80.0 0.03
60.0 0.02
40.0 0.01
20.0 0
0.0 3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150 HORSEPOWER
HORSEPOWER STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF. FIGURE 14
FIGURE 13A

MAXIMUM ROTOR TEMPERATURE COMPARISON INDUCTIVE REACTANCE TO RESISTANCE

3600 RPM, 2-POLE RATIO (X/R)
140 I n r e c e n t ye a r s, n u i s a n c e t r i p p i n g o f t h e
120 instantaneous circuit breakers used with motors
TEMPERATURE °C

100 has been associated with the newer generation of

80
60
40
20
0
3 7.5
STANDARD EFF.
FIGURE 13B
To address the air gap issue briefly; there are
contradicting points of view on the best air gap for
energy efficient motors. The general rule that the
author uses can be stated as follows: “Increase
the air gap and harvest the resulting reduction in
stray load loss until magnetic saturation (Ki) occurs
in the teeth or core of the lamination and the
resulting increase in core loss is unacceptable”.
Hence, as shown in Figure 14 the air gaps are not
motors. Many have assumed that the magnitude of
the DC off-set (asymmetry) and the X/R ratios
have been increasing. As can be seen in Figure
15, the compar ison in X/R ratios for standard
motors and energy efficient motors show that there
15 25 40 60 100 150 are only minor differences up to 100HP for this
HORSEPOWER particular family of motors.
PREMIUM EFF.
A more feasible explanation for nuisance tripping is
that the National Electr ical Code now allows
instantaneous current settings of up to 1700% of
the full load current (Article 430), combined with
full load amp values that have remained the same
for over 30 years but are marginal for the present
generation of motors. During this same period
there has been a “gradual” evolution towards more
robust motors with increased starting torques and
inrush current. The slip losses have been reduced
to control motor heating while keeping the X/R
ratio “relatively” constant.

7
 LOCKED X/R RATIO COMPARISON The X/R ratio is basically controlled by the electro-
LOCKED X/R
1800RATIO COMPARISON
RPM, 4-POLE
m a g n e t i c d e s i g n o f t h e m o t o r. N o g e n e r a l
5 conclusions can be drawn regarding the X/R ratios
of premium efficient vs. standard efficiency motors.
4
However, the peak amperes did increase with
LOCKED X/R

3 regard to the locked rotor amperes as the X/R ratio

increased. X/R ratios tend to increase with the
2
size of the unit and with certain design criteria,
1 s u c h a s a l ow s l i p d e s i g n . The higher
instantaneous current value are, due in part, to the
0
s l ow e r d e c ay i n g e nve l o p e o f l o n g e r t i m e
3 7.5 15 25 40 60 100 150
HORSEPOWER constraints normally associated with the higher
X/R ratios. Compared to other parameters, X/R
STANDARD EFF. PREMIUM EFF.
ratios will generally exhibit a limited effect, except
FIGURE 15
in marginal cases where breaker unlatching may
be occurring on the second or third peak cycle.
NEMA REFERENCED STANDARDS AND Similar data can be shown for 3600 RPM motors
DEFINITIONS MG 1-1993, for many designs. For many years the IEC motor
REVISION 1 PART 1, PAGE 14 designs have had X/R ratios in this range and
SECTION 1 higher without generating serious nuisance tripping
problems.
X/R Ratio:
Xs (radians)
X/R = MOTOR SAFE STALL TIME
LLs
r1 1 + Table 3 shows the comparison of the temperature
kW1 rise under a stall or lock condition, which indicates
that in most cases the energy efficient motors have
Simplified Equivalent Circuit: a greater capacity when exposed to this scenario.
A number of the two poles designs reviewed by the
Note: This X/R ratio is normally used with short author had reduced safe stall time and there was
circuit calculations. For starting current not as much difference between the standard and
calculations replace: the energy efficient designs. The 3600 RPM
motors are not shown in the table, however, it is
LLs reasonable to expect similar results for their
r1 1 +
kW1 winding temperature. The rotor data is not yet
available, but not expected to be a problem for
with total circuit R, AC resistance (stator and either type of motor.
rotor) at zero speed.
Definitions: ROTOR TEMPERATURE RISE COMPARISON °C
r1 = Stator dc resistance per phase TABLE 3
corrected to operating temperature. ENERGY % TEMP.
HORSEPOWER STANDARD EFFICIENT CHANGE
r2 = Rotor resistance per phase at rated 7.5 1800 RPM
speed and operating temperature WINDING HOT SPOT 160° 126° 127
ROTOR HOT SPOT 217° 152° 143
referred to stator 25 1800 RPM
X1 = Stator leakage reactance per phase at WINDING HOT SPOT 195° 74° 260
ROTOR HOT SPOT 207° 160° 130
rated current
30 1800 RPM
X2 = Rotor leakage reactance per phase at WINDING HOT SPOT 171° 75° 230
rated speed and rated current referred ROTOR HOT SPOT 212° 170° 125

to stator
Xs = Total starting reactance (stator and
rotor) per phase at zero speed and
locked-rotor current
LLs = Fundamental-frequency component of
stray load loss in kW at rated current
kW1 = Stator I2R loss in kW at rated current
and operating temperature
f = Rated frequency, hertz
s = Slip in per unit of synchronous speed
BEARINGS
For the most par t, motor manufacturers do not
reduce the load carrying capability of the bearing
system for energy efficient motors regardless of
speed. In fact, they usually have the same system.
The major difference is that the energy efficient
designs tend to run slightly cooler, they may have
reduced magnetic side pull due to lower flux

8
densities, and are better sealed on the larger sizes
because of the IP55 requirement. The fact that
some run 10 to 15 RPM’s faster has minimal effect
1. “ E n e r g y e f f i c i e n t m o t o r s h ave s h o r t e r l i fe
on the projected bearing life. Since lubrication life
is a key determinate of bearing life, for a given
RPM, the reduced temperatures more than off-set
any other factors associated with the design.
Motor manufacturers approach the bearing system
design in a variety of ways, but usually yield the
same load capacity and life expectations. Some of
the major variables include:
B Bearing Size and Type
2. “ D u e t o t h e r e d u c t i o n i n s l i p a n d t h e
B Sealing Methods
B Lubricants, and Lubrication Sequence
B Fits and Clearances
B Use of Bearing Caps, Clamping & Preload
B Operating Temperatures
A review of product differences indicates most
manufacturers select the bearing system based on
application requirements, not on the required
efficiency level.
Regardless of the motor mounting (horizontal vs.
vertical) the bearing load is not evenly distributed.
One bearing (usually the take off end) carries most
of the load and the short end serves principally as
a guide bearing. Hence, size differences do not
usually effect system life. Table 4 shows that the
operating temperatures are generally lower or
equal to that of previous motor designs.
MYTHS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENT
MOTORS
because they have been designed with less
margin.” A review of some of the more popular
motors made by various manufacturers indicate
that the opposite statement is more accurate.
They generally have more active material, a
higher quality electrical steel, and run cooler,
hence have a longer life.
c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e i n R P M ’s, e n e r g y
efficient motors use more energy on variable
torque applications such as pumps and fans that
follow the affinity laws i.e. HP is proportional to
the cube of the load.” For most applications of
this type, the goal is to move a specific amount
of fluid or air from point A to point B (a demand
system). The time to accomplish the task is the
variable, whereas the total energy required is
approximately the same (assuming that both
conditions are operating on the optimum part of
the pump or fan curve). The increased speed of
5 or 10 RPM’s has negligible impact on bearing
life for these types of loads. The assumption that
the energy efficient Design A or B motors
develop significantly less locked rotor torque is
not valid. Figures 11A and 11B show that they
are very similar in value. Certainly, there isn’t
e n o u g h d i f fe r e n c e t o e f fe c t t h e m o t o r
performance or life.

In the case of the 3600 RPM motors, these IMPACT OF NEGATIVE SEQUENCE
temperatures will vary depending on the size of the COMPONENTS
cooling fan and noise requirements. Mounting,
NEMA MG1 makes the following statement: The
alignment and vibration are more critical on these
e f fe c t o f u n b a l a n c e d vo l t a g e s o n p o l y p h a s e
designs because of the speed.
induction motors is equivalent to the introduction of
a “negative sequence voltage” having a rotation
TYPICAL BEARING TEMPERATURE RISE °C
opposite to that occurring with balanced voltages.
SHAFT END, (1800 RPM SYNC.)
This negative sequence voltage produces in the air
TABLE 4
STANDARD EFF. ENERGY EFF.
gap a flux rotating against the rotation of the rotor,
HP 1800 3600 1800 3600 t e n d i n g t o p r o d u c e h i g h c u r r e n t s. A s m a l l
3 25 25 25 17 negative-sequence voltage may produce in the
5 35 29 25 27 windings currents considerably in excess of those
7.5 45 31 25 32
present under balanced voltage conditions which
10 45 33 30 30
15 30 22 30 21 are defined as:
20 30 23 30 24
25 40 39 30 31 Unbalanced defined: the voltage unbalance in
30 40 41 30 32
percent may be calculated as follows:
40 42 50 39 38
50 45 55 44 46 maximum voltage deviation
60 35 44 35 34 from average voltage
% voltage
75 30 45 35 42 = 100 X average voltage
unbalance
100 35 42 40 32
125 35 41 40 36
150 35 41 40 39 Alternating-current polyphase motors shall operate
200 45 42 35 41
successfully under running conditions at rated load
when the voltage unbalance at the motor terminal

9
does not exceed 1 percent. Performance will not
necessarily be the same as when the motor is
operating with a balanced voltage at the motor
terminals.
Voltages preferably should be evenly balanced as
closely as can be read on a voltmeter. Should
voltages be unbalanced, the rated horsepower of
the motor should be derated to reduce the
possibility of damage to the motor. Operation of
t h e m o t o r a b ove a 5 % vo l t a g e u n b a l a n c e
conditions is not recommended.
UNBALANCED VOLTAGE TEST RESULTS
Two motors of identical ratings, one of premium
efficiency and the other of standard design, were
t e s t e d u n d e r t h e s a m e u n b a l a n c e d vo l t a g e
conditions. The input values of current and power
were evaluated. The motors were rated for 5 HP, 4
Pole, 230V, 60Hz.
The unbalanced in supply voltage was created by
maintaining one line voltage at the nominal value,
while varying the other two above and below the
nominal values by equal magnitudes. The actual
s e t t i n g wa s d o n e o n t h e p h a s e vo l t a g e s by
adjusting their magnitudes and the angles between
them. In arriving at the phase voltage vectors from
the magnitudes of the line voltages, the supply
neutral, that is the zero-sequence voltage, was
considered at zero value.
The measurements of current, power inputs and
the power factor angles were taken by the meters
associated with the supply system and also by
separately connecting the meters to the motor
lines.
Measurements were taken for the unbalance in
voltages ranging from 0% (balanced condition) to
10% at intervals of 2 percent points as shown in
Table 5 of the Appendix. Also, while measuring the
e l e c t r i c a l q u a n t i t i e s, a c o m p l e t e s e t o f
measurements for vibration and noise were taken
at each of the test points.
In addition to the evaluation of the electrical power
i n p u t , a n a t t e m p t wa s m a d e t o q u a n t i f y t h e
d i f fe r e n c e s i n n o i s e a n d v i b r a t i o n w i t h t h e
realization that a sampling of two units would not
provide statistically meaningful data.
The conventional wisdom of not operating motors
with any significant amount of voltage unbalance
was once again confirmed. To do so will most
l i ke l y r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d l o s s e s, n o i s e a n d
vibration. This is true for both types of motors
considered in the study.
10
Evaluation is still underway to measure the effect
of har monic distor tion on the line with values
associated with IEEE 519-1992, which sets the
recommended limit at 5% THD. Based on recent
studies, there appears to be a number of cases
w h e r e s h a f t vo l t a g e s h ave p r o d u c e d e n o u g h
current to cause bearing fluting, which may have
markings similar to false brinelling.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.H. Bonnett and G.C. Soukup, “ANALYSIS OF
ROTO R FA I L U R E S I N S Q U I R R E L C AG E
INDUCTION MOTORS,” PCI 87 CH 2495-0/87.
M.J. Costello, “SHAFT VOLTAGE & ROTATING
MACHINERY,” PCIC-91-13.
Bharat Maru and Peter Zotos, ANTI-FRICTION
B E A R I N G T E M P E R AT U R E R I S E F O R N E M A
FRAME,” PCIC- 88-26.
A . H . B o n n e t t , “ C AU S E A N D A N A LY S I S O F
BEARING FAILURES IN ELECTRICAL MOTORS,”
PCIC-92-23.
R.L. Nailen, “THE CAUSE OF ROTOR PULLOVER
- AND HOW TO CURE THE PROBLEM,” Electrical
Apparatus, Nov. 1980.
P.G. Cummings, J.R. Dunk-Jacobs and R.H. Kerr,
“ P ROT E C T I O N O F I N D U C T I O N M OTO R S
AGAINST UNBALANCED VOLTAGE OPERATION,”
General Electric, Co., PCIC-83-3.
R.L. Nailen, “ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORS: THE
MYTH AND THE REALITY,” Electrical Apparatus,
September 1992.
D o n S t r u g a r, R ay We i s, “ W H Y E L E C T R I C
MOTORS FAIL,” Plant Engineering, July 1994.
Stephen M e cke r, “ I N S TA L L PREMIUM-
EFFICIENCY MOTORS PROPERLY TO OBTAIN
MAXIMUM COST SAVINGS.” EC&M, September
1994.
S t e p h e n M e cke r, “ H OW L OA D S A F F E C T
EFFICIENCY OF MOTORS,” EC&M, August 1994.
Rober t J. Lawrie, “ANSWERING TWENTY KEY
QUESTIONS ABOUT PREMIUM-EFFICIENCY
MOTORS,” EC&M, October 1994.
A . H . B o n n e t t , “ R E L I A B I L I T Y C O M PA R I S O N
BETWEEN STANDARD & ENERGY EFFICIENT
MOTORS”, PCIC-95-10
 APPENDIX ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSES
FIELD FAILURE ANALYSIS
A n o t h e r t e r m fo r e nv i r o n m e n t a l s t r e s s e s i s
A review of motor failures during the traditional contamination. One of the most important things a
warranty periods did not yield any significant motor user can do to insure longer trouble free
d i f fe r e n c e s t h a t c o u l d b e a t t r i bu t e d t o t h e motor operation is to keep the unit clean and dry,
dissimilarities between the two product families as both internally and externally. The presence of
outlined in this study. In both cases the frequency foreign material can have the following effects on
of failures were low. The principle causes during the motor:
this early stage of motor life could be attributed to
3 basic factors. First was damage, second was 1. Reduction in heat dissipation, which will increase
defects and third was application problems. o p e r a t i n g t e m p e r a t u r e, t h e r e by r e d u c i n g
insulation life.
Unfortunately, most motor manufacturers do not 2. Premature bearing failure due to high localized
have a statistically meaningful way of collecting stresses.
information after the expiration of the warranty.
Figure 16 shows that it would be problematic to 3. Breakdown of the insulation system, causing
only consider the first few years of operation. To shorts and grounds.
make an accurate comparison, the total life cycle
should be considered. If it is not practical to keep the motor clean and
dr y, the alter native is to select the enclosure
H e n c e, t h e a p p r o a c h u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y o f and/or an insulation system, which will give the
analytically comparing the design differences greatest protection against the contaminants that
verified by test correlation was chosen as a more are present. Once the appl i cati on has been
feasible option. properly analyzed, it is usually possible to select a
motor which will give reasonable life.
T h e a u t h o r wa s n o t a bl e t o a c c e s s o t h e r
manufacturing warranty data bases for obvious A comparison of the standard and energy efficient
reasons. However, a review of one manufacturer motors reveals no significant changes that should
indicated that the ratio of failures and sales was negatively impact the environmental stress or the
the same. That is 20% of all warranty claims were expected life of the motor.
on energy efficient motors and 20% of all sales
were energy efficient motors. This is not surprising UNBALANCED VOLTAGE OPERATION
since both types of motors use similar components (Premium Efficiency vs. Standard Motor)
and design standards. During this period the AT FULL LOAD
major cause of complaint wasn’t windings, rotors TABLE 5
or bearings. Instead, faulty parts, damaged parts, RATIO OF UNBALANCED/
BALANCED VALUES
missing parts and application issues were the most MACHINE 0% 2% 4%
predominate category of complaints. This is not to TYPE PARAMETER UNBALANCE UNBALANCE UNBALANCE
imply that over the life cycle of the motor that the Prem. Line Amps 1 1.009 0.949 0.895
Efficiency 2 0.991 1.171 1.325
most common cause of failure would be anything Motor 3 0.999 0.935 0.904
other than windings, rotors or bearings. In fact a Line Power 1 1.011 1.014 0.988
number of users who keep records feel that over 2 0.999 1.187 1.365
3 0.991 0.863 0.728
the long run, bearings will usually need to be Av. Amps Ln. 1.000 1.0205 1.0462
replaced first. Unfor tunately, the root cause is Av. Power Ln. 1.000 1.0239 1.0399
Av. P.F. 1.000 1.0006 0.9874
seldom determined or reported.
Standard Line Amps. 1 0.973 0.901 0.832
Motor 2 1.021 1.129 1.277
3 1.006 0.962 0.958
TYPICAL LIFE CYCLE
Line Power 1 0.968 0.941 0.903
10 2 1.010 1.167 1.354
NUMBER OF FAILURES

9 3 1.023 0.881 0.779

8 Av. Amps Ln. 1.000 0.9971 1.0222
7 Av. Power Ln. 1.000 0.9964 1.0120
6 Av. P.F. 1.000 0.9967 0.9836
5 *NOTE: Ratios are with respect to average line values under balanced
4 operation.
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME IN YEARS
FIGURE 16

11