Comparative Analysis of IEEE 112-B and IEC 34-2 Efficiency

Testing Standards using Stray Load Losses in Low Voltage

Three-phase, Cage Induction Motors
Anibal T. de Almeida
Member IEEE
Dep. of Electrical Eng.
University of Coimbra,
Polo 11, 3030 Coimbra Portugal
Portugal
Fernando T. E. Ferreira
Dep. of Electrical Eng.
University of Coimbra,
Polo 11,3030 Coimbra
Abstract - Since 1998, 817 motor efficiency test data sets, in
the 1-500 hp (0.75375 kw) range have been collected from
several sources in different countries around the world, for 50
Hz and 60 Hz. The test data includes the motor efficiency using
the IEC 34-2 and IEEE 112-B test standards, and the
quantification of the stray load losses (SLL), using the IEEE 112-
B method. In 125 cases the test data includes the efficiency
computed with both methods. The aim of this study, was the
quantification of the discrepancy between the two mentioned
standards, and to establish an approximate method to allow the
comparison between motors tested with the t wo standards.
Based on the significant number of collected motor data sets, it
was concluded that when compared to IEEE 112-B standard,
the IEC 34-2 standard is less accurate, and gives typically higher
efficiency values, mainly because of the SLL estimation
procedure. The IEEE 112-B SLL computed values are typically
higher then the IEC SLL predefined values, on average by 1.0
and 0.8 percentage point for 50 Hz and 60 Hz motors,
respectively. Also, the average SLL values vary slightly with the
motor power. Using eficiency measurements made with both
standards on the same motors, it was possible to confirm that the
SLL are the main reason for the observed discrepancy in the
efficiency values. The results of the analysis carried out in this
paper offers the possibility to compare the efficiency of motors
tested under the IEC 34-2 standard with motors tested with
IEEE 112-B, leading to a choice of the most cost-effective option.
This paper also provides a key contribution to the ongoing
revision of IEC 34-2 standard.
Index Terms - Efficiency testing standards, motor testing,
induction motors, stray load losses, market transformation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Energy-efficient electric motors generally represent one of
the largest opportunities for cost-effective electricity savings
around the world. As a pre-condition to the development of
motor labelling programs, motor minimum efficiency
standards and large-scale motor market transformation DSM
programs, there is a need to assess the efficiency of motors
sold in the market using a uniformyardstick. Motor efficiency
testing protocols differ around the world, and applying them
to any given motor can lead to significantly different
efficiency values. Many countries with no domestic motor
manufacturing capacity import motors from a variety of
countries using different testing procedures.
J ohn F. Busch Pierre Angers
Lawrence Berkeley LTEE-Hydro-Quebec
University of California Shawinigan (Qukbec)
National Lab. MS90 - 4000
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
600, ave de la Montagne
Canada G9N 7N5
The efficiency data presented in the induction motor
nameplate, or given by the manufacturer is measured or
calculated according to two main methods - IEEE 112-B [ 13
and IEC 34-2 (Indirect Method) [2]. The above mentioned
standards use different stray load losses (SLL) evaluation
methods. In the IEC 34-2 standard, these losses are not
measured and are arbitrarily estimated to be equal to 0.5% of
the full-load input power. In the IEEE 112-B standard, the
SLL are the losses not covered by the other three loss terms
(copper losses, core losses, and fiiction and windage losses),
after the measurement of the total losses, by the direct method
(measurement of the mechanical output power with a
dynamometer and measurement of the electrical input power).
Because of the adopted procedures, the efficiency obtained
fiom the two standards can differ significantly.
Because of the lack of accurate results, the IEC standard is
under review, namely, in the SLL estimation process, in order
to become technically equivalent to the other proven national
standards that compute SLL, e. g. IEEE 112-B (USA) and
CSA C3901 (Canada) [3], where the SLL are determined by
means of measurement of the output power. The new
proposed standard IEC 61972 (Direct Method) [4], will be
the preferred method and is similar to IEEE 1 12-B method to
evaluate the SLL. The IEC 61972 (Indirect Method),
determines the SLL from assigned values in a predefined
curve, which depend on motor rated output power and
allocates a percentage value at the rated load (the SLL value at
1 kW is 2.5% of the full load input power, dropping at 10 kW
to 2%, at 100 kW to 1.5%, at 1000 kW to 1% and at 10
MW to 0.5%).
A. Type of losses
Induction motors, with squirrel cage rotor, have 4 type of
windage and fiiction losses - copper losses, core losses,
losses and the stray load losses [2]:
0
Copper losses (load dependent) - Joule effect losses in
the stator winding and in the rotor cage bars;
Core losses (constant losses) - Losses in active iron and
other metal parts;
IEEE 112-B (USA) and CSA C390 Method l(Canada) are equivalent.
0-7803-7055-4/01/$10.00 02001 IEEE
0
Friction and windage losses (constant losses) - Losses
due to friction (bearings) not including any losses in a
separate lubricating system, and the losses due to the
power absorbed in integral fans, and in auxiliary
machines, if any, forming an integral part of the machine;
Stray (or Additional) Load Losses (load dependent) -
Losses introduced by the load in active iron and other
metal parts other then the conductors, and eddy current
losses in primary or secondary winding conductors
caused by current dependent flux pulsation.
B. IEEE 112-B and IEC 34-2 Standards
The IEEE112-B standard, estimates the efficiency by the
direct method, i.e., the electric input power (Pin) is measured,
using a high accuracy wattmeter, the output power (Pout) is
measured using a speed sensor (ex.: encoder, tachometer) and
a high accuracy torque sensor. The efficiency is given by the
input power minus the total losses divided by the input power.
The SLL are given by the difference between the total losses
(difference between input and output power) and the sum of
copper, core, windage and fiiction losses. This is an accurate
method, if the instrumentation has the desired accuracy and
the test procedure is followed rigorously.
The IEC 34-2 standard (Indirect Method), estimates the
efficiency using the indirect method, i.e., calculating the
summation of losses and then the efficiency. The copper,
core, windage and friction losses are calculated using no-load
and load tests. The SLL are assumed to have a fixed value
(0.5% of the rated full-load input power). Additionally, this
method has a significant degree of uncertainty, because of the
instrumentation lower accuracy specifications and the
uncorrected winding losses in relation to the temperature. In
the next table it is presented a summary of the .main
differences between both mentioned standards.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN IEC 34-2, IEEE 112-B ANDIEC 61972 [1,2,10,12]
IEC 34-2 IEEE IEC 61972
(Indirect 112-B (Direct
Instrumentation
(+I- % off11 scale)
11. COLLECTED MOTOR TEST DATA
The data used in the presented analysis have been collected
in 6 countries, which use different frequencies, namely, Brazil
(60 Hz), Belgium(50 Hz), France (50 Hz), Taiwan (60 Hz),
U.K. (50 Hz), USA (60 Hz) and Canada (60 Hz). Of the 817
test motor data sets used, 650 (about 80%) came from
independent motor test laboratories. The remaining motor
data sets were supplied by large motor manufacturers. The
total number of 60 Hz test data sets is 781, in the range of 1-
500 hp, all of which have been tested with IEEE 112-B (or
equivalent CSA390 Method l), including the computation of
the SLL. Of the 60 Hz motors, 89 motors had the efficiencies
tested both with IEC 34-2 and IEEE 112-B standards. The
total number of 50 Hz test data sets is 36, in the range of 3-
100 hp. The efficiency of all the 50 Hz motors was computed
both according to IEEE 112-B (including SLL in % of full-
load input power) and to the IEC 34-2 (Indirect Method).
These motor data are also separated in 2, 4, 6 and 8 pole
motors. The number of 50 Hz motors used in the study is
small due to the fact that 50 Hz motor manufacturers around
the world only carried out efficiency testing with IEC 34-2. It
is possible to obtain a much larger number of 50 Hz motors
efficiency data, whose efficiency is tested only with the IEC
34-2 method, but the stray load losses are not measured.
Therefore for the purpose of this study such data is not useful.
The results of the analysis are presented in the following
sections.
111. STRAY LOAD LOSSES COMPARISON
In this section the IEEE 112-B SLL trend lines are
presented, obtained with the data referred above, for 50 Hz
and 60 Hz. In Figures 1, 2 and 3 it can be seen the SLL (as a
% of full-load input power) variation with motor rated power
for 50 Hz, considering 1000, 1500 and 1000+1500 rpm
motors, respectively. In Fig. 1 (1000 rpm) only 75hp/55kW
motors data was available.
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the 50 Hz SLL values are on
average about 1.5% of full-load input power, 90% of which
fall in the range of 0.6% to 2.3%, reaching 3% in one case.
Fig. 1 . Stray Load Losses (as a 9%of full-load input power) variation with
motor rated power, for 1000 rpm motors.
14
_ _ ---- -
Fig 2 Stray Load Losses (as a % of full-load input power) vanation with
motor rated power, for IS00 rpmmotors.
Fig. 3 Stray Load Losses (as a % of full-load input power) vanation with
motor rated power, for 1 OOO+lSOO rpmmotors.
This clearly shows that the IEC 34-2 test method can lead to
gross errors in the estimation of the motor efficiency.
Other statistical values are presented in Table 11:
TABLE I1
STATISTICS OF 50 HZ SU(% P,") DATA (36 MOTORS)
In Figures 5-7, it can be seen that the SLL are scattered
around an average value of about 1.3%.
i
Smy LoadLosses (%Pin)
60Hz ( 9 0 0 ~ )
'1
Fig 4 Stray Load Losses (as a % of full-load input power) vanation with
motor rated power, for 900 rpin motors.
Fig. 5 . Stray Load Losses (as a 5% of full-load input power) variation with
motor rated power, for 1200 rpm motors.
7
Stray Load Losses (Win)
SOHz(l8Wlpn)
Average 1.5
Standard deviation2 0.6
Maximum value 3 .O
Minimum value 0.4
Figures 4-8 show the SLL variation with input power for
900, 1200, 1800, 3600 rpm and all 60 Hz rpm motors,
respectively, with measurements made with IEEE 112-B.
A frequency curve was constructed, that presents the
number Of Points in a specific range Of sLL
is shown in the Fig 9, in which for the 50 HZ motors the
maximumof the 6 order polynomial used trend line is the
range of 1.4 to 1.5% of Pin. Based on this curve and on the
values presented in Table 11, it can be concluded that the
value of SLL (% of P,, ) that has the highest probability of
occurrence is about 1.5%, and that the expected average
error of IEC 34-2 in the estimation of SLL is -1.0% leading to
an overestimation of the motor efficiency.
This
Fig. 6 Stray Load Losses (as a % of full-load input power) variation with
motor rated power, for 1800 rpm motors. There are three additional 1 hp
motors with SLL of 4.1 %, 4.5% and 5.3%, which arenot shown.
* Estimation of the standard deviation based on the SLL (% of P,") values
sample.
15
Stray Load Losses (%Pin)
W z (360L)rpm)
0.1 1 10 1w 1w
\
Power(hp) 85 data
Fig 7. Stray Load Losses (as a % of full-load input power) vanation with
motor rated power. foi 3600 rpm motors
In Fig. 8 (all 60 Hz data), a slight decrease of the SLL as a
% of PI,, with increasing motor power can be noted. The
average SLL (% of PI,,) value is 1.3%, with a probability of
90% that the SLL (% of PI") is in the range of 0.4-2.2%. The
statistical values of the SLL distribution for 60 Hz motors can
be seen in Table 111.
TABLE I11
STATISTICS OF 60 HZ su(% p,,,) DATA (781 POINTS)
Average 1.3
Standard deviution 0.6
Maxi mum value 5.3
Mi ni mum value 0.1
In Fig. 9, the 60 Hz motor data frequency of the SLL
distribution can be seen including the polynomial trend line.
Based in the values presented in Table III, when compared
with the IEEE 112-B method, the expected average error of
the SLL predefined value according to IEC 34-2 test method
is -0.8%, which will lead once again to an overestimation of
the motor efficiency.
In the global 60 Hz data distribution (Fig.8) it can be seen a
slight decrease of the error with higher motor power values.
For large motors, the SLL average value approaches 1%. In
general, the higher the rated power, the lower the error of the
IEC 34-2 efficiency computation.
In Fig. 10 the influence of the motor number of poles in the
average SLL for each frequency can be seen. The SLL present
small variation with the number of poles and with the
fiequenc y.
In Fig. 11, the SLL average values as function of total losses
is presented, for each motor rated power. The trend lines
have similar slopes. Although the SLL (50 Hz) as a % of full-
load input power are typically higher than 60 Hz motors, the
percentage of the SLL as fimction of the total motor losses is
smaller in 50 Hz than in 60 Hz motors.
Stmy LoadLosses {%Pin)
EOHz(900rpm +1200rpm +18001pm +3600rpm)
" x - - I x x ~
6,O
5,O
*
4.0
Fig. 8. Stray Load Losses (as a % of full-load input power) variation with
motor rated power, for 900+1200+1800+3600 rpmmotors.
Fig. 9. Percentage of data frequency in different ranges of SU(% of Pin) and
respective 6"' order polynomial trend lines.
Fig. IO. SLL(% of P#,,) behavior with number of poles and frequency
(SLL values computed with IEEE 112-9).
16
Fig. I I SLL(as a o/c of total losses) average values. by motor rated power,
for SO and 60 Hz
It is important to note that the 60 Hz data includes a
majority of high-efficiency motors (motors sold in North
America), whose total losses are typically 30-50% lower than
those of standard motors.
IV. EFFICIENCY COMPAHSON
In this efficiency measurements made with both standards
for the same motors are compared. In the preceding section, it
was shown the that the SLL vary significantly as compared to
the IEC fxed allowance (0.5% of the rated input power). This
is the main reason for the observed differences in the
corresponding efficiency data, that is presented in this section.
Figures 12 and 13 show trend lines of motor efficiency
using the IEEE 112 B and IEC 34-2, for 50 and 60 Hz motors,
respectively.
Fig. 14 presents, the efficiency differences between IEC 34-
2 and IEEE112-B test standards, for 50 and 60 Hz motors,
plotted by motor rated power.
Fig. 12. Motor efficiency trend lines for 50 Hz motors. using the IEEE 112-B
and IEC 34-2 standards.
Fig 13. Motor efficiency trend lines for 60 Hz, using the IEEE 112-B and
IEC 34-2 standards
Fig. 14. Averagedifference between IEC 34-2 and lEEEl12-B efficiency
average values, for 50 and 60 Hz.
Table IV presents the average values of the efficiency data,
by motor rated power.
TABLE IV
AVFXAGE EFFICIENCY VALUES, FOR IEC
AND IEEE STANDARDS, BY MOTOR POWER AND BY FREQUMCY
50 Hz I 60 Hz
IEC 34-2 I IEEE112-B I IEC 34-2 I IEEEIIZ-B
I
17
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Table IV confirms that the IEC 34-2 efficiency test method
gives overestimated efficiency values. The expected
difference between the efficiency estimated by IEC and IEEE
is about 1%. This is an expected result because of the SLL
similar differences between the two methods.
v. SUMMARY OF THE EFFICIENCY DATA ANALYSIS
Tables V and VI present a summary of the efficiency data
analysis with the motors which were tested both with IEEE
112-B and IEC 34-2, considering the discrepancies between
the SLL and the efficiency measurements.
TABLE V
STATISTICS OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE IEC 34-2
AND IEEE 1 12-B EFFICIENCY VALUES FOR 60 HZ MOTORS
Statistical Value (SLLIEEESLLIEC) (WEC - @EE)
6OHz - 89 data 60Hz - 781 data
Average 0.8 0.9
Standard deviation 0.6 0.6
Maximum value 4.8 2.4
Minimum value -0.4 -0.2
TABLE VI
STATISTICS OF DISCREPANCIES BnWEEN THE IEC 34-2
AND IEEE 1 12-B EFFICIENCY VALUES FOR 50 HZ MOTORS
Statistical Value (SLLIEEE-SLLIEC) (qm- QIEEE)
AveraEe I .o 1.2
Standard deviation 0.6 0.6
Maximum value 2.5 2.5
Minimum value -0.1 -0.1
50Hz - 36 data 50Hz - 36 data
Considering the average difference between the efficiency
measurements using both standards in the same motors, the
IEC 34-2 efficiency overestimation is about 0.9% for 60 Hz
motors and 1.2% for 50 Hz motors. These values are very
similar to the observed differences in the SLL values. This is
not surprising due to way in which the efficiency is computed
(See Appendix I). The small difference in Tables V and VI
(about 0.1-0.2%), may be explained by the different testing
temperature conditions, which in the IEEE 112-B method
are higher.
Therefore it seem possible to compute with a good degree
of approximation what would be the IEC 34-2 efficiency
result, based on the efficiency and SLL measurements made
with the IEEE 1 12-B standard (See Appendix I). The opposite
conversion (IEC 34-2 into IEEE 112-B equivalent values)
cannot accurately be done, due to the arbitrary value of the
SLL. In the large sample of measurements analysed there is
on average an overestimation of the efficiency around 1%
when using the IEC 34-2 standard, although with a large
variance.
A large sample of motor efficiency measurements has
been collected around the world (the largest sample to the
authors knowledge) and has been analysed. Based on this
analysis it can be stated that the efficiency determination
according to the IEC 34-2 standard is not accurate. One
critical flaw of this test method is the use of a grossly
underestimated value for the SLL. Ideally, the SLL should be
computed, and can not be replaced a fEed allowance as the
difference between motors of the same rating is significant
and can not be ignored.
An important conclusion that can be extracted from the SLL
analysis is the irregularity of its values, which means that a
fixed allowance can have a significant error. The proposed
revision of IEC 34-2 standard (IEC 61972 standard) is a
positive step to improve motor efficiency testing, particularly
if the direct measurement method is used. Based on the
results of this paper it can be stated that in general the use of
the indirect method of the proposed IEC 61972 standard will
lead to an underestimation of the motor efficiency. This fact
will be an incentive for the progressive avoidance in the
future of the indirect testing method.
Based on the average values of analyzed sample, it was
demonstrated that the difference in SLL determination from
one standard to another were about 1.0% and 0.8%, for 50
Hz and 60 Hz, respectively. Considering the average
difference between the efficiency measurements using both
standards in the same motors, the IEC 34-2 efficiency
overestimation is about 1.2% for 50 Hz motors and 0.9% for
50 Hz motors. These values are very similar to the observed
differences in the SLL values. The results are particularly
significant in the 60 Hz sample (almost 800 motors
analysed).
Therefore it seems possible to compute with a good degree
of approximation what would be the IEC 34-2 eficiency
result, based on the efficiency and SLL measurements made
with the IEEE 112-B standard (See Appendix I). The opposite
conversion (IEC 34-2 into IEEE 112-B equivalent values)
cannot accurately be done, due to the arbitrary value of the
SLL.
In a market in which the available motors come from
different areas of the world and are tested with different
standards (e.g. motors produced in North America and in
Europe), it is recommended that the efficiency values are
compared based on the same yardstick. For the reasons
pointed before the IEC 34-2 efficiency values together with
the translated IEEE 112-B values into IEC 34-2 equivalent
values, allow a level playing field comparison to perform a
more cost-effective motor selection or the implementation of
large scale motor transformation programs.
18
APPENDIX I George Gao - TECO, Taiwan;
Paul0 Quintaes - WEG, Brasil;
Advanced Energy, North Carolina, USA;
G. Wallace, Oregon State University, USA;
0
0
0
The eEciency (7) is given by the following equations:
The information and comments provided by Neville Glew
I. Direct Method: VoM =- PO* (1)
<
and Joe Kline (US Motors) is also much appreciated.
Losses
11. Ind. Method: =1
Ph
PI
[21
The Losses are the summation of constant losses, load
losses and stray load losses (SLL). Assuming:
Total Losses =Const. Losses +Loud Losses +SLL =A +SLL
(3)
where: A =Const. Losses +Loud Losses PI
[41
Then the efficiency can be described by (4):
The variation of efficiency with the SLL is given by ( 5) :
[61
( 5) [7]
- ASLL
AV=-
8
The SLL also can be written as a function of the input
PI
power:
(6)
SLL(Watt) =SLL(%I?, ).Ph (Watt) Q
Q AsLL(Watt) =ASLL(%Ph)& (Watt)
[91
Replacing (6) in (5) gives the following relation :
- MLL( Watts)
AV = =--AsLL(%Ph )
Ph
(7)
Therefore if the SLL(0h of Pin) increases 1 percentage point
the efficiency will decrease 1 percentage point.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The US Agency for International Development sponsored
this study as part of its effort to promote the penetration of
energy-efficient technologies around the world. The authors
also want to acknowledge all the entities and persons who
have contributed with their laboratory motor test data, making
possible this study:
REFERENCES
IEEE Std 112-B, 1996: IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase
Induction Motors and Generators. IEEE Power Eng. Society, New
York.
IEC Std 60034-2: 1972, Rotating electrical machines - Part 2: Methods
for determining losses and efficiency of electrical machinery fromtests
(excluding machines for traction vehicles) with amendments 1: 1995
and 2: 1996.
CSA C390-1993, 1998: Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-
Phase Induction Motors, Canadian Standards Association, Canada.
IEC Std 61972: 2000, Method for determining losses and efficiency of
three phase, cage induction motors. (Proposed revision still under
discussion).
Glew C. N., Efficiency Measurement Testing Standards Stray Losses,
the Key to Efficiency Determination in Energy Efficient
Improvements in Electric Motors and Drives, edited by De Almeida
A., Bertoldi P., Leonhard W., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
Bartheld R G., Kline J . A.: Comparative Efficiency Measurements
IEC 34-2 vs IEEEl12 in Energy Efficient Improvements in Electric
Motors and Drives, edited by De Almeida A., Bertoldi P., Leonhard
W., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
Cummings Paul G.: Efficiency Measurement Testing and Labeling in
Energy Efficient Improvements in Electric Motors and Drives, edited
by De Almeida; Bertoldi; Leonhard, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 1997;
edited by DeAlmeida A., Bertoldi P., Leonhard W., Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1997.
Belmans, R.; Roy, P. Van; Siaets, B.: Induction Motor Efficiency
Standards in Energy Efficient Improvements in Electric Motors and
Drives edited by Bertoldi P., De Almeida A ., Falkner H., Springer-
Verlag Berlin, 2000.
Belmans, R.; Roy, P. Van; Renier, B.; Hameyer K.: A Practical Set-up
for a Standard Test Procedure on Polyphase Induction Motors in
Energy Efficient Improvements in Electric Motors and Drives edited
by Bertoldi P., De Almeida A ., Falkner H., Springer-Verlag Berlin,
2000.
[I O] Williamson S.; Sambath, H. P.: Induction Motor Efficiency
Measurement in Energy Efficient Improvements in Electric Motors
and Drives, edited by Bertoldi P., De Almeida A ., Falkner H.,
Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2000.
[ 111 Haataja J.; Pyrhtinen J.: Approaching the Truth in Induction Motor
Efficiency in Energy Efficient Improvements in Electric Motors and
Drives edited by Bertoldi P., De Almeida A ., Falkner H., Springer-
Verlag Berlin, 2000.
[12] Kline Sr., J.: Experience Factors When Testing for Efficiency and
Correlating Results with Design in Energy Efficient Improvements in
Electric Motors and Drives, edited by De Almeida; Bertoldi;
Leonhard, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2000.
0 LTEE-Hydro-Quebec, Quebec, Canada;
0
0
R. Belrnans - Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium;
Alioune Diop - EDF, France;
19