advanced search

Does Your Motor Have Enough Get-Up-And-Go?

May 1, 1999 12:00 PM, By Robert J. Lawrie, Senior Editorial Consultant

Watch out for energy-efficient motors with insufficient torque to start some loads.

If you recently replaced a standard induction motor with a new energy-efficient motor of the same size, you could run into various motor-starting problems; especially if youchose a Design E unit. Why? Although this type of motor offers the highest efficiency in its class, it also comes with real deficiencies.

Torque, current, and energy-efficient motors. Certain early energy-efficient motors didn't meet required standards. In some instances, if you replaced a standard Design B motor with an energy-efficient design, the replacement motor could not develop enough torque to start the load. In others, the starting current was so high, the existing motor controller/disconnect could not handle the new motor.

The good news is: most U.S. manufacturers are now aware of these problems and are trying to correct such deficiencies. Some have made excellent progress; others need further improvements. Most problems relate to the smaller hp motors (those rated 5 hp or less), although some entire product lines barely meet standards.

Design E motors are generally the most efficient of the new designs. NEMA standards for Design E motors reveal they have very high efficiencies. However, some have starting torques too low for direct replacement and starting currents excessively high for existing starting equipment. (See Figs. 1 and 2, original article) As a result, always use caution when directly replacing existing motors with new Design E types. In new installations, good design practices and the selection of Design E motors will result in a successful application. Be particularly careful when selecting foreign-made motors, because many are not tested in accordance with standards set up by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). As a result, the characteristics of these energy-efficient motors are inconsistent and tend to relate to poorer design values of certain Design E motors.

Are energy-efficient motors cost-effective? After all, they tend to have higher starting currents, torque problems, and even lower power factor in some instances.

In the long run, energy-efficient motors are well worth the frustration of new selection factors, different values to plug into designs, and other installation requirements. Recent surveys show significant savings, depending on the application. Typical data on the cost of energy alone for a 10-hp motor running at $0.05/kwhr shows an energy-efficient motor will save nearly $4000 yearly over a standard motor. For a 50-hp motor, savings can approach $20,000 per year. This data is an average of different types of motors and installation parameters. In addition, it relates only to direct energy costs. The cost of money, interest, inflation, increased motor life, rebate programs, increased process efficiency, etc., are not included.

(The January and March 1999 issues of EC&M discuss the key characteristics of standard induction motors; particularly torque, speed, and current. They also point out that torque, speed, and current play a major role in the proper operation of motor and in its initial and running costs.)

Sidebar: EPACT and NEMA Influence on Motors

With the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), most new motors manufactured are required to be of energy-efficient design. The law applies to any general-purpose, T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounted, polyphase induction motor of Design A and B configurations continuously rated and operating at 230/460V, 60 Hz, as defined in the NEMA standard MG1 -1987. Affected motors include those rated from 1 hp to 200 hp and of drip-proof and totally enclosed design. (NEMA published additional data and tables in 1994 and 1995 to clarify applicable regulations.)

Note: Most available energy-efficient motors are still designated as Design B, although a few Design A may be available. The Design E motor has the highest efficiency.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2012 Penton Business Media, Inc.

---

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Browse Back Issues Select an Issue EC&M Magazine | April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 1, 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 1, 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 1, 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 2006 March 1, 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 February 1, 1995 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 December 1, 1996 November 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 September 1, 1996 August 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 June 1, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 1, 1996 March 1, 1996 February 1, 1996 January 1, 1996 December 1, 1995 November 30, 1995 November 1, 1995 October 1, 1995 September 1, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 June 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 April 1, 1995 March 1, 1995

browse e-newsletters