NA-04-9-2b (RP-1104) Heat Loss from Electrical and Control Equipment in Industrial Plants: Part II—Results and Comparisons Warren N. White, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Industrial plants use electrical power equipment 10 distribute power for lighting, driving motorized devices, oper- ating HVAC equipment, and control of equipment. The main Jocus ofthis paper is to provide updated information on heat losses by various types of electric power equipment. The infor- ‘mation isorganized by equipment type, and practical guidance (on using this information to compute losses under different conditions is provided. The effect of loading margin used by designers in sizing the electric equipment, load diversity, and amtient temperature on heat loss is discussed. Uncertainties in the results for different pieces of equipment are presented. Also, a comparison of the results to the previously published information is provided. INTRODUCTION Engineers wanting o estimate heat loss tothe surround ing environment from electrical power and control equipment in industrial plants and large buildings need updated informa- tion. This paper provides updated heat loss information on rmedium-voltge (5 to 15 KV) and low-voltage (below 5 KV) power devices for HVAC load calculations. The equipment covered includes both power and lighting transformers, rmedium-voltage switchgear, electric cables and cable trays, ‘motor control centers and combination motor starters, invert es, battery chargers, low-voltage circuit breakers, electric ‘motors, unit substations, series reactors, and adjustable-specd or variable-frequency drives (ASD or VED). The first part of this paper describes the types and vatities of information sourees for equipment heat loss, how tess were conducted, and the uncertainties associated with the gathered data. The second part ofthis paper reports the study results Anil Pahwa, Ph.D. Chris Cruz Helpful information to guide designers on using this ‘updated information to compute heat loss is provided for each piece of equipmentin the form of load diversity, design margin, and the effect ofthe ambient environmental temperature. Load diversity assigns a fraction to apiece of equipment subjected to partial duty over a period of time. This fraction is used to deter- ‘mine the average power dissipated by the device over a period of time, while the load varies in a routine fashion. The diversity fraction definition varies according to the equipment. The reason forthis variation stems from the dissipation of heat vary ing ether linearly with oras the square ofthe load current. The definition ofthe diversity factor or fraction foreach equipment category will be presented. Design margin accounts for unan- ticipated increase in demand and opportunity for future growth, ‘The level of design margin assigned by the engineer ranges from 100% for well-defined, noncritcal applications to 50% for conceptual designs and highly critical applications. Typi cally margins of 80% are used for most applications, providing ‘a balance between reliability and initial costs, For example, if a piece of equipment was expected to require X amps with a 50% margin, the equipment would be selected for a maximum ‘capacity of 2X amps (X/0.5). Uncertainties in the results are discussed for each piece of ‘equipment, Many of these uncertainties stem from differences from manufacturer to manufacturer ofthe same type of equip- ‘ment. A comparison of the final results to previously published results is provided inthe form of tables or graphs of data. The previously published data include Rubin (1979) and MeDonald and Hickok (1985), ‘Warren N. Whites an associate professor and Chris Cruz isa graduate student inthe Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department, and [Anil Pahwa i a professor inthe Eletrcal and Computer Engineering Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kans. ase (©2008 ASHRAE,Table 1 General Purpose Dry-Type Units Having an 80°C Temperature Rise 80% Margin | Average No | Average Full | 100% Margi 50% Margin ‘Temperature | Rated Voltage | Kilo-Volt- | Load Losses | Load Losses | Total Losses | Total Losses | Total Losses Rise °C) w Amps ow), wy), ow, ow oo 80 4800-208 15 330 277 or 507 399 30 4800-2087 25 530 502 1032 851 656 80 4480D.208Y 30 415 6165 1032 810 569 80 4800-2087 375. 330 6 1201 939 698 80 4800-2087 45 4875, 968.5 1431 Hoa) 78 0 “4800-2087 30 300 1371 2071 sm 1043) 0 4800-2087 75 725 1969.5 2695 198s 1217 0 4sop-208y | 1125 700 230 2930 2127 1258 80 4800-2087 130) 1075 2136 sain 2a 1609) 30 4800-2087 225 1450 28205 en 3255 2155 80 4800-2087 300 1650 3279 4929 3749 2070 80 4800-208 500 2900 4857 7157 6008 ana 80 4800-208 750 3640 72 ii, 9126 5783 80 1SKD-A80¥ 300 2400 3000) 7400, 5600 3650 80 15KD-480¥ 750 2800 9000) 11800 8500 5050) 80 15kD-480¥ 1000 3500 9600 13100 9608 5900) 80 15kD-480¥ 1500) 5000 11600 16600 12424 7300) 80 tep-asoy | 2000 | 6500 15500 22000 16420 10375 80 IskD-asoy | 2500 7200 18500 25700 19080 11825 RESULTS age of load. For low-voltage units (600, 208, 120 volts), the given load percentage for peak efficiency is 35% while for ‘Transformers ‘medium-voltage units, the load value for peak efficiency is ‘There area variety of different transformer types. A small sample ofthe available data is presented here, Table I presents information concerning general purpose dry-type units, with an 80°C temperature rise. Other units could have different temperature rises. Table 2 contains data concerning general ‘purpose liguid-filled units, The full-oad loss figures in Tables 1 and 2 correspond to rated current. The losses at any frac tional load can be determined by ‘otal losses = no load losses + load losses x (LF, (1) where LP = the lod fraction, the faction of fl-load current (between zero and one). ‘Transformer losses are nota strong function of environ ‘mental temperature; thus, the full-load and no-Ioad losses can be considered as constant regardless ofthe ambient tenpera- ture. “Those power and lighting transformers (and larger units) built and tested in accordance with the NEMA TP! Standard (NEMA 1996) have maximum efficiencies that either excced ‘ormeet those efficiencies shown in Table 3 ata given percents ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia 50 Tho efile ofthese dy ype uniearrsferedtan trorge nding sos temperate oF 75%, while te eid immersed efiencies ae reed tan average wining temperature se of 85°C Lote ay neath winding ees eee a aia ‘cnperatr allows comparison between ut, Te enper trot wich he loses te tres tiedat the topo able ; ive he fl expo th unt in VA, the load loss forthe NEMA TP! wt ae spprociatly 3) wy) pfx kVA x 1000{1 vars, Full oad losses = Q me uA where a LF = load fraction for peak efficiency (0.35 or 0.5), and 11 = efficiency from Table 3 correspondingto kVA and unit ‘ype, power fictor, 853Table 2. General Purpose Liquid-Filled Units 100% Margin | 80% Margin | 50% Margin Rated Voltage NoLoad Losses | Full oad Losses) Total Losses | Total Lasses | Total Lostes o Kito-Vot-amps | __ OW) ow om oy co) Substation 1SKD-480¥ 225 760 3400 4160) 2936 1610 13kD-a80Y_ 300 900 4635 3535 3866 2089 15KD-480¥_ 300 1330 3540 870 4876» as 15kD-480¥ 750 138 9875 i610 8055 204 1SkD-460¥ 1000 | ___ 2000 12025 | 1402s 3696) 5006 15kD-480 1500 2900 15720 18620 12961 6830 (_15xp-a80¥_ 2000) 3535) 21750 25285, 17455 3973 15kD-480¥ Bion ea | a anos | ase 28150 | __19600 10538 Table 3. NEMATP1 Efficiencies—n Efficiency % Efficiency % ciency % Dry Type, Mediam Voltage, | Liquld immersed, Medium Kilo-Volt-Amps ry Type, Low Voltage, 75°C 75°C Voltage, 85°C 5 7 968 980 30 95 73 983 45 917 976 985 75 98 979 987 1125 982 981 988 150 983 982 989) ms 985 984 99.0 300 988 985 99.0 300 987 987 BA 750 388 968 992 1000 989 98.9 992 1500 8 383 2000 8 994 2500 = 99 Ba ‘The power factor in Equation 2 depends upon the electri- cal load, e4,, 0.8 for motor loads or 1.0 for resistive loads. ‘The no load losses are approximately 100 No load loses pf kVA » 109(L( OP @ ~ (LFY (load losses watts ‘The losses provided by Equations 2 and 3 correspond to the average winding temperature rises shown atthe top of Table 3. The load losses forall dry-type units (general purpose and TP 1) must be corrected for temperature according to ‘Table 4. The load losses for liquid immersed units do not a6 ‘require any temperature correction. The temperature cortec- tion consists of multiplying the load losses by the factor of | (Tet Tren) Temperature comes eon = ETRE, (4) where Tk = 234.5°C for copper windings and 225°C for aluminum windings, and Teer “reference temperature shown in Table 4 Once the temperature corrected load and no load losses are determined, Equation | can be used to calculate the losses at the given level of loading, ASHRAE Tiansactons: Symposia,Table 4. Limits for Temperature Rises for Dry-Type Units Insulation System Temperature Cass CC) [Average Winding Temperature Rise (O)] Trepp ~ Standard Reference Temperature CC) Bo 75 % 150 90 0 as ist us 135, | 200 130 130 ee ts 170 Diversity is only applied tothe load losses, whereasthe no load osses remain constant as long as the unit is energized. Modifying Equation | to account for diversity provides the relation, Average total losses = no load losses : 6 + load losses x (LE) x diversity factor Inorderto determine the diversity fctor, the time average of the load fraction in the RMS (root mean square) sense has, 10 be found by the relation, rue Tbr _ ber Leae> POE ©) where T= ‘time spent operating wth alow load faction, LF, ~ low load faction, 1, = time spent operating with a high load faction, Ly = high oad faction, and Lye. = average lod faction “The diversity factors then given by Diversity factor = (LF yye/LF) , M where LF = toad faction corresponding to expected peak load of the unit usually Fy) ‘The powerloss, aking into account margin information, is Power loss with margin = no load loss + load loss x (M/100)?, ®) where M = themargin ‘The value of M is either 100% for full loading, 80% for expected (recommended) loading applications, or 50% for critical applications. Transformer literature sates that power losses are only weakly influenced by the ambient temperature. “The loss information presented came from manufacturers that followed elevant IEEE standards for measuring and reporting transformer losses. AS a result, the uncertainty of the loss values reported by these manufacturers is 10% of less. ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia Medium Voltage Switchgear ‘The heat loss calculation for medium voltage switchgear is based on a spreadsheet that provides a menu of the various ‘equipment devices found in them. The losses from medium voltage circuit breakers (including enclosure effects) can be estimated for 1S KV breakers and 5 KV breakers as 15 KV breaker loss = 13800 volts « 1.73 * aed % Wat)? * Pf * 0.00006 watts, o 5 KV breaker loss = 4160 volts x 1.73 * pied X ave)? * Bf * 0.0001 watts, (19) where of power factor (nominally 09), Trg = the rated line current forthe breaker in amps, (aie) = the load fraction of the breaker. The spreadsheet is shown in Figure 1. In order to account for diversity, the current flowing in a breaker or bus must be averaged using the following equation: frult* Taly tres ay where 1, = lowcurrent flowing through breaker for time 7, Jy ~ ‘igh curent flowing through breaker for ime T>, Tae ~ average current in RMS sense A diversity factor can then be defined to be used to deter- ‘mine the current values to enter into the spreadsheet of Figure I 12) ‘The margins for medium voltage switchgear are 100% for full-load applications, 80% for commercial applications, and ‘50% for ertical applications. These numbers were chosen as the result of discussions with industrial plant design engineers. The margin of 100% would indicate that equipment would be operated continuously at its rated capacity, whereas a margin of 80% would indicate that equipment is loaded to the point where 80% of the current capacity is utilized, Diversity factor = Faye.WATTS LOSS DATA ‘MEDIUM VOLTAGE SWITCHGEAR te te efor INDIVIDUAL DEVICE WATT LOSS TOTALS THEM TOTALS ‘quasi | watts Loss Figure 1 Medium voltage switchgear spreadsheet 856 ASHRAE Transactions: SymposiaCables and Cable Trays ‘The bulk of cable losses are the resistive losses inthe main ‘conductors. Thus, if the number of cables and their physical arrangement inthe trays are known, total losses per foot at the room temperature of that specific cable tray can be computed ‘There are many combinations of loading, size, and packing of the cables ina tray. However, normal industry practice and the following simplifying assumptions make it possible to compute losses. Specific factors considered are: 1, A cable tray can have cables of only one voltage level at a time. All ofthe cables ina tray are considered to be three-phase cables and ate ofthe same size. ‘Total height of the cable bundle does not exceed 3 in. Only single layers are considered for SkV and 1S KV cables forall sizes because the height of the bundle even for the ‘smallest size would exceed 3 in. Multiple layers are consid- cred for 600 V cables. A packing or fill fctor of 40% is considered for the trays In other words, the total area occupied by the cables in a layer does not exceed 40% of the total cross-sectional area of that layer. ‘The cables are assumed tobe stacked one ontop ofthe other with airspace in between each stack, ‘The cables are sized such that normal full-load current is 80% of the ampacity at 90°C, 8, A diversity fuctor of 60% is considered. This implies that the average current in a cable over a period of time is 60% of the full-load current. 2 9. Sheath and armor loss factor of 0 for 600 V cables, 5% for SKY cables, and 10% for 15 KV cables are considered. 10. An ambient temperature of 26°C is considered for calcula- tions. ‘Table 5 shows average losses for trays of different size of the selected voltage levels. These losses ae for the conditions specified above. If specific information, such as number of, cables and thei sizes, fora tray isnotavailable, the loss values specified in Table 5 can be used. Results in Table 5 under the heading of KSU are results from the present study. Those results in Table 5 under the heading of Rubin are results from Rubin (1979). If the number of cables and their sizes are known along with the size of the tray they are in and the voltage level, then ‘a more accurate heat loss figure can be computed by summing up the product of the number of cables with the loss per cable from Table 6, Results in Table 6 under the heading of M & H ‘come from McDonald and Hickok (1985). For comparison purposes, the values for cable tray loss in Table 5 were accompanied by losses reported by Rubin (1979), Table 6 compares individual cable loss to losses computed from resistance values for individual cables. These resistance values came from MeDonald and Hickok (1985) here the oss per foot ofcable length ofa three-phase (as indi- cated by the factor of 3) cable bundle is watts lossit = (1 « 0.48)? x R/1000 x 3, (13) where T= rated current in amps, and R_ = resistance value in ohms/1000 ft ‘The inclusion of diversity inthe oss predictions isaccom- plished by multiplying the rated current by the diversity factor, representing the fraction ofthe time the rated current is flo ing through the cable. An ambient temperature of 32° increased the losses by an average of 2.3% in comparison to the losses at 26°C, The differences in cables of different type but of the same size are mainly due to insulation thickness, presence of shield, and other construction-related details. Caleulations performed to take these factors into effect showed that they do not have a significant impact on results. ‘Overall changes in losses due to these variations are less than 10%, Motor Control Centers Motor contro! centers have losses associated with the ‘components of their construction, These components include circuit breakers, motor starters, and horizontal and vertical buses. Since there are many combinations of these compo- nents, a spreadsheet has been developed to determine the loss of the entire motor control center. Figure 2 shows an example of a motor control center consisting of five cabinet sections. ‘The motor control center is fed through an 800 amp breaker. ‘The main bus is arranged horizontally across the top of the Table 5. Cable Tray Losses at Selected Voltages KsU Rubia KSU Rubin KSU Rubio Tray Size(iny | soavowiy | 6oovawnm | sxvowny | sevowiy | isevawity | iskvowity, 6 0 - 4 = 3 - 2 2 23 8 26 7 26 18 36 35 2 3 uw 2 Ea 9 a 16 3 15 35 30 6 38 2 6 19 6 a7 ASHRAE Traneactons: SymposiaTable 6. Losses per Cable of Different Sizes at Selected Voltages for Three Conductor, Three Phase Cables ~ su Man ‘so wen] eu Mae cauesie | omviwn | oovewm | seveway | sevowey | isavowm | sev ow z 18 ie | 2 — a 10 = is = LC - 228 | 268 al 2s rm 28 3a (ee ee ee Cae xo a ToS 35 1 4/0 259 z 3.23 3.59 3.50. Sp 38 389 oo o0Ken | | _ - : [sos | 28 oa I 3a a0 mi | 3.02 ~ ~ zt oii a a ce a cane ‘stent [352 18 508 4a) an ‘cabinets. In each cabinet, asecondary bus carries current verti- cally tothe various starters. Each cabinet is 20 in. wide and 72 in, high, These lengths are typical dimensions for motor control centers. In the example, the breaker is on the left. The horizontal bus in the cabinet immediately to the right of the breaker cabinet carries the entire current needed for all of the cabinets containing the motor starters. The horizontal bus in the center cabinet carries the current for the three cabinets on ‘the right. Is seen that the current distributes itself among the cabinets as airflow would in a manifold. The current in the vertical bus also distributes itself among the compartments as air ina manifold. This distribution ofthe current is used in the example. Figure 2 shows each motor starter in the motor control center along with the size of the starter, the motor horsepower, the motor efficiency, the power factor of the load, and the diversity factor. The arrangement ofthe motor control center is @ given fact for any application. The motor horse- power, efficiency, and power factor together with the starter size are also given information. The diversity factor is a value that must be determined for the application. The diversity factor, df is the fraction that provides the RMS compartment current overa 24-hour period when multiplied by the compart- ‘ment current (defined in Equation | and Equation 12) Figure 3 shows the loss calculation, The calculation is organized according to cabinets. The “first cabinet” is the one on the far right in Figure 2. The cabinets are numbered in this example from right to let. The compartments in each cabinet are listed in order from top to bottom. Each row ofthe spread- 253 sheet essentially performs the same calculation. Given the motor horsepower andefficieney, 1, the KW of power supplied by the starter is KW = hp « 0.746/(ny100) (4) ‘The compartment current lowing through the starter is CW 1000 san Tine voltage * 3 * pf as) ‘The line voltage used in this example is 480 volt, three phase, and pf'is the power factor. The riser current is deter- mined by the relation, riser current forthis compartment = compartment current *df + riser current from compartment below, (16) where of = diversity factor. ‘As one steps upward through the compartments ofa cabi- net, it is Seen thatthe riser current increases, The vertical bus los in the riser for each compartment is determined by bbus loss = (riser current / rated bus current)? > rated bus loss per standard length x compartment height, an where rated bus current = 300 or 600 amps ASHRAE Transactions: Symeosia,Figure 2 Motor control center example setup, Note that the rated bus loss per standard length is listed in Figure 3. Asan example, consider the losses in the vertical bus of the 35 hp starter in the second cabinet, The losses are (107.48/300)? x (50 watts/6 ft) x 2 f= 2.14 wats, In calculating the starter loss, the diversity factor is applied to the current but not to the relay losses since the relay losses are present regardless of whether the motor is running ‘or not. The starter loss would then be the relay loss plus R* (I* 4p’, where R is the resistance of the starter circuit, I is the starter current in amps, and dfis the starter diversity factor. For ‘the 80 hp starter in the first cabinet, the losses are 18.8 watts, +0,0014880 x (0.8 x 88.59 amps}? = 26.27 watts. For conve- nience, the resistance value and height of each NEMA combi- nation motor starter are also shown in Figure 3. ‘To determine the losses in the cabinet, the riser and starter losses of each compartment are summed. The total current for the cabinet is also determined. In order to determine the hori- zontal bus losses, the cabinets and cabinet currents are listed according to cabinet number. The horizontal bus current inthe cabinet is calculated using the relation, horizontal bus current of cabinet ~ cabinet riser current + horizontal bus current of previous cabinet (1s) ASHAAE Traneactions: Symposia Asone steps through the cabinets, itis seen that the hori- zontal bus current increases, Once the bus currents are deter- ‘mined, the losses are determined by the relation, Bus loss ~ (bus current /rated bus current)? x rated bus loss per 20” cabinet width as For instance, the horizontal bus loss of the first cabinet will be (87.67 amps / 800 amps)? x 40 watts = 0.48 watts. All ofthe current lowing in the horizontal bus must also flow through the breaker. The breaker power loss is estimated and entered into the spreadsheet. The calculation of the low- voltage breaker loss is presented in another section. The indi vvidual losses are totaled to provide the power loss of the motor control center. ‘Sometimes the breaker might be placed in the middle of set of cabinets. This avoids excessive horizontal bus currents and the corresponding losses. If this is the case, the losses of | the cabinets on either side of the breaker can be determined separately and then added together. Adding the horizontal bus currents from each side together determines the breaker current Since the starter losses are based on /°R ohmic heating, the means by which diversity is included is the same as the calculation of the RMS average current shown in Equation 10 for medium voltage switchgeat. ‘The design margin for motor control centers is 80% in ‘commercial applications, 100% in fullload applications, and ‘30% in critical application. However, since the loading of a sven starter may not be indicative of the entire motor control center, the margin number should be used for motor control ccenter bus work and breakers. No margin should be applied to the starter itself provided that a margin figure was used in determining the starter load. In the motor control example just presented, no margin information was applied to the starters since the starter loading was known. A margin of 80% was applied to the bus work and breaker in the example. Tests on NEMA size 1, 2, and 3 starters demonstrated that ambient temperature does not have a significant influence on heat losses. Loss expressions for the NEMA 1, 2, and 3 starters ‘were derived from tests having an uncertainty of less than 10%. Inverters ‘The peak of the inverter efficiency occurs at fl load. From manufacturer data, the inverter efficiency remains close to the peak value when operated from about 50% to 100% full load, Below 50% fll load, the efficiency falls almost expo- nentaly. The inclusion of diversity inthe los predictions is accomplished by multiplying the estimated losses occuring during normal operation bythe diversity factor, represeting the fraction ofthe time the inverters driving the intended load ‘The margin for inverters in commercial applications i 100% ‘and 50% in eritical applications. No information has been located with regard to the inluence of ambien emperatureon inverter losses, The information presented here was obtained 259saayspnauds ajduuona s0juaa jouuoo s01oyy § 24MBh reo | sem [eso e0]] (seb —| —saxeara| sanv_| sav soos | aor To woe Ea zz ro Tevez frowee—| io oor eoe [eve 00. oer [90 30) 5 we loot [ste loot O0e- Sz [oui | 90. 80. € ‘or | yourae9) une levee. Tor oor [soos jose OOF os [ass | or so [sao = Osi foo leoze [uz ‘oe. oz. ee | eo ‘eo_| 60 € oy foot Ise leer. o0e ost sesiz | 90 ‘so |s00. i ‘ joseu | — rex [oor ese ‘OOF sz re] a0 sos ree a TY x = loot les ve ‘OE ‘oz | arzor| 0+ —frorr [zoe 30 —| 300 © se foot [acs ‘OE ‘os [erset| 90 fevze —fsor bo | 80 z oe foot —Joez ‘E tere | or esr [ere 6o| eo. i * joror |e loor az. a0. lecoo so_| 30 * io [oor oF 0. [ez ‘s0_| 80 z si oot ot ot iso. ‘eo | 200 n rating plug current value 5) ‘The current value produced by Equation 25s the value to be used in the loss calculation. Tests of the influence of ‘environmental temperature of breaker heat loss have shown litle correlation. In these tests, the environmental temperature was varied from 25°C to 50°C. Values in Table 9 corresponding to 60, 100, 250, 800, and 1200 amp frames ‘were measured, and the uncertainty of the results are within 410% of the reported loss values. Data for all of the other frames were obtained from manufacturer literature with the exception of the 3000 amp frame breaker where the loss ‘numbers were determined by interpolation between the 2000 and 3200 amp frames. For those breakers not tested, the indicated losses are representative ofthe expected values. The breaker losses may vary with manufacturer. Figure 4 shows the losses at different current levels in two frames. for ‘comparison. Motors All manufacturer data for motors were inthe form of eff ciencies. Efficiency values were collected for polyphase elec tric motors for horsepower ratings from 10 to 2000 hp. The data were collected fora large number of motor frames. In this document, all of the efficiencies for different motors of the same horsepower rating were averaged to get one efficiency 209225 Amp Frans-MaH 200 Amp Frame- MBH 225 amp Frame -KSu 200 Arp Frame -KSU 225 amp Frame - Rubia 1500 Amp Frame Rubin Low Voltage Circuit Breaker Comparison : 500 a “ =| ° 100 20 300 400 ea 600 Heater Plug Amps Figure 4 Low-voltage circuit breaker comparison for each horsepower rating. Using the average efficiency, the rate of heat loss for the motor is, 1p x 745.7 x (100/m) *(1-n/100), (26) Watts los where Hp = delivered power, and n= motor efficiency, %. Equation 26 was used along with the average efficiency to ‘compare data to McDonald and Hickok (1985). Rubin (1979) used a slightly different equation and assumed all motors were 90% efficient, Rubin’s loss equation Watts Loss = hp x 746 x (1 ~n/100) en Diversity is accounted for by using the average (over time) input power delivered to the motor in the frst part of Equation 1. The equation for input power is 1px 745.7 x (100m). (28) Input power (watts) ‘The margin for electric motors is 80% in commercial applications, 100% in full-load applications, and 50% in cit- ical applications. To determine the heat loss, taking into consideration margin, the calculation is ‘Motor Heat Loss (watts) = (“Yamargin/100) x Input power (1 = n/100) x 745.7 watts/hp, 29) A variation of 20°K of the environmental temperature ‘would not influence the conductor absolute temperature and, 268 thus, the conductor resistivity, significantly. Thus, the influ- ence of environmental temperature on the motor losses is small. According to the pertinent IEEE standards (IEEE 1995, 1996), the instruments used in determining the efficiency of a motor must have an uncertainty of +0.2% of full scale or less ‘The standards describe many different ways of determining the motor efficiency, each of which having its own particular uncertainty. The efficiency averages are determined by aver- aging the nominal efficiencies from several different manu- facturers. The nominal efficiency represents the mean of a collection of identical motors (same frame and horsepower), This efficiency information is representative of the expected values. Efficiency values may change from manufacturer to ‘manufacturer. Figure 5 compares heat loss data for motors ranging from 10 to 2000 horsepower. Unit Substations ‘The unit substation can be thought of as low-voltage ‘switchgear that might include (in addition to a transformer) circuit breakers, curent transformers, control power tans formers, auxiliary compartment, space heaters, circuit break- 1s, and high-curent buss all arranged ina series of cabinets To closely determine the power losses of such a device requires detailed knowledge of the construction, such as length of buses, losses of individual components, and loading information. The most realistic way to estimate losses is to use @ spreadsheet to mode! the unit substation. Figure 6 shows the spreadsheet For the components included in te loss caleula- ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia== Heat ous Wate) MA 180000 Hos ose va SU o Heat Loss wats) Run +4000 }- 1120000 g 8 0000 0000 Heat Losses - Watts 40000 20000 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Motor Rating -HP Figure $ Electric motor comparison. tion, the ability to include a partial load and enclosure effects, is incorporated into the calculation. Figure 7 shows a sketch of| the unit substation example. The low-voltage switchgear consists of two 4000 amp main breakers, each having a 1600 amp feeder line and four 800 amp breakers. The current in ceach main incoming breaker is 2300 amps, while each of the 1600 amp feeders carry 1000 amps. The 800 amp breakers carry the currents indicated in the figure, Each set of four 800 amp breakers is supplied by the closest 4000 amp breaker There are five instrument or auxiliary compartments, Figure 6 contains the loss calculation. Diversity is accounted for by using the RMS breaker and bus amperage determined by averaging over a 24-hour—or onger—period in the loss calculations. This calculation is shown in Equations 11 and 12. The margin for unit substations is 80% in commercial applications, 100% in full-load appli- cations, and 50% in critical applications. However, in cases where the switchgear is double ended, such as the example in Figure 7, the margins are reduced by a factor of two. Reactors Reactor power losses vary as the square of the current, Given the rated reactor winding temperature rise over room temperature (25°C), the reactor losses need to be corrected according to this value, Foreach voltage level, impedance, and current value, Table 10 lists the heat loss at 100% and 50% ‘margins. The power loss calculation in watts for the reactor is ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia Power Loss = (reactor currentrated current)? x Loss Value x temperature correction , 30) where the temperature correction is given by ted Tre + TYIOS +7), (1) Temperature Correction where rated Tryg ~ rated winding temperature rise (usually 115°C), and th = 234.5°C for copper windings and 225°C for aluminium, ‘The loss value used in Equation 30 is obtained from Table 10 under the 100% margin heading forthe corresponding rated current value and the appropriate voltage and impedance column. Diversity is accounted for by using the RMS reactor current obtained over a standard work period, e.g., day or ‘week, inthe loss calculations. If 7 isthe time the reactor is in use with current 7, and 7; is the time that the reactor is not being used in the work period, then the RMS reactor current is @2) ‘The margin for reactors in commercial applications is 100% and 50% in critical application. The values of heat loss for 50% margin were calculated using Equation 30 with a value of 0.5 substituted for the current ratio, Tests on reactors hhave shown that the reactor losses are neither strong function of the enclosure nor the environmental temperature. All ofthe Ings =1« (TAT, + 7)? essWATTS LOSS DATA 600 V Switchgear OO — Figure 6 Unit substation example spreadsheet. 266 ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia,| a | | ee 3Soanp Soamp “vamp | Sane | ea Fata | 80a | aaa Nain” | alee react | ain eee |e soem 00 arp 2300 arp Gang | Fata | Tovar TE | Bane eae | Stary eam ede tee Wamp | Fae wa room | eater treat | 1000amp 3soanp 3S0anp Figure 7 Unit substation example setup. Table 10. Reactor Power Loss in Watts at Rated Current and Room Temperature 480 Vott1.5% | 480 Volt 3% [ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia ‘n40 Voit1.s%| 240 Vote 3% | 240 Vote S% 480 Vote 5% | 600 Vote 3% | 600 VoIt 5% Impedance | Impedance | Impedance | Impedance | Impedance Impedance | Impedance | Impedance ow oH) om o) Oo ow) o) ow Amps [100% | so% | 100%] s0v | 100% | 0% | 100% sore | 100% | suv |100% | so% | 100%] so% | 100% | s0% 2 83 | 21) 2) 28 | 07 | 27 | a0] 35 4 [so [13 [3] 28 [ies | ar [ so | 13 [aes | ar [ozs | a4 [175 | 44 | 225 [56 | 8 [90] 23 [iss] 39 [30 | sa | 90 | 23 | 230] se | 242| 60 | 275] 69 | 350 | 38 2 [io] 28 [aro] 33 | 295] 74 | 10] 28 | 295| 74 | 390 | 98 | 305 | 76 | as | 04 1 [tao] 35 [290] 73 | 390| 98 | 140] 35 | 390] 98 | 475 | 119 | 430 | 108 | 535 | 134 25_| 160 | 40 | 360| 90 | s00| 125 | 160] 40 | soo | 125 | ozs | 156 | ass | 121 | 690 | 173 35_| 210 [ 33 | 430 | 108 | 530) 133 | 21.0] 53 | 50 | 133 | 670 | 168 | a5 | 159 | 735 | 184 45 [250 | 63 | 490] 123 | seo] 14s | a50| 63 | sso | 145 | 780] 195 | 720 | 180 | 850 | 213, 35_| 290 | 73 | 560 | 140 | 640 | 160 | 290] 73 | 640 | 160 | 840 | 210 | 765 | 191 | 960 | 240 a0 [a0] 23 [745 | 186 | 940 | 235 | 330] #3 | 40 | 295 | 118 | 295 | 930 | 233 | 134 | 334 too | aio | 103 | s60 | 215 | 980 | 245 | 410 | 103 | 980 | 205 | 129 | 321 | 985 | 246 | 1s | 369 130_| 49.0 | 123 | 965 | 241 | vor | or | 490 | 123) 161 | 401 | 147 | 366 | 161 | 403 | 184 | 459 160 | 540 | 135 | 105 | 263 | 150 | 375 | s40 | 135 | 150 | 375 | 166 | 41s | 160 | 399 | 198 | 494 | 200 | $7.0 | 143 | 114 | 285 | 174 | 435 | 570 | 143 | 176 | 435 | 170 | 425 | 184 | 495 | 216 | 540 250_| 760 | 19.0 | 136 | 340 | 206 | sis | 760 | 19.0 | 206 | sis | 246 | 61s | 217 | 543 | 307 | 766 320, ist_| 453 | 260 | 650 260 65.0 | 342 | 855 | 285 | 636 | 388 | 970 400 198 | 495 | 333 | 033 333 | #33 | 368 | 19 | at | 778 | 380 | 950 500 225 | 36.1 | 350 | 875 350 | 97 | 457 | 14 | 337 | s43 | sos [127 ‘600 307 | 768 | 414 | 104 422 | 106 | 474 [aie | ata | to | 406 | 02 750 az7 | 107 | 630 | 158 30 | ise | 552 | 138 | 630 | 158 [ 532 | 138 2735000 RB YOY 0000 25000 +0000 STARE Elen Figure 8 Adjustable-speed drive comparison. data appearing in Table 10 were obtained from manufacturers and averaged. Some of the data going into the averaging caleu- lation were verified experimentally. In general, the agreement between the reported data points where testing was possible is well within 10%. Adjustable-Speed Drives, Losses in adjustable-speed drives vary linearly with current. For a given line-to-ine voltage, the rated current varies linearly with the rated horsepower. Relations were developed to describe the full-load powerloss in watts in terms of rated horsepower for different voltage levels. These rela tions are 240 Vi Pratad = MPmied * 25.6234 + 276.073 watts, (33) 460 V: Prat = MPraed * 1345435 + 363.7949 watts , (34) 600 V: Prats = MP * 1455851 ~201.038 watts, (35) where = ful-load power loss at rated current and horsepower, and praeg ~ tated horsepower of ASD. Equations 33 through 34 are curve fits of manufacturer data, These curve fits are valid forthe horsepower range of 25 to 800 horsepower. [the current (horsepower) does not corre- Prato 268 300 400 ‘500 00 Horsepower spond to the rated current (horsepower), the power losses are then predicted by P= Prog (WP UP raed) = Prated * Wated)» (38) where power loss, actual horsepower, actual current and rated current Ina given application, its very likely that an ASD might only be used for a fraction of a standard workday or work- ‘week. The losses adjusted for diversity would be P= Prosed * (hPMRPrased) * Faso = Proved X Wrated) * Faso G?) where fraction of time ASD is in use over standard work period. The margin for adjustable-speed drives in commercial applications is 100% and 50% in critical application. Thus, in ‘commercial application, the loss figure obtained from Equa- tions 33, 34, or 35 would not require any modification, No {information has been found regarding the influence of ambient Faso temperature on the power losses of ASD devices. Of the tests performed in the production of this document, the ambient ASHRIE Traneactions: Symposiatemperature was not a factor in the measured power loss, The data used to determine the slope and intercept values in Equa~ tions 33, 34, and 35 come from manufacturers’ literature. It should be noted that the data from the different manufacturers are consistent and do exhibit a distinct linear trend. The infor- ‘mation presented is representative of expected losses, but it ‘may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Of the ASD power loss tests performed in the production of this document, the measured values were consistent with Equation 34, Rubin (1979) had no data concerning adjustable-speed drives, so he was not included in Figure 8, McDonald and Hickok (1985) id provide information of percent efficiency for adjustable- speed drives based solely on horsepower rating. This eff ciency was converted to watts loss by Equation 27, and al data are shown in Figure 8. CONCLUSIONS The ability to account for loading diversity and design ‘margin are invaluable tothe design engineer, Its unrealistic to assume every piece of equipment is going to operate at 100% load for 24 hours a day. This assumption could drastically ‘overestimate the heat load in a mechanical room as a whole. Proper sizing of electrical equipment for particular applica- tions to account for future growth and demand is also very beneficial. Knowing the heat loss for equipment that has higher capacity than needed presently ensures proper heat load calculations now and in the future. Having data from direct measurements to compare to ‘manufacturer data increases confidence in using manufacturer data to report losses for equipment sizes that were not tested due to time, money, or availability constraints. Itis interesting to note that when comparing data to previously published results where the authors had access to equipment and testing facilities (MeDonald and Hickok 1985), the results of the present study agree favorably with McDonald and Hickok Since every piece of equipment compared could not be tested, it is not known that the favorable comparison would be the result in every case. Rubin reported that he used the results of Hickok (1978), which are almost identical to the published information of McDonald and Hickok (1985), yet Rubin’s loss tables show higher losses for the same equipment reported by Hickok. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The authors would like to thank ASHRAE TC 9.2 for sponsoring this work and TC 9.1 and TC 9.8 forendorsing this effort. We are especially indebted to Mr. John Riley of Black and Veatch for serving as chair of the Project Monitoring ‘Subcommittee of TC 9.2, for his guidance, and for his advice inthe conduct ofthis investigation. Thanks are alsoin order for, Mr. Deep Ghosh of the Southern Company, Mr. Dennis Wessel of Bacik, Karpinski Associates, In., and Mr. Dale Cagwin of Robson Lapina for serving on the Project Monitoring Subcommittee, We would also like to extend our thanks tothe ASHRAE Traneactons: Symposia chair of the TC 9.2 Research Committee, Mr. Wayne Lawton of Giffels Associates, for his interest and advice in this effort It's difficult for the authors to express the full extent oftheir thanks to Dr. Gary Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Kansas State University, for his depth of knowledge and tremendous help and advice in this investigation. Finally, the authors ‘would ike to thank the following organizations that provided assistance, donated equipment for testing, and/or loaned us ‘equipment for testing: ABB, Danfoss Graham, General Elec tric, Rockwell Intemational, Stanion Wholesale Electric of Manhattan, KS, Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. Depart- ‘ment of Energy. REFERENCES Hickok, H.N. 1978. Energy losses in electrical power sys- tems. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 14(5): 373-387. ‘MeDonald, WJ., and H.N. Hickok. 1985. Energy losses in electrical power systems, IEEE Transactions on Indus- try Applications 1A-2(4):803-819. Rubin, ILM. 1979, Heat losses from electrical equipment in generating stations. /EEE Transactions on Power Appa- ratus and Systems PAS-98(4):1149-1152. IEEE, 1996. [EBE Standard 112-1996, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators. New York: IEEE Press IEEE, 1996. IEEE Standard 115-1995, Guide: Test Proce- dures for Synchronous Machines. New York: IEEE Press, NEMA. 1996. NEMA TP1, Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers. Virginia: National Electrical Manufacturers Association DIscussiON Jim Elleson, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wise Equation 22 relates the battery charger losses to the efficiency and the product of output voltage and current, which is the ‘output power. Itappears to me that by the normal definition of ‘efficiency, this equation is not correct. I would expect the equation to be Loss = Output power x (1 ~ eff 100) Loss = Input power x (100 / eff - 1) Could you comment on the derivation of Equation 22 and on your definitions of loss and efficiency? ‘Warren N. White: I thank Mr. Elleson for his interest in this ‘work and his question regarding Equation 22 which is, as stated in the paper, Watts loss = Ige* V5 (12/100) 2 where Ige = output current 29%y = output voltage 2 = battery charger efficiency - % Since ge is the output current and Vg isthe output volt- age, the product ofthe two quantities is the output power. Ifthe percentetfficiency,n, is replaced by the symbol eff, then Equa- tion 22 can be written as 870 Waits loss = Output power x (1 ~ eff1100) which is exactly the first ofthe two equations presented by Mr. Elleson in the statement of his question and, also, deemed correct by Mr. Elleson, Since ourresulis agree, our definitions, of loss and efficiency concur. ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia