1318

IEEE Transactions on Energy Converbion, Vol. 14, No 4, December 1999

International Harmonization of Standards Detailed Report

P. I. Nippes Nippes-Bell Associates, Inc. 2135 Highway 35 Holmdel, New Jersey 07733 USA Abstract Now that the market for electrical apparatus has become global, there are efforts underway to compare standards with an intent to harmonize these standards. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has made strides in this area. Specifically,the Electric Machinery Committee (EMC) of the IEEE Power Engineering Society is at the forefront of the IEEE harmonization effort. This paper will give some historical background and summarize the details of this effort.
I. INTRODUCTION

N. E. Nilsson
Ohio Edison Company 76 South Main Street

Akron, Ohio 44308 USA

For example, TC 2 covers rotating machinery and TC 98 is responsible for Electrical Insulation Systems. Fifty-one (51) nations are represented by a national committee. The presentation of material is a formal process that involves comment cycles and balloting. Once a document is approved, it becomes available in a dual language publication, French and English.
III. THE IEEE STANDARDS PROCESS

At the 1994 IEEE Winter Power Meeting in New York City, the IEEE EMC Task Force on standards harmonization met on February 2 to assign specific documents for comparison. IEC documents representing the international standards were to be compared with the American standards including IEEE, ANSI and NEMA documents. Ad hoc committees were established for nine categories of electric machinery. These categories were I Induction Machines (large), I1 - Induction Machines (medium size), I11 - Cylindrical Rotor Synchronous Machines, IV - Salient Pole Hydro Synchronous Machines, V - Other Salient Pole Synchronous Machines, VI DC Machines, VI1 Permanent Magnet Machines and Controllers, VI11 - Electrical Machine Insulation and IX which is a General category. Note that Table 1 is tabulated by category. The Task Force has reconvened annually at the IEEE WPM to report progress on the assigned comparisons. This paper will summarize the results of the comparisons by category. Additionally, two papers have been authored recently by Task Force members describing the details of two specific comparisons. They will also be summarized. This work will serve as the basis for hrther harmonization efforts. Two routes to harmonization are discussed. Whatever route is taken, the process will be slow, perhaps requiring as long as ten years.

11. THE IEC STANDARDS PROCESS

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is an international organization with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Equipment is classified into various categories superintended by a Technical Committee (TC).
PE-1226-EC-0-2.1998 A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE Electric Machinery Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion. Manuscript submitted August 27, 1997: made available for printing February 18, 1998.

The Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is a transnational society with membership worldwide. The IEEE has its headquarters in the United States in New York City. Standards activities are overseen by the Standards Board. Standards project sponsors are appointed to revise, reaffirm or establish standards, and the sponsor is the chair of a working group affiliated with an IEEE technical committee. For example, most IEEE electric machinery standards are overseen by working groups reporting to subcommittees of the IEEE Power Engineering Society (PES) Electric Machinery Committee (EMC). The typical cycle of a standard is five years, after which the standard should he reviewed for reaffirmation or revision. The affiliation of working group members must be diverse. That is, a standard developed by a working group with more than fifty percent of its membership composed of representatives from manufacturers or users wiIl not be approved by the Standards Board. It should be noted that the IEEE EMC Harmonization Task Force, in a few cases, compared IEC standards with ANSI and NEMA standards. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) presently does not generate any of its own rotating machinery standards. It approves other standards, such as those of IEEE and NEMA, as ANSI standards. Many ANSI standards cany a dual IEEE/ANSI designation. NEMA is the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and is the sponsor of NEMA Std. MG-1 (Motors and Generators). This is not an industly consensus document as only manufacturers are permitted to send delegates to NEMA standards activities. It should be noted that NEMA is the Secretariat for the ANSI C50 Committee (Rotating Electric Machinery).

0885-8969/99/$10,00 0 1998 IEEE

1319

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF THE NINE CATEGORIES (See the Introduction of this paper for a descriptionofeach category)

Category

Comparisons IEC 34-1 IEC 34-1,2,14 IEC 892 IEC 34-1 IEC 34-1 IEC 34-2 IEC 34-3 None Yet IEC34-1,2, 14,15 IEC 34-1,2,19 None Yet IEC 34-15 IEC 34-18 IS0 1680 IEEE 112 ANSI C50.41 NEMA MG-I IEEE 112, Sec. 8 ANSI C50.14.15 IEEE 115. ANSlC50 None Yet NEMAMG-1,IEEE 115 IEEE 113 None Yet IEEE 522 IEEE 275,434 IEEE 85

Identical 6 3 3 3 2
0

Similar

Different
0

Not Completed or No Comparison

11

9
19 0 4 24 19 12

IO
3 I

29
0 0

II Ill

IO
6 6

3 3 11
0

21 12 4

IV V VI VI1 Vlll

I5 25
6 4

23 5

IO
28
9 I I1 153 (36.0%)

1
9

I X
TOTALS (PERCENT)

3 2 39 (9.0%)

IO
127 (29.0%)

8 112 (26.0%)

IV. SUMMARY OF CATEGORIES

Progress has been made by members of the IEEE EMC Task Force on Standards Harmonization. Accordingly, it would he of interest to know how much similarity exists between the IEEE standards and IEC standards prior to major efforts at harmonization. Table I summarizes the comparisons by machine categoty. To put the information in Table I into perspective, note that six categories of machines are considered complete. One category is similar to categories already completed and so the work required to finish it will be minimal. No work has been done in one category. In the last category, general comparisons remain to be done. Also, note that due to the content of IEC Std. 892, NEMA Std. MG-1 was used for the comparison. Two conclusions can be drawn from this table. First, there are opportunities for harmonization. Twenty-six percent of the standards are different while thirty-eight percent are identical, or similar. Secondly, some process will be needed to address the fact that there is no comparison for thirty-six percent of the standards. In other words, there is a standard requirement in either the IEEE standards or the IEC standards for which there is no equivalent in the other set of standards.
V. IEEE AND IEC STANDARDS FOR INSULATION

Two early papers have been presented discussing the results of some of the comparisons illustrated in Table 1. They are discussed in Sections V and VI. The paper, Harmonization of IEEE & IEC Electrical Insulation Standards, by R. F. Weddleton and E. J. Van Vooren [2] was presented in September of 1995 at the

Electrical Electronics Insulation Conference in Rosemont, Illinois. Effort in this area is overseen by the IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 4 (SCC 4): Electrical Insulation. The related IEC body is Technical Committee (TC) 98: Electrical Insulation Systems. A specific comparison is made of IEC Std. 85-1984, Thermal Evaluation and Classification of Electrical Insulation, IEEE Std. 1-1986, General Principles for Temperature Limits in Rating of Electric Equipment and for the Evaluation of Electrical Insulation. IEC Std. 85 relates the Thermal Class to the maximum temperature at rated load, while the IEEE Standard relates it to normal operating conditions and permissible emergency temperature limits or peak load operation. However, the IEC Standard may cover expected excursions with the statement making due allowance for factors, peculiar to the product in question. The IEC Standard maintains the letter classes, including Class E (120C) not included in IEEE Standards. It also extends the classes to 250 and above. IEEE Std. 1 states that insulating system classes may be designated by letters, but does not list them. The numerical Material Temperature Classes given deal specifically with insulating materials, not systems. One of the major contributions of this paper on the subject of standards harmonization is the discussion on goals of and routes to harmonization. The outcome of the harmonization process is not clear cut. One goal might be to retain two sets of standards, IEEE and IEC, identifying similarities and differences. This might be beneficial in cases where a customer buys a product specified to both standards. In that case, common tests would have to he performed only once. On the other hand, goal 2 would be to have a single set of standards. While more far reaching and more complex, this is probably the logical goal for

1320

harmonization. How does an entity arrive at one set of standards? RouleA is to make a detailed comparison of the standards and resolve the differences. Route B is simply to choose the better standard. Whatever route is taken, the process will be slow, perhaps requiring as long as ten years.
VI. ANSI AND IEC STANDARDS FOR INDUCTION MOTORS

The paper, A comparison of ANSI and IEC Standards for Power Station Polyphase Induction (Asynchronous) Motors, by N. E. Nilsson [ l ] was presented at the 1996 Winter Power Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland. ANSI C50.41-1982, Polyphase Induction Motors for Power Stations, is compared with the polyphase asynchronous motor (hereinafter referred to as motor) requirements of the following IEC standards:
1) 34-1: 1994, Rating and Performance 2) 34-2: 1972, Methods for Determining Losses and Efficiency. 3) 34-5:1991, Classification of Degrees of Protection Provided by Enclosures 4) 34-8: 1990, Terminal Markings and Direction of Rotation 5) 34-9:1990, Noise Limits 6 ) 34-12:1980, Starting Performance of Induction Motors 7) 34-14:1988, Measurement, Evaluation and Limits of Vibration Severity 8) 72-1: 1991, Dimensions and Output Series

ANSI Std. (30.41.25 specifies that high potential (hipot) tests shall he performed hut does not specify the test level. ANSI does, however, specify in Section 8 that W - I and W-I1 frame motors shall have sealed insulation systems with sufficient moisture resistance to withstand an immersion test. In addition to specifying one minute test levels, IEC Std. 34-1:1994 permits a five second test at 120 percent of the normal test voltage. IEC also specifies hipot levels for motors after repair or refurbishment IEC is silent on continuous loading above nameplate rating. ANSI Std. CS0.41.9.3.1 contemplates a continuous loading above nameplate by specifying that the motor may be procured with a service factor (SF) rating. A typical overload rating is 1.15 service factor. When a motor is operated at 1.15 SF, it may have efficiency, power factor and speed values different from those at rated load. Although not explicitly stated, it should be clear that a 1.15 SF motor operated at nameplate rating (1.0 SF) will have lower temperature rises than the maximum specified levels for unity SF motors. At this time, no SF ratings are specified for motors used with various adjustable speed drives (ASDs) such as six pulse, twelve pulse and PWM type ASDs. Nevertheless, it is common practice to use motors with SFs greater than unity to provide margin for heating in the motor caused by the k(6n i 1) harmonics generated by the ASD.
VII. RECENT STANDARDS COMPARISONS

While there are a number of similarities, there are issues that are addressed by one standard hut not by the other. For example, ANSI is silent on the issue of harmonic voltages, but IEC 34-1.12.2.1 specifies that motors shall be suitable for operation on a supply voltage having a harmonic voltage factor (HVF) not exceeding 0.02. This value is 0.03 per unit for normal torque motors. During temperature rise testing, the HVF shall not exceed 0.015. The HVF can be computed as follows:

Recently IEEE Std. 113-1985, Test Procedures for Direct Current Machines has been compared with the appropriate sections of IEC Std. 34-1,344 and 34-19. This new material has been included in Table 1 of this paper and supplements the information in Table 1 of the digest paper presented at the International Electric Machines and Drives Conference (IEMDC97) presented in Milwaukee, May 1821, 1997. There are a number of similarities between the two sets of standards, particularly in the area of identification of specific losses, measurement of current and voltage ripple, measurement of inductances and speed regulation. There are significant differences in the following areas: 1) Brush drop loss: IEC defines brush voltage drop as 0.6 volts for metal-carbon brushes and 2 volts for carbon or graphite brushes. IEEE Std. 113 defines brush voltage drop as 0.5 volts for metal-carbon brushes, 2 volts for carbon or graphite brushes with shunts attached or 3 volts for carbon or graphite brushes without shunts attached. 2) Definitions: IEC gives a list of terms and definitions while IEEE Std. 113 refers to a dictionary standard. 3) Ripple: IEEE Std. 113 specifies ripple free operation as being less than 6 percent peak-to-peak AC (2

where

n is the order of the harmonic Vn is the per unit value of the harmonic voltage
On the other hand, IEC is silent on the issue of bus transfer limits. ANSI Std. C50.41.8 states that the winding end turns shall he adequately braced and supported to withstand the starting capabilities and to withstand the bus transfer of 1.33 per unit volts per hertz.

1321

percent RMS) for components greater than 500 hertz while IEC does not specify ripple free operation Nevertheless, IEEE uses the term on rectified power for motor conditions not meeting the ripplefree criteria. Both standards indicate that stray load loss varies as the square of current. Where they differ is that IEC specifies stray load loss as 1 percent of full load for uncompensated machines and 0.5 percent of full load for compensated machines. The IEEE standard identifies test procedures for determination of stray load loss and recommends 1 percent of full load be used only in the absence of test data. The IEEE standard covers vibration testing, insulation resistance, magnetic saturation, audio noise, electromagnetic interference, exciter response, shaft currents and moment of inertia, while IEC does not. Additionally, a comparison of standards for salient-pole synchronous machines excluding hydro machines was completed recently. IEC 34-1, 2, 14 and 15 are compared with IEEE Std. 115 and NEMA Std. MG-1. There were portions of IEEE Std. 522 included in this comparison. A paper summarizing the results was submitted for review for the 1997 IEEE Summer Power Meeting in Berlin, Germany by N. K. Ghai of MagneTek. A number of the comparisons are the same as those described for other categories of machines; however, some of the more interesting differences are as follows: 1) There is a significant variation in voltage surge capability requirements. For a 2.3 kV machine, the 1.2 microsecond capability required by IEC is 7.6 per unit. IEEE requires 5.0 per unit and NEMA requires 4.5 per unit. The requirement at approximately 0.2 microseconds also varies. IEC requires 4.9 per unit, IEEE requires 3.5 per unit and NEMA requires 2.0 per unit. 2) The greatest difference between NEMA and IEC standards concerns machine performance standards. The IEC requires tolerances on the order of ten to fifteen percent. Nevertheless, the tolerance for the peak value of generator short circuit current is plus or minus 30 percent. NEMA does not recognize tolerances on stated performance. It is usually a matter of agreement between the owner and the manufacturer whether the stated performance is nominal or guaranteed.
Also, since the original draft of this paper was completed, a paper summarizing the comparison of IEC and ANSI standards for synchronous generators that was presented in a panel discussion at a recent IEEE Winter Power Meeting has been published. The authors conclude that both sets of standards are similar; however, in the design of thermal

cooling systems, the IEC standards appear to impose less stringent constraints. When designing a machine to comply with IEC standards, it is possible to design for higher electrical winding current densities than is the case for ANSI standards. In one example involving relatively low voltage air cooled generators, when limiting 60 Hz operation by ANSI standards for a given temperature classification and limiting 50 Hz operation by IEC standards for an equivalent class, the designers discovered that it is possible to raise 50 Hz torque nearly 20 percent above 60 Hz torque resulting in 50 Hz output power being essentially equal to 60 Hz output despite the lower speed.
VI11 ONGOING ACTIVITIES

The harmonization process is not static. There are activities in process at this time to close the gap between the IEEE and IEC. The EMC Harmonization Task Force has recommended the following action to the EMC: I) IEC Std 34-17, ,Guidefor the Application o f Cage Induction Motors When Fed From Converters. This recent IEC document should be evaluated by the appropriate IEEE subcommittee. 2) Provisional Methods for Determining Losses and Eflciency of Converter Fed Induction Machines. This document was submitted to the IEC Central Office in Final Form in June of 1995. Interestingly, much of the work that went into the preparation of this document was performed in the United States. This material should be adopted by IEEE directly from the IEC document when it becomes available. The harmonization effort is working in both directions. IEEE Std. 112, Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, which was recently revised, has been submitted to IEC for Member Nation comments in consideration for adoption as an IEC document. The IEC Subcommittee 2G (SCZG), Rotating Machinery Test Methods and Procedures, convened in Helsinki in June of 1996 and it was reported that 10 pages of comments were submitted by 9 different nations pertaining to IEEE Std. 112. These comments will be reviewed by SC2G for possible inclusion within planned revisions of IEC 34-2. The IEC does not have a standard that addresses test procedures for induction machines and IEEE Std. 112 has already been embraced by the international community as the seminal document on this subject. The IEC does not presently have a standard on insulation resistance testing. Accordingly, it has been suggested when the latest revision has been completed for IEEE Std. 43, Recommended Practice for Testing Insulation Resistance of Rotating Machinery, that it be considered for submission by the U S . National Committee to the IEC.

1322

Finally, it should be noted that the harmonization effort within the IEEE EMC has been headed by P. I. Nippes since its inception. There will be a changing of the guard in 1997. C. Kaminski is the new Chairman of the EMC Task Force in Standards Harmonization.
IX. REFERENCES

N. E. Nilsson, A Comparison of ANSI and IEC Standards for Power Station Polyphase Induction (Asynchronous) Motors, presented at the 1996 IEEE Winter Power Meeting, January 22, 1996, Baltimore, Maryland, paper 96 WM 132-1-EC. R. F. Weddleton and E. J. Van Vooren, Harmonization of IEEE C IEC Electrical Insulation Standards, Technical Paper TP-95132, July 14, 1995.
X. BIOGRAPHY

N. E. Nilsson (M-1971, SM-1982, F-1996) holds aBSEE degree from the University of Cincinnati (1971), an MSEE degree from the University of Akron (1975), and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Akron (1986). He is a Principal Engineer in the Ohio Edison Technical Services Department Project Services Section. His work assignments have included preparation of major equipment specifications, development of engineering computer programs to support technical analyses, development of relay protection schemes, and development of specialized testing programs to evaluate plant equipment and systems. Mr. Nilsson is a registered Professional Engineer in Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and a member of Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi. He is licensed as an attorney in Ohio and is a licensed Patent Attorney. Paul I. Nippes, P.E. president of Nippes-Bell Associates, Inc. and Magnetic Products and Services, Inc., has been involved with electrical machinery as a designer and consultant for over 47 years. During the past 20 years, Mr. Nippes has concentrated on solving shaft current problems and designing corrective products, including machine condition monitors. Prior to consulting, Mr. Nippes career as an Electrical Engineer included the following companies: ElectroDynamicMjeneral Dynamics Corporation, the Elliott Company, and the Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company. He had also been an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin. Mr. Nippes is a Fellow of IEEE, and has served as Chairman of ANSI C50 and IEC SC2G. He holds a BSEE. from Penn State (1950) and an MSEE from the University of Wisconsin (1955).