Heat Loss from Electrical and Control Equipment in Industrial Plants: Part ll-Results and Comparisons

Warren N. White, Ph.D. Anil Pahwa, Ph.D. Chris Cruz

ABSTRACT
Industrial plants use electrical power equipment to distributepower for lighting, driving motorized devices, operating HVAC equipment, and control of equipment. The main focus of this paper is to provide updated information on heat losses by various types of electricpower equipment. The information is organized by equipment type, andpracticalguidance on using this information to compute losses under dzfferent conditions is provided. The effect of loading margin used by designers in sizing the electric equipment, load diversity, and ambient temperature on heat loss is discussed. Uncertainties in the resultsfor different pieces of equipment are presented. Also, a comparison of the results to the previouslypublished information is provided,

INTRODUCTION
Engineers wanting to estimate heat loss to the surrounding environment from electrical power and control equipment in industrial plants and large buildings need updated information. This paper provides updated heat loss information on medium-voltage (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, medium-voltage switchgear, electric cables and cable trays, motor control centers and combination motor starters, inverters, battery chargers, low-voltage circuit breakers, electric motors, unit substations, series reactors, and adjustable-speed or variable-frequency drives (ASD or VFD). The first part of this paper describes the types and varieties of information sources for equipment heat loss, how tests were conducted, and the uncertainties associated with the gathered data. The second part of this paper reports the study results.
-

Helpful information to guide designers on using this updated information to compute heat loss is provided for each piece of equipment in the form of load diversity, design margin, and the effect of the ambient environmental temperature. Load diversity assigns a fraction to a piece of equipment subjected to partial duty over a period of time. This fraction is used to determine 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 for this variation stems from the dissipation ofheat varying either linearly with or as the square ofthe load current. The definition of the diversity factor or fraction for each equipment category will be presented. Design margin accounts for unanticipated increase in demand and opportunity for future growth. The level of design margin assigned by the engineer ranges from 100% for well-defined, noncritical applications to 50% for conceptual designs and highly critical applications. Typically 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 (XJ0.5). Uncertainties in the results are discussed for each piece of equipment. Many of these uncertainties stem from differences from manufacturer to manufacturer of the same type of equipment. A comparison of the final results to previously published results is provided in the form of tables or graphs of data. The previously published data include Rubin (1979) and McDonald and Hickok (1985).

Warren N. White is an associate professor and Chris Cruz is a graduate student in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department, and Anil Pahwa is a professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kans.

02004 ASHRAE.

Table I. General Purpose Dry-Type Units Having an 80C Temperature Rise

Temperature Rise ( O C ) Rated Voltage Kilo-VoltAmps Average No Load Losses
(w)

Average Full Load Losses

(w)

100% Margin Total Losses

(w)

80% Margin Total Losses

(w)

50% Margin Total Losses

0 ' )
480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 48OD-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 480D-208Y 15kD-480Y 15kD-480Y 15kD-480Y 15kD-480Y 15kD-480Y 15kD-480Y

(w)
399 656 569 698 728 1 0 4 3 1217 1258 1609 2155 2470 4 11 4 5783 3650 5050 5900 7900 10375 11 8 2 5

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 RESULTS Transformers

1 5 2 5 30 3 7 . 5 45 50 75 11 2 . 5 150 225 300 500 750 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500

330 530 415 530 487.5 700 725 700 1075 1450 1650 2900 3640 2400 2800 3500 5000 6500 7200

277 502 616.5 671 963.5 1 3 7 1 1 9 6 9 . 5 2230 2136 2820.5 3279 4857 8572 5000 9000 9600 11600 15500 18500

607 1032 1032 1 2 0 1 1 4 5 1 2071 2695 2930 3211 4271 4929 7757 12212 7400 11800 13100 16600 22000 25700

507 8 51 810 959 1104 1577 1 9 8 5 2127 2442 3255 3749 6008 9126 5600 8560 9644 12424 16420 19040

There are a variety of different transformer types. A small sample of the available data is presented here. Table 1 presents information concerning general purpose dry-type units, with an 80C temperature rise. Other units could have different temperature rises. Table 2 contains data concerning general purpose liquid-filled units. The full-load loss figures in Tables 1 and 2 correspond to rated current. The losses at any fractional load can be determined by Total losses = no load losses

+ load losses x (~m' ,

(1)

age of load. For low-voltage units (600, 208, 120 volts), the given load percentage for peak efficiency is 35%, while for medium-voltage units, the load value for peak efficiency is 50%. The efficiencies of these dry-type units are referred to an average winding rise temperature of 7SC, while the liquid immersed efficiencies are referred to an average winding temperature rise of 85C. Losses vary linearly with winding temperature. Referring the efficiencies to a particular winding temperature allows comparison between units. The temperature to which the losses are referred is listed at the top of Table 3. Given the full capability of the unit in kVA, the full-load losses for the NEMA TP1 units are approximately
pf x kVA x 1 0 0 0 ( 1 -

where LF = the load fraction, i.e., the fraction of full-load current (between zero and one). Transformer losses are not a strong function of environmental temperature; thus, the full-load and no-load losses can be considered as constant regardless of the ambient tenperature. Those power and lighting transformers (and larger units) built and tested in accordance with the NEMA TP1 Standard (NEMA 1996) have maximum efficiencies that either exceed or meet those efficiencies shown in Table 3 at a given percentASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

&)
watts ,

F u l l load losses =

wn+,

(2)

where
p f
= = =

LF
q

power factor, load fraction for peak efficiency (0.35 or 0.5), and efficiency from Table 3 correspondingto kVA and unit type.

Table 2.
Rated Voltage Substation
15kD-480Y 225 760

General Purpose Liquid-Filled Units

Total Losses Total Losses

3400

4160

2936

1610

Table 3.

NEMA TPI Efficiencies-q

Efficiency % Dry Type, Medium Voltage,
96.8

Kilo-Volt-Amps
15

Efficiency % Dry Type, Low Voltage, 7SC

97

Liquid Immersed, Medium

98.0

The power factor in Equation 2 depends upon the electrical load, e.g., 0.8 for motor loads or 1.0 for resistive loads. The no load losses are approximately

require any temperature correction. The temperature correction consists of multiplying the load losses by the factor of
Temperature correction factor =
( TK TREF)
+

No load losses =pf

- (LF)

kVA

100 IOOO(LF)(- - 1) 1

(TK+ 75C) '

(3)

where
TK
=

(load 1osses)watts .

The losses provided by Equations 2 and 3 correspond to the average winding temperature rises shown at the top of Table 3. The load losses for all 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
854

234.5OC for copper windings and 225C for aluminum windings, and

TREF = reference temperature shown in Table 4.

Once the temperature corrected load and no load losses are determined, Equation 1 can be used to calculate the losses at the given level of loading. ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

Table 4.

Limits for Temperature Rises for Dry-Type Units

Class (OC) Average Winding Temperature Rise (OC) TREF - Standard Reference Temperature (OC)
130
75
95

Diversity is only appliedto the loadlosses, whereas the no load losses remain constant as long as the unit is energized. Modifying Equation 1 to account for diversity provides the relation,
Average total losses
2
=

Medium Voltage Switchgear

no load losses

+ load losses x (LF) x diversity factor.

(5)

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 15 kV breakers and 5 kV breakers as 15 kV breaker loss
=

In order to determine the diversity factor, the time average of the load fraction in the RMS (root mean square) sense has to be found by the relation,

13800 volts x 1.73 x Irared (9)

x (I/I,.~,,~)~ xp f x 0.00006 watts ,

5 kV breaker loss

= 4160

volts x 1.73 x Iraled (10)

x (~/l,,,~)~ x p f x 0.0001 watts ,

where where
TI
= = =

p f

power factor (nominally 0.9),

LFL T2

time spent operating with a low load fraction, low load fraction, time spent operating with a high load fraction,

Irated = the rated line current for the breaker in amps, (I/Irated)= the load fraction of the breaker.

LFH = high load fraction, and LFAvE = average load fraction. The diversity factor is then given by Diversity factor = (LF~~~/LF)*, (7)

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:

where LF = load fraction corresponding to expected peak load of the unit (usually LFH). The power loss, taking into account margin information, is Power loss with margin = no load loss + load loss x ( ~ / 1 0 0 ) ,~

where

IL = low current flowing through breaker for time TI, IH = high current flowing through breaker for time T2, IAVE = average current in RMS sense.
A diversity factor can then be defined to be used to determine the current values to enter into the spreadsheet of Figure 1. Diversity factor = IAVE/ZH (12)

(8)

where M = the margin. The value of M is either 100% for full loading, 80% for expected (recommended) loading applications, or 50% for critical applications. Transformer literature states that power losses are only weakly influenced by the ambient temperature. The loss information presented came from manufacturers that followed relevant IEEE standards for measuring and reporting transformer losses. As a result, the uncertainty of the loss values reported by these manufacturers is +lo% or less.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

The margins for medium voltage switchgear are 100% for full-load applications, 80% for commercial applications, and 50% for critical 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.
855

WATTS LOSS DATA

MEDIUM VOLTAGE SWITCHGEAR
Enler /he icenr quanlily in lhfs ~ulunrn Welt lossfur ilemr a p p a a in (his column

LOAD CURRENT

I
Figure 1 Medium voltage switchgear spreadsheet.

I
TOTAl.WATl'Srl ITEM

I
I

856

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

Cables and Cable Trays

The bulk ofcable losses are the resistive losses in the main conductors. Thus, if the number of cables and their physical arrangement in the 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 in a tray. However, normal industry practice and the following simplifying assumptions make it possible to compute losses. Specific factors considered are: 1. 2. 3. 4. A cable tray can have cables of only one voltage level at a time. All of the cables in a tray are considered to be three-phase cables and are of the same size. Total height of the cable bundle does not exceed 3 in. Only single layers are considered for 5 kV and 15 kV cables for all sizes because the height of the bundle even for the smallest size would exceed 3 in. Multiple layers are considered for 600 V cables. A packing or fill factor 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 to be stacked one on top of the other with airspace in between each stack. The cables are sized such that normal fdl-load current is 80% of the ampacity at 90C. A diversity factor 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. Sheath and armor loss factor of 0 for 600 V cables, 5% for 5 kV cables, and 10% for 15 kV cables are considered.

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 McDonald and Hickok (1985) where the loss per foot of cable length of a three-phase (as indicated by the factor of 3) cable bundle is watts losslft = ( I x 0.48)~ x R11000 x 3 , where (13)

I
R

= =

rated current in amps, and resistance value in ohms11000 ft.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

The inclusion of diversity in the loss predictions is accomplished by multiplying the rated current by the diversity factor, representing the fraction of the time the rated current is flowing through the cable. An ambient temperature of 32C increased the losses by an average of 2.3% in comparison to the losses at 26C. 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. Calculations 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

10. An ambient temperature of 26C is considered for calculations. Table 5 shows average losses for trays of different size of the selected voltage levels. These losses are for the conditions specified above. If specific information, such as number of cables and their sizes, for a tray is not available, 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).
Table 5.
KSU

Motor control 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 components, 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

Cable Tray Losses at Selected Voltages

KSU Rubin KSU 15 kV (Wlft)
3

Rubin 600 V (Wlft)

-

Rubin
15 kV (Wlft)
-

Tray Size (in.)

6 12 18

600 V (Wlft) 10
23
36

5 kV (Wlft)
4 8 12

5 kV (Wlft)
-

23 35

26 39

7
11

26 42

24
30

47
61

47
58

16
22

53
65

15
19

55
68

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

857

Table 6.

Losses per Cable of Different Sizes at Selected Voltages for Three Conductor, Three Phase Cables
M&H
I

KSU
I

KSU
I

M&H

KSU 15 kV (Wlft)
-

M&H
15 kV (Wlft)

Cable Size
# 8 AWG

600 V (Wlft)

600 V (Wlft)

5 kV (Wlft)
-

5 kV (Wlft)
-

1.49 1.73 1.69 2.02

1.63 1.90 1.93 2.28

# 6 AWG
#

4 AWG

# 2 AWG

2.38

2.64

2.68

2.83

350 kcmil

750 kcmil

cabinets. In each cabinet, asecondarybus carries current vertically to the 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. It 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 in a manifold. This distribution of the 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 of the motor control center is a given fact for any application. The motor horsepower, 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, cif; is the fraction that provides the RMS compartment current over a 24-hour period when multiplied by the compartment current (defined in Equation 11 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 left. The compartments in each cabinet are listed in order from top to bottom. Each row of the spread-

sheet essentially performs the same calculation. Given the motor horsepower and efficiency, q, the kW ofpower supplied by the starter is

The compartment current flowing through the starter is

I =

kW * 1000 amp line voltage * & * pf

The line voltage used in this example is 480 volt, three phase, andpf is the power factor. The riser current is determined by the relation, riser current for this compartment = compartment current * df + riser current from compartment below, (16) where d f
=

diversity factor.

As one steps upward through the compartments of a cabinet, it is seen that the riser current increases. The vertical bus loss in the riser for each compartment is determined by bus loss = (riser current /rated bus ~ u r r e n t ) ~ x rated bus loss per standard length x compartment height, (17) where rated bus current
=

300 or 600 amps.

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

800 Anp
Circuit

Blak

Breaker

Blank

N W 1 5hp y 8 5 % p H 9 dH.8 Blank

NFM1 4hp W h p m . 9 df-1.0 W 2 20 143 q=%?h pf4.9 &lo NEMA3 35 hp 1 @ 5 % p m . 9 df-1.0

NEMA 1 3hp @So/,

As one steps through the cabinets, it is seen that the horizontal bus current increases. Once the bus currents are determined, the losses are determined by the relation, Bus loss = (bus current /rated bus currentl2 x rated bus loss per 20" cabinet width.

p m . 9

df-1.0 NEM42 15 1p m h pW.9 W . 8

Blank

(19)

NEMb.3 45 hp m h pH.9 m. 8

NEMA3 40hP f l h

p m . 9

w. 8

NEMA5 2Ki hp m h p m . 9 W.8

N W 5 150 hp y 8 5 %

p m . 9
e l

NEMA4 75 hp q=w?/o p m . 9 d H . 8

NEM.44 mhp m h p m . 9 m. 8

Figure 2 Motor control center example setup.

Note that the rated bus loss per standard length is listed in Figure 3. As an example, consider the losses in the vertical bus of the 35 hp starter in the second cabinet. The losses are (107.481300)~ x (50 watts16 ft) x 2 ft = 2.14 watts. 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* dn2, where R is the resistance of the starter circuit, I is the starter current in amps, anddf is the starter diversity factor. For the 80 hp starter in the first cabinet, the losses are 18.8 watts + 0.001488fl x (0.8 x 88.59 amps)' = 26.27 watts. For convenience, the resistance value and height of each NEMA combination 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 horizontal bus losses, the cabinets and cabinet currents are listed according to cabinet number. The horizontal bus current in the cabinet is calculated using the relation, horizontal bus current of cabinet = cabinet riser current + horizontal bus current of previous cabinet. (18) ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

For instance, the horizontal bus loss of the first cabinet will be (87.67 amps 1800 amps12 x 40 watts = 0.48 watts. All of the current flowing 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 lowvoltage breaker loss is presented in another section. The individual losses are totaled to provide the power loss of the motor control center. Sometimes the breaker might be placed in the middle of a 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. ohmic ~ heating, Since the starter losses are based on 1 2 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 switchgear. The design margin for motor control centers is 80% in commercial applications, 100% in full-load applications, and 50% in critical application. However, since the loading of a given starter may not be indicative of the entire motor control center, the margin number should be used for motor control center 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 full load. From manufacturer data, the inverter efficiency remains close to the peak value when operated from about 50% to 100% full load. Below 50% full load, the efficiency falls almost exponentially. The inclusion of diversity in the loss predictions is accomplished by multiplying the estimated losses occurring during normal operation by the diversity factor, representing the fraction of the time the inverter is driving the intended load. The margin for inverters in commercial applications is 100% and 50% in critical applications. No information has been located with regard to the influence of ambient temperature on inverter losses. The information presented here was obtained
859

( I )

= .

..

v,

LT

( I )

SSOl

ssol sduly S n a le)UOZ!lOH a s e v d E

'loas 46!4 ,,ZL l s l l e M 0011 009 .laas r16!r1 ,,ZLIsUeM OSI OOE sso1 sduly s s o l s n g leo!)laA a s e q d E

SZSPOO'O PSLPEO'O S'9 s ~ q o sJJeM 'U aoue)slsaHssol A e l a ~ ) q 8 ! a ~

S VW3N t VW3N E VW3N Z VW3N C VW3N

Table 7.

Inverter Efficiencies and Power Losses

DC Bus Volts

23270 50 6818 130 88 50 60 75 100 260 130 260 260 88 84 86 87 23270 31214 33346 6818 9146 9770

40815 11959 -

Three Phase kVA

10 15 20 30 40 50 60 75 100 DC Bus Volts 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 260 260

Margin Efficiency
80 81 82 82 83 84 85 87 87

100%

50%

Full Load Loss (Btulh)

6850 9600 12000 17985 22375 26010 28920 30600 40800

Full Load Loss

Load Loss
(w)

(w)
2007 2813 3516 5270 6556 762 1 8473 8966 11954

1004 1406 1758 2635 3278 3810 4237 4483 5977

from manufacturer literature and Web sites. Table 7 provides a list of single- and three-phase inverters with power loss specified in both watts and B t d h as a hnction of the kVA rating of the inverter. The maximum incoming DC current determines the kVA of the inverter. ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

Battery Chargers

It is important to realize how a battery charger is used. Batteries are usually used in supplying emergency power during infrequent situations. Once the emergency is over, the batteries are recharged. During this recharging situation, the
861

battery charger will experience heavy usage and the dissipated heat will be greatest during this time. During normal operation, the chargerwill be lightly loaded, maintaining the battery charge and possibly supplying some DC load. Thus, the usage norm for the charger could quite probably consist of a light load. Other applications of battery chargers consist of forklifts, telephone systems, and golf carts, where it is seen that the charger usage will vary over a 24-hour period. The full load losses are roughly 2.5 times greater than the no load losses. The heat loss for fractional loading of the battery charger is determined by Q = no load loss + X

supplying the DC load. Including the diversity factor, the result of the previous equation is Q = (QFL/2.5) * (1 + 1.5 * X * diversity factor) .
(21)

* (QFL- no load loss) = (QFL/2.5) + X

+

* (QFL - (QFL'~.~)) = (QFL'~.~ *)

where Q QFL X
= = =

*3

(20)

heat loss in watts at load fraction, 111-load heat loss, and load fraction of charger.

The margin for battery chargers in commercial applications is 100% and 50% in critical application. Thus, in commercial application the loss figure obtained from Table 8 would not require any modification. If the load on the charger can be estimated, then a smaller loss figure than the one provided by the table could be used in the HVAC heat load calculation. The effect of environmental temperature is unknown due to data coming solely from manufacturers and no testing being performed. Table 8 is representative ofbattery charger losses. There are many combinations of input and output voltage; Table 8 is a small sample of the data available. The battery charger loss presented in Table 8 was computed by Watts loss
= IBC x

VB x (1 - q1100) ,

(22)

If a diversity factor is included, this diversity factor should be applied only to the fractional load loss and not to the no load loss. The diversity factor is the fraction the charger is actively Table 8.

where IBC = Output culTent, VB = output voltage, and q = battery charger efficiency, %.

60 Hz Three-Phase Battery Charger Comparison

Output (DC) Volts
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 48

Input (Three Phase) Volts

208 208 208 240 240 240 480 480 480 208

Efficiency YO

Power Loss (KSU) Watts

576 864 1152 576

Power Loss (Rubin) Watts

720 1080 1440 720 1080

Amps
19.5 29.3 39.1 16.9 25.4 33.9 8.5 12.7 16.9 39.1

Amps
200 300 400 200 300 400 200 300 400 200

q
88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88

8 64
1152 576 864 1152 1152 1728 2304 1152 1728 2304 1152 1728

1080 1440 1440

208 240 240 240 480 480 480

78.1 33.9 50.8 67.7 16.9 25.4 33.9

48 48 48 48 48 48

400 200 300 400 200 300

88 88 88 88 88 88

2880 1440 2160 2880 1440 2160

48

400

88

2304

2880

862

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

Table 9.

Low-Voltage Breaker Losses and Resistance Values in Ohms

Watts LossWatts LossW I Enclosure ResistanceResistance-

Frame Current (amps)

wlo Enclosure

225 250 400 600 800 1200 1600 2000 3000 3200 4000 5000

60.0 7 1.1 147 215 330 865 1000 1500 2250 2400 3000 4700

90.0 73.6 220.5 322.5 440 1080 1500 2250 3375 3600 4500 7050

0.001 1852 0.001 1376 0.00091 88 0.0005972 0.0005 156 0.0006007 0.0003906 0.000375 0.00025 0.0002344 0.0001875 0.0001 88

0.00 17778 0.001 1776 0.0013781 0.0008958 0.0006875 0.00075 0.0005859 0.0005625

p p p

p p

0.00035 16 0.0002813 0.000282

Rubin (1979) used a relation similar to Equation 22 for-the calculation of battery charger heat loss but added a safety factor of 1.25. Rubin's relation for determining battery charger heat loss was used in the calculation of the comparison numbers listed in Table 8 and is given as Watts loss = 1.25 x IBC x VBx (1 - ~l1100).
Low-Voltage Circuit Breakers

commercial applications, 100% in full-load applications, and 50% in critical applications. To determine the breaker current for the loss calculation, perform the calculation of Breaker current = (%margin1100) x rating plug current value.

(23)

(25)

Circuit breakers are segregated according to frame sizes. The frame size is the maximum current the breaker is designed to pass safely in normal operation. A breaker in a given frame can be made to trip at lower current values by using a rating plug that conesponds to those limits, Table 9 shows a range of low-voltage circuit breaker frame sizes. For each frame size, loss figures are provided for the cases of with and without an enclosure. Measurements have shown that the breaker enclosure significantly influences the amount ofthe heat loss. These loss figures represent the losses that occur when rated frame current flows in the breaker, For smaller currents, the resistance values presented in Table 9 are used to predict the heat loss through " an I'R calculation.
~ ~

The current value produced by Equation 25 is the value to be used in the loss calculation. Tests of the influence of breaker heat loss have little correlation. In these tests, the environmental temperature was varied from 25C to 50C. Values in Table 9 to 60, loo, 250, and 1200 frames are within were measured, and the uncertainty of the +lo% of the reported loss values. Data for all of the other frames were obtained from manufacturer literature with the of the 3000 amp frame breaker where the loss were determined by between the 2000 and 3200 amp For those breakers not the indicated losses are representative of the expected values. The breaker losses may vary with manufacturer. Figure shows the losses at different current levels in two frames for comparison
Motors

Watts loss = I2 x R

(24)

where . I = trip rating in amps and R = resistance for the frame in ohms. The inclusion of load diversity is accomplished by

performing the loss calculation with the RMS current

determined by averaging the current over a 24-hour-or perhaps longer-period. The margin for breakers is 80% in
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

All manufacturer data for motors were in the form of e f i ciencies. Efficiency values were collected for polyphase elec~. tric motors for horsepower ratings from 10 to 2000 hp. The data were collected for a 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
-

863

- - - 225 Amp Frame- M&H - - - 600 Amp Frame - M&H

500

6 0 0

225 Amp Frame - KSU Amp Frame - KSU

- - . - -225 . Amp Frame - Rubin

600 Amp Frame - Rubin

Low Voltage Circuit Breaker Comparison

-

400 -

100

200

300
Heater Plug Amps

400

500

600

Figure 4 Low-voltage circuit breaker comparison.

for each horsepower rating. Using the average efficiency, the rate of heat loss for the motor is Watts loss = hp x 745.7 x (100/q) *(I-q/100) , (26)

where Hp = delivered power, and q = 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 is Watts Loss
= hp

x 746 x (1 - q/lOO).

(27)

thus, the conductor resistivity, significantly. Thus, the influence 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 f0.2% 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 averaging the nominal efficiencies from several different manufacturers. 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

Diversity is accounted for by using the average (over time) input power delivered to the motor in the first part of Equation 1. The equation for input power is Input power (watts)
= hp

x 745.7 x (100/q) .

(28)

The margin for electric motors is 80% in commercial applications, 100% in full-load applications, and 50% in critical applications. To determine the heat loss, taking into consideration margin, the calculation is Motor Heat Loss (watts) = (%margin/100) x Input power x (1 - ~$100)x 745.7 wattskp. (29) A variation of 20K of the environmental temperature would not influence the conductor absolute temperature and,
864

The unit substation can be thought of as low-voltage switchgear that might include (in addition to a transformer) circuit breakers, current transformers, control power transformers, auxiliary compartment, space heaters, circuit breakers, and high-current buses all arranged in a 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 a

spreadsheet to model the unit substation. Figure 6 shows the spreadsheet. For the components included in the loss calculaASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

Heat Loss (Watts) M 8 H

-Heat

Loss (Watts) KSU

---Heat . Loss (Watts) Rubin

160000 140000 120000 .-.

.

..=--

.'
1
T . . . . . . . .

.'

$ 1 ooooo

i.2:

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Motor Ratlng HP

Figure 5 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 each main incoming breaker is 2300 amps, while each of the 1600 amp feeders cany 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 longer-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 applications, 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

Power Loss = (reactor currentJrated current12 x Loss Value x temperature correction , where the temperature correction is given by , Temperature Correction = (rated T

(30)

+ TJ(25 + T& , (31)

where rated T ~ ,= rated winding temperature rise (usually 115"C), and = 234.SC for copper windings and 225C for T k aluminium. The loss value used in Equation 30 is obtained from Table 10 under the 100%margin heading for the 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, in the loss calculations. If TI is the time the reactor is in use with current I, and T2 is the time that the reactor is not being used in the work period, then the RMS reactor current is

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. For each 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

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 have shown that the reactor losses are neither a strong fimction of the enclosure nor the environmental temperature. All of the

WATTS LOSS DATA

600 V Switchgear

Figure 6 Unit substation example spreadsheet.

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

instruments

800 amp breaker 350 amp 800 amp breaker 300 amp 800 amp breaker 300 amp 800 amp m e r 350 amp

Instr.

Instruments

800 amp breaker 350 amp 800 amp breaker 300 amp 800 amp breaker 300 amp 800 amp breaker 350 amp

Instruments

4000 amp Main 2300 amp

Instr.

Fut ure

4000 amp Main 2300 amp

Future

4000 amp Tie

1600 amp feeder 1oooamP

1600 amp feeder OoO aV

Future

Figure 7

Unit substation example setup.

Table 10.

Reactor Power Loss in Watts at Rated Current and Room Temperature

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

867

--... 240 Volt - K

600 Volt - K
--.

U ~ U

Volt - K U - - - 460 McDolald &%ickok

/
/

/ / / /

# / / / / /

-/
/ / /

1 -

/ /
/ / /

/ /
/

._.-..-a-

_-.-. _...-

I._.--'

Horsepower

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 calculation were verified experimentally. In general, the agreement between the reported data points where testing was possible is well within +lo%. Adjustable-Speed Drives Losses in adjustable-speed drives 'vary linearly with current. For a given line-to-line voltage, the rated current varies linearly with the rated horsepower. Relations were developed to describe the full-load power loss in watts in terms of rated horsepower for different voltage levels. These relations are
= hprafed x 25.6234 + 276.073 watts , (33) 240 V: Prated

spond to the rated current (horsepower), the power losses are then predicted by
= Prated

(h~/h~rafed) =

('/'rated

(36)

where

P
hp

= =

power loss, actual horsepower,

I = actual current, and Irofed = rated current. In a given application, it is very likely that an ASD might only be used for a fraction of a standard workday or workweek. The losses adjusted for diversity would be
= 'rated

460 V: Prated = hprated x 13.45435 + 363.7949 watts, (34) and

= hprated x 14.55851 - 201.038 watts , (35) 600 V: Prated

(h~/h~rated) F~~~ = Prated

(Ilzrated) F

~ (37)

where FAsD
=

fraction of time ASD is in use over standard work period.

where Profed= full-load power loss at rated current and horsepower, and hprakd = rated horsepower of ASD. Equations 33 through 34 are curve fits of manufacturer data. These curve fits are valid for the horsepower range of 25 to 800 horsepower. If the current (horsepower) does not corre868

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 Equations 33, 34, or 35 would not require any modification. No information has been found regarding the influence of ambient temperature on the power losses of ASD devices. Of the tests performed in the production of this document, the ambient
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

temperature was not a factor in the measured power loss. The data used to determine the slope and intercept values in Equations 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 information 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) did provide information of percent efficiency for adjustablespeed drives based solely on horsepower rating. This efficiency was converted to watts loss by Equation 27, and all data are shown in Figure 8.
CONCLUSIONS

chair of the TC 9.2 Research Committee, Mr. Wayne Lawton of Giffels Associates, for his interest and advice in this effort. It is difficult for the authors to express the full extent of their 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 like to thank the following organizations that provided assistance, donated equipment for testing, andlor loaned us equipment for testing: ABB, Danfoss Graham, General Electric, Rockwell International, Stanion Wholesale Electric of Manhattan, KS, Tennessee Valley Authority, andU.S. Department of Energy.
REFERENCES

The ability to account for loading diversity and design margin are invaluable to the design engineer. It is 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 applications 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. It is interesting to note that when comparing data to previously published results where the authors had access to equipment and testing facilities (McDonald 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

Hickok, H.N. 1978. Energy losses in electrical power systems. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 14(5): 373-387. McDonald, W.J., and H.N. Hickok. 1985. Energy losses in electrical power systems. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications IA-2 l(4): 803-8 19. Rubin, I.M. 1979. Heat losses from electrical equipment in generating stations. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-98(4): 1149-1 152. IEEE. 1996. IEEE Standard 112-1996, Test Procedure for Polyphase Indzlction Motors and Generators. New York: IEEE Press. IEEE. 1996. IEEE Standard 115-1995, Guide: Test Procedures for Synchronous Machines. New York: IEEE Press. NEMA. 1996. NEMA TPI, Guide for Determining Energy Eficiency for Distribution Transformers. Virginia: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
DISCUSSION

Jim Elleson, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisc.: Equation 22 relates the battery charger losses to the efficiency and the product of output voltage and current, which is the output power. It appears 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

(100 / eff - 1)

The authors would like to thank ASHRAE TC 9.2 for sponsoring this work and TC 9.1 and TC 9.8 for endorsing 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 in the conduct of this investigation. Thanks are also in order for Mr. Deep Ghosh ofthe Southern Company, Mr. Dennis Wessel of Bacik, Karpinski Associates, Inc., and Mr. Dale Cagwin of Robson Lapina for serving on the Project Monitoring Subcommittee. We would also like to extend our thanks to the ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

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 = IBC x VBx (1 -?/loo) where IBC
=

(22)

output current

output voltage = battery charger efficiency - %. Since IBC is the output current and V, is the output voltage, the product ofthe two quantities is the outputpower. If the percent efficiency, q, is replaced by the symbol eff, then Equation 22 can be written as
V,
7

Watts loss = Output power x ( I

effI100)

which is exactly the first of the two equations presented by Mr. Elleson in the statement of his question and, also, deemed correct by Mr. Elleson. Since our results agree, our definitions of loss and efficiency concur.

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia