0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
289 visualizzazioni3 pagine
TEFC and WPII motors differ in their construction and cooling methods, which impacts their suitability for different applications. TEFC motors have enclosed internal components that interact less with the outside environment, making them more resistant to contamination and requiring less maintenance than WPII motors. However, WPII motors can achieve higher torque ratings in the same frame size. When selecting a motor, considerations include the operating environment, maintenance requirements, efficiency, and total lifetime costs between the motor types. Case studies show that for applications with frequent contamination, TEFC motors required less downtime and repairs compared to WPII motors.
TEFC and WPII motors differ in their construction and cooling methods, which impacts their suitability for different applications. TEFC motors have enclosed internal components that interact less with the outside environment, making them more resistant to contamination and requiring less maintenance than WPII motors. However, WPII motors can achieve higher torque ratings in the same frame size. When selecting a motor, considerations include the operating environment, maintenance requirements, efficiency, and total lifetime costs between the motor types. Case studies show that for applications with frequent contamination, TEFC motors required less downtime and repairs compared to WPII motors.
TEFC and WPII motors differ in their construction and cooling methods, which impacts their suitability for different applications. TEFC motors have enclosed internal components that interact less with the outside environment, making them more resistant to contamination and requiring less maintenance than WPII motors. However, WPII motors can achieve higher torque ratings in the same frame size. When selecting a motor, considerations include the operating environment, maintenance requirements, efficiency, and total lifetime costs between the motor types. Case studies show that for applications with frequent contamination, TEFC motors required less downtime and repairs compared to WPII motors.
Petrochemical Applications The petrochemical industry contains a variety of harsh, contaminated environments that can dramatically affect the life and performance of induction motors. When employed in these types of environments, Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled and Weather Protected Type II motor performance will vary due to differences in their construction and operation. In light of this fact, it is important to examine when and where TEFC and WPII motors are most effectively used. The dissimilarities in TEFC and WPII motor construction stem from the different cooling methods used by each machine. TEFC motor construction prevents the free exchange of air between the inside and outside of the enclosure. The cooling of the motor is achieved primarily through convection across the frame using a shaft mounted external fan. In contrast, cooling of a WPII motor is achieved by drawing in ambient air, circulating this air around and through the rotor and stator, and then discharging it to the atmosphere. Internal shaft-mounted fans are used to circulate the cooling air through the motor. The physical differences between TEFC and WPII motors inevitably create a number of issues to consider when selecting the best enclosure for a specific application. First, is maintenance. Outside air contacts all internal parts of a WPII motor, while the internal components of a TEFC machine have much less interaction with the outside environment. This means that on a WPII motor, abrasive materials such as sand or dust can wear away insulation and shorten its useable life. Contamination can build up in the rotor and stator ducts, causing a loss of cooling capacity as well as increased vibration. To combat these effects, WPII units are usually equipped with filters on the air intakes. Once placed in service, filters require regular cleaning or replacement so that they do not clog, reduce cooling airflow, and cause an increase in operating temperature. Unlike WPII units, the internal components of a TEFC motor have little or no interaction with the outside atmosphere. As a result, there is less risk of the insulation damage, internal cooling, or vibration problems. Other important issues to consider include ratings and efficiencies. For a given frame size, WPII motors can generally achieve a higher rated torque output than their TEFC counterparts. However, for a given rating, most manufacturers TEFC motors will have higher nominal efficiencies than their WPII offerings. To achieve a specific rating, the TEFC unit will typically be larger in frame size (length or height) than a WPII, because the TEFC machine must use more active material to reduce losses and dissipate heat. The result is a slightly larger, yet more efficient motor. The published efficiencies of four major motor manufacturers show that 71.4% of two- pole TEFC motors and 86.6% of four- pole machines had higher published efficiencies than identically rated open machines from the same manufacturer. The motors suitability for use in hazardous environments is another crucial item that should be considered. Machines operating in a Division 1 environment must be capable of withstanding an ignition of material within the motor enclosure without allowing that explosion to ignite the atmosphere outside of the enclosure. TEFC enclosures are most often used in Class I and II, Division 1 applications. WPII enclosures are not approved for use in Division 1 environments of any class. In the U.S., both WPII and TEFC units can be certified for use in Class I, Division 2 environments. However, only TEFC units are explicitly identified for use in Class II and III, Division 2 environments. Use in variable speed applications is also a consideration when determining a motor enclosure. Both TEFC and WPII units can be used in variable speed applications, but their performance depends on the type of torque required. When a motors output torque changes within the operating speed range, it is operating in a variable torque application. In these applications, the motors friction and windage, core, stray load, and I2R losses all decrease as the speed decreases. In fact, the losses decrease faster than the motors cooling capacity. Therefore, both TEFC and WPII machines are often used in these applications. However, in constant torque operation, a motors output torque does not change throughout the operating speed range. In a WPII motor, the cooling capacity decreases faster than the motor losses. As a result, WPII motors are capable of only a very limited speed range when operating in a constant torque application. In a TEFC motor, the cooling capacity does not fall as rapidly as it does in a WPII. The reduction in cooling from the external fan is somewhat offset by the free convection of heat away from the finned frame. This allows TEFC machines to be capable of wider speed ranges than WPII motors in constant torque applications. In addition to the differences caused by physical structure, the two motors also have somewhat different life cycle costs, including the initial price of the equipment and installation, the cost of energy, normal maintenance, repair, and lost production. In general, the difference in initial purchase price of low horsepower WPII and TEFC medium voltage motors is small. The difference in energy costs, however, can be greater. For example, a 1,000 horsepower, four-pole motor operates at 100% load, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. For five cents per kilowatt-hour power, the annual savings of a TEFC motor vs. a WPII motor, based on published efficiency data for four motor manufacturers, would range between $1,634 and $2,287. Over a 20-year life of the motor, the present value of these savings ranges between $13,909 and $19,473. In terms of maintenance costs, every motor will require periodic maintenance, the most frequent type being bearing relubrication. In this area, the two motors have essentially identical needs. However, WPII units do require other attention. For example, the filters must be cleaned or replaced every two to three months. This step is crucial for long-term motor life, as plugged filters can cause overheating and failure. The additional costs of filters, the labor required for changing them, alarms, and local indication must be included in a life cycle cost analysis. Some manufacturers suggest that WPII units also have the rotor ends, windings, and internal fan blades periodically cleaned. In some environments, users have found that this type of maintenance is required as often as every 12-14 months to help the motor maintain its cooling and performance capabilities. This service can involve significant costs since it may necessitate removing and reinstalling the motor. Regular inspection of TEFC units is also recommended. The cooling fins should be cleared of any debris, and the cooling fan should also be inspected to ensure that there is not a build up of contamination that would reduce the effectiveness of the blades. A final major cost issue to consider is that of downtime or lost production. These costs can be the most difficult to quantify and can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars per hour depending on the production environment. From the earlier discussion of maintenance needs, it is apparent that increased downtime would occur during the maintenance periods that required the WPII unit to be removed from service for cleaning. Whether or not this is the only difference in downtime depends on the motors reliability records in harsh environments. Consider the following example: a petroleum refining facility on the American west coast had both a WPII motor and TEFC motor operating in the same vicinity of a delayed coker unit. The refinerys own annual cost analysis yielded the results shown in the table on page 30. During a coke spill, both motors were completely engulfed. The WPII units filters clogged and restricted cooling airflow, and the motor was taken offline by its thermal protection devices. The cost associated with repairing the motor, including rigging in and out charges, was $65,000. The TEFC unit remained in operation during the incident, and no shutdown occurred. In another example, a petroleum facility in the American Midwest employed a WPII motor in an asphalt pump application. In this application, there were frequent failures of the pump seals that resulted in the motor being caked with asphalt. This clogged the motor filters and ultimately caused failure due to overheating. The cost to repair the unit after the last failure was estimated to be 54% of the cost of a new TEFC motor. The unit was replaced with a TEFC motor and has operated without incident or additional maintenance for almost three years. In a third application, a petroleum refinery in the American Midwest used a WPII enclosure motor on a pump application within a decoking area. The motor was ingesting coke dust and had to be routinely serviced to remove this dust. The contamination built up so that it could no longer be removed using pneumatic nozzles, and the motor had to be taken out of service for cleaning. The refinery undertook a cost analysis of the application in which it determined that the cost of removing and reconditioning the motor was 15% of the cost of a new replacement TEFC unit. The refinery purchased a TEFC unit instead, and that replacement motor has run without failure or additional cleanings for two years. It is clear that there are significant differences between WPII and TEFC motors. Although there are many motor applications in which both enclosures are suitable, TEFC motors from 250-2000 HP typically perform better in harsher environments. TEFC motors are easier to maintain, more efficient, better suited for hazardous duty, and offer more flexibility in constant torque variable speed applications than WPII motors. Their increased reliability leads to reduced downtime, and although the initial cost of the TEFC units can exceed their WPII counterparts in larger horsepower ratings, the price differential can most often be recouped through lower life cycle costs of the motor. Joe Hillhouse, development engineer, Reliance AC motors and J.W. Hodson, motor program manager. The use of Weather Protected II (WPII) style motors in oil refineries is a generally accepted practice throughout the industry. The reasons seem obvious: these motors are available from 250 HP to 15,000 HP, and historically have had a lower initial cost. In an industry pushing to contain costs, a lower purchase price seems to offer a big advantage. But does a lower price always translate to a lower total cost of ownership over the life of the product? Based on my experience I can honestly say that in the harsh conditions of a refinery, the lower priced motor will cost you more money in the long run. I came to this conclusion after taking a closer look at the actual costs of keeping WPII motors running reliably year after year. When you consider the air filters you have to add to the WPII units, the number of times the filters have to be changed, and the amount of maintenance that must be performed on a regular basis, these motors are actually very expensive. They also cost more to operate because of their inefficient design. For those engineers in the industry who have hesitated to even consider installing a Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC) motor because of the additional expense, I would advise them to calculate the total cost of ownership of the WPII unit. I think theyll discover, just like I did, that even if they pay a premium price for a TEFC design, they will still save money over the life of the motor. By uncovering hidden costs and looking beyond the purchase price of the motor, its clear to me that making motor purchase decisions based on the total cost of ownership makes good economic sense. Gary Donner recently retired as the Supervising Engineer for Instrument and Electric utilities for Shell Oil Products Southern California based operations. He holds three patents, authored several IEEE papers, and is a registered engineer in the state of California. Donner is the past committee chairman of the IEEE PCIC manufacturing sub-committee, the past chairman of the API 541 induction motor commit- tee, and is the chairman of the IEEEP 1458 circuit breaker committee. Why I Think It Makes Good Economic Sense for Oil Refineries to Follow the Total Cost of Ownership Approach When Selecting Motors By Gary Donner TEFC Airflow