This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Operation of Variable Frequency Drive Motor Systems With Source Voltage
Unbalance
E. B. Agamloh, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Member, IEEE
Advanced Energy
909 Capability Dr., Suite 2100
Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
Abstract – This paper describes efficiency
measurement in induction motor and variable frequency
drives systems under imposed voltage unbalance at the
drive input. A number of drives from different
manufacturers are tested with matching sizes of motors
and the results are compared. The results highlight
differences in the effect of voltage unbalance on drive
performance. The results also indicate that intrinsic
motor performance has important influence on motor-
drive system efficiency.
Index Terms – Induction motors, variable frequency drive,
system efficiency, harmonics, voltage unbalance
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent times, there has been an increasing discussion
on motor-variable frequency drive (VFD) systems and recently
developed standards for their testing. This is not surprising
because motor-VFD systems are used in many applications
and are touted for energy savings benefits. European Union
member nations currently allow induction motor/drive systems
as optional methods for meeting energy efficiency
requirements [1]. In the US, efficiency legislation of induction
motor-VFD systems is seen as the next step for industrial
energy efficiency regulations. Consequently, there have been
calls for test standards and applications standards for VFDs.
Currently an industry trade association has taken steps to
label VFDs for energy efficiency performance and has
developed a test standard for that specific purpose. This
standard and others that address motor-VFD systems and
testing challenges were reviewed in [2].
The wide variety of settings, operating modes, and
operating conditions of a VFD compound the challenges
involved in characterizing motor-VFD systems. These
variables not only make system comparisons challenging but -
in some cases - lead to unfair comparisons. It is becoming
apparent that more work will be needed in the coming years to
cover all aspects of VFD application and testing. One area of
interest in terms of application is operation of VFDs under
voltage unbalance. VFDs, like other power equipment, are
often subjected to voltage quality issues that are inherent in
industrial power supply systems. Unbalanced voltage
operation has been well covered in literature for sinusoidal-
powered induction machines. References such as [3]-[8]
have discussed the subject of unbalanced voltage operation
of VFDs. However, test evaluation and comparison of drives
0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Industry Applications
Scott Peele Joe Grappe’
Member, IEEE Member, IEEE
Duke Energy Duke Energy
410 S. Wilmington Street 410 S. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27602, USA Raleigh, NC 27602, USA
that are distributed in commerce is sparsely covered in
literature.
In a motor-VFD system, it is expected that the combined
system efficiency would be lower than that of the motor
operating alone. However, a variation in efficiency could
result from operating different VFDs on the same motor. This
paper presents a comparison of the impact of voltage
magnitude deviation and unbalance on efficiency performance
of different motor-VFD systems. A number of VFDs from
different manufacturers and matching motors were tested
under typical voltage unbalance conditions and the results are
compared. In this comparison, the VFDs were operated on the
same motor and therefore the differences could be attributed
to each VFD’s impact on the system efficiency. Throughout
the paper, the term “VFD” (or “drive”) is used in lieu of the
term “adjustable speed drive,” due to the increasing popularity
of the term VFD in plant environment.
II. VFD INPUT VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
The definition of voltage unbalance in (1) specifies
voltage unbalance as the maximum line voltage deviation
from the average, expressed as a percentage of the average
line voltage:
Vun 

max Vab  Vavg , Vbc  Vavg , Vca  Vavg   100 (1)
Vavg
where Vun is the percentage voltage unbalance, Vab, Vbc, Vca
are line voltages and Vavg is the average of the three line
voltages. Another definition of voltage unbalance is
expressed as the ratio of the negative and positive sequence
voltages:
V
Vunf  2  100 (2)
V1
where Vunf is the voltage unbalance factor, V1 is positive
sequence voltage, V2, is the negative sequence voltage.
As is well known, induction motors respond to positive and
negative sequence voltages, generating corresponding
torques that may interact in an opposing manner, leading to
torque pulsations, overcurrent, overheating, etc. In general,
voltage unbalance negatively impacts the performance of
induction motors. In the case of a motor operated on a VFD,
the VFD topology acts to isolate the motor from the abnormal
voltage condition. This comes at the expense of increased
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

losses in the VFD, mainly caused by the additional effects of

the voltage unbalance.
The most common general-purpose industrial VFDs are six-
pulse voltage source drives with a diode bridge rectifier front
end. A typical input current waveform of such drives is the
double-pulse profile shown in Fig. 1. With a balanced source
voltage the current profile looks symmetrical and the harmonic
content in the VFD is generally defined by the characteristic
harmonics of a q-pulse rectifier [2]:
h  kq  1 (3)

where h is the harmonic order, q is the number of pulses of

the rectifier (in this case q=6) and k is an integer (k=1, 2, 3,
…). The characteristic harmonics of the input current is
therefore mostly odd of the order 5, 7, 11, 13, etc.
As source voltage unbalance is introduced, conduction of
the diodes become asymmetrical and variations of this current
waveform can be seen with the pulses exhibiting unequal (a) Negligible voltage unbalance
peaks and one pulse may totally disappear at increased levels
of voltage unbalance. These waveform variations also reflect
changes in the harmonic content of the current, and other
non-characteristic harmonics such as triplens appear in the
current harmonic profile. Other consequences including the
increase in the rms current through the diodes, the dc bus
voltage ripple, possible stresses on capacitors or effect on
their sizing are discussed in literature [3]-[7]. The changes in
the drive’s DC bus voltage during unbalanced operation, can
be seen in Fig. 2 which compares the test at a balanced
voltage and that of a 5% voltage unbalance. The average
voltage increased from 614 Vdc at negligible voltage
unbalance to about 627 Vdc at 5% voltage unbalance, while
the corresponding ripple in the dc bus voltage Vripple increased
from 3.5% to 18.6%. The ripple in the dc bus voltage was
defined as (4):

Vmax - Vmin
Vripple   100
Vav
where Vmax, Vmin and Vav are maximum, minimum and
average dc bus voltages respectively. Additional DC bus
voltage measurement data at other voltage levels is presented
in the APPENDIX (Table III-A).
Other VFD features and characteristics of the power
source, such as stiffness and presence or addition of line
reactors and dc chokes, affect the waveform shape
characteristic. Therefore, the characteristics of the input
source supply profoundly impacts the performance of the
VFD; comparison of different commercially available VFDs
under voltage magnitude deviation and voltage unbalance
should be of interest to industrial users.
(4)
(b) Two percent voltage unbalance
Fig. 1 Input current profile of VFD with diode rectifier: (a)
negligible voltage unbalance, (b) 2% voltage unbalance
As is well discussed in literature, there are different ways
voltage unbalance can be created for a given nominal voltage.
Each of these ways produce a different result when applied to
a rectifier circuit since the circuit symmetry would vary with
each combination of voltages. Reference [3] performed
harmonic analysis of rectifiers in the presence of unbalance,
examining different unbalance methods and variation in
outcomes are evident for the different voltage unbalance
methods investigated. In this work, only one method of
unbalance was used; in all cases the unbalanced voltages
were created with one line voltage higher than the two other
lines (see Table I).

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

800

700 B. Induction Motor and Motor-VFD System Efficiency with

Voltage Deviation
600
Induction motor tests with voltage magnitude deviation and
500 unbalance was presented in [9], and observations made.
Under voltage magnitude deviation, some tested motors
DC Bus Voltage, Vdc

400
indicated a direct correlation between efficiency and applied
300 voltage; higher efficiency resulted from elevated voltages. For
other motors, the efficiency performance trend observed was
200 opposite. Fig. 3 presents a typical voltage magnitude
deviation and unbalance tests performed for a 7.5 hp motor
100
on sinusoidal power. In general, as the voltage unbalance
0 increased, efficiency reduced. In this particular case,
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 efficiency is generally lower at above nominal voltage (460
Time, s Vac) and was better at voltages below nominal. For other
(a) Negligible voltage unbalance motors, as also presented in [4], the efficiency performance
800 under voltage magnitude deviation showed opposite pattern -
efficiency was lower at voltages below the nominal and better
700 at voltages above nominal.
These contrasting trends could be explained by the
600
distribution of losses within the motor with respect to its
500 design. At reduced voltage and full load, motor current
typically increase and consequently the joule losses increase,
DC Bus Voltage, Vdc

400 and at higher voltages, core loss may increase quite

significantly. For two motors of different electromagnetic
300
design, the resulting efficiency profile would be impacted by
200
which loss component increased more rapidly compared to
the other, for a given applied voltage magnitude. Unlike
100 voltage magnitude deviations, in the case of voltage
unbalance, the general trend is a reduction in efficiency with
0 increasing voltage unbalance.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Time, s
Line Power (100% Load)
(b) Five percent voltage unbalance 91%

Fig 2: VFD DC bus voltage ripple (at 460 Vac input voltage 90%
for 7.5 hp VFD with Motor #2: (a) negligible unbalance (b)
5% unbalance 90%
Efficiency (%)

89% 414V
437V
III. VFD-MOTOR SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
89% 460V

A. Efficiency Calculation 480V

88%
500V
Reference [2] states that the direct input-output method is
the most appropriate method for motor-VFD system efficiency 88%

calculation. This work uses the direct input-output method of

87%
measuring efficiency, defined in (5): 0 1 2 3 4 5
P
 dir  out (5) Unbalance (%)

Pin Fig 3: 7.5hp Motor#1 efficiency from sinusoidal power

where Pout is output power, Pin is the input power and ƞdir is the
calculated efficiency. Measuring motor-drive system efficiency
requires measurement of mechanical power output at the
motor shaft and electrical power input at the terminals of the
VFD in order to calculate the system efficiency per (5).
Sometimes it is desirable to know the test motor efficiency
and drive efficiency separately; this requires additional
measurement of the electrical power at the output of the VFD,
as elaborated later in this paper.
It is expected that the combined motor-VFD system
efficiency during operation at constant load would be lower
than that of the motor alone, operating on a sinusoidal power
source. However, it is important to emphasize that, the system
efficiency of the motor-VFD test generally followed trends
similar to that of the test motor alone under voltage magnitude
deviation. This is probably due to a stronger effect of the
motor efficiency on the combined system efficiency. In Figs. 4
and 5, system efficiency plots are presented for 1 hp and 50
hp motor-VFD systems operating at full load at various levels

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

of input voltage magnitude deviation. Both systems over/under voltage magnitude values specified above as the
maintained a fairly flat profile with minimal dependence of average voltage. Table I shows an example of the applied line
system efficiency on voltage unbalance. However, the voltages for the nominal 460 Vac condition for various
influence of voltage magnitude deviation is more noticeable. unbalances ranging from 1% to 5%. Similar tables of applied
The lowest system efficiency was recorded at the highest voltages were developed for the other voltages.
voltage for the 1 hp system while that of the 50hp system
corresponded to the lowest voltage. These trends also reflect 3
Variable Torque 
Power 1 2 Loading
the performance of the respective motors on sinusoidal Frequency Test Motor speed
Source Drive sensor dynamometer
power, under voltage magnitude deviation. Hence, it is very
important to consider the intrinsic motor performance in the Test Stand
design and selection of motor-VFD systems for applications.

1hp vfd 1 2 3 Data

Precision Torque and Acquisition
84 speed
Power System
Analyzer measurement
82
Fig 6: General test schematic for motor-VFD system
80
System Efficiency (%)

78
414V
437V
76 460V
483V
506V
74

72

70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Voltage Unbalance (%)

Fig 4: System efficiency 1hp motor-VFD

Fig 7: 7.5hp motor VFD system under test

50hp VFD (full load)
94
TABLE I
LINE VOLTAGES FOR UNBALANCE AT 460V
92

Target Voltage
1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%
90 Unbalance
Voltage 1 (V) 457.7 456.6 455.4 454.3 453.1 452.0 450.8 449.7 448.5
88 437V Voltage 2 (V) 457.7 456.6 455.4 454.3 453.1 452.0 450.8 449.7 448.5
460V Voltage 3 (V) 464.6 466.9 469.2 471.5 473.8 476.1 478.4 480.7 483.0
Efficiency (%)

86 483V Average Line

84
82
80
0 1 2 3
Voltage Unbalance (%)
Fig 5: System efficiency 50hp motor-VFD
IV. VFDS TESTED AND TEST PROCEDURE
Comparison tests between a number of VFDs from different
manufacturers and matching induction motors occurred. The
VFDs investigated were subjected to voltage magnitude
deviation within ±10% of their nominal rating in 5% step
increments. For a 460 Vac nominal rating, this resulted in
voltage magnitudes of approximately 414, 437, 460, 483 and
506 volts. Supply voltage unbalance was incremented by
0.5% through the range from 1 to 5% for each of the
460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460
506V Voltage (V)
414V
Tests were done with 1 hp, 7.5 hp, 20 hp and 50 hp VFDs
from different manufacturers. All VFD’s were rated for an AC
input voltage of 380-480 Vac, 3-phase, 50/60Hz; each was
tested on the same matching motors of similar rating. The
4 5 6 tests were performed with the VFDs mostly in the basic V/f
mode and at default configurations. Fig. 6 shows the general
schematic of the test setup, whereby the motor-drive system
efficiency can be calculated using power output measurement
data at point 3 and power input data at point 1. The test
motor efficiency can be calculated from the power output
measurement data at point 3 and power input data at point 2,
while the drive efficiency can be calculated from the
measurements of points 1 and 2.
Figure 7 shows a 7.5 hp motor-VFD system under test. The
load test measurement data is typically taken after the motor
has attained a steady state thermal equilibrium and this was
pursued for some of the tests. However, the impact of
thermal stability in this case was found to be minimal and

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

most of the tests were performed without strictly adhering to drive in Fig. 9, it is seen that the system efficiency
thermal stability criteria. experienced a significant drop at voltage unbalance above
The motor-VFDs were tested at full load and part load (50% 2%. Furthermore, the efficiency at various over/under voltage
and 75%) with the unbalance introduced as previously conditions are more distinct for this motor-VFD system than in
specified at the same point each time. The motors were also the case of SNS.
separately tested on a sinusoidal supply for comparison. The
motor nameplate specifications are provided in APPENDIX SNS (100% Load)
(Table II-A). 92.0%
The test procedure is as follows: the target output torque 91.5%
corresponding to each load (100%, 75%, and 50%) was first
91.0%
established with a balanced 460 Vac at the drive terminals
and was not further adjusted. After that torque was set on the 90.5%

System Efficiency (%)

dynamometer, the input voltage to the VFD was adjusted to 90.0%
414V
create an unbalance at the various over/under voltage and 437V
unbalance levels. Because the shaft torque was not further 89.5%
460V
adjusted, there is a possibility of drift in output torque that 89.0%
could lead to slight change in horsepower. Since voltage is 88.5%
480V
also strongly correlated with motor slip, the speed could also
change slightly with voltage, leading to variations in 88.0%

horsepower. The minor variations in output power could 87.5%

potentially affect the comparisons reported. 87.0%
However, observations showed that the speed and torque 0 1 2 3 4 5
variation was minimal. This approach of not adjusting the Unbalance (%)
torque when a voltage unbalance is introduced is fairly Fig 8: System efficiency of 20hp SNS motor-VFD
consistent with a typical field operation, where equipment is
subjected to voltage abnormalities while in operation and the
SFD (100% Load)
load is not necessarily adjusted under those conditions. 92.0%

91.5%

91.0%
V. COMPARISON OF RESULTS
90.5%
System Efficiency (%)

In this work, all the VFDs are represented with a three-letter 90.0%

code identification in order to hide the identity of the 89.5%

414V
manufacturer. The findings are summarized in this section.
89.0% 437V
While motor-VFD system efficiency was used as the basis
for this comparison, it must be pointed out that the tests were 88.5% 460V

performed at a fairly constant speed and at constant load 88.0% 480V

which is typically not the way VFDs are operated for energy
savings. For maximum energy savings, VFDs are operated to
adjust speed to constantly match the load requirements and
not necessarily at full load, constant speed. Therefore, the
efficiency comparison presented does not reflect energy
savings options available using a VFD.
It is also important to point out that some of the VFDs
tripped or would have tripped on overload, phase loss, or
other faults had their trip functions not been disabled to
override the trip. Therefore, the measurement of data point at
a given unbalance should not be construed to mean that the
given VFD would be functional at that level of voltage
unbalance.
A. 20hp VFD Comparison
The 20 hp comparison is made for three different VFDs
tested on an identical 20 hp motor. As shown in Fig. 8, for
example, the test of the SNS 20 hp drive maintained a fairly
flat system efficiency profile at full load. Also, the various
levels of over/under voltage did not appear to have any
distinct impact on the overall system efficiency, except the
414 Vac that was consistently lower than the other input
voltage levels. Comparing the same test for the SFD 20 hp
87.5%
87.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Unbalance (%)
Fig 9: System efficiency of 20hp SFD motor-VFD
Fig. 10 compares the performance of the three VFDs tested
at the 460 Vac nominal voltage. On the same plot, the test
with sinusoidal power (with motor only) is plotted as the
baseline. The differences between the VFDs is clearly evident
and so is the drop in efficiency when a VFD is used on this
20hp motor compared to a sinusoidal power supply. For
example, it is seen that there is more than 2% points
reduction in efficiency as a result of using the VFD on this
motor compared to sinusoidal excitation. Two of the VFDs
(VOB and SNS) could be considered to have comparable
performance, while the third VFD’s performance was distinctly
different, with lower system efficiency performance than the
other two.

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

20hp motor, 460V nominal (100% Load) on this motor over the sinusoidal case. Given the harmonic
95% losses are low (as can be inferred from Fig. 12), the bulk of
SFD the efficiency drop can be attributed to losses in the VFD.
94% VOB It is interesting to note in Fig. 13 that at 50% load, the motor
SNS efficiency on sinusoidal power was lower than the motor
93% Baseline efficiency with a VFD at unbalance values above 2%. Given
that the overall system efficiency in Fig. 11 was still lower for
System Efficiency

92%
the test with VFD, it is evident that the VFDs contributed in
91% large part to the reduction in system efficiency.

90% 460V (100% Load)

95%
89%
94%
88%
93%
87%

Motor Efficiency (%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 92%
Unbalance (%)
Fig 10: System efficiency of 20 hp motor-VFDs at full load 91% SFD

BOV
90%
20hp motor, 460V nominal (50% Load)
SNS
95% 89%
SFD baseline
94% BOV 88%

SNS
93% 87%
Baseline 0 1 2 3 4 5
System Efficiency (%)

92% Unbalance (%)

Fig 12: Motor efficiency of 20 hp motor-VFDs at full load
91%

90% 20hp motor 460V (50% Load)

95%
89%
94%
88%
93%
87%
Motor Efficiency (%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 92%
Unbalance (%)

Fig 11: System efficiency of 20 hp motor-VFDs at half load 91% SFD

BOV
90%
The 20 hp VFD test at 50% load shown in Fig. 11 indicates SNS
characteristics that are similar to the test at full load. 89% baseline
However, in this case the three VFDs did not have
overlapping performance at any voltage unbalance level as 88%
was the case for 460 Vac full load test. It is also interesting
87%
to note here that the SFD drive did not experience the large 0 1 2 3 4 5
reduction in system efficiency that was observed at full load. Unbalance (%)
In general, the drop in efficiency for the use of VFD over the Fig 13: Motor efficiency of 20 hp motor-VFDs at half load
sinusoidal case is also slightly lower for the 50% load
compared to full load test, but still significant. Because of
such drop in efficiency it is often suggested not to apply VFDs B. 7.5 hp VFD Comparison
for a motor operating at constant load and the plots in Figs.
Again, three different VFDs are tested on identical motor.
10, 11 put into evidence the reason for such suggestion.
The 7.5 hp VFD test results showed a similar trend to the
Figures 12 and 13 show the calculated motor efficiency
20hp tests. In this case the disparities between VFDs are
under VFD operation at 100% and 50% load respectively. A
more pronounced than in the 20 hp case. Fig. 14 shows a
look at the calculated motor efficiency could provide a good
much lower system efficiency for the DTA 7.5 hp drive
indication of the VFD’s impact on system efficiency. First of
compared to SFD and NCV drives that are also different from
all, it is seen from Fig. 12 that the motor efficiency on VFD
each other. The DTA drive is an older brand that was
power source is only slightly lower than that of sinusoidal
manufactured about 10 years prior to SFD and NCV brands.
power, the difference being accounted for by harmonic losses
In addition to all three being different brands with inherent
in the motor as a result of the pulse width modulation
differences, it is likely the enhanced energy saving
excitation. Comparing Figs. 10,12 indicates that there is more
features/components (both hardware and controls
than 2% points drop in efficiency as a result of using the VFD

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

implementation) that may be available in the newer drives
could be lacking in DTA. It is also noted that the DTA drive
could not withstand voltage unbalance above 3.5% at full
load, but was able to withstand voltage unbalance up to 5% at
a reduced load. Another interesting point that comes out by
comparing Figs. 14, and Fig 15 is that - at 50% load - the SFD
is more efficient than NCV while the opposite is true at full
load. Also, SFD system efficiency is higher than the baseline
above voltage unbalance levels of 3.5%.
In general, the disparity in system efficiency is smaller at
reduced loads for all the VFDs tested, which suggests that
motor-VFD systems could be relatively more energy efficient
at reduced loads under unbalanced voltage operation. This
makes sense because the low load corresponds to lower
current flow and relatively lower losses in the VFD, while it
isolates the motor from negative effects of the voltage
unbalance.
7.5hp motor#1 at 460V nominal (100% Load)
91%
90%
89%
System Efficiency
operation. The harmonic distortion factor (HDF) is a measure
of the magnitude of each harmonic current, expressed as a
percentage of the total current. Fig. 16 shows a plot
comparing the HDF of each of the three 7.5 hp VFDs
operated under balanced voltages at 460 Vac and at full load.
On this same plot, the test with sinusoidal power (“Line
Power”) is superposed to show that it has negligible harmonic
content. Under balanced voltages, it is seen in Fig. 16 that
NCV and DTA have similar harmonic content at all the
characteristic harmonics and the values are higher than that
of SFD. Also, the test with balanced voltages showed
negligible content of the triplen harmonics compared to the
unbalanced cases shown in Figs 17, 18, and 19.
The characteristic harmonics appeared to be of the most
significant impact for the balanced case as expected and the
fifth harmonic was the order of the highest magnitude as
shown in Fig. 16. As unbalance voltages are introduced, the
third harmonic impact, in particular, increased. However, it is
fair to conclude that the characteristic harmonics are still the
predominant harmonics, even under voltage unbalance
conditions. In general, the differences between the three
VFDs with regard to input harmonic content are not too
distinct.

88%
Current HDF (Baseline balanced voltages)
87%
60%
86%
Line Power 50% Line Power
85%
SFD
Current Harmonic Distortion Factor (%)

SFD
84% NCV
DTA 40% NCV
83%
DTA
82%
30%
81%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Unbalance (%) 20%

Fig 14: System efficiency 7.5hp VFD and motor #1 at full load
10%

7.5hp Motor 1, 460V (50% Load)

90%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
88%
Harmonic Order
86% Fig 16: Current distortion of 7.5hp VFDs (balanced voltages)
84%
System Efficiency (%)

Current HDF at 460V (SFD)

82%
50%
Line Power
80% 45%
SFD
78% NCV
40% Baseline
Current Harmonic Distortion Factor (%)

DTA
76% 35% 1% Unbalance

74% 30% 3% Unbalance

72% 25% 5% Unbalance

70% 20%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Unbalance (%) 15%

Fig 15: System efficiency 7.5hp VFD and motor #1 at half load 10%

5%
C. Current Harmonic Profile 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
The input current distortion profile of the VFDs under
Harmonic Order
voltage unbalance confirmed the presence of other harmonics
in addition to the characteristic harmonics under unbalanced Fig 17: Current distortion of SFD (with 7.5hp motor #1)

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
60%
50%
Current Harmonic Distortion Factor (%)
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 5
Fig 18: Current distortion of NCV (with 7.5 hp Motor #1)
90%
80%
70%
Current Harmonic Distortion Factor (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 5
Fig 19: Current distortion of DTA (with 7.5 hp Motor #1)
This paper compared efficiency performance of different
commercially available VFDs operated with imposed voltage
magnitude deviation and voltage unbalance. The VFDs were
operated in turns on the same motor.
In general, motor-VFD system efficiency decreased with
increased voltage unbalance, even though the reduction is
much more modest for VFDs than it is for motors operated on
sinusoidal power. There was some variation in performance
between the drives, indicating that some are more energy
efficient than others. The susceptibility of the drives to voltage
unbalance, with regard to their impact on system efficiency,
varied. Some VFDs exhibited a flatter profile as voltage
unbalance increased while others experienced a sharp
reduction in system efficiency at voltage unbalance above 2-
3%. Many industrial distribution systems can easily
experience a voltage unbalance of about 2-3%, thus this
finding is important for selection of motor-VFD systems.
Another finding is that the system efficiency profile of the
motor-VFD system under voltage magnitude deviation
typically followed the intrinsic motor performance (motor
alone), under those same conditions, indicating that the motor
0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Industry Applications
Current HDF at 460V (NCV) performance is a strong factor and contributor to overall
system performance. During the design of motor-VFD
systems, it is therefore important to consider the motor
Baseline efficiency profile with respect to voltage magnitude deviation,
as the system efficiency profile will follow a similar trend. This
1% Unbalance
finding is also important for comparison of VFDs for regulatory
3% Unbalance purposes, as the motor performance profile should be
5% unbalance considered.
The loading on the motor also seemed to have some
impact, as the motor-VFD system appeared to be relatively
more energy efficient under unbalanced voltage operation, if
operated at reduced loads.
The VFD input current distortion profile under voltage
unbalance confirmed the presence of other harmonics in
addition to the characteristic harmonics. However, the
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
characteristic harmonics are still of dominant value.
Harmonic Order
VII. REFERENCES
[1] European Commission, Commission Regulation No.
Current HDF at 460V (DTA)
640/2009 of July 22, 2009: Implementing Directive
2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council with regard to Ecodesign Requirements for
Electric Motors, Official Journal of the European Union,
Baseline
July 23, 2009.
1% Unbalance [2] Emmanuel Agamloh, “Power and efficiency
3% Unbalance measurement of motor-variable frequency drive
systems”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
vol 53., no. 1, pp. 766-773, Jan/Feb 2017.
[3] A. von Jouanne, B. Banerjee, “Assessmentof Voltage
Unbalance on Induction Machines”, IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, vol 16., no. 4, pp. 782-790, October
2001.
[4] A. K. Singh, G. K. Singh, R. Mitra, “Impact of Source
Voltage Unbalance on AC-DC Rectifier Performance,”
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2nd International Conference on Power Electronics
Harmonic Order Systems and Applications, 2006
[5] JTE Fernando, AT Almeida, and G Baoming. “Impact of
voltage sags and continuous unbalance on variable-
VI. CONCLUSIONS speed drives”, ICEM Conference Record, 2010, pp 1-6.
[6] K Lee, TM Jahns, TA Lipo, G Venkataramanan, and WE
Berkopec. “Impact of Input Voltage Sag and Unbalance
on DC-Link Inductor and Capacitor Stress in Adjustable
Speed Drives”, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol 44-6, 2008, pp 1825-1833.
[7] K Lee, T Jahns, DW Novotny, TA Lipo, WE Berkopevc,
and V Blasko. “Impact of Inductor Placement on the
Perfromance of Adjustable-Speed Drives Under Input
Voltage Unbalance and Sag Conditions”, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol 42-5, 2006, pp
1230-1240.
[8] Sebastião E. M. de Oliveira, and José Octávio R. P.
Guimarães, “Effects of Voltage Supply Unbalance on AC
Harmonic Current Components Produced by AC/DC
Converters”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol
22., no. 4, pp. 766-773, Oct 2007.
[9] Emmanuel Agamloh, S. Peele, J. Grappe, “A
comparative analysis of voltage magnitude deviation and
unbalance on standard and premium efficient induction
motors,” IEEE Pulp and Paper Industry Conference,
Portland, June 2012.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
[10] CSA C838-13, Energy efficiency test methods for three-
phase variable frequency drives systems, 2013
[11] IEC 60034-2-3, Rotating electrical machines part 2-3:
specific test methods for determining the losses of
converter-fed AC machines, 2013.
[12] AHRI 1210, Performance rating of variable frequency
drives, 2011
[13] IEEE 1566-2015 “IEEE Standard for Perfromance of
Adjustable Speed AC Drives Rated 375 kW and Larger”
[14] IEEE 499-1997 “IEEE Recommended Practices and
Requirements for Cement Plant Electric Drives and
Related Equipment”
[15] Emmanuel Agamloh, S. Peele, J. Grappe, “Operation of
Variable Frequency Drive motor Systems with Source
Voltage Unbalance,” IEEE Pulp, Paper and Forest
Industries Technical Conference, Tacoma, WA, June
2017, DOI:10.1109/PPIC.2017.8003869
Emmanuel B. Agamloh (S’02–M’05–SM’09) received B.Sc and M.Sc
degrees in electrical engineering from St. Petersburg State Technical
University, St. Petersburg, Russia and the Ph.D. degree in electrical and
computer engineering from Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. He
is Senior Motors and Drives Consultant with Advanced Energy Corporation
and Adjunct faculty with North Carolina State University. His research
0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
interests are in electric machine design, analysis and testing and renewable
energy. Dr. Agamloh received two First Prize Paper Awards from the
Electric Machines Committee and the Pulp, Paper and Forest Industries
Technical Committee of IEEE IAS in 2010 and 2016 respectively. Dr.
Agamloh is an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications and Vice Chair of the Electric Machines Committee.
Scott Peele (M’99) is a Power Quality Engineer for Duke Energy
Corporation. He is responsible for power quality issues in the Commercial,
Industrial and Governmental section. Scott has been involved with power
quality for the past 32 years and has worked on numerous projects including
motor ride-through project, feeder monitoring project and other projects
involved with Power Quality. He has authored many papers on Power
Quality on feeder monitoring and ride-through projects. He has an A.S.,
Computer Engineering degree and also a degree in HVAC and Refrigeration
and studies in Electronic Engineering. Scott has Commercial Refrigeration
contractor’s License and Electrical Contractor License in North Carolina.
Scott is also a registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina.
Joseph Grappe (M’08) is a senior Engineer in the power quality group of
Duke Energy dealing with commercial, industrial, and governmental
customers. Joseph began his career with Duke Energy in the Distribution
control room in 2004 as part of centralization of switching, volt, and var
management. In 2006 he became a field engineer in the Asheville, NC region
before accepting his current role in 2007. Upon completion of a tour in the
Marine Corps Joseph attended N.C. State University where he received a
B.S. degree in Engineering.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2017.2747144, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications

VIII. APPENDIX TABLE III-A

DC BUS VOLTAGES FOR 7.5HP VFD TEST (MOTOR#2)
TABLE II-A AC Voltage
100% Load 50% Load
MOTOR NAMEPLATE INFORMATION DC Bus Voltage DC Bus Voltage
Average Voltage
Sample Number 2701 2826 2527 1009 Average Max Min Ripple (%) Average Max Min Ripple (%)
Voltage Unbalance
Manufacturer - Motor #1 Motor #2 - 0% 639.5 651.7 630.0 3.4 645.7 658.3 635.0 3.6
Model 1LE23112BB214AA3
HB2132S4B51LE21112AB114AA3- 1% 640.3 676.7 611.7 10.2 644.9 661.7 630.0 4.9
480
Rated Voltage 208-230/460 230V/460V 208-230/460 230/460V 3% 646.6 708.3 601.7 16.5 653.8 691.7 630.0 9.4
5% 662.6 733.3 615.0 17.9 667.1 715.0 631.7 12.5
Horsepower 20 7.5 7.5 37KW (50HP) 0% 613.9 625.0 603.3 3.5 617.4 626.7 608.3 3.0
Rated Current 54-50/25 19.6/9.8 20-19/9.5 110/55 1% 613.8 641.7 591.7 8.1 618.7 636.7 601.7 5.7
RPM 1780 1760 1775 1775 460
3% 618.6 678.3 575.0 16.7 625.5 663.3 601.7 9.9
Frame 256T 132S 213T 200L 5% 627.3 695.0 578.3 18.6 640.3 685.0 605.0 12.5
NEMA Design B C B - 0% 582.9 591.7 573.3 3.1 585.7 596.7 575.0 3.7
Nameplate Eff 93.6% 89.5% 92.4% 93.0% 1% 582.8 606.7 561.7 7.7 587.8 606.7 571.7 6.0
437
3% 586.2 638.3 548.3 15.4 594.5 630.0 571.7 9.8
Power Factor 0.81 5% 593.8 658.3 550.0 18.2 608.1 651.7 575.0 12.6
0% 551.7 561.7 543.3 3.3 554.3 565.0 545.0 3.6
1% 554.8 571.7 536.7 6.3 556.2 573.3 540.0 6.0
414
3% 558.6 610.0 520.0 16.1 562.2 593.3 538.3 9.8
5% 561.6 621.7 518.3 18.4 572.6 615.0 541.7 12.8

0093-9994 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.