The Incremental Design Efficiency Improvement of
Commercially Manufactured Induction Motors
Emmanuel Agamloh
Advanced Energy Corporation
Raleigh, NC, USA
eagamloh@advancedenergy.org
Abstract— The improvement in induction motor efficiency
over the years has been incremental in nature. One of the
well known methods used to increase the efficiency of
induction motors, cost effectively, is by increasing the stack
length. There are many motor manufacturers with
proprietary designs that are optimized for different
parameters, e.g. cost, volume, weight, copper, iron, etc.
Therefore, the effectiveness of incrementally improving the
efficiency for motors of various designs and from different
manufacturers presents an interesting research. This paper
seeks to determine the incremental improvement of design
efficiency of motors that are already subjected to
commercial production. Motors from five manufacturers
were tested, torn down and analyzed and their design
efficiency improvement is investigated.
I. INTRODUCTION
Minimum efficiency performance standards (MEPS)
for induction motors are a now a requirement in many
countries around the world [1], [2]. Motor manufacturers
now face an additional burden of not only achieving high
efficiency for business reasons but also for regulatory
reasons. Techniques for improving motor efficiency have
become a subject of extreme importance [7]-[9]. A well
known method of improving efficiency is by increasing
the active volume of the machine. In that regard, the
increase in stack length has been applied in the motor
manufacturing industry for many years. The approach has
also been used for other purposes; for example, two
motors that are close in rating and characteristics can share
the same lamination design and the relatively higher rated
motor can be designed with a higher stack length.
The core stack lengthening approach has been the
subject of recent papers such as [3] and [4]. In [4] the
approach is described as a no-tooling cost option (NTC)
and it was investigated alongside other measures such as
the inclusion of copper bars in the rotor prior to aluminum
die casting and the annealing of the stator core. The
authors of [4] investigated two motors of 11kW and
18.5kW and demonstrated that indeed the NTC can be
used to increase the efficiency of the motors. Reference [3]
978-1-4673-0803-8/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Aldo Boglietti, Andrea Cavagnino
Politecnico di Torino
Dipartimento energia, ITALY
aldo.boglietti@polito.it, andrea.cavagnino@polito.it
used both analytical and finite element approach to
investigate axial core lengthening of an 11kW motor. The
finite element approach is particularly useful in the case
where no test data is available to support the modeling.
In the two technical references described above, specific
design lengths were applied to achieve the lengthened
prototypes and the baseline motors were ad-hoc designs
from a single manufacturer.
It is known that motor manufacturers have their own
unique design methods. The design approaches and
empirical formulas used by manufacturers are mostly
institutional, having been acquired by experience of the
manufacturer over many years of designing electric
machines. Furthermore, manufacturers’ proprietary
designs are optimized for different parameters, e.g. cost,
volume, weight, copper, iron, etc. By investigating a wider
range of motor manufacturers, it is possible to evaluate the
effectiveness of axial core lengthening for motors that
have originally been optimized for different parameters. It
is also possible to identify the opportunities (if any) and
limitations of this approach on a broader scale. This paper
seeks to determine the incremental improvement of design
efficiency of motors that are already subjected to
commercial production, by means of core stack
lengthening approach only. In this study other ‘minor’
design possibilities (such as increasing the slot fill factor,
the cage ring section, etc.) are not considered.
II. APPROACH
The general approach of this paper consists of
investigating small increments in efficiency of
commercially designed and manufactured induction motor
prototypes by core stack lengthening, using analytical
equations and test data. First, the selected motors are tested
and torn down for a design analysis or reverse engineering
(in the case of two samples, manufacturer provided design
data was used). An analysis is then performed to determine
the efficiency increment achievable by changing only the
stack length and number of turns. Such an analysis
predicts the achievable efficiencies at rated conditions.
150
 After this analysis, operational performance is determined L' B' J' N'
for a given stack length of interest, through equivalent λ= β= σ= υ= (3)
circuit model calculations and appropriate calibration of L B J N
the model. The test data is used to perform accurate In order for the new motor to be operated at the same
calibration of the analytical model to match machine voltage and develop the same rated torque as the original
performance per the test data. Following the model one, (1) and (2) impose the following restrictions in the
calibrations, parameter and performance data of the choice of the above ratios. In particular,
lengthened prototype is determined. λ × β × σ = 1 and λ × β × υ = 1 , which implies that σ = υ.
A. Prototypes Investigated Therefore, once a new stack length (L = L’) is chosen
The six baseline prototypes investigated were designed among a set of available standard lengths, only one
by five manufacturers. All motors except the 1.5kW low parameter is an independent variable. Because the number
efficiency motor are NEMA Premium motors or above. of turns of a three phase winding can vary only by
The 1.5kW motor from manufacturer B is a standard multiples of slots per phase, it is a suitable choice to use
efficiency motor. The motor identified as 56kW low the parameter as the independent one. The remaining
efficiency is in fact at NEMA Premium level while the parameters are expressed as a function of υ, λ, and the
other 56kW motor is one efficiency band above NEMA following constrains can be used:
Premium. Also, five of the motors are of aluminum rotor
construction and one is of a die-cast copper rotor 1 σ =υ
construction.
β= , (4)
λ υ
The prototypes are provided in Table 1. All the By means of the ratios (4) and the test data of the
baseline designs were initially tested in the laboratory to original machine, the electromagnetic losses, currents and
determine the efficiency according to the IEEE 112B efficiency of the lengthened motor can be easily computed
standard. The torque-speed performance was also at the rated operation point, when the turns in series per
determined by testing. The motors were subsequently torn phase is changed. The algorithm as fully described in [4]
down to determine their design parameters, which are used was implemented in a spreadsheet and used to investigate
as baseline input data for the efficiency improvement. the general options for lengthening each prototype motor.
For the initial core lengthening analysis, the no-load
TABLE I. MOTORS INVESTIGATED current saturation curve and iron-loss variation with
Rating Rotor voltage curve obtained from test had to be extrapolated for
Pole Design Manufacturer the algorithm. The six discrete data points of the test
(kW) Construction
1.5 4 High Efficiency Aluminum A
result were extrapolated by using a high order polynomial
1.5 4 Low Efficiency Aluminum B
extrapolation. This reduced some inaccuracies observed in
7.5 4 High Efficiency Aluminum C
the modeling. Fig 1 shows an example of the
7.5 4 High Efficiency Copper D
extrapolation of iron loss for the 1.5kW premium motor.
56 4 High Efficiency Aluminum E 1.5kW High Efficiency
56 4 Low Efficiency Aluminum E 80

B. Basic Considerations 70

The basic algorithm of the approach was established in 60

extrapolated curve

[4]. The torque and the supply voltage of the original 50 Test data
Iron Losses, W

motor are related to the stack length, the number of turns 40

and the active material constraints, and can be represented
30
by (1) and (2),
20

Tr = k t × L × B × J (1) 10

Vr = k v × L × B × N (2) 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
where L is the stack length, B is the airgap flux density, J
Phase Voltage, V
is the current density in the rotor bars, N is the stator turn
number, Tr is the rated torque, and Vr is the rated voltage
Figure 1. No-load iron losses of 1.5kW high efficiency motor
and kt and kv are proportionality constants. For a given
induction motor design, the modified prototype uses the
same laminations. Therefore defining corresponding Fig 2-7 shows the initial axial lengthening
quantities of equation (1) and (2) for the modified investigations. In each figure, a plot of the estimated
prototype with symbol (‘), the following dimensionless efficiency is shown as a function of stack length and
ratios can be introduced: number of turns. On these same plots (by a dot) is shown

151

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 the direct input-output efficiency of the original prototype original prototypes and have certain important design
machine obtained by actual testing. The tested efficiency differences, including rotor slot design that appeared to
is shown at the corresponding stack length of the have resulted in different opportunities for further increase
prototype. In general, from the figures it can be seen that, of efficiency. Details of these opportunities are outside the
as the stack length is increased, the estimated efficiency scope of the current study.
tends to go up to a point and then begins a descent. It must
be noted that as the stack length is increased, the number 85.0
1.5 kW - LOW EFF

of turns is reduced in order to maintain the same

operational voltage and maximize efficiency. The 84.0

conductor size is also adjusted for the same reasons and

also to maintain the same slot fill. The simulation is done 83.0

Estimated efficiency
at 1mm of stack length steps up to a point and then at more 82.0

coarse steps of 5mm (sees Fig 4). The plots shown in Fig Conductor in series/slot = 84, wire diameter = 0.5732 mm
Conductor in series/slot = 83, wire diameter = 0.5766 mm
2-7 clearly depict in a visual form, the lengthening options 81.0 Conductor in series/slot = 82, wire diameter = 0.5801 mm

to explore in more detail. Of course, any selected Conductor in series/slot = 80, wire diameter = 0.5873 mm
Conductor in series/slot = 78, wire diameter = 0.5948 mm
lengthening option has to be verified through rigorous
80.0
Actual machine

criteria such as starting and peak torque performance and 79.0

Conductor in series/slot = 90, wire diameter = 0.5537 mm

allowable locked rotor current. In these figures, some

95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Core length [mm]

curves are reported just to show the variation trends. For
example, large reductions in the conductors in series per Figure 3. Estimated Efficiency of 1.5kW low efficiency motor
phase may lead to inadmissible airgap flux density
increases if the stack length is not appropriately adjusted. 93.0
7.5kW-Aluminum

ΔL = 1 mm ΔL = 5 mm

Comparing Fig 2 and 3 for the 1.5kW motors, it can be 92.5

seen that there appears to be more opportunities for

efficiency improvement for the low efficiency motor than 92.0

for the high efficiency motor. For example, in Fig 2, for

Estimated efficiency, %

the high efficiency 1.5kW motor, it is evident that even if 91.5

the stack length is increased from the existing 81mm to

90mm only a modest gain in efficiency is achieved. 91.0
Conductor in series/slot = 24, wire diameter = 2.1082 mm

However, from Fig 3, it can be seen that even at reduced Conductor in series/slot = 23, wire diameter = 2.1535 mm
Conductor in series/slot = 21, wire diameter = 2.2538 mm

stack length, the efficiency of the 1.5kW low-efficiency 90.5 Conductor in series/slot = 19, wire diameter = 2.3694 mm
Conductor in series/slot = 17, wire diameter = 2.5049 mm

motor can be improved further by changing winding 90.0

Actual machine

configuration. This trend somehow appears to make sense 150 160 170 180

Core length [mm]

190 200 210 220 230

but motor performance may or may not be acceptable.

Figure 4. Estimated efficiency of 7.5kW AL motor
1.5 kW - Premium Efficiency
89.0

7.5 kW - Copper
92.0
88.0 ΔL = 1 mm ΔL = 5 mm

91.8
Estimated efficiency, %

87.0
91.6

91.4
86.0
Estimated efficiency, %

91.2
Conductor in series/slot = 51, wire diameter = 0.9 mm
85.0
Conductor in series/slot = 49, wire diameter = 0.918 mm 91.0

Conductor in series/slot = 46, wire diameter = 0.948 mm

Conductor in series/slot = 43, wire diameter = 0.980 mm 90.8 Conductor in series/slot = 16, wire diameter = 2.1043 mm
84.0
Conductor in series/slot = 41, wire diameter = 1.004 mm Conductor in series/slot = 15, wire diameter = 2.1733 mm
Actual machine 90.6
Conductor in series/slot = 13, wire diameter = 2.3345 mm
83.0 Conductor in series/slot = 12, wire diameter = 2.4298 mm
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 90.4
Conductor in series/slot = 11, wire diameter = 2.5379 mm
Core length [mm] 90.2 Actual machine

90.0

Figure 2. Estimated efficiency of 1.5kW high efficiency motor

175 185 195 205 215 225 235 245

Core length [mm]

Fig 4-5 show a plot of the estimated efficiency as a Figure 5. Estimated efficiency of 7.5kW Cu motor
function of stack length and number of turns for the 7.5kW
motors of aluminum and copper rotor constructions. Both Comparing Fig 6 and 7 for the 56kW motors, it can be
motors are of premium efficiency design. These two seen that there is no real opportunity to change the axial
designs have different active diameters and lengths for the length alone, in order to increase efficiency for the high
efficiency motor. For the 56kW low efficiency motor, it

152

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 seems that the efficiency could be increased by reducing original prototype and the lengthened prototypes. Ref [5]
the number of turns (increasing the airgap flux density) and [6] present a full description of a technique to
with the same axial length (or with a slightly reduced calculate equivalent circuit parameters from machine
stack length!). In any case, the improvement is quite geometry and electrical data, which can typically be
small as would be expected. A close look at both obtained through electromagnetic design. This technique
machines point to different levels of saturation of the was adopted for the computations in this paper. In this
teeth zone that could explain the observed trend. The case, the data for parameter calculation was readily
56kW high efficiency motor (motor 1) has 60 stator slots obtained through the tear down analysis performed on the
prototype motors.
while the other has 48 slots. All things being equal, the
tooth saturation of the latter is expected to be much lower
than the former. Fig 8 shows the lamination design of the
two motors superposed. The tooth width of 56kW Motor
1 (H) is nearly two times that of Motor 2 (L). The
differences in the two 56kW machines highlight an
important limitation of the axial lengthening technique
that would be discussed in Section IV.
56kW - Motor 1 (High Eff)
96.0

95.9 Conductor in series/slot = 8, wire diameter = 3.9965 mm

Conductor in series/slot = 9, wire diameter = 3.7651 mm
95.8 Actual machine

95.7
Conductor in series/slot = 7, wire diameter = 4.2693 mm
Figure 8. Stator slots of 56kW motors
95.6
Estimated efficiency, %

95.5
The resistances are computed from conductor
95.4
properties and machine geometry. By representing the
95.3
stator winding as Zph conductors in series with an
95.2
equivalent cross-sectional area of Aw, the stator winding
95.1
resistance can be determined by [5]
95.0
280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 ( Z ph / 2 ) × Lave
Core length [mm] Rs = ρ × (5)
Aw
Figure 6. Estimated efficiency of 56kW high eff motor where ρ is resistivity of conductor material and Lave is
average length of conductor including end turns. The
96.5
56kW- Motor 2 (Low Eff)
equivalent rotor phase resistance is expressed as [6]:
2 Ra
Rr = Rb + (6)
4 N bar sen 2 ( βr / 2 )
96.0

L
Estimated efficiency, %

95.5

Rb = K R × ρ × bar (7)
95.0
Abar
πD
Ra = ρ × a
Conductor in series/slot = 10, wire diameter = 3.4899 mm
Conductor in series/slot = 11, wire diameter = 3.3275 mm (8)
94.5 Conductor in series/slot = 12, wire diameter = 3.1858 mm
Actual machine Aa
Conductor in series/slot = 9, wire diameter = 3.6786 mm
Conductor in series/slot = 8, wire diameter = 3.9018 mm where Ra is end ring resistance, Rb is rotor bar resistance,
Lbar and Abar are bar length and cross sectional area, Aa and
94.0
260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295

Core length [mm]

Da are end ring area and average diameter respectively.
Figure 7. Estimated efficiency of 56kW low efficiency motor
The skin effect coefficient KR has to be calculated with
consideration of motor slip. The leakage reactances and
C. Parameters and Performance Calibration magnetizing reactance and skin effect are elaborately
discussed in [5]-[6]. As discussed subsequently, the rotor
It must be noted that not all the options depicted in Fig bar resistance as calculated above (as well as the rotor bar
2-7 are feasible and each promising option has to be leakage reactance) has to be adjusted during a model
carefully analyzed through the computation of calibration process due to the fact that all the considered
performance parameters not only at rated operation machines have closed rotor slots. As is well known, the
condition but also at variable load. The basis of the computation of these parameters by means of analytical
algorithm for this aspect of the computations comprises approaches for closed rotor slots is still a challenging
the determination of equivalent circuit parameters of the problem.

153

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Since the goal here is to estimate small variations in temperature is unknown. In addition, it is very difficult to
the performance by analytical means, an accurate properly account for skin effect in analytical computations.
calibration of the analytical tools for each original machine
is mandatory. In particular, effects such as slotting, 5) Efficiency: For the efficiency calibrations the
saturation, rotor slot enclosure, etc, that are not easily treatment of stray load losses (SLL) becomes a critical
modeled by analytical means are already automatically
measured and included in test results. Therefore the issue as well as a limiting issue for the proposed approach
calibration helps to improve the accuracy of the modeling. in this paper. On one hand SLL can be considered for the
Some aspects of the calibration are highlighted in the original prototype, while it is more difficult to consider it
following paragraphs. for the lengthened prototype. This is further explained in
Section III.
1) No-load Characteristics: For the no-load
characteristics, a small value was assigned to the rotor slot Io
opening, while the airgap thickness is changed to obtain
the initial slope (Region 1 of Fig 9) of the measured
Region 2
characteristic. It must be pointed out that the changes in
the airgap are small; for example for the 1.5kW high
efficiency motor, the design airgap is 0.3mm compared to
the adopted airgap of 0.325mm. This small change is
consistent with practical tolerances on the airgap during
manufacturing. Also, the B-H curve of the material is
changed (only for high magnetic field values) in order to
have a good agreement between the computed and Region 1
Vphase
measured no-load current vs. phase voltage characteristic
over the saturation knee (Region 2 in Figure 9). The
specific iron losses at 1T have been calibrated in order to Figure 9. Example of a no-load calibration
compute the same value of the measured iron losses at the 7.0
rated phase voltage.
2) Locked Rotor Parameters: For the locked rotor 6.0

parameters, a different approach is required. With the 5.0

previously defined airgap thickness of Section C(1), the Computed
Phase no-load current [A]

equivalent rotor slot opening was changed until a good 4.0

Measured
agreement between the computed and measured rotor 3.0
parameters (rotor leakage reactance and rotor resistance)
2.0
is obtained.
3) Parameters for Maximum Torque Estimation: The 1.0

previously defined air gap thickness of Section C (1) is

0.0
maintained while a “reasonable” value of the equivalent 0 50 100 150 200
rotor slot opening is applied. The value, of equivalent slot Phase voltage [V]

opening in this case, appears to be the average between the Figure 10. No-load current of 1.5kW high efficiency motor
minimum value (as defined for the no-load calibration)
and the maximum value (as defined for the locked rotor 1.5kW - Low Eff

calibration). 300

4) Load Performance and Torque Characteristics: In 250

these calibrations, the steady state temperature measured Computed
during the load tests is applied for the model. The 200
Measured

equivalent slot opening parameters used in the no-load

Phase no-load Watts [W]

150
condition are applied for matching the torque-current
100
characteristics. For the torque-speed characteristics and,
also in general, for the load curves expressed as a function 50

of rotor speed, the rotor bar resistance calculated in (7) is

0
increased by 12% to 48% depending on the machine. This 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
change in rotor bar resistance is required in order to match Phase voltage [V]

the characteristics because large currents flow through the

rotor under these conditions and the actual rotor Figure 11. No-load power of 1.5kW low efficiency motor

154

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 D. Calibration Results 7.5kW - Aluminum

Fig 10-11 show the no-load phase current and power 9

calibrations for the 1.5kW high and low efficiency motors. 8 Computed

Phase no-load current [A]

Typical for all the calibrations, in some cases there is a 7 lengthened
perfect match between the test data and model during the 6 Computed
calibration process (see Fig 10), while in other cases the 5 original

match is achieved only at specified (see Fig 11) points, 4

3
usually nominal conditions, e.g. rated voltage in the case 2
of Fig 11. 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Phase voltage [V]
III. RESULTS
Figure 12. Computed no-load current of 7.5kW Al. motor
A. Selection of Lengthened Solution
For each machine prototype a stack length is selected 7.5kW - Aluminum
and analyzed (see Table 2). The axial length and the 250
winding structure were selected on the basis of the result
of the axial lengthening analyses shown in Fig 2-7. No

Phase no-load Watts [W]

200 Computed
specific calibrations or changes have been used for the lengthened
150 Computed
lengthened machine with respect to the original one. This original
means that the same calibrated airgap thickness, and the 100
same rotor slot opening width, etc, that was used to match
test results for the original prototype have been applied. 50

In order to compare the original and lengthened 0

machines it is reasonable to compare computed quantities 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0

only since the original machine was tested but the Phase voltage [V]
lengthened prototype is a design that has neither been
manufactured nor tested. Figure 13. Computed no-load power of 7.5kW Al motor

Fig 12-13 show a typical no-load current and power of
the lengthened prototype compared to the original machine
for the 7.5kW motor. Similar plots for other motors are
omitted to save space. It can be observed that the no-load
current of the new design is higher than the original
machine as are most of the cases. In the case of the 1.5kW
low efficiency motor the opposite applies, since the stack
length is increased and same winding structure is
maintained.
B. Impact of Stray Loss on Model
Since the calibrated analytical model is used to
determine efficiency, it is important to evaluate how
accurate it is. Fig 14 shows a plot of model predicted
efficiency compared to actual test results of the 1.5kW low
efficiency original prototype. The apparent discrepancy in
the two curves is due to the influence of stray load loss,
The approach of including the SLL as mechanical
losses in the power balance is not unreasonable, given that
the additional losses practically don’t involve any
significant variation in the current (or in the slip) when
included in the power balance. However, it is not possible
to use the ‘measured’ additional losses for the lengthened
solution too. This is obvious because the lengthened
machine is a different machine from the original prototype.
Without performing a test or developing an accurate
means of computing the SLL, it is incorrect to ascribe the
SLL of the prototype to the lengthened machine. Therefore
the efficiency computations in Section IIIC were
computed without SLL for the original and lengthened
prototype in order to ensure fair comparison.
1.5kW - Low Eff
0.90

which was not accounted for in the model. In order to 0.85

demonstrate that this is indeed the case and not due to 0.80
other reasons, the simulation was re-run to account for the
Efficiency

SLL. At the six discrete points corresponding to the 0.75

Model

measured current of a given load point, the simulation was 0.70 Measured

re-run but this time the SLL value from the load test was 0.65
added as mechanical losses in the model. With this
consideration, there is very good agreement between the
0.60
1680 1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800

model and actual test. This interesting result has been Speed, RPM
obtained for all the machines under analysis.
Figure 14. Efficiency comparison of 1.5kW low efficiency motor

155

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1.5kW - Low Eff 7.5kW (Al) - High Efficiency
0.95
0.90
0.94

0.85 0.93

0.92
0.80 0.91

Efficiency
0.90
0.75
Efficiency

Measured 0.89
Computed original
0.70 SLL Corrected Model 0.88
Computed lengthened
0.87
0.65 0.86

0.85
0.60 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800
1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800
Speed, RPM

Speed, RPM
Figure 17. Computed Efficiency Comparison of 7.5kW Al motor
Figure 15. Corrected Efficiency comparison of 1.5kW low eff motor

IV. LIMITATIONS OF AXIAL LENGTHENING

The approach presents a number of limitations that are
C. Calculated Efficiency without Stray Loss
worth highlighting. In general, the increase of stack length
Fig 16-17 show typical calculated efficiency for involves an increase in motor volume and consequently
original and lengthened prototypes of two of the motors the use of more active material is required, leading to
investigated. The computed full load efficiency values of increased costs. The cost issues are not limited to direct
the motors investigated are presented in Table 2. Due to
costs of materials but also include labor costs and
limited opportunities in the 56kW motors these were not
fully explored. Because SLL was not considered in the manufacturing costs that may vary from one manufacturer
computations, the actual values would be slightly lower to another. For example, Fig 18 and 19 show rotor
than the reported. It can be seen that the efficiency gains constructions of the two commercially produced 56kW
are modest. Five of these machines are already of motors investigated. The rotor diameters are identical but
Premium efficiency design and appear to have reached active lengths are different. Because of the large clearance
maximum achievable levels with the current material available between end-rings and bearing ports of the rotor
available and design configurations employed. In order to in Fig 18, it would be much easier to consider axial core
improve the efficiency markedly, comprehensive design is lengthening in this motor than the one in Fig 19, which
required. might probably require significant shaft redesign. The
total cost of core lengthening must be compared to tooling
TABLE II. COMPUTED EFFICIENCY AND POWER FACTOR costs required for a complete lamination redesign, in order
Stack Length (mm) Efficiency, % F.L. Power Factor p.u to arrive at an economic decision.
Original New Original New
Machine Original New Manuf
Prototype Prototype
Prototype Prototype Prototype Prototype From the technical standpoint, not all the available
(computed) (computed) (computed) (computed)
1.5kW High Eff 81 90 89.0 89.7 0.78 0.82 A options are feasible due to the possible violation of
1.5kW Low Eff 100 105 82.5 83.1 0.79 0.80 B important performance parameters. Industrial induction
7.5kW High Eff 153 170 92.4 92.9 0.81 0.79 C
7.5kW High Eff 181 206 92.6 92.9 0.80 0.74 D motors are required to meet minimum limits on locked-
56kW High Eff 288 - 95.4 - - - E rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torques, as well as a
56kW Low Eff 269 - 95.6 - - - E
maximum limit on the locked rotor current. There are
several other requirements such as a minimum required
1.5kW High Eff stall time of 12 seconds as well as specified start times.
0.92 Therefore efficiency should not be looked at in isolation.
0.90
Also, in some cases existing lamination design may not
0.88
be suitable for core lengthening. The 56kW motors
0.86 demonstrate this scenario. The high efficiency motor
Efficiency

0.84 lengthened showed significant tooth saturation effects that limited the
0.82 original process. Therefore, starting with a bad lamination design,
0.80
no amount of axial core lengthening can help.
0.78 Another limitation is the influence of manufacturing
1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800
tolerances. The fact that a motor was designed or
Speed, rpm nameplated as a high efficiency motor does not necessarily
mean it would end up more efficient than another. For
Figure 16. Computed efficiency comparison of 1.5kW high eff motor example, both 56kW motors tested at the same efficiency,

156

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 although one was expected to be a band higher. Therefore
projecting core lengthening opportunities from initial
design may not present the total picture.
In addition, actual conductors are in discrete sizes and
sometimes conductors sizes that provide the optimal
performance conditions in the modeling may not be
exactly matched by available stock sizes.
Furthermore, the case of the 1.5kW low efficiency
motor illustrates another limitation. This motor was
expected to have significant opportunities for efficiency
improvement. However, that was not the case for the
selected axial length. Some manufacturers offer lower
efficiency versions of the same rating by changing only a
few parameters such as conductor size, number of turns
and air gap of the higher end design. The larger airgap for
the low efficiency motor is simply achieved by machining
the surface of the rotor. Therefore, starting with a
relatively larger airgap in the original prototype,
opportunities for efficiency improvement by core
lengthening may be hampered.
Figure 18. Rotor of 56kW low-eff motor
Figure 19. Rotor of 56kW high-eff motor
V. CONCLUSION
The proposed paper investigated the incremental
improvement of efficiency of motors that are already
subjected to commercial production. The prototypes
investigated were designed by five different
157
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 04:32:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
manufacturers. The use of commercially available stock
motors is particularly important because these are the
designs from which possible incremental improvements
can be made in a cost effective manner by the respective
manufacturers. Furthermore, low efficiency and premium
designs as well as motors of different rotor constructions
were investigated as baseline designs.
The results indicate that it is possible to improve the
efficiency. However, only modest improvements are
achievable, especially when the original machines are
already high efficiency (premium or above premium)
design machines. Also, if the initial lamination design is
not suitable, (for example laminations prone to excessive
tooth saturation), efficiency improvement by core
lengthening is hampered. For larger improvements, a
comprehensive consideration of materials, design
techniques and manufacturing is required. In many cases
these considerations cannot be looked at separately but
rather in totality.
REFERENCES
[1] 110th Congress of the United States, “Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007”, January 2007, <available:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6 >
[2] Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2009, “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, L 191,
23.7.2009, pp. 26-34, <available:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/en/index.htm>
[3] L. Alberti, N. Bianchi, A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino,” Core axial
lengthening as effective solution to improve the induction motor
efficiency classes,” ECCE Conference, Phoenix, AZ, Sept 2011.
[4] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, M. Lazzari, G. Luparia”
No tooling cost process for induction motor energy efficiency
improvements,” IEEE transactions on industry applications, vol.
41, no.3, May/June 2005.
[5] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, M. Lazzari,
“Computational Algorithms for Induction-Motor Equivalent
Circuit Parameter Determination—Part I: Resistances and Leakage
Reactances,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58,
no. 9, Sept 2011
[6] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, M. Lazzari,
“Computational Algorithms for Induction-Motor Equivalent
Circuit Parameter Determination—Part II: Skin Effect and
Magnetization Characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 58, no. 9, Sept 2011
[7] He Zhang; Zanchetta, P.; Gerada, C.; Bradley, K.; Junyi Liu
“Performance evaluation of induction motor efficiency and in-
service losses measurement using standard test methods”, Electric
Machines & Drives Conference (IEMDC), 2011 IEEE
International, 2011 , Page(s): 913 – 917.
[8] Peters, D.T.; Brush, E.F.; Kirtley, J.L., “Die-cast copper rotors as
strategy for improving induction motor efficiency”, Electrical
Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing Expo, 2007 ,
Page(s): 322 – 327.
[9] Agamloh, E.B., “Induction Motor Efficiency”, Industry
Applications Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 17, Issue: 6, 2011,
Page(s): 20 – 28.