Comparative Performance Analysis - SynRM - IM - Felipe Oliveira
Comparative Performance Analysis - SynRM - IM - Felipe Oliveira
Comparative Performance Analysis - SynRM - IM - Felipe Oliveira
net/publication/330081729
CITATIONS READS
0 900
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Voltage Sensitivity Analysis and Demand Dispatch Option of Electric Vehicle in Smart Grid View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abhisek Ukil on 02 January 2019.
Abstract—A significant portion (ca. 40%) of the world’s the state-of-the-art high-efficiency IMs. Quantitative analysis
total energy is utilized in buildings. Cooling of large buildings of energy savings in this kind of application is also presented.
worldwide is done by centrifugal chiller systems, where the SimulationX [14] software is used to develop the system model
compressors, pumps, fans are driven by AC motors. These
motors are energy hungry parts of the chiller. All-variable of the all-variable speed centrifugal chiller system, along with
speed chillers, taking into account load variations, reduced the the building. Different building load profiles covering various
energy demand significantly, compared to the constant speed load utilization scenarios are selected for the energy consump-
ones. Induction motors (IMs) are commonly used in modern tion simulations, at different ambient conditions. Comparative
chillers. However, as the efficiency of the IM decreases with results for the IM and the SynRM are presented and analyzed.
speed, the overall efficiency drops, as the chiller operates most
of the time in part-load condition. In this paper, SimulationX
software is used to quantitatively investigate about the energy A. Contributions
efficiency improvement, by using synchronous reluctance motor
(SynRM) in all-variable speed centrifugal chillers. The system The paper has the following main contributions. Firstly,
was tested for three distinct building load profiles. The results we give an overview of the centrifugal chiller systems, and
are judged in comparison with the state-of-the-art IE2 IMs. The SynRM-based VSD, which is a promising new technological
results provide quantitative evidence that synchronous reluctance development, compared to the traditional IM. Secondly, we
motor can significantly increase the energy efficiency in the chiller
systems and has a big potential to substitute induction motors in show relevant case-studies of different energy consumption
these applications. scenarios in the centrifugal chiller systems, demonstrating that
the SynRM-based VSD can achieve significantly higher energy
Index Terms—Building energy efficiency, centrifugal chiller,
compressor, fan, HVAC, induction motor, pump, smart grid, efficiency than the traditional IM.
synchronous reluctance motor.
B. Organization
I. I NTRODUCTION The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes
WO-thirds of world’s electrical energy is utilized by the background information on the variable speed centrifugal
T electric motors [1]. A significant portion (ca. 40%) of
the world’s total energy is utilized in buildings [2]. Heat-
chiller, chiller efficiency, VSD, with other control methods,
and SynRM. Detailed modeling of the chiller systems along
ing, Ventillation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) system is the with IM- and SynRM-based VSDs using the SimulationX [14]
highest eletrical load (ca. 30–50%) in the buildings [3]–[5]. software are described in section III. Results are presented
Components of the HVAC system, in particular the chillers, in section IV. Discussions on the result are presented in
namely, compressors, pumps, fans are motor driven. Therefore, section V. Finally, conclusions are provided in section VI.
improving the energy efficiency of the fans, compressors and
pumps in the HVAC system is of particular importance, with II. BACKGROUND I NFORMATION
worldwide increased focus on building energy management A. Variable Speed Centrifugal Chillers
[6]–[9]. In this paper, we focus on the variable-speed cen-
Cooling of large buildings worldwide is done by centrifugal
trifugal chiller part of the HVAC system.
chiller systems [11]. In brief, the heat from the buildings is
Modern chiller systems are typically driven by the induction transferred to the chilled water, which is pumped through the
motor (IM)-based variable speed drive (VSD) [10]–[12]. Syn- building, and then transferred to the refrigerant fluid in the
chronous reluctance motor (SynRM) is a relatively new high- chiller. The refrigerant fluid goes through a compression cycle,
efficiency motor technology. It is being proposed for HVAC and transfers the heat to the cooling water. The cooling water
and chiller applications [13]. In this paper, SynRM is exten- is finally pumped to a cooling tower, which blows atmospheric
sively investigated for chiller applications, in comparison with air to the cooling water, to be refrigerated and to enter in the
F. Oliveira was Masters student in the Dept. of ECE. Univ. of process again, as shown in Fig. 1.
Auckland, 20 Symonds Street, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand, (email: Large buildings have few chiller units installed, each chiller
foli382@aucklanduni.ac.nz). unit containing several pumps and fans. The chiller system is
A. Ukil (corresponding author) is Senior Lecturer in the Dept. of ECE,
Univ. of Auckland, 20 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand, (email: typically designed to provide the maximum cooling demand
a.ukil@auckland.ac.nz). during the hottest summer times [17], which, however, take
2
place only for a short duration. For majority of the time, the
chiller system does not run at full-load, rather in substantially
partial loading condition, especially during the winter. Effi-
cient control for dynamic operation of the chiller system can
significantly improve the energy efficiency, reducing energy
wastage due to over/under-cooling [10].
The flow control to achieve the required part-load conditions
can be implemented in different ways, e.g., with dampers,
throttles and bypasses, which can reduce the flow but do not
minimize the power consumption [15]. On/off cycle control,
using different devices to vary the chilled/cooling water flow
can to some extent reduce the electricity consumption [11].
The electrical power, the energy follows the affinity laws [16],
with a cubic relationship with the speed reduction (see Fig. 2).
Hence, the speed control is the most efficient way to control
the flow and reduce the energy consumption of pumps, fans
and compressors. A key point is that the motors should be
able to flexibly operate by reducing their speed in the part-
load condition, which is defined in the following section.
Fig. 2: Different controls for the variable-speed centrifugal
B. Efficiency of Variable Speed Centrifugal Chiller chiller system.
Coefficient of performance (COP), defined by the ratio of
the heat removed from the water by the evaporator (Qc ) over
the compressor mechanical work energy (W ), measures the
centrifugal chiller efficiency,
Qc
COP = . (1)
W
The ASHRAE COP [17] classification is shown in Fig. 3. An
excellent full-load COP value is considered to be over 5.0.
ARI standard 550/590 [18] defines the Integrated Part Load
Value (IPLV). IPLV is used to measure chiller performance in Fig. 3: ASHRAE COP classification.
the partial loading condition.
IP LV = 0.01A + 0.42B + 0.45C + 0.12D, (2) C. Variable Speed or Frequency Drive
where, the parameter A, B, C, D denote COP at 100%, 75%, The speed control of the electric motor is performed by the
50%, and 25% full-load condition respectively. From eq. (2), VSD, also known as, the variable frequency drive (VFD). 5%
it can be noticed that the calculation of the IPLV considers to 8% energy savings is reported for cooling fans using VSD
different weights for each part-load situation, the 75% and [19]. Applications of the VFD for controlling the primary-flow
50% being the most influencing ones. pumps resulted in overall energy savings ca. 2% and 5% [20].
3
Following load-driven control methods and equal marginal this means that motor efficiency will decrease, resulting in
performance principle (EMPP), Hartman [17] demonstrated unwanted energy losses. Motor technology that can improve
28% energy savings for all-variable speed chillers. Reduction the efficiency under part-load condition, would be a huge
in annual electricity and water usage by ca. 19%, and 16% benefit to improve the energy efficiency at industrial scale.
could be achieved by adopting load-specific control of speed IEC 60034-30-1:2014 standard [21] defines the AC motor
in the chillers [16]. Energy savings of 30% could be achieved efficiency class. Fig. 4 shows the different classes, IE1–IE4,
in Taiwan’s industrial buildings by using VSDs [10]. which are known as ‘Standard,’ ‘High-efficiency,’ ‘Premium,’
‘Super Premium,’ and ‘Ultra Premium’. Standard IMs are
D. Comparison of Different Control Methods classified in IE2 or IE3, while, SynRM comes with higher
efficiency, IE4. With no permanent magnet, reduced torque
Following the discussion on the VSD, a quantitative com-
and current ripples, SynRM is aimed to replace in near future
parison of the different control methods (see Fig. 2) are
most of the AC motors [21].
described in this section. Referring to the Fig. 2, using curve-
fitting, we compute the input power requirements (Pinp in %)
for the different control methods, at the four loading conditions
in the IPLV definition (see eq. (2)). The values are shown in
Table I. For 25% loading condition, the values are calculated
by extrapolation of the fitted curves.
Considering the pump load requirement as the required
output, and using the values from Table I, we compute the
efficiency (η) of the different control methods at the four
loading conditions in the IPLV definition. The values are
shown in Table II. For example, at 25% load, VSD η =
Pinp (P ump)/Pinp (V SD) = 6.9/10 = 69%.
From Table II, it can be seen that most of the control
methods have relatively high efficiency at high load. How-
ever, except the VSD, all other control methods have poor
performance in terms of efficiency at low loading conditions, Fig. 4: IE efficiency classes for 4 pole motors at 50 Hz [21].
especially below 75%. At extremely low load like 25%, the
Specially designed rotor provides the maximum reluctance
drop in efficiency is significant. This demonstrates that VSD is
path in the SynRM between the direct (d) and the quadrature
the most optimal control method for variable speed centrifugal
(q) axes. The stator design is similar to standard IM. Based on
chiller loads.
the maximum reluctance, the mechanical torque is generated.
TABLE I: Different Control Methods: Input Power Compari-
With no rotor windings, SynRM has no rotor losses, compared
son
to other AC motors [22], [23]. This makes the SynRM
% of Pump VSD Mag. ON/ Throttle By- inherently more efficient than same rated IM [24], [25].
Full Coup. OFF pass
Speed Pinp Pinp Pinp Pinp Pinp Pinp
IM is a mature technology, developing over last 100 years,
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) while SynRM is commercially available from 2011 [26].
25 6.9 10 17 25 60 101 Being a new technology, feasibility of the SynRM in energy
50 13 18 34 50 79 101 efficiency applications, designs, control strategies, are not fully
75 43 47 63 75 95 101
100 100 105 103 100 104 101 proven, notwithstanding its huge potential from the theory.
Comparative views of the constructional details and losses of
the IM and SynRM are shown in Fig. 5 [26].
TABLE II: Different Control Methods: Comparison of Effi-
Increasing research works are being reported for SynRM.
ciency
Foo and Zhang [27] presented robust field-weakening algo-
% of VSD Mag. ON/ Throttle By- rithm for directly controlling the torque in SynRM. Bierhoff
Full Coup. OFF pass
Speed η η η η η
presented simple phase-locked loop (PLL) type algorithm for
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) controlling the SynRM in [28]. Trancho et. al. [29] presented
25 69.00 40.59 27.60 11.50 6.83 sliding mode control and hybrid field weakening control for
50 72.22 38.24 26.00 16.46 12.87 the SynRM. Hadla and Cruz [30] used model predictive
75 91.49 68.25 57.33 45.26 42.57
100 95.24 97.09 100.0 96.15 99.01 control (MPC) strategy for SynRM.
D. Modeling of Load Profiles Fig. 9: 200 kW package efficiency curves in pump/fan duty
To run the comparisons, three different annual load profiles [13].
were selected, namely commercial building in Hawaii (see Fig.
13) [35], office building 1 in Hongkong, China (see Fig. 14)
[36], and office building 2 in Hongkong, China (see Fig. 15)
a kind of ‘bell shaped curve’ distribution, with more medium
[16]. The load profiles were selected to incorporate the part-
loads and less extreme loads.
load conditions, as described in eq. (2).
These three different load profiles are very interesting for In order to achieve the component-wise energy consump-
this analysis because they have completely distinct charac- tion, we first multiply the efficiency curve with the motor
teristics from each other. Load profile 2 (see Fig. 14) is power curve, followed by a time-integral of the result. The
predominantly high loads, and load profile 3 (see Fig. 15) is energy consumptions are calculated at two different ambient
predominantly low loads, while load profile 1 (see Fig. 13) is temperature conditions, namely at 25◦ C and 35◦ C.
6
TABLE IV: Energy Performance Result for Load Profile-1 (at 25◦ C ambient temperature)
Load Profile-1 IE2 IM SynRM Difference (%) SynRM Difference (%)
(All equipments) (Compressor only) (Col. 3 & 2) (All equipments) (Col. 5 & 2)
Annual 1653.19 1601.67 -3.12% 1592.66 -3.66%
Consumption (MWh)
Average 88.95% 91.81% +3.22% 92.33% +3.80%
Efficiency
Annual 182.71 131.19 -28.20% 122.18 -33.13%
Lossess (MWh)
TABLE V: Energy Performance Result for Load Profile-2 (at 25◦ C ambient temperature)
Load Profile-2 IE2 IM SynRM Difference (%) SynRM Difference (%)
(All equipments) (Compressor only) (Col. 3 & 2) (All equipments) (Col. 5 & 2)
Annual 624.95 609.13 -2.53% 605.71 -3.08%
Consumption (MWh)
Average 90.39% 92.74% +2.60% 93.26% +3.18%
Efficiency
Annual 60.05 44.22 -26.36% 40.80 -32.06%
Lossess (MWh)
TABLE VI: Energy Performance Result for Load Profile-3 (at 25◦ C ambient temperature)
Load Profile-3 IE2 IM SynRM Difference (%) SynRM Difference (%)
(All equipments) (Compressor only) (Col. 3 & 2) (All equipments) (Col. 5 & 2)
Annual 381.37 365.98 -4.04% 363.70 -4.63%
Consumption (MWh)
Average 86.44% 90.08% +4.21% 90.65% +4.87%
Efficiency
Annual 51.69 36.30 -29.77% 34.02 -34.18%
Lossess (MWh)
TABLE VII: Energy Performance Result for Load Profile-1 (at 35◦ C ambient temperature)
Load Profile-1 IE2 IM SynRM Difference (%) SynRM Difference (%)
(All equipments) (Compressor only) (Col. 3 & 2) (All equipments) (Col. 5 & 2)
Annual 3185.7 3102.43 -2.61% 3080.2 -3.31%
Consumption (MWh)
Average 87.17% 90.89% +4.27% 91.41% +4.86%
Efficiency
Annual 352.1 254.11 -27.83% 236.29 -32.89%
Lossess (MWh)
TABLE VIII: Energy Performance Result for Load Profile-2 (at 35◦ C ambient temperature)
Load Profile-2 IE2 IM SynRM Difference (%) SynRM Difference (%)
(All equipments) (Compressor only) (Col. 3 & 2) (All equipments) (Col. 5 & 2)
Annual 1204.28 1179.88 -2.03% 1171.44 -2.73%
Consumption (MWh)
Average 88.58% 91.81% +3.65% 92.33% +4.23%
Efficiency
Annual 115.72 85.65 -25.99% 78.91 -31.81%
Lossess (MWh)
TABLE IX: Energy Performance Result for Load Profile-3 (at 35◦ C ambient temperature)
Load Profile-3 IE2 IM SynRM Difference (%) SynRM Difference (%)
(All equipments) (Compressor only) (Col. 3 & 2) (All equipments) (Col. 5 & 2)
Annual 734.9 707.81 -3.69% 703.4 -4.29%
Consumption (MWh)
Average 84.71% 89.18% +5.28% 89.74% +5.94%
Efficiency
Annual 99.61 70.20 -29.53% 65.79 -33.95%
Lossess (MWh)
7
Fig. 15: Load profile 3 for office building in Hongkong, China Fig. 17: Comparison of annual energy consumption at 35◦ C
[17]. using (i) IE2 IM vs. SynRM in the (ii) compressor only, and
(iii) all machines.
80% of the total cooling load more than 50% of the year.
Similar trend can be observed at 35◦ C ambient temperature, a chiller system. Therefore, any improvements that increase
load profile 3 giving highest energy savings of 4.29%, while the efficiency of the compressor drive system is expected to
load profile 1 and 2 result in 3.31% and 2.73% respectively. significantly influence the overall energy consumption.
Despite the differences in the load profiles, simulating For all the load profiles, using the SynRM, annual losses
various operating conditions, energy savings between 2.53% are highly reduced as well. The annual losses are reduced
and 4.63% are quite significant. For the designed system of between 32%–34%, when SynRM is used in all equipments,
these simulations, operating with the selected load profiles, the and between 26%–29%, when SynRM is used only in the
calculated energy savings can be as high as 60,530 kWh/year compressor. This is inherently due to the high-efficiency of
(e.g., for load profile-1). the SynRM compared to the IE2 IM, as discussed in section
II-E. Figs. 18 and 19 show the efficiencies of the different
motors on common X-Y axes for easy comparison, for IE2 IM
(all equipments), SymRM (in compressor) with IE2 IM (other
equipments), and SynRM (all equipments), at 25◦ C and 35◦ C
respectively.