IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL 33, NO. 1, JANUARYIPEBRUARY 1997 ns Reliability Comparison Between Standard and Energy Efficient Motors Austin H, Bonnett, Fellow, IEEE Absiract— There are always tradeoffs when maximizing a specific performance parameter such as efficiency. The purpose of this paper is to compare the various performance parameters and elements which determine motor reliability. The impact on ‘motor life is considered, along with its robustness. Only the three ‘phase squierel-cage induction motors covered by the 1992 Energy Act are covered in this presentation, as compared to “standard” motors. Index Terms— Energy act, motor efficiency, motor quality, ‘motor reliability, NEMA motors. 1. IvrRopuction VEN though the stage has been set for energy conser- vation being the number one driver in the design of ‘general purpose industrial motors, it was not intended to be at the expense of reliability oF the overall motor performance, ‘Some have felt that the drive for increased efficiency would diminish motor life, and the higher flux densities would create application problems associated with the starting current, This paper is based on a review of various industrial motors available. However, itis obviously not an all inclusive study, since quality issues and design peculiarities are not included. UL. PRropucr DeriNtmioN The product chosen for this comparison is the motor typi- cally used for mill and chemical duty. The newest generation ‘meets IEEE Standard 841 (1994) for most manufacturers. The basic product is defined as follows: + totally enclosed fan cooled (TERC), cast iron construc- tion; + horizontal, 1.15 service factor; + 460 V; + four-pole 60 Hz (1800 r/m syne); + ball bearing 3-200 hp; + 180-45 frame. ‘The comparison will be t0 previous motors, which meet EE. Standard 841 (1986) recommended practice. One of the ‘major differences between the two motors is the increase in motor efficiency to meet or exceed the National Energy Act of 1992, The above-defined product is included in tis legislation. Paper PID 9-29, soproved by the Fevoleum and Chemical Industry 1995 IEEE Powoleum and Chea induny Techical Confrence, Dever CO, September 11-13. Mancipt rtesed Tor pblicton Auge 1, 1998. Company, St Louis, MO@IS6USAN Publik Kem Inter § 008399597 )10208-9 ‘To configure this study to focus on a single motor man- ufacturer would dilute its value significantly. Conversely, to try to include all manufacturers would not be practical. It is also apparent that no given motor manufacturer uses the ‘same approach on all designs. Hence, although the practices and characteristics described by the author are common, they are not universal. The commonality is achieved principally by the application of existing IEFE and National Electrical ‘Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standards, which deseribe the constraints that allow various techniques 10 be used t0 achieve the same end results, Il, BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The following factors were considered: 1) efficiency; 2) power factor; 3) winding life; 4) speed-torque characteristics: 5) starting and load current; 6) bearing life: 7) mechanical structure and enclosure; 8) noise: 9) concentrcity: 10) electro-magnetic properties; 11) vibration; 12) service factor; 13) temperature rise, Many of these factors are interdependent and are influenced by the motor speed (poles), size, and enclosure. In an attempt to make an accurate comparison, not only must the motors bbe of the same rating, but it is also necessary to make the comparison for the same application and under the same ‘operating and maintenance conditions. Hence, in an attempt to satisfy this requirement, the general purpose mill and chemical duty motor has been chosen. It is understood that there is still a wide range of application variables. The overall motor performance includes those listed previously under the basic design parameters. ‘The application requirements involving many of these pa: rameters are such that it is not possible for the designer to ‘optimize them all at the same time. In some situations, these parameters conflict with each other. Therefore, the designer is forced to make compromises and prioritize. This study will focus oa the effects of optimizing the efficiency over other design parameters, while still staying within the acceptable limits for all parameters. When faced 093-99049751100 © 1997 MEEE136 TEBE TRANSACTIONS ON EXDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL 3, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1957 with the decision to choose between maximum efficiency and maximum power factor, it is well to remember that once the ‘motor is built, the efficiency becomes an inherent part of the ‘machine and is difficult to improve, whereas, in most cases, there are viable alternatives for other design criteria, such as power factor. IV. BackcRounp ‘There is a direct relationship between motor life and the various stresses acting upon it, As Tong a5 these stresses are properly accommodated and constrained within established design and operation Timits, the desired motor performance and life will usually be achieved. ‘An analysis of some ofthe more critical stresses i a useful tool to ascertain the relative performance and life differences between various designs. ‘The following is a list of the fundamental stresses which will be used to compare the new generation of energy efficient rmovors to the previous generations: + thermal; + electromagnetic; + dynamic; + mechanical; + electrical V. MeriopoLoGy “The following four factors were considered in conducting this reliability study: + basic design differences: + performance tradeoffs; + reported failure differences: + test comparisons. It is acknowledged that a number of assumptions were ‘made tw proceed with this approach, including the fact that all comparisons were made with the basic assumption that the ‘motors were not operating outside of the intended design or standards limits and on similar applications ‘The first major lines of energy efficient motors were intro ‘duced in the mid-1970's for the defined product range, and the ‘estimated penetration prior to the Energy Act of 1992 was less than 20% of the total population purchased over this petiod, Ik is expected that, for the product defined as_general purpose motors, the transition to the energy efficient motor will accelerate toward 100% by 1997. This implies that the rotor industry has many years of field serviee for a very large population of “standard motors" to compare against a relatively small population of the new IEEE Standard $41 energy efficient motors. However, an attempt to quantify the difference in failure rate will be explored. VI. DESIGN DIFFERENCES ‘Tables I and It provide a comparison of the key design and performance criteria for the above-defined motors. Where the values are limited by codes, standards, or laws, some may vary slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer based ‘on a vasiety of design techniques, which can be considered a TABLE | ART STANDARD _| ENERGY EFFICIENT Eloi! Stet 25~30Watsib| 15~ 20Watshb. Lam. Theeress Range| 074s" ~ oss | oves" = 028 ‘Slat Comb of ir & St ‘Sane Stator Set Sra tor Sot Shai or tor Stew FRango fom 0 one sot, ‘i Gap Nema! | Sane or Sighy Larger Die Cast Die Cast ‘Machine oF Hand Wound stawoaro | eNency EFFICIENT SANE ‘SAME! SAME Way Be Ditferent Opional | PSROrIPaS - ie eS Tay he Same ‘Usuay he Sar ‘SAME Saional — sat Bearing Cas typical representation on the product available to the mill and ‘chemical industry, For the most part, the differences between, the electrical designs can be summarized and generalized as shown in Table 1. ‘In most cases, the mechanical structures are made from the same family of parts as shown in Table I ‘As motors evolve to higher efficiency levels, the trend will be to optimize the heat ransfer capabilities of the mechanical paris. Hence, the frame and brackets will usually have more surface area with improved internal air flow and more effective fan arrangements. It is not likely that the mechanical structures ‘will be weakened, nor will the bearing stress be changed in this process. VIL, EFFICIENCY AND POWER FACTOR ‘TRADEOHS ‘The efficiency and power factor tradeofTs are classical for ‘energy efficient motors. The general rule for a given amount ‘of active material (electrical steel, copper, and aluminum) is to maximize efficiency and correct power factor as a system, if required. Figs. 1 and 2 show these typical differences, VILL. WINDING THERMAL CAPACITY (LIFE) A direct comparison of winding life as impacted by thermal aging is shown in Fig. 3. These values were derived from the fact that winding insulation life is doubled for every 10°C reduction in average operating temperatures,BONNET RELIABILITY COMPARISON BEIWEEN STANDARD AND ENERGY BFFICIENT MOTORS wo a siamo FFF me erent 28 op EP ES Fig 4. Average winding temperature comparison Fig. tien comparison fe g ie = HE g - Eas em é a Fi 8. Maxim fame ener conparion ‘enon also confirmed in Fig. 8, which compares the locked VA, or code leter. In Fig. 9,2 comparison was made of the ar fap densities. Note that they were actually lower! The last . item stadia! ws the ratio of magtizing-to-r gap cue g sich called the saturation factor (Ki. Fig. 10 indicates that i athough the Ki factor is sig high for many ratings, its oly g Signitcan impact is associated with lower power factors g Mince, naw of the above deign sonpartons would i- Sonn dicate any deprecation in motor life, Unforonatey, design a data is nt readily available to confiom or deny any migrations a ¢ ‘ or tend of the above-mentioned paruneters over the past 20 g Gio t [7] yeas for the lage existing population of motos 7. To» Be existing POD f = X, SPEED AnD TonQUE CHARACTERISTICS f : These two variables are difficult to generate rues for wl, \ because there are a varity of ways to achieve the same results. wooo 120" Yao” Tea" Yan’ So0 Zao" Fa0 TOTAL WINDING TEMPERATURE -Onorees © Fig. 3 Temperature vers ie conve for isulition systems (per IEEE. Standards 117 and 101). Fig. 4 shows that in the 3-0 hp range there isa significant reduction in the average winding temperatures. Note that in Fig. 5 the frame temperatures track closely with the winding temperatures shown in Fig. 4 TX. INRUSHE CURRENT It can be seen from Figs. 6 and 7 thatthe locked rotor amps, as described by NEMA, show no significant increase. This is Fig. 11 indicates that the torque for the standard and energy efficient motors do not vary significantly. Since there is such a variety of rotor bar designs available throughout the motor industry, it is very difficult to develop any meaningful rule. However, itis safe to say that the speed-torque characteristics do not reduce the motor life of energy efficient motors. ‘The full load pm (slip) as indicated in Fig. 12 shows that the smaller energy efficient motors (J-30 hp) do have higher operating rpm's or lower slip. These lower slip levels, and the resulting reduction in rotor losses and temperature (see Fig. 13), will yield longer rotor and bearing life. Infact, even the stator temperatures are impacted since heat is conducted back across the air gap.z 1000. a 2 wae! ° a Fig. 7. Leck amps compatison me erent er Fig. 9. Air gap density comparison hllines per squre in, Fig 11. Stunting tong comparison, me Gre jo Fig 12. Fall load RPM comparison £00! Ew a smomnoers, Me newness Fig. 13, Maximum rotor temperature comparison To address the air gap issue briefly, there are contradicting points of view on the best air gap for energy efficient motors ‘The general rule thatthe author uses can be stated as follows:[BONNETT: RELIABILITY COMPARISON BETWEEN STANDARD AND ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORS. v9 = Ce oe, a ~~ ENERGY | % TEMP. vocanon | sranaano | SES | BUREE gem 75 HP os. WINDING HOT SPOT 160 126 W7 Borer eed eee nea oe ‘25 HP Se Le = pioneers | ete goes me sonore, Prema er ROTORHOTSPOT | 212 170, 125 Fig. 14. Air gap compaion EB Fig 15. Losked 8 aio comparison, “Increase the air gap and harvest the resulting reduction in stray Toad loss until magnetic saturation occurs in the teeth or core of the lamination and the resulting increase in core loss is unacceptable.” Hence, as shown in Fig. 14, the air gaps are not usually reduced on the energy efficient designs. This rule must be limited to maintaining acceptable power factor levels. Again, the designer is forced to make a tradeoff between efficiency and power factor. ‘Two side benefits for larger ait gaps, for both types of ‘motors assuming saturation in the magnetic circuit has not ‘occurred, is that they tend to be quieter and have less chance of rotor strikes or pullover. XI. INDUCTIVE REACTANCE TO RESISTANCE RATIO (X/R) In recent years, nuisance tripping of the instantaneous circuit breakers used with motors has been associated with the newer ‘eeneration of motors, Many have assumed that the magnitude Of the de offset (asymmetry) and the X/R ratios have been increasing. As can be seen in Fig. 15, the comparison in X/R ratios for standard motors and energy efficient motors show that there is no significant difference up to 100 hp for this particular family of motors, ‘A more feasible explanation is that the National Blectri- cal Code still only allows instantaneous current setting of 700%-1300% of the full load current. There is a proposal under way from NEMA to raise the limit to 1700% (Article 430), combined with full-load amp values that have remained the same for over 30 years, but are not adequate forthe current ‘generation motors. During this same period, there has been a “gradual” evolution toward more robust motors with increased starting torques and inrush current, The slip losses have been reduced to control motor heating, while keeping the X/R ratio “relatively” constant. ‘The X/R ratio is basically controlled by the electromagnetic, design of the motor. No general conclusions ean be drawn regarding X/R ratio of premium efficient versus. standard efficiency motors. However, the peak amperes did increase With regard to the locked rotor amperes as the X/R- ratio increased, X/R ratios tend to increase with size of the unit and with certain design criteria, such as a low slip design. The higher instantaneous current values are due, in part, 0 the slower decaying envelope of longer time constraints normally associated with the higher X/R ratios. Compared to other parameters, X/R ratios will generally exhibit a limited effect, except in marginal cases where breaker unlatching may be ‘occurring on the second or third peak cycle XII, Moror SAFE STALL. TIME “Tuble II shows the comparison of the temperature rise under ‘stall or lock condition which indicates that, in most cases, the energy efficient motors have a greater capacity when exposed to this scenario. XIII, BEARINGS For the most part, motor manufacturers do not reduce the load-carrying capability of the bearing system for energy efficient motors. In fact, they usually have the same system. ‘The major difference is that the energy efficient designs tend to run cooler, they may have reduced magnetic side pull due to lower flux densities, and are better sealed because of the IPSS requirement. The fact that some run 10-15 r/m faster has ‘minimal effect on the projected bearing life, Since lubrication life is a key determinant of bearing life for a given pm, the reduced temperatures more than offset any other factors associated with the design. Motor manufacturers approach the bearing system design in a variety of ways, but usually yield the same Toad capacity and life expectations. Some of the major variables include: + bearing size and type: + sealing methods; + lubricants and lubrication sequence; + fits and clearances;Mo IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL 3, NO. 1, ANUARYIFEBRUARY 187? ‘TABLE IV ‘Tyron sani Tewrenarune Risk ®C Sunr® Eno (1800 RPM Sec) HP | STANDARD ERR. _ENERGYERR. | DELTA 3] cs 2 = 5 35 2s 10 18 6 25 10 6 2» 15 30 30 2» | 30 30 23 ” 30 30 0 30 0 a 2» x 4s 4 o | 35 35 1s 30 35 100 35 0 | us 35 0 150 35, 0 l 6 Ed + se of bearing caps, clamping, and preload: * operating temperatures. ‘A review of product differences indicates most manufac- cures select the bearing system based on application require rents, not on the requied efficiency level TEEE Standard 841 specifies bearing life, maximum operat ing temperature, and sealed capability (ie. IP54 and 1P55), then leave it to the manufacturer to determine how best co comply. This standard was targeted at increasing bearing life over the previous motor generations. Regardless of the ‘motor mounting (horizontal versus vera, the bearing load is not evenly distributed. One bearing (usually the takeoff end) carries most of the load and the short end serves principally as 4 guide bearing. Hence, size differences do not usally affect system life ‘Table TV shows that the operating temperatures are generally lower or equal to that of previous motor designs, I is the autor's opinion that bearing life (or a given motor speed) is not affected as much by the ball speed and type as itis by the quality ofthe lubricant, which is «function of temperature, ‘mounting, alizament, and vibration ofthe system. XIV. MYTHS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORS 1) “Bnergy efficient motors have shorter life because they have been designed with less margin.” A roview of some of the more popular motors made by various manu- facturers indicate that the opposite statement is more accurate. They generally have more active material, a higher quality electrical steel, and run cooler; hence, they have a longer life. 2) “Due to the reduction in slip and the corresponding in- crease in revolutions per minute, energy efficient motors use more energy on variable torque applications such as pumps and fans that follow the affinity laws; ie. np is proportional to the cube of the load.” For most applications of this type, the goal is to move a specific amount of fluid or air from point A to point B (a demand system). The time to accomplish the task is the variable, ‘whereas the total energy required is approximately the ‘same (assuming that both conditions are operating on the ‘optimum part of the pump or fan curve). The increased speed of 5 or 10 rim has negligible impact on bearing life for these types of loads. The assumption that the energy efficient design A or B motors develop significantly less locked-rotor torque is not valid. Fig. 11 shows that they are very similar in value. Certainly, there is not enough difference to affect the motor performance or life. XV, IMPACT OF NEGATIVE SEQUENCE COMPONENTS NEMA MGI makes the following statement “The effect of unbalanced voltages on polyphase induction motors is equivalent tothe introxtution ofa “negative sequence voltage” having a rotation opposite to that occurring. with balanced voltages. This negative sequence voltage produces in the airgap a Bux rotating against the rotation of the rotor, tending to produce high currents. A small negative sequence voltage may produce in the windings currents considerably in excess of those present under balanced voluage conditions,” Which are defined as: Unbalanced Defined: The voltage unbalance in percent may be defined as follows: maximum voltage deviation from average voltage ‘average voltage. Yovoltage unbalance = 19° * Alternating-current polyphase motors shall operate suc~ cessfully under running conditions at rated toad when the voltage unbalance at the motor terminal does not exceed 1%, Performance will not necessarily be the same as when the motor is operating with a balanced voltage at the motor rorminals Voltages preferably should be evenly balanced as closely as, ccan be read on a volimeter. Should voltages be unbalanced, the rated horsepower of the motor should be derated to reduce the possibility of damage to the motor. Operation of the motor above 2 5% voltage unbalance condition is not recommended and 1% is preferred, XVI. UNBALANCED VotTAGe Test RESULTS ‘Two motors of identical ratings, one of premium efficiency and the other of standard design, were tested under the same unbalanced voltage conditions. The input values of current and power were evaluated. The motors were rated for 5 hp, Arpole, 230 V, 60 Hiz ‘The unbalance in supply voltage was ereated by maintaining ‘one line voltage at the nominal value, while varying the other ‘wo above and below the nominal values by equal magnitudes, ‘The actual setting was done on the phase voltages by adjusting. ‘heir magnitudes and the angles between them. In arriving at the phase voltage vectors from the magnitudes of the line voltages, the supply neutral, ie., the zero-sequence voltage, was considered at zero value. ‘The measurements of current, power inputs, and the power factor angles were taken by the meters associated with the[BONNETT: RELIABILITY COMPARISON RETWEEN STANDARD AND ENERGY PFFICIENT MOTORS ut supply system and also by separately connecting the meters to the motor lines. Measurements were taken for the unbalance in voltages ranging from 0% (balanced condition) to 10% at intervals of two percent points, Also, while measuring the electrical quantities, a complete set of measurements for vibrations and noise were taken at each of the test points. The test results are shown in Table V, which is located in the Appendix and can be summarized as follows. 1) The increase in average current and power inputs from (0% to 10% unbalance level is approximately 3% higher for a premium efficiency motor than for the standard motor, 2) The change in average power factor from balanced to 10% unbalanced condition is practically identical for the two motors. 3) The line #2 with the highest voltage carries the maxi- ‘mum power and current, 4) The current increased from balanced to 10% unbalanced voltage in line #2, for the premium efficiency motor is almost 4% higher than for the standard motor. 5) The actual increase in power flow in line #2, for the premium efficiency motor is lower by almost 3% than for the standard motor. In addition to the evaluation of the electrical power input, fn attempt was made to quantify the differences in noise and vibration, with the realization that a sampling of two units ‘would not provide statistically meaningful data, ‘At 100% load, it was noted that the sound power trended upward as the voltage unbalance increased to 10%. Although the premium efficiency motor showed a 5-dB increase versus 2 3-dB increase in the standard efficiency motor, the sound power of the standard efficiency motor was higher for all points tested. The anticipated conclusion was verified: the ‘motor noise increases significantly asthe unbalance increased. Vibration was also measured at the same voltage levels. Both motors exhibited significant increases in vibration with increasing voltage unbalance. A frequency analysis ofthe data showed that the primary increase in vibration was at wo times line frequency, ie., 120 Hz, The standard efficiency motor vibration increased approximately 0.14 in/s (peak) while the premium efficiency motor increased approximately 0.10 inls (peak). Vibration was higher for the standard efficiency motor for all tests ‘The conventional wisdom of not operating motors with any significant amount of voltage balance was once again confirmed. To do so will most likely result in increased losses, noise, and vibration, This is true for both types of motors considered in the study. XVII. ConcLusions The preceding analysis demonstrates that the transition toward higher efficiency levels need not compromise motor performance or life expectancy. In fact, due 0 the lower losses, the opportunity exists in many cases to increase the performance and life expectancy. The one notable tradeoff ‘may be power factor, which is influenced by the selection of TABLE V UUyeatancen VottAor Oren (Paes Ernie V5 STANDARD Morons at PULL LaAb clectrical steel and flux densities of the motor. The argument that lower levels oF slip may not always be perceived as fan advantage has some merit. However, in many cases it makes no difference and can usually be compensated for when necessary. Evaluation is still underway 10 mi ‘monic distortion on the line with values associated with IEEE Standard $19-1992, which sets the recommended limit at 5% total harmonic distortion (THD). Based on recent studies, there appears t0 be a number of eases where shaft voltages have caused enough current to cause bearing fluting, which may have markings similar to false brinelling. sure the effect of har- APPENDIX Fie. FAILURE ANALYSIS A review of motor failures during the traditional warranty periods did not yield any significant differences that could be attributed to the differences between the two product families a8 outlined in this study. In both cases the frequency of futures were low, The principle causes during this early stage of motor life could be attributed to three basic factors. First was damage, second was defects, and third was application problems. Unfortunately, most motor manufacturers do not have & statistically meaningful way of collecting information after the expiration of the warranty. Fig. 16 shows that it would be problematic to only consider the first few years of operation. ‘To make an accurate comparison, the total life eycle should bbe considered. Hence, the approach used in this study of analytically ‘comparing the design differences verified by test cortelation was chosen as a more feasible option, The author was not able to access other manufacturing warranty databases for obvious reasons. However, a review ‘of one manufacturer indicated that the ratio of failures and sales was the same. That is, 20% of all warranty claims Were on energy efficient motors and 20% of all sales were energy efficient motors. This is not surprising since both Iypes of motors use similar components and design standards. During this period, the major cause of complaint was not windings, rotors, or bearings. Instead, faulty parts, damagedTM YEARS ig, 16. Typical ie cycle parts, missing parts, and application issues were the most predominant category of complaints. ‘This is not to imply that ‘over the life cycle of the motor that the most common cause of failure would be anything other than windings, rotors, oF bearings. In fact, a number of users who keep records feel that, over the long run, bearings will usually need to be replaced first. Unfortunately, the root cause is seldom determined or reported. REFERENCES, [11 AH. Bonnet and G.C. Sonkup. “Analysis of rote lures ia squiee ‘age indoctom motors” presented a the 1987 PCIC Cont, Paps 87 GH 2495-087 [2] B-Mazw and P. Zoos, “Amisction bearing temperature rs for nema frame,” preseatod atthe 1988 PCIC Cont, Paper 88-26, [G1 A. H. Boone, "Cause and analysis of bearing files in electical ocr” presested atthe 1982 PCIC Coot, Paper 92-23, [4] PG. Comming, J. Dunictaccbs and RUHL. Keer, “Protection of indueton motos against unblanced voluge operation,” General lotic Co, presented atthe 1983 PCIC Coat, Paper 833. (S] RL Nail, “Energy effcient motors: the myth and the realty, Elecirical Apparatus, Sep. 1992 (6) B, Siugar and R. Weis, "Why electric motors fal" Pant Eng, Joly 09 (7) $. Meche, “nsllpremiumefceney motor properly to obtain a imum cost savings." ECM, Sepe 1994 (s) S.Mecker “How lads let eteincy of motors,” ECAR, Aug. 1904 1B] R. 2, Lawley "Answering. eweny” key quewions aboot. preiun fliensy moins” BCAAM, Ox. 190, Austin H. Bonnett (\68_SM90-F°92) was born in Los Angeles, CA, on November 3, 1936, He received tbe BS. degree in cecal engineering from California State University, Lan Angeles, hd the Maser degree in basnes from the Universty of Phenix, Phoenix, AZ. He served in he US, Navy from 1955 0 1958 as sn Blevrcanatoard the icebreaker Burton In He joined U5. Elec Motos, « division of Emerson Electric Company, in 1963 and has beld positon inthe Service, Manatacuring. Quality CContol, an Engineering Depurnents. He was the Pant Manager of he Preseot, AZ fact fr ive years poe to holding the position of Vice Presi deat of Engiocering, directing all US. Eleical Motor engineering functions for ten years, Prsely. be olds th postion of Vice Presigent-Technology the Emorson Motor Techaslogy Ceatr in St Louis, MO, where he focuses fm sequin new tesolog and has nds rpreseniaton responses, Ne his published numerous technieal paper on rotating tachiney ‘Mr Mopact server on NEMA, THEE. EPRI, and DOE Comite: and received the 1994 TEEE Meriterous Award in 196, he was selected fo he IEEE Industry Applications Society Outstanding Achiovement Avard.