IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 31, NO.
3, SEPTEMBER 2016
A New Stray-Load Loss Formula for Small
and Medium-Sized Induction Motors
Pragasen Pillay, Fellow, IEEE, Maher Al-Badri, Student Member, IEEE, Pierre Angers, Member, IEEE,
and Chirag Desai, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper proposes a new stray-load loss (SLL) for-
mula for small and medium induction motors (IMs) based on tests
data of a 182, 60 Hz IMs in the range of 1–500 hp (0.75–375 kW).
They are all tested in accordance with IEEE Std 112-Method B.
The proposed formula is validated by recalculating the efficiency of
the same number of motors by using the proposed formula, as well
as the IEEE Std 112 and the IEC 60034-2-1 standards. Another
validation was done on testing 17 additional IMs that are indepen-
dent of the 182-motor data. In both validations, the new formula
demonstrates better accuracy. This formula shows the potential to
replace the existing SLL estimation formula for this horsepower
range.
Index Terms—BC Hydro, copper loss, core loss, efficiency, fric-
tion and windage losses, hydro-Québec, IEC 60034-2-1, IEEE Std
112-B, induction motor, stray-load loss.
I. INTRODUCTION
TRAY-LOAD Loss (SLL) is of paramount importance in
S induction motor (IM) efficiency determination. It is de-
fined, according to Section 5.7 of IEEE Std 112, as that por-
tion of the total loss in an electric machine not accounted for
by the sum of the friction and windage loss, the stator cop-
per loss, the rotor copper loss and the core loss [1]. On the
other hand, in Section 3.4.5 of the international standard IEC
60034-2-1, SLL is described as the sum of losses produced by
the load current in active iron and other metal parts other than
stator and rotor conductors; eddy current losses in winding con-
ductors caused by load current-dependent flux pulsations and
additional brush losses caused by commutation [2]. Moreover,
the Canadian Standards Association in Section 3.1 of CAN/CSA
C390—ten defines SLL as the additional fundamental and high-
frequency losses in the iron and strand, and circulating-current
losses in the stator winding, and harmonic losses in the rotor
conductors under load [3].
Manuscript received December 08, 2015; revised February 22, 2016; accepted
March 07, 2016. Date of publication March 22, 2016; date of current version
August 18, 2016. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada/Hydro-Québec Chair entitled “Design
and Performance of Special Electrical Machines.” TEC-00903-2015.
P. Pillay is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Concordia University, Montréal QC H3G 1M8, Canada, and also with the
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa (e-mail: pillay@
encs.concordia.ca).
M. Al-Badri is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, Concordia University, Montréal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada (e-mail: albadri@
ieee.org).
P. Angers is with the Laboratoire des Technologies de l’Énergie, Institut
de Recherche-Hydro-Québec, Shawinigan, QC G9N 7N5, Canada (e-mail:
Angers.Pierre@ireq.ca).
C. Desai is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering, Concordia University, Montréal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada (e-mail:
c_desai@encs.concordia.ca).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEC.2016.2539959
0885-8969 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH
See MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG.
http://www.ieee.org/publications COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024
standards/publications/rights/index.html
1221
SLL has been an intriguing subject for many researchers since
the 1910’s [4]. In [5], test data of 817 IMs in the range of
1–500 hp (50 and 60 Hz) were utilized in a comparative analy-
sis of the IEEE Std 112-B and the IEC 60034-2 standards using
SLL as an index to quantify the discrepancy between the two
standards. It was shown through the analysis that due to the
discrepancy in the SLL evaluation, the IEC 60034-2 efficiency
overestimation is about 0.9 and 1.2% for 60 and 50 Hz mo-
tors, respectively. It was also demonstrated that the higher the
rated power, the lower the error of the IEC 60034-2 efficiency
calculations. The study concluded that efficiency determina-
tion according to the IEC 60034-2 standard is less accurate
than IEEE Std 112-B. It was also stated that assigning a fixed
allowance to the SLL can lead to significant errors. To mini-
mize the discrepancy in IMs efficiency labeling due to different
methodologies [6], the National Electric Manufacturers Asso-
ciation (NEMA) recommends that tests to determine IM perfor-
mance characteristics shall be made in accordance with the IEEE
Std-112 [7].
Another comparison study between the IEEE Std 112-B and
the IEC 60034-2 standards with the addition of the JEC 37
standard was conducted in [8]. Although the study was based
on testing four three-phase IMs, it demonstrates the SLL mea-
surement as critical for an accurate motor efficiency evalua-
tion. Efficiencies obtained by using the JEC 37 methodology
were generally higher when compared to those obtained by us-
ing the IEEE Std 112-B and the IEC 60034-2 procedures applied
to the same motors and the obvious reason for that was that the
JEC 37 neglects the SLL. A sensitivity analysis was also carried
out in [8] which showed that it is imperative to have the input
power, the load torque and the input current measured with very
high accuracy to guarantee good approximation for the SLL.
SLL can have a large variation in value even within motors
of the same ratings. That what was found in analyzing the loss
distribution of 998 IMs rated 1–200 hp and tested to the IEEE
Std 112-B in [9] where it was again prove that errors in the
SLL determination are caused by the measurement errors in the
stator winding resistance, load torque, speed and input power.
The study showed that the average SLL for the above mentioned
tested motors is about 1.2% of input power. In description of the
proposed SLL curve in the IEC60032-2-1 standard, it is stated in
Section 8.2.2.5.3 that “The curve does not represent an average
but an upper envelope of a large number of measured values,
and may in most cases yield greater additional load losses”.
In [9], it was demonstrated that the IEC curve does not literally
represent the upper envelope of SLL when 68% of the motor rat-
ings represented were found to have at least one machine with
its SLL value above the curve. The study concluded that the
at 09:56:20
for more UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
information.
 1222 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 31, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2016

provision of SLL as a fixed percentage of the motor rating may

lead to significant errors in efficiency determination, and in situ-
ations where SLL measurements are not available, a fixed value
of 1.2% of input power would be more consistent. In this paper,
a new SLL formula for small and medium 60 Hz IMs based on
test data of 182 IMs rated 0.75–375 kW is proposed. A total
of 122 motors were tested in the Laboratoire des Technologies
de l’Énergie, Institut de Recherche (LTEE)-Hydro-Québec. The
motors are tested in compliance with the IEEE Std 112-Method
B procedure using the recommended measuring devices to guar-
antee the required accuracy. Moreover, test data of another 60
motors were provided by BC Hydro which were also tested in
compliance with the IEEE Std 112-Method B in regards to the
procedure and measuring devices accuracy. In other words, the
accuracy of the SLL measurements are guaranteed by the cer-
tified laboratories of the two Canadian power companies. The
new formula is validated by recalculating the efficiency of the
182 motors by using the proposed formula, the IEEE Std 112
and IEC 60034-2-1 standards methodologies. It is also vali-
dated by testing an independent group of 17 motors. The level
of accuracy is demonstrated by a statistical analysis.
This paper is structured as follows: in Section II, the IM
segregated losses are evaluated. Section III is devoted to the
proposed SLL formula. The results and discussion are presented
in Section IV. Section V concludes the paper.

II. IM LOSS DISTRIBUTION

A sample of 19 motors was taken arbitrarily from the test
data of 182 motors of different power ratings, speed, insulation
class and NEMA design. The sample consists of motors in the
range of 0.75 to 375 kW. The five segregated losses (i.e., core
loss, friction and windage losses, SLL, stator copper loss, and
rotor copper loss) of each motor are calculated as a percentage
of input power. Each loss was calculated as a percentage of its
corresponding input power and it is represented in a bar chart as
shown in Fig. 1. By taking the 1 hp machine as an example, the
percentage of the stator copper losses shows the highest value
Fig. 1. Losses distribution of 19 IMs.
(2.8%) followed by the core losses (2.0%), rotor copper losses
(1.5%), SLL (1.3%), and 1.2% for the friction and windage
losses, and this is a well-known trend in induction machine
frequency components of the SLL are determined and the sum
losses. By just a visual check on the bar chart, it can be easily
of these two components is the total SLL. Alternatively, it is
noticed that each type of loss, excluding the SLLs, significantly
measured indirectly by determining total losses and the sum
deviates when compared to the last cluster of SLLs. This fact
of the friction and windage, core loss, stator, and rotor copper
is quantified in Table I where it can be seen that the standard
loss and then subtracting the sum of those losses from the total
deviation of the SLLs is the least (0.25) among the other types
losses and the remaining part is declared as the total SLL [1].
of losses. The maximum deviation is in the stator copper losses
In certain technical environments where the SLL measurement
(1.71). The low deviation in the SLLs, although the wide range
is not available, it is assumed as a fixed percentage value of
of power ratings of the 19 IMs, may justify the fixed allowance
the motor power rating according to the IEEE Std 112-2004
assigned to it in the IEC 60034-2-1 and the IEEE Std 112 E1/F1.
(see Section 5.7.4, Table II), or based on the assigned allowance
Still, assigning a fixed value for SLL is a debatable issue in the
of the IEC 60034-2-1 (see Section 8.2.2.5.3) which relies on
literature and it can lead to significant errors in motor efficiency
the motor input power. In the CAN/CSA C390-10, the SLL is
as will be demonstrated in the following sections.
determined as follows: a six load point test is performed and the
SLL is calculated as a residual value at each of the six points by
A. SLL Determination
subtracting output power, stator copper loss, rotor copper loss,
SLL can be measured by direct and indirect methods. In core loss and friction and windage losses from total input power.
the direct procedure, the fundamental frequency and the high- The six residual values are then plotted against squared torque.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG. COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024 at 09:56:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 PILLAY et al.: NEW STRAY-LOAD LOSS FORMULA FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED INDUCTION MOTORS 1223

TABLE I
SEGREGATED LOSSES AS PERCENTAGE OF INPUT POWER

Core Loss Friction and SLL [% Stator Copper Rotor

[% P i n ] Windage [% Pin ] Loss [% P i n ] Copper Loss
Pin ] [% P i n ]

Maximum 4.3 2.5 1.7 6.1 2.8

Value
Minimum 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.6
Value
Average 2.0 1.2 1.3 2.8 1.5
Value
Standard 1.13 0.63 0.25 1.71 0.67
Deviation

TABLE II
ACCURACY EVALUATION OF IEEE STD 112 AND IEC 60034-2-1
Fig. 2. Smoothing a SLL of a 112 kW IM.

IEEE Std 112 IEC 60034-2-1

Absolute Error [%] No. of Motors Percentage [%] No. of Motors Percentage [%]

0.000–0.005 1 1 0 0
0.005–0.010 1 1 0 0
0.010–0.020 3 2 1 1
0.020–0.030 3 2 0 0
0.030–0.040 1 1 3 2
0.040–0.050 2 1 1 1
0.050–0.060 1 1 1 1
0.060–0.070 4 2 0 0
0.070–0.080 3 2 5 3
0.080–0.090 1 1 2 1
0.090–0.100 4 2 3 2
0.100–0.200 22 12 13 7
0.200–0.300 15 8 14 8
0.300–0.400 22 12 15 8
0.400–0.500 17 9 15 8
Total 100 55 73 40

Fig. 3. SLL for 182 IMs.

The correlation coefficient is determined and if it is found to be

less than 0.95, the worst point is deleted and the SLL versus the
squared torque is plotted again and the correlation coefficient
is recalculated. If it is less than 0.95, then the whole test shall
be considered unsatisfactory due to error in the instrumentation,
test readings, or both [3]. If the correlation coefficient is greater
than 0.95 then the linear regression will be applied to smooth the
SLL which will be determined by using the following equation:
Psll i = mresidual × Ti2
where Psll i is the SLL at load point (i), mresidual is the estab-
lished slope and Ti is the torque at the load point (i). The process
is illustrated in Fig. 2 for a 150 hp IM.
B. Data Analysis
Each measured value of SLL for the total 182 IMs is cal-
culated as a percentage of its corresponding input power and
the results are plotted in Fig. 3. The average of the SLL values
of the whole group of motors is represented by the black bold
horizontal line which exactly matches the 1.2% value proposed
in [9]. The dotted line illustrates the trend of SLL according to
the motor rating where it seems that the higher the power rating
is, the lower is the SLL value, and this justifies the inaccuracy
in SLL evaluation through assigning a fixed allowance to it es-
pecially with machines of high power ratings. Another set of
data is plotted on the same chart which is the SLL calculated
as per IEEE Std 112 formula (see Section 5.7.4, Table II). It
is translated into a percentage of input power to be consistent
with the SLL measured values. The trend of this data is repre-
sented by the dashed line. The SLLs are also calculated as per
IEC 60034-2 and represented as a percentage of input power
(1) on the same chart. The grey bold line illustrates the trend of
the IEC 60034-2 data. The discrepancy between the three trend
lines is noticeable where the IEEE SLL values tends towards
the measured values on the small machines side, the IEC SLL
does approach the measured values on the large motors side. To
demonstrate a proper evaluation for the accuracy of both IEEE
Std 112 and IEC 60034-2 in terms of SLL estimation for the
182 IMs, the absolute error is calculated between the estimated
SLL as per both standards and the measured SLL for the whole
group of motors and the results are illustrated in Fig. 4. Max-
imum error recorded is 1.8% which is made by using the IEC
60034-2 standard. The results are also quantified in Table II
where it can be noticed that IEEE Std 112 gains better accuracy
in comparison to the IEC 60034-2. The minimum error consid-
ered is in the range (0–0.005%) and the maximum allowable

Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG. COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024 at 09:56:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1224
Fig. 4. Absolute error of SLLs estimated by IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2-1.
Fig. 5. Measured versus estimated SLL es of 182 IMs.
error is set to be in the range of (0.4–0.5%). The chance of IEEE
Std 112 to estimate SLL with minimum error (i.e., highest ac-
curacy) for the 182 IMs is 1%. While the IEC 60034-2 scores
0% for the same level of error. The IEEE Std 112 estimates SLL
with the highest accuracy of (0–0.005%), while the IEC 60034-
2 would not achieve this level of accuracy. The IEEE Std 112
estimates 100 motors with the accuracy range (0–0.5%), while
the IEC 60034-2 estimates only 73 motors for the same range of
accuracy. Those results match the findings in [5] where it was
shown that IEEE Std 112 is more accurate than IEC 60034-2-1
in terms of SLL evaluation.
III. PROPOSED SLL FORMULA
The SLL of each motor within the 182 IMs group is com-
puted in kilowatt as per IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2-1 and
they are plotted versus the input power in kilowatt on the same
graph alongside the measured SLLs as shown in Fig. 5. Linear
regression is used to demonstrate the trend of each group of
SLLs. As the status is not clear for motors of input power less
than 50 kW; Fig. 6 is created to zoom into the status of this area.
In the large motors zone, the IEC trendline is noticeably closer
to the measured SLLs when compared to the IEEE’s, while an
Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG. COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024 at 09:56:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 31, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2016
Fig. 6. Measured versus estimated SLL es of small IMs.
opposite situation appears in Fig. 6 where the IEEE trendline
takes a closer position to the measured values line. This fact
was established in a previous research work [10] where it was
recommended to rely on the IEEE Std 112 in assuming SLL
for small machines, and the IEC 60034-2-1 for large motors.
The difference between the actual SLL and the assumed values
according to both standards are considerable, especially with
the large machines. For example, for a 500 hp motor, the IEC
60034-2 and IEEE Std 112 overestimates the measured SLL by
around 216 and 258% respectively, and such overestimated val-
ues of SLL will definitely lead to significant errors in efficiency
computation. The straight line equation of the measured SLLs
trendline is formulated as
y = m.x + b (2)
where, m is the slope and b is the intercept with y axis.
To smooth the trendline, b shall be removed to establish the
fact that if there is no input power, there must be no SLL. Hence,
the proposed formula is as follows:
Psll = 0.011 Pin (3)
where, Psll is the SLL and Pin is the input power.
SLL increases due to voltage unbalance and/or harmonics
[11], [12]. Hence, having the SLL formula based on motor input
power is more practical than an output power based formula as
this can help consider the increase in the SLL in case of voltage
unbalance and/or harmonics.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The proposed formula is utilized to calculate the SLLs of
the 182 IMs and the results are plotted with the measured SLL
values on the same chart as shown in Fig. 7. To validate the pro-
posed formula and its level of accuracy when it is implemented
in efficiency computation, the formula is used in efficiency re-
calculation of the 182 IMs using the new formula. For compar-
ison purposes, the assumed SLLs as per IEEE Std 112 and IEC
60034-2-1 standards are also used separately to recalculate the
efficiency of the same mentioned motors.
 PILLAY et al.: NEW STRAY-LOAD LOSS FORMULA FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED INDUCTION MOTORS 1225

Fig. 7. Measured versus estimated SLLs using the proposed formula.

TABLE III
ACCURACY EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED FORMULA, IEEE STD 112, AND
IEC 60034-2-1

Proposed Formula IEEE Std 112 IEC 60034-2-1

Absolute No. of Percentage No. of Percentage No. of Percentage

Error [%] Motors [%] Motors [%] Motors [%]

0.000–0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.005–0.010 1 1 2 1 0 0
0.010–0.020 2 1 2 1 1 1
0.020–0.030 0 0 4 2 0 0
0.030–0.040 2 1 1 1 3 2
0.040–0.050 3 2 2 1 1 1
0.050–0.060 4 2 2 1 1 1
0.060–0.070 0 0 4 2 0 0
0.070–0.080 6 3 2 1 3 2
0.080–0.090 4 2 0 0 5 3
0.090–0.100 9 5 5 3 1 1
0.100–0.200 25 14 23 13 15 8
0.200–0.300 38 21 15 8 14 8
0.300–0.400 21 12 23 13 15 8
0.400–0.500 20 11 16 9 15 8
0.500–0.600 4 2 17 9 17 9
0.600–0.700 12 7 14 8 20 11
0.700–0.800 7 4 19 10 17 9
0.800–0.900 5 3 16 9 14 8
0.900–1.000 7 4 1 1 12 7
Fig. 8. New formula accuracy evaluation.
Total 170 93 168 92 154 85

threshold of 1% are considered. By a thorough check upon the

The formula is used to calculate the SLL for each motor
within the 182 motors by replacing the measured SLL with the
calculated value and observing the change in efficiency. The
same is done with the SLLs calculated as per the IEEE Std 112
and the IEC 60034-2-1. So, the only component that has been
changed within the efficiency calculations is the SLL. Hence,
practically, the comparison pertaining to accuracy is achieved
between the measured SLL and the other calculated values.
The results of the three formulas are tabulated in Table III
and illustrated in Fig. 8. The following observations in regards
to the obtained results is based on the fact that any efficiency
calculation with an error that exceeds 1% will be disregarded.
Hence, only errors within the range from 0% up to the set
results of Table III the following points are worth mentioning:
1) The proposed formula secured efficiencies within errors
of the range (0–1%) of 93% of the total number of tested
motors (182 IMs). The IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2
scored 92 and 85%, respectively.
2) The proposed formula guaranteed efficiencies within
the accuracy range of (0.09–0.1%) of 5% of the motors.
The IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2 scored 3 and 1% for
the same accuracy, respectively.
3) The proposed formula estimated efficiencies within
the accuracy range of (0.1–0.2%) of 14% of the motors.
The IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2 scored 13 and 8% for
the same accuracy, respectively.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG. COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024 at 09:56:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1226 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 31, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2016

TABLE IV
ACCURACY EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED FORMULA ON 17 MOTORS
COMPARED WITH IEEE STD 112 AND IEC 60034-2-1

Proposed Formula IEEE Std 112 IEC 60034-2-1

Absolute No. of Percentage No. of Percentage No. of Percentage

Error [%] Motors [%] Motors [%] Motors [%]

0.000–0.005 0 0 0 0 1 6
0.005–0.010 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.010–0.020 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.020–0.030 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.030–0.040 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.040–0.050 2 12 1 6 0 0
0.050–0.060 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.060–0.070 0 0 2 12 0 0
0.070–0.080 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.080–0.090 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.090–0.100 1 6 0 0 0 0
0.100–0.200 4 24 0 0 0 0
0.200–0.300 5 29 4 24 3 18
0.300–0.400 2 12 1 6 1 6
0.400–0.500 2 12 2 12 0 0
0.500–0.600 0 0 1 6 0 0
0.600–0.700 0 0 2 12 2 12
0.700–0.800 0 0 2 12 0 0
0.800–0.900 0 0 1 6 1 6
0.900–1.000 0 0 0 0 1 6
Total 16 94 16 94 9 53

4) The proposed formula secured efficiencies within the ac-

curacy range of (0.2–0.3%) of 21% of the motors. The
IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2 scored 8 and 8% for the
same accuracy, respectively.
5) The proposed formula estimated efficiencies within
the accuracy range of (0.4–0.5%) of 11% of the motors.
The IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2 scored 9 and 8% for
the same accuracy, respectively.
The above mentioned points show that the proposed formula
could estimate the majority of the motors (i.e., 117 of 170
Fig. 9. New formula accuracy evaluation on 17 motors.
motors) within the level of accuracy (0.09–0.5%) while the
IEEE Std 112 and the IEC 60034-2 have 82 of 168 motors and
65 of 154 motors in the same range of accuracy respectively.
For the IEC 60034-2, the majority of its 154 motors are located the IEEE std 112 results. This double-validation provides cred-
in the range of (0.1–1.0%). This clearly indicates the ability of ibility to the proposed formula. The proposed formula can be
the proposed formula to provide a higher accuracy of efficiency improved by adding additional data of motors to the data used.
estimation if it is used in replacement of the existing formulas This study is based on only 60 Hz IMs. By having data of
of the IEEE Std 112 and IEC 60034-2-1. 50 Hz motors, another formula can be created for SLL estimation
The proposed formula is applied to 17 motors in the range with higher accuracy or a global formula may be proposed.
(1–125 hp) that are independent of the 182-motor data.
The results are as tabulated in Table IV and illustrated in Fig. 9.
The highest accuracy (in the range 0.000–0.005%) is scored by V. CONCLUSION
the IEC 60034-2-1. However, the standard showed poor results A novel formula for IMs SLL is proposed. Test data of 182
for the whole set of motors when it was able to have only 53% of IMs of 60 Hz which includes SLL measurements issued by two
the motors within the set range of accuracy (i.e., 0.000–1000%). Canadian power companies where the accuracy of measurement
It is clear that the competition is between the proposed formula is given paramount care are utilized to analyze the segregated
and the IEEE std 112. A percentage of 94% is scored by both losses and showed that there is a solid justification beyond as-
formulas. But, by taking a careful look at the results, it can be signing a fixed percentage for the SLL as per IEEE Std 112 and
easily observed that the results pattern is consistent with those IEC 60034-2-1 standards. The test data were also utilized to
of Table III. It is obvious that the proposed formula shows better create an accuracy comparison between the IEEE Std 112 and
accuracy with the majority of the motors when it is compared to the IEC 60034-2-1 standards and the results showed that the

Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG. COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024 at 09:56:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 PILLAY et al.: NEW STRAY-LOAD LOSS FORMULA FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED INDUCTION MOTORS
IEEE Std 112 is more accurate than the IEC 60034-2-1 in SLL
evaluation for the machines tested. The proposed formula was
created based on practical analysis on the test data by showing
the difference between the measured SLL and the assumed val-
ues based on the two standards. The difference is considerable
in larger motors. An extensive validation was made by using the
182 IM data set to investigate the level of accuracy of the pro-
posed formula compared to the other two mentioned standards.
The results showed that the proposed formula can provide better
accuracy in efficiency estimation if it is used instead of the ex-
isting formulas. The formula was again validated on a set of 17
motors which are not included in the 182-motor data that were
used to build up the formula. Once again, the proposed formula
surpassed the two standards. The outcome of this study is a new
formula of SLL for small and medium three-phase IMs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the support of the Natural Sci-
ences & Engineering Research Council of Canada. The authors
also would like to thank the support of Hydro-Québec and BC
Hydro by providing extremely valuable data that significantly
helped improve the outcome and the feasibility of the research.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Gen-
erators, IEEE Standard 112-2004 (Revision of IEEE Std 112-1996),
Nov. 4, 2004.
[2] International Standard, IEC 60034-2-1, 1st ed., Sep. 2007.
[3] Test Methods, Marking Requirements, and Energy Efficiency Levels
for Three-Phase Induction Motors, Canadian Standards Association,
CAN/CSA C390-10, 2010.
[4] E. I. Chute and W. Bradsaw, “Sources of error in the efficiency determina-
tion of rotating electric machines,” Proc. Amer. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 32,
no. 3, pp. 649–657, Feb. 1913.
[5] A. I. de Almeida, F. J. T. E. Ferreira, J. F. Busch, and P. Angers, “Compar-
ative analysis of IEEE 112-B and IEC 34–2 efficiency testing standards
using stray load losses in low-voltage three-phase, cage induction motors,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 608–614, Mar./Apr. 2002.
[6] M. Aoulkadi and A. Binder, “When loads stray: Evaluation of different
measurement methods to determine stray load losses in induction ma-
chines,” IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21–30, Mar. 2008.
[7] “American National Standard Motors and Generators,” American Na-
tional Standards Institute, Inc., ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2011, (Revision of
ANSI/NEMA MG 1–2010), New York, NY, USA, 2011.
[8] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, M. Lazzari, and M. Pastorelli, “International
standards for the induction motor efficiency evaluation: A critical analysis
of the stray-load loss determination,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 40,
no. 5, pp. 1294–1301, Sept./Oct. 2004.
[9] E. B. Agamloh, “An evaluation of induction machine stray load loss from
collated test results,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 2311–2318,
Nov./Dec. 2010.
[10] M. Al-Badri, P. Pillay, and P. Angers, “A novel algorithm for estimat-
ing refurbished three-phase induction motors efficiency using only no-
load tests,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 615–625,
Jun. 2015.
[11] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, and M. Lazzari, “Impact of the
supply voltage on the stray-load losses in induction motors,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1374–1380, Jul./Aug. 2010.
[12] K. Yamazaki, A. Suzuki, M. Ohto, and T. Takakura, “Circuit parameters
determination involving stray load loss and harmonic torques for high-
speed induction motors fed by inverters,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 154–163, Mar. 2013.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VEL TECH MULTI TECH Dr RR Dr SR ENGG. COLLEGE. Downloaded on April 03,2024 at 09:56:20 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1227
Pragasen Pillay (F’05) received the bachelor’s mas-
ter’s degrees in electrical engineering from the Uni-
versity of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Durban, South Africa, in
1981 and 1983, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA,
in 1987.
He is currently a Professor with the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia
University, Montréal, QC, Canada, where he is cur-
rently the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada/Hydro-Québec Industrial Research
Chair, Montréal.
Maher Al-Badri (S’07) received the Bachelor’s de-
gree in electrical engineering from the University of
Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq, in 1984, and the Master’s
degree in electrical engineering from the University
of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2009. He re-
ceived the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
the Concordia University, Montréal, QC, Canada, in
2015.
He is currently a Post-Doctoral Fellow with the
PEER (Power Electronics and Energy Research)
Group in the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Concordia University. His research interests include electrical ma-
chine, energy efficiency, power systems, and renewable energy systems.
Dr. Al-Badri is a licensed Canadian Professional Engineer.
Pierre Angers received the bachelor’s degree in elec-
trical engineering from the Université du Québec à
Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada, in 1986.
Since 1988, he has been the Manager of the Motors
and Drives Testing Facility with the Hydro-Québec’s
Research Institute, accredited by the Canadian Stan-
dards Association. Over the years, he has been in-
volved in the field of motors and drives for efficiency
classification, compliance and certification, labora-
tory accreditation, and proficiency testing, and has
performed several studies related to it.
Mr. Angers is an Active Member of international committees IEC TC2/WG28
on rotating electrical machines and IEC TC22/SG22G on adjustable speed elec-
tric drive systems, IEEE WG112 committee on Standard IEEE 112 for Motors
and Generators and Canadian national committees on efficiency of three-phase
induction motors (CSA 390), small motors (CSA 747), and variable speed drives
(CSA 838).
Chirag Desai (S’08–M’11) received the B.E degree
in electrical engineering from South Gujarat Univer-
sity, Surat, India, in 2003, and the M.A.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from Concordia University,
Montréal, QC, Canada, in 2010.
He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering with the Power Electron-
ics and Energy Research (PEER) Group, Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia
University. His research interests include electrical
machine design for industrial applications, energy ef-
ficiency, motor drives, and renewable energy systems.