Duke Energy purchased six 3000 horsepower motors according to API 541 specifications. When testing the second motor, Duke Energy found that the unbalanced response test required by section 4.3.5.4 of the specification had not been performed. The motor manufacturer claimed this test only needed to be done on one motor. API clarified that the unbalanced response test is required on all motors to account for variations between individual motors that could affect test results. API also confirmed that for applications requiring overload capacity, the motor should be rated for a higher horsepower rather than using a higher service factor rating.
Duke Energy purchased six 3000 horsepower motors according to API 541 specifications. When testing the second motor, Duke Energy found that the unbalanced response test required by section 4.3.5.4 of the specification had not been performed. The motor manufacturer claimed this test only needed to be done on one motor. API clarified that the unbalanced response test is required on all motors to account for variations between individual motors that could affect test results. API also confirmed that for applications requiring overload capacity, the motor should be rated for a higher horsepower rather than using a higher service factor rating.
Duke Energy purchased six 3000 horsepower motors according to API 541 specifications. When testing the second motor, Duke Energy found that the unbalanced response test required by section 4.3.5.4 of the specification had not been performed. The motor manufacturer claimed this test only needed to be done on one motor. API clarified that the unbalanced response test is required on all motors to account for variations between individual motors that could affect test results. API also confirmed that for applications requiring overload capacity, the motor should be rated for a higher horsepower rather than using a higher service factor rating.
Duke Energy purchased six 3000 horsepower motors according to API 541 specifications. When testing the second motor, Duke Energy found that the unbalanced response test required by section 4.3.5.4 of the specification had not been performed. The motor manufacturer claimed this test only needed to be done on one motor. API clarified that the unbalanced response test is required on all motors to account for variations between individual motors that could affect test results. API also confirmed that for applications requiring overload capacity, the motor should be rated for a higher horsepower rather than using a higher service factor rating.
Form-wound Squirrel-cage Induction Motors Larger than 500 Horsepower
Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply
541 Third, April 1995 4.3.5.4 541-I-01/00 Duke Energy purchased six 3000 horsepower motors. With the data sheets completed as described A specification option imposed API 541, Third Edition, in the inquiry, API suggests that the test be April 1995. Duke Energy completed the "Purchaser's required on all 6 motors. While it is true that Induction Motor Data Sheet" from API. On the first the location of the critical speed by design is page of this sheet we specified No. required was 6 being verified, effects of bearing fits and and motor was a special purpose motor since it can tolerances, rotor balancing technique, etc do cause our nuclear plant to trip off line. On the forth affect the critical speed and are being verified as well. In some cases, the sheet we specified the unbalance response test unbalanced response test results are (section 4.3.5.4) was required. While reviewing the considerably different as a result of these testing for the second motor it was clear this test had variances. not been done. The motor manufacturer's response was that this unbalance response test per API section 4.3.5.4 was understood by API and the industry to be a one time design test only to be performed on one motor. Duke Energy is not sure of this interpretation since in other areas API includes this type language (reference section 4.3.5.5-checked on one machine of each group of identical machines). There does not appear to be any wording like this in section 4.3.5.4.
Please provide the following interpretation: With "No.
541 4th 2.2.1.4 541-I-01/06 "Machines shall be capable of continuous operation It is the consensus and intent of the working at rated load (1.0 service factor) and temperature rise group that overload requirements be in accordance with 2.3.1 when operated, both addressed within the 1.0 Service Factor of mechanically and electrically, at rated power, voltage, the machine. and frequency. In applications that require an For example: a steady state load requiring overload capacity, a higher rating should be used to 1968 Hp would employ a 2000 Hp motor. avoid exceeding the temperature rises for the class of Where overload is required, say 2116 Hp, the next higher rating shall be installed. insulation used and to provide adequate torque Under NEMA ratings, this would be 2500 Hp, capacity." however some manufacturers may offer a 2250 Hp unit. For the overload capacity, is the higher rating a greater than 1.0 service factor (e.g. 1.15) machine or a Specifically the 1.15 Service Factor has been higher horsepower machine rating at 1.0 SF than discussed during development of several actually required? editions of API motor standards, and is considered not appropriate for large machines used the petroleum and chemical industries. We note that this is also the basic philosophy of NEMA MG 1 Part 20, and absolute for units designed and manufactured under IEC standards.
The purpose of this requirement is to keep
the temperature rises of major machine components within normal design limits. i.e.: Class B rise for the stator winding. In this manner, the performance, reliability and longevity of the installation is improved. Overloading the unit may also affect surface temperatures of components in contact with the atmosphere, and thus a concern for
