Economic evaluation of induction motor based on motor’s nameplate data and initial cost

International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)
Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022, pp. 1340~1351
ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i3.pp1340-1351  1340
Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com
Economic evaluation of induction motor based on motor’s
nameplate data and initial cost
Mohammed Baniyounis1
, Ayman Agha2
, Hudefah Al-kashashneh2
, Abdullah Al-Omoush2
1
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Philadelphia University, Amman, Jordan
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Philadelphia University, Amman, Jordan
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Apr 18, 2022
Revised Jun 3, 2022
Accepted Jun 28, 2022
This paper presents a practical approach to calculate the total owning cost
(TOC) of a three-phase Induction Motor, which is based on the motor’s
nameplate data and the purchasing price. The economic evaluation is
performed considering both the induction motor electrical energy losses and
its amortized annual capital cost. The proposed technique consists of three
stages, where the total power losses are determined analytically in the first
stage. The load loss factor (LSF) is statistically obtained to determine the total
energy losses in the second stage. In the third stage, the economic evaluation
was conducted. The obtained results show that the proposed approach is a
helpful tool for the decision-maker when comparing the received offers from
different vendors and finding the answer to the question of which offer has
less TOC. Finally, the proposed method is illustrated through a numerical
example and software using MATLAB was performed. Results and
conclusions have been summarized and discussed.
Keywords:
Annuity factor
Motors evaluation
Motors losses
Owning cost
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
Corresponding Author:
Mohammed Baniyounis
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Philadelphia University
Jarash Road, 20 KM out of Amman, Jordan
Email: mbaniyounis@philadelphia.edu.jo
1. INTRODUCTION
Induction motors (IM) have become increasingly popular from the beginning of the industrial age. It
is sporadically called the horse of the industry due to their rigidity, simplicity in construction, and less
requirement for maintenance. As a result, a proper selection of IM will enhance the overall system efficiency
and reduce unjustified investment costs. Different approaches have been proposed to assess the technical and
economic IMs' cost and design problems [1]. The amount of energy consumed by all motors to overall electric
energy produced varies between 43% and 49% [2], while the IM consumes 96% [3]. Elzbieta and Leszek [4],
introduced a statistical technique was used to estimate the motor's collective losses for various motor output
powers were computed. The importance of air gap power on power losses was carried out using MATLAB [5].
The prediction of the most prevalent failure affecting the reliability of IM is introduced [6]. A field-oriented
control system for enhancing energy efficiency has been developed [7]. In [8], the steps for estimating the
efficiency of the IM on the Jobsite are given. However, a rotor frame was developed to enhance the efficiency
of IM in terms of cost savings and emission reduction [9]. The finite element technique is used to evaluate the
IM design's performance considering the drive control and torque-speed range [10]. The optimal design of the
IM considering economic evaluation and efficiency was introduced [11]. The technical, financial, and
budgetary cost of replacing the standard efficiency of IM with premium efficiency was investigated [12]. The
operational costs, payback period, annual saving in energy, and economic study, in case of single-phase IM is
rewound for a three-phase operation are discussed [13]. The economics of IM, planning maintenance, cost-

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694 
Economic evaluation of induction motor based on motor’s nameplate data … (Mohammed Baniyounis)
1341
effectiveness, and energy savings by using a cost model as in [14], [15]. The economic efficiency and load
condition effects considering the IM life-cycle cost are introduced [16].
Unfortunately, the daily engineering practices while having to select an appropriate offer of IM among
many received offers from different suppliers/ vendors has not had enough technical/economic justification
and is mainly based on the submitted price and the manufacturers’ reputation. The problem becomes very
complicated when the price and manufacturer reputation of the received offers are very close. The proposed
approach in this paper assists to evaluate the total owning cost (TOC) of the IM based only on the given data
of the IM nameplate, as it is sometimes the only available data in the absence of the IM technical datasheet.
However, the TOC of IM is obtained based on the amortization of the capital cost of IM, the interest rate,
lifetime expectancy, the amount of energy loss, and the existing energy tariff. The adopted technique consists
of three stages: the total power losses are determined analytically in the first stage, the mechanical loading of
the IM adequate to the LSF is statistically obtained in the second stage, to determine the total energy losses,
and in the third stage, the economic evaluation is conducted along with numerical examples, to check the
effectiveness of the proposed approach. Also, a particular case is discussed if the IM is used for temporary
purposes.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents the mathematical formulation of the
problem. The power and energy losses calculations are introduced in section 3. In section 4, the economic
evaluation of the proposed approach is demonstrated. Numerical examples illustrating the effectiveness of the
proposed method are presented in section 5. In section 6, a particular case of economic evaluation is discussed.
Finally, results, discussion, and conclusions are shown respectively in sections 7 and 8.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The economic selection of IM is based on the capital cost and energy losses costs during the analyzed
period, where one year is generally considered suitable for economic evaluation purposes. The objective
function is to find the minimum total owning cost of IM; this can be mathematically formulated as in (1).
Min. {𝐶𝐼𝑀.𝑖} (1)
The corresponding state equations are in (2) and (3).
𝑃𝑛 ≥ 𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿 (2)
𝐶𝐼𝑀.𝑖 = 𝐶𝑐.𝐼𝑀. + 𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 + 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (3)
Where CIM.i is the annual owning cost of the i-th number of IM [$/year], Cc.IM is the capital cost of the IM using
the present value of an annuity [$/year], Closses is the active energy losses cost of the IM [$/year], Cmaintenance is
the maintenance cost of IM [$/year], Pn is the nominal (nameplate) power for IM in [hp or kW], and PIML is the
mechanical load of IM in [hp or kW].
Algebraic equation expressed the active energy losses in [kWh], that is; the total energy losses ∆E
and respectively the no-load ∆ENLL and the on-load energy losses ∆ELL is as in (4).
∆𝐸 = ∆𝐸𝑁𝐿𝐿 + ∆𝐸𝐿𝐿 (4)
3. POWER AND ENERGY LOSSES CALCULATION
The flow of current in IM causes a loss in power and reduces efficiency. The main types of losses that
can occur in IM are:
3.1. Active power losses
3.1.1. Iron losses
The main flux generates these losses in the core, known as no-load losses, namely eddy current and
hysteresis losses. These losses depend on the square of the input voltage and core reluctance [17]. The value
of these losses varies between 20% and 25% of the total IM losses [18].
3.1.2. Rotor and stator copper losses
These losses are caused by the flow of the load current in the IM windings. These losses are also known
as on-load losses, depending on the square of input current and resistance of IM windings [19]. Their sharing
amount varies between 55% and 60% of the IM total losses [18].

 ISSN: 2088-8694
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022: 1340-1351
1342
3.1.3. Friction and windage losses
These are mechanical losses, where the first friction is due to the friction at the bearings while the IM is
rotating, whereas changes in the shaft's speed cause the second windage. The value of these losses varies between
8% and 12% of total IM losses and can usually be estimated using empirical equations [20].
3.1.4. Stray losses
These losses are caused by leakage flux induced in the laminations and proportional to the rotor current
square. Their sharing amount varies between 4% and 5% of IM total losses [21]. In general, the total active power
losses in the IM are as illustrated in Figure 1. In [21], [22], and mathematically expressed as in (5).
∆𝑃 = ∆𝑃𝑁𝐿 + ∆𝑃𝐿𝐿 + ∆𝑃𝐹&𝑊 + ∆𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑦 (5)
Where ∆P represents the total active power losses of IM [kW], which is the sum of all type losses that could have
a place in IM, that is; respectively, the no-load ∆PNL and on-load ∆PLL power losses, the friction and windage
∆PF&W, and lastly the stray power losses ∆Pstray.
Due to the small amount of ∆PF&W and ∆Pstray, losses and the difficulty to calculate these losses on job
sites or industrial plants. So, henceforth, these two types of losses will not appear in the equations, and their values
will be distributed proportionally on the on-load and no-load losses, and thus, in (5) will be reduced to become as
in (6) and as follows:
∆𝑃 = ∆𝑃𝑁𝐿 + ∆𝑃𝐿𝐿 (6)
Figure 1. Percent losses types of IM
3.2. Determination of the power losses of IM
The power losses are determined under the following presumptions: the network's voltage magnitude,
voltage unbalance, frequency, and the total harmonic distortion (THD) are within the permissible value of the
designed parameter of the IM. The total active power losses in (6) is simplified as:
∆𝑃𝐿𝐿 = ∆𝑃 − ∆𝑃𝑁𝐿 (7)
The total power losses ∆P(t) of IM at any time, corresponding to any mechanical loading PIML considering
(2), (6), and (7), and after some mathematical arrangement, taking into account the on-load, no-load power losses,
and the maximum mechanical loading to the rated capacity of the IM. Then the total power losses can be obtained
as in (8), [23].
∆𝑃(𝑡) = ∆𝑃𝑁𝐿 + (∆𝑃 − ∆𝑃𝑁𝐿) ∙ (
𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿
𝑃𝑛
)2
(8)
According to [18], the no-load losses ∆PNL vary between (20-25) % of the total power losses ∆P, and on-load
power losses ∆PLL vary between (55-60) percent of the total power losses. This work and forthcoming
calculations will consider the average value of ∆PNL and ∆PLL to be 22.5% and 57.5% of the ∆P. The
elimination of ∆PF&W and ∆Pstray in (6) distributed their values proportionally between ∆PNL and ∆PLL, applying
linearization yields that the percentage of the ∆PNL and ∆PLL proportional to the ∆P are approximately 28% 72%,
respectively. Then, the percentage value of ∆PNL and ∆PLL to the ∆P becomes respectively as in (9) and (10).

1343
∆𝑃𝑁𝐿 ≈ 0.28 ∙ ∆𝑃 (9)
∆𝑃𝐿𝐿 ≈ 0.72 ∙ ∆𝑃 (10)
Hence, (8) will become as follows:
∆𝑃(𝑡) = 0.28 ∆𝑃 + (∆𝑃 − 0.28 ∆𝑃). (
𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿
𝑃𝑛
)2
(11)
simplifying (11) considering (6) yields as in (12):
∆𝑃(𝑡) = 0.28 ∆𝑃 + 0.72 ∆𝑃 ∙ (
𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿
𝑃𝑛
)2
(12)
3.3. Determination of the energy losses of IM
The energy losses ΔE is calculated as the product of the power losses ∆P(t) integration over time T. If
the time-varying power losses are arranged in descending order from ΔP(max.) to ΔP(min.) in equal integrated
areas, then the active energy losses can be stated as in (13).
𝛥𝐸 = ∫ ∆𝑃(𝑡)
𝑇
0
∙ 𝑑𝑡 = ∆𝑃(𝑡) ∙ 𝑇 = 𝛥𝑃(𝑚𝑎𝑥. ) ∙ 𝜏 (13)
Where the sum of the year’s hours T = 8760 [h], and τ represents equivalent load losses hours [h/year].
The active energy losses is driven by substituting (12) in (13) as:
∆𝐸 = ∆𝑃𝑁𝐿 ∙ 𝑇 + ∆𝑃𝐿𝐿 ∙ 𝜏 (14)
∆𝐸 = 0.28 ∆𝑃 ∙ 𝑇 + 0.72 ∆𝑃 (
𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿
𝑃𝑛
)2
∙ 𝜏 (15)
From (15), the value of ∆𝑃 is still unknown, considering (2). The total power losses can be calculated using
the following formula:
𝜂 =
𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑃𝑖𝑛
=
𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡+∆𝑃
=
𝑃𝑛
𝑃𝑛+∆𝑃
(16)
where η is the efficiency of IM, and Pin is the input power of i-th IM in [hp or kW]. The Pout is the output power
and is also called nominal power Pn, the shaft power Pshaft, or the rated power Prated. The nameplate data of the
IM is used to obtain the nominal power Pn and the efficiency η. In this case, after modifying (16), the total
power losses as a function of efficiency and nominal power are obtained as in (17).
∆𝑃 = 𝑃𝑛 (
1
𝜂
− 1) (17)
3.4. Determination of the equivalent working hours
When the load power of IM PIML varies in time, the load is distributed in equal integrated areas in
descending order, from maximum loading power P(max.) to a certain minimum power P(min). In this case, the active
energy E consumed during a time Teq will be given by (18).
𝐸 = ∫ 𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿
𝑇
0
𝑑𝑡 = 𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿 ∙ 𝑇 = 𝑃(𝑚𝑎𝑥. ) ∙ 𝑇𝑒𝑞 (18)
Where Teq is the equivalent working hours over a year [h].
The monthly equivalent working hours T(w/m)eq. (also known as maximum load utilization time) is
presented in [24]-[27] and can be calculated as in (19). Also, the relation between T(w/m)eq. and Teq can be
obtained from (20).
𝑇(𝑤/𝑚)𝑒𝑞. = 2 ∙ 𝐷(𝑤/𝑦) ∙ (
𝑛𝑠
3
+
3−𝑛𝑠
3
∙
𝐴𝑝 (𝑎𝑤)
𝐴𝑝(𝑤)
) + 2 ∙ (365 − 𝐷(𝑤/𝑦)) ∙
𝐴𝑝 (𝑎𝑤)
𝐴𝑝(𝑤)
) (19)
𝑇𝑒𝑞 = N∙ 𝑇(𝑤/𝑚)𝑒𝑞 (20)
Where Ap(w) is the sum of the consumed active energy (day and night) during the time of operation per month
in [kWh], Ap(aw) the consumed active energy after the time of operation per month in [kWh], D(w/y) is the number
of working days over the year (excluding holidays, shutdowns, and weekends), ns =1-3 is the number of
working shifts during the time of operation in one day, and N is the number of months (N=1-12, where
N=12 for one year).

 ISSN: 2088-8694
1344
3.5. Determination of the maximum loss time
The product of integration power losses ΔP(t) over a certain period of T is the energy losses 𝛥E. Now,
if the time-varying of power losses values are arranged in descending order from maximum value ∆P(max.) to
minimum value ∆P(min.), as depicted in Figure 2, [24]. Where the areas under the curve of the dotted and straight
lines are equals.
Figure 2. Maximum loss time curve
The relationship between the equivalent load loss time τ and the LSF, [28] is as in (19).
𝜏 = 𝐿𝑆𝐹. 𝑇 (21)
LSF represents the load loss factor [/] and (T = 8760h) is the year's hours. The overall average energy loss ∆E
in [29], [30] is obtained by multiplying the load loss factor LSF with the power losses and a certain period of
time. Substituting (21) into (13) yields (22).
∆𝐸 = ∆𝑃(𝑚𝑎𝑥.) ∙ 𝑇 ∙ LSF (22)
The relationship between the load factor LF and Load Loss Factor LSF is presented in [29].
𝐿𝑆𝐹 = (1 − 𝑘) ∙ 𝐿𝐹2
+ 𝑘 ∙ 𝐿𝐹 (23)
The value of k varies between zero and one, and it depends on the load curve profile. Also, it is different from
one country to another e.g., k=0.16 in the USA for a rural power grid and k=0.3 for an urban power grid, k=0.2
in Great Britain and Australia, and k=0.33 in Poland. In this paper, the value of k=0.33 will be considered.
The value of the load factor LF in (23) can be calculated as the ratio of equivalent working hours over a year
Teq to the year’s hours T [24], [31] and as in (24).
𝐿𝐹 =
𝑇𝑒𝑞
𝑇
(24)
4. ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The annual owing cost of IM, CIM.i of i-th IM can be expressed as the sum annual capital cost of the
IM using the present value of the annuity Cc.IM, considering the unit cost Ce of active energy [$/kWh] and the
energy losses value in [kWh]. Then the CIM.i can be determined as in (25).
𝐶𝐼𝑀.𝑖 = 𝐶𝑐.𝐼𝑀. + 𝐶𝑒 ∙ ∆𝐸𝑖 (25)
The formula in (25) represents the annual owing cost of the i-th IM with different capital costs and different
energy losses. Considering the rate of discount or interest rate r, the life expectancy n- year, the present value
PV of the IM [$]. Then, the annual capital cost Cc.IM. of IM [32], [33] can be expressed as in (26).
𝜏 T
∆P(t)
∆P(ma
x)
ΔE
t
[h]

1345
𝐶𝑐.𝐼𝑀. =
𝑟∙(𝑃𝑉)
1−(1+𝑟)−𝑛 (26)
Where the life expectancy for IM is assumed n=15 years. Based on the above procedure and equations, an
algorithm has been developed. Figure 3 demonstrates the flowchart of the proposed approach.
Figure 3. The proposed TOC computing algorithm

 ISSN: 2088-8694
1346
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
This section presents a numerical example to demonstrate the proposed method. The input data and
the calculations are conducted as follows.
5.1. Induction motor technical data
The input data for i-th number of the IM is generally received from different manufacturers/
vendors/suppliers with different specifications and prices. This task is regular daily work for the tender engineer
or the plant engineer in the industrial plant. Therefore, this example will perform an economic evaluation for
three offers received from different suppliers. However, irrespective of the number of IM, the economic
evaluation is the same. Therefore, the input technical and operational data for the received offers, IM-1, IM-2,
and IM-3, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Induction motor technical data
Item IM-1 IM-2 IM-3
Electrical parameters
Power [kW] 22 22 22
Voltage [V] 400 400 400
Current [A] 42.5 39 40.78
Frequency [Hz] 50 50 50
cos ϕ [/] 0.89 0.89 0.85
Number of poles 4 4 4
Winding connection [Y/Δ] Y Y Y
Operational and mechanical parameters
Insulation class F F F
Duty cycle S1 S1 S1
IP (ingress protection) 55 55 55
Mechanical dimensions same same same
Note: the name of manufacturers is hidden due to the privacy policy
The received ex-work price of each IM is as indicated in Table 2, where some suppliers offer fuel oil
blended (FOB) or casparian strip integrity factor (CIF) prices with different currencies, others include custom,
and value-added tax (VAT). However, the procedure is the same, and all offers shall be brought to the same
level, as shown in Table 2.
The unit price of electrical energy differs from one county to another; also, in each country, typically,
there are several tariffs applied for different types of consumers. Therefore, the applicable tariffs where the IM
will be installed shall determine the unit price of energy needed for economic evaluation. In this example, the
medium industrial is applied [34]. However, suppose the IM has to work in a continuous mode of operation
(three shifts). In that case, the arithmetic average of the day and night tariffs is considered, the energy unit price
is as in Table 3.
Table 2. Induction Motor total purchasing cost (IM Price)
Item IM-1 IM-2 IM-3
CIM. (EX-work Price) [$] 1464.00 632.20 1890.34
Customs (20%) 292.80 126.44 378.07
VAT (16%) 234.24 101.15 302.45
TAX (5%) 73.20 31.61 94.52
Erection (8%) 117.12 50.58 151.23
CIM. (total cost) [$] 2181.36 941.98 2816.60
Table 3. The energy unit cost
Item $/kWh
Day electricity tarif, Ce.D. Day tariff 0.1254
Night electricity tarif, Ce.N. Night tariff 0.1056
Average electricity tarif, Ce(avg. D+N) 0.1155
5.2. Induction motor calculation
The numerical calculation is demonstrated for MI-1 only; however, the calculation for IM-2 and IM-3
are in the same way. The result of the calculation for the three motors will be summarized in Table 4.
− Input power

1347
Based on the IM-1 shown in Table 1, the input power is calculated as:
𝑃𝑖𝑛 = √3 ∙ 𝑉
𝑛 ∙ 𝐼𝑛 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( 𝜃) = √3 ∙ 400 ∙ 42.5 ∙ 0.89 = 26205.92 𝑘𝑊.
− Efficiency
The efficiency of IM-1 can be calculated using (14) as follows:
𝜂 =
𝑃𝑛
𝑃𝑖𝑛
=
22000
26174.9
= 0.8395
− Total power losses
The total power losses using (17) is calculated as:
∆𝑃 = 𝑃𝑛 (
1
𝜂
− 1) = 22000 (
1
0.8395
− 1) = 4.205 𝑘𝑊.
− Actual loading
The actual loading (mechanical loading) of the IM-1 is equal:
𝑃𝐼𝑀𝐿 = 𝑘𝑓 . 𝑃𝑛 = 0.9 𝑥 22000 = 20.02 𝑘𝑊.
where kf = 0.9 is the ratio of the mechanical load to the nameplate power of the IM.
− Equivalent working hours
The equivalent working hours over a year 𝑇𝑒𝑞 is calculated for the operational mode of one shift (8)
hours a day and five days a week excluding holidays, where the energy consumed for essential load after the
working hours is equal 𝐴𝑝 (𝑎𝑤)/𝐴𝑝(𝑤) = 20%. Using (19) and (20) respectively has been obtained:
𝑇(𝑤/𝑚)𝑒𝑞. = 2 𝑥 244 (
1
3
+
3−1
3
×
20
100
) + 2(365 − 244) 𝑥
20
100
= 278.6 ℎ/𝑚.
𝑇𝑒𝑞 = 278.6 𝑥 12 = 3343.2 ℎ.
− Load factor
Load factor using (24):
𝐿𝐹 =
3343.2
8760
= 0.3783.
− Load loss factor
The (LSF) is obtained from (23), for k=0.33, [28].
𝐿𝑆𝐹 = (1 − 0.33) ∙ 0.37832
+ 0.33 𝑥 0.3783 = 0.221.
− Maximum loss time
The maximum loss time determination (τ) is obtained by using (21);
𝜏 = 0.221 𝑥 8760 = 1933.8 ℎ.
− Total power Losses
The total power losses ∆P(t) is obtained by using (12).
∆𝑃(𝑡) = 0.28 𝑥 4.206 +0.72 𝑥 4.206 ∙ (
20.02
22.0
)2
= 3.68 kW.
− Energy losses
The annual energy losses, ΔE as in (15);
∆𝐸 = 0.28 𝑥 4.205 𝑥 8760 + 0.72 𝑥 4.205 𝑥 (
20.02
22.0
)2
∙ 1933= 8,749 kWh
The MI-1, MI-2, and MI-3 calculation results are summarized in Table 4.
5.3. Economic evaluation of annual owing cost
5.3.1. Amortized present value of IM
The capital cost of the IM using the present value of an annuity [$/year], considering a discount rate
r=8% and the lifetime of IM, n=15 years, using (26) the following is obtained.

 ISSN: 2088-8694
1348
𝐶𝑐.𝐼𝑀. =
0.08 ∙ (2181.36)
1 − (1 + 0.08)−15
= 254.85 [$/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟].
5.3.2. Energy losses cost
The total cost of energy losses (𝐶𝑒 ∙ ∆𝐸𝑖) based on (25):
0.1254𝑥8.749 = 1096.68 kWh
The economic calculations are summarized as shown in Table 5.
Table 4. Induction motor power losses and energy losses
Item IM-1 IM-2 IM-3
Calculated efficiency, η [%] 0.840 0.915 0.916
Total power losses at full load, ΔP [kW] 4.206 2.047 2.015
Actual power load, P(t). [kW] 20.02 20.02 20.02
Equivalent working hours, Teq.[h] 3313.6 3313.6 3313.6
Load factor , LF [ /] 0.3783 0.3783 0.3783
Load loss factor, LSF [/] 0.221 0.221 0.221
Equivalent loss hours, τ [h] 1,933.28 1,933.28 1,933.28
Loading power losses ∆P(𝐭) [kW] 3.68 1.79 1.77
Energy losses, ΔE [kWh/yr.] 8,749 4,259 4,191
Note: IM-1 is loaded by kf equal 91% from its nominal capacity (i.e 0.9. 22 kW). (i.e Pmech.load).
Table 5. Induction motor economic input data.
Item IM-1 IM-2 IM-3
Present value (PV), [$] 2181.36 941.98 2816.60
Interest rate/year, [%] 8.00 8.00 8.00
IM lifetime expectancy, number of years (n), 15.00 15.00 15.00
The capital cost of the annuity, CcIM (PV/yr.), [$] 254.85 110.05 329.00
Cost of energy losses, (Ce ∙ ΔE), [$] 1097.10 534.07 525.58
5.3.3. Total owing cost
The total owing cost of IM-1 is calculated as in (25).
𝐶𝐼𝑀.𝑖 = 254.85 + (0.1254 × 8,749) = 1,351.97 [$/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟].
The economic evaluation results of IM-1, IM-2, and IM-3 are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Summary of annual owning cost of IM, [$/yr.]
Mode of operation (No. of shifts) IM-1 IM-2 IM-3
1 1,351.97 644.12 854.58
2 2,052.05 984.94 1,189.97
3 3,118.36 1,504.02 1,700.80
6. SPECIAL CASE OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Contracting companies constructing projects in different countries typically use the equipment during
the project's construction. After completing the project, they either leave the used equipment to the owner of the
project as a part of the spare parts list or sell these types of equipment as second-hand equipment. This section
will discuss the return arising from selling the used equipment after the project's completion. In general, the used
equipment price is subjected to bargaining bases. They are about (40-60)% of the purchasing price subject to time
of use and the equipment’s condition. The construction time of the projects varies typically between (18-36)
months or even more for the megaproject.
6.1. Total owing cost of the special case
The TOC for this case is:
𝑇𝑂𝐶 = 𝐶𝐼𝑀 . (0.40 − 0.60) + 𝐶𝑒 . ∆𝐸 (27)
Teq is calculated for two shifts of an operational mode of (16 hours a day and six days a week excluding
holidays), with the expectation that the essential load after the working hours is equal Ap (aw)/Ap(w) = 10%

1349
and the number of working days over the year is equal D(w/y) = 300 𝑑𝑎𝑦. The calculation summary for this
case is obtained, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Total owing cost for a particular case [$/yr.]
The selling price of IM (%) Project duration (month) IM-1 IM-2 IM-3
40 18 3574.68 1692.20 2420.92
40 24 4475.39 2130.67 2852.42
40 30 5376.11 2569.14 3283.92
40 36 6276.82 3007.61 3715.41
45 18 3683.75 1739.30 2561.73
45 24 4584.46 2177.77 2993.22
45 30 5485.17 2616.24 3424.72
45 36 6385.88 3054.71 3856.22
50 18 3792.81 1786.40 2702.53
50 24 4693.53 2224.87 3134.03
50 30 5594.24 2663.34 3565.53
50 36 6494.95 3101.81 3997.02
55 18 3901.88 1833.49 2843.34
55 24 4802.59 2271.97 3274.83
55 30 5703.31 2710.44 3706.33
55 36 6604.02 3148.91 4137.83
60 18 4010.95 1880.59 2984.14
60 24 4911.66 2319.06 3415.64
60 30 5812.38 2757.53 3847.14
60 36 6713.09 3196.01 4278.63
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This paper presents a method for calculating the annual owing cost of three-phase IM. The economic
evaluation is based on the IM data that appears on the motors' nameplate. Two modes of operation are presented
and discussed; in the first mode, the IM is used for permanent purposes of use with one, two, or three shifts daily,
the results are as presented in the numerical examples in section 5, wherein in the second mode of operation, the
IM is used for temporary or short time purposes with a plan to sell the equipment after finishing the needs of its
use, the results are as presented in section 6. The name of the IM manufacturers was hidden due to the privacy
policy. In addition, the IM-1 and IM-3 are from well-known brand name manufacturers. On the other hand,
IM-2 is not from a well-known manufacturer and still does not have enough reputation in the Middle East market.
Hence results of the analysis as shown in Table 5 that, although the initial price of IM-2 is respectively less than
IM-1 by approximately 43% and IM-3 by 33%, the TOC of IM-2 is lower than IM-3 by 25% and IM-1 by 48%.
Therefore, the initial price of the IM cannot always guarantee the result of the minimum TOC.
The manipulation of the developed software shows that any change in energy unit price will affect the
TOC of the IM. However, for the illustrated example, the increment of the current tariff of electrical energy
even by 40% does not change the sequences TOC of the evaluated IM. On the contrary, if the energy unit cost
in Table 3 is decreased by 37% or more, then the lowest TOC will be IM-2, IM-3, and IM-1. Based on that, the
IM with a lower TOC does not necessarily have the same if applying another electricity tariff. The summary of
the annual owning cost of the three presented IM is as in Table 6. The TOC of the IM used for temporarily or
short period of use with different times of use and different selling price after the use as in Table 7, shows that,
even if the selling price of the used IM varies between (40-60) percent of the purchasing price, the initial price is
still dominated in the result of TOC.
8. CONCLUSION
This paper presents a novel methodology of economic evaluation of IM. The TOC is demonstrated via
a flow chart algorithm, performed numerical examples, and devolved MATLAB software. The analyses show
that; the initial price of the IM doesn’t guarantee the minimum TOC. The unit price of electrical energy and other
economic factors like the equipment's interest rate and life expectancy are also having a substantial impact on the
final TOC. The initial price of IM used for temporary purposes is the primary factor affecting the economic
evaluation of IM. Finally, the presented approach is a very good tool to calculate the TOC of IM. Still, nothing
can compensate the good engineering practice for the final decision for which offer we have to go, considering
the effect of other factors like service after sell, and availability of the spare part.

 ISSN: 2088-8694
1350
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this work would like to thank Philadelphia University for their support while
conducting this research.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Chen and E. L. Severson, “Optimal Design of the Bearingless Induction Motor for Industrial Applications,” IEEE Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), 2019, pp. 5265-5272, doi: 10.1109/ECCE.2019.8912543.
[2] B. Stoffel, “Assessing the Energy Efficiency of Pumps and Pump Units: Background and Methodology,” in Elsevier Health Sciences,
Wymaan Street, Waltham, MA, USA: Elsevier, 2015.
[3] M. Kostic, Effects of Voltage Quality on Induction Motors' Efficient Energy Usage. in Intech Open Access Publisher, 2012.
[4] S. Elzbieta and S. Leszek “Collective Losses of Low Power Cage Induction Motors—A New Approach,” Energies vol. 14, no. 6: p.
1749, Mar. 2021, doi:10.3390/en14061749.
[5] P. Selvaraj, T. Muthukumari, and S. R. Kiran, “Power Flow and Loss Analysis of Three Induction Motor Operating at Different Slip
Conditions,” Journal of Research and Advancement in Electrical Engineering, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 1-7, 2020, doi:
10.5281/zenodo.3931300.
[6] D. Mamchur, “An analysis on induction motor reliability and lifetime estimation methods,” Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, vol. 1, no.
12, pp. 220-223, 2020, doi:10.15199/48.2020.12.47.
[7] G. Khoury, R. Ghosn., F. Khatounian, M. Fadel, and M. Tientcheu, “Energy-efficient field-oriented control for induction motors taking
core losses into account,” Electrical Engineering, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 529–538, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00202-021-01321-6.
[8] S. Corino E. Romero L. F, and Mantilla “How the efficiency of induction motor is measured,” Renewable Energy and Power Quality
Journal, vol. 1, no. 6, 2008, doi: 10.24084/repqj06.352.
[9] Y. Yahya and M. Rahmat, “Induction motor rotor bars type effects towards energy efficiency, economic and
environment,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 11, no. 3, p. 1188, 2020, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v11.i3.pp1188-1196.
[10] S. Lin, “Analysis and Performance Improvement of Induction Motor drive for Traction Application,” Journal of Sustainable
Machines, pp. 20-30. 2020, doi: 10.46532/jsm.20200705.
[11] M. Nakhaie and R. Roshanfekr, “Effects of Geometric Dimension Variations on Efficiency of 3-phase Squirrel Cage Induction
Motors Considering Economic Evaluation,” Balkan Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 59-68, Jan.
2021, doi: 10.17694/bajece.732721.
[12] P. D. Donolo, E. Chiacchiera, C. M. Pezzani, A. S. Lifschitz and C. De Angelo, "Economic Barriers to the Application of Energy
Efficient Motors in Industry," in IEEE Latin America Transactions, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1817-1825, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.1109/TLA.2020.9387673.
[13] H. A. Resketi, Hamidreza, S. M. Mirimani, and J. Firouzjaee, “Technical and Economical Assessment of the Efficiency Improvement
of Induction Motors after Rewinding,” Scientific Journal of Applied Electromagnetics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 17-26, 2020.
[14] G. Agam and V. N. A. Naikan, “A model for financial viability of implementation of condition based maintenance for induction
motors,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, vol. 26, no. 2, doi:10.1108/JQME-08-2017-0053.
[15] V. Aguiar, R. Pontes, and F. Ferreira, “Technical and Economic Evaluation of Efficiency Improvement after Rewinding in Low-
Power Induction Motors: A Brazilian Case,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 1701, 2018, doi:10.3390/en11071701.
[16] K. Rai, S. Seksena, and A. N. Thakur, “Economic Efficiency Measure of Induction Motorsfor Industrial Applications,”International Journal
of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1661-1670, August. 2017, doi:10.11591/ijece.v7i4.pp1661-1670.
[17] S. Chapman, Electric machinery fundamentals, fifth edition. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012.
[18] Beeindia.gov.in. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.beeindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/3Ch2.pdf. Accessed: 21 February 2022.
[19] L. Aarniovuori, M. Niemelä, J. Pyrhönen, W. Cao, and E. B. Agamloh, “Loss Components and Performance of Modern Induction
Motors,” XIII International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM), 2018, pp. 1253-1259, doi:
10.1109/ICELMACH.2018.8507189.
[20] K. Anderson, J. Lin and A. Wong, “Experimental and Numerical Study of Windage Losses in the Narrow Gap Region of a High-
Speed Electric Motor,” Fluids, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 22, 2018, doi: 10.3390/fluids3010022.
[21] D. Kim, J. Choi, Y. Chun, D. Koo, and P. Han, “The Study of the Stray Load Loss and Mechanical Loss of Three Phase Induction
Motor considering Experimental Results,” Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 121-126, 2014, doi:
10.5370/JEET.2014.9.1.121.
[22] J. Yu, T. Zhang, and J. Qian. Electrical motor products: International energy-efficiency standards and testing methods in Elsevier,
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2011.
[23] R. E. Araújo, Induction Motors-Modelling and Control in Intechopen, p. 560, nov. 2012, doi: 10.5772/2498.
[24] A. Agha, A. Hani, A. Alfaoury, M. R. Khosravi, “Maximizing Electrical Power Saving Using Capacitors Optimal Placement,” Recent
Advances in Electrical & Electronic Engineering (Formerly Recent Patents on Electrical & Electronic Engineering), vol. 13, no. 7,
pp. 1041-1050, 2020, doi: 10.2174/2352096513666200212103205.
[25] A. Agha, “Economic Evaluation of Transformer Selection in Distribution Systems,” Jordan Journal of Electrical Engineering
(JJEE), vol. 4, no. 2, pp 88-99, 2018.
[26] A. Agha, “A New Approach for Load Loss Factor Estimation in Electrical Distribution Networks,” International Journal on Energy
Conversion (IRECON), vol. 5, no. 5, p. 148, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.15866/irecon.v5i5.13126.
[27] A. Agha, H. Attar and A. Luhach, “Optimized Economic Loading of Distribution Transformers Using Minimum Energy Loss
Computing,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, pp. 1-9, 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/8081212.
[28] A. Wu and B. Ni, Line loss analysis and calculation of electric power systems, in China Electric Power Press, Wiley online library,
2015, doi: 10.1002/9781118867273.
[29] T. Krishna, N. Ramana, and S. Kamakshaiah, “Loss estimation: a load factor method,” Electrical and Power Engineering, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 9-15, Feb.2013.
[30] J. Keoliya and G. Vaidya, “Estimation of technical losses in a distribution system,” Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 2,
no. 6, pp. 2621-2626, Jun. 2013.
[31] M. W. Gustafson and J. S. Baylor, “Approximating the system losses equation (power systems),” in IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 850-855, Aug. 1989, doi: 10.1109/59.32571.
[32] Panneerselvam, R. Engineering economics. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2013.
[33] M. Barnes, Practical variable speed drives and power electronics, in Elsevier, Oxford: Newnes, 2007.

1351
[34] Electricity Tariff Instructions Issued by Electricity Regulatory Commission (ERC), Jordan, Tariff valid from 16/2/2015, 2015.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nepco.com.jo/en/electricity_tariff_en.aspx. Accessed: 08 June 2022.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Mohammed Baniyounis received his BSc. Degree in Electrical Engineering
for the University of Jordan. He obtained his MSc. and Ph.D. in 2006 from the University of
Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany. He has Strong Knowledge and experience of
Re-Engineering and Reverse Engineering delegated through specifications and verification
of software/hardware systems using different tools and logic. Besides his expertise in the
Distributed and Concurrent Systems approach for software modeling, design and
development. He is interested in applying these methods introduced above along with
Software Engineering technologies to solve automation and control specific problems. The
basic knowledge of electrical machines also assists this Know-how. Currently, he is the
acting Dean of Engineering and Technology Faculty at the Philadelphia University in
Amman. He can be contacted at email: mbaniyounis@philadelphia.edu.jo.
Ayman Agha received his MSc, BSc (Hon.), and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
power engineering, from the University of Science and Technology-AGH, Cracow-Poland
in 1989 and 1997 respectively. He joined Jordan Phosphate Mines Co. (JPMC) in 1989 as a
maintenance, planner, and preventive maintenance engineer and at the project's department
till the 2000 year. From 2000 to 2004 he worked as a Studies and Design Department
Manager in Alfanar Co. Riyadh/KSA. In 2004 re-joined his work in JPMC, worked for
Megaprojects. Since 2013, he has been a certified Consultant in Electrical Power
Engineering and Projects (PQAC-JAE-Jordan). His research interest includes power systems
efficiency, nonlinear systems, optimization theory, and reactive power compensation.
Currently, he is an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, at
Philadelphia University, Amman-Jordan. He can be contacted at email:
aagha@philadelphia.edu.jo.
Hudefah Al-kashashneh received the M.Sc. degree in Mechatronics
Engineering from Philadelphia University, Jordan, in 2019 and a B.Sc. degree in Electrical
Power and Control Engineering from the Jordan University of Science and Technology,
Jordan, in 2012. He currently works as a Laboratory Supervisor at the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Philadelphia University. The following themes describe the
researcher's interests: smart grids, renewable energy systems, power system stability,
artificial intelligence, electrical machine, and Internet of Things (IoT). He can be contacted
at email: hudefah_hb@yahoo.com.
Abdullah Al-Omoush received his MSc in Electronic Systems from Cranfield
University, UK in 1992 and his BSc (Hon) from Salford University, UK in 1982 in Electrical
and Electronic Engineering. He joined the Royal Jordanian Air force (RJAF) in 1982 -2002
where He worked in the fields of electronic communication systems, Avionic Systems, and
Electronic Warfare Systems. Currently, he is a lecturer in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Philadelphia University, Amman-Jordan. He can be contacted at
Alomoush@Philadelphia.edu.

Economic evaluation of induction motor based on motor’s nameplate data and initial cost

More Related Content

Similar to Economic evaluation of induction motor based on motor’s nameplate data and initial cost (20)

More from International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Economic evaluation of induction motor based on motor’s nameplate data and initial cost