TECHNICAL FEATURE

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, July 2014. Copyright 2014 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Overestimating Energy
And Cost Savings
Of Installing VFDs
BY ADAM K. WOLFE, PH.D., P.E., MEMBER ASHRAE

An agency of the federal government conducted an energy conservation feasibility study

in 2012 at its district heating plant. The study looked at the feasibility of several energy
conservation opportunities. This article explores the consultants recommendation to
retrofit the forced and induced draft fan motors for five field-erected boilers with VFDs.
Feasibility Study
The feasibility study was developed using a free VFD
software program for evaluating fan energy savings. The
software creates a basic centrifugal fan energy savings
report, Figure 2. The raw inputs for the reports include
FIGURE 1 Typical percentage of electrical input power per control strategy.

100
90
80
Input Power (kW)

Forced draft (FD) fans supply combustion air to the

furnace and induced draft (ID) fans remove flue gas from
the furnace. The FD fan controls combustion airflow into
the furnace while the ID fan maintains a slightly negative
pressure to ensure a balanced draft through the furnace
of the boiler. The existing fans use outlet dampers to
control the combustion air and exhaust gas flows. The
performance characteristics of outlet damper and VFD
control methods are shown in Figure 1.
The boiler, fan, and motor manufacturers data is
shown in Table 1. It has been determined that the predicted energy analysis overestimated the energy and
cost savings and resulted in an improper estimate of
the simple payback. This article provides guidance on
evaluating VFD savings in this system by emphasizing four factors that lead to overestimating the energy
and cost savings. It also presents an operational
management procedure (load management scheme)
to implement prior to considering a VFD control
strategy.

Damper Control

VFD Control

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percent Flow

Adam K. Wolfe, Ph.D., P.E., is adjunct assistant professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
16

A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g J U LY 2 0 1 4

TECHNICAL FEATURE

fan efficiency, motor efficiency, operaTABLE 1 

Boiler, forced and induced draft fan design characteristics.
tional data (percent of rated flow and
MOTOR
FAN
percent time at flows), annual operatSTEAM
BOILER FAN MOTOR
MOTOR
MOTOR
EFFICIENCY MOTOR MAXIMUM,
BOILER POUNDS/ TURNDOWN TYPE SIZE, HP VOLTAGE, V
AMPS, A
% RANGE
PF
RPM
ing time, and cost of electrical energy
NO.
HOUR
(A) (B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(excluding demand charges).
1 150,000
7.5 FD
150
2,300
34.0
93.694.1 0.88
1,190
Four of the most important inputs
94.194.5 0.85
890

ID
125
2,300
29.1
for each analysis are annual operat2 150,000
7.5 FD
150
2,300
34.0
93.694.1 0.88
1,190
ing hours, energy cost ($/kWh), rated
94.194.5
0.85
890

ID
125
2,300
29.1
motor horsepower (hp), and percent
3 150,000
7.5 FD
150
2,300
34.0
93.694.1 0.88
1,190
of time at a given flow rate. The soft94.194.5 0.85
890

ID
125
2,300
29.1
ware program takes into account the
4 150,000
7.5 FD
125
2,300
28.7
93.694.1 0.82
1,190
combustion temperature and altitude,
95.495.8
0.86
1,190

ID
250
2,300
57.1
which have a noticeable effect on the
motor horsepower. The annual operat5 200,000
10 FD
200
2,300
47.1
95.495.8 0.83
1,785
ing hours and percent of time at a given

ID
400
2,300
91.6
96.2 0.85
1,195
flow rate are derived from a bin analy(A) Turndown is defined as the ratio of boiler capacity at full fire to its lowest firing point before shutdown.
(B) FD: Forced Draft; ID: Induced Draft.
sis that relates steam and combustion
(C) The motors rated nameplate horsepower.
airflows for one year of operation. The
(D) The motors nameplate voltage, V.
motor horsepower and efficiency have
(E) The motors nameplate full load current (average of three phases), A.
(F) Motors efficiency range stated by the manufacturer of the motor. The average was used by the consultant and the author of this article.
been entered as rated and average,
(G) The motors nominal power factor given by the manufacturer of the motor (full load of the motor).
respectively. Once the fan, motor, and
(H) The motors full load speed (rpm) stated by the manufacturer of the motor.
energy data are entered into the program, a Basic Centrifugal Fan Energy
FIGURE 2 Basic centrifugal fan energy savings report.
Savings Report can be generated. This
consists of annual operating cost for
damper and VFD control strategies ,
energy consumed outlet damper versus
VFD control plots , and a bar chart of
annual operating cost for damper and
VFD control strategies . As a result,
the program computes the annual
operating cost for both the outlet
damper and VFD control strategies, and
subtracts the two values to obtain an
annual savings .
The software program also takes
motor, fan, and drive part-load
efficiencies into consideration. If the owner does not
The actual fan characteristics data, percent pressure at
have access to such software, he will need to account
zero flow, minimum combustion airflow, fan maximum
for these efficiency losses. The software used by the
(or rated) and minimum efficiencies used in this critical
consultant generates a fan curve based upon minireview were obtained for each fan. The savings for each
mum combustion airflow and the percent pressure
motor are presented in Table 2.
at zero combustion airflow. Note that the greater
Critical Review of the Feasibility Study
the percent pressure at zero combustion airflow,
In reviewing the resulting savings and recommendathe steeper the fan curves slope. Hence, an outtions, the reported savings are very impressive and
let damper control strategy results in more energy
the VFD measure appears to be worth implementing.
consumed.
J U LY 2 0 1 4 a s h r a e . o r g A S H R A E J O U R N A L

17

TECHNICAL FEATURE

However, two main assumptions raised concerns. First,

the consultant uses the rated or designed horsepower of
the motor as stamped on the motor nameplate.
It is well known that most motors in HVAC applications
as well as other applications are oversized. Are these
motors oversized? Are motors consuming the designed
or nameplate horsepower?
To determine the actual power consumed by the
motors at peak steam demand, one should secure the
assistance of a qualified electrician to measure the full
load ampere and power (watts) if the proper metering
instruments are not installed or calibrated. By knowing the motor characteristics and field measurements
(ampere), the power consumed can be calculated using
standard electrical formulas.

bhp =

where
bhp

3 V I PF 1.34 hp/kW
1, 000 W/kW

(1)

nameplate data present a 32% reduction in power at

maximum boiler capacity.
Equation 1 is only used to calculate the brake horsepower from the measured current as to compare with the
nameplate data. The annual operating cost reduces by
this percentage for both VFD and damper control strategies. The electrical savings (difference between control
strategies) is much less than previously predicted by the
feasibility study. Columns B and C of Table 2 compare the
total energy consumed by considering all other variables
equal, except the actual horsepower (via measured amps
and other motor characteristics) is substituted for the
motor nameplate horsepower. Hence, the reduction in
electrical savings from the base case (consultants calculation) is approximately $212,346 per year.
Second, the consultant modeled the as found existing operating conditions of the plant in his justification
for the VFD control strategy. The as found conditions
in the feasibility study show that the boilers in the plant
operate at 60% (average) of the time below the designed
steam capacity during the year. Hence, the motors for
the forced and induced draft fans operate below the
optimum performance level. The current operational
scheme causes an increase in energy and energy cost.
Based on standard plant operations, the plant policy
should be to operate on a load management scheme to

= motor horsepower, calculated brake horsepower

= average voltage applied to all three phases, V
V
= average current of all three phases, A
I
= power factor (ratio of real power to apparPF
ent power), dimensionless number
= average motor efficiency, using the motor

manufacturers values
1.34 = conversion factor from
kW to horsepower
TABLE 2: 
Comparing energy savings under three schemes.
1,000 = conversion factor from
EXISTING
MOTOR FEASIBILITY
MEASURED
FEASIBILITY MEASURED/
LOAD MGMT
watts to kilowatts
MEASURED
STUDY
STUDY
STUDY LOAD MGMT
OPERATING
Note: The author of this article
BOILER
FAN MOTOR
HP SAVINGS ($) SAVINGS ($) HOURS/YEAR
($)
HOURS/YEAR
NO. TYPE SIZE HP
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
uses the same power factor and
1
FD
150
101
32,759
19,614
3,838
859
168
average motor efficiencies as the

ID
125
77
32,252
11,733
3,838
718
168
consultant. The article is more con2
FD
150
97
32,759
18,765
3,838
18,334
4,296
cerned with the energy difference,

ID
125
73
32,252
11,076
3,838
17,259
4,296
i.e., energy savings.
For example, the average three3
FD
150
66
32,759
12,776
3,838
5,756
1,704
phase current for the FD fan motor

ID
125
94
32,252
14,337
3,838
9,204
1,704
was measured at the switchgear
4
FD
125
82
17,843
10,393
2,437
11,390
2,716
to be 25 A. Using Equation 1 for

ID
250
31
46,457
3,368
2,437
4,225
2,716
a three-phase motor, the motor
5
FD
200
119
29,498
15,494
2,390
32,599
5,942
brake horsepower is 102 hp (76

ID
400
319
82,669
41,600
2,390
97,672
5,942
kW). Hence, the 102 hp (76 kW)
TOTAL

371,501
159,155
16,341
198,017
14,826
would be the starting point for the
(A) Horsepower calculated using measured average current, 3-phase. (E) Operations under load management and measure ampere to
motor power curve, rather than
(B) Existing operations using motor nameplate horsepower.
obtain horsepower.
(C) Existing operations using measured ampere to obtain horsepower. (F) Hours of operation under load management per fan.
using the nameplate rating of 150
(D) Hours of operation under current practice per fan.
Note: Columns (B), (C), and (E) are rounded off to the nearest integer.
hp (112 kW). The results of the

18

A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g J U LY 2 0 1 4

Advertisement formerly in this space.

TECHNICAL FEATURE

minimize the electrical consumpyear. Furthermore, a new load analyTABLE 3 

Sample load analysis for a boiler.
tion and optimize the thermal
sis for each boiler (Table 3, sample)
BOILER %
FAN %
OPERATING
% TIME AT
performance of the entire plant.
was developed for the load manageLOAD
LOAD
HOURS
HOURS
Thermal performance is discussed
ment scheme (Table 4, partial table)
100
80.00

generally in this article because

and the results were used to compare
95
75.84

the basis of the consultants savwith the operating scheme presented

90
71.68

ings was electrical energy savings

in the feasibility study. Instead of
from motors; however, one needs
using nameplate data of the motor,
85
67.52

to obtain the performance curve for

this review uses the average voltage
80
63.36

each boiler to determine the optiand three-phase current to calcu75

59.20
168
7.03
mum operating range.
lated horsepower to make the com70
55.36
769
32.18
For example, the boiler perforparison. The results of the analysis
mance curve, percent boiler capacity were entered into the VFD software
65
47.68
454
19.00
versus boiler efficiency, would show program, Figure 2. Note that the com60
43.84
327
13.68
an optimum boiler efficiency occur- plete details of these procedures are
55
40.00
422
17.66
ring at approximately 80% of the
beyond the scope of this article.
50
36.08
169
7.07
boiler design capacity. The perforThe results of the comparison
45
32.16
24
1.00
mance curve is a function of boiler
are shown in Table 2, Columns B
40
28.24
0
0.00
design, fuel use, economizer use,
and E. Note that all three schemes,
and the amount of excess air. If the
Columns B, C and E, use the VFD
35
24.32
6
0.25
boiler capacity drops below 80%, the software program to calculate the
30
24.32
3
0.13
boiler efficiency decreases drastienergy used by the motors. Hence,
25
20.40
24
1.00
cally due to excess air and radiation
the reduction in savings from the
20
16.32
24
1.00
and convection losses. Also,
base case (consultants VFD analythe same effect happens when
sis in Column B) is approximately
Total
Hours

2,390

the boiler operates above

$173,484 per year. As shown, the
80% boiler capacity for the
TABLE 4 
Sample load management scheme (Boiler 5 is the lead).
same reasons, except to a less
degree. Therefore, the plant
TOTAL CUP
STEAM FLOW
BOILER 5
BOILER 4
BOILER 3
BOILER 2
BOILER 1
saves electrical and fuel enerLB/H
190 LB/H
144.75 LB/H
144.75 LB/H
144.75 LB/H
144.75 LB/H
gies if operated under a load
(IN THOUSANDS)
(IN THOUSANDS) HRS
(IN THOUSANDS) HRS
(IN THOUSANDS) HRS
(IN THOUSANDS) HRS
(IN THOUSANDS) HRS
management scheme.
623
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
143.5 24
24
In general, load management
596
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
116.5 24
24
means optimally matching of
540
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
60.5 24
24
boiler size and load. Depending
on the boiler size and type,
533
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
53.5 24
24
one can save as much as 50%
502
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
22.5 24
24
of the fuel used by the boiler.1
501
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
21.5 24
24
However, this review focuses on
the electrical energy saved by
498
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
18.5 24
24
operating the plant using a load
482
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
2.5 24
24
management scheme instead of
481
190 24
144.75 24
144.75 24
1.5 24
24
the current operating scheme.
Therefore, a load management
479
190 24
144.75 24
144.25 24
24
24
scheme was developed for the
473
190 24
144.75 24
138.25 24
24
24
plant based on a review of the
Indicates boiler not online
hourly loads of the plant for one
20

A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g J U LY 2 0 1 4

TECHNICAL FEATURE

electrical savings are not as high as

presented in the feasibility study
due to two major factors: measured
horsepower and load management.

Other Electrical Savings Factors

As previously stated, the energy
savings are further reduced if one
takes into consideration the losses
associated with the VFD. Some
manufacturers of VFDs publish
associated loss values. Although
the motors discussed in this article
are nominal 2400 V, it is worth noting to some that AHRI established
Standard 1210, Performance Rating
of Variable Speed Drives, for less than
and equal to 600 V and up to 75 hp.
In general, the VFD for motors 200
hp (14 kW) and over has a 2% to 3%
frequency conversion loss as heat in
the VFD.2
Also, motors have part-load efficiencies. However, the performance does
not show a substantial change until
the motor load drops below 40% of its
nominal rating.3 As stated earlier, the
VFD savings software takes motor, fan,
and drive part load efficiencies into
consideration. If the owner does not
have access to such software, one will
need to account for these efficiency
losses for accuracy in calculating savings. Under the load management
scheme, each motor operates with a
higher boiler steam flow compared
to the current operating scheme as
shown in the feasibility study.

Simple Payback
Using the consultants estimated
initial cost of the VFD drives
(installed), the simple payback
Equation 2 is used.
Simple Intial Investment Cost
Payback =
Savings

(2)

Simple payback is defined as the

time it takes a project or investment
to pay for itself in the absence of a
life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). In
comparing the three schemes, Table
2s Columns C and E, present simple
payback values between 13 and 16
years for the entire plant (assuming
the construction estimate is correct
as stated in the feasibility study).
The discussion of the construction estimate is sensitive and
beyond the scope of this article;
therefore, the estimate is assumed
to be correct but one should
ensure the accuracy of the construction estimate since it greatly
impacts the simple payback.
Under Federal Program Guidelines,
the project may not be installed if
the simple payback is greater than 10
years. The VFD installation should be
analyzed using a LCCA because the
project requires an environmental
cooling system and enclosure for
the dissipated heat from the drives;
hence, the system presents an outlay
of additional energy and equipment
maintenance.

this article provides guidance to

infrastructure owners in the area
of energy conservation, specifically VFD for industrial boilers. As
a result, the proper analyses and
operational schemes may avoid
unnecessary capital investment in
equipment that leads to an increase
in ownership costs, e.g., VFD, environmental cooling system, etc.

References
1. U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Operation and Maintenance Best Practices, A
Guide of Achieving Operating Efficiency,
Release 3.0.
2. Electrical Construction and Maintenance (ECM). 2009. The Basics of VariableFrequency Drives. http://tinyurl.com/
klrybhy.
3. U.S. Department of Energy. 2008.
Improving Motor and Drive System Performance: A Sourcebook for Industry.

Conclusions
To ensure the proper estimating
of energy savings and costs, the
owners and energy consultants
need to consider four main factors; (1) use measured motor power
instead of nameplate ratings, (2)
ensure proper load management
operational procedures, (3) consider losses associated with the
variable frequency drives (VFD),
and (4) account for motor and fan
part load efficiencies. To manage
infrastructure that consumes large
amounts of energy presents annual
increases in capital and operational
budgets that are already large,

Advertisement formerly in this space.

J U LY 2 0 1 4 a s h r a e . o r g A S H R A E J O U R N A L

21