SPRUHJ1I January 2013 – October 2021 TMS320F2802-Q1 , TMS320F28026-Q1 , TMS320F28026F , TMS320F28027-Q1 , TMS320F28027F , TMS320F28027F-Q1 , TMS320F28052-Q1 , TMS320F28052F , TMS320F28052F-Q1 , TMS320F28052M , TMS320F28052M-Q1 , TMS320F28054-Q1 , TMS320F28054F , TMS320F28054F-Q1 , TMS320F28054M , TMS320F28054M-Q1 , TMS320F2806-Q1 , TMS320F28062-Q1 , TMS320F28062F , TMS320F28062F-Q1 , TMS320F28068F , TMS320F28068M , TMS320F28069-Q1 , TMS320F28069F , TMS320F28069F-Q1 , TMS320F28069M , TMS320F28069M-Q1
Two pairs of motors were placed running the same load, which in this case were fans. One pair ran for 15 months side to side comparing energy consumption performance between InstaSPIN-FOC with PowerWarp algorithm enabled versus a TRIAC control of an Induction Motor. The energy savings over time are significant, average savings of about 81% of the energy when using InstaSPIN with PowerWarp enabled. In other words, with PowerWarp algorithm enabled, each motor only consumes about 19% of the power compared to a TRIAC controller. This percentage is calculated as follows:
Figure 17-7 shows the energy consumption per month and an accumulative energy savings in kWh.
The second pair of system was running InstaSPIN with PowerWarp enabled, but now versus a Volts-per-Hertz Control, also known as Frequency Control. The energy savings are also significant in this scenario, since PowerWarp optimizes the current consumption to minimize copper losses of the motor. In this case, the average energy savings were 48%, and it was calculated as follows:
Figure 17-8 shows these results.