“TURNING INFORMATION INTO ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR INDUSTRY” 

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM 

Energy Matters 

Summer 2003 

IS S U E F O C U S : 

Motor Repair Decisions 

IN THIS ISSUE 

A Flowchart Approach to


Motor Repair/Replace Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Five Levels of Motor Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


10 Questions to Answer 


Before You Call the Motor Service Center . . . . . 3


Motor Training Supports Boeing 


Corporate Energy Efficiency Goals . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Energy Efficiency Tools Go to School . . . . . . . . . 5


Don Casada’s Take on Tennessee Tech . . . . . . . 6


IAC Program Uses Student Engineers


to Identify Efficiency Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6


10 Tips for Saving Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7


Coming Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


Five levels of motor repair. 

See page 3. 

T OF ENERGY

D E P A R TMEN U 

E 

N I T E D STAT S OFA

E RIC A 

M

U.S. Department of Energy 

Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy 

Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is 

clean abundant, reliable, and affordable 

A Flowchart Approach to Motor Repair/Replace Decisions


By Thomas H. Bishop, P.E.


EASA Technical Support Specialist


Many decisions need to be made between 

the time a motor fails and when the final 

repair or replace option is chosen. 

Using a flowchart like the one on page 3 

helps us avoid overlooking any of the key 

steps in the decision process. Let’s go 

through the flowchart and consider each 

decision point. 

The first step in considering a failed 

motor is to assess whether it is actually 

suited for the application. This is a good 

question to ask regardless of whether the 

motor is to be repaired or replaced. 

Repair Choices 

If the motor suits the application, then 

the remaining decisions relate to repair 

choices. The first task is to determine the 

stator core’s condition. If the condition is 

satisfactory, the decision process moves to 

assess other repair decisions. But if there is 

core damage, the cost to repair the damage 

must be weighed against the replacement 

cost. Keep in mind that a motor with special 

features may be significantly more expensive 

to replace and time-consuming to procure. 

Following the core condition assessment, 

there are a series of questions that should be 

considered all together. These are: 

• Has catastrophic failure occurred? 

•	 Is there evidence of a prior catastrophic 

failure? 

• Is the rotor damaged? 

•	 Is there severe damage to other mechanical 

parts? 

• Is it an EPAct or premium efficient motor? 

If a catastrophic failure has occurred, or if 

there is evidence of a prior catastrophic failure, the repair cost should be weighed 

against the cost of a replacement. Now is a 

good time to consider the motor’s suitability 

for the application. The failure may suggest 

application issues that were not recognized 

earlier, such as excessive radial load on the 

A flowchart approach can help with the 

motor repair/replace decision. 

shaft and bearings. Catastrophic failures 

usually involve extreme damage to the stator 

core and windings, rotor, shaft, bearings, 

and end bracket. This damage may be so 

severe that the root cause is not apparent. 

Even so, possible causes that led to the 

failure should be identified to prevent a 

recurrence. 

Rotor damage can vary from surface 

smearing caused by contact with the stator, 

to bars and end rings melted on a die cast 

design, or bars lifted out of the slots and 

endrings broken on a fabricated design. 

While smearing might be repaired economically, melted bars or bars lifted from their 

slots will, at a minimum, require rebarring. 

The downside is that unless the motor is 

very large or special, rebarring is seldom an 

economic alternative. 

If major core iron damage has occurred, 

new laminations add to the repair cost. In 

such a case, the damage can be considered 

catastrophic, shifting the economics of 

repair versus replacement more heavily 

toward replacement. 

Other mechanical parts, such as the shaft 

or frame, can be damaged so badly they 

(continued on page 2)  
ENERGY MATTERS 

is published quarterly by the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

Industrial Technologies Program. 

Information contained in the 

newsletter can be reproduced 

without permission provided due 

acknowledgement is given (the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Energy Matters newsletter) and 

a copy of the publication is 

supplied to the editor. 

■ 

Editorial Board 

Tom Bishop 

Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association 

Rob Boteler, representing National 

Electrical Manufacturers 

Association 

Eric T. Fletty, Business 

Development Manager, TAPPI 

Gary L. Goehring, Alcoa 

North American Extrusions 

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco 

J. Bruce Medaris, Facilities 

Consulting Services and 

Executive Director, Compressed 

Air Challenge® 

Michael R. Muller, Center for 

Advanced Energy Systems, 

Rutgers University 

Arvind Thekdi, E3M, Inc. 

Chuck Whelan, DuPont 

■ 

DOE Staff 

Chris Cockrill, BestPractices, 

Motors 

Fred Hart, Technology Manager 

Grace Ordaz, 

Technology Manager 

Peter Salmon-Cox, Lead 

Technology Manager, Technology 

Delivery and BestPractices 

■ 

Comments? 

Contact: 

David Wagman, Energy Matters 

Editor, at 303-275-3602, 

e-mail david_wagman@nrel.gov 

or Karen Atkison, Associate 

Editor at 303-275-3730, e-mail 

karen_atkison@nrel.gov 

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1609 

Golden, CO 80401 

For new subscriptions, go to 

www.oit.doe.gov/ 

bestpractices/explore_library/ 

energy_matters.shtml 

For address/subscription changes, 

please contact the editor. 

A Flowchart Approach to Motor Repair/Replace Decisions continued from page 1 

must be replaced. Here again, the economics 

of buying or making a new shaft, or buying a 

new frame, may make repairing the motor an 

unattractive choice. 

The EPAct/Premium Efficiency 

Factor 

Each of these motor repair decision points 

has been well known for more than half a 

century. In the last decade, a new factor has 

been added: the energy-efficient motor. 

These consist of the energy efficient motors 

included in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPAct), and premium efficient motors. 

Regardless of the motor’s label, the intent 

of a motor repair is to maintain the motor’s 

original efficiency. 

Energy-efficient motors have a greater 

volume of material than most earlier motor 

products. In particular, an energy-efficient 

motor may have a longer rotor and stator 

core, and more conductive material than a 

similarly sized motor that does not meet the 

definition of EPAct or of a premium motor as 

defined by National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA). 

Energy efficiency also introduces return 

on investment considerations to the repairversus-replacement equation. This means 

considering the economic impact of all costs, 

including energy, and then determining 

which option provides the best overall 

benefits. 

Thus, a new motor that is more energy 

efficient may be selected because of cost projections, based on the expected useful life of 

the motor or process. 

Another key element in decision making 

is to determine whether funds are available 

for a replacement motor. This step often 

comes down to deciding which group within 

the company or plant is going to pay for the 

new motor. If the responsible group lacks 

funds for a replacement, it may opt for a 

motor repair, so long as the cost is less than 

that of a new motor. 

But let's assume that money is available 

for a new motor. The next decision point is 

availability. Standard feature motors, such as 

those that fall under EPAct rules, are normally stock items. However, larger motors or 

motors with special features may not be 

widely available from local suppliers and 

may have long delivery times. 

Decisions, decisions, decisions! To find a 

White Paper on “Assisting Your Customers 

with Repair/Replace Decisions and Performance Optimization”, visit the Electrical 

Apparatus Service Association Web site at 

www.easa.com. EASA is an Industrial Technologies Program Allied Partner. To learn more 

about BestPractices related to motors, visit the 

Industrial Technologies Program's Web site at 

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors.● 

Five Levels of Motor Repair 

Five levels of repair can be identified for 

squirrel cage induction motors. The first four 

represent an expanding scope of repairs. The 

fifth applies to motors that normally would 

be replaced, but present other factors to 

consider. 

A Level 1 repair is a basic overhaul or 

reconditioning. It includes cleaning components, replacing bearings, and replenishing 

lubricants. It also includes inspection and 

testing during the incoming stage, the repair 

process, and during final testing. 

Level 2 repairs include everything in 

Level 1, but add stator winding, varnish-resin 

treatment, worn bearing fit repair, and shaft 

straightening. 

Level 3 adds stator rewinding; that is, 

replacing the windings and insulation 

system. Smaller motors with two or four 

poles are relatively simple to rewind. Special 

windings such as two-speed, or very lowspeed windings, can add considerable time 

and material to a repair. 

Level 4 is the most comprehensive repair 

level; it encompasses all of the previous 

levels, and adds major lamination repair and/ 

or rotor rebar. It also may include restacking 

or replacing the stator laminations, and shaft 

replacement. Before taking on major repairs 

at this level, you may first want to consider 

the motor replacement option. Not only will 

the cost of repair be high at Level 4, but the 

uncertainty associated with the size of the 

repair compounds the risk of successfully 

completing the job. 

Level 5 repairs apply to motors that normally would be replaced except for special 

circumstances, such as the unavailability of a 

spare or replacement unit. 

2 Energy Matters, Summer 2003 
Is the rotor damaged, or is there 

severe damage to other 

mechanical parts? 

Is it an EPACT motor? 

Is return on investment of EPACT 

motor acceptable? 

Repair Motor Replace Motor 

Are replacement funds available? 

Is replacement motor available? 

Is lead time of replacement motor 

acceptable? 

Additional considerations include increased reliabliity, life expectancy, and benefits of additional features, upgrades, or modifications. 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No Investigate replacement with suitable motor (size/enclosure). Is the motor suitable for the 

application? 

Yes 

What is the condition of the stator 

core? 

OK 

Has catastrophic failure occurred, 

or is there evidence of prior 

catastrophic failure? 

Significant damage or high losses 

Special cases 

(e.g., very expensive 

motors) 

Is the cost of repair greater than 

the cost to replace the motor? 

Yes 

No 

Failed motor 

Failed motor repair/replacement decisions flowchart. 

Level 5 could easily apply to any of the 

circumstances at the other four levels of 

repair. This level also includes misapplied 

motors and vintage pre U-frame motors. This 

latter group generally is not rated at voltages 

consistent with modern power systems, and 

has only Class A original windings. 

Remember that motor repair costs generally go up as the scope of work increases. 

Also keep in mind that no simple ratio exists 

between the factors of repairs and costs. By 

recognizing that there are five levels of 

repairs, decision makers will understand that 

considering only the cost of a motor repair 

versus replacement can be too simplistic to 

yield an accurate assessment. 

10 Questions to Answer Before You Call the Motor Service Center 

1.	 What is the basic nameplate information? (Include manufacturer, horsepower, 

speed, voltage, phase, enclosure, catalog, part and/or model number, frame size, 

and serial number.) 

2. What does the motor operate? (A fan, blower, conveyor belt, pump?) 

3. How does the motor drive the load? (Does it have a direct drive, or is it belted?) 

4. Is there auxiliary equipment attached? (A clutch, gearbox, or brake?) 

5.	 Why do you think the motor needs repair? (Does it smoke, not run, or need preventive 

maintenance?) 

6. What is the motor’s past repair history? (Is it a “problem motor”?) 

7.	 How is the motor started? (Across the line, soft start, adjustable speed drive, part 

winding start, wye start, or delta run?) 

8.	 What is the operating environment? (Indoors, outdoors, subject to hazardous fumes 

or dusts, or water spray?) 

9. When do you need the motor back? Will you authorize overtime work if necessary? 

10. Is the motor still under manufacturer’s warranty?


Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Industrial Technologies Program, “Guidelines to a Good Motor Repair”, 


www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/pdfs/motor_repair_guide.pdf. 

(continued on page 7)  

Energy Matters, Summer 2003 3 
Motor Training Supports Boeing Corporate Energy Efficiency Goals


Energy efficiency can be just as important 

during a corporate downsizing or restructuring 

as during a time of growth. 

Take the Boeing Corporation, for example. 

In early May 2003, 60 engineers and 

craftspeople from Boeing facilities across the 

Puget Sound area in Washington State 

attended motor-efficiency training. Two 

2-day sessions cost approximately $12,600, 

but this investment by Boeing could pay for 

itself with the $35,000-a-year savings that 

will result from a single motor efficiency 

project developed from effective electric 

motor systems management. 

One Boeing plant in Kent, Washington, a 

30-building, 2 million+ square-foot facility, 

has undergone significant changes over the 

past few years. In 2002, as part of its restructuring, Boeing shut down Kent’s manufacturing capability to focus on office, research, and 

laboratory functions at the site. With the 

restructuring underway, Boeing management 

set a goal for ongoing operations: cut energy 

consumption between 9% and 12% during 

2003. 

Striking a Chord 

The restructuring and the energy reduction goal caused plant managers to renew 

efforts to conserve energy. Options ranged 

from building exit sign replacement to 

installing energy-efficient vending machine 

controls to evaluating hundreds of motors in 

use at Boeing operations around Puget 

Sound. This last option struck a chord with 

one engineer who works at the Kent plant. 

“We cannot directly control utility rates, 

but if we can make a process more efficient 

and reliable by replacing inefficient motors, it 

costs less to operate,” said Kenneth O’Donnell, 

a Lead Maintenance/Reliability Engineer and 

17-year Boeing veteran. 

According to DOE, motor-driven equipment accounts for 64% of the electricity 

consumed in the U.S. industrial sector. 

Within the nation’s most energy-intensive 

industries, motor systems consume some 

290 billion kilowatt-hours per year. In these 

industries alone, improvements to motor 

systems could yield dramatic energy and cost 

savings. One key to these savings is applying 

energy-efficiency equipment or implementing 

sound energy management practices. 

Ken takes a systems approach when it 

comes to evaluating motors, working to 

Gil McCoy of the WSC Cooperative Education–Energy Program teaches Boeing employees 

how to use MotorMaster+ software. 

understand what happens upstream and 

downstream of a motor. He also considers a 

motor’s life cycle costs. These include not 

just the motor purchase price, but the overall 

maintenance and energy costs. Ken’s primary 

job is to ensure that systems run more 

efficiently and for less money. A mechanical 

engineer by training, he was naturally drawn 

toward motors and their potential for savings 

when Boeing’s restructuring was announced. 

Saving energy at Boeing has been a company focus for many years. However, the issue 

attracted increased attention in 2000 when a 

drought caused Northwest hydroelectric 

power production to drop, leading to electricity shortages and price spikes. For Ken, 

part of the answer was to raise awareness for 

how increased motor efficiency could 

achieve corporate energy saving goals. 

Boeing hosted an energy management 

summit in 2002, which was attended by 

representatives from facilities throughout the 

Boeing enterprise including Washington, 

Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania and California. 

Ken was asked to provide a presentation on 

motor efficiency and, since the session was well 

received, he began to plan a broader training 

session for a wider, “targeted” audience. 

Union Cooperation 

Ken worked closely with two principal 

trade unions, the Society of Professional 

Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) 

and the International Aerospace Machinists 

(IAM) to gain support for a 2-day seminar on 

electric motor systems management. The 

IAM/Boeing Quality Through Training Program and Ed Wells Initiative joint programs 

provided funding for the training, a critical 

factor as the restructuring all but eliminated 

organizational training budgets in 2003. 

Obtaining funds from both joint programs 

made it easier for managers to agree to send 

people, and, by combining resources, a 

second two-day training session was offered. 

This cooperative effort not only doubled the 

total number of students who could attend 

the training, but also allowed mixing of craft 

persons and engineers in the same class. 

“Having a cross-section of skills in each 

session was beneficial as several students 

brought up unique questions or shared 

interesting experience-based knowledge with 

the rest of us,” said O’Donnell. “Had we had 

separate classes for each group, this transfer 

of information and networking opportunity 

would have been lost.” 

Both 2-day training sessions, held in early 

May, were taught by instructors from the 

Washington State University Cooperative 

Extension Energy Program. The first day 

included an introduction to motor basics, 

including motors and their power systems, 

different types of motors, power and load 

calculations, design standards and classification, and efficiency considerations. That was 

followed with training modules on motor 

system management, electrical distribution 

system tune-up, harmonics, maintenance 

and repair issues, and electronic variable 

speed drives. 

The second day featured hands-on 

problem solving using computers and the 

MotorMaster+ motor system management 

software. Topics on the agenda included 

motor price and performance database review, 

energy savings analysis, organizing a motor 

inventory, maintenance logging, energy 

4 Energy Matters, Summer 2003 
accounting features, customizing the 

software application, life cycle cost analysis, 

and conducting analyses for multiple motors. 

More than 60 people attended the “Day 1” 

training sessions, including heating, ventilating 

and air conditioning mechanics; maintenance mechanics; plant engineers; equipment engineers; reliability engineers; 

electrical engineers; and representatives from 

local utilities including Snohomish County 

Public Utility District and Puget Sound 

Energy. Seating was limited in the computer 

lab for the second day’s training, and, 

therefore, “Day 2” was available to unionrepresented employees only (approximately 

50 people attended). 

Rapid Return 

Evaluating training effectiveness sometimes can be tough. But at the Boeing 

Electronics facility in Renton, Washington, 

an energy-efficiency project planned for 

implementation in July may well cover the 

$12,600 cost of the training, and then some. 

The project involves ductwork modifications 

that will allow a 20-horsepower (hp) makeup air fan and a 40-hp scrubber exhaust fan 

that currently run 365 days 

a year to be turned off. 

There is also the possibility 

of replacing a related 

motor and installing a 

variable speed drive for further, future efficiency gains. 

The improvement could 

save $35,000 a year and 

may be supported with a 

$30,000 grant from Puget 

Sound Energy, a utility. 

As Lead Maintenance/ 

Reliability Engineer at the 

Kent facility, Ken sees his 

job as trying to improve 

corporate assets and 

processes. “Doing things 

more efficiently for less Gary Boyett, Boeing Condition-Based Maintenance Technician, money; that’s what we examines the effect of “reflected wave,” a potential power quality 

do,” he said. problem that can be induced upon motors by variable speed 

To learn more about drives. 

BestPractices resources that 

are specific to motor systems, visit 

http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpratices/ be ordered from the OIT Clearinghouse by 

motors/. There, you’ll find publications, calling 800-862-2086.● 

software tools, and training information. Most 

can be downloaded from this site; others can 

Energy Efficiency Tools Go to School


A variety of energy efficiency tools are 

making their way into engineering school 

curricula around the country. 

Developed with the support of the DOE’s 

Industrial Technologies Program and in 

partnership with industry associations, these 

tools are exposing students to energy 

efficiency best practices techniques that may 

influence their careers. 

“Our idea was to make DOE’s assessment 

tools the focal point of the class,” said 

Dr. Glenn T. Cunningham, associate professor 

of Mechanical Engineering at Tennessee 

Technological University. 

Glenn distributed copies of system assessment tools to each of the 22 students 

enrolled in his energy conversion and 

conservation class, then set them to work 

evaluating systems around the Cookeville, 

Tennessee, campus. 

Glenn’s students used MotorMaster+, the 

Pump System Assessment Tool, 3E Plus, the 

Steam System Scoping Tool, and the Steam 

System Survey Guide in their class work. Later, 

students formed teams and fanned out across 

campus to evaluate a variety of systems. One 

group used an infrared camera to look for 

degraded insulation in a steam system. 

Another group used a portable power meter 

and an ultrasonic flow meter to evaluate 

pumps. A third group measured voltage 

levels and speeds of various motors around 

campus. Data gathered from each effort was 

fed back into one of the BestPractices 

assessment tools. 

For example, in one university building, 

students found a chilled water pump that 

was designed to run at 310 gallons per 

minute and 160 feet of head. The pump was 

actually operating at 440 gallons per minute 

and 133 feet of head. “It was overpumping 

by a large amount,” Glenn said. Using the 

Pump System Assessment Tool, students 

learned that by adjusting the motor and the 

pump they could achieve energy savings. 

Energy Efficiency’s Potential 

Glenn described the BestPractices assessment tools as “state-of-the-art”, saying the 

tools offer the latest in energy efficiency 

assessment techniques. Students use the tools 

to gain hands-on experience with real 

systems and data. When these students 

graduate and go to work as mechanical engineers, they will be equipped to walk into an 

industrial plant and understand that it likely 

contains systems that can be optimized to 

save money and energy, Glenn said. 

“I’d like the students to appreciate the 

potential” that energy efficiency techniques 

represent, he said. 

(Don Casada, pump system engineer and 

Energy Matters columnist, sat in on two of 

Glenn’s classes. To read his thoughts on the 

course, see the accompanying sidebar.) 

Additional Academic Programs 

Tennessee Tech isn’t alone in teaching 

energy efficiency techniques using Industrial 

Technologies Program tools. Northampton 

Community College in Bethlehem, PA, plans 

to establish what it calls an Energy Efficiency 

Specialist program. 

Northampton’s project is intended to 

serve as a national model to create the curriculum for a Community College-based 

energy efficiency program that can be replicated at community colleges and vocational 

(continued on page 6)  

Energy Matters, Summer 2003 5 
Energy Efficiency Tools 

continued from page 5 

schools nationwide. The diploma program is 

being offered in response to industry 

demand for short-term job training to 

develop energy efficiency specialists. 

Students enrolled in the program will gain an 

in-depth understanding of energy usage in a 

manufacturing setting. Students will also 

learn how energy efficient technologies are 

applied, how different energy assessment 

methodologies work, what tools are available 

to assess energy systems (such as the 

Industrial Technologies Program BestPractices 

tools), and what methods may be used in 

energy economic decision making. 

In the spring of 2002, Dr. Michael Pate of 

Iowa State University began offering one of 

the first graduate level engineering courses 

on compressed air systems in the United 

States. Course development was co-funded 

by the Compressed Air ChallengeTM (CAC) 

and the Iowa Energy Center. Additional 

technical support came from the Compressor 

Distributors Association and from members 

of the Compressed Air and Gas Institute. The 

first class was overenrolled and highly 

successful. So a second class was offered in 

the fall of 2002. Dr. Pate applied for and 

recently received a grant from DOE to 

develop a textbook for the course. Iowa State 

University and the CAC plan to continue 

their cooperation, including possibly developing a virtual training course for technical 

universities. 

Back at Tennessee Tech, Glenn Cunningham believes the BestPractices tools provide 

students with the kinds of techniques they 

will need to make realistic, timely assessments in the real world. The tools are 

“exactly what people need in the field,” 

he said.● 

To download copies of the 

MotorMaster+, Pump System 

Assessment Tool, 3E Plus, 

Steam System Scoping Tool, 

and Steam System Survey 

Guide materials used at 

Tennessee Tech, visit the 

Industrial Technologies 

Program Web site at 

http://www.oit.doe.gov. 

6 Energy Matters, Summer 2003 

Don Casada’s Take on Tennessee Tech 

If you were to ask a group of practicing engineers what they consider the most generic 

weakness in their formal engineering training, you’d likely hear many note the shortage 

of real-world connections with their analytical training. So when I heard that Dr. Glenn 

Cunningham’s senior mechanical engineering course at Tennessee Tech was using the 

suite of software tools distributed by the DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program 

(available for free download at http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/software_tools.shtml) 

in the study of these energy-intensive systems, my first thought was that it was a really 

good idea. 

I had two encounters with the Tennessee Tech students: 1) doing some field measurements and analysis on a chilled water pumping system at the University, and 2) watching 

several groups of students give presentations on their findings in the various types of 

systems they had reviewed. In the student presentations, they discussed issues such as 

dryers, operating pressure, and receiver capacity in compressed air systems, excess oxygen 

in stack gases from a boiler, and oversized pump impellers. The fact that these subjects 

were even being discussed indicated, in my mind, that the class had been successful in 

bridging the gap between concept and reality; that success alone convinced me that the 

class wasn’t just a good idea – it was a great one. 

Interestingly, based on my discussions, the subject that made the greatest impression 

with students was how the BestPractices software and classroom instruction emphasized 

the non-engineering measure that drives marketplace decisions—dollars. I found those 

comments a little odd until I thought back again to my own education, and realized that 

most engineering classes are so focused on technical issues that economics seldom, if 

ever, are involved in problem solving. Similarly, even engineering economics classes are 

often isolated and analytical in their own way. 

engineering problems are intertwined with economic issues; the two fields can’t be 

isolated from one another—a reality that often isn’t grasped by engineers until they 

begin their practice. 

One student mentioned to me that the course had exposed him to a host of practical 

issues. But he went on to note a positive practical effect of more immediacy—he included 

his software tool training in his resume, a fact that was remarked upon with surprise and 

favor by a job interviewer. Now that is a real-world benefit. 

Don Casada is with Diagnostic Solutions LLC, a Knoxville, TN-based firm. 

But the vast majority of real-world 

IAC Program Uses Student Engineers to Identify Efficiency Options


Since 1976, university engineering students 

have helped industry assess its energy 

efficiency through the Industrial Assessment 

Center (IAC) program. The IAC program provides small- and medium-sized manufacturers 

with no-cost individual assessments focusing 

on energy efficiency, waste reduction, and 

productivity improvements, resulting in a 

report for the plant containing specific 

recommendations. Engineering faculty and 

students from 26 university IACs across the 

United States perform these assessments. The 

Industrial Technology Program sponsors the IAC 

program as part of its efforts to transfer 

energy efficient and environmentally sound 

practices and technologies to U.S. industry. 

On average, recommended actions from an 

assessment result in annual cost savings of 

$55,000. The university-based IAC team 

typically conducts the assessment during a 

1- or 2-day site visit. Within 60 days a report 

is sent to the client detailing the analyses, 

findings, and recommendations. In 6 to 

9 months, follow-up calls are made to the 

plant manager to obtain implementation 

results. This information is added to the IAC 

database and thereby provides further insight 

for future assessment projects. 

The program benefits many parties. 

•	 Manufacturers receive unbiased technical 

assistance at no direct cost. This helps them 

become more competitive in the global 

marketplace as a result of implementing 

cost-saving measures recommended by the 

IAC teams. 

•	 Universities interact with local industry to 

maintain a practical orientation in their 

engineering curriculum and to develop 

productive relationships. 

•	 Faculty benefit by receiving hands-on 

experience in applying technical education in a working industrial environment. 

They often incorporate lessons learned in 

the field into coursework to benefit future 

students. Faculty members have also 

developed ideas for research from their 

studies of manufacturing processes. 

•	 By implementing IAC team recommendations, the program generates opportunities 

for energy service companies, equipment 

manufacturers, vendors, and suppliers. 

• Environmental benefits are achieved by 
implementing energy-efficient technologies, 

reducing greenhouse gases, and reducing 

waste. 

• University students benefit through their 

“real world” exposure to the techniques, 

processes, and problems associated with 

assessing plant operations, and also benefit 

from defining appropriate recommendations for their clients. 

Students routinely participate in all 

aspects of the operation of the centers 

including working with plant personnel, 

getting information from vendors, working 

with the national program database, and a 

significant amount of report writing. 

The students are encouraged to interact 

with students at other centers, sharing information and ideas. There is a special web site 

set up for IAC students, which includes a 

message board allowing the students to post 

questions, comments, and concerns to be 

addressed. Each center designates one 

student as their “lead student” who interfaces directly with the national program 

management, including a yearly meeting. A 

subgroup of lead students makes up the 

“student advisory committee” which formally feeds back ideas for improvements to 

the DOE. 

Since its inception in 1976, more than 

2,000 students have participated in the IAC 

program. Informal surveys have shown that 

a majority of these students pursue careers 

related to their work in the center. Currently, 

about 250 students are trained each year. To 

find out if your company is eligible to benefit 

from the IAC program, and/or a list of participating schools, check the IAC Web site at 

www.oit.doe.gov/iac/. 

In addition to IACs, you may want to 

learn about plant-wide assessments, which 

are also offered through the Industrial Technologies Program. For more information, 

contact Grace Ordaz, Technology Manager, 

at 202-586-8350 or by e-mail at grace.ordaz 

@ee.doe.gov. For details about the plant-wide 

assessments, visit www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/plant_wide_assessments.shtml.● 

Five Levels continued from page 3 

Learn more about making informed 

motor repair or replace decisions by visiting 

the Electrical Apparatus Service Association 

Web site at www.easa.com. EASA is an 

Industrial Technologies Program Allied Partner. To learn more about motors and energy 

efficiency, and to access a link to the most 

current MotorMaster+ 4.0 software, visit the 

Industrial Technologies Program Web site at 

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors.● 

ENERGY MATTERS EXTRA 

The Summer issue of Energy Matters Extra 

offers extra information on managing 

industrial motors, including links to many 

BestPractices motor-efficiency tools, such as 

software, tip sheets, case studies, and other 

technical publications that you can download directly to your computer. You can also 

access details on the Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST), learn about 

DOE-sponsored industrial energy-efficiency 

training sessions, and view new BestPractices publications. Learn about all these 

topics and more by logging on to 

http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/ 

energymatters/emextra/● 

10 Tips for Saving Natural Gas 

1.	 Inspect and recalibrate thermocouples in furnaces to obtain more 

accurate zone temperature measure 

ments and help increase furnace 

efficiency. 

2.	 Install removable insulation on 

uninsulated valves, pipes, and fittings 

to reduce losses in the process heat 

distribution system. (Potential energy 

savings of 2-5%.) 

3.	 Inspect steam distribution systems 

for leaks and repair where necessary. 

(Potential savings of up to 5%.) 

4.	 Regularly clean strainers upstream 

of steam traps to prevent particle 

accumulation. (Potential boiler 

efficiency gains of 10-15%.) 

5.	 Measure and manage ventilation in 

the plant. 

6.	 Reexamine your gas contract. Consider renegotiating terms to gain 

lower rates from utilities. 

7.	 Minimize surplus combustion air by 

tuning damper settings on boiler 

draft fans, installing over-fire draft 

control systems, sealing doors, and so 

on. (Potential gain in furnace 

efficiency of 1% when air and oxygen 

content are reduced by 15% and 

1.5%, respectively.) 

8.	 Lower the water temperature in 

boilers. (Potential boiler efficiency 

gains of 1% when the stack gas 

temperature is decreased by 40°F.) 

9.	 Prevent scale accumulation by 

ensuring water treatment systems 

are operating effectively. (Potential 

gains in boiler efficiency of 10-12%.) 

10. Rework schedule of processing 

operations to reduce delays and 

reheat requirements. 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Industrial Technologies 

Program, “10 Tips for Saving Natural Gas.” 

About the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy 

A Strong Energy Portfolio for a Strong 

America 

Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy 

will mean a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy independence for 

America. By investing in technology breakthroughs today, our nation can look forward 

to a more resilient economy and secure future. 

Far-reaching technology changes will be essential to America's energy future. Working with a 

wide array of state, community, industry, and 

university partners, the U.S. Department of 

Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy invests in a portfolio of 

energy technologies that will: 

• Conserve energy in the residential, commercial, industrial, government, and transportation sectors 

• Increase and diversify energy supply, with a 

focus on renewable domestic sources 

• Upgrade our national energy infrastructure 

• Facilitate the emergence of hydrogen 

technologies as a vital new “energy carrier.” 

The Opportunities 

Biomass Program 

Using domestic, plant-derived resources to meet 

our fuel, power, and chemical needs 

Building Technologies Program 

Homes, schools, and businesses that use less 

energy, cost less to operate, and ultimately, generate as much power as they use 

Distributed Energy & Electric Reliability Program 

A more reliable energy infrastructure and reduced 

need for new power plants 

Federal Energy Management Program 

Leading by example, saving energy and taxpayer 

dollars in federal facilities 

FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies Program 

Less dependence on foreign oil, and eventual 

transition to an emissions-free, petroleum-free 

vehicle 

Geothermal Technologies Program 

Tapping the earth’s energy to meet our heat and 

power needs 

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies 

Program 

Paving the way toward a hydrogen economy and 

net-zero carbon energy future 

Industrial Technologies Program 

Boosting the productivity and competitiveness of 

U.S. industry through improvements in energy 

and environmental performance 

Solar Energy Technology Program 

Utilizing the sun’s natural energy to generate 

electricity and provide water and space heating 

Weatherization & Intergovernmental Program 

Accelerating the use of today's best energyefficient and renewable technologies in homes, 

communities, and businesses 

Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program 

Harnessing America's abundant natural resources 

for clean power generation 

To learn more, visit www.eere.energy.gov 

Energy Matters, Summer 2003 7 
Coming Events BestPractices


NATIONAL INSULATION TRAINING PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PA The Industrial Technologies Program’s 

■ Sep 11-12, 2003 BestPractices initiative and its Energy 

Matters newsletter introduce industrial end 

For more information, visit www.insulation.org/training, or call the NIA office at (703) 683-6422 ext. 13 users to emerging technologies and wellproven, cost-saving opportunities in motor, INSULATION ENERGY APPRAISAL PROGRAM, DETROIT, MI steam, compressed air, and other plant-wide 

■ Sep 25-26, 2003 systems. 

For more information, visit www.insulation.org/training or call the NIA office at (703) 683-6422 ext. 13 

FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS (LEVEL 1), SYRACUSE, NY 

■ Oct 14, 2003 

For more information, contact Elizabeth Dudley, (315) 474-4201 ext. 19 

ADVANCED MANAGEMENT OF COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS (LEVEL 2), SYRACUSE, NY 

■ Oct 15-Oct 16, 2003 

For more information, contact Elizabeth Dudley (315) 474-4201 ext. 19 

PUMPING SYSTEM ASSESSMENT TOOL (PSAT) END USER TRAINING, MACON, GA 

■ Oct 20, 2003 

For more information, contact Roy Tiley (410) 997-7778 ext. 20 

DOE Regional Office Representatives 

■ David Godfrey, Atlanta, GA, 

404-562-0568 

■ Scott Hutchins, Boston, MA, 

617-565-9765 

■ Brian Olsen, Chicago, IL, 

312-886-8479 

■ Jamey Evans, Denver, CO, 

303-275-4813 

■ Chris Cockrill, Seattle, WA, 

816-873-3299 

■ Joseph Barrett, Philadelphia, PA, 

215-656-6957 

INFORMATION 

CLEARINGHOUSE 

Do you have questions about 

using energy-efficient process and 

utility systems in your industrial facility? 

Call the Industrial Technologies Program’s 

Information Clearinghouse for answers, 

Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 

8:00 p.m. (EST). 

Fax: 360-586-8303, or access our 

homepage at www.oit.doe.gov/ 

clearinghouse. 

HOTLINE: 800-862-2086 

NATIONAL INSULATION TRAINING PROGRAM, HOUSTON, TX 

■ March 4-5, 2004 

For more information, visit www.insulation.org/training, or call the NIA office at (703) 683-6422 ext. 13 

T OF ENERGY

D E P A R TMEN U 

E 

N I T E D STAT S OFA E RIC A 

M

This document was produced for the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

a DOE national laboratory. 

DOE/GO-102003-1757 • Summer 2003 

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing 

at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer 

waste 

PRSRT STD s retta Myg Ener U.S. Postage 

PAID 

Permit No. 258 

Golden, Colorado y Laboratory National Renewable Energ

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, CO 80401-3393