Energy efficiency: linear synchronous versus linear drive motor technology
Automation provider Intelligrated claims its linear synchronous motor technology uses about 75% less energy than linear induction motor technology. Table compares results. See photo.
Based on documented results using its newLS-4000E tilt-tray and LS-4000CB cross-belt sorters, Intelligrated (a providerof automated material handling solutions) claims its linear synchronous motor(LSM) technology consumes approximately 75% less energy than comparable sortersystems using linear induction motor (LIM) technology.
According to Intelligrated, the LS-4000's LSMgenerates propulsive force via electromagnetic energy, as opposed to
mechanicalfriction between moving parts. This operation reduces energy consumption andnoise levels, while reportedly increasing speed, reliability, and positioningaccuracy. In addition to the LSM drive, the LS-4000E and LS-4000CB is said to featurea modular design that enhances system flexibility and offers fast and easyinstallation and commissioning.
Electrical consumption tests conducted undertypical warehouse conditions demonstrate that, on average, the LS-4000Etilt-tray sorter consumes 2.4 kilowatts per hour of operation. In contrast, energy consumption of a comparablesorter using LIM technology is 10.3 kilowatts per hour. Tests of cross-beltsortation technology demonstrate that the LS-4000CB cross-belt sorter consumesan average of 2.7 kilowatts per hour of operation while energy consumption of acomparable sorter using LIM technology is 11.0 kilowatts per hour. As the chartbelow illustrates, the LS-4000E and the LS-4000CB can provide energy savings of19.8 megawatt hours (19,800 kilowatt hours) per year and over 20 megawatt hours(20,000 kilowatt hours) respectively.
Access other Control Engineering contentrelated to motor energy efficiency
- EPAcites Ford as automaker with most fuel economy improvement
- High-,premium-efficiency SEW Eurodrive motors
- Estimateyour potential energy savings
Case Study Database
Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.
These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.
Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.
2012 Salary Survey
In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.
Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.