Fault Diagnosis of Induction Motors with Dynamical

Neural Networks
Jarmo Lehtonen Heikki N. Koivo
Department of Automation and Systems Technology Department of Automation and Systems Technology
Helsinki University of Technology Helsinki University of Technology
Espoo, Finland Espoo, Finland
jarmo.lehtonen@tkk.fi heikki.koivo@tkk.fi

models gain in physical relevance they often lose in

Abstract The paper studies the fault diagnosis of
accuracy. For example when feeding a physical-based
induction motors using neural network time-series models.
model with converter fed voltages the results are
The problem has been widely discussed in the literature
inaccurate. For purposes of fault diagnosis from the stator
and neural networks have been used in the fault diagnosis
current the simple physical-based models do not give
of induction motors. However, the neural network models
enough accuracy when applied to rotor and stator faults.
have been mostly static - dynamical neural networks have
This problem is also noted in research literature. Empirical
been overlooked and have not received enough attention in
coefficients are used for phenomena that cannot be
this context. Here neural network time-series models are
accurately modeled, so that proper results are achieved for
created for the normal and faulty motor. A filter bank of
motors of standard design.
the models is formed and a Bayesian classifier is used to
Problems arise when motors are studied that are of new
determine the correct classification of the motor condition,
design, that are in transient states or are fed by non-
when tested with different types of FEM simulated data for
sinusoidal voltages [Arkkio 1991]. A reason for why a
different degrees of load.
physical-based model cannot model the motor adequately is
that it cannot properly take into account all the mechanical,
Keywords: Fault diagnosis, induction motor, neural
structural and operational details, which differ from motor
networks, time-series, Bayesian classifier.
to motor.
1 Introduction As physical model-based systems have their limitations,
this study focuses on the use of time-series modeling for
creating induction motor models for the purposes of fault
The study of induction motor fault detection and
diagnosis. The tool used for modeling in this work is a
identification has been of increasing interest during the last
neural network based time-series model. This research
20 years and a great amount of research has been done on
focuses on three different motor conditions: healthy motor,
the topic, e.g. [1] lists 365 books, papers and articles related
rotor faulty motor and stator faulty motor condition. The
to induction motor fault diagnosis. It is preferable to find
motor is susceptible to several other faults than the ones
faults before complete motor failure. This is called incipient
modeled here, including different combinations of faults
fault detection. Often the motor can run with incipient
and faults of different severity. In the study rotor faults of
faults, but eventually it will lead to motor failure causing
different degree are tested on the system. The motor studied
downtime and large losses.
here is a 35 kW asynchronous machine with a squirrel cage
rotor.
Methods of induction motor fault diagnosis and detection
The study is limited to the neural network approach to
are various. Most methods are based on stator current
fault identification using a model-based structure. The data
spectra (motor current signature analysis, MCSA) e.g. [ 2 ],
is provided by FEM (Finite Element Model) simulation of a
neural/fuzzy inference systems e.g. [3], vibration analysis
real induction motor with different fault and load
e.g. [4] or higher order current spectra e.g. [5]. Different
conditions.
faults often require different mechanisms for their
First the inputs and outputs for the system are chosen at a
detection.
general level. Then the behavior of the chosen variables is
A model based method using time-series prediction for studied in different fault and load conditions. After this the
fault detection and identification in induction motors is less neural network models are constructed between the inputs
common. Most methods use fault diagnosis based on data and the outputs. The models are then used as a model bank
directly through some means of limit checking or for different fault cases and a Bayesian classifier is used as
classification and not through application of models of the a decision making tool for choosing which model
motor itself. Some papers advocate physical model-based represents the given condition most accurately.
systems, e.g. [6]. These models have the advantage of
containing meaningful physical variables, but what the
2 Faults in induction motor
Of all the electrical machines, induction motors are the
most common in industry due to their simplicity, rugged
structure, cheapness and easy maintainability. A three-
phase induction motor is the most popular polyphase
induction motor.
There are several different types of faults that can manifest
themselves in an induction motor. Faults are often
classified according to where they occur in the motor. The
most common faults are stator faults, rotor faults, bearing
faults and eccentricity faults. These faults are mechanical in
nature, but they have varying effect on the electrical
signatures of the motor. The most common faults can be
further classified according to [7] as follows:
1) Stator faults resulting in the opening of the phase
winding
2) Rotor faults due to broken rotor bars or broken end-
rings.
3) Static or dynamic air-gap irregularities (eccentricity
faults)
4) Bent shaft (dynamic eccentricity)
5) Misalignment
6) Bearing and gear box failures
Eccentricity faults can be static or dynamic in nature.
Static eccentricity is such that the rotor has uneven air-gaps
with respect to the stator but the positions and sizes of the
air-gaps remain the same, i.e. the axes of the stator and
rotor do not coincide. In case of dynamic eccentricity the
rotational axis of the rotor is not in the centre of the rotor.
Thus the air-gaps vary dynamically as the rotor rotates in
the case of dynamic eccentricity.
Faults can occur due to external effects, mistakes in
production or assembly, or due to bad operating habits.
Frequently faults occur due to several factors. For example,
motor faults are frequently internal, such as bearing or
winding faults, but the reason can be external, such as
overheating caused by excessive dirt.
3 Modeling
The motor studied here is a 35 kW asynchronous
machine with a squirrel cage rotor. The FEM models were
constructed and simulated in the Laboratory of
Electromechanics at Helsinki University of Technology.
Models were built for different faults and load conditions.
This research studies the data for healthy, rotor faulted and
a stator faulted motor. Each condition is studied under three
different loads: no load, half of the rated load, and full rated
load. The rotor-fault is studied with two different cases:
1) A motor with three broken rotor bars and an end ring
2) A motor with one broken rotor bar.
A stator fault is a motor with a turn to turn short circuit in
the stator windings. The FEM models were simulated with
measured and simulated converter voltages. The measured
converter voltages were taken from runs of a similar motor
described by the models.
The degree to which the stator current can be used for
fault diagnosis is questionable. In general faults do not
cause large deviations in the stator current, but some higher
harmonics do arise, which can be detected from the data to
some degree.
The induction motor is fed with a supply voltage of
400V, which is divided into three phases. All of these
voltages are used as inputs. Each voltage gives rise to a
stator current with the same fundamental frequency and the
same phase shift as the corresponding voltage. Thus each
phase is considered here to represent a separate I/O
relationship in
the following manner:
i1 (t ) = M (1 , u1 (t -1),..., u1 (t - n ), i1 (t -1),..., i1 (t - n )),
i2 (t ) = M ( 2 , u2 (t -1),..., u2 (t - n ), i2 (t -1),..., i2 (t - n )), (1)
i3 (t ) = M ( 3 , u3 (t -1),..., u3 (t - n ), i3 (t -1),..., i3 (t - n )),
where 1, 2 and 3 represent the different phases, uj(k) is the
voltage, ij(k) the current and j a set of model parameters
for phase j at time k. Function M is a neural network
function, specifically a Multilayer Perceptron Network.
After some experimenting, a three layer neural network
model was chosen as the basic neural network structure.
The regressor structure was chosen to be nonlinear
autoregressive with exogeneous inputs (NARX). This is
because the error in the electrical measurement of the
voltage inputted to the FEM-models is thought to be very
small. The number of nodes for the hidden layer was
determined empirically.
The fault detection and identification (FDI) scheme is
based on a model bank of different models, each of which
represents a given motor operating condition (Fig. 1). The
models are built using neural network based time-series
models, which are constructed for the motor based on the
data of the motor in a given condition. Measured input is
given to the models from the motor and the model outputs
are then compared to the measured motor output signal. A
residual is formed from these differences between the
system and model outputs. The residual is then used by
some form of classifier to obtain a motor condition
classification. The classifier chooses a model, which
represents the data most accurately. Assuming valid and
accurate model, this model should then be the model for the
condition in which the system is operating at that moment.
This is then used as the system fault classification result.
Here a Bayesian classifier for classifying the motor
condition from the residuals is used.

Fig. 1. The structure of the model-based FDI system used.
4 Data
The next step is to look at the data and see if any
regularity can be noted under different load and fault
conditions. The data used in the study is generated using a
FEM (Finite Element Method) model of a 35kW induction
motor. The data is generated for three different load
conditions: no load, half load and full load. The load is
determined with respect to the nominal load present in the
motor nameplate. The voltages used to feed the motor are
obtained from a voltage converter. In some cases the motor
can be fed with sinusoidal input voltage, but this study
centers on motors with converter feed.
4.1 Healthy motor
Fig. 2. Healthy stator current i1 with no load, half load and
full load.
The figures above show the stator current (i1) when a
healthy motor is under different load conditions. The right
hand side picture on each figure is an up close zoom of the
data on the left hand side. The figures show clearly that the
amplitude of the stator current increases as the load
increases. In no-load condition the amplitude maximum is
50 A, for half a load 60A and for full load 100A, approxi-
mately. The figures also indicate that the form of the stator
current changes with respect to load. Hence it is suitable to
model the different load conditions separately.
4.2 Motor with rotor fault
Fig. 3. Stator current i1 of a rotor faulty motor with no load,
half load and full load.
Again the figures show that the amplitude increases with
respect to the load. A rotor fault causes low frequency
oscillation in the stator current which is more apparent in
the higher load conditions. This can be seen from the figure
on the left hand side. The amplitudes of the data are at the
same level as in the healthy case, i.e. a rotor fault does not
seem to cause an increase in amplitude by itself. There are,
however, subtle changes in the shape of the data but no
obvious characteristics of faults can be seen by eye.
4.3 Motor with a stator turn fault
The analysis of currents shows that load is a significant
factor in the shape of the stator current, hence it is
necessary to obtain measurements in a steady state with a
known load. The load can be estimated using the slip,
because it is known that slip increases as a function of load.
The figures also show that adequate data for fault diagnosis
can be obtained in a short time interval.

Fig. 4. Stator current i1 of a motor with a stator turn fault,
with no load, half load and full load.
A data set from a time interval of 0.25s to 0.5s is enough
to capture the low frequency oscillations. Most of the fault
information is present in the higher order harmonics of the
currents, thus it is necessary to have a high enough
sampling frequency. Here sampling frequency of 40 kHz is
used.
Fig. 5. NN - model output (blue) and the testing data set
(red) for a healthy motor under half load.
Figure 5 shows that the neural network model corre-
sponds with the validation data with good accuracy also by
visual inspection.
4.4 Results
The procedure for using the method is listed below as a
reminder for the reader for how the results are obtained:
1) Create the model structures for the different phases in
under different fault and load conditions (3 phases, 3 loads
and 3 faults means a total of 27 models).
2) Calculate the neural networks weights for each model
using a suitable algorithm. Check that the optimization
routine successfully avoids local minima in the process and
that the models are accurate when tested with validation
data.
3) The residuals of the models are calculated with respect to
the data from different operation conditions. The residuals
are calculated separately for each load, assuming that the
estimate for the load can be obtained e.g. from the slip.
4) The necessary covariance matrices for the Bayesian
classifier are calculated from the data. The a priori
probabilities for the different fault conditions are chosen for
the classifier.
5) The conditional probabilities can now be calculated from
residual values corresponding to the given data, which is
assumed to come from the motor in operation.
4.5 Using a Bayesian classifier for 3-phase
input and output with non-linear neural
network models
The fault diagnostics scheme is tested by comparing it
against a validation data, which was not used in neural
network training. The results of the test are presented in the
following tables (Table 1, The Bayesian probabilities for
the different motor conditions with no load, Table 2 and
Table 3).
The structure of the tables is such that the data which is
input to the models is in the columns. The rows represent
probabilities given by the classifier for how well the model
describes the given data. For example, consider Table 2.
The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor
conditions with no load, when the data to the models is
from a motor with a healthy condition (the second column)
the Bayesian probability that the data is from a model
describing a healthy condition is 0.41. The highest
probability for the operating condition corresponding to
each input data is presented bolded, and in practise this
would be the fault classification of the system for a given
data. For this validation data set it can be seen that the
system performs correct classification. The highest
probabilities are on the diagonal of the tables, which means
that the model representing the same data as the input to the
fault diagnosis system has the highest probability for
representing that data. The results indicate that the higher
the load the more evident are the fault characteristics in the
stator current i.e. the amplitude of the fault harmonics
increases.
Table 1. The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor
conditions with no load.
 The condition for Data from Data from rotor Data from
The condition for Data from Data from rotor Data from which the classifier healthy faulty motor with 1 stator
which the classifier healthy faulty motor with 1 stator probability is given motor broken bar faulty motor
probability is given motor broken bar faulty motor Healthy condition 0.65 0.64 0.06
Healthy condition 0.41 0.38 0.28 Rotor faulty
Rotor faulty condition
condition with 3 broken bars
& end ring 0.01 0.04 0.0
with 3 broken bars
Stator faulty condition 0.34 0.32 0.94
& end ring 0.37 0.44 0.21
Stator faulty condition 0.22 0.18 0.51
Table 3. The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor
Table 2. The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor conditions with full load.
conditions with half load.
The condition for Data from Data from rotor Data from
which the classifier healthy faulty motor with 1 stator
The condition for Data from Data from rotor Data from
probability is given motor broken bar faulty motor
which the classifier healthy faulty motor with 1 stator
Healthy condition 0.59 0.12 0.05
probability is given motor broken bar faulty motor
Rotor faulty
Healthy condition 0.59 0.26 0.26
condition
Rotor faulty
with 3 broken bars
condition
& end ring 0.09 0.70 0.02
with 3 broken bars
Stator faulty condition 0.31 0.18 0.98
& end ring 0.18 0.71 0.0
Stator faulty condition 0.22 0.03 0.74
The results show that a mild rotor fault cannot be
Table 3. The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor diagnosed properly under no-load and half-load operation.
conditions with full load. The fault diagnosis system cannot make a distinction
between the mild rotor fault and the healthy condition. The
stator fault is diagnosed properly for the no load and half
The condition for Data from Data from rotor Data from load conditions with good probability. For full load the
which the classifier healthy faulty motor with 1 stator
probability is given motor broken bar faulty motor
classification results are proper. This is probably due to the
Healthy condition 0.64 0.02 0.28 fact that load amplifies the fault harmonics in the stator
Rotor faulty current, and therefore the fault indicator is stronger.
condition When tested with validation data the rotor fault was
with 3 broken bars
& end ring 0.08 0.98 0.03
diagnosed with a 0.98 probability in the full load condition
Stator faulty condition 0.28 0.00 0.70 and for the independent testing data the rotor fault is diag-
nosed with a 0.70 probability. The result is good, as it
Next, independent data was used in testing the models. The shows that the rotor fault can be detected gradually to some
neural network models were not taught again. degree even when the model for the fault is created for a
fault of different severity. This only applies for the full load
Table 4. The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor conditions, however.
conditions with no load.

The condition for Data from Data from rotor Data from
5 Conclusions
which the classifier healthy faulty motor with 1 stator
probability is given motor broken bar faulty motor
This paper studied the use of neural networks for model-
Healthy condition 0.36 0.35 0.10 based fault diagnostics of induction motors. The idea was
Rotor faulty to use data provided by accurate FEM simulations of motor
condition operation under different fault and load conditions to create
with 3 broken bars
& end ring 0.37 0.36 0.10
identification based neural network model models which
Stator faulty condition 0.27 0.28 0.80 can be used for online fault diagnosis. The neural network
models are created for each phase of the three phase
Table 5. The Bayesian probabilities for the different motor induction motor, and each load condition is handled
conditions with half load. separately. Most of the faults cases have to be left out due
to
the unavailability of data for different fault conditions. The
data is often a restriction for data-based models, because
each different situation would require its own set of data,
along with data for validation and testing. For this work a
FEM model of a 35 kW induction motor was simulated for
cases of a healthy, rotor faulted and stator faulted motor.
The parameters for the model were obtained from a real
operational motor. No real measurement data was used in
the thesis, but studies with FEM simulations of induction
motors show that the data is very realistic with respect to
the data obtained from real motor measurements, see e.g.
[Arkkio 1990]. Measurement data from a real motor was,
however, used as an input to the FEM models in the data
group that was used to build the time series models. Use of
real measurement data includes some measurement error
into the data and hence makes it more suitable for testing
the method. FEM simulations are not appropriate for on-
line fault detection because of excessive computational
time, but they can be easily used to simulate vast amounts
of data for different motor operating conditions and faults.
Models were built separately for the data using methods of
identification in order to get necessary computational speed
for a possible on-line implementation.
A few notes about what has to be taken into consideration
if the method were to be implemented on a real machine:
In a practical application an estimate of the motor load
would be needed in order to use the correct models for that
particular load condition. This can be obtained e.g. by
estimating the slip. Also the models here are made for and
tested only for three discrete load conditions. It was not
tested how the method works for in-between values of
load.
The validity of the method taught using FEM data would
have to be proven to work on real machine data as well.
The models could also be taught using real machine data
from a machine on which different faults are imposed in
different load conditions. The feasibility of FEM data is
that it can be used to relatively easily generate great
amounts of motor data for different operational states
(different faults and load conditions)
Lots of descriptive data is needed for the implementation
and tuning of a neural network model based FDI scheme, if
it is to be robust under harsh conditions. This is a common
factor for all data-based methods.
Steady-state operation is assumed. Hence an algorithm
should be implemented for steady-state operation. The
algorithm should also decide when the motor is in steady-
state. One possibility is to deduct this from the slip and
motor speed. The model construction, testing, simulation
and fault classification were implemented in a Matlab-
environment. For the creation of neural network based
identification models a special Matlab-toolbox called
NNSYSID was used. The fault classification was
implemented using a classical Bayes classifier, which
calculates the conditional probability for how well a given
model represents the data which is inputted to the FDI
system.
The results indicate that for most of the load cases the
classification was successful. The highest probability given
by the classifier for a model to present the data inputted
to the fault diagnosis system was the criteria for the
classification. The fault characteristics inflicted on the
stator current were reasonably small and hard to see by
simple visual inspection. The classifier results are not
completely unanimous, because the probability was divided
between the different models in each condition and load.
The results indicate that as the load increases the faults
characteristics are more evident in the data. The correct
conditional classification probabilities increase with the
load.
It should be noted that the performance of a fault
detection algorithm is proportional to the effectiveness of
the fault indicator. Stator current, although being a
noninvasive indicator, is not a very clear indicator.
Effectiveness of different fault indicators is studied for
example in [Negrea 2004]. It is clear that if measured data
is available from some other fault indicator then the
presented FDI method can be applied in a similar way and
the better the indicator the better the results. Better
indicators for common induction motor faults than stator
current are e.g. circulating currents and fluxes. Preliminary
studies show forces to be good fault indicators also, but
they are problematic to measure directly.
The faults in the stator current are manifested by certain
harmonic frequencies and hence it is important that the
models are accurate enough. Especially when using
nonlinear neural network models there is a risk that the
neural network parameter estimation algorithm converges
to a local minimum and the model is not the best possible
one. Hence it is important to retrain the neural network
models until the model achieves the necessary accuracy.
References
[1] M.E.H. Benbouzid, Bibliography on induction motors
faults detection and diagnosis, IEEE Trans. on Energy
Conversion, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp. 1065 -1074, Dec. 1999.
[2] M.E.H. Benbouzid,, M. Vieira, and C. Theys, In-
duction motors faults detection and localisation using
stator current advanced signal processing techniques,
IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 14
22, January 1999.
[3] S. Altug, M-Y. Chow, and J.H. Trussell, Fuzzy in-
ference systems implemented on neural architectures for
motor fault detection and diagnosis, IEEE Tr. on Industrial
Electronics, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 1069-1079.
[4] S.L. Ho and K.M. Lau, Detection of faults in induction
motors using artificial neural networks. Electrical machines
and drives, IEEE Conf. publication No. 412. 11-13
September 1995.
[5] N. Arthur, and J. Penman, Induction machine con-
dition monitoring with higher order spectra, IEEE Trans.
on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 1031-1041,
Oct. 2000.
[6] S. Moreau, J.C. Trigeassou, G. Champenois and J.P.
Gaubert, Diagnosis of Induction machines: A procedure
for electrical fault detection and localisation, IEEE Int.
Symp. on Diagnostics for Electrical Machines, Power
Electronics and Drives, Sept. 1-3 1999, Gijon Spain, pp.
225-230.

[7] Z. Ye and B. Wu, A Review on Induction Motor

Online Fault Diagnosis, Int. Power Electronics and Motion
Control Conf. p. 1353- 1358. Vol. 3, 15-18 Aug. 2000.

[8] J. Chen and R. Patton, Robust Model-Based Fault Diag-

nosis For Dynamic Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1999.

[9] M-Y. Chow, Methodologies of Using Neural Network

and Fuzzy Logic Technologies for Motor Incipient Fault
Detection, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 1997.

[10] F. Filippetti, G. Franceschini, and C. Tassoni, Neural

networks aided on-line diagnostics of induction motor rotor
faults, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Applications, Vol. 31,
No. 4, pp. 892-899, July/August 1995.

[11] S. Haykin, Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foun-

dation, Macmillan Publishing Co., Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1994.

[12] R. Isermann, Process Fault Detection Based on

Modelling and Estimation Methods A Survey, Automa-
tica. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 387-404, 1984.

[13] M. Norgaard, Neural Network Based System

Identification Toolbox, Tech. Report. 00-E-891, Dept. of
Automation, Technical University of Denmark, 2000.

[14] T. Wildi, Electrical Machines, Drives and Power Sys-

tems, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.

[15] Z. Ye and B. Wu, and N. Zargari, Online Mechanical

Fault Diagnosis of Induction Motor by Wavelet Artificial
Neural Network Using Stator Current, IEEE IECON 2000,
Vol. 2, pp. 1183 -1188, 22-28 Oct. 2000.

[16] Z. Ye and B. Wu, A review on induction motor

online fault diagnosis, Proc. of Power Electronics and
Motion Control Conference PIEMC, pp. 1353 1358, 2000.

[17] A.G. Parlos, K. Kim, Model-Based Incipient Fault

Diagnosis - Multi-Step Neuro- Predictors and Multireso-
lution Signal Processing, Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Neural
Networks, IJCNN 02, Vol. 1, pp. 317-322, 12-17 May
2002.