This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

Reliable Detection of Induction Motor Rotor Faults

under the Rotor Axial Air Duct Influence
Chanseung Yang, Tae-June Kang, Doosoo Hyun, Sang Bin Lee* Jose Antonino-Daviu, and Joan Pons-Llinares
Department of Electrical Engineering, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Korea University, Seoul, Korea Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain
*Email: sangbinlee@korea.ac.kr

Abstract—Axial cooling air ducts in the rotor of large induction
motors are known to produce magnetic asymmetry, and can
cause steady state current or vibration spectrum analysis based
fault detection techniques to fail. If the number of axial air ducts
and poles are identical, frequency components that overlap with
that of rotor faults can be produced for healthy motors. False
positive rotor fault indication due to axial ducts is a common
problem in the field that results in unnecessary maintenance cost.
However, there is currently no known test method available for
distinguishing rotor faults and false indications due to axial ducts
other than off-line rotor inspection or testing. Considering that
there is no magnetic asymmetry under high slip conditions due to
limited flux penetration into the rotor yoke, detection of broken
bars under the startup transient is investigated in this paper. A
wavelet-based detection method is proposed and verified on
custom-built lab motors and 6.6 kV motors misdiagnosed with
broken bars via steady state spectrum analysis. It is shown that
the proposed method provides reliable detection of broken bars
under the startup transient independent of axial duct influence.
I. INTRODUCTION
Most of the rotors of induction motors rated above 100kW
employ axial air ducts, as shown in Fig. 1, for effective cooling
of the rotor, reduction in rotor weight (inertia), and saving of
material costs [1]-[3]. The most common axial air duct design
is to use shaft spiders, where 4, 6, or 8 radial arms are welded
to the shaft to support the rotor core, as shown in Fig. 1(b)-(c).
Axial ducts can also be produced by punching holes in the rotor
laminations prior to assembly, as shown in Fig. 1(a). Axial
ducts can cause the magnetic reluctance of the flux path to be
asymmetric since the spider arm and shaft can provide an
alternate path for the flux [4]-[6]. The difference in the flux
path depending on the relative position between the magnetic
field and axial duct (spider) arms can be clearly seen in the
results of the 2-dimensional finite element (FE) analysis in Fig.
2(a)-(b) for a 4 pole motor with 4 axial ducts. The variation in
the magnetic reluctance results in modulation of the
magnetizing current, where the frequency of modulation
depends on the number of axial air ducts, Nd, and poles, Np. It
was shown in [4]-[9] that the magnetic asymmetry can produce
components (fduct) in the steady state vibration or current
spectrum that overlap with motor fault frequency components
such as rotor cage damage or airgap eccentricity, if Nd is equal
to Np, as shown in (1). fe is the input electrical frequency, and k
is a positive integer. If the number of air ducts, Nd, and poles,
Np, are the same, the air ducts can produce frequency
components identical to that of rotor cage fault frequency (fbrb),
as can be seen in (2). This can be misinterpreted as broken
rotor bars when steady state on-line FFT-based techniques are
applied, as reported in [4]-[9].
f duct ,vib  2ksf e , f duct ,cur  (1  2ks) f e (if N d  N p ) (1)
f brb,vib  2ksf e , f brb,cur  (1  2ks) f e (2)
Rotors for cases where the axial ducts caused false broken
bar indications on Nd = Np = 8 or 4, 6.6 kV induction motors
operating in power plants are shown in Fig. 1. The results of
motor current signature analysis (MCSA) of the three motor
samples showed strong broken bar components (Fig. 3);
however, inspection of the rotor showed that the bars were in
good condition for all 3 motors. The cost of inspection for a
motor with a false positive indication is typically tens of

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. Rotors of 6.6 kV motors with false positive rotor fault MCSA indications due to axial ducts; (a) 2400 kW, 8 pole induced draft fan motor; (b) 280 kW, 4
pole, condensate pump motor; (c) 350 kW, 4 pole condensate pump motor (test samples A-C)

0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

thousands of USD without including loss of production (if application, and figure number of the experimental results are
stand-by or spare motors are available). The cost is higher for summarized in Table I of the appendix. The MCSA results of
larger motors due to the difficulty of handling the heavy motors samples A, B, and C are shown in Fig. 3(a)-(c), respectively,
as it involves motor detachment, installation (spare motor), where the measurements were obtained from 2 or 3 units of
rental of crane/equipment, shipping to motor repair shop, and identical design that share the load. For the 2.4 MW induced
disassembly/inspection. The inspection cost alone for the 2.4 draft fan motor, both samples A1 and A2 showed very strong
MW motor of Fig. 1(a) exceeded 100,000 USD. Despite the f1-2s sidebands of -35.9 and -36.2 dB, respectively, in the
high cost of inspection, motors are inspected if fault indications current spectrum (Fig. 3(a)). Strong f2s components indicating
are given since the cost of forced outage can be orders of broken rotor bars were also observed with vibration analysis,
magnitude higher than that of inspection/repair.
False positive rotor fault indications due to axial duct
influence is a very common on-going problem in the field,
considering that a large portion (34.4%) of high voltage motors
are of Nd=Np design, according to the survey in [6]. In most
cases, it is unknown whether a motor is of Nd=Np design since
the number of axial ducts is unknown by the user after the
motor is assembled. Even if it is known that Nd=Np for a
particular motor, it is uncertain whether the air ducts would
produce the fduct component or not, since not all motors with
Nd=Np produce false indications. Whether fduct components are
produced depends on the rotor design and construction,
(a) (b)
material characteristics, and operating conditions [6]. An Fig. 2. FE analysis of flux distribution in 4 pole motor with 4 axial air ducts
attempt was made to separate the effect of broken bars and when magnetic poles and duct-/spider-arms are electrically (a) 90o
axial ducts on-line in [4], and guidelines for distinguishing the apart and (b) aligned (0o) under steady state operation
two problems were given in [5]-[8]; however, there are many
limitations in the field for applying what has been suggested.
In [6], a detailed analysis of the influence of axial ducts on
condition monitoring is presented. It is shown that broken bars
can be detected independent of axial ducts if tested under high
slip (standstill, off-line) conditions since there is no magnetic
asymmetry due to limited flux penetration in the rotor (cage
eddy current rejection). The downside of off-line test methods
is the requirement of motor disassembly or manual shaft
rotation for testing, which makes frequent, automated, and
remote motor testing difficult [10].
(a)
The arguments above show that false indications due to
axial ducts are common and the consequence can be serious;
however, there currently is no practical on-line test method
available for separating the influence of broken bars with axial
ducts. Based on the observation that broken bars can be
detected reliably independent the axial duct at high slip, testing
under the startup transient is investigated in this paper.
Although many papers have been published on startup
detection of rotor faults, this is the first time it is applied to the
axial duct problem. A wavelet transform based method is
proposed as an effective solution, and verified on a motor with (b)
a custom built rotor in the lab and on 6.6 kV motors in the field
with false broken bar MCSA indications. It is shown that the
proposed method is capable of providing reliable detection of
broken bars independent of the axial duct influence.

II. INFLUENCE OF ROTOR AXIAL AIR DUCTS ON MCSA

A. False Positive Broken Rotor Bar Indications

MCSA was performed for the healthy 6.6 kV motors of Fig.
1 with false positive broken rotor bar indications due to axial
ducts (Nd=Np). The three types of 6.6 kV motors of Fig. 1(a)- (c)
Fig. 3. Is spectrum (MCSA) of “healthy” 6.6 kV motors shown in Fig. 1
(c), which are fan or pump motors used in power plants, are
with false positive broken rotor bar indications; Samples (a) A1, A2
denoted as samples A, B, and C, respectively. The ratings, (Nd=Np=8); (b) B1, B2, B3 (Nd=Np=4); (c) C1, C2, C3 (Nd=Np=4)

0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
but motor inspection did not reveal signs of rotor bar or end
ring damage.
For the 280 kW and 350 kW condensate pump motor
samples B and C, the MCSA measurements of the f12s
component for three identical units were not consistent, as can
be seen in Fig. 3(b)-(c). The f1-2s component was -52.5 dB,
below -70 dB, and -69 dB for samples B1, B2, and B3, and -
45.1 dB, -59.5 dB, and -53.4 dB for samples C1, C2, and C3,
respectively. Broken bars were strongly suspected for units B1
and C1 considering that the f12s component of -55~-35 dB is
the fault threshold used in commercial MCSA products, and
because the f12s components were significantly higher than that
of motors of identical design. Since the sample B1~B3 and
C1~C3 motors were manufactured and commissioned at the
same time and operated under similar load, it was natural to
conclude that it is very unlikely for the motors to have larger
f12s components unless a rotor fault is present. However, the
results of off-line inspection and testing showed that the rotor
cages were in good condition. The single phase rotation test
was performed on sample C1 with 380 V applied between two
terminals for pulsating field excitation [10]-[11]. The results of
the current measurements vs. rotor position shown in Fig. 4(a)
imply that there is no asymmetry in the rotor cage (current
varies with rotor position for faulty case). The FE simulation
under pulsating field excitation at motor standstill (s=1) in Fig.
4(b) shows that flux penetration into the rotor yoke is limited.
The inconsistency in the amplitude of the f12s component for
samples B and C is suspected to be caused by part-to-part
variation introduced due to component- and manufacturing-
tolerances such as the variance in the Si-Fe lamination
magnetic characteristics, the non-ideal anisotropy in the rotor
laminations, etc [6]. It was concluded based on the inspection
and test results that the false positive indication for samples A,
B, and C is due to the axial air ducts for the Nd=Np motors.
B. Interaction between Rotor Magnetic Asymmetry and Faults
If the f12s components exceed a predetermined threshold
level with spectrum analysis, the criteria that knowledgeable
field maintenance engineers use to confirm broken bars and
screen out potential false positive indications are [5]-[8]:
1) observe the change in the f12s component over time: if
the amplitude of the f12s component increases with time
under similar load conditions, it is concluded that there is
rotor cage damage; if it is constant or decreases with time,
a false positive indication is suspected
2) observe the change in the f12s component with load
variation: if the amplitude of the f12s component increases
with increase in load, it is concluded that there is rotor
cage damage; if it is constant or decreases with increase in
load, a false positive indication is suspected
3) compare the f12s component with motors of identical
design: if the amplitude of the f12s component is
considerably larger compared to that of motors of
identical design, rotor damage is suspected
However, it was shown in [6] that these are misconceptions and
may lead to incorrect diagnosis for motors of Nd=Np design.
This is because the f12s components due to the axial duct (fduct)
0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
and the broken bar (fbrb) interact, and the amplitude can change
with operating condition (e.g. voltage level) and due to the
characteristics or construction of individual motors.
The interaction between the broken bar and axial duct
influence has been investigated in [6], and it is shown that the
fbrb and fduct components can add or cancel out depending on the
relative physical angle between the duct and broken bar,
represented as e in Fig. 4(b). The analysis is verified in the lab
on two 4 pole, 380 V motors with custom-built Nd=Np rotors
shown in Fig. 5. The axial ducts of sample D were created by
drilling 20 holes in the yoke to produce 4 axial ducts in yoke of
an Al die-cast rotor, as shown in Fig 5(a). A fabricated Cu bar
rotor with 4 axial ducts, sample E, was designed and built to fit
the stator of sample D, as it is representative of large motors
(Fig. 5(b)). Axial holes were laser cut in the rotor laminations
of sample E, as shown in Fig. 5(c). The MCSA measurements
performed on samples D~E with 0, 1, 2 broken bars located at
e=45o and e=135o are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
It can be observed that the f1-2s component increases if the
bar is broken at the e=45o location shown in Fig. 4(b), and
decreases (and then increases) if e=135o. This is observed
because the fbrb and fduct components are in phase (add) when
e=45o and out of phase (cancel out) when e=135o [6]. If the
fault is located at e=135o, the f1-2s component initially
decreases, but starts to increase if the magnitude of the fbrb
component exceeds that of the fduct component. It can be
clearly seen in the results of Figs 6-7 that the f12s components
can remain constant or decrease with increase in broken bars
over time depending on the fault location, load, and the
amplitude of individual fduct and fbrb components (counter-
example of criterion 1). The f12s components can also decrease
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (a) Single phase rotation test results (current vs. rotor position) on
sample C1 under 380 V pulsating field excitation at motor standstill;
(b) FE simulation of flux distribution under single phase rotation test
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 5. (a) Al die-cast rotor with 4 drilled axial holes (sample D); (b)
fabricated Cu rotor with 4 laser cut axial holes in rotor lamination
(sample E); (c) rotor lamination for sample E
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

with increase in load for a motor with broken bars depending
on the fault location, load, and fault severity (counter-example
of criterion 2). The MCSA results of samples B1~B3, and
C1~C3 are counter-examples of the third criterion listed above.
The false rotor fault indication (B1, C1) is not necessarily
present for all motors of the same design due to the variance in
the characteristics of individual motors, as described previously
in III.A. The results of Figs. 3, 6, 7 disprove the validity of the
aforementioned criteria 1), 2), and 3) for confirming broken
bars, and show that rotor faults in motors with Nd=Np design
cannot be reliably detected using spectrum analysis.
The fault frequency associated with broken bars changes
during the direct on-line startup transient as the slip s decreases
from 1 to a value close to 0 [12]. At the instant the motor
source switch is closed, |fbrb| is equal to fe (s=1), and decreases
to 0 (s=1/2), and increases back towards fe as s approaches 0.
This leads to the characteristic -shaped evolution of |fbrb|
illustrated in Fig. 9, which shows the variation in the slip and
|fbrb| component measured for a 5.5 kW induction motor startup.
If the DWT is applied to the startup current of one phase of a

III. DETECTION OF ROTOR FAULTS INDEPENDENT OF AXIAL

DUCT INFLUENCE UNDER THE STARTUP TRANSIENT
Since steady state FFT based spectrum analysis cannot
provide reliable detection of broken bars for Np = Nd motors
with magnetic asymmetry, a new on-line detection method that
is not influenced by axial ducts is needed. Off-line standstill
tests such as the single phase rotation test provides reliable
detection of rotor faults since they are performed under high
slip conditions when flux penetration in the rotor is limited (Fig.
4). Fault detection under the startup transient, where the slip is
high and flux penetration into the rotor yoke is limited, is Fig. 6. MCSA measurements of the f1-2s component as a function of % rated
therefore considered under the expectation that magnetic slip with 0-2 broken bars (sample D) located at e = 45o (dotted line)
and e = 135o (real line)
asymmetry (and false positive indications) due to axial ducts
can be avoided. In this work, the discrete wavelet transform
(DWT), which has been successfully applied to motor fault
detection under transient conditions [12]-[17], is considered for
analyzing the startup current of Nd = Np motors for the first time.

A. Principles of DWT-based Rotor Fault Detection

The DWT performs decomposition of a signal into multiple
sub-signals that contain different frequency ranges of the
original signal according to predetermined frequency bands.
This makes DWT a powerful tool for analyzing non-stationary
signals with varying fault frequency components as in the case
of the f12s components of (1)-(2) under the startup transient.
Moreover, the implementation of the DWT based on the Mallat Fig. 7. MCSA measurements of the f1-2s component as a function of % rated
algorithm makes it a tool with low computational requirements slip with 0-2 broken bars (sample E) located at e = 45o (dotted line)
and e = 135o (real line)
in comparison to other time-frequency decomposition tools and
FFT [17]-[18].
The mathematical expression that characterizes the DWT
decomposition of a signal, e.g. i(t), is given by (3), where an
and dn…d1 represent the approximation and detail signals,
respectively. The details of the DWT is not described in this
paper, as it can be found in many resources [12]-[18]. Fig. 8. Decomposition process carried out by DWT for fs=10.24 kHz and n=9

i (t )  a n  d n  d n1  ...  d1 (3)

The most important underlying idea in the application of the
DWT is that each wavelet signal is associated with a certain
frequency band, i.e. the frequency components within the band
is extracted from the original signal into each wavelet signal.
The range of the band covered by each wavelet signal depends
on the sampling frequency fs and on the level n of the wavelet
signal, as illustrated in Fig. 8. In the figure, an example of the
frequency range for each wavelet signal is shown for fs=10.24
kHz and n=9 level decomposition (see guidelines for the Fig. 9. Evolution of slip and the -shaped broken rotor bar, |fbrb|, component
selection of DWT parameters in [13], [25]), which are the during a direct on-line startup transient measured for a 5.5 kW motor;
conditions used throughout this paper. concept of fault indicator, En, calculation is illustrated

0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
machine with broken bars, the evolution of |fbrb| will be
reflected in the wavelet signals covering the frequency band of
0~fe Hz, enabling reliable detection of the fault.
This is illustrated in Figs. 10(a)-(b), which show the startup
current, i, and high-level wavelet signals, a9, d9, and d8,
resulting from the DWT of the startup current of one phase for
sample F with healthy (F1) and faulty (F2) rotor cages. Sample
F is a 6.6 kV, 3800 kW water intake pump motor used at a
water supply facility. The wavelet signals, a9, d9, and d8, cover
the range of 0~40Hz (Fig. 8), for the specific case analyzed.
The oscillations in certain wavelet sub-signals increase at a
particular interval of time, forming the -pattern as the |fbrb|
component changes with slip at startup, only if a broken bar is
present. The magnitude of the oscillations in the DWT analysis
due to the rotor fault |fbrb| component is proportional to the
magnitude of the f12s component in the MCSA results of
samples F1 and F2 shown in Fig. 11. No oscillations are
expected for healthy motors for which steady state FFT gave
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10. Startup current and high-level wavelet signals, a9, d9, d8, resulting
from the DWT of the startup current for sample F: (a) healthy
motor (F1); (b) motor with rotor fault (F2)
Fig. 11. Is spectrum (MCSA) of sample F (6.6 kV, 3400 kW, Nd=8, Np=12)
motor with healthy (F1) and faulty (F2) rotor cage
0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
false broken bar indications (samples A~E), since magnetic
asymmetry does not exist under startup. The oscillation at 6.5
sec in Fig. 10 is due to incorrect timing in the closing of the
starting reactor bypass switch. Reactor startup is used in this
application for limiting the high startup current (~2000 A) by
reducing the voltage; however, it can be seen that the timing is
set incorrectly. If the switch is closed correctly after reaching
steady state, it does not interfere with DWT startup detection.
B. Quantification of Fault Severity
The -shaped pattern in the high level wavelet signals (a9,
d9, and d8) in the [0,40] Hz range resulting from the DWT is a
reliable qualitative indicator of the presence of rotor faults.
The existence of the rotor cage faults in the machine can be
identified since no other phenomenon or fault is likely to cause
a similar pattern. It is desirable to define a quantitative
indicator capable of providing an 1) automated decision on
fault existence and 2) a measure of fault severity to
complement the qualitative information provided by the 
pattern. Although there could be numerous wavelet-based fault
indicators that can be defined for quantification of fault
severity, an energy-based parameter is proposed in this work
for simplicity of the algorithm.
The energy level of the high-level wavelet signals increase
due to the oscillations in the transient evolution of |fbrb|, as the
severity of the fault increases. Therefore, a quantification
parameter based on the energy level of the wavelet signals
influenced by |fbrb| (a9, d9, or d8) is introduced due to (2).
According to an extensive study on the startup transient current
data obtained from motor samples B~F, it was observed that
the oscillations in the falling part of  of the d8 signal provides
the most sensitive indication of the fault existence and severity.
The energy in a predetermined time interval of d8 is normalized
with respect to the startup current within the same time interval
to make it independent of the operating conditions such as the
inertia, load level, etc. The proposed fault indicator En can be
calculated using
 j  N83 j  N83 
En (dB)  10  log  d 8 ( j ) 2 i 2 , (4)
 jN j 
 67 j  N 67 
where d8(j) and ij are the values of the jth sample of the d8 and
startup current signal, respectively.
The time interval [N67, N83] used for calculating En
corresponds to the interval between 67% and 83% of the
startup time, Tstart, shown in Fig. 9. The value of Tstart can be
calculated from the pattern of decrease in the startup current
magnitude. In this paper, the end of the startup transient period
Tstart was set to the time when the rate of decrease in current
falls below a predetermined limit. If it is assumed that slip
linearly decreases from 1 to 0 from the instant of startup (t=0s)
to Tstart, 67~83% of Tstart approximately corresponds to the
frequency range of 20~40 Hz, as shown in Fig. 9. This is the
range for which d8 shows rotor fault-related oscillations, which
is the reason En is calculated in this time interval. Since slip
does not decrease linearly with time, the [N67, N83] interval
does not exactly coincide with the oscillations, as can be seen
in highlighted windows of Fig. 10. Although it does not
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

capture the oscillations precisely, it is shown in section IV that
it is sufficient for detecting the fault and providing a measure
of fault severity.
There are numerous techniques other than DWT such as
Continuous Wavelet Transforms Hilbert-Huang transforms,
Wigner-Ville and Choi-Williams Distributions, etc, that can be
applied to this problem [19]-[24]. The purpose of this paper is
to show that startup current analysis provides reliable detection
of rotor faults independent of the axial duct influence.
Therefore, the application of time-frequency decomposition
tools other than DWT or alternate fault indicators are not
within the scope of this paper, and are left for future work.”
IV. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
An experimental study was performed to verify the
effectiveness of the proposed DWT-based method for detecting
broken bars reliably independent of the axial duct influence.
The startup current of samples B, C, D, and E (Np = Nd), which
were diagnosed with false broken bars in steady state (MCSA),
were obtained and analyzed. The information, rotor photos,
test results for MCSA and DWT analysis for motor samples
B~E are summarized in Table I (appendix). For the custom
built motor samples D and E of Fig. 5, up to 2 Al or Cu bars
were cut at the bar and end ring joint to simulate broken bars.
To test under the condition where the fbrb and fduct components
are in phase (add), bars at the e=45o location shown in Fig.
4(b) were cut. The case where fbrb and fduct components are out
of phase (cancel, e=135o) was also tested by rotating the same
rotor used for the e=45o case in the opposite direction. This is
equivalent to the broken bar being at e=135o. For samples B
and C, startup transient data was measured for the motors with
the highest fbrb components for each sample (B1 and C1), and
for sample B2. It was not possible to damage the rotor bars of
these samples since they are HV motors operating in the field.
The startup current of one phase was sampled at 10.24 kHz,
and analyzed with daubechies wavelets. This sampling rate
constricts the frequency range of d8 below 40 Hz to prevent
interference with the mains frequency at 60 Hz [17], [25].
Since the oscillation in d8 in the falling end of  is used for
calculating En, the influence of the electromagnetic transients at
the instant of startup (Fig. 10) can also be avoided.
To produce the startup time typical of large motors, a steel
disc designed to increase the startup time to 1.0~1.5 secs was
attached to the shaft of the unloaded motor for samples D and E.
The motor was not loaded and nothing was connected to the
rotor shaft other than the inertia disc, to observe the fault
detectability under the worst case condition of no load.
A. Experimental Results: Laboratory Test (Samples D and E)
The MCSA results for samples D and E with rotor faults
located at e=45o and 135o in Figs. 6-7 clearly show that
MCSA cannot be used for detecting rotor faults for Nd=Np
motors, since it is influenced by the location of the broken bar
with respect to the axial duct. The waveforms of the startup
current, d9, and d8 wavelet signals for sample D are shown for 0,
1, and 2 broken bars at e = 45o and 135o in Figs. 12 and 13,

(a) (a)

(b) (b)

(c) (c)
Fig. 12. Stator current, d9, and d8 wavelet signals under startup transient for Fig. 13. Stator current, d9, and d8 wavelet signals under startup transient for
sample D with (a) 0, (b) 1, and (c) 2 broken bars at e=45o. sample D with (a) 0, (b) 1, and (c) 2 broken bars at e=135o.

0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

(a) (a)

(b) (b)

(c)
(c)
Fig. 15. Stator current, d9, and d8 wavelet signals under startup transient for
Fig. 14. Stator current, d9, and d8 wavelet signals under startup transient for
samples B1, C1 (“healthy” motors with false positive MCSA
sample E with (a) 0, (b) 1, and (c) 2 broken bars at e=45o. indications), and B2
respectively. The time interval of d8 used for calculating En
described in III is highlighted in the figure, and the values of En
calculated for each condition are plotted in Fig. 16. For the
healthy cases (Figs. 12(a), 13(a)), where steady state MCSA
indicated faulty rotors (Fig. 6), the oscillations are negligible,
and the values of En are small. It can be observed in Figs. 12,
13, and 16 that the oscillations in d8 due to broken bars and the
values of En increase with the number of broken bars. For the
case of e = 135o, in which the fbrb components decrease with
broken bars (Fig. 6), the magnitude of the oscillations and
values of En are similar to that of the e = 45o case (Figs. 13, 16).
The fact that the increase in the d8 oscillations (Figs. 12-13)
and En (Fig. 16) are similar regardless of fault location, e, Fig. 16. Fault indicator: normalized energy level, En, for samples B1, B2, C1,
D, and E for 0, 1, and 2 broken bars
verifies that fault detection under the startup transient provides
fault indications only if broken bars are present, and that is not
B. Experimental Results: Field Test (Samples B1, B2, and C1)
influenced by axial ducts.
The waveforms of the startup current, wavelet signals d9,
The waveforms of the startup current, d9, and d8 signals,
and d8 for samples B1, B2, and C1 are shown in Fig. 15. The
and the time interval used for En calculation for sample E are
time interval used for En calculation is highlighted in Fig 15,
shown for 0, 1, and 2 broken bars at e = 45o in Fig. 14. The and the calculated values of En are shown in Fig. 16 along with
results for the e=135o case, which is not shown due to space that of samples D and E for comparison. The left sideband f1-2s
restrictions, are similar to that of Fig. 14. The values of En components measured for samples B1 and C1 were -52.5 and -
calculated for the e = 45o, 135o cases for sample E in Fig. 16 45.1 dB, which were considerably higher than motors of
show that the proposed fault indicator is a good measure of identical design, as shown in Figs. 3(b)-(c). The fbrb
broken bars, and that it is not influenced by axial ducts. The components were below -70 dB for sample B2, which is a 20
test results of samples D~E shown in Figs. 12-14, 16 clearly dB difference. For samples B1 and C1, oscillations cannot be
show that the proposed method provides reliable detection of clearly observed in the d8 wavelet signal shown in Fig. 15(a)
broken bars independent of the axial ducts, and that En is a and (c). The values of En for both samples were very low and
good indicator of rotor fault existence and severity. similar to that of sample B2 (Fig. 16), which was diagnosed as

0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
a healthy motor with MCSA (f1-2s component below -70 dB).
Oscillations were not present in the d8 signal of sample B2, as
expected (Fig. 15(b)). This indicates that the f1-2s components
in samples B1 and C1 are due to the magnetic asymmetry
caused by the axial ducts. The results of Fig. 15 show that it is
possible to determine that the two cases of samples B1 and C1
are false positive indications with the startup transient analysis.
The results presented in Figs. 12-16 show that the proposed
DWT-based analysis of startup transient can detect rotor faults
independent of magnetic asymmetry caused by axial ducts.
This is because flux cannot penetrate deep into the rotor yoke
at high slip due to eddy current rejection, as shown in Fig. 4(b).
This verifies that startup transient analysis can provide reliable
assessment of rotor condition for Nd=Np motors, and help avoid
unnecessary maintenance costs due to false indications.
V. CONCLUSION
False positive rotor fault indications with steady state
spectrum analysis (e.g. MCSA) are a common problem in the
field for motors with magnetic asymmetry introduced by the
rotor axial ducts. However, there currently is no practical
solution for diagnosing rotor faults on-line for motors with
such magnetic asymmetry. In this paper, analysis of the stator
current under the startup transient is proposed as a solution for
diagnosing rotor faults independent of the axial duct influence.
Startup transient analysis is considered since there is no
magnetic asymmetry due to limited flux penetration in the rotor
yoke at high slip. An experimental study was performed on
custom built rotors and on 6.6kV motors in the field that were
misdiagnosed with broken rotor bars (MCSA) due to axial
ducts. The experimental results show that broken bars can be
detected reliably independent of the axial duct influence under
the startup transient with the proposed wavelet-based algorithm
and energy level-based fault indicator.
Startup transient analysis, which has been applied to this
problem for the first time in this work, is expected to help
prevent unnecessary inspection and/or loss of production due to
false broken bar indications that frequently occur in the field.
It also allows reliable diagnosis of motors with axial duct
induced magnetic asymmetry, which was only possible with
off-line test methods. The proposed algorithm is currently
being applied in the field for screening out false positive
indications when the broken bar frequency component of on-
line MCSA exceeds the alarm level. A limitation of startup
transient analysis is the difficulty and cost involved with
obtaining and analyzing the startup data; however, this is
usually not an issue in the field considering the high
maintenance cost associated with false positive indications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge Chaewoong Lim of
Hansung Electrical Industrial Co., Dongwon Lee of GS EPS
Co., Ed Johnson of Progress Energy, Yoondal Park and
Joonghun (Charlie) Nam of GS Caltex, Sungbong Park of
MND Technology, for providing the photographs, MCSA field
data, support with startup transient testing of high voltage
motors, and for sharing their experience with on-line MCSA
testing of induction motors.
0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology (NRF-2013R1A1A2010370), and by the Human
Resources Development program (20134030200340) of the
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
(KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government Ministry of
Trade, Industry, and Energy.
APPENDIX
Table I. Rotor axial air duct design and ratings for field and lab test motors
REFERENCES
[1] H.A. Toliyat, G.B. Kliman, Handbook of electric motors, 2nd edition,
Marcel Dekker, 2004.
[2] S. Williamson, and D. Gersh, “Representation of rotor spiders and axial
ventilation ducts in reduced finite-element models for cage rotors,” IEE
Proc. Elec. Power Appl., vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 423-428, Nov. 1996.
[3] A.H. Bonnett, and T. Albers, “Squirrel–cage options for AC induction
motors,” IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., pp. 1197-1209, vol. 37, no. 4,
July/Aug. 2001.
[4] A. Bellini, et al., “On-field experience with on-line diagnosis of large
induction motors cage failures using MCSA,” IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl.,
pp. 1045-1053, vol. 38, no. 4, July/Aug. 2002.
[5] W.T. Thomson, “On-line current monitoring – the influence of
mechanical loads or a unique rotor design on the diagnosis of broken
rotor bars in induction motors,” Proc. of ICEM, pp. 1236-1240, 1992.
[6] S. Lee, J. Hong, S.B. Lee, E. Wiedenbrug, M. Teska, and H. Kim,
“Evaluation of the influence of rotor axial air duct design on condition
monitoring of induction motors,” IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., vol. 49, no.
5, pp. 2024-2033, Sept./Oct. 2013.
[7] I.M. Culbert, and W. Rhodes, "Using current signature analysis
technology to reliably detect cage winding defects in squirrel-cage
induction motors," IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., vol.43, no.2, pp.422-428,
Mar./Apr. 2007.
[8] W. Thomson, “Recent case histories on the application of motor current
signature analysis to detect broken rotor bars,” Proc. of IRMC, 2006.
[9] B.D. Evans, “Induction motor case histories: a focus on electrically
related phenomena,” Proc. of Vibration Institute Annual Meeting, 2009.
[10] Testing of squirrel cage rotors, Electrical Apparatus Service Association
Inc., EASA Tech. Note 23, 2003.
[11] D. Hyun, S. Lee, J. Hong, S.B. Lee, S. Nandi, "Detection of Airgap
Eccentricity for Induction Motors using the Single-Phase Rotation Test,"
IEEE Trans. on Ener. Conv., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 689-696, Sept. 2012.
[12] H. Douglas, P. Pillay, A.K. Ziarani, "Broken rotor bar detection in
induction machines with transient operating speeds," IEEE Trans. on
Ener. Conv., vol.20, no.1, pp.135-141, Mar. 2005.
[13] M. Riera-Guasp, J. Antonino-Daviu, M. Pineda-Sanchez, J. Perez-Cruz,
and R. Puche-Panadero. “A general approach for the transient detection
of slip-dependant fault components based on the Discrete Wavelet
Transform” IEEE Trans. on Ind. Electr., vol. 55, no. 12, pp.4167-4180,
Dec. 2008.
[14] S. H. Kia, H. Henao, and G. A. Capolino, “Diagnosis of broken bar fault
in induction machines using discrete wavelet transform without slip
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2013.2297448, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

estimation,” IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1405-1415,
July/Aug. 2009.
[15] F. Briz, M.W. Degner, P. Garcia, and D. Bragado, “Broken rotor bar
detection in line-fed induction machines using complex wavelet analysis
of startup transients,” IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 760-
768, May/June 2008.
[16] Y. Gritli, C. Rossi, L. Zarri, F. Filippetti, A. Chatti, D. Casadei, and A.
Stefani, "Advanced diagnosis of broken bar fault in induction machines
by using Discrete Wavelet Transform under time-varying condition,"
Proc. of IEMDC, pp. 424-429, May 2011.
[17] J. Antonino-Daviu, M. Riera-Guasp, J. Pons-Llinares, J. Park, S.B. Lee,
J. Yoo, and C. Kral, Detection of Broken Outer-Cage Bars for Double-
Cage Induction Motors under the Startup Transient,” IEEE Trans. on Ind.
Appl., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1539-1548, Sept./Oct. 2012.
[18] C.S. Burrus, R.A. Gopinath and H. Guo, Introduction to Wavelets and
Wavelet Transforms - A primer, Prentice Hall, 1998.
[19] Z. Zhang, Z. Ren, and W. Huang, “A novel detection method of motor
broken rotor bars based on wavelet ridge,” IEEE Trans. Ener. Conv., vol.
18, no. 3, pp. 417–423, Sept. 2003.
[20] J. Cusido, L. Romeral, J. A. Ortega, J. A. Rosero, and A. Garcia
Espinosa, “Fault detection in induction machines using power spectral
density in wavelet decomposition,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec., vol. 55, no. 2,
pp. 633–643, Feb. 2008.
[21] I.P. Tsoumas, G. Georgoulas, E.D. Mitronikas, and A.N. Safacas,
“Asynchronous machine rotor fault diagnosis technique using complex
wavelets,” IEEE Trans. on Ener. Conv., vol.23, no.2, pp. 444-459, June
2008.
[22] M. Blodt, D. Bonacci, J. Regnier, M. Chabert, and J. Faucher, “On-line
monitoring of mechanical faults in variable-speed induction motor drives
using the Wigner distribution,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec., vol. 55, pp. 522-
533, 2008.
[23] M. Pineda-Sanchez, M. Riera-Guasp, J.A. Antonino-Daviu, J. Roger-
Folch, J. Perez-Cruz, and R. Puche-Panadero, “Instantaneous frequency
of the left sideband harmonic during the start-up transient: a new method
for diagnosis of broken bars,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec., vol. 56, no. 11, pp.
4557–4570, Nov. 2009.
[24] Z.K. Peng, P.W. Tsey, and F.L. Chu, “A comparison study of improved
Hilbert-Huang transform and wavelet transform: application to fault
diagnosis for rolling bearing,” Mech. Sys. and Signal Proc., vol. 19, pp.
974-988, 2005.
[25] J. Antonino-Daviu, M. Riera-Guasp, J. Roger-Folch, F. Martínez-
Giménez, A. Peris, “Application and optimization of the discrete wavelet
transform for the detection of broken rotor bars in induction machines,”
Appl. and Comp. Harmonic Anal., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 268-279, Sept.
2006.

0093-9994 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.