IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Data-driven Robust Fault Detection and Isolation
of Three Phase Induction Motor
Abstract—This paper deals with data-driven fault diag-
nosis of three phase induction motor. The tools from sub-
space identification based data driven scheme are utilized
to design a framework of fault detection and isolation.
The fault detection scheme is so designed that it caters
for even small magnitude faults. In order to discriminate
different faults, a fault isolation algorithm is proposed.
Isolation thresholds are designed. The results show the
effectiveness of the proposed schemes.
Index Terms—Data-driven, fault detection, fault isolation,
fault diagnosis, three phase induction motor
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HREE phase induction motor plays a vital role in an in-
dustrial process. It is desired that it operates without any
fault. However, if it gets faulty, then fault should be detected
as quickly as possible to avoid any serious damage to the
induction motor or other associated equipment. Various types
of faults can occur in induction motor that are 1) Stator faults
which include insulation rupture of stator winding and inter-
turn short circuit faults which may result into damaging of
stator core or burning of stator winding 2) Sensor faults caused
by abnormalities of measurement devices that include bias
and drift in reading. Sensor faults can also be interpreted as
abnormal increase in stator current due to excessive overloads
or fluctuations in speed, considering stator current and speed as
measurements 3) Actuator faults that occur due to any problem
in 3 phase power supply which results into improper stator
voltage and may ultimately lead to stator faults as described
previously.
Researchers have developed techniques to diagnose these
different failures of induction motor using model based and
data-driven Fault Diagnosis (FD) schemes. As described in
[1], fault modeling of induction motor was performed such
that, faults were detected in induction motor during its normal
operating condition automatically. In [2], a model based fault
detection and isolation strategy for induction motor was pre-
sented. It was based on non-linear observer in collaboration
with neural network which estimated the states of the system.
Any difference between estimated states and actual system
states was considered as fault. In [3], modeling of induction
motor based on fuzzy logic was performed for fault diagnosis.
Inputs to this fuzzy system model were stator current and time.
This fuzzy modeling used some decision logics according
to which the fault was detected. The above described FD
solutions are based on modeling of induction motor. Modeling
of induction machine is a difficult task especially when motor
is connected to other auxiliaries such as converters and other
electronic circuits. This pre-modeling may result into uncertain
model due to neglected dynamics. So, in this work, data-
driven fault diagnosis of induction motor is presented. Here,
no system model required for design of FD scheme for motor.
Some multivariate data-driven FD techniques have also been
applied to induction motor. In [4], Principle Component
Analysis was used for dimensionality reduction of data and
then Kernel Density Estimation is used to obtain patterns
representing the faults. In [5], bearing fault diagnosis was
performed such that optimal features were selected from
data of induction motor. These multivariate data-driven
schemes are based on complex statistical approaches unlike
Subspace Identification Method (SIM), which is based on
concepts of linear algebra. So, for designing FD system
for induction motor, we apply the SIM based data-driven
FD scheme. Its benefits include simple implementation and
usage of model based FD techniques such as parity based
residual or diagnostic observer unlike above described
MVA techniques. Moreover, due to advanced SIM algo-
rithm in which parity vector can be directly identified from
input-output data, without identifying the system model
[6], relatively lesser computational effort is required by
SIM based FD scheme than MVA schemes.
Our work is inspired by A. Hussain et al. [7] and Y. Wang
et al. [8]. The SIM algorithm proposed by A. Hussain et al.
[7] can only detect a sensor fault of certain magnitude. Smaller
sensor faults are not detectable using that algorithm. Detection
of these smaller sensor faults becomes important if this sensor
is used to control the parameters of a critical and sensitive
process, for example, a flow control valve adjusting the flow
of coolant to reactor core in a nuclear power plant. This valve
is controlled by a level sensor measuring the coolant level in
core assembly. If the results of these level sensors are least
accurate then flow of coolant to the reactor core may badly
affected resulting in excessive heating or damaging of core.
SIM based fault isolation algorithm of Y. Wang et al. (2011)
does not consider the effect of process disturbance and sensor
noise on residual while computing the robust parity vectors. It
only increases the fault sensitivity to raise the impact of fault
on residual.
In our work, an improved fault detection algorithm will be
proposed which detects smaller sensor faults. This is achieved
by performance index ratio given in this work regarding SIM
algorithm. This index signifies the impact of small magnitude
sensor faults on residual signal. We will also propose a fault
isolation algorithm which considers the effect of both, the dis-
turbance and fault on residual signal unlike previously existing
literature. For that purpose, isolation indices are modified and
improved isolation algorithm is given in this work. Further,
we will present the way of reducing False Alarm Rate (FAR),
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 1. Functional block diagram of three phase induction motor

which is usually caused by higher impact of disturbance and

noise during healthy conditions of the process. This reduction
in FAR is achieved by signal processing technique such as
wavelet transform. This reduced FAR will improve reliability
of fault diagnosis scheme.
Remaining of the paper is organized as follows: Section Fig. 2. Experimental setup of three phase induction motor
II includes three phase induction motor details, Section III is
related to foundation and preliminaries of data driven scheme,
Section IV presents improvement in performance index, Sec-
tion V deals with detailed fault isolation study, Section VI 
k1 0 k2 0
 
0 −p 0 0

includes experimental results along-with their analysis and  0 k1 0 k2   p 0 0 0 
finally the Section VII is conclusion. A0 =  , Aω =  ,
 k3 0 −γ 0   0 k4 0 0 
0 k3 0 −γ −k4 0 0 0
II. D ESCRIPTION OF T HREE PHASE I NDUCTION MOTOR
 
Three phase induction motor working is based on induction 0 0  
of stator voltage to its rotor. Hence, input applied is stator  0 0  0 0 1 0
B=
 k5
, C= , D = N ull(2 × 2)
voltage and is considered as actuator and measurement is stator 0  0 0 0 1
current which is proportional to torque produced. Functional 0 k5
block diagram of motor is given in Fig. 1. Here, ‘ud ’ and ‘uq ’,
 T
the stator voltages of d and q axes are actuators and ‘id ’ and Where, x = φq φd iq id is state vector, u =
‘iq ’, the stator currents of d and q axes are sensors. As shown  T  T
uq ud is input vector and y = iq id is output
by Fig. 1, four types of faults are possible f1 , f2 , f3 and f4 . vector. Test system for this research work is Three Phase
Modelling details of squirrel-caged rotor induction motor to Induction Motor, present in Electric Machines Lab, Pak-
obtain input-output data, are described below [9]: istan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS).
Schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 2. This setup constitutes
φ˙q = k1 φq + k2 iq − ωpφd
of a servo-machine at left in Fig. 2 coupled to a squirrel-caged
φ˙d = k1 φd + k2 id + ωpφq induction motor. Technical specifications of motor are given
(1)
i˙q = k3 φq − γiq + ωk4 φd + k5 uq below [10]:
i˙d = k3 φd − γid − ωk4 φq + k5 ud • Nominal line-line RMS voltage= 400V
• Frequency= 50Hz
• Nominal (full load) line current= 1A
1 Lsr Lsr pLsr • Synchronous speed= 3000rpm
k1 = − , k2 = , k3 = , k4 = ,
Trot Trot Trot σLs Lr σLs Lr • Nominal speed= 2800rpm
• Starting current to nominal current ratio= 7
1 Lr Rs Lsr 2 Lsr 2 • Nominal power factor= 83%
k5 = , Trot = ,γ = + , σ = 1−
σLs Rr Ls σ Trot σLs Lr Ls Lr It is assumed that, motor is operating at nominal speed of
Here, ‘φd ’ and ‘φq ’ are the rotor fluxes of d and q axes. ω = 293rad/s. Parameters of this squirrel-caged induction
Remaining parameters are described in Table I. In generic form motor are derived based on the specifications described pre-
we can write: viously and these are shown in Table I. Discretized Model of
motor is given below in (3):

ẋ = (A0 + ωAω )x + Bu x(k + 1) = Ad x(k) + Bd u(k)

(2) (3)
y = Cx + Du y(k) = Cd x(k) + Dd u(k)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

TABLE I
N OMINAL PARAMETERS OF I NDUCTION M OTOR [10]    
0 0
... 0 D 0 ... 0
 C 0
... 0   CB D ... 0 
Gi f =  , G d
=
   
Symbol Name Value .. ...
.. .  i
  .. .. . . .. 
 . ..
.  . . . .
Ls Stator inductance 0.1164H CAs−1 CAs−2 ... 0 CAs−1 B .. ... D
(7)
Lr Rotor inductance 0.1164H
SIM based data-driven method is governed by the following
Lsr Mutual inductance 0.1109H equation [11], [12]:
σ Flux leakage factor 0.092896
Rs Stator resistance 0.7941ohm Yf = Γs Xi + Gi d Uf + Gi f Pf + Sf (8)
Rr Rotor resistance 3.5735ohm Equation (8) is a modified form of (5) such that, (8) is in data-
p Number of poles 2 driven and (5) is in model based framework. Here, Yf and Uf
are future output and input block hankel matrices respectively,
Γs is observability matrix, Xi is state matrix, Pf and Sf are

−0.3091 −0.9001 0.004102 −0.005344
 process and sensor noise block hankel matrices respectively.
 0.9001 −0.3091 0.005344 0.004102  Past and future input block hankel matrices are given by:
Ad = 
 84.37

58.01 0.1985 0.3444  
Up = us (k) us (k + 1) ... us (k + N − 1)

−58.01 84.37 −0.3444 0.1985  
Uf = us (k + s + 1) us (k + s + 2) ... us (k + s + N )
 
42.18 29 0.5992 0.1722
Cd =
   
−29 42.18 −0.1722 0.5992 u0 u1
... uj−1 ui ui+1 ... ui+j−1
 u1 u2
... uj   ui+1 ui+2 ... ui+j 
Up =  , Uf =  .
   
.. . ..
. .
.  . .. . . .. 
   . .. .   . . . . 
0.001897 −0.002471
 0.002471 0.001897 
  ui−1 ui−2 ... ui+j−2 u2i−1 u2i ... u2i+j−2
0.2771 0.07963
Bd =   , Dd =
 0.5542 0.1593  −0.07963 0.2771 Here, Up ∈ Rsp∗l×N , Uf ∈ Rsf ∗l×N , Yp ∈ Rsp∗m×N and
−0.1593 0.5542 Yf ∈ Rsf ∗m×N . Where, s = i − 1 and (sp , sf ' s) > n.
The sampling period of 0.01sec is taken for discretization of Similarly, past and future output block hankel matrices denoted
the model in (2). It is worth noting that this discrete model of by Yp and Yf can be constructed. Some other required matrices
 T
asynchronous motor is used for input-output data generation. denoted by Zp and Zf are formed as Zp = Yp Up and
 T
Zf = Yf Uf . Equation (8) can be written into another
III. DATA -D RIVEN FAULT DETECTION S CHEME way:

Γs Gi d Gi f Pf + Sf
    
Consider a discrete linear time invariant system given as Xi
Zf = + ψ, ψ =
follows: 0 I Uf 0
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + B(u(k) + fa (k)) + w(k) By pre-multiplying both sides of above equation with (1/N )
(4)
y(k) = Cx(k) + D(u(k) + fa (k)) + v(k) + fs (k) and post-multiplying with Zp T gives:

Γs Gi d
  
Here, A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×l , C ∈ Rm×n and D ∈ Rm×l . 1 T 1 Xi 1
Zf Zp = Zp T + ψZp T
Where, x(k) ∈ Rn×1 is a state vector, u(k) ∈ Rl×1 is the N N 0 I U f N
input vector. fa (k) is actuator fault vector, fs (k) is sensor
fault vector, w(k) is process noise or disturbance and v(k) For N → ∞ we have (1/N )ψZp T = 0. Thus, doing
is sensor noise. By using (4), we can write expressions for Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of covariance matrix
y(k − s), y(k − s + 1) and y(k) recursively and combining all ‘( N1 Zf Zp T )’ will give us parity space ‘Γs ⊥ ’ (Γs ⊥ Γs = 0)
these expressions we obtain the following: and corresponding ‘Γs ⊥ Hus ’, as described below in algorithm
1, where Hus ∼ Gi d .
ys (k) = Γs x(k − s) + Gi d us (k) + Gi d fa,s (k)
(5)
+ Gi f ws (k) + vs (k) + fs,s (k) Algorithm 1
 T • Estimate the system order ‘n’
ys (k) = y(k − s) y(k − s + 1) ... y(k) 1 T
• Do SVD of covariance matrix: N Zf Zp = Uz Σz Vz
 
us (k) =

u(k − s) u(k − s + 1) ... u(k)
T Uz11 Uz12
Uz = , Uz11 ∈ R(msf )×(lsf +n) ,
Uz21 Uz22
Similarly, the other vectors fa,s (k),fs,s (k),vs (k) and ws (k) Uz12 ∈ R(msf )×(msf −n) , Uz22 ∈ R(lsf )×(msf −n)
can be constructed.
• Extract the terms Γs ⊥ Hus and Γs ⊥ using Γs ⊥ = Uz12 T
and Γs ⊥ Hus = −Uz22 T
 s
T
Γs = C CA ... CA (6)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
IV. P ERFORMANCE INDEX TO ACHIEVE HIGHER
SENSITIVITY TO SENSOR FAULTS
Once, the terms Γs ⊥ Hus and Γs ⊥ are obtained from input-
output data of system using algorithm 1, then next goal is to
compute optimal parity vector to achieve robustness against
disturbances and sensitivity to faults. To achieve these two
goals simultaneously, A. Hussain et al. (2016) proposed the
following performance index.
T
Γs ⊥ Hds Hds T Γs ⊥
J1 = min T
(9)
Γs ⊥ Γs ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs ⊥
where Hus ∼ Gi d and Hds ∼ Gi f in (8). Solution of (9) is
found by considering it as eigen-value problem:
T T
ls,min (Γs ⊥ Hds Hds T Γs ⊥ − λs,min Γs ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs ⊥ ) = 0
(10)
Where, ls,min is minimum eigen-vector and λs,min is mini-
mum eigen-value. After identification of terms Γs ⊥ Hus and
Γs ⊥ , matrix Hds is also required for solving (10). So, to
construct Hds matrix, A and C matrices are extracted from
Γs as shown in (6), whereas, Γs = null(Γs ⊥ ). Robust parity
vector based residual generator is given as follows [7]:
Rrob (k) = αrob ys (k) − Γs ⊥ Hus us (k) (11)
Here, αrob = ls Γ⊥ is optimal parity vector corresponding to
index J1 in (9). As shown in (7), Hus ∼ Gi d is showing the
effect of actuators via B and D matrices. Similarly, the effect
of sensors is represented by Hds ∼ Gi f in (7). Hence, the
index J1 in (9) only increases the effect of actuator faults on
residual and reduces the impact of disturbance on residual.
On other hand, it results into a fault detection scheme which
is lesser sensitive to sensor faults. We propose an improved
version of the index (9) in the following lemma.
Lemma 1: To achieve higher sensitivity to sensor faults,
performance index given below in (12) should be used
T Fault isolation means to determine which sensor or actuator
Γs ⊥ Hds Hds T Γs ⊥
J2 = max T
(12)
Γs ⊥ Γs ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs ⊥
P roof : Parity space based residual generator is given by [14]:
r(k) = α(ys (k) − Hus us (k)) (13)
Here, ‘α’ is a parity vector and ‘r(k)’ denotes residual signal.
Substitution of (5) into (13) and using (αΓ = 0) gives us:
r(k) = α(Hus fa,s (k) + Hds ws (k) + vs (k) + fs,s ) (14)
Equation (14) in general form is given by (15):
r = Hds Ws + Hus fa + fs (15)
In case of only small magnitude sensor fault (fs → 0) and
no actuator fault (fa = 0), (15) reduces to r ≈ Hds Ws .
This shows that in case of smaller sensor faults, residual has
nominal value caused by the noise or we can say there is
no alternation in residual. Another way to prove this is: if
there is a sensor fault of very lower magnitude, it implies
that the term “αrob ys (k)” in (11) remains very small. Then
T
solving J1 in (9) means that the term Γs ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs ⊥ is
maximized, due to which, influence of term “Γs ⊥ Hus us (k)”
signifies in (11) and may become nearly equal to the term
“αrob ys (k)”. Consequently, a very small change or no change
occurs in residual signal for these smaller sensor faults. So, if
T
we use the index of (12) then, the term (Γs ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs ⊥ )
is minimized and influence of term “Γs ⊥ Hus us (k)” in (11)
is reduced. Thus, even for smaller sensor faults we get a
higher change in residual signal. Although, J2 causes higher
sensitivity to sensor faults but the upper bound is given
by (16):
||Γs ⊥ Hus us (k)|| > ||us (k)||− (16)
Above expression describes that, J2 should not minimize
Γs ⊥ Hus us (k) the term so much that, lower magnitude
actuator faults become difficult to detect. There is an-
other side of performance index J2 that, it is maximizing
T
Γs ⊥ Hds Hds T Γs ⊥ which causes to increase the influence of
disturbance on residual but it will not disturb the sensitivity
to faults. Its sole consequence is the increase in FAR which
can be reduced by the post-processing of residual which will
be presented later in this work. As far as, actuator faults
are concerned, then performance index J2 also detects them
successfully. Its justification is that, during actuator fault,
the term “Γs ⊥ Hus us (k)” in (11) dominates due to abnormal
increase in us (k), thus, causing a higher change in residual.
This completes the proof.
Solution of J2 is also given by (10) with only difference that
now ‘ls,min ’ is replaced by maximum eigen-vector ‘ls,max ’
and ‘λs,min ’ by maximum eigen-value ‘λs,max ’. Performance
index in (12) is justified because Hds ∼ Gi f is showing the
effect of sensors or measurements on residual and Hus ∼ Gi d
is showing the effect of inputs on residual. Whereas, these
inputs may be system input or noise.
V. R OBUST S ENSOR AND ACTUATOR FAULT ISOLATION
A. Fault Isolation
gets faulty. Its algorithm is based on finding parity space for
i-th sensor such that its effect on i-th residual is completely
decoupled from the effect of remaining sensor. Fault isolation
algorithm is presented below [8]:
Algorithm 2
⊥ ⊥
• Apply Algorithm 1 to obtain Γs Hus and Γs from
input-output data of process
Sensor Fault Isolation:
⊥
• To distribute Γs as follows:
⊥ ⊥
Γs,2 ⊥ ... Γs,sa ⊥ , where Γs,k ⊥ ∈
 
Γs = Γs,1
Rµ×m , k = 1, 2, ..., sa and µ = msf − n
⊥
• Now sub-divide Γs,k as below:
⊥ ⊥
Γs,k,2 ⊥ ... Γs,k,m ⊥
 
Γs,k = Γs,k,1 where
Γs,k,i ⊥ ∈ Rµ×1 , i = 1, 2, ..., m
⊥
• Now re-arrange Γs,k,i , i = 1, 2, ..., m in following
way to decouple the effect of other sensors: Γs,k,ĩ ⊥ =
[ Γs,1,1 ⊥ ... Γs,1,i−1 ⊥ Γs,1,i+1 ⊥ ... Γs,1,m ⊥ ...
Γs,sa ,1 ⊥ ... Γs,sa ,i−1 ⊥ Γs,sa ,i+1 ⊥ ... Γs,sa ,m ⊥ ]
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Solve Ssen,i Γs,k,ĩ ⊥ = 0 to obtain Ssen,i
•
⊥ structed between faults and designed residuals. From this table
• Find parity space for i-th sensor ‘Γs,sen,i ’ using
⊥ ⊥
Γs,sen,i = Ssen,i Γs
Actuator Fault Isolation:
⊥
• To divide Γs Hus as:
⊥
Γs Hus = Γs,1 ⊥ Hus Γs,2 ⊥ Hus ... Γs,sa ⊥ Hus ,
 
where Γs,k ⊥ Hus ∈ Rµ×l
⊥ statistical testing of residual is performed using Generalized
• Sub-divide Γs,k Hus as:
Γs,k,1 Hus Γs,k,2 ⊥ Hus ... Γs,k,l ⊥ Hus
⊥
 
where
⊥ µ×1
Γs,k,i Hus ∈ R , i = 1, 2, ..., l
⊥
• Re-arrange Γs,k,i Hus , i = 1, 2, ..., l as below for
decoupling the influence of other actuators:
Γs,k,ĩ ⊥ Hus = [ Γs,1,1 ⊥ Hus ... Γs,1,i−1 ⊥ Hus
Γs,1,i+1 ⊥ Hus ... Γs,1,l ⊥ Hus ... Γs,sa ,1 ⊥ Hus
... Γs,sa ,i−1 ⊥ Hus Γs,sa ,i+1 ⊥ Hus ... Γs,sa ,l ⊥ Hus
⊥
• Solve Sact,i (Γs,k,ĩ Hus ) = 0 to obtain Sact,i
⊥ ⊥ ⊥ • To set threshold as Jth = 2a
• Find ‘Γs,act,i ’ using Γs,act,i = Sact,i Γs
Next objective is to achieve higher sensitivity to faults
and robustness against disturbances so that the results of
fault isolation algorithm are reliable. This is achieved by our
proposed performance indices for fault isolation which are
supported by Lemma 1 described previously. These indices
are given in (17) below:
Γs,sen,i ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs,sen,i ⊥
Jsen,i = min
Γs ,sen,i ⊥ Γs,sen,i ⊥ Hds Hds T Γs,sen,i ⊥
Γs,act,i ⊥ Hus Hus T Γs,act,i ⊥
Jact,i = max
Γs ,act,i ⊥ Γs,act,i ⊥ Hds Hds T Γs,act,i ⊥
Our proposed indices in (17) are better than that in [8]
because performance index in [8] only increases the effect
of fault on residual signal while, not considering the noise
affecting the system. Now, for our proposed indices in (17),
we require Hds ∼ Gi f matrix, which is constructed as shown
by (7). So, we extract A and C matrices from observability
matrix ‘Γs ’, which is shown in (6). Where, Γs is obtained
using (Γs ⊥ Γs = 0).
• To evaluate robust parity vectors as:
αsen,i = lmin,i Ssen,i Γs ⊥ , αact,i = lmax,i Sact,i Γs ⊥
Here, lmin,i and lmax,i are obtained by solving indices
given in (17)
• Build residuals for i-th sensor and actuator using follow-
ing equations:
rsen,i (k) = αsen,i (ys (k) − Hus us (k))
ract,i (k) = αact,i (ys (k) − Hus us (k))
• Post-processing of each of the residuals to reduce FAR
Up till now, it was considered that there is a separate
residual for each of the sensors and actuators. It means,
for ‘j’ number of sensors and ‘p’ number of actuators, we
require ‘nm = j + p’ number of residuals in order to isolate
‘nf = j+p’ faults. Sometimes, due to complexities of process,
it is economical to detect ‘nf ’ faults using measurements
lesser than ‘nf ’ which means that (nf > nm ). Then, we
design nmnf−1 number of residuals [14] and a table is con-


by observing the sequences, we can select fewer number of
residuals to detect all possible faults.
B. Residual Evaluation or Statistical Testing
For the sake of completion of Fault Detection process,
Likelihood Ratio (GLR) algorithm presented in [15], [16]. As
it is obvious, that the residual is affected by noise and fault,
so we consider this noise as white noise N (0, σ 2 ). Major
steps of GLR algorithm are given below:
Algorithm 3
] • From Chi-square distribution table, find χa such that
prob[χ > χa ] = α to set allowed limit of FAR
χ
PNw
1 2
• Testing statistics are given by J = 2σ 2 N ( i=1 r(i) )
w
• Decide as:
J < Jth =⇒ No fault, J > Jth =⇒ Fault occurs
C. Post-processing of Residual
Due to higher impact of disturbances on residual, there may
be significant FAR. Effect of noise on residual appears as
T higher frequency content. To remove it from residual, wavelet
T
transformation is used [17]. Wavelet transform decomposes the
residual into approximation and detailed coefficients. Detailed
(17)
T coefficients contain higher frequency content (noise) as well
T
as the information about the change in residual caused by
fault. So, motivated by [17], we used wavelet transformation
to reduce this higher frequency content. During this signal
processing, noise is removed by suppressing higher frequency
content as well as retaining the change in residual signal
caused by fault. However, after wavelet transformation,
there exists some FAR caused by lower frequency process
disturbances. This FAR can be minimized by high pass
filtering of wavelet processed residual signal.
VI. R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The input output data of the induction motor is obtained by
running the motor for 90 seconds. Since, the data is noisy so it
is assumed that the process noise and measurement noise are
white guassian with power spectral densities of 0.2 and 0.01
respectively. Total 9992 samples are recorded. There are two
sensors id and iq , which means m = 2. Similarly, there are
two actuators ud and uq and l = 2. Values of sp and sf are
set to sp = sf = 5 higher than system order n = 4. Hence,
(18)
we have Yp , Yf ∈ R10×9992 and Up , Uf ∈ R10×9992 . After
applying algorithm 1, Γs ⊥ Hus ∈ R6×10 and Γs ⊥ ∈ R6×10
are obtained.
A. Improved Fault Sensitivity to Lower Magnitude Sensor
Faults
A very small sensor fault of 0.5A in q-axis current ‘iq ’ is
applied. This sensor fault is caused by insulation failure of
stator winding and as a result, short circuits in stator winding
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Residual Signal for Performance Index "J1" Residual Signal for Performance Index "J1"
4 10

8
3
Residual

Residual
6
2
4

1
2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (s)

Residual Signal for Performance Index "J2" Residual Signal for Performance Index "J2"
4 10

8
3
Residual

Residual
6
2
4

1
2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 3. Comparison between J1 and J2 for lower magnitude sensor fault Fig. 5. Comparison between J1 and J2 for lower magnitude actuator
fault
Residual Signal for Performance Index "J1"
20
Residual for sensor#1 Residual for sensor#2
20 20

residual for q-axis current (I q )

residual for d-axis current (I d )

15
Residual

15 15
10

10 10
5

5 5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Residual Signal for Performance Index "J2" Time (s) Time (s)
20
J-statistics for sensor#1 J-statistics for sensor#2

J-Statistics for q-axis current (I q )

J-Statistics for d-axis current (I d )

3 3
15
2.5 2.5
Residual

10 2 2

1.5 1.5
5
1 1

0 0.5 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 4. Comparison between J1 and J2 for higher magnitude sensor

fault Fig. 6. Sensor:1 is faulty and sensor:2 is healthy. Fault of sensor:1 is
isolated from sensor:2

occur. Ultimately, measured stator current is increased. Then,

separate residual for each of the sensors. After that, algorithm
J1 and J2 are solved using (9) and (12), to get ‘ls,min ’
3 was applied on these 2 residuals individually to obtain
and ‘ls,max ’ respectively. Then, two robust parity vectors
their GLR based J-statistics. While applying GLR algorithm,
‘αrob,min = ls,min Γs ⊥ ’ and ‘αrob,max = ls,max Γs ⊥ ’ are
Nw = 10 was selected. It means, we take the window of 10
obtained. Finally, two residual generators are constructed and
samples of residual, to calculate mean square value required
their comparison is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen in Fig. 3
by J-statistics. Results are shown in Fig. 6. We can see that
that for smaller sensor fault there is no significant change in
only the residual of sensor:1 is changing and no change in
residual corresponding to J1 , whereas, residual corresponding
residual of sensor:2.
to J2 gives a noticeable change and this small sensor fault
Now, we observe actuator fault isolation. Consider the case
is detected. Then, the effect of larger magnitude sensor fault
when only actuator:1 is faulty and there is no fault on
is studied on stator current, which is caused by excessive
actuator:2, results after applying algorithms 2 and 3 are
overloading of motor and same process is repeated. Results
shown in Fig. 7. Only the residual of faulty actuator:1 is
for this case are shown in Fig. 4. It is obvious from results
changing. For J-statistics of actuators, Nw = 6 is selected.
that, smaller sensor faults can be successfully detected using
The difference between isolation of actuator and sensor faults
J2 . Now, a small actuator fault is applied such that, d-axis
lies in performance indices used for them which are shown
stator voltage ‘ud ’ deviates from normal value. Again, similar
in (17). To check the effectiveness of our proposed isolation
analysis is performed and results are shown in Fig. 5. It can
algorithm, we plot the residuals in fault free case for sensor:1
be observed that in case of smaller actuator fault, both J1 and
using algorithm of [8] and our proposed isolation algorithm.
J2 perform correctly.
Now, comparison of Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 shows that FAR is much
lower in our proposed algorithm. This shows that for a given
B. Fault Isolation process, results of our proposed isolation algorithm are more
Here, following notations will be used: reliable than that of [8] because of increased robustness against
• Sensor:1 → sensor measuring ‘iq ’ disturbances, as described previously in section V-A.
• Sensor:2 → sensor measuring ‘id ’
• Actuator:1 → q-axis stator voltage ‘uq ’ C. Results for Fault Isolation Using Fewer Number of
• Actuator:2 → d-axis stator voltage ‘ud ’ Sensors
First, we consider sensor fault isolation. Let us select the case Now, to detect these four types of faults i.e. 2 for sensors
when only sensor:1 is faulty and there is no fault on sensor and 2 for actuators, instead of 4 residuals we will consider
sensor:2. Now, fault isolation algorithm 2 is applied. There is only 3 residuals. Two residuals ‘R1’ and ‘R2’ will deal sensor
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

1.5
Residual for actuator#1
1.5
Residual for actuator#2 TABLE II
residual for q-axis voltage (V q )

residual for d-axis voltage (V d )

FAULT ISOLATION LOGIC TABLE
1 1

0.5 0.5
Fault R1 R2 R3
0 0
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
50 60 70 80 90
f1 (Sensor:1 faulty) 1 0 1
J-statistics for actuator#1 J-statistics for actuator#2
f2 (Sensor:2 faulty) 0 1 1
J-Statistics for q-axis voltage (V q )

J-Statistics for d-axis voltage (V d )

4 4

3 3
f3 (Actuator:1 faulty) 1 1 1
2 2
f4 (Actuator:2 faulty) 1 1 0
1 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Time (s)

residual for I q (Ampere)

R1
100

50
Fig. 7. Actuator:1 is faulty and actuator:2 is healthy. Fault of actuator:1
is isolated from actuator:2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

residual for I d (Ampere)

R2
30

20
residual for sensor#1 using Old algorithm
14
10

0
12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

R3

residual for V q (Volts)

4

10
residual for q-axis current (I q )

8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time (s)
6

Fig. 10. Verification of Table II, for example, fault ‘f4 ’ (Actutor:2 is faulty)
2 is detected by combination “110”
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time (s)
TABLE III
FAR AND FDR IN FOR EACH SENSOR AND ACTUATOR FAULT
Fig. 8. Residual in fault-free case, showing that the effect of noise on
residual is higher, plotted using algorithm in [8] f1 f2 f3 f4

residual for sensor#1 using proposed algorithm

FAR 3.43 2.67 0.1 0.3
14
FDR 96.28 97.14 98.94 98.06
12

10
residual for q-axis current (I q )

8
the the principle of Stein’s Unbiased Risk [20]. Then, soft
thresholding is performed on detailed coefficients. Since, noise
6

contribution in detailed coefficients has amplitude lower than

4
2 amplitude much higher than threshold, so its information will
0
0 10
Fig. 9. Residual in fault-free case, showing that the effect of noise on
residual is lower, plotted using our proposed isolation algorithm
fault isolation and one ‘R3’ relates to actuator fault isolation.
Using the scheme presented at the end of section V-A, we
construct fault isolation logic table referred as Table II. It tells
that, fault f1 is detected if residuals ‘R1’ and ‘R3’ are active
and residual ‘R2’ is not active. Results verifying Table II are
shown in Fig. 10.
D. Post-processing of residual signal
To further reduce the impact of disturbances on residual in
order to reduce FAR, wavelet de-noising technique [18], [19] is
applied. First, we select ‘db4’ as mother wavelet and 3 number
of decomposition levels. After that, wavelet decomposition of
residual gives us detailed and approximate coefficients. To
reduce the impact of noise, threshold is selected based on
the threshold selected, so it will be suppressed. But fault has
be retained. Results for the case when actuator:2 is faulty
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
and no fault on actuator:1, are shown in Fig. 11. It can be
observed that due to application of wavelet transform, FAR is
significantly reduced as shown by comparison of original and
de-noised J-statistics of actuator:1. Table III shows FAR and
FDR in each of the four types of faults, while using algorithms
proposed in this work.
VII. O NLINE I MPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED SIM
BASED FAULT DIAGNOSIS
During practical implementation of FD technique pre-
sented in this work, it is required to take input-output
data samples of system under observation. Then these data
samples are fed to Fault Detection and Monitoring (FDM)
system for evaluation of system as healthy or faulty. During
evaluation of system, the system can change its state from
healthy to faulty e.g. large amplitude transients or surges
(of few m-sec) in 3 phase supply to induction motor. The
chances of missing these faults can be reduced by Recursive
Subspace Identification Method along with a predictive
control in [21].
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
4
Original J-Statistics of actuator#1
3 3
J-Statistics
2 2
1 1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s)
De-Noised J-Statistics of actuator#1
4 4
3 3
J-Statistics
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s)
Fig. 11. Wavelet de-noising when Actuator:2 is faulty, FAR is reduced
in de-noised J-statistics of actuator:1 and no effect on J-statistics of
actuator:2
VIII. CONCLUSION
In this work, SIM based data driven approach was used
for Fault Detection and Isolation (FDI) of induction motor.
Smaller sensor faults are successfully detected using our
proposed performance index regarding SIM based fault detec-
tion. Moreover, sensor and actuator fault isolation algorithm
presented in this paper is more robust against undesired signals
affecting the system. In a huge industrial process, large pumps
are used for circulation of some essential fluids e.g. coolants
and lubricants. So this FDI scheme is helpful there to diagnose
the faults of motor as quickly as possible. Along-with, it is
desired that results of FDI scheme should be accurate whereas,
the accuracy of FDI scheme is badly affected by noise or un-
known inputs to the process. So our proposed FDI scheme
fulfills these requirements by achieving ‘robustness against
undesired signals’ and ‘higher sensitivity to faults’. In this
work, SIM based data driven approach was used for Fault
Detection and Isolation (FDI) of induction motor. A fault
detection algorithm based on improved performance index is
proposed for successful detection of smaller sensor faults. To
find location of a fault, a fault isolation algorithm is proposed
which is robust against undesired signals. This robustness im-
proves the results of fault isolation algorithm by reducing FAR.
Residual signals generated via our proposed FDI algorithms
are evaluated using thresholds. These algorithms are applied
to a 3 phase induction motor to demonstrate the effectiveness
of our proposed algorithms.
Future Work in this research includes 1) Fault identification
to obtain information about the size and nature of the fault 2)
SIM based Fault Tolerant Control, so that system can retain
its normal behaviour during fault as long as possible.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Selvanayakam, W.R. Babu and S.K. Rajarathna, “Fault detection in
three phase induction motor”, Int. Jour. of Innovatiove Reaserch in Sci.
Engg. and Tech., Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 84–90, Apr. 2015.
4
Original J-Statistics of actuator#2 [2] R. S. Kraleti, M. Zawodniok, and S. Jagannathan, “Model based
diagnostics and prognostics of three-phase induction motor for vapor
compressor applications” in Proc. IEEE Conference on Prognostics and
J-Statistics
Health Management, DOI 10.1109/ICPHM.2012.6299525, pp. 1-7, Sep.
2012.
90
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
[3] S. O. Ibrahima, k. N. Faris and E. A. Elzahab, “Implementation of
Time (s) fuzzy modeling system for faults detection and diagnosis in three phase
De-Noised J-Statistics of actuator#2
induction motor drive system”, Jour. of Elect. Sys. and Info. Tech., Vol.
2, No. 1, pp. 27-46, May 2015.
J-Statistics
[4] F. Ferracuti, A. Giantomassi, S. Iarlori, G. Ippoliti and S. Longhi, “In-
duction Motor Fault Detection and Diagnosis using KDE and Kullback-
Leibler Divergence”, Industrial Electronics Society, IECON Annual
90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s) Conference of IEEE, pp. 2923-2928, 2013.
[5] R. Islam, S. Ali Khan and J.M. Kim, “Discriminant Feature Distribution
Analysis-Based Hybrid Feature Selection for Online Bearing Fault
Diagnosis in Induction Motors”, Journal of Sensors, Hindaw, vol. 2016,
DOI 10.1109/IECON.2013.6699595, pp. 1–16, Jan. 2016.
[6] S. X. Ding, P. Zhang, A. Naik, E. Ding, and B. Huang, “Subspace
method aided data-driven design of fault detection and isolation sys-
tems,” Jour. of Process Control, Vol. 19, No. 9, pp. 1496–1510, 2009.
[7] A. Hussain, A. Q. Khan and M. Abid, “Robust fault detection using
subspace aided data driven design”, Asian Jour. of Control, Vol. 18,
DOI 10.1002/asjc.1086, No. 2, pp. 1–12, Mar. 2016.
[8] Y. Wang, G. Ma, S.X. Ding and C. Li, “Subspace aided data-driven
design of robust fault detection and isolation systems”, Automatica, Vol.
47, DOI 10.1016/j.automatica.2011.05.028, No. 11, pp. 2474–2480, Nov.
2011.
[9] Y. Rachedi, M. O. Rachedi and S. Yahmedi, “Robust control design
of an induction motor”, Int. Jour. of Electrical Energy, Vol. 1, DOI
10.12720/ijoee.1.4.201-205, No. 4, pp. 201–205, Dec. 2013.
[10] User’s manual, Asynchronous machine 300W, DEE Machines Lab, Pak-
istan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), Islamabad,
Pakistan.
[11] S. Yin, Member, IEEE, S. X. Ding, X. Xie, Student Member, IEEE,
and H. Luo, “A review on basic data-driven approaches for industrial
process monitoring”, IEEE Trans. on Ind. Electronics, Vol. 61, DOI
10.1109/TIE.2014.2301773, No. 11, Nov. 2014.
[12] S. Yin , S. X. Ding , A. H. Abandan Sari and H. Hao, “Data-driven
monitoring for stochastic systems and its application on batch process”,
Int. Jour. of Syst. Sci., Vol. 44, DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/00207721.
2012.659708, No. 7, pp. 1366–1376, Feb. 2013.
[13] M. Green and David J.N. Limebeer, “Linear robust control”, Pearson
Education, Inc., 1995.
[14] S.X. Ding, “Model-based fault diagnosis techniques: design schemes,
algorithms, and tools”, Springer, London, 2008.
[15] S.X. Ding, P. Zhang, A. Naik, E.L. Ding, and B. Huang, “Subspace
method aided data-driven design of fault detection and isolation sys-
tems”, Jour. Process Control, Vol. 19, No. 9, pp. 1496-1510, 2009.
[16] S. X. Ding, “Data-driven Design of Fault Diagnosis and Fault-tolerant
Control Systems”, Springer, (2014).
[17] A. R. Khan, A. Q. Khan, M. T. Raza, M. Abid and G. Mustafa, “Design
of Robust Fault Detection Scheme for Penicillin Fermentation Process,”
IFAC, Vol. 48, DOI 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.590, No. 21, pp. 589–594,
2015.
[18] D. L. Donoho, “De-noising by soft-thresholding”, IEEE Trans. on Inf.
Theory, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 613–627. 1995.
[19] Albert C. To, J. R. Moore and S. D. Glaser, “Wavelet denoising tech-
niques with applications to experimental geophysical data”, Int. Jour. of
Signal Processing, Elsevier, Vol. 89, DOI 10.1016/j.sigpro.2008.07.023,
No. 2, pp. 144–160, Feb. 2009.
[20] Y. Le Montagner, St. Member IEEE, E. D. Angelini, Senior Member
IEEE, and J-Christophe O-Marin, Fellow IEEE, “An unbiased risk
estimator for image denoising in the presence of mixed poisson gaussian
noise”, IEEE Tran. on Image Proc., Vol. 23, DOI 10.1109/TIP.2014.
2300821, No. 3, Mar. 2014.
[21] P. Zhou, P. Dai, H. Song and T. Chai, “Data-driven recursive subspace
identification based online modelling for prediction and control of
molten iron quality in blast furnace ironmaking,” IET Control Theory
and Applications, Vol. 11, DOI 10.1049/iet-cta.2016.1474, No. 14, pp.
2343–2351, Sep. 2017.