Surge testing and Error Area Ratio (EAR) basics

ing responses or waveforms

By Mike Howell
Technical Support Specialist
Editor’s Note: PDFs of this article are
available in English and Spanish in the
“Resource Library” of www.easa.com.
l l l l l
Most service centers perform some
form of surge comparison testing,
though terminology and methodology
may vary. In simple terms, two wind-
from a fast rise-time surge are
compared and if there is an
excessive difference, the unit
under test may have a defect.
The waveform that is produced
by the pulse is unique to the unit
under test, which for example,
could be a stator winding. The Figure 1. Typical surge comparison test. [1]
waveform will be a function of
the resistance, capacitance and
inductance of the test circuit and
quite a few variables can affect
those characteristics.
One difficulty or challenge
with surge comparison testing
has been its subjectivity. That is, it
is not always easy for operators to Figure 2. Determination of Error Area. [1]
reach the same conclusion when
comparing two waveforms.
Within the last few decades, sev-
eral equipment manufacturers
have begun to utilize analytical
methods to evaluate the surge
comparison test results. The goal

“
One dif f icult y or
challenge with surge com-
parison testing has been
its subjectivity. That is, it
is not always easy for op-
erators to reach the same
c o n clu s io n wh e n c o m -
par ing two wavefor ms.
Within the last few de-
cades, several equipment
manufacturers have begun
to utilize analytical meth-
ods to evaluate the surge
comparison test results.
The goal is to remove as
much subjectivity as pos-
sible so that disposition
of the unit under test is
a simple decision for the
operator. The analytical
method that has become
most popular, in various
forms, is use of the Error
Area Ratio (EAR).
” Figure 1 the test waveform. If the two
is to remove as much subjectivity
as possible so that disposition of Figure 3. Determination of reference area. [1]
the unit under test is a simple
decision for the operator. The
analytical method that has become most
popular, in various forms, is use of the
Error Area Ratio (EAR).
Do you have to have EAR capa-
bilities in order to perform surge
comparison testing satisfactorily? No,
but if you have the capability, a basic
understanding of the data reported by
the equipment can help you make an
informed decision.
What is the EAR?
For the purposes of this article, we
will just look at the problem graphi-
cally as explained in some literature
[1]. In Figure 1, the two waveforms
shown are representative of a typical
surge comparison test. Common prac-
tice is to plot voltage on the vertical
axis and time on the horizontal axis.
So, at time “A” in Figure 1, a pulse
is applied that has a very fast rise
as seen by the steep slope. Let’s call
waveform “1” in Figure 1 the refer-
ence waveform and waveform “2” in
waveforms were of test circuits with
the same resistance, inductance and
capacitance, we would expect them to
look identical, i.e., they would look like
one waveform when superimposed. In
Figure 1, you can see that waveform
“1” and waveform “2” are not identi-
cal; waveform “2” has different time
dependency (frequency) and different
voltage levels (amplitude). The ques-
tion is, how different is too different?
Early automated testing systems used
voltage comparisons where at some
points in time the difference in voltage
between the two waveforms would be
calculated as shown by “3” in Figure 1.
Most literature suggests that the EAR
is a more effective method.
If we expected the two waveforms
in Figure 1 to be identical, we could
consider any difference between them
to be error. Figure 2 shows those same
two waveforms with the area between
them shaded. This area will be referred
to as the Error Area. It is evident that
as the waveforms become more dif-

Electrical Apparatus Service Association, Inc. • Copyright © 2016 • www.easa.com • July 2016
Continued on Page 2

1
Surge testing and Error Area Ratio (EAR) basics
Continued From Page 1
ferent, the area between them will
become larger. To develop a common
set of acceptance criteria applicable
to windings of different size, shape,
configuration, etc., we need to normal-
ize our result to something simple for
comparison – like a percentage. Com-
mon practice is to compare the Error
Area shown in Figure 2 to the area
under the reference, which is shown in
Figure 3. So, if the area in Figure 2 was
3 volt-seconds and the area in Figure
3 was 30 volt-seconds, the EAR would
be 3/30 = 0.1 per unit = 10%.
Now that we’ve covered what
the EAR is, let’s look at the two most
common applications that are the
Pulse-to-Pulse EAR (P-P EAR) and the
Line-to-Line EAR (L-L EAR). These are
two different tests and should be treat-
ed as such. A third use, not addressed
here in detail, would be to compare an
individual coil to a reference “golden
coil” waveform stored in the memory
of the test set.
Pulse-to-Pulse (P-P EAR)
When performing a surge test in
the past, you may remember finding
a short or fault that only occurred
above a certain voltage. That is, when
bringing the voltage up slowly, you
may have noticed a sudden change
in the waveform, likely an increase in
frequency (shift to the left) and maybe
a noticeable change in amplitude. The
P-P EAR test looks for this type of
change – a pulse is applied to a wind-
ing, let’s say phase A, and then another
pulse is applied to phase A, but at a
slightly higher voltage. Because the
second pulse is at a higher voltage,
there is a reasonable and predictable
difference between the two waveforms
that is accounted for by the computer
Electrical Apparatus Service Association, Inc. • Copyright © 2016 •
program. But, if the change becomes
significantly larger than expected, so
will the calculated P-P EAR, indicating
to the operator that a potential defect
has been identified. Because the P-P
EAR test is only testing one winding or
coil at different voltages, there are no
concerns about differences in winding
configuration or the magnetic circuit
path, allowing for testing of assembled
machines. This isn’t the case with the
Line-to-Line EAR.
Line-to-Line (L-L EAR)
The L-L EAR is similar to what
we traditionally think about with the
surge comparison test – comparing
two different windings or coils that
we believe should be the same. For
example, with a three-phase stator
you’d get a value of L-L EAR for A-B,
B-C and A-C. It isn’t unusual for L-L
EAR values to exceed P-P EAR values
for a given unit under test. There are
a several factors that cause this with
some examples being:
• Winding configuration
- Various concentric winding
patterns
- Lap wi ndi ng over t he spa n
(lazy-lapping)
- Testing one path only of a part-
winding-start connection
• Core iron condition
- Shorted lams
- Ground out pockets from failures
- Geometric dissymmetry, e.g.
varying back iron dimension
• Rotor position, if installed
- Stator-rotor mutual coupling is a
function of position
Since the L-L EAR is a comparison
of two windings, it is valuable for find-
ing differences between two windings
– reversed coils, missing or extra turns,
www.easa.com • July 2016
connection issues, etc. However, any
of the conditions above can result in
false negatives. Winding resistance,
small (dummy) rotor testing and phase
balance testing can provide useful infor-
mation in these cases.
But, how high is too high?
After all the previous discussion on
removing subjectivity from the surge
comparison test and using an analytical
method to determine acceptability, well
– there is still some subjectivity. This
means the same pass/fail criteria for L-L
EAR and P-P EAR won’t necessarily be
appropriate for every unit under test.
At the time of this article, some of the
manufacturers producing surge testers
with specifications indicating EAR
capabilities are not publishing pass/
fail criteria within those specifications.
The values you get depend not only
on the unit under test but also on the
equipment itself and how the data are
calculated. So, operators should lean
heavily on the manufacturer for as-
sistance with determining acceptable
starting points. If you are considering
purchasing a test set with these capabili-
ties – discuss this with the manufacturer
in detail before placing the purchase
order. Typically, P-P EAR values for
three phase stators (with or without
rotor installed) are below 10%. For L-L
EAR values, typical results for accept-
able three phase stators (without rotor
installed) are below 15%. l
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] J. Lebesch, "Method and Apparatus
for Automatically Calculating the
Integrity of an Electrical Coil".
USA Patent 5,111,149, 5 May 1992.
2