See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340634319

Analysis of stator core faults - A fresh look at the EL CID vector diagram

Preprint · September 2006

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35286.11848

CITATIONS READS

9 2,489

1 author:

D.R. Bertenshaw
ENELEC LTD
13 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by D.R. Bertenshaw on 11 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Hydro2006, Porto Carras, Greece. 25-27th September 2006

Analysis of stator core faults -

a fresh look at the EL CID vector diagram
David Bertenshaw
ADWEL International Ltd. Park House, Greenhill Crescent, Watford WD18 8PH, UK

Introduction
The stator cores of large electrical machines, such as the generators in power stations, are constructed from a
large number of thin iron laminations insulated from each other to reduce induced eddy currents and consequent
power losses in the iron. Damage to this inter-laminar insulation due to ageing effects or during normal service
can be critical, and even relatively minor defects can cause a significant increase in localised currents circulating
in the core (see fig 1). If not addressed, the resultant heating can damage the iron and winding insulation [1],
reducing machine life and even leading to catastrophic failure [2].

To determine the condition of the inter-lamination

insulation, stator core tests are conducted at regular
intervals with instruments such as the EL CID test system.
This electromagnetic technique has been used and
described worldwide now for 25 years as a reliable, non-
destructive test of the condition of the core. [3,4,5]

As with any form of testing, correct interpretation of the

test results is vital so that users are confident that EL
CID’s diagnosis is reliable. The traditional interpretation
considers that the signal can be separated simply by
quadrature analysis into PHASE and QUAD components,
which will directly represent the excitation and fault
currents. However this simple approach can be Fig 1 Eddy currents induced in a laminated core due
misleading, as it fails to predict all the observed fault to damage at the base of a slot
signals. This paper gives a fuller insight into the
electromagnetic processes at work, and the effects of common test or constructional artefacts.

1. Principles of the EL CID Test

In the ELectromagnetic Core Imperfection Detector test
the core is toroidally excited to 4% of operating flux by an
excitation current in a temporary winding through the bore
centre. The fault currents induced in any damaged areas
(typically between the fault and rear building keybars as
shown in fig. 1) are measured by sensing the magnetic
fields resulting from them. Due to the high permeability of
the core iron and its laminated structure, the majority of
the fault’s magnetic field occurs in the air above the
surface of the core and can be detected by a Chattock
potentiometer applied across the core teeth [6].

The Chattock magnetic potentiometer [7] consists of a Fig 2 Chattock potentiometer positioned across a
flexible, uniform, air-cored coil whose ac output is fault
proportional to the line integral of the ac magnetic field
along its length, and thus measures the local magnetomotive force (m.m.f) as a magnetic potential difference
(m.p.d.) between its two ends. It is placed across the core teeth, straddling a slot as in fig. 2, and scanned along
the slots with the results recorded.

In the EL CID test the Chattock sensor detects the vector sum of all the electromagnetic effects occurring within
the underlying core. The signal is resolved into components in phase (PHASE) and in quadrature (QUAD) with
the excitation current by a phase sensitive detector. Since the voltage induced in any fault is in proportion to the
rate-of-change of flux, the fault current can be detected as being in quadrature to the flux. Thus the resistive (heat
producing) element of the fault current component of the Chattock signal is indicated by the QUAD m.p.d.

Paper 15.02 -1-

However core loss causes the core flux not to be in exact phase with the excitation current, and circulating
currents in the windings can affect the PHASE and QUAD signals. [8]

There has been considerable new work completed in the last few years relating to the theoretical principles of EL
CID and its modelling [9], causing a review of the standard vector diagram. This has resulted in the conclusion
that this is simplistic and potentially misleading, since it fails to predict all the observed fault signals. In addition
there has been little consideration of the effect of core loss. Ridley [5] provided a more rigorous analysis based
on transformer theory, but still does not predict all results. The observed basic fault signals are that, for a fault
within the span of the Chattock, a core fault shows as a negative QUAD signal for a positive PHASE signal (and
vice-versa). In addition for an increasing QUAD fault signal, the PHASE signal increases in absolute amplitude
as well (regardless of polarity).

2. Original Vector Diagram

The original diagram in fig. 3a is given where
the excitation current induces a flux, generating
the fault voltage and resultant fault current. Flux produced by
Inductive effects cause this to lag the voltage, so Excitation Current
its components are analysed. This uses the
normal anti-clockwise phase rotation with the QUAD +ve
fault voltage induced as –N.d /dt, ie lagging the
flux. The common orientation of axes gives the
Fault Quadrature component
PHASE/QUAD vector directions in fig. 3b. Current of Fault Current
PHASE +ve
This interpretation must be wrong, in that it
results in the lagging Fault current reducing the Voltage induced across
damaged laminations
PHASE signal, whereas in practice it increases
it. However it is correct in showing a negative Fig. 3a Original vector diagram Fig. 3b P/Q axes
QUAD signal for a positive PHASE signal. In
addition it does not consider the effect of core loss on the flux with respect to excitation current, which is
significant.

3. Phase Analysis of the Excitation

The first key to the problem above is to recognise the
physical relationship of the Chattock sensor when used to
measure fault currents in a core. This is shown in fig. 4 Core
for a homogeneous core, where the m.p.d. measured by
the Chattock has contributions from the excitation current
and fault current spanned by the Chattock. However the
polarity of the detected excitation m.m.f. is inverted Excitation
compared with that from any fault current in the same
direction. This may be intuitively understood by
observing that the excitation is at the “back” of the
Chattock and should thus give an inverted signal, but is Chattock
better proved by considering the detected fields.
Core m.m.f
The magnetic fields are conventionally clockwise in fig. - +
4 for a notation of positive current and induced voltage
into the page, with the assumption of long current paths
so that Ampere’s law applies. The Chattock ends are Fault
identified +/- to define the detection of current fields. Fig. 4 Excitation and Chattock relationship
With high core iron permeability (typically 2000 at 4%
test levels) and uniform core, the great majority of the flux induced by the excitation current and fault in the iron
is constrained within the iron. This will give a circumferentially uniform flux density, thus the Excitation and
Fault m.m.f.s around the iron driving their fluxes must also be uniform at the surface. (A Chattock measurement
across a core surface measures the m.m.f. driving the flux in the underlying core.). From Ampere’s law, the
m.m.f. (in Ampere-Turns) around a closed path must equal the current enclosed, so the m.m.f.s around the core
from the fault and excitation fluxes must be the fault current vector F and the excitation current vector E.

-2-
When the Chattock spans a short section of core surface, its signal is the line integral of the ac magnetic field
along its length. Since the majority of the fault m.m.f. occurs in the air, this will be the sum of the fault m.m.f.
and the section proportions of the fault and excitation flux m.m.f.s. Thus the total closed path m.p.d. the
Chattock detects within its span, when set at an angle a (radians), is:
Excitation m.p.d. = - E.a/2π (note the Chattock polarity is opposite to the field)
Fault m.p.d. = F.(1-a/2π) (fault current and the proportion of the core fault flux m.m.f.)
Thus total m.p.d = F.(1-a/2π) - E.a/2π
Since a<<2π for single slot Chattock spans, total m.p.d ≈ F - E.a/2π

This proves that locally the Chattock essentially detects all the fault current m.m.f. and the inverse of the
circumferential proportion of the excitation current m.m.f. (This should not be taken to assume that the Fault
current is induced to flow in any particular direction or phase, only the magnitude and polarity of detection).

4. The EL CID Phase Reference

In order to complete the vector diagram, we need to understand the phase relationships of the EL CID detection
and reference system. EL CID uses a reference input derived from the excitation current, normally from a
Rogowski coil around the excitation wire(s). This provides a signal that is 90 lagging the excitation current
(–N.d /dt). Fortunately the Chattock Potentiometer is constructed similarly and also produces a signal 90
lagging the detected m.m.f. Since both delays are identical, rather than complicate the vector diagrams with these
two matching delays, they are assumed to cancel each other out with this justification.

EL CID is calibrated and Phase Reset before use by calibrating the Chattock in a standardised field of 1A-t, with
the field current also providing the Reference signal via the above Rogowski coil. This process rotates the
analysis phase reference (also nulling any phase errors) to record a positive PHASE value and exactly zero
QUAD value. For this study the measured Chattock Signal is resolved by the degree it leads/lags a Reference
derived from the excitation current, as is the normal practice in use.

For a fault-free homogenous core, the excitation m.m.f. induced by the excitation current does not vary
significantly in phase angle between the excitation winding and the core surface, thus the excitation signal
detected by the Chattock on the core surface is the same phase as the excitation current itself. It is not affected by
any leakage flux from the core since normally there is none. This is due to the fact that in a homogeneous core
with central excitation, the excitation m.m.f. is uniform around the core and only circumferential (as shown in
fig. 3), thus there is no m.m.f. up or down the teeth to cause flux leakage.

The Chattock detects the m.p.d. at the core surface that is driving the flux around inside the core and supporting
the losses in the core, not the flux in the core which may be lagging the excitation by 10-25 degrees due to core
loss (described later). In fact EL CID cannot normally detect this flux. It is for this reason that there is normally
very little change between completing Chattock calibration in the Calibration unit and any final Phase Reset
done on the surface of the core.

5. PHASE Resolution of EL CID

There is a further complication in that Digital EL CID records
the PHASE signal negatively to convention due to the way it
+P, +Q -P, +Q
was originally designed. For a Signal in-phase to the Reference
(and 0˚ Phase Reset offset), it displays a negative PHASE (and Leading Signal
zero QUAD) value. This was also the case with the original
Analogue EL CID. Reference

+P, -Q -P, -Q
If the Signal phase angle leads the Reference, the QUAD value
reads positive, thus QUAD is resolved conventionally. This
gives the quadrant diagram of EL CID polarity indications for
Fig. 5 EL CID phase resolution
PHASE (P) and QUAD (Q) readings in fig. 5.

-3-
6. The Impact of Core Loss on EL CID Detection
In a core under test, the flux significantly lags the
excitation m.m.f. due to hysteresis and eddy current 30
losses in the core, dependant on the type, age and grade
of the iron and also the excitation level. As an example, 25

Cogent Power Ltd electrical steel type M270-50A

Flux Phase lag (degrees)

20
assembled into a test core typical of a 30-50MW
machine, showed the variation of flux phase lag with low
15
levels of flux given in fig. 6. This shows that for the usual
region of EL CID testing (4% of full flux which is 10
typically 1T r.m.s. average per phase), a lag of 13-15
would be expected. Additionally, tests on a large modern 5
turbo-generator of 810MVA rating (unknown steel type)
showed a lag of 13 at the 4% test level. The effect of this 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
lag needs to be taken into account. Flux (Tessla rm s)

The earlier observation that EL CID cannot detect the Fig. 6 Flux lag wrt excitation for M270-50A steel
actual core flux has an exception with split cores in
hydro-generators. As shown in section 11, the m.m.f. across a split is dominated by the impedance of the loss-
less air gap, and the phase angle of the m.m.f. across the split slot will closely approach that of the flux. Since
Digital EL CID records the phase reset angle reference for each slot as well as the detailed PHASE and QUAD
values, it is possible to use the EL CID results to determine the approximate angle of the flux from the difference
in the fault-free readings between the main core (readings = excitation m.m.f. ) and the splits (readings ≈ core
flux). From a short survey of 6 split-core, hydro-generator EL CID results, values ranged from 8 to 28 , with
most in the 15-20 region.

7. The Full Normal Vector Diagram

This analysis strictly uses Phasors, not Vectors. However the term vector is retained for more common
understanding, and the conventional notation of counter-clockwise phase rotation is maintained. From the above
there are now a number of factors that need to be taken into account when constructing the full vector diagram
for a normal (i.e. homogenous) core.
a) The Chattock will invert the Excitation current m.p.d. detected,
b) There is typically a 15° lag of core flux ( ) to excitation current due to core loss,
c) The fault voltage induced is proportional to –d /dt, ie lagging the core flux.
d) The current in the fault will lag the fault voltage due to the fault’s inductance (depending on fault intensity),
e) The PHASE Reference is set so a zero QUAD signal is recorded w.r.t. the excitation current,
f) The EL CID recording will invert the conventional polarity of the PHASE signal, as per fig. 5.

From these a combined vector diagram can be drawn showing the addition of the Excitation m.m.f. and the
Induced fault m.m.f, resulting in a combined Chattock signal in fig 7a. The polarity and direction of the resolved
EL CID signals is shown in fig 7b. From this it can be seen that the PHASE signal mostly consists of the
Excitation current, and the QUAD signal is solely proportional to the induced Fault current.

Phase rotation
Resolved PHASE Excitation Current Excitation Current
signal at Chattock and Reference
Core loss
Induced Fault Current
Excitation Flux Ф
Resolved QUAD
signal QUAD +ve

Combined Chattock Induced Fault Voltage in

signal Quadrature to Flux
PHASE +ve

Fig. 7a Combined vector diagram Fig. 7b EL CID axes

-4-
This allows the observed phenomena to be fully explained. For a positive PHASE signal, the QUAD signal is
negative for a fault within the Chattock span. In addition, the presence of a modest fault (small inductive
element) causes a small increase in the PHASE signal, which increases substantially as the fault becomes more
severe due to inductive lag causing the induced fault current to become more in phase with the PHASE axis.

As variations and extra contributions are considered on the above diagram, it becomes more convenient if the
signals that are usually summed vectorially into a combined Chattock signal are instead drawn separately. Since
the EL CID system displays the resolved PHASE and QUAD values, not the combined vector, this allows an
easier understanding of the contribution to PHASE & QUAD values of each signal, especially since some may
be inverted depending on test configuration. The resultant component vector diagram is drawn in fig. 8.

Phase rotation
Excitation Current Excitation Current
at Chattock and Reference
PHASE
signal Core loss
Excitation Flux Ф
Induced Fault Current QUAD QUAD +ve
signal

Induced Fault Voltage in

Quadrature to Flux PHASE +ve

Fig. 8a Component vector diagram Fig. 8b EL CID axes

8. The Effect of Circulating Currents in Turbo-generator Windings

If windings are present, imbalanced voltages and hence circulating currents may be induced during an EL CID
test if there are closed paths within the stator windings. This might occur if each phase has two or more parallel
circuits, or if the three phase windings are shorted together at both the neutral and line ends. The dominant
impedance to circulating currents in windings is the self-inductance, which can be 10-100 times the resistance,
assuming that the circuit is due to robust connections. The self-inductance will remain large even when the rotor
is removed, and thus the circulating current may be expected to lag the induced winding voltage by >80 .
However the phase angle of the induced voltage imbalance needs to be determined.

In turbo-generators circulating currents are usually caused by off-centre excitation, which “over-excites” the
nearer region of core and induces circulating currents in windings in parallel. With normal central excitation the
m.m.f. is solely circumferential and with no radial m.m.f. there will be no flux flowing up/down any teeth. In this
case the excitation flux will induce balanced voltages of the same polarity on all conductors, so no net voltage
will appear on any winding.

If the excitation winding is off-centre, then the m.m.f.

around the core will not be uniform, so flux will be Excitation winding
induced to flow up/down the teeth, coupling the core
windings to the asymmetric excitation winding. In fig. 9 Local induction flux
this is shown in its simplest form with the flux drawn Generator winding
linking just one winding with the excitation, respecting
the field polarities of fig 3. (In practice this will be
much more complex, with multiple winding conductors
in series and multiple phases.)
Excitation flux Ф
The majority of the local induction flux path is in loss-
less air, which will thus dominate the path’s reluctance
and ensure this flux is in phase with the excitation
current m.m.f. The length of the air path will mean the Fig.9 Turbo-generator circulating current induction
flux levels and hence induced imbalance voltage will be
very low, however it has been seen that circulating currents measured in amperes rather than milli-amperes can
still be induced by severe off-centre excitation due to the very low winding impedances [8].

-5-
The impact on the vector diagram is dependant on whether the Chattock is spanning a slot that contains a
circulating current flowing in the same direction as that induced, or the opposite direction in a return slot. For
study it is assumed in the same direction. The induced voltage in the winding will be 90° lagging the excitation
current (local induction flux), and the resultant circulating current will lag the induced voltage by >80°.

The resultant full vector diagram is drawn in fig. 10, adding in the circulating current vectors. (The induced fault
current in phase with the voltage is deleted for clarity). From this it can be seen that the impact on the QUAD
readings will normally be small by comparison with the PHASE readings, with a small negative increase in
QUAD for substantial positive increase in PHASE (both inverted for currents flowing in reverse slots).

Excitation Current Phase rotation Excitation Current

at Chattock
and Reference
PHASE
signal Core loss
Induced Winding
Current Induced Winding Excitation Flux Ф
Voltage
Induced Fault Current
QUAD +ve
QUAD
signal

Induced Fault Voltage

PHASE +ve

Fig. 10 Vector diagram including circulating currents for turbo-generator

9. Circulating Currents in Hydro-generator Windings

The main asymmetries that cause circulating
currents in hydro-generators are local induction due
to off-centre excitation windings, and core splits
(joints). In addition, the greater prevalence of
parallel windings allows greater opportunity for
circulating currents. The still common method of
excitation of a large hydro-generator uses local
windings close wound at several places around the
core as shown in fig. 11a. This will cause the same
local induction into hydro-generator windings as an
off-centre turbo-generator excitation, thus will
follow the same analysis above. For this reason the
central excitation method shown in fig. 11b is
preferred if sufficient access can be achieved. The
great majority of the core in a hydro-generator is
substantially homogenous (similar to a turbo- Fig. 11a Fig. 11b
generator though usually with less clamping Common hydro excitation Preferred hydro excitation
pressure), and the analysis given earlier for a turbo-
generator can be equally applied.

However in larger hydro-generators, the presence of splits in the core causes the core magnetic circuit to have a
major discontinuity at these points. Cores may have two, three or more splits depending on size, with each split
central in a slot back or less commonly in a tooth centre, and circulating current is readily induced in generator
windings by these core splits. A common arrangement is shown for investigation in fig. 12 with the windings in
a slot at or near a core split. When the excitation winding is not in close proximity, the flux that induces
imbalanced voltages in the hydro-generator windings is the leakage flux around the split as the flux across it.
Since the core flux must cross the split, and the split is air and has no loss, the resultant m.p.d. and leakage flux
across the split is in phase with the core flux. The leakage flux linking the winding is normally a few % of the
core flux. If the split is in the tooth, then the split will still cause leakage flux induction of the two adjacent
windings, though to a lesser extent. (Again the situation is more complex in practice as split flux leakage will
also affect other windings in nearby slots to some extent).

-6-
In this case the winding net induced voltage will be
in opposite phase to that normally induced by the Generator winding Local induction (leakage) flux
excitation flux, since the leaking local induction
flux is flowing in the opposite direction around the
winding to the main core flux. The resultant normal
vector diagram is drawn in fig. 13, adding in the
circulating current vectors for a winding with the Excitation flux Ф
current flowing in the induced direction. It must be
stressed that this diagram is for slots sufficiently
distant from the split to not be directly affected by
the leakage flux, but which happen to include a Core split
generator winding that is carrying circulating
current in the same direction as that induced in the Fig. 12 Hydro-generator circulating current induction
winding at the split. The situation at the split is
discussed later.

From this it can be seen that the impact on the QUAD readings will again still be small, though potentially
greater than with turbo-generators. In this case it is possible, with a low resistance winding, for the circulating
current to induce a negative increase in QUAD signal for a negative increase in PHASE signal (again inverted
for currents flowing in reverse slots).

Induced Winding
Voltage

Excitation Current Phase rotation

Excitation Current
at Chattock and Reference
PHASE
signal Core loss
Induced Winding Current

Excitation Flux Ф

Induced Fault Current

QUAD QUAD +ve
signal

Induced Fault Voltage

PHASE +ve

Fig. 13 Vector diagram including split-induced hydro-generator circulating currents

10. The Vector Diagram for Hydro-generator Core Splits

This analysis will focus on the most common
situation where the split is in the slot base, as shown
Fault Chattock
schematically in fig. 14. The excitation winding is
not shown, but is assumed located centrally as
shown in fig. 11b. At a split slot, it is usual to detect
a much higher (10–20x) amplitude PHASE signal
than the rest of the core, and (unless a Phase Reset is
done at the split) a large standing QUAD signal of
the same polarity as the PHASE. Excitation flux Ф

The key difference to the previous analysis is the

excitation m.p.d. detected by the Chattock. In this Core split
case, the excitation m.p.d. will both include the
normal circumferential proportion of the excitation Fig. 14 Hydro-generator fault and Chattock relationship
current m.m.f. required to drive the desired flux
around the local core iron spanned by the Chattock, plus the m.m.f. needed to drive the same flux across the
split. Since the flux can only have a single phase angle, the m.m.f. across the (loss-less) split must be in phase
with the flux rather than the excitation current, whilst the m.m.f. across the slot iron will lead the flux due to iron
losses as demonstrated earlier.

-7-
To illustrate the relative magnitudes of these m.m.f.s, for an example in a core of 100mm slot pitch with a
0.5mm wide split and an iron relative permeability of 2000, the core split (air-gap) reluctance is 10x the non-split
iron. This will mean that a core loss m.m.f/flux lag of typically 20° will reduce to around 2° at the split.

11. Split Core Vector Diagram for Normal Phase Reset

From the above, the extra factors that need to be taken into account when constructing the vector diagram at a
core split are.
a. The Chattock will invert the detected Excitation current m.p.d. and split air-gap m.p.d.,
b. There is typically a 15-20° lag between core flux and excitation current m.m.f. in hydro-generator cores,
c. The m.p.d. driving the flux across the split will be in phase with the flux,
d. The PHASE Reference is normally set to the excitation current/m.m.f., not to the flux, by calibration in
Calibration Unit or Phase Reset to the core m.m.f. away from the split.

The resultant component vector diagram is drawn in fig. 15. In order to demonstrate the relative magnitude of
the Split m.p.d., the Excitation current m.m.f. has been scaled down.

PHASE Split QUAD

signal signal
Split m.p.d. at Chattock

Excitation Current Phase rotation

Excitation Current
at Chattock and Reference

QUAD +ve Core loss

Induced Fault Current

Fault QUAD Excitation Flux Ф
PHASE +ve signal

Induced Fault Voltage

Fig. 15 Final split core vector diagram

In this it can be seen that the effect of the large split m.m.f. is to generate a very large PHASE signal, and to
impose a substantial positive QUAD signal on top of any negative fault QUAD signals, both consistent with
practice. In addition, the amplitude of the imposed QUAD signal from the split will vary in direct proportion to
the size of the split. This will make analysis of any fault signal difficult, as splits are rarely uniform.

-8-
12. Vector Diagram for Phase Reset at Split
Due to the disturbance of the QUAD signal at splits, it has long been advised that users should perform a Phase
Reset with the Chattock placed across the split. This sets the Reference signal direction such that the effect of
split m.m.f. is minimised. When this is done in fig. 16, the Reference direction is rotated to make the combined
effect of the excitation and split m.m.fs on QUAD = zero. Thus the effective Phase Reference is the net vector of
Excitation current m.m.f. + Split m.m.f, and the Excitation Flux is now almost on the Reference axis.
Excitation Current
Phase rotation

Split m.m.f. at Core loss

Chattock Phase Reference
PHASE
signal
Excitation Current
at Chattock Excitation Flux Ф
QUAD +ve
QUAD
Induced Fault Current signal

PHASE +ve

Induced Fault Voltage

Fig. 16 Phase Reset split core vector diagram

This shows that the effect of variations in the split geometry affecting the QUAD signal are now much reduced.
Ideally the reference direction would be the Excitation flux itself, however this is not directly accessible to EL
CID other than by a flux search coil as Reference input.

13. Vector Diagram with Phase Reset at Split and Circulating Current in the Winding
Since the Induced Winding Voltage is orthogonal to the Flux it is nearly on the QUAD axis, thus the induced
current in the inductive winding shown in fig 17 will be almost on the PHASE axis. Depending on exact winding
impedances (resistive/reactive), there may be a small residual addition or subtraction to the detected QUAD
signal, but the effect on QUAD of circulating winding currents at the split, induced by the split, are usually
small.

Induced Winding
Voltage
Excitation Current

Phase rotation
Split m.m.f. at
Chattock Induced Winding Current

PHASE Phase Reference

signal
Excitation Current Excitation Flux Ф
QUAD +ve at Chattock
QUAD
Induced Fault Current
signal

Induced Fault Voltage

PHASE +ve

Fig. 17 Phase Reset split core vector diagram with circulating current

-9-
 14. Influence of Core Splits on Overall Excitation
The presence of core splits in hydro-generators will have an effect on the overall excitation. In an example of a
10m diameter generator (~30m active core circumference) with 2 core splits of 0.5mm gap and relative
permeability of 2000, the total impedance of the splits is equal to about another 2m of core iron. For the total
magnetic circuit of 2 air-gap splits and 2 iron sections, with core loss lag assumed at ~20°, the total m.m.f.
required to drive the test flux is shown in fig. 18.

Since the only source of m.m.f. in the system is the excitation current, this shows that the excitation current will
have slightly less lead on the core flux than the m.m.f. across the core sections, and the total current drawn will
moderately increase over a non-split identical core. In this case there will also be a small difference (~1-2°)
between a Calibration Phase Reset and a Phase Reset on the non-split core region.

Total Excitation m.m.f

m.m.f. across split m.m.f. across core section

Excitation flux Ф

Fig. 18 Split core excitation current vector diagram

15. Conclusions
This work completes a more rigorous study of the electromagnetic detection processes at work in the EL CID
test. The importance of (natural) core loss is shown in the analysis and how this affects the resolution of the fault
currents. The different methods whereby circulating currents can be induced and their effect on test results is
described. The fact that EL CID does not directly detect the excitation or fault flux but only the magnetic
potentials caused is demonstrated, and the impact on the test results shown. In the particular case of large split-
core hydraulic generators the impact of the split on the test results and any circulating currents is analysed, and
demonstrates how the recommended test techniques can greatly ameliorate the interfering effect of the large
m.m.f. at a split.

References
1. Taillon, J, “Experience with EL CID Test Values above the Acceptable Threshold”, EPRI – International Workshop on
Maintaining Integrity of Generator Cores, USA, November 2001.
2. Murray S. J. et al, “Modelling Fault Propagation in an Electric Generator Stator Core”, EPRI Generator Workshop,
Albuquerque, USA, July 2003.
3. UK Patent 2044936, “Method of and apparatus for testing laminated magnetic cores”, 1979.
4. Technical Brochure 257, “EL CID (Electromagnetic - Core Imperfection Detector) Testing of Large Steam-Turbine
Driven Generators”, CIGRE, Paris, 2004.
5. Ridley, G.K., “EL CID – Application and Analysis”, 2nd edition. Book published by ADWEL International Ltd, 2004,
ISBN 0-9539465-0-9.
6. Sutton, J., “Theory of Electromagnetic Testing of Laminated Stator Cores”, IEE Insight Vol. 36 No.4, April 1994.
7. Chattock, A.P., “On a Magnetic Potentiometer”, Phil. Mag. Vol. 24, No. 146, July 1887.
8. Bertenshaw, D. and Sutton, J., “Application of the EL CID Test with Circulating Currents in Stator Windings”,
Proceedings, Inductica, Berlin, 2004.
9. Bertenshaw D, Chan T, Smith S, Ho C, “Computational modelling of stator core faults in large hydro-generators and
turbo-generators”, Hydro 2004, Portugal

The Author
David Bertenshaw, Director of Product Development and UK Operations, ADWEL International Ltd.
David Bertenshaw holds a B.Sc. (Eng) degree in electrical engineering from Imperial College, London, is a FIEE and a
Chartered Eur. Ing. He has spent many years in the development of electrical and electronic lighting, control and
communications systems as an R&D Director, managing teams in the UK, USA and Italy. He joined ADWEL International
in 1998 to direct the European commercial operations and engineering of ADWEL’s stator core test systems. He has authored
20 conference papers and is inventor on 6 international patents.
Contact: Tel: +44 1923 254433, Fax: +44 1923 218278, Email: dbertenshaw@adwel.co.uk

Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support and valuable comments given by Derek Paley, John Sutton and especially
Kenneth Ridley.

- 10 -

View publication stats