Detection of Lamination Faults from Rotating
Magnetic Fields
J.C Akiror, Student member, IEEE and P. Pillay,
Fellow, IEEE
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Concordia University
Montreal, Qc, Canada
Abstract— Detection of lamination faults is key in the
prevention of more serious generator core damage. Localized
stator core faults occur frequently in rotational flux zones.
Therefore, this paper studies the behavior of rotational flux in
the presence of shorted laminations. Faults result in a
redistribution of the magnetic field across the sample and hence
the flux density distribution. Different sizes and positions of
faults are simulated. Moreover a fault is imposed between two
laminations and the associated rotational core losses measured.
Experimental results show a distortion in the measured magnetic
field with a 5% difference between the normal and faulted
rotational core losses samples.
Keywords—core losses; flux density; hydro generators;
lamination faults; rotational core losses; rotating flux
I. INTRODUCTION
Core faults in large hydro generators lead to localized hot
spots in the stator of the machine. The severity of this can lead
to more serious core damage, winding insulation failure and
eventual failure of the machine. In [1] and [2], the authors
discuss factors that initiate core faults, the fault growth
mechanisms and other factors that affect these faults usually
from mechanical or electrical action. Keybars are usually
welded to the stator frame to align lamination segments in the
core stack [3], in addition, they ground the core. However this
also provides a path for fault currents, where any failure of the
lamination insulation forms a closed path for the eddy currents
to flow between the shorted laminations.
Different methods have been used to detect faults. Most
methods involve exciting the core and measuring the induced
fault current, or using thermal imaging to view the hot spots
due to the fault currents. The ring flux test requires the stator to
be excited to 85% of the rated induction, to reproduce the flux
levels similar to a working machine [4]. An alternative to this
is, the high frequency ring flux test [5] where the stator is
excited at a higher frequency to achieve the same fault effects
with lower excitation current. The electromagnetic core
imperfection detection method (ELCID) uses a lower energy
level of 4% rated induction in the core and the fault is detected
using a Chattock coil. The above techniques are used on real
machine stator cores. More recently, other techniques have
been proposed to measure core faults on laminations. In [6]
This work was funded by the Bourses en milieu de pratique (BMP) -
Innovation Research Scholarship Program offered jointly by Fonds de
recherché du Québec – Nature et technologies (FRQNT) and Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
978-1-4673-7151-3/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
A. Merkhouf, Member, IEEE
Electric Equipment Unit
Hydro-Quebec Research Institute (IREQ)
Varennes, Qc, Canada
fault current fields are measured in faulted laminations using a
Hall sensor. In [7] the effect of faults in laminations is obtained
from core loss measurements using pick up coils. The
lamination stacks in both cases are excited with a set of coils
and a rotor like structure completes the flux path. The
associated core loss with fault conditions are dependent on the
location and number of faulted laminations. In [8], the variation
of core loss with the number of shorted laminations is found to
be 1.6% for twenty faulted laminations. While in [9] the
detector used measures 50% of the total fault current for forty
faulted laminations and 10% for five faulted laminations.
These references show the importance of the measurement
sensitivity of the used technique.
The reviewed literature only considers fault detection using
pulsating flux limited to the stator yoke or in the stator teeth.
Distribution of flux in the machine stator shows that over 60%
of the stator area contains rotational flux [10]. It is therefore
important to investigate the effect of core faults on rotational
flux and core losses. Moreover, shorting between laminations
in hydro generators commonly occurs at the back of the slots
[11], where rotational flux exists. Rotational core losses are a
potential source of localized heating in the stator core. When
laminations are shorted due to insulation failure, the localized
heating of the core increases with the number of shorted
laminations. This paper investigates the effect of shorted
laminations on rotational flux density distribution and
rotational core losses. This provides an understanding of the
flux distribution in the core of stators and transformers if a fault
occurs where rotational flux exists. In section II, a rotational
core loss test rig is modeled for simulations. Section III
analyses different fault sizes and their effect on the flux
distribution. Section IV presents the experimental setup and
measurement of the faults. Section V concludes the paper.
II. FEA MODELING
The single sheet rotational test rig in [12] was modeled in
3D FEA as shown in Fig. 1. It was designed to measure
rotational core losses in a 200mm diameter sample using the
field metric method. The magnetizing field is provided by two
sets of orthogonal windings in each pole arranged as a
Halbach array. Two sets of flux density (B) coils are wrapped
around the sample in the X and Y directions. The field
6102
 intensity (H) coils are placed above and below the sample in a
50mm by 50mm measurement area at the center of the sample.
The measurement of the field quantities averages the material
effects within the sample measurement area. The 3D model of
Fig. 1 has two samples, with each having a thickness of
0.3556mm and a spacing of 0.05mm between them to account
for surface insulation on the samples. The material assigned to
both the poles and the sample is non oriented M15G29. Non-
linear B-H curve and core loss measured data were imported
for the material properties. The material permeability,
magnetic coercivity, conductivity, permittivity are assumed to
be isotropic. It is possible to consider anisotropic materials
with separately defined tensors relative to the coordinate
system. However this requires material property data in all the
axes that is currently unavailable.
Fig. 1. 3D model of the test rig with two laminations, the red shows the y
coils and the blue the x coils
1.6
Flux density (T)
The poles where modeled as a block with a stacking factor
of 0.96 considering the stacking in the z-direction. This
simplifies the entire model from being drawn as separate
lamination layers because only the samples are modelled as
individual laminations. Moreover reducing the memory
requirement, meshing and simulation time. Phase windings are
designed as bars whose height is slightly longer than the poles.
Each bar is given a current direction and the same number of
conductors to model the turns per coil before assigning it to a
winding. This further reduces the simulation time compared to
when the end windings and individual number of turns are
modelled. The effect of the end windings and the winding
impedance can be added in the external circuit. In the
simulations, currents are directly assigned to the windings. A
fine mesh of 2mm for the samples was sufficient for both
computation and simulation time. Eddy current effects were
also enabled in the samples to include the actual effects in the
material. A nonlinear transient solver is selected for a
simulation run of one cycle, with a time step of 5.2e-4s.
The experimental setup was designed to hold only one
lamination. Therefore adding another lamination causes the
samples to be unsymmetrically centered with respect to the
pole depth. Simulations were necessary to compare the effect
of adding another sample. The flux density plots in the middle
of the sample along measurement lines in both the X and Y
directions are used for comparison. Fig 2 shows that the flux
density profile is the same in the measurement region in both
directions. The magnitude of the flux density with two
samples was reduced by 0.47% compared to that of one
sample. An additional sample requires more exciting current
to achieve the same flux density level as in the single sample.

A comparison of the flux density distribution in both the upper

1.5 and lower samples was also done to ensure uniformity of the
1 lamination - X
flux density and field intensity in both samples. Simulation
1 lamination - Y
results in Fig 3 showed that the addition of another lamination
2 laminations - X
does not affect the uniformity in both samples. Both samples
2 laminations - Y had the same magnitude and distribution of flux density with
1.4 no effect of the z-offset on the second sample. Measurements
0 40 80 120 160 200
Sample diameter (mm) of H above and below both samples also showed no effect of
Fig. 2. Comparison of flux density distribution across the sample in the X stacking
and Y directions using one and two samples
1.6 III. LAMINATION FAULT ANALYSIS
Localized faults were modeled by creating a short between
the two samples in the location of the fault. Different positions
and sizes of the faults as shown in Fig. 4 were simulated.
Flux density (T)

Contact resistance between the laminations is a function of the

1.5
area of contact. In the FEA simulation contact resistance was
2 laminations - X not included mainly because at the point of fault there is
2 laminations - Y continuity between the laminations. This negates the need to
define contact resistance. Fault A with a 20mm diameter is
Upper sample - X
implemented on the x and y axes at 30mm from the middle of
Upper sample - Y the sample on x and 70mm from the middle of the sample on y.
1.4 This simulates the effect of fault position either near or further
0 40 80 120 160 200 from the center of the sample. Fault B shows the effect of
Sample diameter (mm) having the fault away from the measurement axes in addition to
Fig. 3. Comparison of the flux density distribution across the sample in the X
and Y direction in the lower and upper samples

6103

C the magnetization direction changes, the flux density
A
Y effect as the smaller faults with one side of the fault having a
B
X
Fig. 4. Sample with location and size of different faults; A is 20mm
diameter; B is 40mm diameter; C is 140mm
considering an increase in the fault size, while fault C shows
the effect of the size of the fault.
Fig. 5 shows the B distribution on the samples when the
flux vector is aligned with the X and Y axes for different fault
locations and size. All figures are plotted on the same scale. Fig
5 a) has no fault and shows the B distribution across the sample
under normal operation. It can be seen that the flux density is
mostly uniform across the sample except for the edges with
lower flux density. Fig 5 b) and c) show fault A in two
locations and fault C respectively. The presence of a fault
causes the flux density distribution to be non-uniform within
and around the fault area. As the B vector rotates, these regions
of non-uniformity also rotate therefore affecting the area in and
around the fault. The size of the area affected by the fault is
also dependent on the magnetization direction and if there are
other faults close to each other as in Fig 5 b). This is because as
distribution around the fault changes and an interaction
between two adjacent faults can cause a redistribution of the
flux within the sample. A large fault as in Fig 5 c) has the same
higher flux density and the other having a lower flux density.
The flux density across the sample was measured using a
line in the middle of the sample while field intensity was
measured on the surface of the sample. The flux density in the
middle of the lower sample is plotted in Fig. 6 showing both
the X and Y directions for each of the simulated faults to
quantify their effect on flux density. The figures are plotted at
one time instant when the flux vector is in the x direction.
Each of the faults show unique flux density signatures in the
fault locations. In general a fault lowers the flux density in its
position. For fault B, which is not aligned with any axes also
shows an effect on the flux density on both the x and y - B
plots. The flux density profile plotted therefore is located
outside the fault region. As noted in the flux distribution in Fig.
5, the fault alters the distribution of the flux in the areas around
the fault hence the observed variation in B in fault B shown in
Fig.6.
H on the surface of the sample is for all the fault cases is
plotted in Fig. 7. It was observed that the presence of a fault
results to spiking of H along the fault edges as shown by fault.
A and C. It should be noted that the traces are at one time
instant in the cycle. An average of H for one cycle shows no

a) b) c)
Fig. 5. Flux density distribution in the sample with the flux vector aligned to; the – X axis for figures above and aligned to the
Y axis for figures below a) No fault in the sample, b) With fault A on the X and Y axis 30 and 40mm from the center of the
sample, c) With fault aligned to the X axis

6104
 900 160
No fault
Fault A on X
Fault B
800 120
Flux density (mT)

Fault C

Current density (kA/m2)

700 80

No fault
Fault A on X
600 40
Fault B
Fault C
500 0
0 40 80 120 160 200
0 50 100 150 200 Sample diameter (mm)
Sample diameter (mm)
a) Fig. 8. Flux density magnitude in the middle of the lower sample with the
flux vector in the – X direction a) In the X direction b) In the Y direction
900
40.9kA/m2, 23kA/m2, 75.2kA/m2 for fault A, fault B and fault
C respectively. The main limitation in simulation analysis is
800 that the average flux density across the samples was not
controlled which is usually the case with rotational core loss
Flux density (mT)

experimental measurements.
700
No fault IV. EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT
Fault A on Y From the numerical results, faults are significant but are
600
Fault B difficult to measure using coils that average the field
Fault C quantities. Smaller faults may not appear in the captured field
measurements hence only fault C was considered. M15G29
500
0 50 100 150 200 samples are cut to 200mm diameter for measurement. Because
Sample diameter (mm) of the power requirement and rating of the test rig windings,
b) the maximum number of laminations that can be stacked is 2.
Fig. 6. Flux density magnitude in the middle of the lower sample with the
flux vector in the – X direction a) In the X direction b) In the Y direction
Two sets of samples are prepared, one with no fault and the
1.2 other with a fault imposed. The fault was modeled by
No fault removing the surface insulation as shown in Fig. 9. The
Fault A on Y samples are then brought into contact and twenty turns of B-
Magnetic field intensity (kA/m)

Fault B
Fault C coils wrapped around them in the X and Y directions. Twenty
0.8 turns of B-coils are also wrapped around another set of two
laminations without a fault and around one lamination. These
are used for comparison on the effect of the fault. The 240
turns of the H-coils are wrapped around a former to cover a 50
0.4 by 50mm area and placed above and below the samples. Fig
10 shows the samples placed for measurement in the Halbach
array test rig. The test setup consists of two amplifiers for
driving the x and y windings whose input signals are
0 controlled from the computer via DSpace software as shown
0 50 100 150 200
Sample diameter (mm) in Fig. 11. Bx,y and Hx,y sensors are fed back to the computer
Fig. 7. Flux density magnitude in the middle of the lower sample with the via DSpace and used to show the level of magnetization
flux vector in the – X direction a) In the X direction b) In the Y direction
therefore allowing the control of the magnitude and phase shift
significant difference between the fault and no fault cases. The of the Bx and By waveform in addition to data acquisition.
current density magnitude on the x axis in the middle of the These signals are later used to calculate core losses using (1).
lower sample was also plotted as shown in Fig. 8. The eddy
currents in the sample can be visualized from the current
1 § dB x dB y ·
density plots. These eddy currents increase in the presence of a
fault when compared to the no fault case. The increase is
P=
Tρ ³ ¨¨© H
T
x
dt
+ Hy ¸ dt
dt ¸¹
(1)

visible in the fault locations. The average current density over

the entire sample with no fault is 12.9kA/m2 compared to Where P is the total rotational core loss, T is the period, ȡ is

6105
 directions and the total core losses obtained as an average of
both measurements. This average value reduces any sensor
Fault induced errors in the measurement.
A. One lamination verses two laminations
The first set of measurements is done to validate the ability
of the test bench to measure losses for two samples. This is
done by comparing the rotational core loss when one and two
laminations are used. Fig. 12 shows that the losses with one
and two samples is the same. Both measurements are at 60Hz.
However because of the limitation of the amplifiers the
maximum B for two laminations is restricted to 1T.
B. Faulted verses no fault laminations
The total core loss is obtained from calculating the area of
the measured B and H field quantities in the x and y. The
measured Bx,y waveforms at 1T in the CW and CCW direction
are shown in Fig. 13. For both the no fault and fault cases, the
a) b) measured flux density is sinusoidal and the presence of the
Fig. 9. Samples a) without fault b) with fault fault cannot be observed. This is mainly because in the
12
H coils
1 lam

Specific loss (W/Kg) 2 lams

8

B coils
4

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Magnetizing Flux density (T)
coils Fig. 12. Comparison of core losses for one lamination and two laminations.
measurements, Bx,y are controlled to ensure the flux vector is
Fig. 10. Rotational test rig with the sample and B-H coils installed rotating. In addition, the B-coils measure the average induced
field over the entire sample which make the fault signatures on
the B unnoticeable. Fig. 14 shows the Hx and Hy in the CW

CW Bx - no fault
1
Flux density (T)

CW Bx - fault
CCW Bx - no fault
0 CCW Bx - fault

DSpace Amplifiers
-1

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

Time(s)
CW By - no fault
1 CW By - fault
Flux density (T)

CCW By - no fault
Halbach set up 0
CCW By - fault

-1

Fig. 11. Rotational test setup 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Time(s)
the material mass density. Rotational core losses are measured Fig. 13. Flux density from the Bx,y sensors in the clockwise and
in the clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) counterclockwise direction for the fault and no fault condition.

6106
and CCW directions for both the fault and no fault cases. The Fig 15 shows the associated core losses for fault C. Total
sample’s rolling direction is aligned with the x axis hence the rotational core losses are often considered as an average of the
lower values of Hx. The fault is aligned to the y axis hence the losses in the CW and CCW losses, this reduces the errors due
higher distortion in the Hy than the Hx fields. Generally, the to the sensor alignment. The average losses of the faulted case
faulted case shows a distortion in the H especially on the y are higher than the no fault case albeit by a 5% difference. The
axis where the fault is located. magnitude and effect of the fault on core losses is dependent
on the increased eddy currents. These eddy currents increase
The interference of the increased eddy currents in the
with the number of laminations with a fault and the operating
presence of the fault cause this distortion in the measured H.
frequency. The measurements were done for two samples, at
This distortion is dependent on the amount of eddy currents
60Hz. An investigation of a larger number of laminations and
the fault induces. Comparing simulated and measured results,
higher frequencies is required for further verification.
simulated results show a distortion in the B distribution across
the sample and minimum distortion in the H. The Increased eddy currents due to a fault caused an observable
experimental results show a distortion in the measured H and distortion in the measured H. This implies that techniques to
no distortion in the B. This difference is because the detect lamination faults can be developed based on the
simulation results show localized while in experiments, B is measured distorted H fields. In addition rotational core losses
determined from the induced voltage in the B coils. This EMF also increase with the presence of a fault.
from the coils averages the flux density along the length of B-
coils, hence B fault signatures are not visible. Moreover, the V. CONCLUSION
flux average flux density in the sample is controlled in The effect of size and position of faults on the rotating flux
experimental measurements. The local H measurements on the density has been examined using numerical simulations.
surface of the sample in simulation also shows some fault Results showed that the presence of the fault causes non
signatures. The experimentally measured H however shows uniform distribution of B in the sample depending on the size
more significant distortion since it is uncontrolled in relation and location of the fault. In addition the area around the fault
to B therefore responds to the presence of a fault. is also affected by the fault size and magnetization direction.
Interaction of the faults close to each other can also contribute
to more non-uniform flux density distributions. A fault was
Field intensity (A/m)

200 CW Hx - no fault
CW Hx - fault implemented on real laminations and the associated losses
0 measured at 60Hz up to 1T. A comparison of no fault and fault
conditions between two laminations showed less than 5%
-200 difference in the associated rotational core losses. However,
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 the measured fields in the presence of a fault are distorted, this
Time(s)
can be used as an indication of the presence of a fault.
CW Hy - no fault
Field intensity (A/m)

500
CW Hy - fault

-500

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

Time(s) CW - No Fault
8
400 CCW - No Fault
Field intensity (A/m)

CCW Hx - no fault Average - No Fault

200 CCW Hx - fault CW - Fault
CCW - Fault
0 6
Average - Fault
Loss (W/Kg)

-200

-400 4
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Time(s)
CCW Hy - no fault
Field intensity (A/m)

500
CCW Hy - fault
2
0

-500 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Time(s)
Time(s)
Fig. 15. Rotational core losses in the CW and CCW directions for fault and
Fig. 14. Magnetic field intensity for faulted and no fault laminations in the
no fault cases.
clockwise and counterclockwise direction.

6107
 REFERENCES
[1] P. Tavner and A. Anderson, "Core faults in large generators," IEE
Proceedings - Electric Power Applications, vol. 152, no. 6, pp. 1427-
1439, 2005.
[2] G. Stone, I. Culbert, E. Boulter and H. Dhirani, Electrical insulation for
rotating machines: Design, Evaluation, Aging,Testing and Repair, Wiley
& Sons Inc., 2014.
[3] M. Znidarich, "Hydro generator stator cores part 1- constructional
features and core losses," in Australasian Universities Power
Engineering Confernce AUPEC, Sydney, 2008.
[4] H. Tomlinson, "Interlaminar insulation test for synchronous machine
stators," Power apparatus and systems, vol. 71, no. 1, 1952.
[5] J. Sutton, "Method and apparatus for testing laminated cores of electrical
machines". Patent US 20030117144 A1, 26 June 2003.
[6] R. Romary, S. Jelassi and J. Brudny, "Stator interlaminar fault detection
using an external flux density sensor," IEEE Transactions on industrial
electronics, vol. 57, no. 1, 2010.
[7] S. Nazrulla, E. Strangas, J. Agapiou and T. A. Perry, "A device for the
study of electrical steel losses in stator lamination stacks," IEEE
Transactions on industrial electronics, vol. 61, no. 5, 2014.
[8] G. B. Kliman, S. B. Lee, M. R. Shah, M. Lusted and N. K. Nair, "A new
method for synchronous generator core quality evaluation," IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 19, no. 3, 2004.
[9] R. Romary, C. Demian, P. Schlupp and J. Roger, "Offline and Online
methods for stator core fault detection in large generators," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 9, 2013.
[10] J. Akiror, A. Merkhouf, C. Hudon and P.Pillay, "Consideration of design
and operation on rotational flux density distributions in hydro generator
stators," in International Conference on Electrical Machines, Berlin,
Germany, 2014.
[11] M. Znidarich, "Hydro generator stator cores Part 2 - Core losses,
degradation mechanisms,testing and specification," in Australasian
universities power engineering conference (AUPEC), 2008.
[12] N. Alatawneh and P. Pillay, "Design of a novel test fixture to measure
rotational core losses in machine laminations," IEEE Industry
Applications Society, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1467-1477, 2012.

6108