This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
Incipient Broken Rotor Bar Detection in Induction
Motors Using Vibration Signals and the
Orthogonal Matching Pursuit Algorithm
Carlos Morales-Perez, Graduate Student Member, IEEE, Jose Rangel-Magdaleno , Senior Member, IEEE,
Hayde Peregrina-Barreto, Member, IEEE, Juan Pablo Amezquita-Sanchez,
and Martin Valtierra-Rodriguez, Member, IEEE
Abstract— A methodology for automatic incipient broken rotor
bar detection in induction motors (IMs) is presented. Sparse
representations of signals are applied as a diagnosis technique.
The novelty of this technique is that it can analyze the fre-
quency spectra from vibration signals even when the differences
among signals are small. This representation allows decompos-
ing or reconstructing signals through a trained dictionary that
has learned the features of one specific group/class. The main
feature of this paper is the use of overcomplete dictionaries
trained from sets of signals with faults to be detected. In this
way, trained dictionaries perform the decomposition of signals
using the orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) algorithm. The
decomposition is evaluated and classified by error-based criteria
and a majority decision classifier, allowing the detection of early
damage, ranging from 1 mm to one broken bar. The detection
is performed by the decomposition of vibration signals from
three axes (x, y, and z) of IMs under three load conditions
(unloaded, half loaded, and three-fourths loaded) and different
levels of damage (healthy or 0 mm, 1–9 mm, and one broken bar).
These signals are processed by the Fourier transform and the
spectrum obtained is evaluated by the OMP algorithm. Finally,
the retrieved information is evaluated and the diagnosis is given.
All algorithms are developed in MATLAB software and the
detection accuracy is higher than 90% for damages as small
as 1 mm.
Index Terms— Algorithm, broken rotor bar (BRB), fault detec-
tion, induction motor (IM), orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP),
signal classification, sparse representation, vibration signal.
I. I NTRODUCTION
N OWADAYS induction motors (IMs) are frequently used
in the industry for a number of reasons, including their
low cost, reliability, and fast installation. The extensive use
Manuscript September 9, 2017; revised January 23, 2018; accepted
February 22, 2018. The Associate Editor coordinating the review process was
Dr. Yuhua Cheng. (Corresponding author: Jose Rangel-Magdaleno.)
C. Morales-Perez and J. Rangel-Magdaleno are with the Electronics
Department, National Institute for Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics,
Puebla 72840, Mexico (e-mail: carlosj.morales@inaoep.mx; jrangel@
inaoep.mx).
H. Peregrina-Barreto is with the Computer Science Department, National
Institute for Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics, Puebla 72840, Mexico
(e-mail: hperegrina@inaoep.mx).
J. P. Amezquita-Sanchez and M. Valtierra-Rodriguez are with the ENAP-
Research Group, Autonomous University of Queretaro, Santiago de Querétaro
76806, Mexico (e-mail: jamezquita@uaq.mx; martin.valtierra@enap-rg.org).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIM.2018.2813820
0018-9456 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
of IMs requires the maintenance programs to be accurate
since faults during an operation could lead to catastrophic
effects, generating time, and economic losses. A common fault
in IMs involves broken rotor bars (BRBs). This fault can
be attributed to different causes, ranging from manufacturing
defects to operating environments and conditions, among
others. Regardless of the cause, a BRB is an important fault
that should be dealt at an early stage; otherwise, the damage
can gradually increase until the IM becomes totally dam-
aged. In addition, bearing faults, ruptures in other bars, and
increases in electrical consumption are common, and these can
contribute to a rapid and dramatic decrease in the structural
integrity of IMs.
A BRB is one of the most difficult faults to detect.
As discussed earlier, this fault may cause other anomalies in
IMs. One of the most frequently used detection techniques
is the motor current signal analysis (MCSA) [1]–[6]. Many
techniques based on measuring stator current have been pro-
posed. Some of these include resampling [7], principal com-
ponent analysis [8], empirical mode decomposition [9]–[11],
zero-sequence current [12]–[14], generalized likelihood ratio
test [15], filtered parks vector approach and filtered extended
park’s vector approach [16], frequency estimators [17]–[19],
fuzzy logic [20], mutual inductances analysis [21], principal
slot harmonics tracking [22], Prony method [23], and rotor
current analysis [24]. All of these use spectral information
obtained by fast Fourier transform (FFT) [25] or by one of its
variants [26] in order to analyze information in the frequency
domain and to detect the fault.
Another technique used instead of the FFT to obtain
the fault diagnosis in the frequency domain is the dis-
crete wavelet transform [27]–[30] or Hilbert transform [31].
Nevertheless, the diagnosis of BRBs is not exclusively limited
to the stator current analysis. The external magnetic field
analysis [32], air-gap torque analysis [33], vibrations signals
analysis (VSA) [34]–[38], or infrared data analysis [39] can
also be applied. Although these techniques do detect BRBs,
their diagnoses are limited to either one or two broken bars
and, only in very accurate cases, to partial damage [19], [40].
The signal decomposition analysis (SDA) [41] offers an
alternative to detect accurate characteristics of the sig-
nals that are difficult to detect by using other techniques.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
The decomposition of signals is a widely studied area in com-
pressive sensing reconstruction [42], [43], and this topic has
proven its efficiency in decomposing or reconstructing signals
based on different algorithms such as the orthogonal matching
pursuit (OMP) [44] to perform the decomposition, and the
K-singular value decomposition (K-SVD) algorithm [45] to
obtain dictionaries.
In this paper, a new methodology is proposed to detect
BRBs in IMs by analyzing the sparse representation of the
frequency spectra (obtained by FFT) from vibration signals
and evaluating the information by a criterion and a classifier.
This is possible through dictionaries trained from spectra sets
with specific faults. The obtained spectra from IMs are then
introduced to the OMP algorithm, which performs the decom-
position with all the dictionaries obtained, which contain the
necessary information to perform the diagnosis. A criterion
and a classifier are used to obtain the diagnosis; the former
is error based, whereas the latter is by majority decision. The
criterion is proposed from the minimal decomposition error
given by the dictionary belonging to the group of the spectrum.
The classifier helps to increase the accuracy of the proposed
technique, which uses three axes of vibration signals. The third
axis classification does not negatively affect the result if it is
a different classification. Early detection, even from 1 mm
of damage, is possible with more than 90% accuracy using
the proposed technique. This helps for planning maintenance
programs based on the early detection, extending the useful
life of the IM and reducing the financial losses.
II. V IBRATION A NALYSIS
It is well known that BRBs can cause dissymme-
try in rotors [35]. Detection of BRBs is possible by
MCSA [46] or VSA [35] and by using the FFT in a preprocess-
ing stage since the spurious spectral components appear as the
dissymmetry increases. The VSA is possible due to this fault
creates disturbances in the magnetic field that causes several
vibration in the machine. In the other words, if a broken bar
is present, the current in this bar does not circulate; therefore,
its magnetic field is not created and the magnetomotive forces
become unbalanced, increasing the vibrations [36], [47], [48].
For that reason, this condition is considered a mechanical
fault [35]. The unbalance in the magnetomotive forces injects
spurious components. These spurious components can be
found close to the main frequency f s as stated in the following
equation:
f bLk = f s (1 − 2ks)
f b Rk = f s (1 + 2ks)
where f bLk is the spurious left frequency, f b Rk is the spurious
right frequency, k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., and s is the asynchronous slip.
As the amplitude of the spurious components increases,
so does the damage (see Fig. 1), in addition to this,
the mechanical load can also modify their position (see Fig. 2).
The spurious components are very close to the main frequency
when the IM does not have a mechanical load. In real
conditions, these cases impede the detection of the fault if
the rupture is beginning since the component is absorbed by
Fig. 1. Example of variations of the spurious components in the power
spectral density (PSD), under half-loaded and IM damage levels. (a) Healthy
bar. (b) Half-broken bar. (c) One broken bar.
Fig. 2. Example of variations of the spurious components in the PSD, under
IM mechanical loads. (a) Unloaded. (b) One-half loaded. (c) Three-fourths
loaded.
the leakage produced by the FFT around the main frequency.
On the other hand, faults are easily detected when the damage
and mechanical load increase because the amplitude of the
spurious components increases and moves away from the main
component [36], [37].
Generally, fault detection using VSA is difficult to perform
by traditional techniques because the vibrations do not only
have the signals of IMs, but they also have other undesirable
components from the environment (electrical noise, building
vibration and sounds, and among others) which can hide
the components of interest, especially if these have a small
amplitude.
III. S PARSE R EPRESENTATION OF A S IGNAL
Sparse representation provides the representation of a signal
in its linear combination of elements, as stated in

m
x = Dα + r = α[i ]di + r (2)
i=1
where x ∈ Rn is the signal to decompose, D = {d1 ,
d2 , . . . , dm } ∈ Rn×m is the dictionary matrix with m atoms
(elemental signals), α ∈ Rm is the sparse vector that provides
the decomposition, r ∈ Rn is the residual of reconstruction,
and α[i ] ∈ R and di ∈ Rn are the i th sparse coefficient and
(1) atom, respectively. Thus, the signal x can be decomposed
in some atoms from D contained in the sparse vector α.
In this way, (2) can be applied and the reconstruction is
possible (see Fig. 3). In other words, the original signal can
be represented by fewer nonzero α coefficients (see Fig. 3).
The goal of the sparse representation is to provide a version
of the original signal with the fewest possible atoms. Thus,
the reconstruction efficiency depends on the trained dictionary
and on the computation of sparse coefficients. This problem
is solved by several algorithms, namely, the K-SVD for dic-
tionary training and the OMP for sparse vector computation.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

MORALES-PEREZ et al.: INCIPIENT BRB DETECTION IN IMs USING VIBRATION SIGNALS AND THE OMP ALGORITHM 3

specify the -norm to be used to compute the decomposition

Fig. 3. Signal representation. (a) Spectrum. (b) Sparse representation of the
spectrum.
A. Orthogonal Matching Pursuit Algorithm
The OMP algorithm helps to solve the optimization problem
stated in (3). It selects the atoms that best represent some parts
of the energy of the original signal and seeks to obtain the
smallest possible value of the residual r
argmin x − Dα s.t. α0  m.
α
Under ideal conditions, r = 0, but this is not possible
since the solutions for (3) are subject to quantization errors.
That means that numerical errors are present during the
computation. However, if we use this residual condition, it is
possible to assume that x = Dk α, where Dk ∈ Rn×k is
a submatrix that contains k atoms to reconstruct a desired
signal x, so α = Dk−1 x. The equation is correct by definition,
but the goal of sparse representation is that k < n and k  m.
Otherwise, Dk is not square, and the inverse matrix cannot be
computed by traditional techniques.
A solution to this problem is
α = Dk† x
error (e). Once the computation ends, the algorithm retrieves
the obtained sparse vector (αk ), the positions of the selected
atoms (Sk ), the computed residual (rk ), and the calculated
decomposition error (e). The algorithm executes the three
initial conditions shown in step 1. The first condition is
r0 = x, and it indicates that the signal is preparing for
the decomposition; the second condition, D0 = ∅, refers
to any atom that has been selected; and finally, the third
condition, j = 0, indicates that a program counter is starting.
This algorithm uses two stop criteria (step 2). The first and
main criterion is because the decomposition can be limited
to a maximum number of atoms. The second or auxiliary
criterion is only to avoid an infinite loop. In other words, if an
atom is selected more than once consecutively, the algorithm
will adequately end, because it has reached the maximum
decomposition.
Next, the program counter is increased (step 3) and the
(3) j th iteration is set. Then, the atom with the maximum absolute
correlation with the residual is found (step 4) and the obtained
index s j is saved. This is because, this atom contains some
parts of the energy of the original signal, so the atoms and the
corresponding index are saved in S j (step 5) and D j (step 6),
respectively. After that, the signal reconstruction is computed
using the current D j α (step 7), and then, the residual is
obtained (step 8). Stop criteria are evaluated in step 9.
B. K-Singular Value Decomposition Algorithm
A successful decomposition depends on providing an accu-
rate basis. This is the main goal of the K-SVD algo-
rithm, which provides the basis from a training set of
(4) signals (X) [45]. The K-SVD solves

where Dk† ∈ Rk×n is the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse argmin X − Dα s.t. α0 ≤ k (5)
α,D
of Dk . Then, under high-performance conditions r → 0,
satisfying (4). This means that the sparse representation of where X ∈ R M×n is the training set with M signals, D is
a signal can be found. the dictionary to train, α is the sparse vector, and α0 is
the pseudonorm 0 . The K-SVD applies a process known
as dictionary learning [41], which adapts a dictionary to
Algorithm 1 OMP
recognize the particular features from the X set.
Require: D, x, k, and .
Ensure: αk , Sk , rk , and e.
Algorithm 2 K-SVD
1: r0 = x, D0 = ∅, and j = 0.
2: while ( j < k and s j  = s j −1 ) do
Require: D0 , X, and K .
3: j = j +1 Ensure: Dk .
1: for k = 1 to K do
4: s j = argmax |r j −1 di |
i=1,...,m 2: Use OMP to obtain α
5: S j = S j −1 ∪ s j 3: for j = 1 to m do
6: D j = [D j −1 ds j ] 4: ω = {l ∈ 1, 2, . . . , M, αk [ j, l] = 0}
7: argmi nx − D j α j  5: αω [ j, ω] = 0
αj
8: rj = x − Djαj 6: R = X ω − Dk αω
9: end while 7: [U V ] = SV D(R)
rk 
10: e = x
8: d j ∈ Dk = u 1
 9: α j ∈ αk = v 1 (1, 1)
10: end for
The steps to obtain the sparse representation of a signal are 11: end for
described in Algorithm 1. First, it is necessary to provide a
dictionary (D), the signal to decompose (x), and the maximum The steps to perform the K-SVD are shown in Algorithm 2.
number of atoms (k) to decompose the signal, and then to This process uses an initial dictionary of random values D0 ,
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
Fig. 4. Methodology. (a) Used for the dictionary training process. (b) Used for the SDA.
Fig. 5. Vibrations signal in (a) time domain and (b) frequency domain.
a training set X, and K iterations. The algorithm returns the
trained dictionary D K . Further information about the K-SVD
algorithm is found in [41] and [45].
IV. M ETHODOLOGY
The proposed methodology (see Fig. 4) consists of obtaining
vibration signals from an IM by using a triaxial accelerometer
[vibration element (VE)]. These signals are contained and
converted to digital format [data acquisition system (DAS)] in
order to store them in a computer. Then, the vibration signal is
processed, decomposed, and evaluated to finally give the fault
diagnosis.
A. Dictionary Obtaining Process
The dictionary training process is shown in Fig. 4(a). As can
be observed, the process is composed of three main blocks:
absolute FFT (|FFT|), trimming and normalization (T&N), and
the K-SVD algorithm. The process is described as follows.
1) The process starts with the vibration signals acquisition
from the IM. The signals are acquired by a DAS.
2) The set of FFT signals is computed and its absolute
value is obtained for simplicity and convenience. The
vibration signals are better analyzed in the frequency
domain (see Fig. 5) since the spurious frequencies close
to the main frequency can be detected (1).
3) Spectra (|X|) are trimmed in the 40–552-Hz range (for
this paper), and are then normalized for simplicity and
convenience. This range is selected due to the fault
distorts the air-gap magnetic field which intensifies the
vibration, and finally, injects harmonics in different
ranges of frequencies [35], [36], [47], [48]. Accordingly,
it was detected that most of the information regarding
BRBs are stored within this range. This helps to reduce
the amount of data and focus the analysis.
4) Sets of trimmed and normalized spectra (|X T N |) are
introduced to the K-SVD algorithm, which processes the
spectra and trains a dictionary with the found features.
5) The obtained dictionary is saved and labeled for future
use.
This process is executed for each load condition and damage
level. Once dictionaries are obtained, the process is no longer
necessary, because the dictionaries used in the SDA do not
change.
B. Signal Decomposition Analysis
This process consists of four main blocks [see Fig. 4(b)]
in order to process (FFT and T&N), decompose (OMP), and
evaluate (classifier) the vibration signal. These blocks are
described as follows.
1) The signal acquisition (DAS), the FFT process (|FFT|),
and the T&N follow the same process as the dictionary
training process. The difference is that each signal is
preprocessed. In other words, a set of signals is not
necessary.
2) The obtained spectrum is introduced to the OMP algo-
rithm, which uses the dictionaries obtained by the
K-SVD to perform the decomposition and to give the
necessary information regarding it, namely, the sparse
vector (α) and the decomposition error (e). The OMP
decomposes the signal with the learned dictionary for
each fault condition. This allows establishing a relation-
ship between the signal type and the fault type featured
by the dictionary.
3) The obtained information is given to the classifier, which
then evaluates the information and determines the type
of fault present in the IM.
V. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP
The vibration signals used in this paper were obtained
by a sensor (VE) microelectromechanicals-based triaxial
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
MORALES-PEREZ et al.: INCIPIENT BRB DETECTION IN IMs USING VIBRATION SIGNALS AND THE OMP ALGORITHM
Fig. 6. IM setup. (a) Rotor damage. (b) Coupling for mechanical load.
Fig. 7. Damage level spectra. (a) Commonly detected damage levels: healthy
bar, half-broken bar, and one broken bar. (b) Small damage levels: 2, 4, 6,
and 8 mm.
accelerometer LIS3L02AS4, with the following features:
±2/±6 g user-selectable full scale; 5×10−4 g resolution over a
10 Hz-bandwidth; bandwidth of 1.5 kHz for all axes; and a 12-
bits four-channel analog-to-digital converter ADS7841 with a
200-kHz conversion rate. A MAX3243 transceiver for digital
data communication through RS-232 interface was used.
Three 1-hp squirrel-cage IMs with 28 bars, and connected
to three-phase line at 220 VAC and 60 Hz, were used for
the tests. Each bar is 80 mm of length and 10 mm of
diameter. The damage to the rotor bar was gradually made
with 1-mm increments by a milling machine [see Fig. 6(a)]
for guaranteeing the discontinuity of the bar [34], [38]. The
maximum drilling diameter is about 5% of the total length of
the bar (4.33 mm), and the maximum drilling deep is 10 mm
(fully broken bar). A band-coupled car alternator was used for
mechanical load [30] [see Fig. 6(b)]. The IM and the alternator
were fixed in a concrete base for avoid interference. Resis-
tance arrays connected to the alternator were implemented to
accomplish different load conditions.
VI. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
One limitation in the detection of BRB from vibration
signals is its difficulty in separating the information of the IM
condition from the environmental disturbances. The difficulty
increases when we want to detect minimal damage levels,
e.g., of 1 mm, because the spurious frequencies present small
differences between near faults. This problem is depicted
in Fig. 7.
An alternative is found in [41], where the SDA effective-
ness is demonstrated in the classification of systems. This is
possible because dictionaries can be trained from different
groups of signals, each one with particular features. In this
5
Fig. 8. Signal representation of 2 mm of damage signals by
(a) dictionary 2 mm, (b) dictionary 4 mm, (c) dictionary 6 mm, and
(d) dictionary 8 mm.
way, the decomposition can be applied to the signal and the
decomposed signal can be associated with the group of the
dictionary that represent in the best way. Fig. 8 depicts how
the spectra of an IM with 2 mm of damage (blue line) is
decomposed and reconstructed by the set of learned dictionar-
ies. These dictionaries were featured (as example) to identify
damages at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm.
Fig. 8 depicted the reconstructions of a signal by the trained
dictionaries for: 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm. In Fig. 8(a), it is possible to
see that the reconstructed spectrum (red plot) is very approxi-
mated to the original signal (blue plot) with small differences
in its peaks. In the case of Fig. 8(b), more differences are
presented: the peak in 180 Hz is not approximated and differ-
ent increments in the 300–400 Hz-range are observed, where
the reconstruction is very different from the original signal.
In Fig. 8(c), the signal reconstruction in the 300–400-Hz range
is not approximated to the original signal: the discrepancy
in this range is evident. Finally, in Fig. 8(c), the 180-Hz
peak, 250–280-Hz range, 330-Hz peak, and 480-Hz peak are
not approximated to the original signal adequately. These
small differences are presented, because the OMP algorithm
performed the decomposition with a dictionary that does not
belong to the signal type, but it did not find atoms that
give enough information to ensure a better decomposition
[see Fig. 8(b)–(d)]. In this case, the best reconstruction of the
signal is obtained by the first dictionary [Fig. 8(a)]; therefore,
the most likely signal corresponds to the 2-mm damage group,
i.e., a successful classification.
The signals used are shown in Table I. Eleven damage
levels were applied, where 0 mm of damage corresponds to
a healthy condition; an unloaded condition (A), an one-half
loaded condition (B), and a three-fourths loaded condition (C)
were used. Each signal was obtained from 1 s of sampling
(3200 samples) in steady state, and from the three axes
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT

TABLE I TABLE II
V IBRATION S IGNALS P ER A XIS AVERAGE P ERCENTAGES OF C LASSIFICATIONS FOR THE x-A XIS

TABLE III
AVERAGE P ERCENTAGES OF C LASSIFICATIONS FOR THE y-A XIS

Fig. 9. Axes of the sensor with respect to the IM.

[x-axis: radial direction; y-axis: axial direction; and

z-axis: gravity direction (see Fig. 9)]. A fivefold cross
validation was developed, where the training and testing
signals were randomly selected to avoid bias.
To train the dictionaries, the process shown in Fig. 4(a) was
applied. Algorithms 1 and 2 were developed in a MATLAB
software. One dictionary was obtained for each damage level,
load condition, and axis. Thus, 33 overcomplete dictionar-
ies [45] were generated (for each cross validation and axis) TABLE IV
with the following parameters: X was introduced according to AVERAGE P ERCENTAGES OF C LASSIFICATIONS FOR THE z-A XIS
the training sets shown in Table I and K = 20 [45], [49]. Each
trained overcomplete dictionary is a matrix of 512 × 1792.
A criterion based on the minimal decomposition error is
proposed
r Lai 
G La = argmin = argmin(e Lai ) (6)
i x Lai  i

where G La is the spectrum classification obtained (damage

diagnosis), r Lai  is the -norm of the residual, x Lai  is
the -norm of the signal, and e Lai is the decomposition error
obtained. Subindexes Lai are load conditions L = {A, B, C},
a is the axis, and i = {0, 1, . . . , 10} is the damage level.
It is possible to apply (6) because, as mentioned above,
the dictionary that best decomposes (represents or recon-
structs) the spectrum also gives the smallest decomposition
error that determines the class (fault) to which the spectra
belong.
The parameters used to accomplish the decomposition are:
k = 32 experimentally selected to meet α0  m condition,
A. Results and the 1 and 2 norms were applied.
The classification process was performed with the decom- Tables II–IV show the results of the tests. As can be
position of every spectrum with all the dictionaries. observed, the best classification is performed by spectra from
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
MORALES-PEREZ et al.: INCIPIENT BRB DETECTION IN IMs USING VIBRATION SIGNALS AND THE OMP ALGORITHM
TABLE V
AVERAGES P ERCENTAGES OF C LASSIFICATIONS FOR M AJORITY D ECISION
x-axis signals, as expected because this axis is in radial
position [37], and the error based criteria in 1 -norm (Table II).
These results suggest implementing a classifier based on the
combination of the results from the three axes, in others words,
implementing a simple classifier based on majority decisions
to increase the classification accuracy (Algorithm 3).
Algorithm 3 Classifier Based on Majority Decisions
Require: G L x , G Ly and G Lz .
Ensure: G L M .
1: if (G Ly = G Lz and G Ly  = G L x ) then
2: G L M = G Ly
3: else
4: G L M = G L x
5: end if
The function of Algorithm 3 is simple. It makes use of the
results of (6) of each axis (input). So, if the prediagnosis of
the y-axis and z-axis are the same, then the final diagnosis is
the same as the y-axis (step 2); otherwise, the final diagnosis
is given by the x-axis (step 4). This includes the case where
the diagnoses of the three axes are different.
As shown in Table V, the classification accuracy is
increased. This is because the correct classification can be
selected by two axes when the third axis is wrong. If each of
the three axes makes a different diagnosis, the final decision
is made by the axis with the highest accuracy; in this case,
the final decision is made by the x-axis (Algorithm 3, step 4).
The average success rate is obtained by
T
j =1 SC Lai j
AS Lai = (7)
T
where ASLai is the average success for an L load condition,
thea-axis, and an i damage level, T is the number of cross
validations, and SC Lai j is the success rate for each class in
every test
Ns Lai
SC Lai = × 100%
Nt
7
Fig. 10. ROC curves for classifier under different load conditions and based
on (a) 1 and (b) 2 .
where SC Lai is the percentage success rate for each class,
Ns Lai is the correctly classified spectra number, and Nt is the
testing spectra number. Thus, the total average success rate is
imax
j =0 AS La j
TAS La = (9)
Ni
where i max is the maximum damage level, ASLa j is the average
success rate, and Ni is the damage number.
In Fig. 10, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC)
curves applied to the detection algorithm tests are depicted,
where the specificity and sensitivity were explored. In the
worst case, the area under the ROC curve is about 0.9769.
These results demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed
methodology.
This paper was developed in MATLAB R2015b installed
on Windows 10 x64 in a laptop PC with an Intel CORE
i5-6200U CPU at 2.3–2.4 GHz and 12 GB of RAM. The SDA
processing and diagnosis were obtained in a maximum time
of about 1.463 s.
B. Discussion
Table VI presents a qualitative comparison between the
proposed methodology and other methodologies introduced
in the literature, where the methodology used and the per-
centage effectiveness to diagnose the IM condition are shown.
Observing Table VI, the proposal presents an effectiveness per-
centage of 93% in average for detecting the consolidated fault,
e.g., one BRB, as well as its incipient state to different load
levels such as 0%, 50%, and 75%, unlike the other proposed
methodologies revised in [50]–[54], which present mainly the
analysis of the consolidated failure (one or more BRBs).
Incipient BRB detection, i.e., a partially cracked bar, rep-
resents a challenge problem, because it alters slightly the
features of the measured signal when they are compared with
the ones obtained from a healthy IM condition. The incipient
condition, mainly half-broken rotor bar, has been studied in
different works introduced in [11] and [55]–[59], where an
effectiveness percentage higher than 95% is reported by using
mainly IMs of 1 hp, yet a constant load is studied, generating
the uncertainty if these proposals can detect a BRB fault under
another load condition. Recently, Rangel-Magdaleno et al. [60]
present a Hilbert–Huang transform-based methodology for an
(8)
incipient BRB detection starting from 3 mm to different loads,
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT

TABLE VI
Q UALITATIVE C OMPARISON B ETWEEN THE P ROPOSED M ETHODOLOGY P ERFORMANCE AND
THE O THER P REVIOUS M ETHODS P RESENTED IN THE L ITERATURE

where an effectiveness percentage of 99% is obtained; never-
theless, the methodology proposed in this paper is capable of
identifying the BRB fault in an earlier stage to different load
levels: 0%, 50%, and 75%, i.e., from 1 mm to the consoli-
dation of the failure, making it a more attractive tool for the
industry.
VII. C ONCLUSION
A methodology to detect BRBs based on sparse representa-
tion was presented. The accuracy for detecting faults from
1 to 10 mm in an unloaded condition, a one-half loaded
condition, and a three-fourths loaded condition (90%, 96%,
and 94%, respectively) are high, mainly considering the chal-
lenge that represents the detection of a partially cracked bar
(from 1 mm) using both vibration signals and loads lower than
the rated load. Also, the efficiency of the sparse representation
as a powerful tool to classify signals was demonstrated. This
efficiency is supported by the basis contained in the dictio-
naries. The criterion (6) based on the minimal decomposition
error helps to obtain a successful classification rate, and
when it is supported by a classifier such as the majority
decision (Algorithm 3), a better classification is achieved.
On the other hand, as the proposed methodology makes use
of the FFT, the analysis has to be focused on the stationary
vibration signals, else the accuracy of the detection is not
guaranteed. Although the obtained of a sparse representation
is a time-consuming process given that the dictionaries may
have higher dimensions (overcomplete dictionaries), the results
show that the diagnosis is obtained rapidly (1.463 s) if we take
into account the amount of data analyzed.
With the OMP and the K-SVD algorithms, early BRBs,
starting from 1 mm, are possible to detect. The results
make possible to start a hardware implementation design.
This methodology will be performed and tested on field-
programmable gate array in a future work.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Choi, E. Pazouki, J. Baek, and H. R. Bahrami, “Iterative condition
monitoring and fault diagnosis scheme of electric motor for harsh
industrial application,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 3,
pp. 1760–1769, Mar. 2015.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
MORALES-PEREZ et al.: INCIPIENT BRB DETECTION IN IMs USING VIBRATION SIGNALS AND THE OMP ALGORITHM
[2] A. Soualhi, G. Clerc, and H. Razik, “Detection and diagnosis of faults in
induction motor using an improved artificial ant clustering technique,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4053–4062, Sep. 2013.
[3] C. Yang et al., “Screening of false induction motor fault alarms pro-
duced by axial air ducts based on the space-harmonic-induced current
components,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1803–1813,
Mar. 2015.
[4] V. Verma and C. Chakraborty, “Improving the performance of speed
sensorless induction motor drive with rotor broken bar failure by
stator current signature analysis,” in Proc. IEEE 23rd Int. Symp. Ind.
Electron. (ISIE), Jun. 2014, pp. 830–835.
[5] J. Rangel-Magdaleno, J. Ramirez-Cortes, and H. Peregrina-Barreto,
“Broken bars detection on induction motor using MCSA and mathemat-
ical morphology: An experimental study,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Instrum.
Meas. Technol. Conf. (I2MTC), May 2013, pp. 825–829.
[6] S. Lee, J. Hong, S. B. Lee, E. J. Wiedenbrug, M. Teska, and H. Kim,
“Evaluation of the influence of rotor axial air ducts on condition
monitoring of induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 49, no. 5,
pp. 2024–2033, Sep. 2013.
[7] T. A. Garcia-Calva, D. Morinigo-Sotelo, and
R. de Jesus Romero-Troncoso, “Non-uniform time resampling for
diagnosing broken rotor bars in inverter-fed induction motors,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 2306–2315, Mar. 2017.
[8] G. Georgoulas, V. Climente-Alarcon, J. A. Antonino-Daviu,
C. D. Stylios, A. Arkkio, and G. Nikolakopoulos, “A multi-label
classification approach for the detection of broken bars and mixed
eccentricity faults using the start-up transient,” in Proc. IEEE 14th Int.
Conf. Ind. Inform. (INDIN), Jul. 2016, pp. 430–433.
[9] G. Georgoulas et al., “Automatic pattern identification based on the
complex empirical mode decomposition of the startup current for the
diagnosis of rotor asymmetries in asynchronous machines,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4937–4946, Sep. 2014.
[10] R. Valles-Novo, J. Rangel-Magdaleno, J. Ramirez-Cortes,
H. Peregrina-Barreto, and R. Morales-Caporal, “Broken bar detection on
squirrel cage induction motors with MCSA and EMD,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Instrum. Meas. Technol. Conf. (I2MTC), May 2014, pp. 993–998.
[11] R. Valles-Novo, J. J. Rangel-Magdaleno, J. M. Ramirez-Cortes,
H. Peregrina-Barreto, and R. Morales-Caporal, “Empirical mode decom-
position analysis for broken-bar detection on squirrel cage induction
motors,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1118–1128,
May 2015.
[12] G. R. Bossio, P. M. de la Barrera, M. Otero, T. Schallschmidt, and
R. Leidhold, “Broken rotor bars detection in induction motor by using
zero-sequence signal injection,” in Proc. 42nd Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind.
Electron. Soc. (IECON), Oct. 2016, pp. 1482–1487.
[13] D. Morinigo-Sotelo, R. J. Romero-Troncoso, J. A. Antonino-Daviu, and
K. N. Gyftakis, “Reliable detection of broken rotor bars in induction
motors via MUSIC and ZSC methods,” in Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Elect.
Mach. (ICEM), Sep. 2016, pp. 2881–2886.
[14] K. N. Gyftakis, J. A. Antonino-Daviu, R. Garcia-Hernandez,
M. D. McCulloch, D. A. Howey, and A. J. M. Cardoso, “Comparative
experimental investigation of broken bar fault detectability in induction
motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1452–1459,
Mar./Apr. 2016.
[15] Y. Trachi, E. Elbouchikhi, V. Choqueuse, T. Wang, and M. Benbouzid,
“Induction machine faults detection based on a constant false alarm rate
detector,” in Proc. 42nd Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc. (IECON),
Oct. 2016, pp. 6359–6363.
[16] K. N. Gyftakis, J. A. Antonino-Daviu, and A. J. M. Cardoso, “A reliable
indicator to detect non-adjacent broken rotor bars severity in induction
motors,” in Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Elect. Mach. (ICEM), Sep. 2016,
pp. 2910–2916.
[17] Y. Trachi, E. Elbouchikhi, V. Choqueuse, and M. E. H. Benbouzid,
“Induction machines fault detection based on subspace spectral esti-
mation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 5641–5651,
Sep. 2016.
[18] Y.-H. Kim, Y.-W. Youn, D.-H. Hwang, J.-H. Sun, and D.-S. Kang,
“High-resolution parameter estimation method to identify broken rotor
bar faults in induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60,
no. 9, pp. 4103–4117, Sep. 2013.
[19] A. Garcia-Perez, R. J. Romero-Troncoso, E. Cabal-Yepez,
R. A. Osornio-Rios, J. D. J. Rangel-Magdaleno, and H. Miranda,
“Startup current analysis of incipient broken rotor bar in induction
motors using high-resolution spectral analysis,” in Proc. 8th IEEE
Symp. Diagnostics Electr. Mach., Power Electron. Drives, Sep. 2011,
pp. 657–663.
9
[20] V. Sreeja, V. P. Mini, and S. Ushakumari, “Rotor fault detection
and diagnosis of three phase induction motor drive system,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Control Commun. Comput. India (ICCC), Nov. 2015,
pp. 212–217.
[21] M. Y. Kaikaa, M. Hadjami, and A. Khezzar, “Effects of the simultaneous
presence of static eccentricity and broken rotor bars on the stator current
of induction machine,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 5,
pp. 2452–2463, May 2014.
[22] V. Climente-Alarcon, J. A. Antonino-Daviu, A. Haavisto, and A. Arkkio,
“Diagnosis of induction motors under varying speed operation by
principal slot harmonic tracking,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 5,
pp. 3591–3599, Sep./Oct. 2015.
[23] M. Sahraoui, A. J. M. Cardoso, and A. Ghoggal, “The use of a modified
Prony method to track the broken rotor bar characteristic frequencies and
amplitudes in three-phase induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 2136–2147, May 2015.
[24] G. Madescu, M. Biriescu, L. N. Tutelea, M. Mot, M. Svoboda,
and I. Boldea, “Experimental investigation of rotor currents distrib-
ution in the healthy and faulty cage of induction motors at stand-
still,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 5305–5313,
Jul. 2017.
[25] C. Pezzani, P. Donolo, G. Bossio, M. Donolo, A. Guzmán, and
S. E. Zocholl, “Detecting broken rotor bars with zero-setting protection,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1373–1384, Mar./Apr. 2014.
[26] M. Pineda-Sanchez, M. Riera-Guasp, J. A. Antonino-Daviu,
J. Roger-Folch, J. Perez-Cruz, and R. Puche-Panadero, “Diagnosis
of induction motor faults in the fractional Fourier domain,” IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas., vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 2065–2075, Aug. 2010.
[27] J. Antonino-Daviu et al., “Detection of broken outer-cage bars for
double-cage induction motors under the startup transient,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1539–1548, Sep. 2012.
[28] J. A. Corral-Hernandez, J. Antonino-Daviu, J. Pons-Llinares,
V. Climente-Alarcon, and V. Francés-Galiana, “Transient-based rotor
cage assessment in induction motors operating with soft starters,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 3734–3742, Sep./Oct. 2015.
[29] C. Yang, T.-J. Kang, D. Hyun, S. B. Lee, J. A. Antonino-Daviu, and
J. Pons-Llinares, “Reliable detection of induction motor rotor faults
under the rotor axial air duct influence,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 50,
no. 4, pp. 2493–2502, Jul./Aug. 2014.
[30] A. Ordaz-Moreno, R. de Jesus Romero-Troncoso, J. A. Vite-Frias,
J. R. Rivera-Gillen, and A. Garcia-Perez, “Automatic online diagnosis
algorithm for broken-bar detection on induction motors based on dis-
crete wavelet transform for FPGA implementation,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2193–2202, May 2008.
[31] L. Saidi, F. Fnaiech, H. Henao, G. A. Capolino, and G. Cirrincione,
“Diagnosis of broken-bars fault in induction machines using higher
order spectral analysis,” ISA Trans., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 140–148,
Jan. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0019057812001218
[32] A. Ceban, R. Pusca, and R. Romary, “Study of rotor faults in induc-
tion motors using external magnetic field analysis,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 2082–2093, May 2012.
[33] A. M. da Silva, R. J. Povinelli, and N. A. O. Demerdash, “Rotor bar fault
monitoring method based on analysis of air-gap torques of induction
motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2274–2283,
Nov. 2013.
[34] V. Climente-Alarcon, J. A. Antonino-Daviu, F. Vedreño-Santos, and
R. Puche-Panadero, “Vibration transient detection of broken rotor
bars by PSH sidebands,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 49, no. 6,
pp. 2576–2582, Nov./Dec. 2013.
[35] I. Sadeghi, H. Ehya, J. Faiz, and H. Ostovar, “Online fault diagnosis of
large electrical machines using vibration signal—A review,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Optim. Elect. Electron. Equip. (OPTIM) Intl Aegean Conf. Electr.
Mach. Power Electron. (ACEMP), May 2017, pp. 470–475.
[36] Ž. Kanović, D. Matić, Z. Jeličić, M. Rapaić, B. Jakovljević, and
M. Kapetina, “Induction motor broken rotor bar detection using vibra-
tion analysis—A case study,” in Proc. 9th IEEE Int. Symp. Diagnos-
tics Elect. Mach., Power Electron. Drives (SDEMPED), Aug. 2013,
pp. 64–68.
[37] W. Li and C. K. Mechefske, “Induction motor fault detection using
vibration and stator current methods,” Insight—Non-Destructive Test.
Condition Monitor., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 473–478, 2004.
[38] S. J. Oviedo, J. E. Quiroga, and C. Borrás, “Experimental evaluation
of motor current signature and vibration analysis for rotor broken bars
detection in an induction motor,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Power Eng., Energy
Electr. Drives, May 2011, pp. 1–6.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
[39] M. J. Picazo-Ródenas, J. Antonino-Daviu, V. Climente-Alarcon,
R. Royo-Pastor, and A. Mota-Villar, “Combination of noninvasive
approaches for general assessment of induction motors,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 2172–2180, May/Jun. 2015.
[40] L. A. García-Escudero, O. Duque-Perez, D. Morinigo-Sotelo, and
M. Perez-Alonso, “Robust condition monitoring for early detection of
broken rotor bars in induction motors,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 3,
pp. 2653–2660, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0957417410008511
[41] R. Díaz-Hernández, H. Peregrina-Barreto, L. Altamirano-Robles,
J. A. González-Bernal, and A. E. Ortiz-Esquivel, “Automatic stellar
spectral classification via sparse representations and dictionary learning,”
Experim. Astron., vol. 38, nos. 1–2, pp. 193–211, 2014. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10686-014-9413-2
[42] H. Rabah, A. Amira, B. K. Mohanty, S. Almaadeed, and P. K. Meher,
“FPGA implementation of orthogonal matching pursuit for compressive
sensing reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. (VLSI)
Syst., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 2209–2220, Oct. 2015.
[43] Z. Yu et al., “Fast compressive sensing reconstruction algorithm on
FPGA using orthogonal matching pursuit,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
Circuits Syst. (ISCAS), May 2016, pp. 249–252.
[44] C. Morales-Pérez, J. Rangel-Magdaleno, I. Cruz-Vega,
J. Ramirez-Cortes, and H. Peregrina-Barreto, “FPGA implementation of
orthogonal matching pursuit for compressive sensing reconstruction,” in
Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Elect. Eng., Comput. Sci. Autom. Control (CCE),
Sep. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[45] M. Aharon, M. Elad, and A. Bruckstein, “K-SVD: An algorithm for
designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 4311–4322, Nov. 2006.
[46] J. de Jesus Rangel-Magdaleno, H. Peregrina-Barreto,
J. M. Ramirez-Cortes, P. Gomez-Gil, and R. Morales-Caporal, “FPGA-
based broken bars detection on induction motors under different load
using motor current signature analysis and mathematical morphology,”
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 1032–1040, May 2014.
[47] P. Konar and P. Chattopadhyay, “Multi-class fault diagnosis of
induction motor using Hilbert and wavelet transform,” Appl. Soft
Comput., vol. 30, pp. 341–352, May 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568494615000290
[48] M. F. Cabanas et al., “Unambiguous detection of broken bars in
asynchronous motors by means of a flux measurement-based procedure,”
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 891–899, Mar. 2011.
[49] J. Mairal, F. Bach, J. Ponce, G. Sapiro, and A. Zisserman, “Discrimina-
tive learned dictionaries for local image analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Conf.
Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., Jun. 2008, pp. 1–8.
[50] D. Matić, F. Kulić, M. Pineda-Sánchez, and I. Kamenko, “Support vector
machine classifier for diagnosis in electrical machines: Application to
broken bar,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 8681–8689, 2012.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0957417412002448
[51] E. Germen, M. Başaran, and M. Fidan, “Sound based induction motor
fault diagnosis using Kohonen self-organizing map,” Mech. Syst. Sig-
nal Process., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088832701300647X
[52] A. Glowacz, “Diagnostics of DC and induction motors based on
the analysis of acoustic signals,” Meas. Sci. Rev., vol. 14, no. 5,
pp. 257–262, 2014.
[53] B. Bessam, A. Menacer, M. Boumehraz, and H. Cherif, “DWT and
Hilbert transform for broken rotor bar fault diagnosis in induction
machine at low load,” Energy Proc., vol. 74, pp. 1248–1257, Aug. 2015.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1876610215015374
[54] R. J. Romero-Troncoso, A. Garcia-Perez, D. Morinigo-Sotelo,
O. Duque-Perez, R. A. Osornio-Rios, and M. A. Ibarra-Manzano, “Rotor
unbalance and broken rotor bar detection in inverter-fed induction
motors at start-up and steady-state regimes by high-resolution spectral
analysis,” Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 133, pp. 142–148, Apr. 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0378779615003867
[55] D. Camarena-Martinez, C. A. Perez-Ramirez, M. Valtierra-Rodriguez,
J. P. Amezquita-Sanchez, and R. de Jesus Romero-Troncoso, “Syn-
chrosqueezing transform-based methodology for broken rotor bars
detection in induction motors,” Measurement, vol. 90, pp. 519–525,
Aug. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0263224116301506
[56] A. Naha, A. K. Samanta, A. Routray, and A. K. Deb, “A method for
detecting half-broken rotor bar in lightly loaded induction motors using
current,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 1614–1625,
Jul. 2016.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
[57] J. P. Amezquita-Sanchez, M. Valtierra-Rodriguez, C. A. Perez-Ramirez,
D. Camarena-Martinez, A. Garcia-Perez, and R. J. Romero-Troncoso,
“Fractal dimension and fuzzy logic systems for broken rotor bar detec-
tion in induction motors at start-up and steady-state regimes,” Meas.
Sci. Technol., vol. 28, no. 7, p. 075001, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://stacks.iop.org/0957-0233/28/i=7/a=075001
[58] R. A. Lizarraga-Morales, C. Rodriguez-Donate, E. Cabal-Yepez,
M. Lopez-Ramirez, L. M. Ledesma-Carrillo, and
E. R. Ferrucho-Alvarez, “Novel FPGA-based methodology for early
broken rotor bar detection and classification through homogeneity
estimation,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 1760–1769,
Jul. 2017.
[59] M. Abd-el-Malek, A. K. Abdelsalam, and O. E. Hassan, “Induc-
tion motor broken rotor bar fault location detection through envelope
analysis of start-up current using Hilbert transform,” Mech. Syst. Sig-
nal Process., vol. 93, pp. 332–350, Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888327017300778
[60] J. Rangel-Magdaleno, H. Peregrina-Barreto, J. Ramirez-Cortes,
and I. Cruz-Vega, “Hilbert spectrum analysis of induction
motors for the detection of incipient broken rotor bars,”
Measurement, vol. 109, pp. 247–255, Oct. 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263224117303792
Carlos Morales-Perez (GS’13) was born in
Tabasco, Mexico. He received the B.Eng. degree in
electronics from the Instituto Tecnologico Superior
de Comalcalco, Tabasco, in 2013, and the M.Sc.
degree from the National Institute for Astrophysics,
Optics and Electronics, Puebla, Mexico, in 2017,
where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree.
His current research interests include analysis and
signal processing, design and test of algorithms,
electronics instrumentation, and digital systems.
Dr. Morales-Perez was a recipient of the Los
Mejores Egresados en Ingenieria recognition, ANFEI, Mexico, in 2014.
Jose Rangel-Magdaleno (S’08–M’13–SM’17)
received the B.E. degree in electronics engineering
and the M.E. degree in electrical engineering
on hardware signal processing from the Univer-
sidad de Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico, in
2006 and 2008, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree from the Universidad Autonoma de Quere-
taro, Santiago de Querétaro, Mexico, in 2011.
He is currently a Full Researcher with the
Electronics Department, National Institute for
Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics, Puebla,
Mexico. He has authored one book, and has more than 65 works published
in book chapters, journals, and conferences. His current research interests
include field-programmable gate arrays, signal and image processing,
instrumentation, and mechatronics.
Dr. Rangel-Magdaleno is a member of the Mexican national research
system (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores), level 1.
Hayde Peregrina-Barreto (S’09–M’12) received
the bachelor’s degree in computer science from the
Instituto Tecnologico de Cuautla, Cuautla, Mexico,
in 2006, the master’s degree in engineering from
the Universidad de Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico,
in 2008, and the Ph.D. degree in engineering from
the Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro, Santiago
de Querétaro, Mexico, 2011.
In 2014, she was a Post-Doctoral Researcher in
medical imaging with the National Institute for
Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics, Puebla, Mex-
ico, where she is currently a Titular Researcher. She has authored more than
40 works in book chapters, journals, and conferences. Her current research
interests include image processing and medical imaging.
Dr. Peregrina-Barreto is a member of the Mexican National Research
System (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores).
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

MORALES-PEREZ et al.: INCIPIENT BRB DETECTION IN IMs USING VIBRATION SIGNALS AND THE OMP ALGORITHM 11

Juan Pablo Amezquita-Sanchez received the B.Sc.
and M.Sc. degrees in electronic engineering from
the University of Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico,
in 2007 and 2009, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree in mechatronics from the Autonomous Uni-
versity of Queretaro, Santiago de Querétaro, Mexico,
in 2012.
From 2013 to 2014, he was a Post-Doctoral
Visiting Scholar with The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, USA. He is currently a Full
Time Professor with the Faculty of Engineering,
Autonomous University of Queretaro. He has authored or co-authored in the
areas of structural health monitoring, signal processing, and mechatronics.
Dr. Amezquita-Sanchez is a member of the Mexican National Research
System (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores), level 1.
Martin Valtierra-Rodriguez (M’14) received
the B.E. degree in mechatronics engineering and
the M.E. degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico,
in 2008 and 2010, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree in mechatronics from the Autonomous
University of Queretaro, Santiago de Querétaro,
Mexico, in 2013.
He is currently a Professor with the Faculty of
Engineering, Autonomous University of Queretaro.
His current research interests include power quality
analysis, expert systems, and signal processing.
Dr. Valtierra-Rodriguez is a member of the Mexican National Research
System (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores), level 1.