Alexandria Engineering Journal (2023) 73, 231–248

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals
fault diagnosis of induction motor using single and
multi-channels datasets
Manar Abdelmaksoud a,*, Marwan Torki b, Mohamed El-Habrouk c,
Medhat Elgeneidy d

a
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
b
Computer and Systems Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
c
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
d
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Received 11 March 2023; revised 15 April 2023; accepted 25 April 2023

KEYWORDS Abstract Using deep learning in three-phase induction motor fault diagnosis has gained increasing
Induction motor; interest nowadays. This paper proposes a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model to diagnose
Fault diagnosis; induction motor faults during the starting period. The model is able to detect various faults (locked-
Deep learning; rotor, overload, voltage-unbalance, overvoltage, and undervoltage) under three loading levels (Light,
CNN; Normal, and Heavy loads). The proposed model has high reliability as it depends on image data from
Multi-signals; multiple motor signals (voltages, currents, torque, and speed). The transient response of the motor
Multi-channels starting period, makes it challenging to diagnose faults depending on raw time-domain images only.
Therefore, the measured signals are additionally represented as d-q, and Lissajous images to focus on
the effect of using these representations on the model performance. With multi-signals data, two forms
of data (single- and multi-channel input-shape) can be implemented and evaluated to figure out the
form that can capture the related fault features more efficiently. Experiments are performed using sim-
ulated machine model, to investigate the best signal representation and the best input shape for the
proposed fault diagnosis system. Eight distinct datasets are generated from the motor data to be used
in training and testing the CNN model. For the comparison of signals representations, the best accu-
racy is achieved with datasets containing both voltage and current d-q signals representation. They
performed better than the other representations in the range from (0.03%) to (3.57%). For the com-
parison of input shapes, all multi-channels datasets proved to have better performance than single-
channel datasets in the range from (0.77%) to (4.06%).
Ó 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: manar.a.maksoud@alexu.edu.eg (M. Abdelmaksoud), mtorki@alexu.edu.eg (M. Torki), mohamed.alharbrouk@alexu.edu.eg
(M. El-Habrouk), medhat.elgunidi@alexu.edu.eg (M. Elgeneidy).
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.04.053
1110-0168 Ó 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
232 M. Abdelmaksoud et al.

1. Introduction
Fully Connected Networks (FC): are usually used with data
in 1-D vector shape [29]. They consist of a series of fully
connected layers which can find relations between the
Induction Motors (IMs) are used widely all over the world.
inputs and the fault type.
They have significant importance in several industrial applica-

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN): are commonly
tions [1]. Although IMs are reliable machines, they are suscep-
used for 2-D inputs, [1,30–32]. They depend on filters/ker-
tible to having faults at starting or during operation, which
nels to extract features and patterns through convolutional
may lead to financial loss, downtime, or even harm to humans
layers from the given input.
[2]. Thus, there is a high need for fault detection systems that

Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN): have been used by
can detect a fault as soon as possible to take the proper action
researchers with sequential data or time-series data [33–
and prevent damages. Therefore, to ensure reliable operation
35]. Because RNNs are distinguished by having a memory
for IMs, researchers were motivated for a long time to develop
which can hold information from previous time instant
new techniques for fault diagnosis [3].
and use them to influence the current data.
For a long time, many researchers have used time domain
methods to detect IMs faults. The most common time domain
Input signals and their representations have a significant
technique used by researchers is the Clark’s and Park’s trans-
effect on the selected ANN type. Electrical [34,36,37] and
formation [4–7] transforming three phase motor signals into an
mechanical [32,38,39] motor signals are commonly used for
orthogonal rotating reference frame known as ‘‘d-q”. This
fault diagnosis, especially current and vibration signals as they
transformation results in AC signals being converted into
are non-invasive signals and can reflect several types of faults.
DC signals, which are easier to use for fault diagnosis. More-
Several researchers have focused on studying most frequent
over, well d-q plots have special geometrical shapes that can be
faults [40] which are bearing faults [32,39,41], stator winding
analyzed to diagnose faults.
faults [35,42,43], and rotor faults [25,42,44]. Some of them
In addition to time domain methods, converting signals
have generated their own datasets from scratch [30–32], other
from time domain to frequency domain can help to extract
researchers [45–47] used existing published datasets from pre-
valuable features from motor signals [8]. Hence frequency
vious work. There is a perceptible shortage in the published
domain methods have been widely used. Motor current signa-
datasets related to IM faults which slows down the develop-
ture analysis (MCSA) is a very common technique used by
ment in this field. Even the published datasets do not cover a
researchers [8–11] where the frequency spectrum of current sig-
wide range of faults [48,49].
nals is evaluated. Each fault type induces certain frequencies in
In this study, a deep CNN network is used to diagnose five
motor signals. However, frequency domain methods provide
main faults of three-phase IM, using different types and repre-
only frequency information about motor signals, which do
sentations of motor signals. Matlab/Simulink is used to gener-
not include transients [12]. Therefore, researchers have used
ate wide-ranging and versatile datasets covering multi-faults
Wavelet transforms as fault diagnosis technique [12–15] as it
and multi-signals inputs. Two comparisons are presented in
provides both time and frequency domain information [15]
this paper: between the effect of changing the input signal rep-
thereby allowing efficient extraction of motor signal
resentation (raw, d-q, Lissajous) and between the effect of
information.
changing the method of presentation (single or multiple input
In addition to the previous conventional techniques, Artifi-
channels) of these signals’ representations to the CNN. These
cial Intelligence (AI) methods have gained huge interest in
will be explained in greater details in the following section.
three-phase IMs fault diagnosis. Fuzzy logic is an approach
The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as
that uses ‘‘degree of truth” to compute its output rather than
follows:
the regular Boolean logic that uses only ‘‘true” or ‘‘false”. This
approach is utilized by researchers to diagnose IM faults [16–

The proposed model depends on multi-signals input to
19]. The faults of IM can be determined by converting numer-
diagnose the motor faults during the starting period. Using
ical data from motor signals into linguistic information. Then
multi-signals allows the model to have higher reliability
fuzzy logic rules are applied to find motor states. Though this
than single-signals input models. Thus, the model is able
method is effective, it needs prior engineering knowledge of the
to extract the significant features from any of the input sig-
process. Therefore, machine learning algorithms such as Sup-
nals depending on the type of fault.
port Vector Machine (SVM) [20–23] and Artificial Neural Net-

The proposed model uses raw images for motor signals
works (ANN) [24–27] are utilized for fault diagnosis purposes
plotted with time axis. The presence of time axis has the
under supervised machine learning techniques. Both are using
advantage of preserving valuable information about the sig-
training data from motor signals to learn the features that are
nals’ images. In addition, this paper also utilizes Lissajous
mostly affected by motor faults. These features are then used
patterns for fault detection which is not covered with
to determine the state of the motor. For applications of rela-
CNN-based models in the surveyed literature. Moreover,
tively small amounts of available training data, SVM is mostly
this paper compares between the effect of using raw, d-q,
preferred and achieves higher accuracy. But when large
and Lissajous representations on the system performance.
amount of data are available, deep versions of ANN may per-

This paper investigates the effect of presenting the multi-
form far better [28]. Deep Learning (DL) approaches are intro-
signals data to the CNN model by two different shapes.
duced to traditional ANN to cope with the increasing amount
Both single-channel (vertically stacked images) and multi-
of data available for training and allow higher accuracies to be
channels input shapes are used. The system performance
achieved.
in both cases is investigated and compared to find the best
Three main types of deep ANN are usually used for fault
choice for the proposed application.
diagnosis according to the shape of the signals used:
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor

The dataset used in this paper is generated with a variety of
normal operating conditions, by making small variations in
supply voltages and frequency for all types of faults. In
addition, three loading levels for each fault (light, normal,
heavy loads) have been used, each loading level incorpo-
rates a wide range of values.
This paper is organized as follows: Related work of CNN-
based fault diagnosis is introduced in section 2. Section 3
demonstrates the details of the whole proposed system. In sec-
tion 4, the results of all generated datasets are compared and
discussed thoroughly. Finally, the conclusions and future work
are provided in section 5.
2. Related work
The proposed work in this paper is based on AI techniques
using CNNs. There is considerable diversity in the published
work that uses CNN for fault detection and classifications
[50,51]. The research work can differ according to the follow-
ing aspects:

Types of detected faults under study.

Measured motor signals used to detect faults.

Measured motor signals representation methods.

Shape of input signal presented to the CNN.

Motor operating conditions for dataset generation.

Source of dataset used for training and its availability.
Fig. 1 summarizes the different aspects considered when
building a fault detection system for induction motors using
CNN.
Motor faults types are divided into two main categories.
The first category is electrical faults. As shown in [52] they
are classified as: supply-related faults, stator-related faults,
and rotor-related faults. Many researchers have worked on
stator-related faults, such as winding failure [53], interturn
short circuit [35], and phase to ground faults [54]. In addition,
rotor-related faults such as locked rotor [55], and broken rotor
bar [56] have also gained great interest. Supply-related faults
Fig. 1 Main aspects of designing fault detection/classification system using CNN.
233
have not gained the same attention as the previous faults since
separate protection devices are responsible for the monitoring
of the supply. The second fault category is mechanical faults.
In this category, researchers have worked on: bearing faults
and rotor mechanical faults. Bearing faults include outer and
inner race faults [32] and rolling element faults [56], while rotor
mechanical faults include unbalanced rotor [57], bowed rotor
[58], and misaligned rotor [53].
Another aspect under consideration is the measured motor
signals used for fault diagnosis. Researchers have used differ-
ent kinds of measured signals to detect and classify faults.
They have measured motor electrical signals: three phase volt-
ages [35], three phase currents [2], stray flux [59]. In addition,
measured mechanical signals such as vibration [32,60,61] have
been widely used in fault detection research. Moreover, mea-
sured mechanical torque [38] has been utilized by some
researchers for this purpose. Furthermore, certain unfamiliar
signals have been used in literature such as thermal [55] and
acoustic signals [62]. It is to be noted that, most previous
research works have selected only one type of motor signal
for fault diagnosis (Single-Signal) [32,63,64] to reduce the cost
and implementation complexity of the system. Fewer number
of researchers used two or more types of signals (Multi-
Signals) [65,66].
After selecting suitable measured motor signals, it is impor-
tant to decide how to represent them. Four major representa-
tions can be used as shown in Fig. 1. Some researchers used
raw time signals vectors directly [35,67]. This enabled them
to study the effect of time variations on the signals.
A drawback of this method [68] is that the 1D data vector is
long, thus it is not suitable for CNN since the principle of its
operation forces the appropriate adaptation of a network
input matrix. To transform the 1D vector into a 2D matrix
shape, the 1D data vector against time is subdivided into
‘‘m” portions each of ‘‘n” points (total size is m  n). The
‘‘m” portions are then stacked vertically as shown in Fig. 2.
The resulting ‘‘m” x ‘‘n” matrix has the same number of
points, thus preserving all signal values. However, the time axis
is no longer available resulting in a modified time domain. The
resulting 2D matrix is then handled as is as a 2D grayscale
234
Fig. 2 Converting 1D vector to 2D matrix by reshaping.
image or transformed using data from the three-phases into an
RGB 2D image. This is called the reshaping method [68,69].
Modified time domain representations also include d-q repre-
sentations of three phase signals [70].
It is to be noted here that none of the papers surveyed
employed the 2D image resulting from the plotting of the motor
signal against time. The advantage of this method, belonging to
the raw time domain representation, would be that the resulting
images can preserve valuable information about the signal due
to the presence of the time axis. Similarly, Lissajous signals,
which belong to the modified time domain representation, have
not been used with CNN techniques in the surveyed literature.
However, they have been used in induction motor fault detection
not employing CNN [71–73]. Also, it is to be noted here that d-q
and Lissajous signals preserve motor signal information in a
more compact format by eliminating the time parameter. They
would be expected to have good performance, due to their
unique geometrical representation.
Other researchers converted the raw time-domain signals
into frequency-domain signals such as Fast Fourier Trans-
Fig. 3 Different shapes of input for CNN models. (a) Single-Signal Single-Channel, (b) Single-Signal Multi-Channels, (c) Multi-Signals
Single-Channel (Vertically Stacked), (d) Multi-Signals Single-Channel (Multimodal Network), and (e) Multi-Signals Multi-Channels.
M. Abdelmaksoud et al.
forms [74–76] or time–frequency-domain signals such as Wave-
let and short time Fourier Transforms [1,65,76]; to capture the
key features related to the studied fault type which help in
increasing system performance [1].
The following aspect is the shape of the input to the CNN.
As shown in Fig. 3, either one motor signal or multiple motor
signals (either in time, frequency or time/frequency domains as
outlined above) can be used as inputs to the CNN. For the case
of Single-Signal (SS) models, the CNN input may be in one of
the following forms:

Single-Signal Single-Channel (SSSC) input, where the
motor signal is used as Discrete 1D vector [35] or One
gray-scale image [77,78], as depicted in Fig. 3-a.

Single-Signal Multi-Channels (SSMC) input, where
researchers used colored images [30,55] of 3 or 4 colors
channels, as depicted in Fig. 3-b.
For the case of Multi-Signals (MS) models, the input can be
in one of the following forms:

Multi-Signals Single-Channel (MSSC) input, where all sig-
nals are either:
o Placed in the same figure (stacked vertically) to form a
large one-channel image [79], as depicted in Fig. 3-c.
o Kept as separate images but used with multimodal net-
works with different convolution and subsequent flatten-
ing paths for each signal requiring concatenation
afterwards [65,66], as depicted in Fig. 3-d.
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor 235

quently, the CNN trained parameters can be transferred (using

Multi-Signals Multi-Channels (MSMC) input, where each Transfer Learning) to another model which would then require
signal image is plotted in one channel, then all images are just a limited amount of real machine data for further training
stacked to form a 3D matrix [65], as depicted in Fig. 3-e. and tuning to the specific machine under consideration.

The next aspect of CNN based fault diagnosis is motor oper-

ating conditions used for training/testing dataset generation.
Most researchers have worked with datasets of single operating
condition, where the motor is operated under rated supply con-
ditions and at specific values of load and speed [1,30,36,67]. The
disadvantage of this method is that it does not reflect the actual
operating conditions of motors as they are prone to supply fluc-
tuations and load variations, within normal operating condi-
tions. Consequently, some researchers recommended changing
motor loading levels [64,69,80]. In other research work,
researchers considered voltage unbalance [35], speed variation
[2], and frequency variation [59] merely to increase the size and
diversity of their training/testing generated dataset.
The last considered aspect of CNN based fault diagnosis in
the surveyed literature is the source of dataset used for train-
ing/testing. Most researchers used their own datasets which
are generated specifically to accomplish their work. Datasets
may be generated using practical/experimental machine setups
[68,74,77,78] or using machine simulation software [43,70,81–
83]. On the other hand, other researchers used open-source
datasets [69,76,79], which are available online [48,49], at no
cost.
Using simulated rather than practically generated datasets
has several advantages and disadvantages [83], as listed in
Table 1. The main advantage of simulated datasets is that they
may include wide-ranging and versatile data covering multi-
faults and multi-signals inputs. On the other hand, their major
drawback is that they are expected to perform less accurate
than practically/experimentally generated datasets when both
are tested on real machines [84].
Simulated and open-source dataset datasets can be consid-
ered as a primary step for training the network with large
amounts of data to learn several features about faults. Conse-
3. Proposed methodology
In this paper, the chosen aspects are as follows:

Five main fault types are to be considered belonging to the elec-
trical faults category under supply related faults and rotor
related faults. These are namely locked rotor, overload, supply
unbalance, supply overvoltage and supply undervoltage faults.

Motor electrical voltages and currents as well as mechanical
torque and speed signals are used since their measurement is
relatively cheap and easy to implement [35,85,86]. Motor
torque can either be measured or estimated according to
application [87,88].

Raw time as well as modified time representations are
selected in order to represent the time variations of the
motor signals selected above. Torque and speed signals
are represented as images plotted from the raw 1D vector
generated from the dataset. Voltage and current signals
are represented either as:
o Images plotted from the raw 1D vector generated from
the dataset
o d-q images representation of the three phases
o Lissajous pattern images plotted between respective volt-
ages and currents of each phase.

Both ‘‘Multi-Signals Single-Channel” and ‘‘Multi-Signals
Multi-Channels” representations for the CNN input signal
shape are to be used. The system performance in both cases
is investigated and compared to find the best choice for the
application. Note here that each one of these representa-
tions includes plotted raw image, d-q and Lissajous signals
as discussed above.

Table 1 Comparison between practical and simulated dataset.

Practical Datasets Simulated Datasets
Machine ✘ Need for special machine setup and modifications to ✔ Can be adapted easily to different machines with different
Requirements simulate some types of faults. types of faults.
✘ Need complicated modelling to mimic the real machine
response.

Different Operating ✘ Have restricted ability to represent different ✔ Easy to represent large variety of operating conditions.
Conditions operating conditions.
Representation

Runtime ✘ Large period of runtime under fault condition is
required to obtain large datasets during steady state
operation.
✘ Difficult to obtain large datasets for the motor
starting period.
✔ Can simulate large datasets during both steady state and
starting periods without straining the machine.
✔ Can simulate large machines operation without the need
of real testing.

Fault Detection ✔ Provide actual measured data for training, which ✘ Provide simulated data for training that is not exactly as
Performance enhance the fault detection accuracy on real machines. real data, which cause challenges for real machine fault
detection.
236 M. Abdelmaksoud et al.

It is intended to increase the normal operating conditions
xr o is the mechanical angular acceleration of rotor (rad/
variety of the dataset by making small variations in supply sec2)
voltages and frequency. In addition, three loading levels for
T e is the electromagnetic torque at the rotor shaft (N.m.)
each fault (light, normal, heavy loads) have been used. Each
T L is the applied mechanical load torque (N.m.)
level incorporates a wide range of values.

The dataset is to be generated using a simulated induction The value of motor electromagnetic torque is presented in
machine model, using Matlab/Simulink as is detailed in equation (3), it is a function of stator and rotor currents and
the following sub-section. rate of change of motor inductances with respect to rotor
3.1. Induction motor modelling mechanical position (hr ). In this equation, ‘‘I” denotes three-
phase current matrix of stator and rotor, ‘‘L” denotes the total
inductances matrix, and the superscript (T) is the transpose of
In this subsection, induction motor modelling is introduced. The
the current matrix. It is composed of the self and mutual
proposed model simulates a wound rotor three-phase induction
inductances for both stator and rotor. This equation is given
motor with a star-connected stator windings, directly connected
by:
to supply, and a short-circuited star-connected rotor winding.
The motor is modeled by time-domain equations [89]. Gener- 1 @L
Te ¼ IT I ð3Þ
ally, the model is based on two main sets of electrical and 2 @hr
mechanical equations. Electrical equation, where three-phase
Furthermore, load torque can be represented in different
currents of stator and referred rotor, are formulated in matrix
ways according to the type of connected load. It can be con-
format, as shown in equation (1). The three-phase model was
stant, exponential, or quadratic load. In this paper, load tor-
chosen here in order to enable the simulation of unbalanced con-
que is represented as quadratic load, which is calculated as
dition faults for stator and rotor that are not considered in this
shown in equation (4).
publication and are the subject of future work. In this equation,
subscripts (s) and (r) denote variables related to stator and TLrated
TL ¼ ðxr Þ2 ð4Þ
referred rotor circuits respectively. Mechanical equation, incor- ðxrrated Þ2
porating the torque equation and relating motor torque and
After establishing all the required equations, the motor
speed, is formulated, and expressed as in equation (2). The elec-
model is drawn and simulated using Matlab/Simulink soft-
trical equation is given by:
ware. Both electrical and mechanical equations are modeled,
2 3 2 3
iaðsÞ LaðsÞaðsÞ LaðsÞbðsÞ LaðsÞcðsÞ LaðsÞaðrÞ LaðsÞbðrÞ LaðsÞcðrÞ 1 and they are combined with motor inputs and outputs as illus-
6 ibðsÞ 7 6 LbðsÞaðsÞ LbðsÞbðsÞ LbðsÞcðsÞ LbðsÞaðrÞ LbðsÞbðrÞ LbðsÞcðrÞ 7 trated in Fig. 4.
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 The motor used in this work is a 5.4 hp (4 kW) wound-rotor
6 icðsÞ 7 6 LcðsÞaðsÞ LcðsÞbðsÞ LcðsÞcðsÞ LcðsÞaðrÞ LcðsÞbðrÞ LcðsÞcðrÞ 7
6 7¼6 7 induction motor. The motor parameters are summarized in
6i 7 6L 7
6 aðrÞ 7 6 aðrÞaðsÞ LaðrÞbðsÞ LaðrÞcðsÞ LaðrÞaðrÞ LaðrÞbðrÞ LaðrÞcðrÞ 7 Table 2. The values of the machine parameters used in the
6 7 6 7
4 ibðrÞ 5 4 LbðrÞaðsÞ LbðrÞbðsÞ LbðrÞcðsÞ LbðrÞaðrÞ LbðrÞbðrÞ LbðrÞcðrÞ 5 Simulink model can be defined and controlled using Matlab
icðrÞ LcðrÞaðsÞ LcðrÞbðsÞ LcðrÞcðsÞ LcðrÞaðrÞ
LcðrÞbðrÞ LcðrÞcðrÞ m-file.
02 3 2 32 31 To simulate locked rotor faults, the rotor speed in the
vaðsÞ raðsÞ 0 0 0 0 0 iaðsÞ
B6 v 7 6 0 r 76 ibðsÞ 7C Simulink model is multiplied by a fault activator, which can
B6 bðsÞ 7 6 bðsÞ 0 0 0 0 76 7C be adjusted from the controlling m-file. This activator can be
Z B6 7 6 76 7C
B6 vcðsÞ 7 6 0 0 rcðsÞ 0 0 0 76 icðsÞ 7C either 0 or 1 to represent fault activated or non-activated
B6 7 6 76 7Cdt
B6 0 7  6 0 0 0 r 0 0 7 6 7C ð1Þ
respectively. The remaining faults are controlled directly from
B6 7 6 aðrÞ 76 iaðrÞ 7C
B6 7 6 76 7C the m-file.
@4 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 rbðrÞ 0 54 ibðrÞ 5A
0 0 0 0 0 0 rcðrÞ icðrÞ
3.2. Data collection and processing
The mechanical equation is:
Jxr o ¼ Te  Fxr  TL ð2Þ The model developed in the previous sub-section is used to
simulate one normal operating condition and five different
Where: fault conditions (locked rotor, overload, supply unbalance,
supply overvoltage, and undervoltage), as shown in Fig. 5.

vxðsÞ is the stator voltage of phase x (x = a, b, c) Furthermore, some classes are simulated at three loading levels

ixðsÞ is the stator current of phase x (x = a, b, c) amounting to 14 different classes denoted from F00 to F13.

ixðrÞ is the rotor current of phase x (x = a, b, c) Eight simulated variables are collected from the proposed

rxðsÞ is the stator resistance of phase x (x = a, b, c) Simulink model generating eight main output signals for

rxðrÞ is the rotor resistance of phase x (x = a, b, c) each of the 14 classes outlined above. The simulated vari-

LxðsÞyðrÞ is the inductance between stator phase x and rotor ables are stator voltages (va ; vb ; vc ), stator currents (ia ; ib ; ic ),
phase y (x = a, b, c and y = a, b, c) electromagnetic torque (T), and rotor speed (xr ) signals.

LxðrÞyðsÞ is the inductance between rotor phase x and stator For all classes, the model simulates the first one second of
phase y (x = a, b, c and y = a, b, c) induction motor operation, with a time step of one milli-

J is the moment of inertia coefficient of the motor (kg.m2) second. Hence, each signal is represented by a vector of

F is the friction and windage coefficient of the motor (N.m. 1001 samples. All of them are extracted and saved to a
s) CSV file. Table 3 shows a sample of this CSV file. Each

xr is the mechanical rotational speed of rotor (rad/sec) CSV file shows 1001 consecutive instantaneous values of
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor 237

Fig. 4 Simulink model for three phase induction motor.

Each one of the time-domain signals (va ; vb ; vc ; ia ;ib ; ic ; xr ; T)

Table 2 Induction motor parameters.
are normalized by dividing them by their rated values and then
Parameters Values plotted against time to create 2D image. All generated images
Nominal Power 4 kW form 2D plots to be used later as CNN inputs for training and
Rms Line Voltage 400 V testing purposes. A sample of the above images is shown in the
Supply Frequency 50 Hz first eight left subfigures (from (a) to (h)) of Fig. 6. The data in
Nominal Speed 1430 rpm this figure represents data taken from Simulink model with no
Stator Resistance 1.405 O fault applied to the machine.
Stator Leakage Inductance 5.839 mH To plot dq0 components of voltages and currents, they are
Referred Rotor Resistance 1.395 O
divided over their rated values and combined as follows to
Referred Rotor Leakage Inductance 5.839 mH
Mutual Inductance 172.2 mH
form two images. Vdq0 image is created by plotting the voltage
Inertia 0.0131 kg.m2 components (vd ; vq ) with each other, where the d-component is
Friction Factor 0.002985 N.m.s on the horizontal axis and q-component on the vertical axis
Pole Pairs 2 which are plotted by blue color in Vdq0 and Idq0 plots in
the right-most two subfigures ((i) and (j)) of Fig. 6. On the
the measured variables for the no-fault normal load class same plot, vd is plotted with v0 by orange line, and v0 is plotted
(F00) with a sampling rate of 0.001 s. with vq by green line, on the horizontal and vertical axes
Further processing is applied to the (abc) representation of respectively. The same process is applied to dq0 components
currents and voltages using Clark’s and Park’s transforma- of current to create Idq0 image.
tions; to convert from three phase time-domain components An additional method used to represent voltage and current
in (abc) reference frame to a rotating reference frame defined signals relative to each other is Lissajous representation. The
as direct, quadrature, and zero components (dq0). The dq0 sig- horizontal axis of each Lissajous plot represents the phase’s
nals for both currents and voltages are calculated according to voltage, while the vertical axis represents the corresponding
equation (5), where h ¼ x  t and x ¼ xr  pole pairs. The phase’s current. Accordingly, three Lissajous patterns are gen-
result of the above is six extra signals (vd ; vq ; v0 ; id ; iq ; i0 ). erated as 2D images, one image for each phase as shown in the
last three subfigures at the bottom right (from (k) to (m)) of
2 3 2 32 3 Fig. 6.
d sinðhÞ sinðh  2p
3
Þ sinðh þ 2p
3
Þ a
6 7 2 6 2p 7 6 7
It is worthwhile to note here that, this work is concerned
4 q 5 ¼ :4 cosðhÞ cosðh  2p
3
Þ cosðh þ 3
Þ 5: 4 b5 ð5Þ with studying the first one second of motor operation which
3 1 1 1
0 2 2 2
c includes the transient response of the machine. Thus, it is to
238 M. Abdelmaksoud et al.

Fig. 5 Classes of motor conditions considered in the dataset generation.

Table 3 Sample of CSV file containing the signals generated from Simulink model for one case of (F00) class.
Sample t va vb vc ia ib ic xr Te
1 0 0 254.56 254.56 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.001 90.83 287.52 196.68 3.65 21.12 17.47 1.02 0.05
3 0.002 172.77 292.33 119.56 13.25 39.23 25.98 2.00 0.82
4 0.003 237.80 268.53 30.72 26.55 52.76 26.22 2.86 3.68
5 0.004 279.55 218.44 61.11 41.20 60.56 19.35 3.38 10.06
6 0.005 293.94 146.97 146.97 54.97 61.97 7.00 3.24 20.83
7 0.006 279.55 61.11 218.44 65.82 56.97 8.85 2.11 35.94
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
1001 1 5.77E-13 254.56 254.56 3.78 2.51 6.30 153.03 13.74

Fig. 6 Sample for all signals of induction motor at no fault normal load (F00) class.
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor
Fig. 7 dq0 and Lissajous representations at steady state at no
fault.
be noted that Lissajous and dq0 plots in Fig. 6 have unstruc-
tured lines. Unlike the case when only the steady state signals
are plotted as depicted in Fig. 7, which shows how the same
signals would look like when only steady-state operation is
considered, which is not the case in this study.
The normal operating condition is simulated by a wide
range of values, as stated in NEMA standard [90]. A variation
in supply voltage and frequency is applied as follows [90]:

At rated frequency, a range of 10% to + 10% of rated
voltage is simulated.

At rated voltage, a range of 5% to + 5% of rated fre-
quency is simulated

A combined variation in voltage and frequency is simu-
lated, where the sum of their absolute values is limited to
10%, provided the frequency variation does not go beyond
the range of 5% and + 5%.

The absolute value of the supply voltage magnitude unbal-
ance is less than 1%.
Each of the above 14 classes is simulated with a wide range
of values to get a widespread dataset (1024 cases for each class)
to represent all the fault operating conditions presented by the
NEMA standard, as summarized in Fig. 8, with the various
loading conditions discussed earlier.

Some motor operation classes (No-fault, unbalance, over-
voltage, and undervoltage) are represented as three separate
classes for each fault, according to the loading level, previ-
ously shown in Fig. 5. They are first separated into light-
load class, which simulate a load torque ranging from 0%
to 49% of rated load torque of motor. Then, a normal-
load class, which simulates a load torque ranging from
50% to 90% of rated torque. Finally, the range from
Fig. 8 Ranges of different operating conditions for induction
motor.
239
91% to 110% of rated load torque simulates the heavy-
load class. Similarly, overload fault is represented by load
torque ranging from 111% to 600% of rated value. Note
that 50% of the simulated overload cases are in the range
between 111% and 200%, while the range between 201%
and 600% is simulated to diversify the training dataset
and represents 50% of the studied overload cases.

Furthermore, overvoltage fault simulates the case when
supply voltage ranges from 111% to 200% of rated supply
voltage, while undervoltage fault range is between 10% and
89% of rated value.

The last considered fault is the unbalance fault which sim-
ulates the case when the magnitude of three phase voltages
have an unbalance outside the range of ± 1%. Considering
that voltage unbalance is a ratio between the maximum
voltage deviation from average, and the average voltage
of the three phases.
As depicted earlier in Fig. 5, the total number of generated
classes is 14. Each class is simulated by 1024 different cases.
Each case has 13 images with one signal per image. The next
subsection represents the dataset generation procedure from
all the available data.
3.3. Dataset representations
With the aim of preparing the data extracted from Simulink
model for training and testing, this data is combined in differ-
ent ways to generate 8 versions of dataset.
First, all images are resized to the same size and then
cropped to prevent any unnecessary blank areas in the images.
A sample of all signals for the 6 main fault classes after resizing
is shown in Fig. 9. To do that, the minimum and maximum
possible limits of all signals are investigated for all fault classes.
As a result, the voltage axis is cropped at the range
of ± 150%, while the current axis is cropped to ± 15 times
its rated value. Similarly, the speed axis is cropped to lie
between 0 and 150%, while the torque is in range of ± 15
times its rated value. This means that the voltage and speed
axes can show values that are up to 1.5 times of their rated,
whereas the current and torque can show values up to 15 times
of their rated. Lissajous and d-q plots are stretched horizon-
tally to obtain the same image size as the other signals without
having large blank areas in their images. Finally, all images are
converted into grey scale and saved as 1880  620 pixels, con-
taining only the plotted signal without gridlines nor axes lines.
After that, images are subdivided into 4 groups:

Group I (Raw): of 8 signals, which includes images for
(va ; vb ; vc ; ia ; ib ; ic ; xr ; T ) signals.

Group II (Lissajous): of 5 signals, which includes images for
(Lisa ; Lisb ; Lisc ; xr ; T ) signals.

Group III (Idq): of 6 signals, which includes images for
(va ; vb ; vc ; idq0 ; xr ; T ) signals.

Group IV (VIdq): of 4 signals, which includes images for
(vdq0 ; idq0 ; xr ; T ) signals.
These 4 groups are outlined in the table accompanying the
graphs of Fig. 9.
Then, the set of images in each group is stacked using two
methods to provide the final structure of the proposed dataset.
240 M. Abdelmaksoud et al.

Fig. 9 Sample of all images of motor signals for the main five fault classes.

In the first method, images in each group are vertically
stacked to form a single-channel image.

While in the other method, they are stacked as overlayers to
form multi-channels images.
All dataset representations are summarized in Fig. 10.
There are 8 datasets, the overall number of examples in each
dataset is 14,336. Each class in each dataset is then divided into
training and testing sets with a ratio of 80% and 20%, respec-
tively. Therefore, the 1024 examples in each class are divided
into 820 cases for training and 204 cases for testing.
3.4. Neural network model
To verify the performance of the proposed representations of
dataset in fault detection and classification, a simple CNN is

Fig. 10 Summary of dataset representations.

Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor
built. The input to the CNN is one of the eight available data-
sets. The network outputs a prediction according to the classi-
fied fault. The architecture of the network is illustrated in
Fig. 11. It is composed of three consecutive sets of 2D convo-
lutional layers followed by pooling. The 2D convolutional lay-
ers have filter numbers of 8, 16 and 32, respectively. The filter
size is 3  3 for all filters. All these layers have Rectified Linear
Unit (ReLU) activation functions. Every convolutional layer is
followed by a Max-Pooling layer with a pooling size of 2  2.
After the last layer, their outputs are flattened and then fully
connected to a dense layer with ReLU activation function
and 512 neurons. Finally, the output layer is built using Soft-
max activation function, which has 14 neurons representing
the 14 fault classes. The weights of the model are randomly ini-
tialized, and RMSprop Optimizer [67] is used to update the
model parameters with a learning rate of 0.001, by calculating
the categorical cross entropy loss function [91].
The input shape of the network is different depending on
the dataset representation used. For the purpose of compar-
ison between the various dataset representations of single-
and multi-channel, outlined above, the input shape is selected
so that the number of trainable parameters is in the same level
for all cases. For single channel datasets, the input shape is
(600, 200, 1), while for multi-channels datasets, the input
shape is (200, 600, Nc), where Nc is the number of input chan-
nels (8, 5, 6 or 4). Therefore, the total number of trainable
parameters for each representation is approximately the same,
as listed in Table 4. The input is divided into batches, the
batch size is 10. The experiments have been conducted using
Fig. 11 CNN architecture.
Table 4 Number of trainable parameters according to the input shape of different dataset representations.
Dataset Type
SingleChannel
Multi-Channels GroupI Raw
GroupII Lissajous
GroupIII Idq
GroupIV VIdq
241
Google Colab Pro virtual machines, with NVIDIA P100/T4
GPU and RAM with maximum of 32 GB. In the next section,
the performance of the different dataset representations is
carefully studied to figure out the best representation for the
proposed application.
4. Results and discussion
To evaluate the performance of each dataset type in fault
detection, the CNN model was trained with each dataset type,
for a certain number of epochs. Experimental results of the
training process were obtained. Model accuracy for training
and testing are recorded after each epoch. They are combined
in two plots as shown in Fig. 12. From this figure, it can be
noted that both training and testing accuracies curves are
about to saturate after 10 epochs. The network is trained for
more epochs, but without any significant increase in accura-
cies. Since the main target of experiments is to compare the dif-
ferent types of datasets to figure out the best representation,
setting the number of epochs to 10 was found to be a suitable
choice for training the network.
The performance of all dataset types is summarized in
Table 5. The training time, training/testing accuracies after
10 epochs are listed in this table. The best accuracy values
obtained from training/testing are also listed, where the num-
ber between brackets in this column is the epoch number where
the best accuracy was obtained. All networks under study have
Multi-Signals input, however they are different in the method
the channels’ data is presented as an input to the CNN. By
Input Shape # Trainable Parameters
(600, 200, 1) 27,522,318
(200, 600, 8) 27,522,822
(200, 600, 5) 27,522,606
(200, 600, 6) 27,522,678
(200, 600, 4) 27,522,534
242 M. Abdelmaksoud et al.

Fig. 12 Training and testing accuracy curves of all dataset representations.

Table 5 Summary of CNN performance after 10 epochs for all dataset representations.
Dataset Type Avg. Training Time per Epoch (s) Train Accuracy % Test Accuracy %
After 10 Epochs Best Value After 10 Epochs Best Value
Single Channel GroupI Raw 441 96.58 Same 90.76 Same
GroupII Lissajous 313 97.47 Same 92.19 93.14 (6th)
GroupIII Idq 338 97.46 97.65 (9th) 91.32 Same
GroupIV VIdq 265 98.91 Same 93.28 94.33 (9th)

Multi Channels GroupI Raw 2224 94.91 Same 92.75 93.56 (8th)
GroupII Lissajous 1758 95.12 Same 94.54 Same
GroupIII Idq 2007 97.53 Same 95.03 Same
GroupIV VIdq 1651 98.14 Same 94.82 95.06 (4th)

comparing both Single- and Multi-Channels datasets represen-
tations, using Table 5, it is worthwhile to note that:

Single channel datasets have less computational cost during
training than multi-channels. For the same type of signal
representations, the networks trained with single-channel
datasets train faster than multi-channels by 5.7 times on
average.

The average training accuracies of single channel datasets
are higher than multi-channels datasets values. However,
the differences between training and testing accuracies are
quite large. They have an average difference of 5.7%, which
indicates that the network is overfitting the training data. In
contrast, multi-channel datasets have a smaller gap between
training and testing accuracies. They have an average differ-
ence of 2.14%, so it can be said that the network with multi-
channels input is more effective in generalizing the learnt
features from training data to testing data.

The average values of testing accuracies of multi-channels
datasets are more than those of single channel datasets.
Thus, multi-channels datasets are better performing in pre-
dicting the fault class for the testing data.
On one hand, by comparing different signal representations
of single channel datasets as shown in Table 5 and Fig. 12, the
best testing accuracy was obtained from the network trained
with VIdq dataset. It achieved testing accuracy of 93.28% after
10 epochs and 94.33% after 9 epochs. The Lissajous represen-
tation came next after VIdq, with accuracy less than the previ-
ous case by approximately 1%. The worst testing accuracy was
obtained from the network trained with raw signals, as it has
90.76% accuracy after 10 epochs. Therefore, among the four
types of single channel datasets, VIdq has the best performance
regarding testing accuracy and training time.
On the other hand, for multi-channels datasets, raw signals
representation led to the worst results too, with an accuracy of
92.75% after 10 epochs and 93.56% after 8 epochs. The other
three types had nearly similar results with small differences
between them that do not exceed 0.5%. The highest accuracy
after 10 epochs was 95.03% for Idq representation, while VIdq
achieved best accuracy of 95.06% after the 4th epoch. So, the
best dataset representation among these three types cannot be
easily distinguished. Further investigation of the mislabeled
classes is performed in the following paragraphs.
In the surveyed literature, researchers usually compared the
accuracies of ‘‘single-signal” input to ‘‘multi-signals” input
[38,56,59,66]. This is different from the work proposed here.
Researchers in [65] compared the accuracies of two ‘‘multi-
signals” models (similar to the research presented in this
paper). They detect stator, rotor, and bearing faults using cur-
rent and vibration signals represented in time–frequency
domain. It is to be noted that, their dataset is different from
the dataset used in this paper, as it was generated using a dif-
ferent machine with different parameters. The first model is
‘‘multi-channels”, and its accuracy is (99.2%), while the second
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor 243

model is ‘‘multimodal single-channel”, and its accuracy is
(99.83%) implying that ‘‘multimodal single-channel” input
outperforms ‘‘multi-channels” input by a percentage improve-
ment of approximately 0.6%, as presented in Table 6. Simi-
larly for multi-signals comparison, the work in this paper
compared ‘‘multi-channels” and ‘‘vertically-stacked single-
channel”, to conclude that the former is better than the later
by improvements ranging from 0.77% to 4.06%. Results of
percentage improvement comparisons for both works are sum-
marized in Table 6.
The values of testing accuracies presented in Table 6 for the
proposed work are slightly less than those of presented in [65].
However, those values may not reflect the actual accuracies of
the adopted model, as depending on accuracy values only may
be sometimes misleading. Therefore, the confusion matrix of
each model was generated. Confusion matrix is a form of visu-
alization of the CNN model performance. It gives a summary
of prediction results on the fault diagnosis model. In another
word, confusion matrix shows the ways in which the proposed
model is confused when it makes predictions. The confusion
matrices of all 8 dataset representations are presented in
Fig. 13. The diagonal of each matrix determines the number
of examples that are correctly predicted by the CNN model,
while the off-diagonal regions show the number of wrongly pre-
dicted examples and define their actual and predicted classes.
By investigating the model’s predictions in the matrices in
Fig. 13, it is to be noted that some faults are wrongly predicted
due to the nature of the datasets used. The datasets used in this
work have sometimes non-distinctive margins between some
examples in different fault classes as shown earlier in Fig. 8.
As Each fault type (except locked rotor and overload) is repre-
sented by three different classes according to the loading levels.
Therefore, the model may be confused between (normal load
and light load) or (normal load and heavy load) for the same
fault type. Moreover, some classes of different faults at the
same load level may also have few examples that confuse the
model (e.g., no-fault at heavy load and overload fault).
although those examples may be wrongly predicted by the
model, they are still acceptable.
To sum up, the confusion matrix of each model can be
divided into four main regions according to the following:

The First Region (correct prediction): This region is shown
on the figure using ‘‘blue” color. It defines the correctly pre-
dicted classes. It is located in the diagonal of the confusion
matrix.

The Second Region (accepted same fault type and different
loading levels): This region is shown on the figure using
‘‘red” color. It defines the faults classes of same type but
with close loading conditions that may be accepted to be
wrongly predicted. Only two pairs of loading conditions
(normal/heavy and normal/light) are permitted in this
region. The third pair (light/heavy) loading is not accepted
to be wrongly predicted.

The Third Region (accepted different fault types and same
loading levels): This region is shown on the figure using ‘‘or-
ange” color. It defines the faults classes of different types
but with same loading conditions which may be accepted
(with few numbers of examples) to be wrongly predicted.
The following pairs are permitted in this region:
o No-Fault condition with any of these faults (unbal-
ance, overvoltage, or undervoltage) at the same loading
level.
o Unbalance fault with any of these faults (overvoltage
or undervoltage) at the same loading level.
o Overload Fault with any of these faults (no-fault,
unbalance, overvoltage, or undervoltage) at heavy
loading level.
Any other combinations of faults with different types are
not accepted to be wrongly predicted.

The Fourth Region (unaccepted wrong prediction): This
region is shown on the figure using ‘‘white” color. It defines
all regions where wrong prediction is not accepted. The
cases included in these regions are the rest of cases that
are not included in previously mentioned regions.
It is to be noted that, the number of labels does not change.
The accepted class pairs of the second and third regions are not
combined to have one label. They are only considered as ‘‘ac-
cepted” to have been mislabeled among them.
According to the discussed regions of confusion matrices
for all models, and to accurately figure out the dataset achiev-
ing best performance, the number and region of wrongly pre-
dicted (mislabeled) examples for all cases are compared and
listed in Table 7.
The first observation is that all datasets have a relatively
large number of mislabeled examples in the second region
(accepted same fault type and different loading levels) rang-
ing from (4.10%) to (6.93%). This reflects the nature of the
dataset where the margins between faults are not sharply sep-
arated. However, three models belonging to multi-channels
group have better predictions in this region than the other
5 datasets. Lissajous dataset has the best performance in this
region. This is followed by Idq dataset and finally the VIdq
dataset.
The second observation is that number of mislabeled
examples belonging to the third region (accepted different

Table 6 Diagnostic results comparison for multi-signals models.

Signal Representation Best Diagnostic Accuracy
Single-Channel Multi-Channels Percentage Improvement
Multimodal Network Vertically Stacked
Time-Freq. [65] 99.83 % ——— 99.20 % 0.63 %
Raw (proposed) ——— 90.76 % 93.56 % 3.08 %
Liss. (proposed) ——— 93.14 % 94.54 % 1.50 %
Idq (proposed) ——— 91.32 % 95.03 % 4.06 %
VIdq (proposed) ——— 94.33 % 95.06 % 0.77 %
244 M. Abdelmaksoud et al.

Fig. 13 Confusion matrices resulted from using different datasets. (a) Raw Single-Channel, (b) Lissajous Single-Channel, (c) Idq Single-
Channel, (d) VIdq Single-Channel, (e) Raw Multi-Channels, (f) Lissajous Multi-Channels, (g) Idq Multi-Channels, (h) VIdq Multi-
Channels.

fault types and same loading levels) in ‘‘single-channel” data-
sets, range from (0.74%) to (2.21%). It is relatively higher
than the corresponding signal types from ‘‘multi-channels”
datasets (ranging from 0.39% to 1.16%). The best result is
for the case of VIdq multi-channels dataset. It has only 11
(0.39%) ‘‘accepted” mislabels. In addition, Idq with multi-
channels dataset has good results with only 17 (0.60%) ‘‘ac-
cepted” mislabels.
The sum of region (2) and region (3) mislabels indicates the
total number of accepted mistakes due to non-distinctive mar-
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor 245

Table 7 Analysis of mislabeled examples for all dataset representations.

Dataset Type Number of Mislabeled Examples (from 2856 examples) Total Number of Regions
(1, 2, 3) Examples
Region (2) Region (3) Region (2)+Region (3) Region (4)
(from 2856 examples)
‘‘Accepted” ‘‘Accepted” ‘‘Accepted” ‘‘Unaccepted”
Single Channel GroupI Raw 198 (6.93%) 63 (2.21%) 261 (9.14%) 4 (0.14%) 2852 (99.86%)
GroupII Lissajous 169 (5.92%) 52 (1.82%) 221 (7.74%) 2 (0.07%) 2854 (99.93%)
GroupIII Idq 188 (6.58%) 56 (1.96%) 244 (8.54%) 3 (0.11%) 2853 (99.89%)
GroupIV VIdq 170 (5.95%) 21 (0.74%) 191 (6.69%) 1 (0.04%) 2855 (99.96%)
Average 181 (6.35%) 48 (1.68%) 229 (8.03%) 10 (0.09%) 2846 (99.65%)

Multi Channels GroupI Raw 175 (6.13%) 31 (1.09%) 206 (7.21%) 1 (0.04%) 2855 (99.96%)
GroupII Lissajous 117 (4.10%) 33 (1.16%) 150 (5.25%) 6 (0.21%) 2850 (99.79%)
GroupIII Idq 125 (4.38%) 17 (0.60%) 142 (4.97%) 0 (0.00%) 2856 (100.0%)
GroupIV VIdq 136 (4.76%) 11 (0.39%) 147 (5.15%) 4 (0.14%) 2852 (99.86%)
Average 138 (4.84%) 23 (0.81%) 161 (5.65%) 11 (0.10%) 2845 (99.61%)

Table 8 Modified testing accuracies of the proposed fault diagnosis.

Dataset Type Original Accuracy Modified Accuracy Modified Accuracy
(Considering only Region (Considering only Regions (1) and (Considering Regions (1), (2), and
(1)) (2)) (3)
SingleChannel GroupI Raw 90.76% 97.65% 99.86%
GroupII Lissajous 92.19% 98.11% 99.93%
GroupIII Idq 91.32% 97.93% 99.89%
GroupIV VIdq 93.28% 99.23% 99.96%

MultiChannels GroupI Raw 92.75% 99.88% 99.96%

GroupII Lissajous 94.54% 98.63% 99.79%
GroupIII Idq 95.03% 99.40% 100.0%
GroupIV VIdq 94.82% 99.47% 99.86%

gin between classes. Lissajous, Idq, and VIdq representations
have a sum of 150, 142, and 147 respectively. Hence, they have
the lowest sum among all types. This implies that they have
good ability to distinguish faults with non-distinctive margins.
The third observation is that the number of mislabels
belonging to the fourth region (unaccepted wrong prediction)
for all types is remarkably small. The maximum number of
‘‘unaccepted” mislabels is 6 in the Lissajous multi-channel
dataset, which corresponds to 0.21% of the total number of
testing examples. This yields a percentage of 99.79% for both
correct and accepted cases, which is considered as the modified
accuracy. Moreover, Idq multi-channels dataset has the best
performance in terms of modified accuracy (100%), without
any ‘‘unaccepted” mislabels. Thus, all models are achieving
relatively good performance in distinguishing faults that have
no close margins (with a modified accuracy ranging from
99.79% to 100%).
The comparison between original and modified accuracies
for the same eight cases of single- and multi-channel datasets
is shown in Table 8. The first column represents the original
accuracy obtained in Table 5 above. The mistaken cases of ‘‘re-
gion (2)” type such as labelling the same fault type to be a high
loading condition when it is in the vicinity of normal loading
condition is still acceptable. This implies that these mistaken
cases can be removed from the overall erroneous ones leading
to the second column of Table 8 with modified accuracy not
including the ‘‘region (2)” mistaken cases. The third column
in the table represents the modified accuracy for the case of
removing the accepted mistaken cases of ‘‘region (3)” as well
as ‘‘region (2)” cases. The cases of ‘‘region (3)” as explained
earlier are cases of different fault types but with similar loading
level (such as no-fault with heavy load against overload fault),
which are still acceptable with few numbers as in this case.
5. Conclusion and future work
It was shown that deep CNN is an effective tool for diagnosing
multi-signals IM faults at its starting period with different ver-
sions of datasets. CNN model was proposed to detect different
motor/supply related faults with multiple motor signals. Eight
different datasets were generated from the simulated motor
model to be used in the training and testing of the proposed
CNN. These datasets were divided into two main groups
according to the CNN input shape (single- and multi-
channels), each group consisted of 4 datasets with different sig-
nals representations (raw, Lissajous, current and voltage d-q,
current d-q). Comparison between all datasets was performed
to investigate the effect of the different combinations on the
motor fault diagnosis performance, as well as to determine
the most effective signal representation and input shape.
On one hand, by comparing the 4 signals representations of
single-channel datasets, the dataset with both voltage and cur-
246
rent d-q representations has achieved the highest accuracy
(94.33%), while the dataset with raw images has achieved the
lowest accuracy (90.76%). The remaining datasets (with Lis-
sajous and d-q of current representations) have achieved test-
ing accuracies of (93.14%) and (91.32%) respectively. On the
other hand, by comparing the 4 signals representations of
multi-channels datasets, the dataset with both voltage and cur-
rent d-q representations has also achieved the highest accuracy
(95.06%), while the dataset with raw images has also achieved
the lowest accuracy (93.56%). The remaining datasets (with
Lissajous and d-q for current representations) have achieved
testing accuracies of (94.54%) and (95.03%) respectively. Fur-
thermore, by comparing the two main groups of datasets
(single- and multi- channels groups), the multi-channels data-
sets have achieved the best testing accuracies for all types of
signal representations. The percentage of testing accuracies
improvement were (3.08%), (1.5%), (4.06%), and (0.77%)
for datasets with raw, Lissajous, voltage and current d-q,
and current d-q representations, respectively. Due to the
non-distinctive margins between the different classes of the
generated datasets, the obtained accuracies did not reflect the
actual model’s performance. Therefore, the confusion matrices
of all models were investigated, and all ‘‘accepted” mistakes
were excluded from the count of mislabeled examples. As a
result, the testing accuracy values for all datasets were modi-
fied, which reflected much better performance for all datasets.
The best accuracy for single-channel datasets was (99.96%), it
was achieved by the dataset with both voltage and current d-q
representations; while the lowest accuracy of (99.86%) was
obtained when raw images dataset was used. Meanwhile,
within multi-channels datasets, the best accuracy was
(100%), which was achieved by the dataset with current d-q
representations; while the lowest accuracy of (99.79%) was
obtained when Lissajous dataset was used.
Ultimately, the approach of using current/voltage d-q rep-
resentation and multi-channels input shape with CNN has
been shown to produce the best accuracy in multi-signal induc-
tion motor fault diagnosis. However, further improvements
and tuning to the CNN model are needed to increase its per-
formance under the condition of non-distinctive margins data-
sets. Furthermore, other ‘‘popular” neural network
architectures such as ResNet, AlexNet and VGG can be used
with the proposed datasets to evaluate their performance.
Moreover, multi-modal neural network architecture can be
experimented with multi-signals single-channel datasets to
compare its performance with vertically-stacked datasets.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M.Q. Tran, M.K. Liu, Q.V. Tran, T.K. Nguyen, Effective fault
diagnosis based on wavelet and convolutional attention neural
network for induction motors, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 71
(2022).
[2] R. Nishat Toma, F. Piltan, J.-M. Kim, H. Badihi, T. Chen, N.
Lu, A deep autoencoder-based convolution neural network
M. Abdelmaksoud et al.
framework for bearing fault classification in induction motors,
Sensors 21 (2021) 8453.
[3] Y. Liu, A.M. Bazzi, A review and comparison of fault detection
and diagnosis methods for squirrel-cage induction motors: state
of the art, ISA Trans. 70 (2017) 400–409.
[4] M. Messaoudi, A. Flah, A.A. Alotaibi, A. Althobaiti, L. Sbita,
C. Ziad El-Bayeh, Diagnosis and fault detection of rotor bars in
squirrel cage induction motors using combined park’s vector
and extended park’s vector approaches, Electronics 11 (2022)
380.
[5] J. Burriel-Valencia, A. Sapena-Bano, M. Pineda-Sanchez, J.
Martinez-Roman, Multilayer Park’s vector approach, a method
for fault detection on induction motors, in: Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology. 2015-
June, 2015, pp. 775–780.
[6] T.G. Vilhekar, M.S. Ballal, H.M. Suryawanshi, Detection of
winding faults in wound rotor induction motor using loci of
direct and quadrature axes of rotor currents, Electr. Power
Compon. Syst. 45 (2017) 1217–1230.
[7] U. Khalique, G. Xu, Z. Xining, L. Fei, S. Ahmad, Z. Xun, Z.
Jin, A novel detection method for diagnosis of rotor eccentricity
in three-phase induction motor, Meas. Sci. Technol. 32 (2021)
114002.
[8] I. Ishkova, O. Vitek, Diagnosis of eccentricity and broken rotor
bar related faults of induction motor by means of motor current
signature analysis, in: Proceedings of the 2015 16th International
Scientific Conference on Electric Power Engineering, EPE 2015,
2015, pp. 682–686.
[9] M. Messaoudi, L. Sbita, Multiple faults diagnosis in induction
motor using the MCSA method, Int. J. Signal Image Processing
1 (2010) 190–195.
[10] N.P. Sakhalkar, P. Korde, Fault detection in induction motors
based on motor current signature analysis and accelerometer, in:
2017 International Conference on Energy, Communication,
Data Analytics and Soft Computing, ICECDS 2017, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc, 2018, pp. 363–367.
[11] V.F. Pires, D. Foito, J.F. Martins, A.J. Pires, Detection of stator
winding fault in induction motors using a motor square current
signature analysis (MSCSA), in: International Conference on
Power Engineering, Energy and Electrical Drives, IEEE
Computer Society, 2015, pp. 507–512.
[12] C. da Costa, M. Kashiwagi, M.H. Mathias, Rotor failure
detection of induction motors by wavelet transform and Fourier
transform in non-stationary condition, Case Stud. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 1 (2015) 15–26.
[13] R. Liu, Y. Zhao, M. Liu, al -, D. Chen, R. Zhou, H. Meng, P.P.
S Saputra, R. Firmansyah, D. Lastomo, Haar and symlet
discrete wavelete transform for identification misalignment on
three phase induction motor using energy level and feature
extraction, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1179 (2019) 012093.
[14] H. Talhaoui, A. Menacer, A. Kessal, R. Kechida, Fast Fourier
and discrete wavelet transforms applied to sensorless vector
control induction motor for rotor bar faults diagnosis, ISA
Trans. 53 (2014) 1639–1649.
[15] M.R. Mehrjou, N. Mariun, M. Karami, N. Misron, M.A. Mohd
Radzi, Wireless Sensors System for Broken Rotor bar Fault
Monitoring using Wavelet Analysis, in: IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci
Eng, Institute of Physics Publishing, 2015.
[16] A. Lakrout, M. Bendjebbar, N. Henini, Electric Stator Faults
Detection in Induction Motor based on Fuzzy Logic Technique,
Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Applied
Smart Systems, ICASS 2018. (2019).
[17] P.V. Jover Rodrı́guez, A. Arkkio, Detection of stator winding
fault in induction motor using fuzzy logic, Appl. Soft. Comput.
8 (2008) 1112–1120.
[18] H. Talhaoui, T. Ameid, O. Aissa, A. Kessal, Wavelet packet and
fuzzy logic theory for automatic fault detection in induction
motor, Soft. Comput. 26 (2022) 11935–11949.
Convolutional-neural-network-based multi-signals fault diagnosis of induction motor
[19] F. Khater, M.I. Abu El-Sebah, M. Osama, Fault diagnostics in
an inverter feeding an induction motor using fuzzy logic, J.
Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 4 (2017) 10–17.
[20] S.Y. Li, L. Xue, Motor’s early fault diagnosis based on support
vector machine, in: IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, IOP
Publishing, 2018.
[21] S.E. Pandarakone, M. Masuko, Y. Mizuno, H. Nakamura,
Fault classification of outer-race bearing damage in low-voltage
induction motor with aid of fourier analysis and SVM, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Technology, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Inc, 2018, pp. 407–412.
[22] N.A. Mohsun, Broken rotor bar fault classification for
induction motor based on support vector machine-SVM, in:
Proceedings - 2017 International Conference on Engineering
and MIS, ICEMIS 2017, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc., 2018, pp. 1–6.
[23] M. Singh, A.G. Shaik, Incipient fault detection in stator
windings of an induction motor using stockwell transform and
SVM, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 69 (2020) 9496–9504.
[24] A. Chouhan, P. Gangsar, R. Porwal, C.K. Mechefske, Artificial
neural network–based fault diagnosis for induction motors
under similar, interpolated and extrapolated operating
conditions, Noise Vibration Worldwide 52 (2021) 323–333.
[25] S.K. Ramu, G.C. Raj Irudayaraj, S. Subramani, U.
Subramaniam, Broken rotor bar fault detection using Hilbert
transform and neural networks applied to direct torque control
of induction motor drive, IET Power Electronics 13 (2020)
3328–3338.
[26] N. Lashkari, J. Poshtan, H.F. Azgomi, Simulative and
experimental investigation on stator winding turn and
unbalanced supply voltage fault diagnosis in induction motors
using Artificial Neural Networks, ISA Trans. 59 (2015) 334–342.
[27] G.H. Bazan, P.R. Scalassara, W. Endo, A. Goedtel, W.F.
Godoy, R.H.C. Palácios, Stator fault analysis of three-phase
induction motors using information measures and artificial
neural networks, Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 143 (2017) 347–356.
[28] P. Wang, E. Fan, P. Wang, Comparative analysis of image
classification algorithms based on traditional machine learning
and deep learning, Pattern Recogn. Lett. 141 (2021) 61–67.
[29] A. Boum, N.Y.J. Maurice, L.N. Nneme, L.M. Mbumda, Fault
diagnosis of an induction motor based on fuzzy logic, artificial
neural network and hybrid system, Int. J. Control Sci. Eng. 8
(2018) 42–51.
[30] Y. Hsueh, V.R. Ittangihala, W.-B. Wu, H.-C. Chang, C.-C.
Kuo, Condition Monitor system for rotation machine by CNN
with recurrence plot, Energies 12 (2019) 3221.
[31] D.T. Hoang, H.J. Kang, A motor current signal-based bearing
fault diagnosis using deep learning and information fusion,
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 69 (2020) 3325–3333.
[32] P. Kumar, A.S. Hati, Convolutional neural network with batch
normalisation for fault detection in squirrel cage induction
motor, IET Electr. Power Appl. 15 (2021) 39–50.
[33] X. Zhao, I. Alqatawneh, M. Lane, H. Li, Y. Qin, F. Gu, A.D.
Ball, Investigation into LSTM deep learning for induction
motor fault diagnosis, Mech. Machine Sci. 117 (2023) 505–518.
[34] F. Husari, J. Seshadrinath, Sensitive Inter-Tum Fault
Identifcation in Induction Motors Using Deep Learning Based
Methods, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.,
2020.
[35] F. Husari, J. Seshadrinath, Early stator fault detection and
condition identification in induction motor using novel deep
network, IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell. 3 (2022) 809–818.
[36] M. Valtierra-Rodriguez, J.R. Rivera-Guillen, J.A. Basurto-
Hurtado, J. Jesus De-Santiago-Perez, D. Granados-Lieberman,
J.P. Amezquita-Sanchez, Convolutional neural network and
motor current signature analysis during the transient state for
247
detection of broken rotor bars in induction motors, Sensors 20
(2020) 3721.
[37] S. Jorkesh, J. Poshtan, Fault diagnosis of an induction motor
using data fusion based on neural networks, IET Sci. Meas.
Technol. 15 (2021) 681–689.
[38] D. Wang, Y. Li, L. Jia, Y. Song, Y. Liu, Novel three-stage
feature fusion method of multimodal data for bearing fault
diagnosis, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70 (2021).
[39] X. Chen, B. Zhang, D. Gao, Bearing fault diagnosis base on multi-
scale CNN and LSTM model, J. Intell. Manuf. 32 (2021) 971–987.
[40] H.-C. Chang, Y.-C. Wang, Y.-Y. Shih, C.-C. Kuo, Fault
diagnosis of induction motors with imbalanced data using
deep convolutional generative adversarial network, Appl. Sci. 12
(2022) 4080.
[41] H.L. Thamer, B.T. Al-Lamey, D. Al-Thammer, Diagnosing of
bearing faults in induction motor by adopting DWT-based
artificial neural network (ANN), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1773 (2021).
[42] X. Peng, L. Wei, W. Gao, Application of CNN-based machine
learning in the study of motor fault diagnosis, Comput. Intell.
Neurosci. 2022 (2022).
[43] G. Rajamany, S. Srinivasan, K. Rajamany, R.K. Natarajan,
Induction motor stator interturn short circuit fault detection in
accordance with line current sequence components using
artificial neural network, J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2019 (2019).
[44] T. Ince, Real-time broken rotor bar fault detection and
classification by shallow 1D convolutional neural networks,
Electr. Eng. 101 (2019) 599–608.
[45] T. Xie, X. Huang, S.K. Choi, Intelligent mechanical fault
diagnosis using multisensor fusion and convolution neural
network, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 18 (2022) 3213–3223.
[46] Z. Chen, A. Mauricio, W. Li, K. Gryllias, A deep learning
method for bearing fault diagnosis based on Cyclic Spectral
Coherence and Convolutional Neural Networks, Mech. Syst.
Sig. Process. 140 (2020) 106683.
[47] L. Wen, X. Li, L. Gao, A transfer convolutional neural network
for fault diagnosis based on ResNet-50, Neural Comput. Appl.
32 (2020) 6111–6124.
[48] E.T. Aline, A.F. Rogério, S. Marcelo, R.M. Narco Afonso,
Experimental database for detecting and diagnosing rotor broken
bar in a three-phase induction motor, IEEE Dataport. (2020).
[49] C. Lessmeier, KAt-DataCenter, Chair of Design and Drive
Technology, Paderborn University, 2016. mb.uni-paderborn.de/
kat/datacenter (accessed February 13, 2023).
[50] N.F. Waziralilah, A. Abu, M.H. Lim, L.K. Quen, A.
Elfakharany, A review on convolutional neural network in
bearing fault diagnosis, in: MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP
Sciences, 2019.
[51] J. Jiao, M. Zhao, J. Lin, K. Liang, A comprehensive review on
convolutional neural network in machine fault diagnosis,
Neurocomputing 417 (2020) 36–63.
[52] P. Gangsar, R. Tiwari, Signal based condition monitoring
techniques for fault detection and diagnosis of induction motors:
a state-of-the-art review, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 144 (2020).
[53] T. Zimnickas, J. Vanagas, K. Dambrauskas, A. Kalvaitis, A
technique for frequency converter-fed asynchronous motor
vibration monitoring and fault classification, applying
continuous wavelet transform and convolutional neural
networks, Energies 2020 13 (2020) 3690.
[54] M. Jimenez-Guarneros, C. Morales-Perez, J.D.J. Rangel-
Magdaleno, Diagnostic of combined mechanical and electrical
faults in ASD-powered induction motor using MODWT and a
lightweight 1-D CNN, IEEE Trans Industr Inform. 18 (2022)
4688–4697.
[55] O. Attallah, R.A. Ibrahim, N.E. Zakzouk, Fault diagnosis for
induction generator-based wind turbine using ensemble deep
learning techniques, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 12787–12798.
[56] P. Kumar, A.S. Hati, Dilated convolutional neural network
based model for bearing faults and broken rotor bar detection in
248
squirrel cage induction motors, Expert Syst. Appl. 191 (2022)
116290.
[57] O. Janssens, V. Slavkovikj, B. Vervisch, K. Stockman, M.
Loccufier, S. Verstockt, R. van de Walle, S. van Hoecke,
Convolutional neural network based fault detection for rotating
machinery, J. Sound Vib. 377 (2016) 331–345.
[58] J. Grezmak, J. Zhang, P. Wang, K.A. Loparo, R.X. Gao,
Interpretable convolutional neural network through layer-wise
relevance propagation for machine fault diagnosis, IEEE Sens.
J. 20 (2020) 3172–3181.
[59] M. Skowron, Application of deep learning neural networks for the
diagnosis of electrical damage to the induction motor using the
axial flux, Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 68 (2020) 1031–1038.
[60] R.N. Toma, F.H. Toma, J.M. Kim, Comparative Analysis of
Continuous Wavelet Transforms on Vibration signal in Bearing
Fault Diagnosis of Induction Motor, in, Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2021.
[61] M.A. Khan, Y.H. Kim, J. Choo, Intelligent fault detection using
raw vibration signals via dilated convolutional neural networks,
J. Supercomput. 76 (2020) 8086–8100.
[62] D.J. Choi, J.H. Han, S.U. Park, S.K. Hong, Diagnosis of electric
motor using acoustic noise based on CNN, 2019 22nd
International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems,
ICEMS 2019, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Inc., 2019.
[63] Y.-M. Hsueh, V.R. Ittangihal, W.-B. Wu, H.-C. Chang, C.-C.
Kuo, Fault diagnosis system for induction motors by CNN
using empirical wavelet transform, Symmetry (Basel). 11 (2019).
[64] A. Nandi, S. Biswas, K. Samanta, S.S. Roy, S. Chatterjee,
Diagnosis of induction motor faults using frequency occurrence
image plots—a deep learning approach, in: 2019 International
Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer
Engineering (UPCON), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–4.
[65] S. Shao, R. Yan, Y. Lu, P. Wang, R.X. Gao, DCNN-Based
multi-signal induction motor fault diagnosis, IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas. 69 (2020) 2658–2669.
[66] P. Fu, J. Wang, X. Zhang, L. Zhang, R.X. Gao, Dynamic routing-
based multimodal neural network for multi-sensory fault
diagnosis of induction motor, J. Manuf. Syst. 55 (2020) 264–272.
[67] J.H. Lee, J.H. Pack, I.S. Lee, Fault diagnosis of induction motor
using convolutional neural network, Appl. Sci. 9 (2019) 2950.
[68] M. Skowron, T. Orlowska-Kowalska, M. Wolkiewicz, C.T.
Kowalski, Convolutional neural network-based stator current
data-driven incipient stator fault diagnosis of inverter-fed
induction motor, Energies (Basel) 13 (2020).
[69] S. Gundewar, P. Kane, A. Andhare, Detection of broken rotor
bar fault in an induction motor using convolution neural
network, J. Adv. Mech. Design Systems Manuf. 16 (2022) 1–13.
[70] N.A. Dobroskok, A.D. Skakun, G.V. Belskii, E.V. Serykh, A.V.
Devyatkin, R.M. Migranov, V.K. Bulichyov, Neural network based
detecting induction motor defects supplied by unbalanced grid, Int.
J. Power Electron. Drive Syst. (IJPEDS) 14 (2023) 185–198.
[71] F. Husari, J. Seshadrinath, Inter-turn fault diagnosis of
induction motor fed by PCC-VSI using park vector approach,
9th IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics,
Drives and Energy Systems, PEDES 2020, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2020.
[72] J. Zarei, J. Poshtan, An advanced Park’s vectors approach for
bearing fault detection, Tribol. Int. 42 (2009) 213–219.
[73] T.G. Vilhekar, R. Raghavendra, M.S. Ballal, Detection of
winding faults in auxiliary and main windings of single phase
squirrel cage induction motor by monitoring lissajous patterns,
in: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics,
Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES), 2016, pp. 1–6.
[74] S.E. Pandarakone, M. Masuko, Y. Mizuno, H. Nakamura, Deep
neural network based bearing fault diagnosis of induction motor
using fast Fourier transform analysis, in: in: 2018 IEEE Energy
M. Abdelmaksoud et al.
Conversion Congress and Exposition, ECCE 2018, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2018, pp. 3214–3221.
[75] Z. Jiang, Q. Han, X. Xu, Fault diagnosis of planetary gearbox
based on motor current signal analysis, Shock Vib. 2020 (2020).
[76] S. Misra, S. Kumar, S. Sayyad, A. Bongale, P. Jadhav, K. Kotecha,
A. Abraham, L.A. Gabralla, A.P.J. Abdul, Fault detection in
induction motor using time domain and spectral imaging-based
transfer learning approach on vibration data, Sensors 22 (2022) 8210.
[77] R. Mukhopadhyay, P.S. Panigrahy, G. Misra, P.
Chattopadhyay, Quasi 1D CNN-based fault diagnosis of
induction motor drives, in: 2018 5th International Conference
on Electric Power and Energy Conversion Systems, EPECS
2018, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2018.
[78] P. Chattopadhyay, N. Saha, C. Delpha, J. Sil, Deep learning in
fault diagnosis of induction motor drives, in: Proceedings - 2018
Prognostics and System Health Management Conference,
PHM-Chongqing 2018, 2019, pp. 1068–1073.
[79] J. Wang, D. Wang, S. Wang, W. Li, K. Song, Fault Diagnosis of
Bearings Based on Multi-Sensor Information Fusion and 2D
Convolutional Neural Network, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 23717–23725.
[80] E.J. Piedad, Y.T. Chen, H.C. Chang, C.C. Kuo, Frequency
occurrence plot-based convolutional neural network for motor
fault diagnosis, Electronics (Switzerland). 9 (2020) 1–17.
[81] Z. Muhammad, S. Faraz Ahmed, S. Usman Ahmed, S. Asadullah,
An Approach on MCSA-Based Fault Detection Using Discrete
Wavelet Transform and Fault Classification Based on Deep
Neural Networks, International Journal of Advanced Trends in
Computer Science and Engineering. 10 (2021) 2256–2259.
[82] M. Zuhaib, F.A. Shaikh, W. Tanweer, A.M. Alnajim, S.
Alyahya, S. Khan, M. Usman, M. Islam, M.K. Hasan, Faults
Feature Extraction Using Discrete Wavelet Transform and
Artificial Neural Network for Induction Motor Availability
Monitoring-Internet of Things Enabled Environment, Energies
2022, Vol. 15, Page 7888. 15 (2022) 7888.
[83] N. Dutta, P. Kaliannan, P. Shanmugam, Application of
machine learning for inter turn fault detection in pumping
system, Scientific Reports 2022 12:1. 12 (2022) 1–18.
[84] J. Zhao, W. Huang, Transfer learning method for rolling
bearing fault diagnosis under different working conditions based
on CycleGAN, Meas. Sci. Technol. 33 (2021) 025003.
[85] K.N. Gyftakis, E. Palomeno, D.V. Spyropoulos, E.D.
Mitronikas, Detection of Rotor Electrical Faults in Induction
Motors during the Start-up via Torque Monitoring, in: IECON
Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference), IEEE
Computer Society, 2019, pp. 3673–3678.
[86] B. Liang, S.D. Iwnicki, Y. Zhao, Application of power
spectrum, cepstrum, higher order spectrum and neural
network analyses for induction motor fault diagnosis, Mech.
Syst. Sig. Process. 39 (2013) 342–360.
[87] S. Verma, N. Henwood, M. Castella, A.K. Jebai, J.C. Pesquet,
Neural Speed-Torque Estimator for Induction Motors in the
Presence of Measurement Noise, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 70
(2023) 167–177.
[88] P.B. Sangeetha, S. Hemamalini, Rational-dilation wavelet
transform based torque estimation from acoustic signals for
fault diagnosis in a three-phase induction motor, IEEE Trans
Industr Inform. 15 (2019) 3492–3501.
[89] I. Chouidira, D.E. Khodja, S. Chakroune, Induction machine
faults detection and localization by neural networks methods,
Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle. 33 (2019) 427–434.
[90] ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2021 Motors and Generators Summary of
Changes for ANSI/NEMA MG 1-2021, 2022. www.nema.org.
[91] A. Ibrahim, F. Anayi, M. Packianather, An efficient model
for induction motor fault detection using a deep transfer
learning network, in: International Conference on Innovations
in Energy Engineering & Cleaner Production IEECP22, 2022:
pp. 1–6.