This evolution is the result of a filtering with a BMAF with four samples in the average. There is a small peak-to-peak variation of 0.045 Hz around an average of fp1 =12.486463437276486 Hz) for an average period of Tp1=1/fp1= 0.080086727921266 s (useful to find by FASS the PCRRf1 pattern of the first rotation speed of the rotor). This frequency variation is caused by the relative vibrations between the laser sensor and the rotor and the torsional vibrations of the rotor. The average first rotor’s rotation speed is np1 = 60·fp1 =749.187 rpm.
There is a very small peak-to-peak variation of 0.034 Hz (due entirely to the behaviour of the electrical network supply) around an average value of fIV1 = 49.9826 Hz. This average frequency defines the exact value of the synchronous motor’s speed ns1, as ns1=60·fIV1/p1 (with p1=4 the number of magnetic poles), so ns1 =749.739 rpm. This average frequency fIV1 should be considered as related by average period TIV1=1/fIV1. This average period is used to define the number of samples h=2001 (from) in the BMAF used in Equation (1) to define the IAEPf.
A similar approach was done for a second no-load test at stationary regime for the second theoretical synchronous speed (1500 rpm, p2=2). This time these values were obtained: fp2 =24.979842608525143 Hz), Tp2 = 0.040032277851852 s (useful to find the PCRRf2 pattern of the second rotation speed of the rotor), fIV2=49.9955 Hz, np2= 1498.790 rpm, ns2=1499.865 rpm, h=2000 and s2=0.07167%.
3.2.1. The Extraction of the PCRRf1 Patterns
The evolution of the VIAEPf1 during the first experiment at 750 rpm is shown in
Figure 15 (
2,000,000-h samples, with
Δt=10μs). A zooming in region A suggests that there is a dominant component within the VIAEPf1 that is expected to have the period of
Tp1, which is expected to be reflected in the PCRRf1a pattern.
This PCRRf1a pattern is extracted by FASS, based on Equation (3), with
Tp, m and
n particularized as
Tp1a=0.080086727921266 s, m1a =245 and
= 8009 samples.
Figure 16 shows two periods of this PCRRf1a pattern (curve 1, in blue). This PCRRf1a pattern (with a peak-to-peak amplitude of approximately 9 W) is plotted relative to the position of the angular marker placed on the rotor (2,
Figure 3), more precisely it starts (
t=0) at the time when this marker passes through the angular origin. This moment is marked by a minimum value on the PCSL1a pattern. This PCSL1a pattern (shown in Geneva green colour, with curve 2 in
Figure 16, also with two periods,) is obtained by FASS treatment of the variable part of the signal
uSL[s·Δt] with exactly the same values
Tp1,
m1 and
n1 used previously to extract the PCRRf1a pattern.
The
x-axis of
Figure 16 also shows the phase angle of the patterns with respect to the origin. However, this phase angle must be seen in the light of the fact that there is a gap (phase difference) between the variable mechanical phenomena and their reflection in the VIAEPf, due to the dynamics of the rotor (its inertia, the rigidity of the rotating magnetic field, dry and viscous friction, rotation frequency, etc.).
The fact that this PCRRf1a pattern can be used to synthetically characterise this motor, running at first speed under no-load is confirmed by its repeatability. A new evolution of VIAEPf (identical in time and number of samples but acquired next day) was processed with an identical FASS, resulting in a new pattern as PCRRf1b, represented by the red curve 3 in
Figure 16 (the PCSL1b pattern is identical with PCSL1a). Despite slightly different conditions (
Tp1b = 0.080057415179776 s,
n1b =
8006 samples,
fIV1b = 50.0017 Hz, s1b = 0.07511%) the similarities with the PCRRf1a pattern are quite obvious.
The difference between these two patterns is partly explained by the variation of the instantaneous speed of rotation and consequently of the instantaneous periods
Tpi1 and
Tpi1a and probably by some minor, normal changes in the condition of the motor. To be very rigorous, we must also point out a fact that proves that the accuracy of the PCRRf1a and PCRRf1b patterns is not perfect, because according to detail A, shown enlarged in
Figure 17, there is a very small abnormal step discontinuity between the two periods. Conversely, this discontinuity is not observed in PCSL1a and PCSL1b.
According to
Figure 3, a permanent magnet 5 (weighing about 10 g) as dynamically unbalanced mass (DUM) was placed (at a distance of 35 mm from the axis) on the jaw coupling hub 4 mounted on the rotor, in three different angular positions relative to the angular marker 2. For each position, the PCRRf1 pattern was recorded under the experimental conditions already described. Curve 1 shows the PCRRf1a pattern (already described above, without DUM), curve 2 shows the PCRRf1c pattern (the DUM placed at 60 degrees before the marker 2, relative to the direction of rotation), curve 3 shows the PCRRf1d pattern (the DUM placed at 60 degrees after the marker 2) and curve 4 shows the PCRRf1e pattern (the DUM placed at 180 degrees).
It would be expected that the centrifugal force generated by the dynamic unbalance (acting as a rotational force pushing radially against the bearings) would alter the PCRRf1 patterns. As can be clearly seen, there are no major differences between the patterns, indicating that these mechanical unbalances have an insignificant influence (mainly due to the low rotor speed). It should be noted that this rotating centrifugal force has another effect: it excites the motor to vibrate on its support. The mechanical power delivered by the motor to supply this vibration is obviously reflected in the IAEPf. This effect has not been highlighted here (e.g. by phase-shifting of patterns).
3.2.1.1. The Analysis of the PCRRf1a Pattern
Some resources provided by the analysis of the PCRRf1a pattern are presented below.
The FASS procedure was used to obtain the synthetic description of the PCRRf1a pattern (by the coordinates of the
n points on the curve). An approximate analytical description of this pattern can be done as the sum of
r sinusoidal components, with a sample formally described as
A simple procedure (already introduced in [
44]) is also available here to find the constants
Afai (as amplitudes),
Bfai (as frequencies) and
Cfai (as phases at the origin of time). Similarly to
Figure 16 (which contains two periods of the PCRRf1s pattern), the synthetic definition of the PCRRf1a pattern is extended to more than one period (e.g. 10 periods). Thus, the description of a generic sample
PpTp1a[k·Δt] from the synthetic definition of PCRRf1a pattern is available for
k=1÷10·n. Using the
Curve Fitting Tool from Matlab, applied to the extended PCRRf1a pattern, it is possible to find quite accurately the values of the constants from Equation (6) up to a reasonable upper limit
r (here
r=15). The extended PCRRf1a pattern (with ten periods) rather than the normal pattern (with one period) is used to increase the accuracy of determining the values of the constants. A model with a sum of eight sinusoidal components was used in the curve fitting procedure. A first curve fitting procedure produces the values of the first eight sets of constants (for
i=1÷8). The eight harmonic components defined by these sets are mathematically removed from the extended PCRRf1a pattern. The curve fitting procedure is then reapplied to the remainder of the pattern, finding another eight sets of constants (for
i=9÷16). One set is ignored, corresponding to a component with an insignificant amplitude. The values of the constants thus determined are given in
Table 1, in ascending order of frequency
Bfai.
It is quite obvious that, as predicted, FASS has produced two notable results: first, it has removed all signal components that are not harmonically correlated with the Tp1a period (including the signal noise), and second, it has retained only the pattern sinusoidal components that are harmonically correlated with this period. In other words, there is harmonic correlation between the Bfai frequencies (Bfa i= i· Bfa1). Some harmonics are missing. For example, the third harmonic (with a frequency of 49.9428 Hz) is missing because it is very close to the 50 Hz frequency and is removed by the BMAF filter used to define IAEPf1a. The absence of the other harmonics is due to the peculiarities of the shape of the PCRRf1a pattern.
The quality of the analytical description of the PCRRf1a pattern, based on the definition from Equation (6) and the values in
Table 1, can be illustrated simply by plotting the two patterns as shown in
Figure 19.
This figure shows two periods of the synthetic pattern (in blue, curve 1, visible when zooming into area A, where the overlap is worst) and two periods of the analytical pattern (in red, curve 2). A very good analytical description makes the two patterns overlap very well, the (insignificant) differences are shown (as an example) in the zoom in area A.
Curve 3 (in black) shows the evolution of the difference (sample by sample) between the two patterns (as a residual, what remains after the mathematical subtraction of the analytical model from the synthetic one).
Obtaining analytical descriptions of the patterns facilitates the application of more advanced motor condition monitoring strategies (e.g. related to phenomenon described by the evolution of a particular harmonic).
There is another way to describe the content of the PCRRf1a pattern, based on the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) spectrum. In order to obtain a high resolution of the spectrum (in frequency), it is essential to use the FFT of the extended PCRRf1a pattern (e.g. for 10 periods, as before).
The FFT spectrum of the extended synthetic PCRRf1a pattern is shown in
Figure 20, window 1 (in the frequency range of 0 ÷ 550 Hz).
A zoom of this spectrum from region A (the same frequency range, 0 ÷ 0.2 W range on the
y-axis) is shown in window 2. A zoom of this spectrum from region B (the same frequency range, 0÷0.0.1 W range on the
y-axis) is shown in window 3. As can be clearly seen in window 1, all harmonics of the fundamental component (with period
Tp1a) are practically represented, which means that the analytical description (6) of the pattern can theoretically be raised over
r = 15. The dominant sinusoidal component (previously identified by curve fitting and described in the first row of
Table 1) is also well represented here (with frequency and amplitude, by the highest peak in window 1). However, here and for all other sinusoidal components shown in spectrum, the phase angle at the time origin is missing (not provided by FFT).
Similarly to window 1 from
Figure 20, curve 1 on
Figure 21 shows a zoom of the FFT spectrum of the extended analytical PCRRf1a (in the frequency range 0÷550 Hz). As expected, there are only 15 peaks in this spectrum, corresponding to the 15 components identified before by curve fitting (and described in
Table 1).
It is important to note that both PCRRf1a patterns (synthetic and analytical) are affected by the action of BMAF (which previously allowed the definition of IAEPf from IEP) in the sense that practically the amplitudes of all sinusoidal components of these patterns are attenuated (and some of them are eliminated) on the one hand (i.e. depending on their frequency, their real amplitudes are found at the output of the filter multiplied by the transmissibility
Tr(f) of the filter, with
Tr(f) < 1), and on the other hand their phases at the time origin are modified (a phase angle is introduced). The frequencies of the sinusoidal components remain unchanged. The evolution of this transmissibility
Tr(f) as a depending by frequency has already been shown (as an example) in
Figure 5 (BMAF with
h=2000), for PCRRf1a in particular
h=2001.
This question now arises: is it possible to obtain the real pattern, unaffected by these two deficiencies (as PCRR1a pattern)? Since the description of the main components of the analytical PCRRf1a is fully known (
Table 1), there is a simple way to find the real amplitudes (as
Aai) of the sinusoidal components: to amplify the amplitudes (
Afai) with the inverse of the BMAF transmissibility (
1/Tr(f)) at frequencies
f = Bfai, so
Aai =
Afai/Tr(Bfai). As consequence, because
Tr(f) < 1, all the amplitudes
Aai increase (
Aai >
Afai). The evolution of the inverse of the transmissibility with the frequency (within 0 ÷ 550 Hz range) was shown in
Figure 21 (the red curve, 2). On the
1/Tr(f) curve (with an upper limit at 200) there are some peaks (with infinite amplitudes) corresponding to
Tr(f)= 0 and the regions labelled R1, R2….R11 in between.
It is easy to prove that only in the even regions (R2, R4, .... R10) a phase shift of π radians is introduced by BMAF, so that there the real phases angle at the origin of time (as Cfai) should be rewritten as Cai = Cfai +π. Only the components i = 4 ÷ 6 fulfil this condition, as being placed in R2.
Using these amplitude and phase correction approaches, the description of the sinusoidal components of the real analytical pattern PCRR1a is given in
Table 2.
Unexpectedly, the amplitude
Aa7 is huge. A simple reason explains this fact: within the IEP there is a huge dominant component of 100 Hz (1164 W as shown in
Figure 5). Because of the sampling, new sinusoidal components are artificially created (due to a phenomenon known as spectral leakage) very close (in frequency) to this dominant component. This component is not completely removed by the BMAF. It is obvious that this component must be compulsorily neglected in the analytical patterns PCRRf1a and PCRR1a. Based on Equation (6) – where
Afai,
Bfai and
Cfai have been replaced by
Aai,
Bai and
Cai - and
Table 2, the analytical pattern PCRR1a was built (with two periods) as shown in
Figure 22 (curve 1), superimposed on the analytical pattern PCRRf1a (curve 2, also with two periods). It is obvious that the PCRR1a pattern filtering using the BMAF (with
h=2001) produces PCRRf1a pattern.
Of course, a more complete description of the analytical PCRR1a pattern can be obtained if the component identification on synthetic extended PCRRf1a is done by curve fitting for
r>15. As can be seen from the FFT spectrum in
Figure 20, there are many other small amplitude sinusoidal components that can be considered in this description.
It is obvious that the analytical PCRR1a pattern can only be deduced by knowing the analytical approximation of the PCRR1fa pattern (from Equation (6), here based on the data in
Table 1). In other words, it is not possible to use direct the synthetically defined PCRRf1a pattern for this purpose.
It is interesting to look at the similarities between the PCRR1a and PCRR1b patterns (PCRR1b being similarly obtained from PCRRf1b).
Figure 23 shows these two patterns superimposed (curve 1 as PCRR1a, curve 2 as PCRR1b, both with two periods).
As can be clearly seen, there are some similarities but also some relatively large differences (the patterns do not fit perfectly). The first plausible reason for these differences is the accuracy of the curve-fitting procedure used to find the mathematical description of the synthetic patterns, as it is less accurate in describing the low-amplitude sinusoidal components (which also have high frequencies) in PCRR1fa, b. An approach on a more accurate curve-fitting procedure is needed, as a future challenge.
We believe that, for the time being, the use of analytical PCRRf1a, b patterns or their FFT spectra is more reliable for motor condition monitoring.
3.2.2. The Extraction and the Analysis of the PCRRf2 Patterns
Similar to
Figure 15, the evolution of the VIAEPf (as VIAEPf2a) during a first experiment (without DUM) at 1500 rpm (theoretical synchronous speed) is shown in
Figure 24 (also with
2,000,000-h samples, and
Δt=10μs). An zooming in of region A shows (as an example) the local character of the instantaneous active electrical power variation.
Using the FASS procedure - based on Equation (3) - it was possible to extract a first PCRRf2 pattern (as PCRRf2a, with
Tp2a = 0.040018907773371 s,
n2a =4002 and
m2a =460) described with two periods, with curve 1 in
Figure 25. In the same figure, curve 2 shows a PCRRf2b pattern (from a second identical sequence, VIAEPf2b, sampled after 200 s, with the motor running continuously after the first experiment) and curve 3 shows a PCRRf2c pattern (from a third identical sequence, VIAEPf2c, sampled after 400 s, with the motor running continuously after the first experiment). The curves 4 show the overlaid patterns PCSL2a, b, c also with two periods.
There is a logical assumption that PCRRf2a, b and c patterns are strictly correlated with PCSL2a, b, c patterns (PCRRf2a, b and c starts and ends on a minimum of PCSL2a, b and c). The FASS method of extracting both types of patterns means that they no longer start strictly on the PCSL2a, b and c minima (due to averaging with a high
m value and local variation of
Tp2a,b,c periods). Thus, after the initial selection of the sample position for
k=1 (from Equation (3)) on a minimum of the
uSL[s·Δt] signal and obtaining the patterns, for each pair of patterns (e.g. PCRRf2a and PCSL2a) the value of
k is slightly adjusted appropriately until the PCSL2a starts strictly on its minimum (or more simply, until the
nth sample of PCSL2a is exactly its minimum). In this way we are sure that the PCSLa, b and c patterns overlap as much as possible (as
Figure 25 clearly shows), and therefore we expect to have the correct overlap of the PCRRf2a, b and c patterns (for comparison between).
As
Figure 25 clearly shows, the PCRRf2a, b and c patterns (found under similar experimental conditions) overlap quite well, having quite similar shapes and amplitudes, which once again indicates that this type of pattern is an important indicator within the evolution of IAEPf, useful for describing the state of the motor running at no-load.
It is interesting to remark that the average peak-to-peak amplitude of these patterns is smaller than the average peak-to-peak amplitude of the patterns PCRRf1a, b (
Figure 16). There is a hypothesis here: probably the dynamic system of the rotor and the rotating magnetic field now acts as an attenuator; the variable mechanical phenomena (at a higher instantaneous speed now than before) are reflected with reduced amplitudes in the IAEPf evolution.
The practical usefulness of this PCRRf2 pattern can be illustrated experimentally by showing how it changes with the introduction of different no-load running conditions for the motor rotor, e.g. by adding the DUM to the rotor [
10], at different angular positions (a topic already discussed). According to
Figure 3, the DUM was placed on the jaw coupling hub mounted on the rotor (at a distance of 35 cm from the axis), at 60 degrees before the angular marker 2, relative to the direction of rotation.
Three consecutive identical tests were carried out with the motor continuously running at no-load with 1500 rpm (theoretical synchronous speed) with the same time delay between as before, with VIAEPf2 registration (
2,000,000-h samples, with
Δt=10μs, at 0 s, 200 s and 400 s) and extraction of three new PCRRf2 patterns (as PCRRf2a1, b1 and c1), graphically represented (with two periods each one) in
Figure 26 (as curves 1, 2 and 3). Curve 4 shows the evolution of PCSL2a1 pattern (as a formal representation, without indication of vertical magnification). For comparison, curve 4 shows the evolution of the PCRRf2a pattern from
Figure 25 (now with colour changing from blue to black).
As expected, there are significant similarities between the three patterns PCRRf2a1, b1, and c1 (as describing similar experiments) and, interestingly, there are significant differences compared to the PCRRf2a pattern (in peak-to-peak amplitude, shape and time lag to the angular marker 2 on the rotor shown in
Figure 3), certainly as an effect of the DUM (through the rotary centrifugal force of 8.63 N thus created), better highlighted due to the higher rotor speed. Of course, it is possible to investigate the content of harmonically correlated sinusoidal components of these patterns (e.g. PCRRf2a1) using the curve-fitting method, or to describe this contents using the FFT transform as shown above.
Three further similar identical tests were carried out under the same conditions; this time with the DUM placed 60 degrees behind the angular reference 2 (relative to the direction of rotor rotation). The patterns PCRRf2a2, b2 and c2 were extracted and plotted in
Figure 27 (represented by curves 1, 2 and 3). Here curve 4 shows the pattern PCSL2a2 (without indication of vertical magnification); curve 5 shows the pattern PCRRf2a identical to
Figure 25 (for comparison); curve 6 shows the pattern PCRRf2a1 from
Figure 26 (now with colour changing from blue to magenta).
As expected, there are again significant similarities between the three patterns PCRRf2a2, b2, c2 (as describing similar experiments), better than before (
Figure 26).
It is now clear that the amplitude of the PCRRf2a2, b2 and c2 patterns is even greater this time, suggesting that the rotor itself (without DUM) is dynamically unbalanced. In these new experiments the additional mass increases the total dynamic unbalance. The change of the phase shift from the origin (the minimum on PCSL2a2 signal) is also evident.
Finally, three more similar identical tests were carried out under the same conditions, except this time the DUM, which now is positioned at 180 degrees from the angular mark 2. The patterns PCRRf2a3, b3 and c3 were extracted and plotted in
Figure 28 (represented by curves 1, 2 and 3). Here curve 4 shows the pattern PCSL2a3 (without indication of vertical magnification); curve 5 shows the pattern PCRRf2a also shown in
Figure 26 and
Figure 27 (for comparison); curve 6 shows the pattern PCRRf2a1 also shown in
Figure 27 (for comparison); curve 7 shows the pattern PCRRf2a2 from
Figure 27 (with colour change from blue to purple). For the new patterns (PCRRf2a3, b3 and c3), there is a small increase in amplitude but a significant change in phase shifting (revealed here as a time lag) compared to the origin.
In order to have a clearer idea of the influence of the angular position of the DUM placed on the jaw coupling hub (and also on the rotor),
Figure 29 shows a synthesis of the experimental results: only the PCRRf2a, a1, a2 and a3 patterns and the PCSL2a3 pattern (used to mark the origin of the patterns) are shown. Here PCRRf2a is the pattern obtained when the rotor rotates at 1500 rpm (theoretical rotation speed) without the DUM (also curve 1 in
Figure 25); PCRRf2a1 is obtained when the rotor rotates with the DUM placed at 60 degrees before the angular marker (also curve 1 in
Figure 26); PCRRf2a2 is obtained when the rotor rotates with the DUM placed at 60 degrees after the angular marker (also curve 1 in
Figure 27); PCRRf2a3 is obtained when the rotor rotates with the DUM placed at 180 degrees against the angular marker (also curve 1 in
Figure 27) ;
On the
x-axis of the
Figure 29, the values of time and the angle to the origin on rotor (2 in
Figure 3) are marked.
These angular values on the x-axis help to relate the position of the patterns to the angular origin on the rotor (placed here at 0 degrees). In the event of a rotor malfunction (usually of a mechanical nature), this helps to identify the cause.
As a general remark, the PCSL patterns (in all the experiments) are only used to find the angular origin on the rotor (described by position of their minima). The change in shape of these patterns (e.g. between
Figure 27 and
Figure 28) is generally related to the change in relative vibration between the rotor (motor) and the laser sensor.