Condition Monitoring of Electric Machines Modern Frameworks and Data-Driven Methodologies
Condition Monitoring of Electric Machines Modern Frameworks and Data-Driven Methodologies
Review
School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; [email protected]
Abstract: Electrical machines are at the centre of most engineering processes, with rotating
electrical machines, in particular, becoming increasingly important in recent history due
to their growing applications in electric vehicles and renewable energy. Although the
landscape of condition monitoring in electrical machines has evolved over the past 50 years,
the intensification of engineering efforts towards sustainability, reliability, and efficiency,
coupled with breakthroughs in computing, has prompted a data-driven paradigm shift.
This paper explores the evolution of condition monitoring of rotating electrical machines
in the context of maintenance strategy, focusing on the emergence of this data-driven
paradigm. Due to the broad and varying nature of condition monitoring practices, a
framework is also offered here, along with other essential terms of reference, to provide
a concise overview of recent developments and to highlight the modern challenges and
opportunities within this area. The paper is purposefully written as a tutorial-style overview
for the benefit of practising engineers and researchers who are new to the field or not
familiar with the wider intricacies of modern condition monitoring systems.
1. Introduction
Rotating electrical machines are ubiquitous in all manner of modern engineering
applications. Most of these applications employ machines, particularly at lower ratings,
Academic Editor: Davide Astolfi
that are adequately robust, effective, and reliable when compared to their availability
Received: 14 January 2025
requirements, such that condition monitoring is not required [1]. However, there are
Revised: 10 February 2025
many applications where the reliability of rotating electrical machines is critical to the
Accepted: 12 February 2025
Published: 13 February 2025
function they serve, necessitating condition monitoring. In recent decades, there has been
a significant increase in these types of applications in growth sectors such as renewable
Citation: Doorsamy, W. Condition
Monitoring of Electric Machines:
energy [2], industrial automation [3], and electric vehicles [4].
Modern Frameworks and Data-Driven This growth in demand for condition monitoring in rotating electrical machines, cou-
Methodologies. Machines 2025, 13, 144. pled with related technological advancements in sensing, communications, and computing,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ has led to increased research and development in this field, particularly with data-driven
machines13020144
approaches. Consequently, the field has garnered widespread interest and a corresponding
Copyright: © 2025 by the author. increase in the research literature, but much of this continues to be in directions that are
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. not particularly useful to industry [5]. Although there have been some notable surveys in
This article is an open access article
recent history, such as [5–9], this issue extends to many other general surveys that have
distributed under the terms and
emerged more recently. A factor contributing to this misalignment with industry needs and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
the inability to effectively position new developments is the lack of a common framework
(https://creativecommons.org/ and consistent ’terms of reference’ for condition monitoring of machines. The aim of this
licenses/by/4.0/). paper is twofold: to present a framework, within the context of maintenance strategy,
2. Background
2.1. Evolution of Condition Monitoring
Modern condition monitoring is a product of several decades of experience, inno-
vation, and technological advancement. The earliest generation of modern equipment
monitoring through telemetry systems dates back to the 1930–1940s, where the need for
progressive methods for maintenance planning, i.e., the ‘Waddington effect’, became appar-
ent [10]. This paved the way for the emergence of the concept of ‘continuous monitoring’
and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) during the 1950–1970s, where
more emphasis was not only placed on automation but also on monitoring as part of
the maintenance strategy [11]. The proliferation of transducers and advancement of data
acquisition systems in the 1970–1980s [12] afforded further development and widespread
expansion of equipment monitoring systems. In recent decades, condition monitoring has
undergone another paradigm shift with advancements in communications and computing,
where the widespread adoption of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) and data analytics has seen
more industries modernising their asset management practices, not only to exploit strategic
business opportunities but also as an essential organisational function.
Condition monitoring of rotating electrical machines is distinct within the general
area of equipment condition monitoring, evolving in its own right, due to the ubiquity of
these machines and their vital importance in several sectors of industry, such as utilities,
transport, manufacturing, etc. In general, monitoring becomes less essential for lower-rated
machines, e.g., active power P < 20 kW, except for those serving critical functions [1].
Ultimately, the decision to monitor the machine is based on weighing the associated costs
against the significance of losing the machine and/or the function it provides. Although this
trade-off will always need to be evaluated for specific cases, monitoring costs have reduced
over time, leading to further uptake. The aforementioned advancements offer more cost-
effective approaches, whether through dedicated machine condition monitoring systems or
integrating machine monitoring into the wider plant-wide monitoring/expert system.
There is also some key terminology associated with the framework that enables
a common basis for developing condition monitoring systems for electrical machines.
Measurement modality refers to the primary source of information, that is, the machine
parameters or signals—e.g., current, temperature, and speed—that are being monitored.
This determines the pre-processing requirements, which poses limitations on how often
measurements can be taken, and whether monitoring is performed online or offline, ul-
timately influencing the type and extent of the assessment. In condition monitoring of
electrical rotating machines, the measurement modality can be broadly classified into
different types, such as thermal, chemical, mechanical, and electrical. The modality of the
detector, or transduction process, may in some cases be linked to the machine’s state that is
being monitored/measured through this categorisation, although these may not necessarily
be the same—e.g., vision sensing with an event-based camera [23] can be considered a
mechanical measurement modality, like an accelerometer-based method, when used to
monitor vibration.
The pre-processing component of the monitoring layer in the framework refers to
everything from signal acquisition to the conversion and extraction techniques used. This
makes an important distinction between the monitoring and assessment layer, where this
boundary is often blurred in the literature. This is because the assessment approach is,
in many instances, directly related to the pre-processing. However, in modern condition
monitoring, these must be differentiated for the purposes of distinctly identifying novelty
and comparatively evaluating new research and developments in the area. The assessment
layer can be thought of as the component of the condition monitoring system that carries
out the inference about the state of the electrical machine, or component/s thereof. In mod-
ern condition monitoring, the inference typically leads to three types of assessment—i.e.,
detection, diagnosis, or prognosis—which convey varying levels of fault information and,
in some prognostic assessments, the remaining useful life of machine components. This
layer thus carries out the ’intelligence’ function where the inference itself can range from a
simple checking of a parameter against a threshold or limit to a more complex prognosis.
The level of intelligence in this layer therefore varies according to the level of underlying
knowledge about the machine that is codified into the inference, where the inference, or
assessment, can be automated or carried out by a human. There are many instances where
existing terminology inadequately captures the aforementioned distinctions in modern
condition monitoring of electrical machines. For example, the spectrum-based methods
reviewed in [24] are all based on signals, utilise time, time–frequency, or frequency–domain
Machines 2025, 13, 144 6 of 16
methods, and employ models for inference about the state of the machine which are
based on underlying knowledge of the machine’s physics. Therefore, broadly classifying
these approaches as signal-based methods, and differentiating them from ’model’- and
’knowledge’-based approaches is somewhat imprecise. Furthermore, modern strategies
can and do use spectrum techniques to extract signal features for carrying out assess-
ments based on historical data and not on the modelled physics of the machine. Similarly,
Akbar et al. [25] separately categorise spectral and vibration analysis as ’conventional’
techniques, which fails to make the distinction between the modality and pre-processing
technique where conventional vibrational analysis utilises spectral techniques. Therefore,
the presented framework provides a more accurate way of characterising measurement,
pre-processing and assessment techniques, and a more sensible approach to classifying the
condition monitoring strategy according to the assessment method.
Assessment methods can be broadly classified as model-based or data-driven. The
main strength of model-based methods is perhaps the source of its main limitations. Al-
though a well-defined model of the physical component or process in the machine enables
a more effective assessment of its state, the availability of such models and domain knowl-
edge limits the application flexibility and assessment range of these methods. Therefore,
model-based methods are also key to the fundamental development of condition moni-
toring in electrical rotating machines as they typically offer new insights into modelling
fault mechanisms and, in some cases, novel measurement modalities and pre-processing
techniques. Data-driven assessment approaches overcome this dependence on physical
modelling by using historical data, potentially extending their application flexibility and
assessment range. However, this key strength over model-based methods is also a source of
limitations with data-driven approaches where historical data, particularly fault data, are
not readily available. Some of the key considerations and trade-offs between model-based
and data-driven assessment are paving the way for different avenues of research and
development in the condition monitoring of electrical rotating machines. Examples of these
are as follows:
• Model-based assessment relies on codified domain knowledge in well-defined repre-
sentations of physical processes/mechanisms, while data-driven assessment typically
depends on historical data.
• Research efforts have intensified into data-driven strategies more recently because
they seemingly offer the potential to further progress modern condition monitoring
goals such as incipient fault detection/diagnosis, holistic and integrated assessments,
as well as online, continuous, and real-time monitoring.
• While data proliferation, owing to related technological advancements, lends itself
to data-driven approaches, it also brings about several new challenges, which are
discussed later.
It should be noted that methods employing a combination of model-based and data-
driven techniques are sometimes referred to as hybrid methods. Although the framework
depicted in Figure 3 does not explicitly mention these methods under a different category,
they can be characterised according to how the actual assessment is carried out. For
example, physics-informed machine learning is an example of a hybrid method [26], where
the assessments are still based on available data but within the constraints of the physical
knowledge of the machine.
Machines 2025, 13, 144 7 of 16
location, and severity for a wider variety of faults than is possible with mechanical and
thermal modalities. That being said, data-driven methods are being shown to better exploit
the information capacity of certain modalities, such as sound [38], to enhance overall as-
sessment capability. This further emphasises the need to distinguish approaches within
the layers of the presented framework where the overall fault assessment capabilities vary
with different combinations of techniques.
Method
Reference Fault
Monitoring Layer Assessment Layer
Event-based vision sensor,
Convolutional Neural
[23] Bearing image-shaping, data augmentation
Network (CNN)
and denoising
Accelerometer, vibration, discrete Physics-Informed Residual
[45] Bearing
Fourier transform (DFT) Network
Machines 2025, 13, 144 9 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Method
Reference Fault
Monitoring Layer Assessment Layer
Infrared thermal camera
CNN with Transfer
[46] Bearing (thermography), image-shaping and
Learning (TL)
pre-processing
Stator currents and speed, Digital twin with health
[47] Rotor bar, stator winding
Ramanujan Periodic Transform indicator
Infrared thermal camera,
[48] Stator winding CNN
image-shaping and pre-processing
k-nearest neighbours
Stator current, short-time Fourier
[49] Rotor permanent magnet (kNN) and multilayer
transform (STFT)
perceptron (MLP)
Torque, stator current and voltage, Graph Neural Network
[50] Bearing
normalisation and cosine similarity (GNN)
Driven-equipment faults Torque, stator current and voltage, CNN–Long short-term
[51]
(pump) frequency spectrum estimation memory (LSTM)
Stator winding, eccentricity, Search coil, magnetic flux, frequency
[52] Random Forest
permanent magnets spectrum estimation
Stator currents, Fast Fourier
[53] Rotor permanent magnets CNN with TL
Transform (FFT)
The selected research given in Table 1 is organised here in terms of the presented
framework where the various components or layers of the condition monitoring system are
separated. This is to demonstrate how framing of these condition monitoring approaches
enables better comparison and assessment of their suitability, applicability, capability, and
even novelty. For example, although the proposed method presented in [23] is similar in
terms of the bearing fault type and CNN assessment layer to many other recent research
articles, its monitoring layer uses event-based vision sensing that produces very different
data to the typical accelerometer-based vibration monitoring techniques. Similarly, both
of the proposed approaches in [46,48] employ thermal monitoring, or more specifically
thermography in these cases, together with CNN-based techniques in their assessment
layer, but they each focus on very different machine components and fault types—i.e.,
bearing and stator winding faults.
integrate monitoring and control systems to optimise overall operational efficiency using
data-driven approaches. Figure 4 provides a simplified example of system-level integration
to illustrate this concept that combines monitoring, control, and analytics across flexible
and scalable layers of intelligence—i.e., a lower monitoring/control layer for x to n ma-
chines/components, an analytics layer for y to p processes/functions, and an upper layer
for system-level analytics.
4.2. Challenges
4.2.1. Data Availability and Reliability
Unlike model-based methods, the reliability of data-driven models is highly dependent
on the availability of reliable data. Supervised learning techniques can be used to train
models to accurately classify a wide variety of incipient faults, but the historical data
must be suitably labelled and contain all of the nuanced patterns that characterise these
faults. The accuracies and ranges of fault classification models are also dependent on the
suitability of the extracted features. Furthermore, the performance of models trained in one
context cannot be guaranteed, especially when there are significant differences in the design,
manufacture, and operating regimes of certain machines. The availability of fault-type
data is also often limited in practice, where fault conditions occur sparsely during the life
of a machine, leading to the challenge of data imbalance. The focus of recent research in
this area has thus shifted away from conventional supervised learning techniques, turning
to ensemble, resampling, transfer learning, semi-supervised, and unsupervised learning
approaches, amongst others, that may address these ongoing challenges [68–73]. However,
there is still much work to be performed in terms of improving the assessment capabilities
of these methods, particularly with fault severity and root cause analysis. Research aimed
at addressing data availability and reliability is therefore expected to continue to grow, as
these issues form an especially critical stumbling block to the practical implementation and
widespread adoption of data-driven assessment methods.
Machines 2025, 13, 144 12 of 16
5. Conclusions
The demand for condition monitoring of rotating electrical machines has risen together
with their ever-widening role in engineering applications, particularly in areas such as
renewable energy, industrial automation, and electric vehicles. This groundswell of interest
in condition monitoring, coupled with advancements in sensing, communications, and
computing, has led to a rapid increase in research and development in the field. Despite
the resulting proliferation in the literature on the topic, there are very few resources that
bridge the gap between academic research and industrial needs. Therefore, this paper gives
a tutorial-style overview of the field that discusses the evolution of condition monitoring,
offers a structured framework for modern condition monitoring systems in the context of
maintenance strategy, and concisely examines recent advancements, challenges, and op-
portunities. The generalised framework links maintenance strategy to a modern condition
monitoring system architecture, thereby enabling systematic characterisation, selection,
analysis, and evaluation of techniques in line with the requirements of the monitoring
application. Focusing on data-driven methods, the selective review of recent progress illus-
trated how the framework can be used to systematically characterise emerging techniques
and provide insights into areas of incremental progress. Building on this, the research
and development prospects in data-driven condition monitoring were discussed. The
assessment layer was identified as a key area for exploiting the benefits of data-driven
methods, with opportunities for enhancing flexibility, scalability, integrability, and inter-
operability of condition monitoring systems. Some key future research and development
challenges were also identified, specifically in the areas of data availability and reliability,
model transparency and interpretability, and systems design, deployment, and operation.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
References
1. Tavner, P.; Ran, L.; Penman, J.; Sedding, H. Condition Monitoring of Rotating Electrical Machines; The Institution of Engineering and
Technology: London, UK, 2008.
2. Hussain, M.; Mirjat, N.H.; Shaikh, F.; Dhirani, L.L.; Kumar, L.; Sleiti, A.K. Condition Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis of Wind
Turbine: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 190220–190239. [CrossRef]
3. Carratù, M.; Gallo, V.; Iacono, S.D.; Sommella, P.; Grasso, A.B.F.; Ciani, L.; Patrizi, G. A Novel Methodology for Unsupervised
Anomaly Detection in Industrial Electrical Systems. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2023, 72, 17–24. [CrossRef]
4. Choudhary, A.; Fatima, S.; Panigrahi, B.K. State-of-the-Art Technologies in Fault Diagnosis of Electric Vehicles: A Component-
Based Review. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2023, 9, 2324–2347. [CrossRef]
5. Bellini, A.; Filippetti, F.; Tassoni, C.; Capolino, G.A. Advances in Diagnostic Techniques for Induction Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2008, 55, 4109–4126. [CrossRef]
Machines 2025, 13, 144 14 of 16
6. Nandi, S.; Toliyat, H.A.; Li, X. Condition Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis of Electrical Motors—A Review. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 2005, 20, 719–729. [CrossRef]
7. El Hachemi Benbouzid, M. A review of induction motors signature analysis as a medium for faults detection. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2000, 47, 984–993. [CrossRef]
8. Riera-Guasp, M.; Antonino-Daviu, J.A.; Capolino, G.A. Advances in Electrical Machine, Power Electronic, and Drive Condition
Monitoring and Fault Detection: State of the Art. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 1746–1759. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, P.; Du, Y.; Habetler, T.G.; Lu, B. A Survey of Condition Monitoring and Protection Methods for Medium-Voltage Induction
Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.s 2011, 47, 34–46. [CrossRef]
10. Ignizio, J.P. The Waddington Effect, C4 U-Compliance, and Subsequent Impact on Force Readiness. Phalanx 2010, 46, 17–24.
11. Fiedler, H.J.; Swarthout, R.W. Exploration of Utility Automation Applications Trough Supervisory Control. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. Control. Instrum. 1973, IECI-20, 12–20. [CrossRef]
12. National Semiconductor. Data Aquisition; Handbook; National Semiconductor: Santa Clara, CA, USA, 1978.
13. IEC 60050-192-06-28; International Electrotechnical Vocabulary (IEV)—Part 192: Dependability. International Electrotechnical
Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
14. ISO 55000; Asset Management—Vocabulary, Overview and Principles. International Standards Organisation: Geneva, Switzer-
land, 2024.
15. Hesla, E.; Fowler, C.; Huber, J. Maintenance management in multiple plants: Examining various factors. IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag.
2006, 26, 88–94. [CrossRef]
16. Igder, M.A.; Rafiei, M.; Boudjadar, J.; Khooban, M.H. Reliability and safety improvement of emission-free ships: Systemic
reliability-centered maintenance. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2021, 21, 256–266. [CrossRef]
17. Yildirim, M.; Sun, X.A.; Gebraeel, N.Z. Sensor-driven condition-based generator maintenance scheduling—Part I: Maintenance
problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 4253–4262. [CrossRef]
18. Papadakis, E.P. Future Growth of Nondestructive Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. 1976, 23, 284–286. [CrossRef]
19. Qiao, W.; Lu, D. A Survey on Wind Turbine Condition Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis—Part I: Components and Subsystems.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 6536–6545. [CrossRef]
20. Shin, S.M.; Choi, B.H.; Kang, H.G. Motor Health Monitoring at Standstill Through Impedance Analysis. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
2016, 63, 4422–4431. [CrossRef]
21. Peng, Y.; Huang, S.; Deng, B.; He, Y.; Guo, X.; Wang, H. Joint Scanning Electromagnetic Thermography for Industrial Motor
Winding Defect Inspection and Quantitative Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 6832–6841. [CrossRef]
22. Schneider, J.; Gaul, A.J.; Neumann, C.; Hogräfer, J.; Wellßow, W.; Schwan, M.; Schnettler, A. Asset management techniques. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2006, 28, 643–654. [CrossRef]
23. Li, X.; Yu, S.; Lei, Y.; Li, N.; Yang, B. Intelligent Machinery Fault Diagnosis with Event-Based Camera. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.
2024, 20, 380–389. [CrossRef]
24. Bossio, G.R.; Meira, M.; Bossio, J.M.; Verucchi, C.J.; Ruschetti, C.R. Full Spectrum for Rotating Electrical Machines Condition
Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis: A Review. In Proceedings of the IEEE XX Workshop on Information Processing and Control
(RPIC), Obera, Argentina, 1–3 November 2023 ; pp. 1–8.
25. Akbar, S.; Vaimann, T.; Asad, B.; Kallaste, A.; Sardar, M.U.; Kudelina, K. State-of-the-art techniques for fault diagnosis in electrical
machines: Advancements and future directions. Energies 2023, 16, 6345. [CrossRef]
26. Wu, Y.; Sicard, B.; Gadsden, S.A. Physics-informed machine learning: A comprehensive review on applications in anomaly
detection and condition monitoring. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 255, 124678. [CrossRef]
27. Frosini, L. Novel diagnostic techniques for rotating electrical machines—A review. Energies 2000, 13, 5066. [CrossRef]
28. Haq, S.U.; Trivedi, A.; Rochon, S.; Moorthy, M.T. Alternative Methods of Machine Online Condition Monitoring: Recommenda-
tions for Rotating Machines in the Petroleum and Chemical Industry. IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag. 2024, 30, 19–31. [CrossRef]
29. Lee, S.B.; Stone, G.C.; Antonino-Daviu, J.; Gyftakis, K.N.; Strangas, E.G.; Maussion, P.; Platero, C.A. Condition monitoring of
industrial electric machines: State of the art and future challenges. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2020, 14, 158–167. [CrossRef]
30. Ruiz-Sarrio, J.E.; Antonino-Daviu, J.A.; Navarro-Navarro, A.; Biot-Monterde, V. A Review of Broadband Frequency Techniques
for Insulation Monitoring and Diagnosis in Rotating Electrical Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2024, 60, 6092–6102. [CrossRef]
31. Henao, H.; Capolino, G.A.; Fernandez-Cabanas, M.; Filippetti, F.; Bruzzese, C.; Strangas, E. Trends in Fault Diagnosis for Electrical
Machines: A Review of Diagnostic Techniques. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2014, 8, 31–42. [CrossRef]
32. Badihi, H.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, B.; Pillay, P.; Rakheja, S. A Comprehensive Review on Signal-Based and Model-Based Condition
Monitoring of Wind Turbines: Fault Diagnosis and Lifetime Prognosis. Proc. IEEE 2022, 110, 754–806. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, X.; Hu, Y.; Gong, C.; Deng, J.; Wang, G. Artificial Intelligence Technique-Based EV Powertrain Condition Monitoring and
Fault Diagnosis: A Review. IEEE Sens. J. 2023, 23, 16481–16500. [CrossRef]
34. Shu, X.; Guo, Y.; Yang, W.; Wei, K.; Zhu, Y.; Zou, H. A Detailed Reliability Study of the Motor System in Pure Electric Vans by the
Approach of Fault Tree Analysis. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 5295–5307. [CrossRef]
Machines 2025, 13, 144 15 of 16
35. Filippetti, F.; Franceschini, G.; Tassoni, C.; Vas, P. Recent developments of induction motor drives fault diagnosis using AI
techniques. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2000, 47, 994–1004. [CrossRef]
36. Thomson, W.T.; Fenger, M. Current signature analysis to detect induction motor faults. IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag. 2001, 7, 26–34.
[CrossRef]
37. Zamudio-Ramirez, I.; Osornio-Rios, R.A.; Antonino-Daviu, J.A.; Razik, H.; de Jesus Romero-Troncoso, R. Magnetic Flux Analysis
for the Condition Monitoring of Electric Machines: A Review. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2022, 18, 2895–2908. [CrossRef]
38. Kiranyaz, S.; Devecioglu, O.C.; Alhams, A.; Sassi, S.; Ince, T.; Avci, O. Exploring Sound Versus Vibration for Robust Fault
Detection on Rotating Machinery. IEEE Sens. J. 2024, 24, 2895–2908. [CrossRef]
39. Gawde, S.; Patil, S.; Kumar, S.; Kamat, P.; Kotecha, K.; Abraham, A. Multi-fault diagnosis of Industrial Rotating Machines using
Data-driven approach: A review of two decades of research. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 123, 106139. [CrossRef]
40. AlShorman, O.; Irfan, M.; Masadeh, M.; Alshorman, A.; Sheikh, M.A.; Saad, N.; Rahman, S. Advancements in condition
monitoring and fault diagnosis of rotating machinery: A comprehensive review of image-based intelligent techniques for
induction motors. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 130, 107724. [CrossRef]
41. Das, O.; Das, D.B.; Birant, D. Machine learning for fault analysis in rotating machinery: A comprehensive review. Eng. Appl.
Artif. Intell. 2023, 9, e17584. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Qi, R.; Zhang, J.; Spencer, K. A review on data-driven condition monitoring of industrial equipment. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023,
16, 9. [CrossRef]
43. Surucu, O.; Gadsden, S.A.; Yawney, J. Condition Monitoring using Machine Learning: A Review of Theory, Applications, and
Recent Advances. Energy Syst. Appl. 2023, 221, 119738. [CrossRef]
44. Zhang, X.; Zhao, B.; Lin, Y. Machine Learning Based Bearing Fault Diagnosis Using the Case Western Reserve University Data: A
Review. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 155598–155608. [CrossRef]
45. Ni, Q.; Ji, J.; Halkon, B.; Feng, K.; Nandi, A.K. Physics-Informed Residual Network (PIResNet) for rolling element bearing fault
diagnostics. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2023, 200, 110544. [CrossRef]
46. Choudhary, A.; Mian, T.; Fatima, S.; Panigrahi, B.K. Passive Thermography Based Bearing Fault Diagnosis Using Transfer
Learning with Varying Working Conditions. IEEE Sens. J. 2023, 23, 4628–4637. [CrossRef]
47. Hu, W.; Wang, T.; Chu, F. Novel Ramanujan Digital Twin for Motor Periodic Fault Monitoring and Detection. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Inform. 2023, 19, 11564–11572. [CrossRef]
48. Attallah, O.; Ibrahim, R.A.; Zakzouk, N.E. CAD system for inter-turn fault diagnosis of offshore wind turbines via multi-CNNs
and feature selection. Renew. Energy 2023, 203, 870–880. [CrossRef]
49. Pietrzak, P.; Wolkiewicz, M. Demagnetization Fault Diagnosis of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors Based on Stator Current
Signal Processing and Machine Learning Algorithms. Sensors 2023, 23, 1757. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Li, T.; Sun, C.; Li, S.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.; Yan, R. Explainable Graph Wavelet Denoising Network for Intelligent Fault Diagnosis.
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2024, 35, 8535–8548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Han, Y.; Zou, J.; Gong, B.; Luo, Y.; Wang, L.; Batlló, A.P.; Yuan, J.; Wang, C. The use of model-based voltage and current analysis
for torque oscillation detection and improved condition monitoring of centrifugal pumps. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2025,
222, 111781. [CrossRef]
52. Du, B.; Huang, W.; Cheng, Y.; Chen, J.; Tao, R.; Cui, S. Fault Diagnosis and Separation of PMSM Rotor Faults Using Search Coil
Based on MVSA and Random Forests. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2024, 71, 15089–15099. [CrossRef]
53. Skowron, M. Transfer Learning-Based Fault Detection System of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors. IEEE Access 2024,
12, 135372–135389. [CrossRef]
54. Chang, H.C.; Jheng, Y.M.; Kuo, C.C.; Hsueh, Y.M. Induction Motors Condition Monitoring System with Fault Diagnosis Using a
Hybrid Approach. Energies 2019, 12, 1471. [CrossRef]
55. Magadán, L.; Suárez, F.; Granda, J.; delaCalle, F.; García, D. Robust prediction of remaining useful lifetime of bearings using deep
learning. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 130, 107690. [CrossRef]
56. Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Sun, M. ChatGPT-like large-scale foundation models for prognostics and health management: A survey and
roadmaps. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2024, 243, 109850. [CrossRef]
57. Wang, H.; Li, C.; Li, Y.-F.; Tsung, F. An Intelligent Industrial Visual Monitoring and Maintenance Framework Empowered by
Large-Scale Visual and Language Models. IEEE Trans. Ind.-Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2024, 2, 166–175. [CrossRef]
58. Cheng, J.H.; Lu, C.L.; Zhang, G.; Wang, B.; Fang, J. Design of Motor Intelligent Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis System Based on
LoRa. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2021, 31, 0601904. [CrossRef]
59. Dong, H.; Ma, H.; Wang, Z.; Man, J.; Jia, L.; Qin, Y. An Online Health Monitoring Framework for Traction Motors in High-Speed
Trains Using Temperature Signals. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2023, 19, 1389–1400. [CrossRef]
60. Liu, D.; Cui, L.; Wang, H. Rotating Machinery Fault Diagnosis Under Time-Varying Speeds: A Review. IEEE Access 2023,
23, 29969–29990. [CrossRef]
Machines 2025, 13, 144 16 of 16
61. Flusser, M.; Somol, P. Efficient anomaly detection through surrogate neural networks. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 20491–20505.
[CrossRef]
62. Razzak, M.I.; Imran, M.; Xu, G. Big data analytics for preventive medicine. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 9, 4417–4451. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
63. Ahmad, S.; Lavin, A.; Purdy, S.; Agha, Z. Unsupervised real-time anomaly detection for streaming data. Neurocomputing 2017,
262, 134–147. [CrossRef]
64. Kudelina, K.; Asad, B.; Vaimann, T.; Rassõlkin, A.; Khang, A.K.H.V. Methods of condition monitoring and fault detection for
electrical machines. Energies 2021, 14, 7459. [CrossRef]
65. Magadán, L.; Suárez, F.J.; Granda, J.C.; delaCalle, F.J.; García, D.F. A Robust Health Prognostics Technique for Failure Diagnosis
and the Remaining Useful Lifetime Predictions of Bearings in Electric Motors. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2220. [CrossRef]
66. Kande, M.; Isaksson, A.J.; Thottappillil, R.; Taylor, N. Rotating electrical machine condition monitoring automation—A review.
Machines 2017, 5, 24. [CrossRef]
67. Wang, H.Z.Z.; Liu, X.; Gaudoin, O.; Xie, M. Joint optimization of condition-based production and maintenance with mutual
production-deterioration dependencies. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2025, 256, 110679.
68. Ali, M.Z.; Shabbir, M.N.S.K.; Zaman, S.M.K.; Liang, X. Single- and Multi-Fault Diagnosis Using Machine Learning for Variable
Frequency Drive-Fed Induction Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2020, 56, 2324–2337. [CrossRef]
69. Swana, E.F.; Doorsamy, W.; Bokoro, P. Tomek Link and SMOTE Approaches for Machine Fault Classification with an Imbalanced
Dataset. Sensors 2022, 22, 3246. [CrossRef]
70. Zhang, C.; Tan, K.C.; Li, H.; Hong, G.S. A Cost-Sensitive Deep Belief Network for Imbalanced Classification. IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw. Learn. Syst. 2019, 30, 109–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Guo, L.; Lei, Y.; Xing, S.; Yan, T.; Li, N. Deep Convolutional Transfer Learning Network: A New Method for Intelligent Fault
Diagnosis of Machines with Unlabeled Data. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2019, 66, 7316–7325. [CrossRef]
72. Chen, X.; Yang, R.; Xue, Y.; Huang, M.; Ferrero, R.; Wang, Z. Deep Transfer Learning for Bearing Fault Diagnosis: A Systematic
Review Since 2016. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2023, 72, 3508221. [CrossRef]
73. Russell, M.; Wang, P.; Liu, S.; Jawahir, I.S. Mixed-Up Experience Replay for Adaptive Online Condition Monitoring. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2024, 71, 1979–1986. [CrossRef]
74. Li, Y.; Sun, Y.; Li, Z.; Chen, X.; Yang, L. Interpretable Spectra PCA for Condition Monitoring of Rotating Machinery: Theoretical
and Experimental Investigations. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2024, 73, 35387122. [CrossRef]
75. Chen, G.; Yuan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Huang, R.; Wang, F. Enhancing Reliability Through Interpretability: A Comprehensive
Survey of Interpretable Intelligent Fault Diagnosis in Rotating Machinery. IEEE Sens. J. 2024, 12, 103348–103379. [CrossRef]
76. Sharma, J.; Mittal, M.L.; Soni, G. Condition-based maintenance using machine learning and role of interpretability: A review. Int.
J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2024, 15, 1345–1360. [CrossRef]
77. Hendriks, J.; Azarm, M.; Dumond, P. Structured Data Ontology for AI in Industrial Asset Condition Monitoring. J. Sens. Actuator
Netw. 2022, 13, 23. [CrossRef]
78. Cocconcelliand, M.; Capelli, L.; Cavalaglio Camargo Molano, J.; Borghi, D. Development of a Methodology for Condition-Based
Maintenance in a Large-Scale Application Field. Machines 2018, 6, 17. [CrossRef]
79. ISO 55013; Asset Management—Guidance on the Management of Data Assets. International Standards Organisation: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2024.
80. Zhou, B.; Svetashova, Y.; Gusmao, A.; Soylu, A.; Cheng, G.; Mikut, R.; Waaler, A.; Kharlamov, E. SemML: Facilitating development
of ML models for condition monitoring with semantics. J. Web Semant. 2021, 71, 100664. [CrossRef]
81. Saki, M.; Abolhasan, M.; Lipman, J. A Novel Approach for Big Data Classification and Transportation in Rail Networks. IEEE
Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 21, 1239–1249. [CrossRef]
82. Chen, Q.; Cao, J.; Zhu, S. Data-Driven Monitoring and Predictive Maintenance for Engineering Structures: Technologies,
Implementation Challenges, and Future Directions. IEEE Internet Things J. 2023, 10, 14527–14551. [CrossRef]
83. van Oudenhoven, B.; Van de Calseyde, P.; Basten, R.; Demerouti, E. Predictive maintenance for industry 5.0: Behavioural inquiries
from a work system perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 66, 7846–7865. [CrossRef]
84. Khamaj, A.; Ali, A.M.; Saminathan, R.; Shanmugasundaram, M. Human factors engineering simulated analysis in administrative,
operational and maintenance loops of nuclear reactor control unit using artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques.
Heliyon 2024, 10, e30866. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Frederiksen, R.D.; Bocewicz, G.; Radzki, G.; Banaszak, Z.; Nielsen, P. Cost-Effectiveness of Predictive Maintenance for Offshore
Wind Farms: A Case Study. Energies 2024, 17, 3147. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.