## 5 Experimental Results  
The experimental test was conducted on a 0.894 kW surface-mounted PMSM (Table 2) by [PERSON] (G403-2007A). A dSpace DS1103 with Control Desk was used as a controller in the tests; the position was measured with an incremental encoder (36000 imp./rot), while the current measurement was performed with current LEM transducers. Another Moog servo drive-controlled motor was used as a load (G404-2009A). Photos of the laboratory set-up are presented in Figure 8. A frequency converter with the ability to control transistors was used. The switching frequency was 10 kHz. The tests were performed in the DFOC system. Classical PI controllers with an anti-windup system were used. The experimental tests were carried out for the low range of speed values (0-0.3\(\omega_{\text{N}}\)) and two load values (0.1 T\({}_{\text{N}}\) and 0.2 T\({}_{\text{N}}\)). The detector responses to the lack of signal, signal interruption, measurement noise (70 dB white Gaussian noise), and variable gain were checked. The damages were simulated in a software manner. All results are presented as per unit. Figures 9 and 10 show the detection of variable gain with \(\gamma\) value equal to 0.2 in phase A and measurement noise in phase B with a parameter of 70 dB for two velocity values. The detector correctly detects and locates the failure in dynamic and stable states. Those failures do not significantly affect the control structure and the differences between marker errors are small. Figure 7: Detector responses and state variable transients during variable gain (1.2 \(i_{a}\)); in phase A (**a**) and measurement noise (20 dB) in phase B (**b**). Figure 8: Photos of experimental set-up elements. Figure 9: Transients of speed, stator currents, detector responses, and marker errors during variable gain (\(\gamma\) = 0.2) in phase A for different speed values in stable (**a**) and dynamic (**b**) states. The effectiveness of the detector during intermittent signals in phase A and B with the motor load for different values is shown in Figure 11. This type of failure interferes with the speed transient. It is especially visible for the lowest values. The figure also shows the difference between the reference speed and the measured speed. At the time of failure, the difference increases noticeably. A detailed analysis of the effect of signal interruption is shown in Figure 11. The occurrence of a failure causes a significant increase in the oscillation of the speed and the value of the stator current. This is because the stator current components \(i_{\alpha}\) and \(i_{\beta}\) are not correctly determined, as also shown in the figure. As the detector based on Cri markers locates the failure, it also allows for its compensation. Figure 10: Transients of speed, stator currents, detector responses, and marker errors during signal noise (70 dB) in phase B for different speed values in stable (**a**) and dynamic (**b**) states. Figure 12 shows failure compensation using phase C's redundant sensor. Despite the loss of the signal in one of the phases, the stator current components \(i_{\alpha}\) and \(i_{\beta}\) are determined correctly, and the current transients in the remaining phases are undisturbed. There are no transient distortions as in Figure 12, where the system is shown without damage compensation. The transients showing the effectiveness of detection and compensation under the condition of periodic signal interruption are shown in Figures 13 and 14 in phase A and phase B, respectively. Signal interruptions occur with a high frequency. The system adapts dynamically to work in failure states and in the absence of damage to the current sensors. Disturbances in the operation of the system do not appear even in dynamic states. The only disturbance in speed can be observed when, during the failure in phase B, the detector did not correctly recognize the damaged phase; as a result, the compensation mechanism did not work (Figure 15).