Four cases from the field

Early warning.
Planned action.
Operational value.

The value of an alert shows in the decision that follows it. At four different facilities, maintenance teams used monitoring data to assess developing problems and plan their interventions.

Rotor taken in for inspection at an automotive plant
Automotive
Stator windings of a motor at a fiber plant
Fiber
Pump motor at an oil and gas facility
Oil & Gas
Damaged cable connections at a textile plant
Textile

Real field images from each case

From early warning to outcome

Production continuity, maintenance timing and repair verification. The results of each case are presented together with its own field records and the facility's own assessment.

01

Automotive / Paint line

Production kept running
while the fan motor was repaired

eMCM's early warning let the maintenance team bring in the spare motor in time. Rotor and bearing problems were corrected without interrupting production.

160 kW fan motor Rotor damage and bearing wear Artesis eMCM
189 minutesEstimated production loss avoided by the intervention*
Production continuedSpare motor brought online; repair carried out while the line kept running
≈ TRY 95,400Total economic contribution calculated by the facility*

The motor was running, the risk was growing

The fan motor on the paint shop's ventilation line was still doing its job. But while the other motors in the same group held their normal pattern, this motor's bearing and rotor parameters rose together. Values that quickly reached alarm level drew the maintenance team's attention to this piece of equipment.

A spare motor, and a decision made in time

After the alert, the team planned the intervention around the production flow. The spare motor was brought online and the problem motor was set aside for inspection. The repair could therefore be carried out without interrupting the paint line.

On teardown, bearing wear and rotor damage were confirmed. The bearings were replaced and the rotor was repaired. After maintenance the parameters returned to normal levels, and the alarm did not recur in the following period.

Production and maintenance moved in the same plan

The facility calculated that, without intervention, roughly 189 minutes of production could have been lost. Its assessment — covering production and energy efficiency, equipment life and maintenance costs — stated a total economic contribution of about TRY 95,400.

Technical evidence and economic contribution calculation
Equipment condition report showing the rise in bearing and rotor parameters
Equipment condition report comparing the previous and the current period.
Contribution itemFacility calculation
Production efficiencyTRY 48,200
Energy efficiencyTRY 16,820
Equipment lifeTRY 7,168
Maintenance and repairTRY 23,200
Total, approx.TRY 95,400

*189 minutes is the facility's estimate of the production loss that could have occurred without intervention. The economic contribution is the facility's own calculation from the source document; it is not a realised net saving or a return on investment. The base year and unit costs are not stated, and amounts have not been adjusted to current prices.

02

Fiber production / Process fan

Motor replacement
built into the production plan

Electrical warnings that began while the motor was still running gave the team time to investigate the stator fault and complete the replacement in a planned maintenance window.

Process fan drive motor Stator winding deterioration August 2024
14 daysTime between the first warning and the planned teardown
Planned replacementMotor renewed within an existing maintenance window
No unplanned stoppageNo unplanned production stoppage occurred during the process
5 AugustFirst electrical fault warning
12 AugustInspection and maintenance decision
19 AugustPlanned motor teardown
26 AugustReplacement with a new motor

The first signal came while the motor was still running

The motor of the process fan on the fiber production line was monitored with eMCM. On 5 August, a deviation in the current signature triggered an internal electrical fault warning. Five days later, stator fault and current balance warnings were added to the picture.

The maintenance team chose the timing of the intervention

On 12 August the team reviewed the trends and the warning history and decided to stop the motor for inspection during planned maintenance. The motor was removed on 19 August; visual inspection, insulation resistance and winding resistance measurements confirmed deterioration in the stator windings.

The replacement was completed within planned maintenance

On 26 August the new motor was commissioned. No unplanned production stoppage occurred in the process. The early warning helped the team organise inspection and replacement without having to deal with the motor after an unexpected stop. Monitoring of the new motor through eMCM continued.

Electrical findings and field verification

The current balance indicator exceeded the 5% alarm threshold. The internal electrical fault, stator and current balance warnings were evaluated together, directing the inspection to the stator windings. The fault was confirmed with field findings on 20 August.

Trend of the motor's three-phase currents
Course of the three-phase currents over the monitoring period.
Current balance indicator exceeding the five percent alarm threshold
Current balance indicator and alarm threshold.

14 days is the calendar time between the first warning on 5 August and the planned teardown on 19 August; it is not remaining time to failure or avoided downtime. The source contains no monetary savings calculation.

03

Oil & gas / Hot water pump

A developing rotor problem
was handled in planned maintenance

A rising alarm trend supported the maintenance team's decision to take the motor in for inspection. After the rotor was balanced, monitoring records confirmed the result of the intervention.

Hot water pump drive motor Rotor unbalance Artesis eMCM
≈ 2 monthsTime between the first alarm and planned maintenance
3 planesAll measurements below tolerance after balancing
Alarms endedMonitoring result after recommissioning

From a single reading to a developing trend

When a rotor parameter on the hot water pump's motor exceeded the alarm threshold, eMCM issued an “Inspect 1” warning. While the motor kept running, readings above the threshold became more frequent and the levels reached by the parameter rose.

The maintenance team assessed this trend as it developed over the monitoring period. About two months after the first alarm, the motor was stopped during planned maintenance and taken in for inspection. Rotor unbalance was confirmed on teardown.

The result of the repair was also monitored in operation

The rotor underwent certified balancing to ISO 1940, as stated in the source report. The residual unbalance measured in three planes stayed below the tolerance limits given in the report.

The equipment was recommissioned about one month after balancing. In the monitoring that continued through eMCM, rotor-related alarms ended. The team could therefore assess the result of the maintenance both from the balancing report and from operating data.

Rotor trends and balancing measurements
Rotor parameter trend above the alarm threshold
Rotor parameter trend after the first alarm.
Long-term trend showing alarms ending after maintenance
Long-term monitoring covering maintenance and recommissioning.
Balancing planeResidual unbalanceTolerance limitShare of tolerance
P113.13 g115.81 g11%
Middle plane3.79 g231.62 g2%
P26.80 g84.22 g8%

Durations are approximate ranges. The source document contains no measured value for avoided downtime or monetary savings. Because no information was shared on how production was sustained during the maintenance period, no claim of uninterrupted production is made.

04

Textile / Compressor supply line

Hidden connection damage found
on a normally running compressor

While the usual electrical indicators looked normal, eMCM's warning prompted an inspection of the supply circuit. The damaged connection was repaired in a maintenance window that did not disrupt production.

Compressor Heat damage on S-phase cable connection Artesis eMCM
7 daysTime between the warning and the panel inspection
Planned repairIntervention at a time that did not disrupt production
Back to normalAfter repair, parameters stayed below the alarm threshold

A different signal on equipment that kept working

A fabric manufacturer's compressor kept running. The diagnostic headings for bearing, rotor, stator and transmission system were normal. Current and voltage balance, harmonic distortion and power factor were also within the set limits.

Even so, eMCM's electrical fault parameter exceeded the alarm threshold. The other two compressors in the same group staying normal, together with an external electrical fault warning, directed the inspection to the supply circuit of the equipment concerned.

The warning was matched by concrete damage on site

Seven days after the warning, the team opened the panel and inspected the phase connections. Melted insulation on the S-phase cable lug, charring on the cable body and arc marks in the terminal area were found. The connections of the neighbouring phases were sound.

The timing of maintenance was chosen, and the result verified

The damaged connection was repaired in a window planned so as not to disrupt production. The electrical fault parameters fell below the alarm threshold and the warning did not recur in the following days. The compressor had kept running during the week between the warning and the intervention.

Normal indicators, electrical warning and post-repair trend
Electrical fault parameter before the alarm and after repair
Green: electrical fault parameter. Red dashed line: alarm threshold. Orange: device status level.
IndicatorValueReference limit
Current balance1.68≤ 5.0
Voltage balance0.24≤ 2.0
THD2.80≤ 5.0
Power factor0.99≥ 0.70

The field finding is heat damage; looseness or high contact resistance has not been documented as a confirmed root cause in this case. The source contains no measured monetary savings or avoided downtime.

Artesis eMCM customer stories. Event sequences, data and field images are based on the four case documents shared. Results are specific to the respective facility and intervention.

Contact Info

58 Thomas St, New York, 10013 USA

+1 443 315 2056

enquiry@artesis.com

Sitemap
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.