Adaptiv Stratum
Client portalContact
Menu
← Engineering Examples

Condition Monitoring · Engineering example

Pump Health Monitoring

See changes in pump performance while there is still time to investigate. Connect equipment signals and maintenance findings so every alert has context and every intervention teaches the operation something.

Start with one pump's monitoring readiness. A proposed first assignment would map available evidence, identify measurement gaps and draft one maintenance-review workflow. Its output is a decision on whether an observation pilot is justified, what it would need, or why to stop. Installation and ongoing monitoring are separate scope decisions. See the proposed first review →

A cutaway industrial pump with vibration, temperature, current, flow, and pressure monitoring connected to a diagnostic review

The operating challenge

A pump can be running and still be failing the process.

A running indicator confirms that a motor is on. It does not tell a team whether the pump is delivering the flow the process needs, whether its condition is changing, or whether the same problem keeps returning after maintenance. Those answers are often scattered across operator observations, controller screens, service notes, and utility records.

Performance changes quietly

Flow falls or the pump needs more energy for comparable duty. The issue is noticed when production, cooling, water delivery, or another dependent service is affected.

Alarms lack context

A vibration or temperature alert arrives without the operating mode, related measurements, or recent service history needed to decide what it means.

Findings do not close the loop

A technician corrects a condition, but the inspection result never returns to the monitoring record. The next alert cannot benefit from what the team learned.

Why modernize: Give operators and maintenance staff a trustworthy view of change, a better handoff, and a record of what actually happened. The goal is not to replace their judgment with a health score.

Illustrative operating example

A cooling-water pump begins to lose performance.

The asset and events below are illustrative. They are not a claim about a completed customer installation or a diagnosed failure.

Imagine pump P-204 supplying a cooling-water loop. It still starts and runs, so a simple status dashboard shows green. Over time, the delivered flow is lower at a comparable speed and operating condition. A vibration trend has also changed. Neither observation alone proves that the pump is failing: a valve position, strainer condition, process demand, sensor problem, or mechanical issue could explain part of the picture.

  1. Establish comparable operation.Identify P-204, its motor, duty, speed, running state, and recent maintenance. Compare like operating conditions rather than every reading against one fixed number.
  2. Validate the evidence.Check that flow, pressure, vibration, and relevant electrical measurements are fresh, plausible, correctly associated with the asset, and not affected by a known sensor or network fault.
  3. Recognize a sustained change.An explainable rule compares the current condition with the approved baseline. A persistent departure, supported by more than one trustworthy signal, becomes a review request rather than an automatic diagnosis.
  4. Hand off a useful record.The operator or maintenance reviewer sees the trend, operating state, corroborating and conflicting evidence, and recent work. The responsible team decides whether to inspect and when.
  5. Record the outcome.The inspection finding, action, and post-work measurements return to the asset history. If the issue was a sensor or process change, that result is just as important as a mechanical repair.

Fictional sample output

P-204: condition review requested

All asset labels, values and operating windows in this packet are invented to show the proposed output. The traces are synthetic; they are not customer measurements or evidence of a diagnosed fault.

Delivered flow

Synthetic delivered-flow trend across four matched windows Invented flow readings are 100, 97, 94 and 90 litres per minute in observation windows 1 to 4. This is an illustrative downward trend, not a fault diagnosis or a universal alert threshold.
Windows 1–4: 100, 97, 94 and 90 L/min. Vertical range shown: 90–100 L/min.

Vibration velocity, RMS

Synthetic vibration trend across the same four windows Invented RMS vibration velocity readings are 2.0, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.9 millimetres per second in observation windows 1 to 4, using the same imagined measurement point and settings. No severity limit or failure cause is inferred.
Windows 1–4: 2.0, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.9 mm/s RMS. Vertical range shown: 2.0–2.9 mm/s. The two charts use separate units and scales.
Asset and comparison window
Fictional cooling-water pump P-204. Four successive ten-minute windows at an assumed 1,450 rpm, with matching process demand and valve state. A real comparison requires those operating conditions to be verified.
Evidence map
Synthetic flow record F-01 and speed record S-01 are matched to P-204 and each window. Synthetic vibration record V-01 uses the same imagined bearing-housing point, mounting and measurement settings. Pressure, strainer condition and an inspection finding are absent.
Signal-quality status
Identity, range and freshness checks are modelled as passing for this example. No real sensor installation, calibration or field validation is demonstrated. A failed or missing check would keep the review uncertain.
Why review was requested
Flow decreases while vibration changes within the assumed comparable duty. The packet preserves both trends and the missing evidence; it does not identify a hydraulic, process, instrumentation or mechanical cause.
Technician disposition
Awaiting inspection. The named site maintenance reviewer would decide whether to inspect, assign the work and record a finding. An unverified alert remains open rather than becoming a completed repair.
Control boundary
No shutdown, isolation, equipment command or return-to-service decision is issued by this sample monitoring workflow.

Other high-priority situations

The same approach answers different operating questions.

Is the standby pump really ready?

A critical standby unit may look available because its last status was healthy. A proof-test record can connect the test request, actual start, pressure or flow response, elapsed time, and any exception. Fixed rules can flag missing or unsuccessful evidence. AI can help summarize recurring exceptions for review, but it does not substitute for a qualified test or authorize a start.

Useful report: last verified test, incomplete tests, exceptions, and owner of the next action.

Why is pumping using more energy?

When installed power measurement, flow, pressure, speed, and operating context are available, a team can compare energy per useful delivered volume at comparable duty. A worsening trend suggests a system investigation, not a diagnosis. The cause could involve a strainer, valve, operating point, pump condition, or measurement error. A human team evaluates any physical or control change.

Useful report: comparable operating periods, change in energy intensity, inspection finding, and verified post-change performance.

What a modernization would connect

Build around the existing equipment and the decision it must support.

The first design question is not which model to buy. It is which condition matters, what trustworthy evidence is available, and which existing system owns the resulting decision. A monitoring retrofit can begin read-only while the qualified local controller keeps its present authority.

Required operating evidence

  • Stable pump, motor, location, and service identity
  • Operating state, speed, load, and runtime
  • Available flow, suction and discharge pressure, vibration, temperature, and electrical measurements
  • Maintenance events, inspected condition, intervention, and outcome

Signal availability and placement are checked for each installation. Missing values remain missing.

Connected technical layers

  • Pump, motor, sensors, and approved local control
  • Read-only acquisition, edge validation, and local buffering
  • Historian or time-series store with asset and operating context
  • Maintenance-management workflow with acknowledgement and finding

Connectivity loss must be visible. It must not disable the existing qualified control system.

Pump and motorValidated measurementsOperating-state baselineReviewable conditionMaintenance finding

A rule may prepare a bounded inspection recommendation. Shutdown, isolation, work priority, repair, and return-to-service remain with the appropriate control system and authorized personnel.

Where automation and AI fit

Use the simplest reliable method for each job.

Deterministic automation

Check signal freshness and range, detect flatlines, separate operating modes, require a condition to persist, deduplicate alerts, and present a maintenance review record. These are understandable rules that can be tested before a predictive model exists.

Analytical models

After trustworthy operating states and maintenance outcomes exist, multivariable analysis may help spot unusual relationships among flow, pressure, load, vibration, and temperature. An anomaly is a reason to investigate, not a verified failure mode or a promised failure date.

Evidence-linked AI assistance

An approved assistant could summarize the relevant trend and cited service history, surface similar reviewed events, or draft a technician handoff. Its answer must show source records and uncertainty. It does not invent missing measurements or approve an action.

Human and control authority

Operators, maintenance staff, and qualified engineers evaluate the evidence against process needs, equipment requirements, and safety procedures. Existing protection and control remain separate from the analytical layer.

How we examine a proposed solution

Relevant AI advisors support the design; people approve the work.

These are Adaptiv Stratum AI advisory roles used for scoped research and analysis when relevant. They are not human employees, licensed engineers, or a claim that the named agents are installed on a customer's live equipment. The deployed monitoring system would have its own separately reviewed design and permissions.

Argus

Challenges sensor selection, timestamps, telemetry quality, and edge behavior.

Aegis

Maps actionable failure modes, maintenance history, and false-alarm risk.

Apollo

Defines comparable baselines, metric definitions, and reporting lineage.

Pythia

Tests whether multivariable analysis adds value beyond simpler rules.

Hephaestus

Reviews control hierarchy, separation, and permitted handoffs.

Themis and Clio

Challenge authority boundaries, testability, source quality, and unsupported claims.

What becomes visible

A report should connect each warning to an inspected outcome.

The asset view shows the operating context and why review was requested. The management view shows whether the program is helping, without hiding missing data or claiming savings that have not been measured.

Per-asset record

  • Asset, duty, operating mode, and time window
  • Measurements and baseline used, with units and data-quality status
  • Condition rule or analytical version and supporting trend
  • Who acknowledged it, inspection finding, action, and closure
  • Condition after intervention, including unresolved outcomes

Program-level measures

  • Valid-data coverage and sensor faults
  • Time from first valid warning to inspection or confirmed event
  • Reviewed alerts with verified findings, false alarms, and missed events
  • Unplanned downtime and repeat service events
  • Energy per useful delivered volume only for comparable duty and verified metering

A lower alert count is not automatically success; it could mean a broken sensor. A model score is not a maintenance finding. Reports should preserve both the supporting records and what remains unknown.

Operating safeguards

Trust starts with the failure cases.

The equipment, consequence, environment, and agreed scope determine the exact controls and acceptance checks. A failed sensor cannot become evidence of a failed pump. An unavailable network cannot silently make stale data appear current.

  • Range, flatline, freshness, calibration context, and cross-signal checks
  • Operating-state normalization before comparing trends
  • Persistence and deduplication so transient changes do not flood the team
  • Explicit unknown, sensor-fault, maintenance-mode, and disconnected states
  • False-positive review and inspection-outcome feedback
  • Authorized shutdown, energy isolation, and return-to-service outside the monitoring layer

A practical first phase

Start with one consequential asset and a testable question.

A readiness review could produce an asset-and-evidence map, a measurement-gap assessment, one proposed maintenance handoff and a plan for deciding whether observation is worthwhile. Agree the deliverables and access before work begins; a useful outcome can be a recommendation to keep the existing approach.

  1. Shortlist a pump.For each candidate, note its service, the consequence of lost performance, recurring uncertainty, the chance to act earlier, available measurements and service history, and a named response owner. Judge a standby pump by the process it protects. A low-consequence asset with no useful intervention opportunity may not warrant additional monitoring.
  2. Bring the operating evidence.The customer supplies records it is authorized to share: asset identity, instrumentation and control boundaries, operating modes, maintenance findings and accessible data. Mark absent flow, pressure or vibration measurements as gaps. The proposed Adaptiv work is to map those records, define a transparent comparison and design the review handoff; qualified site personnel assess physical measurement needs.
  3. Agree the observation plan.Specify trustworthy timestamps, units, measurement quality and comparable-duty windows. Agree which independently recorded operator events or service findings will be used to check useful warnings and missed conditions. Set acceptable review workload and nuisance-request limits with the site before observation. Preserve the existing controller's authority.
  4. Review each outcome.During an agreed observation phase, record the evidence presented, acknowledgement, inspection result, duplicate or nuisance request, reviewer effort and unresolved outcome. Compare the requests with the independent event and maintenance record to identify missed conditions. If relevant operating conditions or events were not observed, record that evaluation limit rather than claim detection performance.
  5. Choose whether to continue.Continue only if the agreed evidence and review criteria are met and the response owner can use the output. Close signal gaps or adjust the review design where the test exposes problems. Stop where the evidence or value does not justify further work. Additional instrumentation, work-order integration or advanced analysis requires a separately agreed scope and acceptance.

Make the cost question reviewable

Use a buyer-supplied worksheet for the same stated period: documented downtime and its process impact; repeat service visits and inspection hours; and proposed instrumentation, integration, review and upkeep costs. Record the source, units and assumptions for each entry. Keep unknown costs unknown. These inputs help compare the proposed effort with the decision it supports; they are not promised savings.

Agree who owns the next step

For a proposed design assignment, Adaptiv would map accessible data and prepare the comparison, handoff and acceptance plan. The site names qualified people for sensor installation and maintenance, physical diagnosis, safe work and equipment acceptance. Before deployment, agree integration ownership, alert-review coverage, training, handover and post-project support. A readiness review does not itself establish those operating services.

Begin with the operating problem

Which pump decision needs better evidence?

Bring one asset, its recent service history, the measurements already available and the person who owns the maintenance decision. We can discuss whether a scoped readiness review is a useful next step.

Discuss one pump's monitoring readiness →

Evidence and further reading

Engineering claims should be checkable.

These sources inform the approach. The scenarios above remain illustrative and are not case studies of Adaptiv Stratum customers.