ConditionCoreRequest a machine review

The ConditionCore platform

A traceable machine record for an engineer-led assessment.

The ConditionCore team uses a machine-level assessment workflow. It brings customer-supplied vibration, thermal, ultrasonic, motor-current and oil evidence together with operating data and maintenance history before an engineer reviews the leading hypothesis and next action.

Request a machine review See the method

Evidence convergence

The machine is the common reference.

Five condition-monitoring disciplines arrive in different forms. ConditionCore keeps every source intact, then qualifies the combined evidence with speed, load and maintenance history around one machine.

  • Condition evidenceWaveforms, spectra, thermal images, ultrasonic recordings, motor-current signatures and oil-lab results
  • Machine historyRoute exports, work orders and maintenance history
  • Operating dataSpeed, load, process state and timestamps
Local observations
  • Vibration analysis
  • IR thermography
  • Ultrasonic monitoring
Electrical observation
  • Motor Current Analysis (MCA)Motor feeder
System observation
  • Oil analysisGearbox sump
Operating context
  • Speed and load
  • Maintenance history
GBX-2Hot-strip mill drive
MotorGBX-2Mill stand
Mapped pointInput-shaft bearing
Location, operating state and history qualified together.

Illustrative integrated assessment

Assessment: Input-shaft bearing change is the leading hypothesis.

Evidence rationale: Vibration, IR thermography and ultrasonic monitoring provide local observations at GBX-2. Motor current provides drive-train evidence from the motor feeder without locating the gearbox bearing. Gearbox-sump oil provides system-level evidence without localizing the source. Speed, load and maintenance history qualify the comparison.

Next action: Verify lubrication delivery and repeat measurements at matched speed and load.

Field verification is required.

The method

Qualification comes before correlation.

The platform does not compress unlike evidence into an unexplained health score. It preserves where each input came from, what it can support and what remains uncertain, so teams can verify early and avoid unnecessary replacement on a weak signal.

  1. Connect

    Map each input to the correct machine, component and measurement point.

  2. Qualify

    Check acquisition quality and match speed, load, operating state and sample provenance.

  3. Correlate

    Compare evidence by location and scope instead of treating every alarm as equivalent.

  4. Decide

    Present the leading hypothesis, competing explanations, evidence gaps and recommended next action.

Where ConditionCore fits

Existing sources
Instruments, route systems, historian exports, laboratory reports and maintenance records remain the sources.
ConditionCore
Creates the traceable machine record used to qualify comparisons and support engineering review.
Site team
Owns field verification, maintenance execution and the operating decisions that follow.

Review contract

What a reviewer can trace in every assessment.

No source is silently converted into an equivalent vote. Field verification remains explicit.

What you provide

Asset and component

Machine train, such as a motor, gearbox, pump, compressor, hydraulic unit or actuator, plus the exact point, region or sample location.

What the review returns

Observation

What changed and which qualified reference it was compared with.

What you provide

Acquisition

Source, units, axis or method, settings and the original file.

What the review returns

Evidence scope

What localizes, supports, challenges or only adds system context.

What you provide

Operating state

Speed, load, process mode, stabilization, timestamp and sample age.

What the review returns

Working hypotheses

The leading explanation, credible alternatives and unresolved gaps.

What you provide

Provenance

Sensor, route, image, lab report, historian or work order, with transformations traceable.

What the review returns

Next action

Verification, monitoring or inspection prioritized by safety, criticality and the useful-life objective.

Decision memory

Verified work improves the next comparison.

Inspection findings, completed work and matched post-maintenance readings return to the record. The next review can distinguish recurrence, a new mechanism and normal response against a stronger reference.

  1. Observation captured
  2. Comparison qualified
  3. Hypothesis reviewed
  4. Field check recorded
  5. Post-work response matched
  6. Reference updated

Condition-monitoring disciplines

Across motors, gearboxes, pumps, hydraulic systems, compressors and actuators, each discipline observes a different physical behaviour. ConditionCore keeps those differences tied to the same machine and operating state.

Mechanical behaviour

Vibration analysis

Unbalance, misalignment, looseness, bearing and gear-mesh patterns, kept tied to speed, load and measurement point.

Explore method

Thermal pattern

IR thermography

Motor and bearing regions, cooling loss and abnormal heating, compared only across qualified like-for-like views.

Explore method

Friction and impacts

Ultrasonic monitoring

Early friction, repeat impacts, lubrication response and leaks, trended with one controlled acquisition setup.

Explore method

Electrical signature

Motor Current Analysis (MCA)

Rotor, air-gap, supply and driven-load patterns in motor current, qualified by drive, speed, slip and load.

Explore method

Lubricant and wear context

Oil analysis

Wear metals, contamination, viscosity and lubricant degradation. This is system evidence that may not localize the source.

Explore method

First machine review

Start with the machine that is changing.

Share one changing asset and the files you already have. We will confirm what is usable, what remains uncertain and which next check is most valuable.

Request a machine review