MotorDoc ESA Case Study Intake for EPRI and ESA A1.78

MotorDoc is collecting equipment events and implementation experience for the EPRI ESA case study project and the ESA A1.78 effort under CIGRE Working Group A1.78. We welcome successful detections, partial successes, missed detections, and implementation difficulties involving electrical signature analysis, motor current signature analysis, electromagnetic signature analysis, or related electrical monitoring.

The purpose of both documents is to provide experience and application guidance for the use of ESA/MCSA. The primary focus of the EPRI study is nuclear. However, other relevant case studies will be included from utilities and non-utilities. The primary focus of CIGRE is all power generation and industrial applications.

Submit one event or implementation per response. Cases may involve continuous monitoring, data collection, or both. Provide the information you have and identify unknown or unavailable details. Screen captures, waveforms, trends, nameplate photographs, technician findings, and repair records can be provided separately through an agreed transfer method. Each submission is considered an entry for the contest (below).

If you are a vendor, distributor or related, while you may not enter the contest you may still submit entries.

MotorDoc will assess each submission based on its content, relevance, supporting records, and level of detail. A submission may be selected for an EPRI written case study, an ESA A1.78 written case study, or sanitized aggregate data and statistics only. Submission does not guarantee selection for a written case study. We will respect your stated project and use restrictions and discuss allocation where needed. A case will not automatically be included in both projects.

Identifying information will be sanitized for reporting unless written permission is provided to identify the provider, company, site, or equipment. Any written case study, including a sanitized case study, must be approved by the information provider or company and requires the publishing release applicable to the receiving project. Without that approval and release, data may be used for sanitized aggregate statistics only, subject to your stated restrictions. Completing this questionnaire does not grant publication permission or authorize reuse in another project. EPRI will supply the evidence and publication documentation for EPRI cases; MotorDoc will coordinate the applicable arrangements for ESA A1.78 cases.

You, or the person responsible, will be provided a copy of the case study as it will be presented in either document.

Contact details are collected for follow-up; this is not an anonymous response. Please provide contact details you are authorized to share. Agree on handling with MotorDoc before submitting controlled or restricted information.

MotorDoc contact: Howard Penrose, MotorDoc LLC
Email: hpenrose@motordocllc.com

Question Title

1. Do you have a restriction or preference on how MotorDoc may consider this submission? Select one.

Question Title

2. Are you authorized to share the information you will enter with MotorDoc for assessment under the preferences and restrictions you have stated?

Question Title

3. What is the legal name of your company or organization?

Question Title

4. What is your company or organization address? Include street address, suite or building, city, state or province, postal code, and country. If you cannot disclose it, state that here.

Question Title

5. What is your full name?

Question Title

6. What is your job title or role?

Question Title

8. What telephone number should MotorDoc use to contact you? Include country code and extension, if applicable.

Question Title

9. Where was the equipment used? Site name or site code, Site street address, City, State or province, Postal code, Country.

Question Title

10. How were you involved? Select one.

Question Title

11. Which industry best describes the application? Select one.

Question Title

12. Who can provide end-user technical clarification? Organization, Contact name, Job title, Email, Telephone, Relationship to submitter. Provide only details you are authorized to share.

Question Title

13. Who can coordinate company review and approval of a written case study? Contact name, Organization, Job title, Email, Telephone.

Question Title

14. Briefly describe the case. Include a working title, approximate event date or observation period, equipment, principal problem, and result.

Question Title

15. What type of machine was monitored? Select one.

Question Title

16. What equipment identification is available?

Question Title

17. What nameplate information is available? Rated power with units, Rated voltage, Rated current, Phases, Frequency, Rated speed, Poles, Duty, Service factor, Frame, Enclosure, Insulation class, Connection. Leave unknown values blank and supply a photograph or transcription if available.

Question Title

18. What was the application and mechanical arrangement? Driven equipment or generator duty, Coupling or gearbox, Bearing type, Operating duty, Criticality, Service environment.

Question Title

19. How was the equipment supplied? Select all that apply.

Question Title

20. 20. How was the equipment operated? Select one.

Question Title

21. Where were the sensors or measurement connections located? Select all that apply.

Question Title

22. What installation details or constraints affected the case? Include drive model, sensor arrangement, voltage access and isolation, plant design boundaries, containment or access restrictions, qualification, and modifications required.

Question Title

23. Which approach was used? Select one.

Question Title

24. How was data collected? Select all that apply.

Question Title

25. What signals were measured? Select all that apply.

Question Title

26. What monitoring system and analysis were used? Supplier, Instrument or system model, Software version, Portable, permanent, or embedded arrangement, Analysis methods, Analyst or interpreting organization.

Question Title

27. What acquisition and analysis details are known? Include channels and phases, sensor type, voltage reference, sample rate, record duration, frequency range and resolution, collection interval, baseline, alarm criteria, and startup or steady-state coverage.

Question Title

28. What were the operating conditions and data limitations? Include load with units and calculation basis, speed, frequency, process state, collection dates, gaps, and delays. Identify differences between baseline, event, and post-action records.

Question Title

29. Which supporting files can you provide for the written case study? Select all that apply.

Question Title

30. Describe the supporting files and how they can be obtained. Give filenames or references, dates, what each capture shows, units and operating conditions, file format, software needed, person able to provide them, and expected availability. MotorDoc will arrange an approved transfer. Screen captures and other data are requested for possible inclusion in the written case study, subject to provider approval and the receiving project's publishing release.

Question Title

31. Which outcomes describe this case? Select all that apply.

Question Title

32. What indication was available? Select all that apply.

Question Title

33. What happened and when? Identify the suspected condition and component. Give dates or intervals for baseline, first indication, diagnosis or alarm receipt, maintenance decision, inspection or failure, and post-action check. Mark uncertain dates.

Question Title

34. How did the electrical monitoring influence action? Select one.

Question Title

35. What other methods were used? Describe vibration, thermal, process, or independent electrical findings and their timing relative to the electrical indication.

Question Title

36. For a late or missed detection, what data existed while the condition was present? Describe coverage, suitable captured data, and limitations. Leave blank if not applicable.

Question Title

37. What did the technician, inspection, or repair findings show? Describe actual condition, location, severity, mechanism, and any work-order or report reference. State if follow-up findings are unavailable.

Question Title

38. What action was taken? Select all that apply.

Question Title

39. Describe the work performed. Include dates, parts changed, modifications, simultaneous work, and whether the action was on-site or at a repair facility.

Question Title

40. Who performed or documented the on-site or service work? Technician name, Job title, Service organization, Email, Telephone, Report reference. Leave blank if not applicable.

Question Title

41. Who can provide repair-shop or other follow-up information? Repair shop or organization, Street address, City and region, Country, Contact name and title, Email, Telephone, Records available. Complete only if relevant to the corrective work.

Question Title

42. May MotorDoc investigators contact the technician or service contact you listed? Select one.

Question Title

43. May MotorDoc investigators contact the repair shop or other follow-up organization you listed? Select one.

Question Title

44. What was the post-action result and how was it checked? Describe condition, operation, measured signals, and confirmation method. Note whether operating conditions were comparable and what remains unresolved.

Question Title

45. Why was this monitoring introduced? Select all that apply.

Question Title

46. What practical benefits or impacts were observed? Describe maintenance, reliability, downtime, coverage, lead time and endpoint, or costs and savings. Explain the basis of any estimates.

Question Title

47. What is the basis for the benefits reported? Select one.

Question Title

48. What should another organization learn from this experience? Describe what worked, difficulties, training or integration needs, limitations, and open questions.

Question Title

49. What reporting use would you be willing to consider? Select one.

Question Title

50. Has this same event been published or offered to another project? Select all that apply.

Question Title

51. If the case has been published or offered elsewhere, provide the title, project, case reference, date, and any reuse restrictions. Leave blank if not applicable.

Question Title

52. What restrictions, existing permissions, or removals apply? Note prior-use references, company or equipment identifiers to remove, protected figures or third-party data, and any limits on project review or statistical use. MotorDoc will coordinate the applicable publishing release separately; EPRI supplies its evidence and publication documentation for EPRI cases.

Question Title

53. May MotorDoc contact you to clarify this submission, request supporting data, or discuss selection for EPRI, ESA A1.78, or data-only use? Select one.

ESA/MCSA Industry Case Study Contest

MotorDoc LLC invites documented ESA/MCSA/CSA case studies from commercial, industrial, and utility users. A validated successful finding OR a finding, interpretation, or conclusion that was incorrect, incomplete, or ultimately disproven may qualify. Either type is sufficient; an entrant does not have to provide both. Any brand or system may have been used, including continuous monitoring, periodic or route-based data collection, or both. Any technology manufacturer is considered and reviewers of both projects will include others within the industry (including vendors). EMSA or an unrelated measurement technique alone does not meet the contest's ESA/MCSA/CSA requirement.

The key requirement is evidence. Each case must contain enough technical information for independent review and verification. This includes appropriate pre-repair or pre-investigation data, the original ESA/MCSA/CSA finding, what was physically inspected or repaired, evidence of the actual condition, and post-repair or follow-up data wherever applicable. Photographs, spectra, waveforms, trends, work orders, inspection findings, repair records, and other supporting material may be included. Proprietary information may be sanitized, but enough technical detail must remain to preserve engineering value and verify the conclusions.

This is strictly a user contest. Instrument vendors, distributors, and their representatives do not qualify for the contest, but may submit case studies. General project submission remains separate from contest eligibility.

Two awards will be made on January 1, 2027:

United States Award: One EMPOWER(TM) MCSA unit, which may be awarded to an individual or company located in the United States.

International Award: One complimentary two-day online ESA/MCSA training class for a recipient outside the United States. This would be tailored to your target equipment.

Awards will be selected by random drawing from eligible entries in the applicable award category. Technical completeness, supporting evidence, verifiability, suitability for project publication, and the lessons available from the case are eligibility screening criteria, not a merit ranking for the drawing. No preference is given to the brand of ESA/MCSA/CSA equipment used.

Contest entry does not guarantee selection for a written EPRI or ESA A1.78 case study. MotorDoc determines project selection or data-only use based on content and available detail, subject to provider restrictions. Any written case study requires provider or company approval and the applicable publishing release. Statistics-only submissions may still contribute to the general project data, but do not satisfy the contest requirement for a case suitable for written project inclusion and publication.

Releases are issued once the case study is formatted for your review. Any releases

Contest contact: Howard Penrose, MotorDoc LLC, hpenrose@motordocllc.com

Question Title

54. Would you like this submission to be considered for the MotorDoc ESA/MCSA Industry Case Study Contest? The contest is optional and separate from general project intake. Select one.

Question Title

55. If entering the contest, who is the proposed entrant or award recipient? Provide the individual or company name. Leave blank if not entering.

Question Title

56. If entering the contest, where is the proposed entrant or award recipient located? Select one.

Question Title

57. If entering from outside the United States, enter the country. Leave blank if not applicable.

Question Title

58. Which description applies to the proposed contest entrant? The contest is strictly for users; instrument vendors, distributors, and their representatives do not qualify. Select one.

Question Title

59. Which eligible technique was used in the case offered for contest entry? Any brand or system may be used. Select all that apply.

Question Title

60. Which type of case are you submitting for the contest? Either type is sufficient; select all that apply.

Question Title

61. Can you provide enough technical evidence for the submitted contest finding and actual condition to be independently reviewed and verified? Include appropriate pre-repair or pre-investigation data, the original ESA/MCSA/CSA finding, inspection or repair findings and actual condition, and post-repair or follow-up data wherever applicable. Select one.

Question Title

62. Is the contest case suitable for a written industry case study, subject to provider or company approval, sanitization where needed, and the receiving project's publishing release? Select one.

Thank you for contributing your experience. MotorDoc will assess the content and available detail for selection into the EPRI or ESA A1.78 project, or for sanitized aggregate data and statistics only, consistent with your stated restrictions. MotorDoc may request clarification where follow-up is permitted. Any written case study requires provider or company approval and the receiving project's publishing release before publication. Contest entries will be reviewed separately for eligibility; eligible awards are selected by random drawing.

T