Illustrative scenario

Steam trap failure monitoring

Illustrative scenario — representative of common industrial IoT applications

Natural gasPharmaceutical & ChemicalFood & Beverage Processing

A failed-open steam trap vents energy continuously and silently.

A pharmaceutical manufacturing site

No client is named, no logo is shown and no figure here was measured at any site (R2).

How it went.

Every study on this site runs the same four beats, in the same order.

  1. 01

    Alert

    Steam traps fail open and stay that way until the next survey. The loss is invisible, continuous and paid for on the gas bill.

  2. 02

    Cost

    Continuous monitoring — Replaces an annual ultrasonic survey with an always-on temperature signature.

  3. 03

    Fix

    Surface temperature probes upstream and downstream of each trap · Signature-based fail-open detection · Trap-by-trap status view in the dashboard

  4. 04

    Restored

    A trap-by-trap status board that updates every minute

In full.

Illustrative scenario — representative of common industrial IoT applications.

The problem

Steam traps fail open and stay that way until the next survey. The loss is invisible, continuous and paid for on the gas bill.

What would be installed

  • Surface temperature probes upstream and downstream of each trap
  • Signature-based fail-open detection
  • Trap-by-trap status view in the dashboard

What changes

Before — An annual survey and eleven months of hope After — A trap-by-trap status board that updates every minute

The number

Continuous monitoring — Replaces an annual ultrasonic survey with an always-on temperature signature. Illustrative scenario, not a client result. Figure is representative, not measured. [TOM-REVIEW]

In one line

Baseload creep is invisible on a monthly bill. It is obvious on a 60-second trace.

What the data looked like.

Hover or arrow-key across the trace to read any interval. The flagged point is the one that started the conversation.

Steam trap failure monitoring
HEALTHYREPLACET1: 2.0 kg/hT2: 3.0 kg/hT3: 21 kg/hT4: 4.0 kg/hT5: 2.0 kg/hT6: 14 kg/hT7: 3.0 kg/hT8: 2.0 kg/h2.03.0214.02.0143.02.0
STEAM LOSS BY TRAP · KG/H · DASHED = LIMIT
Chart data
IntervalSteam loss (kg/h)
T12.0
T23.0
T321
T44.0
T52.0
T614
T73.0
T82.0
Before and after, in words
BeforeAn annual survey and eleven months of hope
AfterA trap-by-trap status board that updates every minute

Illustrative dataset — a representative operational profile, seeded and deterministic, not measured at any site.

What changed.

Before

An annual survey and eleven months of hope

After

A trap-by-trap status board that updates every minute

Continuous

monitoring

Replaces an annual ultrasonic survey with an always-on temperature signature.

Source: Illustrative scenario, not a client result. Figure is representative, not measured. [TOM-REVIEW]

Find out what’s hiding in your plant.

Half a day on your floor, no charge and no obligation. At the end of it we tell you what we saw, what we would meter first, and what the return looks like.

Your first opportunity assessment is free.

Book a free consultationAll case studies

or call 1-833-QUANTFY (1-833-782-6839)