Skip to main content
Call Eric:863-698-8266
CURRYCONTROLS.COMControls & Automation Knowledge Hub
ArticleTroubleshootingSCADAPLCSignalsCommunications

The Intermittent Fault Is a Data Problem

A fault that happens once a week at random cannot be found with a meter, because it is never happening while the meter is connected. How to turn an intermittent problem into a recorded one, and how the patterns in the record point at the cause.

9 min readUpdated Sep 5, 2026Published Sep 5, 2026By Eric Sullivan

The short answer

The Intermittent Fault Is a Data Problem

An intermittent fault is found by recording, not by watching. Set the system up to capture what was happening when the fault occurred: timestamps, first-out, the values around the event at high resolution, counters and latches added to the controller for the purpose, and a log of everything else that happened at the plant that day. The pattern in the record, the time of day, the interval, what else was running, is the cause. Measuring with a meter comes afterward, once the record has said where to put it.

Key points

  • You cannot measure a fault that is not happening; you can record the conditions for the next time it does.
  • Timestamps and first-out turn a symptom into a sequence; the first thing that changed is the suspect.
  • Add diagnostic tags to the controller: counters, last-value latches, and event timestamps cost nothing and answer most cases.
  • Correlate with everything: pump starts, generator tests, HVAC, backups, weather, and the technician's own visits.
  • The interval is a clue: a fault every 24 hours is a schedule; every 49.7 days is a counter rollover; every storm is water.

The lift station lost communication for about a minute, once every day or two, at no particular time. The technician had been to the site four times, and each time the radio was fine, the controller was fine, the signal margin was fine, and the site was up. Two radios and a controller had been replaced on the theory that something was marginal. Then someone exported the communication alarm history and sorted it by time of day. Every event fell between 2:05 and 2:15 in the morning, or between 2:05 and 2:15 in the afternoon. The station was not intermittent. It was punctual. It just was not punctual to a clock anyone had been watching.

Why the meter cannot find it

Direct troubleshooting works by observing the fault: put the meter on, see the bad reading, follow it. An intermittent fault is defined by not being there when you look. The technician's visit, the meter, the laptop, and the extra attention are a different set of conditions from the ones the fault happens under, and often the visit itself changes them: the panel door is open, the laptop is drawing the network's attention, the thing that runs at two in the morning is not running. Replacing parts on suspicion, which is what happens when observation fails, is expensive and it teaches nothing, because a fault that stops after a part swap may have stopped for any reason at all. The way through is to stop trying to be there and instead make the system record what was there.

What to capture

Timestamps
Every alarm and event with a time from a synchronized clock. A controller whose clock is twenty minutes off from the SCADA server produces a record that cannot be lined up with anything.
First-out
When several things fail together, which one failed first. SCADA event history at one second resolution usually shows it; a first-out latch in the controller shows it with certainty.
Values around the event
Trend the signals that matter at a fast rate, a sample every second or faster for the analog in question, so the minute before the fault is visible in detail. Historian compression should be turned off for those tags while hunting.
Diagnostic tags
A counter for every occurrence, a latch that holds the last value of an input when the fault bit sets, a timestamp captured in the controller at the moment of the fault, and a rung that records the state of the things you suspect. These take ten minutes to add and are worth a month of visits.
Everything else
A plant log for the period: pump starts, generator exercise, HVAC, backup jobs, radio traffic, weather, deliveries, and who was on site. Half of intermittent faults are correlated with something nobody thought was related.

Reading the pattern

Pattern in the recordWhat it suggestsWhere to look
Same time every dayA schedule: a backup, an antivirus scan, a report, a generator test, a lease renewalServer task schedulers, DHCP lease time, the generator controller
Same interval, odd numberA counter or timer rolling over; 49.7 days is a 32-bit millisecond counterFirmware, network device uptime, controller timers
With pump or motor startsVoltage sag, EMI, ground shiftStarter type, power supply hold-up, cable routing, grounding
With rain or humidityWater in a connector, conduit, or junction boxOutdoor terminations, antenna connectors, low points in conduit
With temperature, hot afternoonsA component near its rating, a cracked joint expandingEnclosure temperature, drives, radios, solder joints
With a person on siteVibration, a door open, a laptop on the networkLoose terminals, the maintenance port, cable movement
Random, no patternUsually not random yet; more data neededIncrease capture resolution and widen the log

The station that dropped at 2:05 had a cellular router whose data plan renewed its lease every twelve hours, and the renewal took about a minute, during which the tunnel was down. The fix was a configuration change on the router. The two replaced radios and the controller had been fine, and they had been replaced by a good technician doing what troubleshooting by observation would suggest. The record found in an hour what the visits had not found in a month.

Instrumenting a controller for the hunt

  1. 1

    Define the fault as a bit

    One rung that sets a bit when the condition you are chasing is true, however it is detected: communication loss, an input that should be on and is not, a value out of range.

  2. 2

    Count it

    Increment a retained counter on the rising edge. The count over a week tells you whether the fault is what the operators think it is.

  3. 3

    Timestamp it

    Copy the controller clock into retained registers on the rising edge. Keep the last several in a small shift register, so a burst is visible.

  4. 4

    Latch the suspects

    On the rising edge, copy the values of the inputs, outputs, and registers you suspect into holding registers. This is the photograph of the moment the fault happened.

  5. 5

    Bring it to SCADA

    Put the count, the timestamps, and the latched values on a diagnostic screen and in history. Now the record builds itself while everyone sleeps.

When the record points at hardware

Sometimes the record says the fault is in a cable, a connector, or a terminal, and the pattern says when it happens but not exactly where. That is the point to bring in a recorder: a data logger on the suspect signal at high rate, a port mirror and a packet capture for a network fault, or a temporary transmitter beside the real one. The recorder is placed where the record says to place it, and it is left running until the fault happens, which by now is a predictable event. Measuring is the last step, and it is short, because the data has already done the searching.

Frequently asked questions

How long should we record before drawing conclusions?
Until the fault has happened enough times for a pattern to be a pattern: for a daily fault, a couple of weeks; for a weekly one, a couple of months. Two events are a coincidence; five with the same signature are a cause.
Our historian compresses data. Does that matter?
Yes. Compression discards the samples that would show the minute before the fault. Turn it off for the tags in question while hunting, and set a fast scan rate on them; the extra storage is trivial for a few tags for a few weeks.
What if the fault stops on its own?
Leave the instrumentation in and keep the log. Faults that stop on their own come back, usually with the season or the next change, and the record from the first episode shortens the second hunt.
Is it acceptable to replace a part on suspicion?
When the part is cheap and the record supports it, yes, but replace one thing at a time and note the date, so the record can show whether the fault stopped. Replacing three things at once solves nothing you can learn from.

Direct contact

Have a controls question?

Reach Eric Sullivan directly about anything on this site, a controls or automation topic, or one of his personal projects.