Skip to content

Feed-rate attenuation across CMP-26-10

AN-104Exploratory analysis

Compare the three campaign batches on a shared elapsed-time axis. Drag across any plot to select a range; the comparison table below recalculates for that range.

Export data package
Frame ANALYSIS-01

Calculated

Feed & pump

Bioreactor

Up to 4 plots stacked. 2/4 selected.

Batches

Window T+240.0–280.0h
MES-26071MES-26072MES-26073Reference envelopeMissing telemetry (dashed = imputed, excluded from stats)

Normalized yield index (idx)

0.0025.050.075.0Historian gap · 42 min (PI buffer overflow)T+264.4h PM-204 pressure spike

Feed rate (PM-204) (mL/min)

14.016.0050100150200250Historian gap · 42 min (PI buffer overflow)T+264.4h PM-204 pressure spikeElapsed batch time (h)
Sources:

Batch comparison

Feed-rate statistics for T+240–280h · imputed points excluded

Calculated
BatchFinal yield idxFeed delivered (L)Mean feed (mL/min)Min feednStatus
MES-2607181.2342.116.9116.8611Completed
MES-2607278.4328.616.6016.5111Completed
MES-2607375.9254.215.2313.6611In execution

Calculation: arithmetic mean of 1-minute resampled FLOW_PV, non-zero, non-imputed points. Reproducible from Historian_UP01_Oct.csv.

What this shows — and doesn’t

Observation

MES-26073 feed flow drops ~14% within minutes of the T+264.4h pressure spike; earlier batches show no comparable drop.

Hypothesis

Tubing fatigue or over-occlusion after WO-8819 could explain both the pressure rise and reduced delivery.

Unknown

42 minutes of PI data are missing at T+182h. The dashed estimate is not used in any statistic above.

Raw excerpt

Rows behind the hovered or selected range

sha256:a41f0c9e7b…1c94d7
TS_UTC,TAG,VALUE,UNIT,QUALITY
2026-10-19T08:24:00Z,BR-UP-01.PM204.FLOW_PV,16.88,mL/min,GOOD
2026-10-19T08:25:00Z,BR-UP-01.PM204.FLOW_PV,15.12,mL/min,GOOD
2026-10-19T08:26:00Z,BR-UP-01.PM204.FLOW_PV,14.48,mL/min,GOOD
2026-10-19T08:26:00Z,BR-UP-01.PM204.HEAD_P,1.48,bar,GOOD