INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849 (DOI: 10.1002/er.823)

Energy conservation in compressed-air systems

Durmus Kaya1,*,y, Patrick Phelan2, David Chau3 and H. Ibrahim Sarac4

1
TUBITAK-MRC, Energy Systems and Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 21, 41470 Gebze-Kocaeli, Turkey
2
Industrial Assessment Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-6106, USA
3
Technology and Development Department, Intel, Chadler, USA
4
Mechanical Engineering Department, Kocaeli University, Anitpark, Kocaeli, Turkey

SUMMARY
In this paper, we evaluate and quantify the energy losses associated with compressed-air systems, and their
costs to manufacturers. We also show how to reduce the cost of compressed air in existing facilities by
making some modifications with attractive payback periods. Among the measures, we investigate to reduce
the compressed air are: (1) repairing air leaks, (2) installing high-efficiency motors, (3) reducing the average
air inlet temperature by using outside air (4) reducing compressor air pressure. We also illustrate the
potential saving associated with each measure by using realistic examples. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: energy conservation; compressed-air systems; air leaks; air pressure; high-efficiency motor;
outside air

1. INTRODUCTION

The production of compressed air can be one of the most expensive processes in manufacturing
facilities. User should always consider more effective form of power before considering
compressed air. For example, plants should use air conditioning or fans to cool electrical
cabinets instead of compressed air vortex tubes, and should apply a vacuum system instead of
creating a vacuum using compressed-air venturi methods that flow high pressure air past an
orifice. As a general rule, compressed air should only be used if safety enhancements, significant
productivity gains, or labour reduction will result. In spite of the fact that compressed air is one
of the major utilities in manufacturing facilities. For example, the total installed power of
compressed-air system in the U.S. is estimated to be more than 17 million horsepower (Talbott,
1993). Annual operating costs of air compressors, dryers and supporting equipment can account
for up to 70% of the total electric bill (Risi, 1995). The compressors used range from a few

*Correspondence to: Tubitak-MRC, Energy systems and Environment Research Institute, P.O. Box 21, 41470 Gebze-
Kocaeli, Turkey.
y
E-mail: [email protected]

Received 12 February 2001

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 24 September 2001
838 D. KAYA ET AL.

kilowatts to more than 7500 kW in size. It is difficult to imagine a factory without a compressor.
Failure of compressed-air system in some industries can shut down the entire manufacturing
process (Cerci et al., 1995).
Manufacturers are quick to identify energy (and thus money) loses from hot surfaces and to
insulate those surfaces. But somehow they are not so sensitive when it comes to saving
compressed air since they view air as being free, and the only time the air leaks and dirty air
filters get some attention is when the air and pressure losses interfere with the normal operation
of the plant. However, paying attention to the compressed-air system and practising some
simple conservation measures can result in considerable energy and cost savings for the plants
(Cengel and Boles, 1998). The cost of electric power to operate an air compressor continuously
for a year}about 8200 h}is usually greater than the initial price of the equipment. Seen from
this perspective, any efforts to reduce energy consumption pay for themselves immediately and
produce ongoing savings (Holdsworth, 1997).
There are many text and publications that describe the energy savings potentials of
compressed-air systems (mainly Talbott, 1993; Cerci et al., 1995; Risi, 1995; Cengel and Boles,
1998; Holdsworth, 1997; Terrell, 1999; Cengel and Cerci, 2000; Kaya et al., 2001). In this
study, we give an overview of such conservation measures complete with the analysis, the
potential energy and cost savings, the implementation costs, and simple payback periods. The
proposed measures are intended as a retrofit for existing facilities, and most of them can be
implemented by maintenance personal of the facilities. In this paper, our goal is not to present
something new, but rather, to raise awareness and to show the tremendous energy and cost-
saving opportunities missed as a result of overlooking some simple and obvious conservation
measures.

2. POTENTIAL ENERGY AND COST-SAVINGS POSSIBILITIES

2.1. Repairing compressed-air leaks

Air leaks are the greatest single cause of energy loss in manufacturing facilities associated with
compressed-air system. The cost of compressed-air leaks is the cost of the energy required to
compress the volume of lost air from atmospheric pressure to the compressor operating
pressure. This cost is often very significant. The amount of lost air depends on the line pressure,
the compressed-air temperature at the point of the leak, the air temperature at the compressor
inlet, and the area of the leak. Air leaks, in general, occur at the joints, flange connections,
elbows, reducing bushes, sudden expansions, valve systems, filters, hoses, check, valves, relief
valves, extensions, and the equipment connected the compressed-air lines. Leaks often represent
as much as 25% of the output of an industrial compressed-air system (Terrell, 1999).
Eliminating the air leaks totally is impractical, and a leakage rate of 10% is considered
acceptable (Cerci et al., 1995).
The cost of compressed-air leaks increases exponentially as the diameter of the leak increases,
as shown in Figure 1.
Leaks should be repaired as soon as practical, and may be easily located by listening for their
‘hiss’ when other plant operations are idle. In some situations, it may be necessary to wait for a
scheduled plant shutdown. Temporary repairs can often be made by placing a clamp over the
leak.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
 ENERGY CONSERVATION 839

Figure 1. Dependency of power loss to hole diameter (at 600 kPa pressure).

The volumetric flow rate of free air, Vf ; exiting all the leaks of a given size under choked flow
conditions is calculated as follows (Cerci et al., 1995):
NL
ðTi þ 273Þ
Pl =Pi
C1
C2
Cd
pD2 =4
Vf ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
C3
Tl þ 273
where Vf is the volumetric flow rate of free air, cubic metre per hour (m3 h1), NL the number of
air leaks, no units, Ti the average temperature of the air at the compressor inlet, 8C, Pl the line
pressure at leak in question, kPaa, Pi the inlet (atmospheric) pressure, kPaa, C1 the isentropic
sonic volumetric flow constant, 7.3587 m s1 K0.5, C2 the conversion constant, 3600 s h1, Cd the
coefficient of discharge for square edged orifice, 0.8 no units, p the Pythagorean constant,
3.14159, D the leak diameter, mm (estimated from observations), C3 the conversion constant,
106 mm2 m2 and Tl the average line temperature, 8C.
The power loss from leaks is estimated as the power required to compress the volume of air
lost from atmospheric pressure, Pi ; to the compressor discharge pressure, Po ; power loss for each
size of leak present for given conditions are calculated as follows (Cerci et al., 1995):
Pi
C2
Vf
k=ðk  1Þ
N
½ðPo =Pi Þðk1Þ=ðk
N Þ  1
L¼ ð2Þ
Ea
Em
where L is the power loss from a given air leak, kW, k the specific heat ratio of air, 1.4, no units,
N the number of stages, no units, Po the compressor operating pressure, kPaa, Ea the compressor
isentropic (adiabatic) efficiency, no units and Em is the compressor motor efficiency, no units.

2.2. Installing high-efficiency motors

Most industrial equipment in manufacturing facilities are powered by electric motors, and the
electrical energy a motors draw for a specified power output is inversely proportional to its
efficiency. Electric motors cannot convert the electrical energy they consume into mechanical
energy completely, and the ratio of the mechanical power supplied by the motor to the electrical
power consumed during operation is called the efficiency of the motor. Therefore, high-
efficiency motors cost less to operate than their standard counterparts (Cengel et al., 2000).
Motor efficiencies range from about 70 to over 96% (MotorMaster, 1993).

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
840 D. KAYA ET AL.

The monthly kilowatt demand savings for the motor(s), DSi, and the annual kilowatt-hour
usage savings, USi, which can be realized by installing high-efficiency motor(s), can be estimated
as follows:
DSi ¼ HPi
Ni
LFi
ð1:0=Ec 21:0=Ep Þ ð3Þ

USi ¼ DSi
Hi
Ufi ð4Þ

where i is the motors to be considered, no units, HPi the power of the motor, kW, Ni the number
of motors of similar power and efficiency that operate under the same conditions, no units, LFi
the fraction of rated load at which the motor normally operates, no units, Ec the current
efficiency for given motor, no units, Ep the proposed efficiency for given motor, no units, Hi the
annual operating hours of the equipment operated by the motor, h yr1 and UFi the fraction of
operating time that compressors are in use: (usage factor, estimated by plant personnel), no
units.

2.3. Using outside air intake

Compressors are usually located inside the production facilities or in adjacent shelters
specifically built outside these facilities. The intake air is normally drawn from inside the
building or the shelter. But in many locations, the air temperature in the building is higher than
the outside air temperature, because of space heaters in the winter and the heat given up by a
large number of mechanical and electrical equipment as well as the furnaces year round. The
temperature rise in the shelter is also due to the heat dissipation from the compressor and its
motor. The outside air is generally cooler and thus denser than the air in the compressor room
even on hot summer days. Therefore, it is advisable to install an intake duck to the compressor
inlet so that the air is supplied directly from the outside of the building instead of the inside. This
will reduce the energy consumption of the compressor since it takes less energy to compress a
specified amount of cool air than the same amount of warm air.
The compressor work for the usual operating conditions in manufacturing plants is
proportional to the absolute temperature of the intake air. Thus, the fractional reduction in
compressor work, WR ; resulting from lowering the intake air temperature is estimated as
WR ¼ ðWI  Wo Þ=WI ð5Þ

WR ¼ ðTI  To Þ=ðTI þ 273Þ ð6Þ

where WI is the work of compressor with inside air, kW, Wo the work of compressor with outside
air, kW, TI the average temperature of inside air, 8C and To the annual average outside air
temperature, 8C.
The monthly demand savings, DS, can be estimated from the following relationship:
DS ¼ ½HP
LF
WR=EFF ð7Þ
The annual electric usage savings, US, in kilowatt-hours can be estimated from the relationship
US ¼ DS
H
UF ð8Þ
Care should be taken to ensure that the existing compressor fans can provide adequate air flow
for compressor cooling when the additional ductwork is installed, as additional ductwork will
cause a higher head loss on the compressor fans.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
 ENERGY CONSERVATION 841

Where WR is the fractional reduction in compressor work, no units, HP the power of the
compressor motor, kW, LF the fraction of running time that the compressors are loaded (load
factor), no units, EFF the compressor motor efficiency, no units, H the time-of-use hours of
operation, h yr1 and UF the average fraction of operation time that compressor is running
(usage factor), no units.

2.4. Reducing compressor air pressure

The lowest possible pressure level required to operate production equipment effectively is also
typically determined. In many cases, system pressure can be lowered, thereby saving energy.
Most systems have one or more critical applications that determine the minimum acceptable
pressure in the system. In some cases, the application of dedicated storage or differential
reduction on the critical applications will allow a reduction in overall system pressure.
The hissing of the air leaks can sometimes be heard even in high-noise manufacturing
facilities. Pressure drops at end-use points in the order of 40% of the compressor-discharged
pressure are not uncommon. Yet a common response to such a problem is the installation of a
larger compressor instead of checking the system and finding out what the problem is. The latter
corrective action is usually taken only after the larger compressor also fails to eliminate the
problem. The energy wasted in compressed-air systems because of poor installation and
maintenance can account for up to 50% of the energy consumed by the compressor, and it is
believed that about half of this amount can be saved by practising energy conservation measures
(Talbott, 1993).
The total annual usage savings, US, in kilowatt-hours can be estimated from the relationship:
USi ¼ ð1:02FRi Þ
PLi
H
UF ð9Þ
where FRi is the ratio of proposed power consumption to current power consumption (used to
represent a reduction in run time) based on maximum operating pressure, no units, PLi the
power draw of the compressors while loaded, kW, H the annual hours of operation, h yr1 and
UF the average fraction of operation time when the compressor is running (usage factor), no
units.
The following equation can be used to estimate FR, the horsepower reduction factor, based
on current and proposed operating pressures (Compressed Air and Gas Handbook, 1961).
ððPdp þ Pi Þ=Pi Þðk1Þ=ðk
N Þ  1:0
FRi ¼ ð10Þ
ððPdc þ Pi Þ=Pi Þðk1Þ=ðk
N Þ  1:0
where Pdp is the discharge pressure at proposed operating pressure conditions, kPaa, Pdc the
discharge pressure at current pressure conditions, kPaa, Pi the inlet pressure (atmospheric
pressure), kPaa, k the ratio of specific heat for air ðk ¼ 1:4Þ; no units, N the number of stages, no
units.

3. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS

3.1. Example 1: Repairing compressed-air leaks

At a production facility, 14 air leaks were found, among which five were estimated as 0.4 mm in
diameter, two were estimated as 0.8 mm in diameter, six were estimated as 1.6 mm in diameter,

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
842 D. KAYA ET AL.

and one was estimated as 3.2 mm in diameter. The volumetric flow rate of free air exiting the
hole is dependent upon the extent to which the flow is choked. When the ratio of atmospheric
pressure to line pressure is less than 0.5283, the flow is said to be choked (i.e. travelling at the
speed of sound). There are three compressors present at this facility, two of which are used for
backup purposes, and thus will not be accounted for in the following calculations. The main
compressor at this facility operates at 689.76 kPag (790.829 kPaa). Considering line losses, it is
estimated that the line pressure is on average 620.528 kPag (721.9 kPaa) throughout the plant.
The ratio of 101.3 kPaa atmospheric pressure to 717.055 kPaa is 0.14 (101.3/721.9=0.14). Thus,
the flow is choked. Average ambient temperature is 248C. Rotary screw compressor isentropic
(adiabatic) efficiency ðEa Þ is 0.82. Compressor motor efficiency (Em ) is 0.904.

3.1.1. Anticipated savings. This compressor is estimated to operate 100% of production hours;
therefore, compressor operating hours is estimated as 4335 h/y1. The average usage cost is
0.053 $ kWh1 and average demand cost is 1.95 $ kW1 for this facility.
It is estimated that the average annual air temperature of compressor inlet is 328C. This
temperature is an estimation that the machine room housing the compressors is an average of
88C above the average ambient temperature. This is used as the compressor inlet air
temperature. Because of the long piping runs from the compressor to point use, the compressed
air temperature is estimated to be the same as the outside temperature.
Data for factors affecting the cost of compressed air leaks were collected during the site visit,
and are listed in Table I.
Using the compressor system data found during the site visit, the volumetric flow rate of air
through the leak (Equation (1)), power lost (Equation (2)) due to the leak, and the savings
possible from fixing leaks of various sizes were calculated (Table II).
The demand savings, DS, and the usage savings, US, due to repair of the air leaks can be
estimated as
DS=L,
US=DS (compressor operating hours)
As an example, the demand savings, DS1, for the 0.4 mm air leak is estimated as
DS1=L1
DS1=0.30 kW
It is assumed that demand reduction is constant throughout the day and will occur for each
month of the year. In order to estimate the annual cost savings due to demand reduction, DCS,
the following equation will be used:

Table I. Compressor system data.

Compressor type Rotary screw
Number of stages 1
Compressor motor efficiency (%) 90.4
Compressor operating pressure (kPag) 689.476
Line pressure at point of leaks (kPag) 620.528
Air temperature at compressor inlet (8C) 32
Air temperature at point of leaks (8C) 24

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
 ENERGY CONSERVATION 843

Table II. Energy and cost savings from repair of air leaks.
Leak
diameter Number DCS UCS CS
(mm) of leaks Vf (m3 h1) L (kW) DS (kW) US (kWh) ($ yr1) ($ yr1) ($ yr1)
0.4 5 2.62 0.30 0.30 1300.5 7 69 76
0.8 2 4.19 0.48 0.48 2081 11 110 121
1.6 6 50.30 5.76 5.76 24969 135 1323 1458
3.2 1 33.53 3.84 3.84 16646 90 882 972
Total 14 90.64 10.38 10.38 44996.5 243 2384 2627

DCS=DS (average demand cost, 1.95$ kW1)
(12 months yr1)

For the 0.4 mm air leaks:
DCS=0.30 kW
1.95$ kW1
12 months yr1
DCS1=$7 yr1
Usage savings, US, are now determined as follows:
US=DS (annual compressor operating hours, 4335 h yr1)
For the 0.4 mm air leaks, the annual usage savings, US1, are found as
US1=(0.30 kW month1)
(4335 h yr1)
US1=1300.5 kWh yr1
The usage cost savings, UCS, can then be estimated as
UCS=US (average usage cost 0.053$ kWh1)
For the 0.4 mm air leak, UCS1, is found as
UCS1=(1300.5 kW yr1)
($0.053 kW1)
UCS4=$69 yr1
Total cost savings, CS, for the 0.4 mm air leaks is now determined as
CS1=DCS1+UCS1
CS1=$6 yr1+$69 yr1
CS1=$76 yr1
Table II shows total flow rate, Vf ; power lost, L; demand savings, DS, usage savings, US, and
cost savings, CS, calculations as a direct result of repairing the air leaks.
The total monthly demand savings are 10.38 kW and the annual usage savings are
44996.5 kWh yr1. The total annual cost savings after 14 air leaks are repaired are found as
$2627 yr1.

3.1.2. Implementation cost. Implementation of this energy conservation opportunities (ECO)

may involve replacement of couplings and/or hoses, replacement of seals around filters, shutting
off air flow during lunch or break periods, or repairing breaks in lines. Assuming that this work
can be done by facility maintenance personnel, it is estimated that all 14 leaks in the plant can be

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
844 D. KAYA ET AL.

eliminated for 5$280 ($20 per leak). Thus, the cost savings of $2627 yr1 will pay for the
implementation cost within approximately 2 months.

3.2. Example 2: Installing high-efficiency motors

At a production facility, the increase in efficiency for various power ranges is summarized in
Table III below (Nadel et al., 1991). The number of motors found in each range of power is also
shown. Install high-efficiency electric motors to replace the existing standard motors currently
used at this facility. It is recommended that the more efficient motors be installed only as
existing motors wear out (Kaya et al., 2001). The average usage cost is 0.053$ kWh1 and
average demand cost is 1.95$ kW1 for this facility. Fraction of operating time that compressors
are in use: for the air compressors 1, 2, and 5, factor 1 is used. For the air compressor 3 and 4,
factor 0.5 is used (usage factor, estimated by plant personnel), no units. Fraction of rated load
ðLfi Þ is 0.95. Annual operating ðHi Þ is 4335 h yr1.

3.2.1. Anticipated savings. The monthly kilowatt demand savings for the motor(s), DSi, and the
annual kilowatt-hour usage savings, USi, which can be realized by installing high-efficiency
motor(s), can be estimated as follows:
As an example the demand savings, DS3, for the two air compressors (3) motors are estimated
as:
DSi=HPi
Ni
LFi
(1.0/Ec1.0/Ep)
DS3=(11.19
2
0.95)
[(1.0/0.871)–(1.0/0.920)]
DS3=1.30 kW month1
The annual usage savings for replacing the two 11.19 kW motors, US3, are found as
USi=DSi
Hi
Ufi
US3=DS3
Hi
UF3
US3=1.30 kW month1
4335 h yr1
0.5
US3=2818 kWh yr1
The total corresponding cost savings, CS3, are estimated as
CS3 ¼ ½DS3
ðaverage demand cost; $ kW1 Þ
ð12 months yr1 Þ
þ½US5
ðaverage usage cost; $ kWh1 Þ

Table III. Potential increase in efficiency.

Average efficiency Average efficiency
Motor Number of motors new TEFC standard new TEFC EEM
power (kW) in this range (%) (%)
7.46 3 86.4 91.0
11.19 2 87.1 92.0
22.38 2 90.4 93.2
55.95 1 92.1 94.6
Total 8
Note: Totally enclosed fan cooled (TEFC). Energy efficient models (EEM). Average efficiencies are
based on full load nominal efficiencies of the motors supplied by eight different manufacturers.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
 ENERGY CONSERVATION 845

Table IV. Motor energy savings.

Compressor
number HPi kW N Ec (%) Ep (%) DS (kW) US (kW) CS ($)
1 55.95 1 92.1 94.6 1.53 6633 $387
2 22.38 2 90.4 93.2 1.41 6112 $356
3 11.19 2 87.1 92.0 1.30 2818 $180
4 7.46 2 86.4 91.0 0.83 1799 $115
5 7.46 1 86.4 91.0 0.41 1777 $104
Total 8 5.48 19139 $1142

CS3 ¼ ½1:30
ð1:95$ kW1 Þ
ð12 months yr1 Þ

þ ½2818
ð0:053$ kWh1 Þ
CS3=$180 yr1

3.2.2. Implementation cost. The price of high-efficiency motors is somewhat higher than that of
standard motors. The simple pay back for these motors is based on the cost difference between
the standard and premium motors, as found in Table IV.
Pay back=N(cost difference)/(CS3/12)
Pay back=20 months
These results are shown in Table IV for each motor observed in the plant.
The total monthly demand savings are 5.48 kW and the annual usage savings are
19139 kWh yr1. The total annual cost savings after all motors are replaced are found as
$1142 yr1.

3.3. Example 3: Using outside air intake

Table V lists the compressors in use at the facility with their respective operating values based on
power measurements performed during the site visit.
The average air temperature at the intake of the compressor, as measured by the survey team,
was about 358C. The average outside air temperature for this region is estimated to be about
218C. The compressors at this facility operate for a total of approximately 5000 h yr1. The
average usage cost is $0.0302 kWh1 and average demand cost is 10.82$ kW1 for this facility.

3.3.1. Anticipated savings. The fractional reduction in compressor work due to lowering the
compressor intake air temperature is calculated from Equation (6) as
WR =(35–21)/(35+273)
WR =0.045
The annual reduction in power demand of the air compressor system is shown in the
following example:
The annual electric demand savings, DS, in kilowatts is found from Equation (7) as
DS1=(18.65 kW)
(0.95)
(0.045)/0.89
DS1=0.90 kW month1
DS2=(37.3 kW)
(0.95)
(0.045)/0.91

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
846 D. KAYA ET AL.

Table V. List of compressors in use at facility.

Compressor Motor power Usage factor Motor efficiency
number (kW) (%) (%)
1 18.65 30 89
2 37.3 80 91

DS2=1.75 kW month1
DS=DS1+DS2
DS=0.90 kW month1+1.75 kW month1
DS=2.65 kW month1
The annual electric demand cost savings, DCS, is
DCS=DS (average demand cost, $ kW1)
(12 month yr1)
DCS=(2.65 kW month1)
($10.82 kW1)
(12 month yr1)
DCS=$344 yr1
The annual electric usage savings, US, in kilowatt-hours is found from Equation (8) as
US1=(0.90 kW)
(5000 h yr1)
(0.3)
US1=1350 kWh yr1
US2=(1.75 kW)
(5000 h yr1)
(0.8)
US2=7000 kWh yr1
US=US1+US2
US=1350+7000
US=8350 kWh yr1
UCS=US (average usage cost, $ kWh1)
UCS=(8350 kWh yr1)
($0.0302 kWh1)
UCS=$252 yr1
The total annual cost savings, CS, can then be found as
CS=DCS+UCS
CS=$344 yr1+$252 yr1
CS=$596 yr1

3.3.2. Implementation cost. The most common material used for ducting outside air to the
compressor intakes is plastic (PVC) pipe. One end of the duct is attached to the air cleaner
intake or other appropriate intake port, and the other end is routed through a wall or ceiling to
a cool, shady area on the outside. The total implementation cost for materials and labour to
make these modifications to the compressors is $560. Thus, the cost savings of $596 yr1 will pay
for the implementation cost within 12 months.

3.4. Example 4: Reducing compressor air pressure

At a production facility, six Ingersoll-Rand rotary screw-type air compressors are operated over
the facility air pressure requirement as shown Table VI.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
 ENERGY CONSERVATION 847

Table VI. Operating parameters for compressors.

Compressor
number Pdc (kPaa) Pdp (kPaa) Prq (kPaa) FR HP (kW) PL (kW) EFF (%)
1 896.3 827.3 758.4 0.9578 74.6 76.59 92.5
2 861.8 827.3 758.4 0.9782 55.9 57.75 92.0
3 875.6 827.3 758.4 0.9698 22.4 23.75 89.5
4 875.6 827.3 758.4 0.9782 22.4 23.75 89.5
5 813.6 655 586 0.9378 22.4 23.75 89.5
6 792.8 655 586 0.9511 18.6 19.90 89.0

The amount of energy required for operating a compressor is related to the air pressure
settings. Energy savings are thus possible from reducing the air pressure settings of the
compressors. From discussions with plant personnel, it is estimated that 758.4 kPaa is a sufficient
air line pressure for some buildings while others only require 586 kPaa. Therefore, the set point of
some of the compressors can be reduced to 827.3 kPaa and others can be reduced to 655 kPaa,
while still providing 758.4 and 586 kPaa to distant points from the compressors (Prq) considering
line losses. The average usage cost is $0.05052 kWh1. Annual hours of operation is 7200 h yr1
and average fraction of operation time that compressor is running (usage factor), 1 no units.

3.4.1. Anticipated savings. Using the Ingersoll-Rand 74.6 kW one stage ðN ¼ 1Þ rotary screw
compressor as an example, FR1 is (from Equation (10)):
ðð827:3 þ 101:3Þ=101:3Þð1:41:0Þ=ð1:4
1Þ  1:0
FR1 ¼ ¼ 0:9578
ðð896:3 þ 101:3Þ=101:3Þð1:41:0Þ=ð1:4
1Þ  1:0
Compressing the air to the proposed pressure requires less energy than is necessary to compress
the air at the current pressure. The per cent energy savings, %ES, is that change divided by the
total. Again, using 74.6 kW compressor as an example:

%ESi=(1FRi)/1
100
%ES1=4.2%

The annual usage savings, US, is then estimated as

USi=(1.0FRi)
PLi
H
UF
US1=((1.0–0.9578)
76.59
7200
1.0
US1=2328 kWh yr1

The annual usage cost savings, UCS, are found as

UCS1=US ($ average usage cost kWh1)

UCS1=(2328 kWh yr1)
($0.05052 kWh1)
UCS1=$1176 yr1

The annual usage savings are 58891 kWh yr1. The total annual cost savings after lowering
the set point of the compressors are found as $2975 yr1.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
848 D. KAYA ET AL.

Table VII. Calculated savings for compressors.

Compressor Energy savings Usage savings Usage cost savings Energy savings
number (%) (kWh yr1) ($ yr1) (kWh yr1)
1 4.2 23280 1176 23280
2 2.2 9079 459 9079
3 3.0 5155 260 5155
4 2.2 3733 189 3733
5 6.2 10634 537 10634
6 4.9 7010 354 7010
Total 58891 2975 58891

Table VII Shows demand savings, DS, usage savings, US, and cost savings, CS, calculations
as a direct result of reducing compressor air pressure.

3.4.2. Implementation cost. Assuming that these adjustments can be done by the maintenance
crew in a few minutes, the implementation cost of adjusting the pressure settings are estimated
as zero. Therefore, the energy cost savings is immediate.

4. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have demonstrated that a considerable energy and money can be saved in
compressed-air systems in industrial facilities by attractive common sense measures. These
measures are: repairing air leaks, installing high-efficiency motors, reducing the average air inlet
temperature by using outside air, reducing compressor air pressure. The calculation procedures
are illustrated with realistic examples, and the potential savings and payback periods are
evaluated. The payback period of these realistic examples approximately are: 2 months for
repairing air leaks, 20 months for installing high-efficiency motors, 12 months for reducing the
average air inlet temperature by using outside air, and immediate for reducing compressor air
pressure. Most of them can be implemented by maintenance personal of the facilities. We hope
these attractive measures will motivate manufacturers to implement and reduce their cost of
energy usage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The financial support of the U.S. Department of Energy through University City Science Canter in
Philadelphia, PA to the Industrial Assessment Canter, Arizona State University, Tempe, U.S.A. and
Tubitak-Marmara Research Center, Gebze/KOCAELI, Turkey is greatly acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Cengel YA, Boles MA. 1998. Thermodynamics an Engineering Approach (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York.
Cerci Y, Cengel YA, Turner HT. 1995. Reducing the cost of compressed air in industrial facilities. Thermodynamics and
the Design, Analysis, and Improvement of Energy Systems, ASME, AES, 35:175–186.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849
 ENERGY CONSERVATION 849

Cengel YA, Cerci Y. 2000. Opportunities to save energy in industry, 12. Turkish National Conference on Thermal
Sciences and Technologies with International Participation, Conference Proceeding, Vol. 2. Sakarya/Turkey,
2: 392–399.
Compressed Air and Gas Handbook, 1961. Compressed Air and Gas Institute (3rd edn). New York, New York.
Holdsworth J. 1997. Conserving energy in compressed air systems. Plant Engineering, 51(13):103–104.
Kaya D, Sarac HI, Olgun H. 2001. Energy saving in compressed air systems. The Fourth International Thermal Energy
Congress, Çesme/TURKEY, 69–74.
MotorMaster Data Base. 1993. Washington State Energy Office, WA.
Nadel S, Shepard M, Grenberg S, Katz G, and Almeida A. 1991. Energy Efficient Motor Systems: A Handbook on
Technology, Program, and Policy Opportunities. Washington D.C., American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy.
Risi JD. 1995. Energy savings with compressed air. Energy Engineering 92(6):49–58.
Talbott EM. 1993. Compressed Air Systems: A Guidebook on Energy and Cost Savings (2nd edn). The Fairmont Press,
Inc.: Liburn, GA 00247.
Terrell RE. 1999. Improving compressed air system efficiency}know what you really need. Energy Engineering
96(1):7–15.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2002; 26:837–849