CASE04 · Manufacturing · Melting and casting
Increasing tapping throughput and casting batch size to improve energy intensity
Separate gas baselines for two melting furnaces and an electricity baseline for casting machine #8 evaluate the effect of higher daily throughput and larger batches under comparable process conditions.
01 · CASE ANALYSIS
Operating challenge
Melting furnaces #2 and #4 showed different gas intensities. Tapping temperature, waiting and throughput needed to be examined to explain the higher intensity of furnace #4.
Casting machine #8 also showed product-dependent electricity intensity. The analysis examined whether larger batches of the same product and recipe could spread fixed consumption across more output.
02 · CASE ANALYSIS
Data and baseline models
MES tapping mass and casting quantity were aligned with EMS gas and electricity data. Product, recipe and batch information defined comparable operating conditions.
For the melting models, Q is daily tapped mass in kg and U(Q) is gas intensity in Nm³/kg. For the casting model, Q is daily output in pieces and U(Q) is kWh per piece. The same symbol therefore has different equipment-specific units.
| Equipment | Model | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Melting #2 | U(Q) = (0.0211Q + 382.6136) / Q | Tapping-mass baseline |
| Melting #4 | E(Q) = 0.0230Q + 588.5107; U(Q) = E(Q)/Q | Revised baseline |
| Casting #8 | U(Q) = (2.3329Q + 747.9175) / Q | GLSAR Model-2 |
03 · CASE ANALYSIS
Proposed operating change
The melting scenarios move throughput from the median (Q2) to the third quartile (Q3). Casting output increases from 690 to 895 pieces/day through larger batches of the same product and recipe.
For furnace #4, the revised baseline indicates approximately 220 Nm³/day of potential at the Q3 output level. The three percentages apply to separate equipment boundaries and should not be added as a site-wide savings rate.
04 · CASE ANALYSIS
Measurement and verification
Record tapping temperature, waiting and operating conditions while comparing the Q2 and Q3 throughput regimes. For casting machine #8, change batch size while keeping product and recipe comparable.
Evaluate energy intensity and absolute energy separately. Higher production may improve energy per unit while increasing total energy consumption.
| Equipment | Baseline condition | Target condition | Potential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Melting #2 | 62,659 kg/day; 0.02721 Nm³/kg | 67,755 kg/day; 0.02675 Nm³/kg | 1.7% |
| Melting #4 | 42,925 kg/day; 0.03671 Nm³/kg | 58,968 kg/day; 0.03298 Nm³/kg | 10.2% |
| Casting #8 | 690 pieces/day; 3.417 kWh/piece | 895 pieces/day; 3.169 kWh/piece | 7.3% |
05 · CASE ANALYSIS
Engineering lesson
Production planning can change energy intensity by distributing fixed consumption across more output. Equipment-specific baselines make this effect explicit and help separate production growth from operational savings.
APPLY TO YOUR SITE
Connect your operating data to an actionable energy strategy.
Discuss the measurement boundary, data quality, operating constraints and verification approach for your facility.
Discuss your project All English cases