Benchmarking chiller and CDA performance across four production facilities

01 · CASE ANALYSIS

Operating challenge

Four facilities differed in UPI, load and the gap between actual and required units. Some chilled-water header bypass valves remained highly open for long periods.

The analysis used the best comparable operating performance within or between facilities as a target, with low-temperature (LT), high-temperature (HT) and CDA boundaries kept separate.

02 · CASE ANALYSIS

Data and benchmarking

Seasonal energy costs, chiller/pump UPI, CDA UPI, load ratios, actual/required unit counts and header bypass openings were compared. Reported annual costs totaled approximately KRW 104.496 billion.

The benchmark estimates improvements of 4.8% for LT cooling, 1.6% for HT cooling and 4.7% for CDA. Displayed average UPI differences are rounded and need not reproduce those rates exactly.

03 · CASE ANALYSIS

Operating opportunities

Reported average operating margins across the facilities were approximately 2.9 LT chillers, 1.7 HT chillers and 7.3 compressors. Some LT bypass openings averaged about 64% and 37%.

Reduce unnecessary bypass and parallel operation only within minimum-flow, reserve and production-stability requirements. Select compressor combinations using demand, pressure and equipment efficiency together.

04 · CASE ANALYSIS

Measurement and verification

The approximate KRW 4.102 billion/year is the sum of reported LT, HT and CDA cost potentials. It is not a confirmed multi-site saving.

Cooling baselines should account for RT, weather and water temperatures; CDA baselines should account for airflow demand, pressure, production and staging. Verify each facility under comparable conditions.

05 · CASE ANALYSIS

Engineering lesson

A benchmark reveals where to investigate, but does not prove that another site can reproduce the best UPI. Loads, reserve requirements and process constraints must be evaluated first.