CASE19 · Manufacturing · Chillers, compressors and boilers
Diagnosing integrated utility performance and metering quality in a chemical plant
Representative seasonal records compare cooling, compressed air and steam. Equipment efficiency differences are evaluated alongside abnormal flow measurements before savings priorities are assigned.
01 · CASE ANALYSIS
Operating challenge
Cooling, compressed air and steam represented approximately KRW 19.4 billion/year. Equipment-level intensity differences could have significant cost consequences, but suspect flow records limited the reliability of some comparisons.
The study covered 28 chillers in three cooling systems, 16 compressors in two air systems and six boilers. Each monitored point had 4,032 records across the four representative weeks.
02 · CASE ANALYSIS
Data and performance diagnosis
Chiller power and water temperatures, header pressures/bypass, compressor power/discharge conditions, airflow/pressure/dew point, boiler gas/steam flow, pressure, flue temperature and oxygen were analyzed with weather.
Cooling-system UPI averaged about 0.68/0.49/0.48 kW/RT. Individual chillers ranged from approximately 0.43 to 0.77 kW/RT. Compressor system intensities were approximately 0.217/0.195 in the source, but airflow consistency needed checking. Normal boiler records ranged from 43.9 to 49.6 Nm³/ton of steam.
| Boundary | Observed values | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Cooling systems | 0.68 / 0.49 / 0.48 kW/RT | System differences |
| Individual chillers | 0.43–0.77 kW/RT | Approximately 44% performance spread |
| Air systems | 0.217 / 0.195 reported intensities | Flow-meter consistency must be checked |
| Normal boiler records | 43.9–49.6 Nm³/ton | Abnormal steam readings excluded from trustworthy comparison |
03 · CASE ANALYSIS
Improvement priorities
Prioritize efficient chillers and review water temperatures, load and bypass together. Calibrate air and steam flow meters before quantifying compressor or boiler savings.
For compressed air, examine load, intake temperature and discharge pressure after data quality is established. For boilers, combine efficient-unit priority with appropriate pressure and combustion conditions. Cost shares were cooling 45%, boilers 38% and compressed air 17%.
04 · CASE ANALYSIS
Evidence and M&V
The approximately 44% difference between better and worse chiller intensities is an equipment-performance spread, not a confirmed savings rate.
The public source does not provide a clear final quantified saving from the report’s simulation section. No substitute total is invented here. Actual improvements require baselines for cooling load, airflow demand, steam production, weather and production conditions.
| Utility | Cost share | First action |
|---|---|---|
| Cooling | 45% | Efficient units and system setpoints |
| Boilers | 38% | Steam measurement and unit intensity |
| Compressed air | 17% | Airflow consistency, load and pressure |
05 · CASE ANALYSIS
Engineering lesson
A large apparent efficiency difference can be caused by bad denominator data. Correct flow measurement before using intensity benchmarks for operating decisions or financial claims.
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