52 Energy Engineering Vol. 110, No.

6 2013

Optimization of an
Industrial Air Compressor System
Bei Zhang, Mingsheng Liu, Yunhua Li, Lixia Wu

ABSTRACT

Compressed air usage, storage, leakage, and efficiency are several

factors that influence the efficiency of a compressed air system. Usually
for those industrial plants having multiple types and sizes of air com-
pressors, the efficiency of each one is quite different, even for those of
the same type and size. It greatly influences overall system performance
when demand is matched with the air compressor or group operated at
or near maximum efficiency levels. One industrial plant was chosen in
this article to illustrate this process. The trended data were analyzed to
obtain the efficiency for each individual air compressor and the mix of
several air compressors. The result showed that annual energy savings
of 15 to 50 percent can be achieved for a whole year using an optimized
operation schedule.

INTRODUCTION

Compressed air systems are widely employed in industrial plants

to produce the compressed air vital to everyday facility operations. Since
air compressors consume a greater amount of electricity than any other
type of facility equipment[1], an optimized and effectively operated air
compressor system is essential for creating energy savings.
Usually many approaches can be employed to improve a com-
pressed air system’s efficiency. Van Ormer[2] and Foss[3] summarized
these approaches:

• Minimize the energy lost through distribution,

• Reduce system air waste such as air leaks and excess pressure loss,
• Optimize the demand side by minimizing optimum flow and pres-
sure required, and
 53

• Select the best energy efficient compressor.

Sheckler[4] presented a case study of improving efficiency for com-

pressed air systems. He assessed the old system of a metal wire manu-
facture and proposed a new one with retrofit of a new VFD air compres-
sor and two new air dry receivers. The new system efficiency was at
least 14.7 percent higher than the old system. Reducing air leakage in
the distribution network is another key to savings. Based on data from
Sheckler[4] (2007), the new system, combined with eliminating leakage,
created almost 60 percent savings for the plant in a year. Dalgleish and
Grobler[5] performed an energy audit on a packaging facility. Fifty-five
percent of the annual electricity used for compressed air production was
saved by lowering the system pressure setpoint, repairing air leaks, and
reducing unnecessary compressed air use.
This article focused mainly on how to optimize operation of an
industrial compressed air system, with multiple air compressors usu-
ally employed to satisfy peak demand, meet different circumstance re-
quirements, and serve as backup during maintenance. Air compressors
usually show different performance—even those of the same model
and size. Seldom do all compressors run simultaneously. When inte-
grated into a system, the most efficient individual air compressor or
group of compressors has the greatest influence on overall system per-
formance. Though operators manage the operation of the air compres-
sors, seldom do they know when to run which, to achieve greater effi-
ciency. In this article, one industrial plant had been chosen to illustrate
this process, assuming that the air leakage in the distribution line was
eliminated.

SYSTEM INFORMATION FOR THE SELECTED SITE

The compressed air system involved in this study ran 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week. It was comprised of seven air compressors, a com-
pressed air receiver, and two compressed air dryers. The compressed
air was mainly used for industrial production and pneumatic control.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of this system. Table 1 gives the system
specifications.
54 Energy Engineering Vol. 110, No. 6 2013

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Compressed Air System

METHODOLOGY

Fundamentals
For air compressors, the mechanical power consumption rate for ac-
tual processes can be estimated by Equation (1) below.

(1)

Based on Equation (1), it can be found that power consumption can

be reduced by lowering the pressure ratio, and the intake air temperature.
Because in the case study site the 100 psi pressure setpoint was mandated
by contract and functions as an unchangeable variable, this review did
not look at how the pressure influenced the overall performance of the
system.

Test Groups
From Table 1, it can be found that the compressed air system in the
site consisted of air compressors of three different models. During the
walk-through, it was known that under part-load conditions one of the
seven air compressors running alone can satisfy the load. When the load
increased and the pressure setpoint could not be maintained, another air
compressor of the same size and type would be chosen to run in com-
bination with the one online. Due to the system configuration, running
 55

Table 1. Air Compressor System Specifications

air compressors of the same model facilitated the starting process since
less system checking was involved. So the air compressors with the same
model were grouped together when testing the performance of their com-
bined running. If a single air compressor could not satisfy the load, one of
the same model would be started and the two would run as a group.
To compare the performance of different compressors, six tests were
conducted which is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Test Groups

—————————————————————————————
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
AC#1 AC#2 Grp#1
(AC#1&AC#2)
—————————————————————————————
Test 4 Test 5 Test 6
AC#4 or AC#5 or AC#6 or
Grp#2(AC#4&AC#5) Grp#2(AC#4&AC#5) Grp#3(AC#6&AC#7)
—————————————————————————————

Quantification of Air Compressor Performance

To evaluate the performance of these air compressors, the efficiency
(E) was defined as the ratio of the compressed air delivered by the indi-
vidual compressor (or group) over its input electrical power, as shown by
. .
Equation (2), among which Q and W were unknown variable and could be
measured during the test.
56 Energy Engineering Vol. 110, No. 6 2013

. .
E = Q/W (2)

Data Collection
To cover more load condition, a whole week’s data were logged for
all the tests with the consumed electrical power using kilowatt meters and
compressed air delivered using the site air flow meter which was built
in recent years. The intake air temperature of the online compressor was
trended with temperature loggers. During the trending, data were col-
lected every five minutes for each logger.

Data Handling
Grp#1 and Grp#2 use reciprocating air compressors. Grp#1 utilizes
a five-step (0, 25, 50, 75, 100 percent) design, and Grp#2 uses a three-step
(0, 50, 100 percent) control design. The air compressors in Grp#3 are de-
signed with start/stop control. The compressors switch between loading
to unloading to maintain the system (compressed air tank) pressure set-
point of 100 psi. The actual system pressure varied from 96 psi (loading
setpoint) to 110 psi (unloading setpoint) and the power consumed fluctu-
ated accordingly. Therefore, extreme low power data were logged during
the unloading process even when the compressed air flor rate delivered
by the system was in normal range. This yielded a false high efficiency
value. To reduce this error, extraneous values were eliminated. A moving
average, using 15-minute cycles, was instituted to smooth data fluctuation
for both the air flow rate and electrical power. Then the efficiency was ob-
tained from Equation (2) by substituting the moving average result of air
flow rate and electrical power.

Result of the Compressed Air System Tests and

Analysis Efficiency Comparison
To simplify showing test results, efficiency (E) under different load
conditions for tested individual air compressors and groups is presented
in Figures 2 through 9 which also show the regressive equations derived
from these data.
It can be obtained explicitly from the above figures that all the air
compressors showed a higher efficiency when running under a higher
load condition. It is also found that the air compressor or groups which
conveyed the load evenly in a larger range showed better linear regres-
sion, while AC#5 and AC#6 with less data have poor linear regression.
 57

Figure 2. Efficiency and Load for AC#1

Figure 3. Efficiency and Load of AC#2

Figure 4. Efficiency and Load for AC#4

To compare the performance of all tested air compressors and groups,

the derived linear relationships between efficiency and load are shown
in Figure 10.
The straight lines from Figure 10 indicate that AC#4 has the highest
efficiency when the load is less than 2200 cfm, followed by AC#5, AC#2,
58 Energy Engineering Vol. 110, No. 6 2013

Figure 5. Efficiency and Load of AC#5

Figure 6. Efficiency and Load for AC#6

Figure 7. Efficiency and Load for Grp#1

AC#1, AC#6, Grp#2, Grp#1, and Grp#3. Since the load during the test
of AC#5 is very low (less than 1200 cfm), the efficiency line for AC#5
disappears after the load is higher than 1200 cfm. It crosses with line of
AC#2, indicating that AC#5 shows lower efficiency than AC#2 when load
is higher than the crossing point which is about 1200 cfm. Further tests
should be done to verify this. The conclusion is that when the system air
 59

Figure 8. Efficiency and Load for Grp#2

Figure 9. Efficiency and Load for Grp#3

Figure 10. Efficiency and load for all the test groups
60 Energy Engineering Vol. 110, No. 6 2013

demand is lower than 2200 cfm, AC#4 should be in operation. If system

air demand is higher than 2200 cfm and lower than 3000 cfm, AC#2 with
larger capacity should be in operation to achieve better efficiency.
The peak air demand is lower than 3000 cfm based on the load pro-
file over all the tested weeks, which is easily read from the data in Figures
2 through 9. AC#4 and AC#2 running individually should have the capac-
ity to handle the system load.

Influence of Intake Air Temperature

To determine how the intake air temperature influenced the efficien-
cy of the system, the efficiency and intake air temperature of AC#1, AC#2,
AC#4 were taken when the load was stable. The results are presented in
Figures 11 through 13. Though the data from those figures do not give
perfect linear regression considering that the real load condition was al-
most steady rather than perfectly steady, the regression equations showed
that the efficiency and intake air temperature presented slightly inverse
proportional relationships. It can be estimated from the derived equation
that the efficiency of AC#1, AC#2, and AC#4 could be two percent higher
if the intake air were cooled from 80°F to 60°F. Therefore, the air compres-
sors could have higher efficiency in winter than in summer. To improve air
compressor efficiency, the intake air could be cooled before supplied to the
air compressor.

Saving Calculation
To estimate the annual savings, the average air demand profile was
tested during different months, and is shown in Table 3 which gives the
time the system operated under different load ranges, and which repre-
sents the plant’s one-year load profile. Results showed that a whole year

Figure 11. Efficiency and intake air temperature for AC#1

 61

Figure 12. Efficiency and intake air temperature for AC#2

Figure 13. Efficiency and intake air temperature for AC#4

of running AC#6 and Grp#3 consumed 3,280,758 kWh of electricity; AC#4

and Grp#2 consumed 1,557,137 kWh; and AC#2 and Grp#1 consumed
2,764,104 kWh. Assuming a unit of electricity costs $0.05, then the total an-
nual cost for AC#6 and Grp#3, AC#4 and Grp#2, and AC#2 would equal
$164,038, $77,857, and $138,205 respectively. Selecting AC#6 and Grp#3
(the worst condition) as the baseline, 15-52 percent of the electricity cost
could be saved by using AC#2 or AC#4 and Grp#2.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The following conclusions were based on the results of the data

analysis:
 62
Energy Engineering

Table 3. The Average System Load Profile during the Tests

Vol. 110, No. 6 2013
 63

1) The efficiency of the air compressor can be improved by cooling the

intake air. Air compressors AC#1, AC#2, AC#4 in this plant could be
two percent more efficient if the intake air were cooled from 80°F to
60°F.

2) Air compressors run more efficiently under higher load. Much bet-
ter linear regression relationship can be obtained if the tests covered
the load condition of a wider range.

3) AC#4, the most efficient, should be employed when load is lower

than its capacity. AC#2, the second most efficient, should be in op-
eration when system load exceeds the capacity of AC#4. Group #2
should be in operation if the load demand is higher than AC#2 can
provide.

To achieve system-wide optimal efficiency, the operator should

choose AC#4 when load is lower than 2200 cfm, and AC#2 when load is
higher than 2200 cfm but lower than 3000 cfm—or—choose the individual
air compressor or group of compressors operating at or near their maxi-
mum efficiency levels.

NOMENCLATURE
E
. = efficiency, cfm/kW
. = compressed air delivered, cfm
𝑄
. = input electrical power, kW
𝑊
𝑊𝑚 = compressor power consumption
.
𝑚𝑎 = air mass flow rate
𝑅𝑎 = ideal gas constant of air
Ti = intake (or inlet) air temperature
𝑙 = empirical parameter
𝑃𝑖 = inlet air pressure
𝑃𝑜 = outlet air pressure

Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the support of Mrs. Jingrong Wang, Mr. Lou-
is Thomas, and Jay M. Schubert from Omaha Public Power District. The
cooperation and assistance from building managers, engineers, and op-
erators is gratefully acknowledged.
 64 Energy Engineering Vol. 110, No. 6 2013

Reference
[1] U.S. Department of Energy, 2003. Improving compressed air system performance, a
source book for industry.
[2] Van Ormer, Hank. 1995. Optimize your plant’s compressed air system. Chemical Engi-
neering Progress, 91(2):35-39
[3] Foss, R. Scot. 2005. Optimizing the compressed air system. Energy Engineering,
102(1):49-60
[4] Sheckler, Mark S. 2007. Assessment of a Compressed air system. Energy Engineering,
104(1):13-22
[5] Dalgleish, A.Z. & L.J. Grobler. 2006. Energy management opportunities on a com-
pressed air system in a packaging facility. Energy Engineering, 103(4):42-52

————————————————————————————————
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Bei Zhang is a Ph.D. student and a research assistant of architectural
engineering at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Her research interests
are energy efficiency of building mechanical systems including system
control strategy, system optimization, and system commissioning etc. She
can be contacted at: bzhang@unomaha.edu

Mingsheng Liu, Ph.D., P.E., is the president and CTO at Bes-Tech,

Inc., DTL Controls LLC and Best-China, Inc. He was a professor and chair
of the graduate committee of the Department of Architectural Engineering
at University of Nebraska Lincoln. As the primary founder of Continuous
Commissioning® technology, Dr. Liu has conducted extensive research
in the energy efficiency area related to building energy systems, and has
worked in this area more than 20 years. He can be contacted at: mliu@ef-
ficiencytree.com

Yunhua Li is a Ph.D. student and a research assistant in the Depart-

ment of Architectural Engineering, University of Nebraska Lincoln. His
research interests are building energy systems optimization and rooftop
units fault detection. He can be contacted at: yunhuali@unomaha.edu

Lixia Wu is a director of engineering of Bes-Tech, Inc. She graduated

from University of Nebraska Lincoln in 2010 with a Ph.D. degree. She can
be contacted at: lwu@efficiencytree.com

View publication stats