Compressed Air Systems: Solenoid Valves

Overview
Compressed air is useful, but expensive. A highly cost-effective method to reduce the cost of compressed air is to reduce the quantity of compressed air required by plant processes.

Solenoid Valves
Compressed air should be to shut off whenever it is not needed. Sometimes this means shutting off compressed air for a few seconds at a time, such as between stamping cycles or between parts moving down a conveyor. Other times this means eliminating air loss through leaks or open valves by shutting off the supply of compressed air to a machine, group of machines or entire section of the plant when it is not in use. Simple, reliable and inexpensive solenoid valves can be installed to automatically shut off the flow of compressed air when it is not needed. Three-way two-position solenoid valves are sufficient for shutting off the supply of compressed air. Solenoid valves open or close when an electric current energizes the solenoid. Typically, the return position is actuated by a spring (solenoid/spring), or a second solenoid (solenoid/solenoid). Solenoid valves for compressed air are typically designed to operate up to 600 cycles per minute and at air pressures from 50 psig to 150 psig. Solenoid valves can be controlled by connection to process machines, photo sensors or other input mechanisms. Approximate costs of solenoid valves are shown below: 1/8-inch NPT (solenoid/spring) $30 1/4-inch NPT (solenoid/spring) $40 3/8-inch NPT (solenoid/spring) $70 3/8-inch NPT (solenoid/solenoid) $100 1/2-inch NPT (solenoid/spring) $200 1/2-inch NPT (solenoid/solenoid) $250 3/4-inch NPT (solenoid/spring) $290 3/4-inch NPT (solenoid/solenoid) $360 Source: Grainger Catalog 2001, pgs 2886-2895

Calculating Energy Savings From Reducing Compressed Air Use

To calculate the compressor power required to generate a given quantity of compressed air, use the published compressor performance specifications for scfm of compressed air generated per brake horsepower from the motor. If the performance specifications are unavailable, it is reasonable to assume that most compressors generate about 4.2 scfm per brake horsepower from the motor (or inversely, require about 0.25 hp/scfm of compressed air). Using this number it is easy to estimate how much power is required to generate compressed air. However, the energy savings from reducing compressed air demand can

be much less than the power required to generate the air demand depending on the type of compressor control. For example, if the compressor runs unloaded at 60% of full load power when not generating compressed air, then the energy savings will be only 40% of the power required to supply the demand. The savings from modulating compressors are even less. Only when the compressor completely turns off when not compressing air will the electricity savings equal the power required to generate the compressed air. Example A leak consumes about 4 scfm of compressed air. The annual electricity cost of generating this much compressed air if a 90% efficient compressor motor runs 8,000 hours per year and electricity costs $0.06 /kWh would be about: 4 scfm x 0.25 hp/scfm x 0.75 kW/hp / 90% x 8,000 hr/yr x $0.06 /kWh = $400 /yr If the compressor shuts off when not generating compressed air (such as would be the case for reciprocating compressors with on/off control or lag compressors with automatic shut-off control, then the savings from shutting off this demand would equal the cost to feed the leak of $400 /yr. If the compressor runs unloaded at 60% of fullload power when not generating compressed air, the savings would be about: $400 /yr x 40% = $160 /yr

AR X: Reconnect Compressed Air Supply to Presses Through Automation Valves

Annual Savings Resource CO2 (lb) 103,000 kWh 30,000 Dollars $6,900 Project Cost $1,740 Simple Investment Payback IRR 3 months 400%

Electricity

Analysis Each of the six press machines, plus the Kurimoto press, employ continuous streams of compressed air through two 3/8-inch open pipes to blow parts from the dies. In AR #X, we estimate the savings from installing ITW Vortec Model #1205 high-thrust nozzles on the open pipes. Additional savings are possible if the compressed air supply to each press were connected through automation valves in the presses. The automation valves open only during the part of each stroke when compressed air is needed. Management estimates that reconnecting the compressed air supply through the automation valves would reduce the time that compressed air is required by one half. Recommendation We recommend reconnecting the compressed air supply through the automation valves in the seven major presses to reduce the time that compressed air is required. In addition, to maximize electricity savings, we recommend staging the compressors to activate at sequentially lower pressures and enabling the control that turns the compressors off if they run unloaded for 10 minutes (See AR#X). Estimated Savings In this section, we estimate the savings from reconnecting the compressed air supply through the automation valves after the Model #1205 high-thrust nozzles have been installed. The savings from reconnecting the compressed air supply through the automation valves if the nozzles were not installed would be about five times greater. According to the ITW Vortec Air Nozzles and Jets Product Catalog, the quantity of 100 psig compressed air consumed by a 3/8-inch Exair Model 1003 nozzle is about 31 scfm. Thus, the quantity of compressed air required after installing 3/8-inch nozzles on all 14 open blow-off pipes would be about: 14 pipes x 31 scfm/pipe = 434 scfm The electricity savings resulting from reducing compressed air demand is highly dependent on the control mode of the compressors. Staging the compressors to activate at sequentially lower pressures and enabling the control that turns the compressors off if they run unloaded for 10 minutes, as recommended in AR # X, will result in the maximum electricity savings. In the analysis that follows, we assume that these measures

will be implemented. If not, the savings from reconnecting the automation valves would be about 60% less than the estimate below since the compressors will continue to run unloaded even with reduced compressed air demand. According to management, the presses operate about eight hours per day, six days per week, for 50 weeks per year. Management estimates that one half requires reconnecting the compressed air supply through the automation valves would reduce the time that compressed air. Most compressors generate about 4.2 scfm per brake horsepower. Assuming the compressor motors are 90% efficient and the measures recommended above are activated, the savings from reconnecting the automation valves would be about: 434 scfm / 4.2 scfm/hp x 0.75 kW/hp / 90% = 86 kW 86 kW x 8 hrs/dy x 6 dy/wk x 50 weeks/year x 50% = 103,000 kWh/year 103,000 kWh/year x $0.067 /kWh = $6,900 /year This would reduce CO2 emissions by the electric utility by about: 103,000 kWh/year x 2.3 lb CO2/kWh = 30,000 lb CO2 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost Management estimates that reconnecting the automation valves would require five valves at about $300 per valve and eight hours of labor. At a labor rate of $30 per hour, the total implementation cost would be about: (5 valves x $300 /valve) + (8 hours x $30 /hr) = $1,740 Estimated Simple Payback ($1,740 / $6,900 /year) x 12 months/year = 3 months

AR 5: Install Optical Sensor and Fix Leaks to Reduce Compressed Air Use
Electric Demand Electric Usage Net Implementation Cost Simple Payback: Present 17.73 kW 44,325 kWh Recommended 0 kW 0 kWh Annual Savings 17.73 kW; $2,993 44,325 kWh; $1,152 $4,145 $1,000 3 months

Analysis During our visit we found numerous leaks in the compressed air system. In addition, the blow bar used for dust removal on the finishing machine for the hot pressed doors ran continuously. Recommendation We recommend fixing all major holes and leaks in the compressed air system and installing an optical sensor on the blow bar to spray compressed air only when there is a door in need of dust removal. Estimated Savings Fixing Leaks The table below shows the leaks we observed, the approximate amount of air lost through the leaks, and the approximate air-compressor horse power required to supply air to the leaks. The estimates of air lost through the leaks are from Compressed Air Systems: DOE/CS/40520-T2. We assume that the compressor uses about 0.25 hp per scfm of compressed air. Size of Hole # holes scfm/hole scfm lost hp lost 1 /8 3 15.86 47.49 12 1 /16 6 3.96 23.76 6 Total* 9 71.25 18 *There were numerous other holes either too small to find with my hand, or inside of machines Equivalent Hole Diameter Leakage Rate scfm 1/64 " 0.25 1/32 " 0.99 1/16 " 3.96 1/8 " 15.86 1/4 " 63.44 3/8 " 12.74 From Compressed Air Systems: DOE/CS/40520-T2.

Assuming the 50-hp compressor motor is 90.2% efficient, the power required to supply air to these leaks is about: 18 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 90.2% = 14.9 kW 14.9 kW x $14.07 /kW-month x 12 month/year = $2,515 /year 14.9 kW x 2,500 hour/year = 37,250 kWh/year 37,250 kWh/year x $0.026 /kWh = $968 /year Install optic sensor on blow bar There are 23 1/16 holes in the blow bar used for dust removal from the hot pressed doors after finishing. This blow bar runs continuously. A simple optical sensor and solenoid valve would enable the blow bar to be turned off in between doors and during breaks. We estimate that this would reduce the blowing time by about 15%. The savings would be about: Size of Hole 1 /16 Total* # holes 23 23 scfm/hole 3.96 x 0.15 scfm lost 13.66 13.66 hp lost 3.42 3.42

The electricity savings would be about: 3.42 hp x 0.746 kW/hp / 90.2% = 2.83 kW 2.83 kW x $14.07 / kW/ month x 12 month/year = $478 /year 2.83 kW x 2,500 hour/year = 7,075 kWh/year 7,075 kWh/year x $0.026 /kWh = $184 /year The total savings would be about: Hole fixing savings: $2,515 /year + $968 /year = $3,483 /year Change blow bar operation: $478 /year + $184 /year = $662 /year Total Savings: $4,145 /year Estimated Implementation Cost Cost of fixing holes: $600 Cost of changing blow bar operation: $400 Total cost of implementation: $1,000 Estimated Simple Payback $1,000 / $4,145 /yr x 12 months/yr = 3 months

AR x: Install Optical Sensor to Reduce Compressed Air Used in Ball Inflation Process
Elec. Usage Elec. Demand Net Implementation Cost Simple Payback Present 5,022 kWh/yr 11.16 kW Recommended None None Annual Savings 5,022 kWh; $116 11.16 kW; $3,134 $3,250 $5,600 21 months

Analysis The ball inflation system inflates balls prior to packing and shipping. The system works as follows, balls are produced on the rotocast machines and moved to a position in front of the handler. The handler places balls on filling needles. Inflated balls are thrown it into a bin. Compressed air continues to be exhausted even when no balls are being inflated. Recommendation We recommend installing an electric-eye system that would activate the supply of compressed air only when a ball is being inflated. This type of system is currently being tried out on a different ball inflation process. This would save both air compressor electricity and wear and tear. Estimated Savings Each fill hole is about 1/16 inch in diameter. If the compressed air discharge pressure is about 100 psig, about 4 scfm of air is lost through each hole (Compressed Air Systems: DOE/CS/40520-T2). There are 2 inflation needles on each of the 14 rotocast machines, but only about half of the needles are open at the same time. Thus, the total supply of compressed air to the inflation machines is about: 14 holes x 4 scfm/hole = 56 scfm According to management, the rotocast machines run 4 hours per shift, 3 shifts per day. Based on our observations, we estimate that compressed air is being wasted about 1/8 of the time, for a total of about 1.5 hours per day. Installing an electric eye on each machine would essentially eliminate this waste. Rotary air compressors generally require about 0.25 brake-hp to compress one cfm of free air (Compressed Air Systems: DOE/CS/40520-T2). Assuming that the efficiency of the 200-hp air compressor motor is 93.6 %, the power and energy required for the excess air flow are about: 56 scfm x 0.25 hp/scfm x 0.746 kW/hp / 0.936 = 11.16 kW 11.16 kW x 1.5 hr/dy x 6 dy/wk x 50 wk/yr = 5,022 kWh/yr Electricity savings from eliminating excess compressed air would be about: 11.16 kW x $23.40 /kW-mo x 12 mo/yr = $3,134 /yr

5,022 kWh/yr x $0.023 /kWh = $116 /yr $3,134 /yr + $116 /yr = $3,250 /yr Estimated Implementation Cost According to management, the material and labor cost of adding electric eye controls would be about $400 per machine. The total implementation cost for 14 machines would be about: $400 /machine x 14 machines = $5,600 Estimated Simple Payback The simple payback would be about: SP = $5,600 / $3,250 /yr x 12 mo/yr = 21 months ROR = $3,250/yr /$5,600 = 58% per year