THESE ARE THE RESULTS OF

COMPRESSED AIR LEAK SURVEYS

PREFORMED AT 2 MAJOR
AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS
LOCATED WITHIN THE TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY’S SERVICE
AREA

1
 The following is a compilation of the
results of compressed air leak surveys
preformed at two major automotive
manufacturers, located in the Tennessee
Valley Authority’s service area. Due to
the wishes of the companies, neither of
their names will be used. As such, they
will be identified as Company ‘A’ and
Company ‘B’.
2
 Company ‘A’ is partitioned into 5
major divisions:

1- Old Engine Plant - Old engine and transmission manufacturing area

2- Body Systems - Body fabrication and Paint areas
3- Vehicle Systems - Vehicle component assembly & installation and final
assembly
4- Main Utilities Building - Generation point for the compressed air
system and chilled water system
5- New Engine Plant - Engine and transmission assembly area (Replaced
the Old Engine Plant)

3
Compressed air for the entire plant is generated by
up to 6 centrifugal air compressors, totaling 13,500
horsepower.

The total output of the 6 compressors is around

50,000 cfm.

Typically, Company ‘A’ utilizes around 27,000 cfm

of air.

4
Company ‘A’ pays, on average, around $1,000,000 a
month for electricity.

That’s an average of $12,000,000 a year.

Over a year’s time, Company ‘A” will average $1,760,000

a year to generate compressed air.

That makes the cost to generate compressed air about 15%

of its yearly electric bill.

5
In surveying the first area of the plant, the Ultraprobe
2000 was used, along with its scanning module, rubber
focusing probe and a long range adapter.

The Ultraprobe 9000 was used in all other areas along with
its scanning module, rubber focusing probe, and long
range adapter.

6
Old Engine Plant

Of Company ‘A’s 5 major areas, the Old Engine Plant was the first to be
surveyed. The survey began on July 8, 1999 and lasted until September 10,
1999. Throughout the entire survey process for Company ‘A’, a
maintenance person from one of the maintenance crews from Company
‘A’ and me - 2 people - would be locating and tagging the air leaks.

We began the survey by dividing the Old Engine Plant into grids. We
would survey each grid, identifying all the leaks we could find before
moving on to the next grid. We did this to insure that we would not
overlap areas. Along the way, we managed to locate and tag 615
compressed air leaks.

The Old Engine Plant had a total consumption rate of around 11,500 cfm
of air. The 615 leaks we found equated to about 1,500 cfm, or 13% of the
total. We calculated the cost of these leaks to be a little over $130,000 a
year. Each leak averaged a little over $210.00.
7
Body Systems

Body Systems was the second area surveyed. Surveying began on October
2, 2000, and lasted 5 months.

It is from here, through the rest of the survey, that we utilized the
Ultraprobe 9000.

Body Systems is comprised of 4 main sections: Body Panels, 3 Paint areas,

Frame, and Body Fabrication. During the survey, each was treated as a
separate area, but for the sake of expediency, we will consider them all 1
big area.

Like the Old Engine Plant, Body Systems uses around 11,500 cfm of
compressed air. The results of the survey found that Body Systems was
leaking about 3,570 cfm out of 1,931 leaks. These 1,931 leaks were costing
the company about $345,000 a year and equated to a leakage rate of
slightly more than 32%. The average cost of each leak was almost $180.00.
8
Vehicle Systems

Vehicle Systems is comprised of 4 major areas: Outside, Interior,

Overhead, and Inspection. The survey for Vehicle Systems began on
April 9, 2001 and concluded on May 17, 2001. Due to the nature of
the equipment used in these areas, the total consumption of
compressed air wasn’t as great as the previous 2 areas.

The total consumption rate was 2,000 cfm. On the ‘down-side’, even
though the area didn’t use a lot of compressed air, the results of the
survey found that this area had the large percentage of leaks.

We located and tagged 713 leaks. These leaks equaled 850 cfm of
air, or about 40% of the total. These 713 leaks equated to almost
$82,000 a year with the cost of the average leak being $115.00.

9
In trying to understand why there was such a high
percentage of compressed air being lost, we went back and
looked at the compressed air usage history for the previous
2 years.

What we found was that from 2000 to 2001, the amount of

compressed air demand had risen by almost 20% from
1999 to 2000.

That was puzzling in that other than replacing some old

robots with new robots, no additional equipment or
production changes had been added. The only explanation
we could find was the leaks.
10
On item of note with the new robots, they had come from
an overseas supplier and installed by manufacturer
representatives. We found was that once installed and
powered-up, many of the robots had several internal
connections leaking. This indicated that the supplier’s
quality control was “seriously lacking.”

On our suggestion, subsequent contracts for equipment

will have a clause stating that no money would be paid
until the equipment passed a “working inspection.”

11
Main Utilities Building

Inspection of the Main Utilities Building began on March 1, 2001

and lasted until April 5th.

The Main Utilities Building is the area that houses the air
compressors for the entire plant. It also houses the electrical
switchyard, the natural gas head, and the chilled water system.

The amount of compressed air assigned to the Main Utilities

Building is 500 cfm. A total of 45 leaks were identified and tagged.
Although the number of leaks were small, the leaks themselves were
relatively large. Overall, the leaks totaled 130 cfm, or a leak rate of
26%. This equates to $12,000 a year in cost. Each leak averages a
little more than $265.00.
12
New Engine Plant

The last area surveyed was the New Engine Plant. It was built to
replace the Old Engine Plant which had shut down by the time we
began the survey of the New Engine Plant. The plants were different
in as much as the engine and transmission components, formally
forged at the Old Plant, were not forged at the New Plant.

The canceling of these processes allowed the New Engine Plant to

realize a significant reduction in its compressed air requirements as
compared to the Old Engine Plant. In fact, the amount of
compressed air used went from 11,500 cfm to 1,350 cfm; a reduction
of 10,150 cfm, or over 8 ½ times.

13
New Engine Plant

The New Engine Plant has 5 major divisions:

1-Engine Assembly Area

2-Coolant Area
3-Process
4-Cranks
5-Heads

The total amount of compressed air usage was 1,350 cfm. Totaling
the results of these 5 areas, 257 leaks were located, with a total cost
of around $28,000 a year. The leaks were calculated to be 290 cfm,
or 21%. The average cost of each leak was almost $110.00.

14
A summary the results of the compressed air leak survey for Company ‘A’:

Area Total CFM # Leaks $ of Leaks/Yr. CFM of Leaks % Leakage

Old Engine Plant 11,500 615 $130,000 1,500 13%

Body Systems 11,500 1,931 $345,000 3,570 32%

Vehicle Systems 2,000 713 $82,000 850 42%

Main Utility Bldg 500 45 $12,000 130 26%

New Engine Plant 1,350 257 $28,000 290 21%

Totals 26,850 3,561 $597,000 6,340 24%

15
 In terms of total costs:

$597,000 (cost of 3,561 leaks) ÷ $1,760,000 (cost to generate

compressed air) = 34%

$597,000 (cost of 3,561 leaks) ÷ $12,000,000 (total electric

cost per year) = 5%

16
 Company ‘B’:

The second major automotive manufacturer in the

Tennessee Valley Authority’s service area.

The survey for this manufacturer began on April 23, 2004

and concluded on July 10, 2005.

17
As with Company ‘A’, Company ‘B’ divided its facilities into 5 main
divisions:

1. Body Frame - Frame and body components manufactured and

assembled
2. Paint - Frame and body components painted
3. Stamping - Where frame and body components are stamped out
4. Trim and Chassis - Where drive-train and exterior and interior
components are installed
5. Boiler Room - Where the air compressors are located as well as
the steam boilers

18
Compressed air for Company ‘B’ is generated by up to 9 centrifugal
compressors, with a total capacity of 40,000 cfm.

The 9 compressors total around 9,500 horsepower.

On average, Company ‘B’ uses about 20,000 cfm.

You will soon see that overall, Company ‘B’ uses considerably less
compressed air than Company ‘A’.

19
Electric utility costs for Company ‘B’ are similar to
Company ‘A’ and total around $12,000,000 a year.

Site-wide, Company ‘B’s cost to generate compressed air is

in the neighborhood of $1,080,000 a year.

This equates to roughly 9% of the yearly electric bill.

Another difference between the surveys of Company ‘A’

and Company ‘B’, was that with Company ‘B’ we had an
additional TVA person to help with locating and tagging
the leaks. Along with the company’s maintenance person,
we were able to move rather quickly.
20
For this survey the Ultraprobe 9000, with its scanning
module, rubber focusing probe, and long range adaptor
was used.

21
Trim and Chassis

This was the first section to be surveyed. The survey began on April
23, 2004 and concluded on December 9, 2004. The longevity of this
survey was due to several breaks brought on by product changes
taking precedent over the survey. This section of the plant was done
as a “test” to see if our survey would yield enough information to
warrant a survey of the entire facilities.

After griding the area into smaller sections, the 3 of us selected a

starting point. Trim and Chassis’s average usage of compressed air
is around 4,500 cfm. By the time we completed this section, we had
identified and tagged 355 leaks, equating to 555 cfm. These leaks
equated to a 12% leak rate. The leaks had a total cost of around
$28,750 a year. It was a long wait between this and the next section.

22
Paint Plant

Company ‘B’ was VERY impressed with the results of our “test”
and decided to push forward with surveying the rest of the facilities.
However, the company was still in the process of changing their
product line and adding new vehicles. As such, we were told it
would be a while before we could resume. Finally, on April 19, 2005,
(almost a year later) we resumed our survey with the Paint Plant.

Company ‘B’s Paint Plant is sectioned into 4 sub-areas: Paint-1,

Paint-2, Paint-3, and the Paint Service Area. Typically, the Paint
Plant used about 5,500 cfm of compressed air. Moving through the 4
areas of Paint, we located 525 leaks, equating to 880 cfm, or to a leak
rate of around 16%. The cost of these leaks totaled $48,100 a year.
Each leak averaged a little over $90.00 a year.
23
In addition to locating the compressed air leaks, we also
identified some areas where Company ‘B’ could save some
additional money and improve their paint processes. We
found 4 places where, instead of using compressed air,
better, less costly results could be achieved by using an air
blower.

These suggestions amounted to a potential savings of over

400 cfm of compressed air and over $50,500 a year in
additional savings.

After 2½ months, we completed the Paint Plant.

24
Body Frame

Like the Paint Plant, Body Frame took 2½ months to complete as

well. Body Frame is made up of 2 main parts; Car and Truck.

Body Frame accepts the stamped-out parts from Stamping and

welds them together to make frames. They then attach the fenders,
hoods, tops, pans, and trunks to the frames of the cars and trucks.

Body Frame’s total measured usage is around 5,000 cfm of

compressed air for its processes. We were able to locate and tag 460
compressed air leaks. These leaks represent 775 cfm or about 15%
of Body Frame’s total usage. The leaks are costing the company
around $42,500 a year. Each leak averages about $90.00.

25
Stamping

As you may have concluded, the methodology followed in surveying

the different areas of the plant DID NOT follow the processes in
manufacturing the product. We surveyed based on which area
could furnish us with a maintenance person to accompany us.

As such, the Stamping Area became the next item on the agenda.
This proved to be a rather different area in that although we didn’t
find as many leaks in proportion to the other areas, those we did find
were generally much larger.

Stamping’s usage meter indicated that it used around 4,650 cfm of

air. While we only found 220 leaks, those leaks equaled 630 cfm.
That’s was almost twice the ratio of the other 3 areas we had
checked of Company ‘B’. These 220 leaks calculated to cost the
plant $35,150.00 a year, or almost $160.00 a year per leak. The 630
cfm equated to a leak rate of slightly over 13%. 26
Boiler Room

The final area surveyed at Company ‘B’ was their Boiler Room. As
with Company ‘A’s Main Utility Building, the Boiler Room houses
the 9 compressors for the compressed air system. It also is home to
Company ‘B’s steam boilers. The amount of compressed air
assigned to the Boiler Room is rather limited; only 500cfm.

Taking a day to survey the Boiler Room, we only found 25 leaks.

Actually, most of the leaks found were small leaks associated with
the main compressed air headers and piping.

The 25 leaks we found equated to 65 cfm, or about 13% of the total

cfm. The cost of the leaks was $2,500.00 a year. The leaks averaged
$100.00 each.

27
 To summarize Company ‘B’:

Area Total CFM # Leaks $ of Leaks/Yr. CFM of Leaks % Leakage

Trim & Chassis 4,500 355 $28,750 555 12%

Paint 5,500 525 $48,100 880 16%

Body Frame 5,000 460 $42,500 775 15%

Stamping 4,650 220 $35,150 630 13%

Boiler Room 500 25 $2,500 65 13%

Totals 20,150 1,585 $157,000 2,905 14%

28
 In terms of total costs:

$157,000 (cost of 1,585 leaks) ÷ $1,080,000 (cost to generate

compressed air) = 14%

$157,000 (cost of 1,585 leaks) ÷ $12,000,000 (total electric

cost per year) = 1.3%

29
 Comparing Company ‘A’ to Company ‘B’:
A summary the results of the compressed air leak survey for Company ‘A’:

Area Total CFM # Leaks $ of Leaks/Yr. CFM of Leaks % Leakage

Old Engine Plant 11,500 615 $130,000 1,500 13%

Body Systems 11,500 1,931 $345,000 3,570 32%

Vehicle Systems 2,000 713 $82,000 850 42%

Main Utility Bldg 500 45 $12,000 130 26%

New Engine Plant 1,350 257 $28,000 290 21%

Totals 26,850 3,561 $597,000 6,340 24%

In terms of total costs:

$597,000 (cost of 3,561 leaks) ÷ $1,760,000 (cost to generate compressed air) = 34%
$597,000 (cost of 3,561 leaks) ÷ $12,000,000 (total electric cost per year) = 5%
30
 To summarize Company ‘B’:

Area Total CFM # Leaks $ of Leaks/Yr. CFM of Leaks % Leakage

Trim & Chassis 4,500 355 $28,750 555 12%

Paint 5,500 525 $48,100 880 16%

Body Frame 5,000 460 $42,500 775 15%

Stamping 4,650 220 $35,150 630 13%

Boiler Room 500 25 $2,500 65 13%

Totals 20,150 1,585 $157,000 2,905 14%

In terms of total costs:

$157,000 (cost of 1,585 leaks) ÷ $1,080,000 (cost to generate compressed air) = 14%
$157,000 (cost of 1,585 leaks) ÷ $12,000,000 (total electric cost per year) = 1.3% 31
A comparison of the totals of the 2 companies looks like this.

Company Total CFM # Leaks $ of Leaks/Yr. CFM of Leaks % Leakage

Company ‘A’ 26,850 3,561 $597,000 6,340 24%

Company ‘B’ 20,150 1,585 $157,000 2,905 14%

Cumulative Totals 47,000 5,146 $754,000 9,245 20%

(Differences)
(6,700) (1976) ($440,000) (3,435) (51%)
A-B=( )

32