Summer 2005 

ISSUE FOCUS: 

Reducing Waste Heat 

“TURNING INFORMA TION INTO ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR INDUSTR Y” 

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM 

IN THIS ISSUE 

Identifying Opportunities for Waste 

Heat Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Metal Forging Plant-Wide 

Assessment Finds Opportunities for 

Significant Cost Savings . . . . . . . .5 

Performance Spotlight: 

Optimizing the Pumping System 

Saves Energy and Reduces Demand 

Charges at a Chemical Plant. . . . 5 

Energy Matters Goes Electronic with 

the Next Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Coming Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Reducing waste heat 

losses can lower the energy 

component of product costs. 

See opposite. 

Energy Matters 

in furnace heat losses will be multiplied 

by the overall available heat factor, which 

could result in much higher energy savings. 

Available heat is defined as the ratio of heat 

retained in the furnace to heat lost in flue 

gases. Note that the heat retained in the 

furnace is used for heating the load and to 

compensate for furnace heat losses. 

Furnace losses include: 

• Heat storage in the furnace structure 

• Losses from the furnace outside walls 

 or structure 

• Heat transported out of the furnace by the 

load conveyors, fixtures, trays, and so on 

• Radiation losses from openings, hot 

exposed parts, and so on 

• Heat carried away by the cold air 

infiltration into the furnace 

• Heat carried away by the excess air used 

in the burners. 

All of these losses can be estimated by 

using the Process Heating Assessment and 

Survey Tool (PHAST) or the Process Heating 

Tip Sheets available through ITP at www.oit. 

doe.gov/bestpractices under the BestPractices 

Process Heating section. 

Reducing waste heat losses brings additional 

benefits, including: 

• Lowering the energy component of 

 product costs 

• Improving furnace productivity 

• Lowering emissions of carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

unburned hydrocarbons (UHCs). 

• Reductions may also contribute to 

more consistent product quality and better 

 equipment reliability. 

Determining Waste Gas Losses 

To properly determine waste gas losses, it 

is first necessary to understand the flow of 

heat in a furnace or oven. The objective of a 

heating process is to put a certain amount of 

thermal energy into the product, raising it to a 

certain temperature to prepare it for additional 

processing, to change its properties, or for 

some other purpose. To carry this out, the 

product is heated in a furnace or oven. 

(continued on page 2) 

Final Print Issue (p.5) 

Identifying Opportunities 

for Waste Heat Reduction 

By Arvind Thekdi – E3M, Inc. and Energy 

Matters Editorial Advisory Board member, and 

Richard Bennett – Janus Technology Group 

Waste gas heat losses are an unavoidable 

part of operating any fuel-fired furnace, kiln, 

boiler, oven, or dryer. Air and fuel are mixed 

and burned to generate heat, and a portion 

of the heat is transferred to the heating 

device and its load. When the energy or heat 

transfer reaches its practical limit, the spent 

combustion gases are removed from the 

furnace via a flue or stack to make room for a 

fresh charge of hotter combustion gases. 

The flue gases still hold considerable 

thermal energy, often more than what was 

left behind in the process. In most fuel-fired 

heating systems, this waste heat is the biggest 

single loss in the process, often greater than 

all the other losses combined. These losses 

depend on factors associated with the design 

and operation of the heating equipment. 

This article is a guide to reducing waste 

heat losses associated with heating equipment 

as they affect associated exhaust gas losses. 

A second article, to be published in the online 

Fall 2005 issue of Energy Matters, will 

address waste heat recovery techniques. 

This article also supports material related 

to the Process Heating Assessment and 

Survey Tool (PHAST), developed jointly by 

Industrial Heating Equipment Association 

(IHEA), and Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE) Industrial 

Technologies Program. For more information 

on process heating, visit the ITP Web site at 

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/process_heat/. 

Heat Losses 

Thermal efficiency of process heating 

equipment such as furnaces, ovens, melters, 

heaters, and kilns is defined as the ratio of 

heat delivered to the material being heated to 

the heat supplied to the heating equipment. 

The first step in reducing waste heat in 

flue gases requires close attention and proper 

measures to reduce all other heat losses 

associated with the furnace. Any reduction 
2 Energy Matters, Summer 2005 

Energy Matters 

is published quarterly by the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

Industrial Technologies Program. 

Information contained in the newsletter 

can be reproduced without permission 

provided due acknowledgement is given 

(the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Energy Matters newsletter) and 

a copy of the publication is 

supplied to the editor. 

■

Editorial Board 

Tom Bishop 

Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association 

Rob Boteler, representing National 

Electrical Manufacturers 

Association 

Steve Coppinger, P.E. 

Chief Electrical Engineer 

California Portland Cement Co. 

Thomas J. Dunn 

Energy Efficiency Manager 

Weyerhaeuser Co. 

Eric T. Fletty, Business 

Development Manager, TAPPI 

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco 

J. Bruce Medaris, Facilities 

Consulting Services and 

Executive Director, Compressed Air 

Challenge® 

Michael R. Muller, Center for Advanced 

Energy Systems, 

Rutgers University 

Arvind Thekdi, E3M, Inc. 

■

DOE Staff 

Chris Cockrill, BestPractices, 

Motor Systems 

Bob Gemmer, Process Heating and 

Steam 

■

Comments? 

Contact: 

David Wagman, Energy Matters Editor, 

at 303-275-3602, 

e-mail david_wagman@nrel.gov 

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1609 

Golden, CO 80401 

For address/subscription changes, 

please visit www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/energymatters/energy_matters. 

shtml 

Identifying Opportunities for Waste Heat Reduction (continued from page1) 

Flue losses 

Gross 

fuel 

input 

Net 

fuel 

input 

Available 

heat 

Furnace 

Stored

heat 

Wall loss 

Useful output 

(heat to load) 

Opening loss 

Cooling


water loss


and/or conveyor


Figure 1. Heat Losses in Industrial Heating Processes 

This entails some energy losses as shown 

in Figure 1. First, the metal structure and 

insulation of the furnace must be heated so 

their interior surfaces are about the same 

temperature as the product they contain. This 

stored heat is held in the structure until the 

furnace is shut down. Then it will leak out 

into the surrounding area. The more the 

furnace is cycled from cold to hot and back 

again, the more times this stored heat will 

have to be replaced. In addition, because 

the furnace can’t run production until it has 

reached the proper operating temperature, 

the process of storing heat in it entails lost 

production time—fuel is being consumed 

with no useful output. Additional heat losses 

occur while the furnace is in production. 

Wall, or transmission, losses occur through 

the conduction of heat through the walls, roof, 

and floor of the heating device. Once the 

heat reaches the outer skin of the furnace and 

radiates to the surrounding area or is carried 

away by air currents, it must be replaced by 

an equal amount taken from the combustion 

gases. This process continues as long as the 

furnace is at an elevated temperature. 

Anywhere or anytime an opening exists in 

the furnace enclosure, heat is being lost, often 

at a rapid rate. These openings include the 

furnace flues and stacks as well as doors left 

partly open to accommodate oversize work. 

Many furnaces have material handling 

equipment to convey work into and out 

of the heating chamber. These pieces of 

equipment can lead to heat losses, too. 

Conveyor belts or product hangers that enter 

the heating chamber cold and leave it at 

higher temperatures drain energy from the 

combustion gases. In car bottom furnaces, the 

hot car structure gives off heat each time it’s 

rolled out of the furnace and into the room to 

load or remove work. This lost energy must 

be replaced when the car is returned to the 

furnace. 

Water-cooling protects rolls, bearings, 

and doors in hot furnace environments, but 

at the cost of lost energy. These cooling 

media components and their cooling water 

become the conduit for additional heat losses. 

Maintaining an adequate flow of cooling 

media is essential, but it may be possible to 

insulate the furnace and load from some of 

these losses. 

Furnaces and ovens operating at 

temperatures above 1,000° Fahrenheit (F) 

may have significant radiation losses. Hot 

surfaces radiate energy to colder surfaces 

in their line of sight, and the rate of heat 

transfer increases with the fourth power of the 

surface’s absolute temperature. Anyone who 

has ever stood in front of the open door of a 

high-temperature furnace can vouch for the 

amount of thermal energy radiated into the 

room. 

All these losses—heat storage, wall 

transmission, conveyor, and radiation— 

compete with the workload for energy 

released by the burning fuel-air mixture. 

Unfortunately, they may be dwarfed by the 

biggest loss of all – waste gas loss. 

Stack Loss 

Waste gas loss, also known as flue gas or 

stack loss, is made up of the heat that can’t be 

removed from the combustion gases inside 

the furnace. There’s a reason for this—heat, 

like water, flows downhill, and once there is 

no temperature difference between the heat 

source and the load, all heat transfer stops. 
In effect, the heat stream has hit bottom. 

If, for example, a furnace is heating products 

to 1,500°F, the combustion gases cannot be 

cooled below this temperature. Once they 

reach the same temperature as the furnace 

and load, they can’t give up any more energy 

to them, and so must be discarded. At this 

temperature, they still contain about half the 

thermal energy put into them, so the waste 

gas loss is close to 50% (Figure 2). The 

other half, which stayed in the furnace, is 

called available heat. Once heat storage and 

wall, conveyor, cooling media, and radiation 

losses take what they need, the load absorbs 

anything remaining. 

From this, it’s clear that a process’s 

temperature (or, more correctly, the 

temperature of its exhaust gases) is a major 

factor in energy efficiency. The higher the 

temperature, the lower the efficiency. 

Another factor with a powerful effect is 

the burner system’s fuel-air ratio. For every 

fuel, a chemically correct, or stoichiometric, 

amount of air is required to burn it. One 

cubic foot of natural gas, for example, 

requires about approximately 10 cubic feet 

of combustion air. Stoichiometric, or on-ratio, 

combustion will produce the highest flame 

temperatures and thermal efficiencies. 

Combustion systems can be operated 

at other ratios, however. Sometimes this is 

done deliberately to obtain certain operating 

benefits. Often it happens simply because 

the burner system is out of adjustment. The 

ratio can either become rich (excessive fuel or 

insufficient air) or lean (excessive air). Either 

way, the result is wasted fuel. Because there’s 

not enough air for complete combustion, 

operating in a rich manner wastes fuel by 

allowing it to be discarded with some of 

its energy unused. It also generates large 

amounts of CO and UHCs. 

At first glance, operating lean might 

seem to be a better idea because all the fuel 

is consumed. Indeed, lean operation doesn’t 

produce the flammable, toxic by-products 

of rich combustion, but it does waste energy. 

That’s because excess air has two effects on 

the combustion process. 

First, it lowers the flame temperature 

by diluting the combustion gases, in much 

the same way cold water added to hot 

will produce warm water. This lowers the 

temperature differential between the hot 

combustion gases and the furnace, and load 

they’re heating. This makes heat transfer less 

efficient. More damaging, however, is the 

increased volume of gases that need to be 

exhausted from the process – the products of 

10% 

25% 50% 

150% 

200% 

100% 250% 

300% 

400% 

600% 

800% 

1200% 

1000% 0% EXCESS AIR 

Fuel: Birmingham Natural Gas (1002 Btu/cu ft, 0.6 sp gr) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

EXHAUST 

GAS 50 

HEAT LOSS, 

% OF INPUT 40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 1000 2000 3000 

EXHAUST GAS TEMPERATURE, oF 

Figure 2. Exhaust Gas Heat Losses vs. Exhaust Gas Temperature and Air-gas Ratio 

stoichiometric combustion, plus the excess 

air that all are at the same temperature. The 

excess air becomes one more competitor for 

energy released in the process. Because it’s 

part of the combustion process, excess air 

goes to the head of the line, taking its share 

of heat before the furnace and its contents get 

theirs. 

The results can be dramatic—in a 

process operating at 2,000°F, available heat 

at stoichiometric ratio is about 45% (55% 

goes out the stack). Allowing 20% excess 

air into the process (roughly a 12-to-1 ratio 

for natural gas) will knock the available heat 

down to 38%. Now, 62% of the total heat 

input goes out the stack, the difference carried 

away by a relatively small amount of excess 

air. To maintain the same temperatures and 

production rates in the furnace, 16% more 

fuel will have to be burned. 

Air Infiltration 

Excess air doesn’t necessarily have to 

enter the furnace as part of the combustion 

air supply—it can also infiltrate from the 

surrounding room if there’s a negative 

pressure in the furnace, as shown in Figure 

3. Because of the draft effect of hot furnace 

stacks, negative pressures are fairly common, 

and cold air will slip past leaky door seals and 

other openings in the furnace. 

Once this air gets in the furnace, precious 

heat from the combustion system is absorbed 

and carried out of the stack, lowering the 

furnace efficiency. A furnace pressure control 

system may be an effective way to deal with 

this. The bottom line is that to get the best 

possible energy efficiency from furnaces and 

ovens, reduce the amount of energy carried 

out by the exhaust and lost to heat storage, 

wall conduction, conveying and cooling 

systems, and radiation. 

Furnace Scheduling and Loading 

A commonly overlooked factor in energy 

efficiency is furnace scheduling and loading. 

“Loading” refers to the amount of material 

processed through the furnace or oven in a 

given period of time. It can have significant 

effect on the furnace’s energy consumption 

when measured as energy used per unit of 

production (British thermal units per pound— 

Btu/lb—for example). Certain furnace losses 

(wall, storage, conveyor, and radiation) are 

essentially constant regardless of production 

volume, so at reduced throughputs, each unit 

of production must carry a higher burden of 

these fixed losses. Flue gas losses, on the 

other hand, are variable and tend to increase 

gradually with production volume. If the 

furnace is pushed past its design rating, 

Flue 

H


Air Leak 

Figure 3. Air Infiltration from Furnace Opening 

(continued on page 4) 

Energy Matters, Summer 2005 3 
Identifying Opportunities for Waste Heat Reduction (continued from page 3) 

flue gas losses begin to increase more rapidly. 

This is because the furnace has to be operated High 

at a higher-than-normal temperature to keep FURNACE EFFICIENCY 

up with production. 

Total energy consumption per unit of 

production will follow the curve in Figure 

PRODUCTION RATE (Units) 

ENERGY CONSUMPTIONper UNIT OF PRODUCTION 

Low Design High 

VARIABLE (Exhaust) 

FIXED (Wall, Conveyor, 

Radiation, Storage) 

HEAT to PRODUCT 

4—lowest at 100% of furnace capacity 

and progressively higher as throughputs 

increasingly deviate from 100%. Furnace 

efficiency varies inversely with the total 

energy consumption. The lesson here is 

that furnace operating schedules and load 

sizes should be chosen to keep the furnace 

operating as near to 100% capacity as much 

as possible. Idle and partially loaded furnaces 

are less efficient. 

Improving Energy Efficiency 

The exhaust gas heat losses can be 

TOTAL CONSUMPTION


calculated by the equation: 

Furnace exhaust heat losses = W * Cp * 

(T exhaust – T ambient) 

Where 

W = Mass of the exhaust gases 

Cp = Specific heat of the exhaust gases 

T exhaust = Flue gas temperature entering 

the furnace exhaust system (stack) 

T ambient = Ambient temperature (usually 

assumed 60 ̊F) 

The highest priority is to minimize exhaust 

gas temperature and mass or volume of 

exhaust gases. 

• The furnace exhaust gas temperature 

depends on many factors associated with the 

furnace operation and heat losses discussed 

above. It can be measured directly or can be 

assumed to be at 100 ̊F to 200 ̊F above the 

control temperature from the furnace zone 

where the flue gases are exhausted. 

• The exhaust mass flow depends on the 

combustion airflow, fuel flow and the air 

leakage into the furnace. Measurement 

of fuel flow together with the oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide [CO2]) percentage in the 

flue gases can be used to estimate mass or 

volume of exhaust gases. 

• The flue gas specific heat (Cp) for most 

gaseous fuel-fired furnaces can be assumed 

to be 0.25 Btu/(lb per  ̊F) or 0.02 Btu/ 

(standard cubic foot per  ̊F) for a reasonably 

accurate estimate of flue gas heat losses. 

Excessive exhaust gas temperatures can 

be the result of poor heat transfer in the 

furnace. If the combustion gases are unable 

to transfer the maximum possible heat to the 

furnace and its contents, they will leave the 

furnace at higher temperatures than necessary. 

Figure 4. Impact of Production Rate on Energy Consumption per Unit of Production 

Optimizing heat transfer within the furnace 

requires different methods for different 

situations. 

Overloading a furnace can also lead to 

excessive stack temperatures. To get the 

proper rate of heat transfer, combustion gases 

must spend a certain amount of time in the 

heating chamber. The natural tendency of 

an overloaded furnace is to run colder than 

it should—unless the temperature is set 

artificially high. This causes the burners to 

operate at higher-than-normal rates, with an 

accompanying increase in combustion gas 

volumes. The higher the gas flow rates, the 

shorter their residence times in the furnace, 

and the poorer the heat transfer. 

Avoiding overloading while at the same 

time optimizing heat transfer are two ways 

to lower waste gas flows, but there are others. 

The most potent one is exercising close control 

of fuel-air ratios. By operating the furnace 

close to the optimum ratio for the process, fuel 

consumption is closely controlled. The best 

part of this is that it can usually be done with 

the existing control equipment—all that’s 

required is a little maintenance attention. 

Reducing exhaust losses should always 

be the first step in a well-planned energy 

conservation program. Once that goal has 

been met, it’s time to consider moving to the 

next level—waste heat recovery. The next 

issue of Energy Matters – available online 

only – considers this topic in detail. 

Metal Forging 

Plant-Wide Assessment 

Finds Opportunities for 

Significant Cost Savings 

Metaldyne, Inc., recently completed a 

plant-wide energy assessment at its forging 

facility in Royal Oak, Michigan. The 

assessment team addressed opportunities 

to increase energy efficiency, reduce waste 

and pollutants, and increase productivity by 

evaluating demand-side energy management, 

lean manufacturing techniques, best practices, 

the use of emerging technologies, and 

potential supply-side improvements. 

Although the assessment focused on 

the plant’s large energy-using systems 

and equipment, the assessment team also 

evaluated product inventory, and the potential 

for reducing or even eliminating defects, all 

of which could increase the plant’s energy 

efficiency. If all the projects identified 

during the Royal Oak plant-wide study were 

implemented, the assessment team estimated 

that total annual energy savings for electricity 

would be more than 11 million kilowatthours (kWh). Total annual cost savings were 

estimated at $12.6 million. 

Public-Private Partnership 

DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program 

(ITP) cosponsored the assessment through 

4 Energy Matters, Summer 2005 
a competitive process. DOE promotes 

plant-wide energy-efficiency assessments 

that will lead to improvements in industrial 

energy efficiency, productivity, and global 

competitiveness, while reducing waste and 

environmental emissions. In this case, DOE 

contributed $100,000 of the total $200,000 

assessment cost. 

Assessment Approach 

Metaldyne and its team conducted a 

plant-wide energy assessment at Royal Oak 

to address opportunities to increase energy 

efficiency, reduce waste and pollutants, and 

increase productivity. Electricity is the 

plant’s main process-related energy source. 

Natural gas is used primarily for water heating 

and for space heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems, and has a 

negligible role in process heating. 

The annual cost of electricity at the Royal 

Oak plant is about $6 million. The plant 

spends another $40,000 for natural gas, and 

$500,000 for water and sewer utilities. It 

operates eight Hatebur hot-forging machines, 

14 cold-forging presses, a Kurimoto hotforging press, a warm-forging press, three 

Wagner hot ring rolling machines, and several 

high-tonnage presses. High-power, highpressure sodium lights provide the plant’s 

primary illumination. Currently, six 150­

horsepower (hp) air compressors and two 330­

hp air compressors are in use. 

The assessment team evaluated demandside energy management, best practices, 

opportunities for implementing emerging 

technologies, and potential supply-side 

changes. The assessment concentrated 

on the plant’s large energy-using systems 

and equipment. These included solid-state 

induction heaters for the Hatebur hot-forging 

machines; the warm-forging press; the hotforging vertical press; the Wagner hot ring 

rollers; electric motors; material handling 

equipment; HVAC, and lighting. 

(continued on page 6) 

Energy Matters is 

going all electronic. 

Don’t delay! 

Visit www.oit.doe. 

gov/bestpractices/ 

energymatters/ 

subscribe.shtml to 

convert your subscription 

today! 

Optimizing the Pumping System Saves Energy and 

Reduces Demand Charges at a Chemical Plant 

Project Summary 

Staff at Kodak’s plant in Rochester, New 

York, significantly improved the energy 

efficiency of its two lake-water pumping 

stations in December 2003. To identify areas 

for efficiency improvements, Dr. Barry 

Erickson of Flowserve Corporation, a U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Allied Partner, 

used the DOE Pumping System Assessment 

Tool (PSAT) to conduct a pumping system 

assessment at the plant. Flowserve then 

proposed a system-level project to increase 

the pumps’ energy efficiency. 

The project team established a baseline for 

the performance and energy consumption of 

both stations’ pumps. The evaluation indicated 

the most energy-efficient pump combinations, 

as well as other non-capital-intensive energy 

efficiency measures, that would save energy 

while pumping the required volume of water. 

Plant personnel then implemented several 

energy efficiency measures that improved 

system performance and yielded important 

energy savings at the Rochester plant. 

Plant/Project Background 

The Rochester plant is home to Kodak’s 

corporate headquarters; it is also the 

company’s largest U.S. manufacturing 

operation, its corporate services office, and 

a research and development facility. Several 

years ago, the plant’s management realized 

that many motor and process systems installed 

in the 1950s were not operating efficiently. 

This was occurring because the motor and 

process systems were being used to support 

newer production equipment, and the new 

equipment is less energy-intensive (i.e., it 

needs less energy to operate) than the 1950sera production equipment. 

The plant’s lake-water pumping system 

includes two pumping stations served by 12 

pumps with an aggregate horsepower (hp) of 

7,450 hp. Flowserve found that many of the 

pumps had a low ratio of flow rate to input 

power, expressed as gallons per minute per 

kilowatt (gpm/kW). There were also some 

unnecessary flow restrictions, and some 

pumps were operating during peak hours that 

could operate more economically off peak. 

The improvement project included trimming 

impellers, replacing valves, and reconfiguring 

piping. Plant staff then selected and combined 

pumps that could achieve the highest gpm/kW 

ratio. 

In addition to improving the pumping 

systems, Kodak is also using DOE’s 

MotorMaster+ software tool in its 

recommissioning program to evaluate 

the performance of motors and processes 

throughout the Rochester plant. Since the 

program’s inception, the plant has retrofitted 

more than 600 motors (with a total of 11,000 

hp) with energy-efficient motors. These 

actions are yielding annual energy savings 

of more than 7 million kWh and energy cost 

savings of approximately $500,000 per year. 

Results 

Modifications made to the plant’s lakewater pumping system improved its efficiency 

and performance, yielding significant energy 

savings. The improvements allow the pumps 

to maintain their combined flow rate even 

though fewer units are operating at any 

one time. As a result, energy consumption 

and maintenance needs have declined. This 

improved efficiency has yielded annual 

energy savings of 1,092,000 kWh and energy 

cost savings of $52,000. Because the pumps 

are being used more optimally and during 

off-peak hours, the plant has reduced annual 

demand charges by an additional $48,000. 

(continued on page 6) 

Energy Matters, Summer 2005 5 
Performance Spotlight 

(continued from page 5) 

With total project costs of $25,000, the 

project had a 3-month simple payback. 

Lessons Learned 

Using aging and improperly configured 

industrial pumping systems can waste energy 

and increase maintenance and operating 

costs. Over time, industrial plants acquire 

more efficient manufacturing processes and 

equipment, and these can reduce the loads 

on supporting systems. Recognizing these 

evolutions and reconfiguring industrial 

motor systems in response to changing 

demand patterns can save energy and 

improve productivity. In the case of Kodak’s 

Rochester plant, selecting efficient pump 

combinations and reconfiguring some of the 

pumps greatly improved the efficiency of two 

pumping stations. Optimizing the lake-water 

pumping system in this manner resulted in 

significant energy and cost savings; therefore, 

Kodak is now evaluating pumping systems 

at other plants for similar opportunities. 

Projects such as this one can be implemented 

in virtually all industrial facilities that require 

lake or river water to meet production and 

process cooling needs. 

Project Partners: 

Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY 

Flowserve Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI 

Partner Profile 

Dr. Barry Erickson is a mechanical 

engineer serving as a Key Account Manager 

for Flowserve Corporation, a DOE Allied 

Partner. He has more than 33 years of 

experience with industrial pumping systems. 

He has presented papers at technical 

conferences in the United States and Europe, 

written articles for numerous journals, and 

holds two patents. Currently, he is based at 

Eastman Kodak’s plant in Rochester, NY. 

Allied Partners 

DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program 

(ITP) offers many opportunities for 

partnering, such as BestPractices Allied 

Partnerships (www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/ 

ap_whatis.shtml). Allied Partners are 

manufacturers, trade associations, industrial 

service and equipment providers, utilities, 

and other organizations that agree to help 

promote increased energy efficiency and 

productivity for industries that participate 

in ITP’s Industries of the Future strategy. 

DOE also provides helpful tools for industry 

to use in achieving greater efficiency. One 

is the Pumping System Assessment Tool 

(PSAT), which uses data on pump and motor 

performance to calculate potential energy and 

cost savings. 

For information, visit www.oit.doe.gov/ 

bestpractices/software_ tools.shtml. 

Applications 

Lake-water pumping systems that provide 

process-cooling water for industrial plants 

can consume a significant amount of energy. 

Optimizing inefficient pumping systems can 

save energy, reduce water consumption, and 

minimize the need for chemical treatment of 

the lake water. 

Benefits 

· Saves $100,000 annually 

· Reduces annual energy consumption 

by nearly 1.1 million kWh 

· Improves performance 

· Achieves a 3-month simple payback 

(Metal Forging continued from page 5) 

Product inventory and the potential for 

reducing or eliminating defects were also 

examined. Manufacturing processes were 

examined for potential lean manufacturing/ 

best practices improvements. The assessment 

team also looked at emerging technologies 

that could improve manufacturing efficiency. 

Results and Projects Identified 

A team of energy and manufacturing 

process experts identified 21 assessment 

recommendations. The recommendations 

are listed in the accompanying table. More 

detailed discussions of certain proposed 

projects follow. 

• Install air saver nozzles on press machine 

blow-off lines—Several of the presses use a 

continuous stream of compressed air blown 

through two 3/8-inch open pipes to detach 

parts from the dies. The assessment team 

recommended installing air-saver, high-thrust 

nozzles on the air lines to reduce compressed 

air usage. Air-saver nozzles entrain ambient 

air into the compressed air flow. 

• Install radiation shields and improve 

insulation to reduce heat losses from induction 

heaters—Eight multistage induction heaters 

preheat the bar stock before forging. The 

air gaps between stages permit access for 

maintenance and temperature measurement, 

but also allow excessive heat losses. The 

team recommended installing an insulated, 

removable radiation shield to reduce heat 

losses through the air gaps. A quartz window 

could also be installed to allow the bar stock 

to be inspected visually. 

• Install a controlled cooling system for parts 

whose heat-treating is currently outsourced— 

The assessment team recommended that the 

plant consider options for in-house controlled 

cooling of forged parts that are currently being 

outsourced for heat-treating. The options were 

(1) to use a batch-type cooling system, in 

which parts are put in bins and cooled under 

controlled temperature and time conditions 

immediately after being forged, and (2) to use 

a batch-type system to control the cooling of 

parts produced from the ring rolling machines, 

and two continuous (spiral) systems to 

handle single parts produced directly from 

the Hatebur presses. If cooling bins are used, 

the batch-type systems should feature highconvection recirculating air flow to ensure 

uniform cooling of all the parts. 

• Reduce change-over time for press 

retooling—Current press change-over times 

for die replacement are longer than necessary; 

this results in increased machine downtime 

and wasted electricity because the induction 

(continued on page 7) 

6 Energy Matters, Summer 2005 
(Metal Forging continued from page 6) 

heaters remain hot while the machine is idle. 

The assessment team recommended a list of 

actions to reduce change-over time, including 

improving personnel training and procedures, 

upgrading the tool kit, and using automatic 

locators for dies. 

• Reduce product inventory—The current 

average stored inventory is one month’s 

production of finished product, which the 

assessment team considered to be excessive. 

• Establish a “pull scheduling” system—The 

goal of lean manufacturing is to minimize 

or eliminate non-value-added steps in the 

process across the entire product supply, 

production, and customer delivery cycle. 

The “pull scheduling” approach ensures that 

upstream manufacturing activities are linked 

and controlled by the activities of the next 

downstream operation. This approach is 

essentially process-driven. 

• Improve product quality and reduce 

rework—Product inventory was found to 

be excessive and parts were being stored 

longer than necessary. The assessment team 

recommended reducing product inventory and 

improving material flow through the plant. 

These measures would reduce storage time 

and associated rework on degraded material. 

• Increase machine tool durability—A new 

technology that can increase the life of 

stamping tools and improve the finish of 

stamped parts involves applying hard coatings 

made of thin-film nitride or carbide-based 

ceramics. The assessment team recommended 

that Metaldyne consider using hard coatings 

on inserts, drills, bits, and other parts to 

increase the speed of machining operations 

as well as the life of tools. These measures 

would also reduce press downtime and costs 

associated with punch and die manufacturing. 

• Increase punch and die life by applying 

lubricating coatings —The team 

recommended increasing the life of the forging 

tools (punches and dies) by maintaining 

cooler tool surfaces. This could be done by 

reducing the cooling water temperature and 

by applying a lubricating coating to the tool 

surface. Longer tool life would increase the 

productivity of the forging presses, reduce 

press downtime, increase throughput, and 

reduce overall production costs. 

These recommendations and others 

represent more than 20 opportunities for 

Metaldyne to save energy and money at its 

Royal Oak plant. 

To learn more about the plant-wide 

assessment program, visit the plant-wide 

assessment Web page at www.oit.doe.gov/ 

bestpractices/assessments.shtml or contact the 

EERE Information Center at 1-877-EERE-INF 

(1-877-337-3463). 

Metaldyne Plant-Wide Assessment Recommendations 

Assessment Recommendation Annual 

Electricity 

Savings (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings 

Capital Cost 

Eliminate excess lighting in warehouse areas 

(AR1) 

115,000 $8,000 $500 

Replace 400 W metal halide lamps with 360 W 

lamps at failure (AR2) 

76,000 $5,000 $6,000 

Replace standard V-belts with notched V-belts on 

belt-driven equipment (AR3) 

32,000 $2,000 $0 

Enhance motor management program by using 

MotorMaster+ software for repair/replace 

analysis (AR4) 

40,000 $3,000 $14,000 

Install air-saver nozzles on press machine 

blowoff lines (AR5) 

953,000 $64,000 $400 

Reconnect compressed air system supply via 

automation valves in primary presses to reduce 

compressed air use (AR6) 

103,000 $7,000 $1,700 

Implement maintenance program to identify and 

repair compressed air system leaks (AR7) 

347,000 $23,000 $900 

Upgrade compressed air system controls (AR8) 576,000 $39,000 $17,800 

Install radiation shields and improve insulation to 

reduce heat losses from induction heaters (AR9) 

2,678,000 $79,000 $117,000 

Install a controlled cooling system for parts 

whose heat treating is currently outsourced 

(AR10) 

NA $6,598,000 $4,750,000 

Provide additional baskets or use larger scale 

basket strainers in scale pits to improve mill 

scale trapping and reduce pit cleaning frequency 

(AR11) 

NA $99,000 $85,500 

Install water meters on blowdown lines from 

cooling towers to document water loss from 

evaporation and apply for sewer charge 

exemption for water not sent to sewer (AR12) 

NA $116,000 $6,500 

Install new groundwater supply system to reduce 

consumption of city water (AR13) 

NA $272,000 $180,000 

Reduce change-over time for press retooling 

(AR14) 

862,000 $43,000 $10,000 

Reduce product inventory (AR15) NA $1,800,000* $25,000 

Establish a “pull scheduling” system (AR16) NA $720,000 $10,000 

Improve product quality and reduce rework 

(AR17) 

NA $180,000 $20,000 

Increase machine tool durability (AR18) NA $710,000 $60,000 

Increase punch and die life by applying 

lubricating coatings (AR19) 

4,478,000 $3,500,000 $1,200,000 

Implement a “closed loop” procurement/disposal 

system to reduce cost of tool steel material 

(AR20) 

NA $27,000 $10,000 

Employ alternative forging tool design and 

selection (AR21) 

1,260,000 $84,000 $20,000 

Totals 11,520,000 $12,579,000 $6,535,300 

*One-time savings only; not included in total savings. 

Energy Matters, Summer 2005 7 
Coming Events 

The following list contains only 6 of the 42 training opportunities that are currently scheduled and 

available to you and other plant personnel. For a complete listing, registration information, and 

updates, visit the ITP training and events Web site at www.eere.energy.gov/industry/events/. 

Steam System Assessment, Bridgeport, 

New Jersey, September 7, 2005 

For more information, contact Mike Sanders at 

mpsanders@sunocoinc.com or 215-339-7111 

Process Heating Assessment, Shoreview, 

Minnesota Process Heating Assessment 

September 7, 2005 

For more information, contact Barb Krech at barb. 

krech@state.mn.us or 651-284-3262 

Pumping System Specialist Qualification, 

Dallas, Texas, September 7-8, 2005 

For more information, contact Allison Kupfrian at 

akupfrian@pumps.org or 973-267-9700, ext. 16 

Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems 

(Level 1), Auburn, Maine, September 8, 2005 

For more information, contact Joy Adamson at joy. 

adamson@main.gov or 207-287-8350 

Process Heating Assessment, Madison, 

Wisconsin, September 8, 2005 

For more information, contact Nancy Giere at ngiere@wi.rr.com or 262-376-2988 

Steam System Assessment, McKeesport, Pennsylvania, September 13, 2005 

For more information, contact Maggie Hall at 

mahall@state.pa.us or 412-442-4137 

T STD PRSR

U.S. Postage 

AID P

Permit No. 258 

Golden, Colorado 

s
 r ett a Myg Ener

gy Laboratory National Renewable Ener

d 1617 Cole Boulevar

Golden, CO 80401-3393

BestPractices 

The Industrial Technologies Program’s 

BestPractices initiative and its Energy 

Matters newsletter introduce industrial end 

users to emerging technologies and wellproven, cost-saving opportunities in motor, 

steam, compressed air, and other plant-wide 

systems. 

A STRONG ENERGY PORTFOLIO FOR A STRONG AMERICA 

Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will 

mean a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, 

and greater energy independence for America. 

Working with a wide array of state, community, 

industry, and university partners, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy invests in a diverse portfolio of 

energy technologies. 

EERE INFORMATION 

CENTER 

Do you have questions 

about using energy-efficient process 

and utility systems in your industrial 

facility? Call the Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) Information 

Center for answers, Monday through 

Friday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (EST). 

HOTLINE: 877-EERE-INF 

or 877-337-3463 

DOE Regional Office Representatives 

■ David Godfrey, Atlanta, GA, 

404-562-0568 

■ Stephen Costa, Boston, MA, 

617-565-1811 

■ Brian Olsen, Chicago, IL, 

312-886-8579 

■ Jamey Evans, Denver, CO, 

303-275-4813 

■ Chris Cockrill, Seattle, WA, 

816-873-3299 

■ Bill Orthwein, Philadelphia, PA, 

215-656-6957 

This document was produced for the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

a DOE national laboratory. 

DOE/GO-102005-2151 • August 2005 

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste