Cases

Home > Cases > Dongguan Qiaosen Machinery Co., Ltd. Latest company case about Leakage Elimination and Pressure Stabilization for 16-Line Automatic Stamping Workshop

EVENTS

news

Cases

titi@qiaosenmachinery.com

86-0769-26626853

Contact Now

Leakage Elimination and Pressure Stabilization for 16-Line Automatic Stamping Workshop

2026-09-10

Compressed Air System Energy-Saving Retrofit Case: Leakage Elimination and Pressure Stabilization for 16-Line Automatic Stamping Workshop

Case Implementation Cycle: October 2025 – September 2026 (12-month full-cycle mass production verification)

Enterprise Background: The case manufacturer is an auto component stamping plant with 16 automatic stamping lines, mainly producing chassis and body structural metal parts. Before transformation, the workshop ran 4 sets of screw air compressors, with an annual compressed air-related electricity bill of USD 116,500. The original system had widespread hidden leakage, operating pressure set at 7.8 bar, large pressure drop along pipelines, frequent fluctuation and periodic pneumatic feeding faults. In October 2025, the enterprise launched a full compressed air energy-saving project, covering ultrasonic leakage detection and repair, pipeline reconstruction, buffer tank addition, pressure setpoint adjustment and monitoring system deployment. 12 months after project completion, full benefit evaluation was finished.

Real Baseline Data Before Transformation (October 2025 Official Workshop Statistics)

System overall air leakage rate: 27.5%
Compressor station set pressure: 7.8 bar
Compressed air power consumption baseline: 100%
Terminal pressure fluctuation: ±0.7 bar
Pneumatic-related minor stop fault rate: 1.72%
Annual air system maintenance cost: Baseline 100%
Average pneumatic component service life: 18,000 working hours
Annual compressed air electricity expense: USD 116,500

Core Standardized Transformation Implementation Measures

Conduct full-plant ultrasonic leakage inspection, mark and repair 217 leakage points including pipe joints, aging hoses, cylinder seals and drain valves.
Reconstruct main air pipeline, reduce redundant elbows and local diameter reduction sections, install large-capacity buffer tanks near high-consumption stamping lines to stabilize peak pressure.
Lower the compressor station set pressure from 7.8 bar to 6.5 bar after product process verification, without affecting mold blowing, ejection and feeding functions.
Upgrade precision filters and automatic condensate drains to reduce pipeline water contamination and extend pneumatic valve and cylinder service life.
Deploy flow, pressure and power monitoring modules, build real-time dashboard for air consumption tracking and abnormal alarm.
Formulate quarterly leakage inspection SOP, train maintenance team to carry out routine leak detection and seal replacement.

12-Month Real Operation Data Comprehensive Comparison Table

Core Energy, Stability & Operating Indicators	Before Compressed Air Retrofit	After 12-Month Stable Operation	Quantified Comprehensive Improvement
System air leakage rate	27.5%	6.2%	-77.4% leakage reduction
Relative compressed air power consumption	100%	64.3%	-35.7% electricity saving
Terminal air pressure fluctuation	±0.7 bar	±0.18 bar	74.3% pressure stability improvement
Pneumatic-related minor stop rate	1.72%	0.26%	-84.9% failure reduction
Relative air system maintenance cost	100%	58.6%	-41.4% maintenance cost saving
Pneumatic component service life	18,000 h	29,500 h	+63.9% service life extension
Annual compressed air electricity cost	USD 116,500	USD 74,710	Annual saving USD 41,790

In-Depth Case Full Q&A (Project Actual Verification & Data Analysis)

Q1: What risk did the engineering team evaluate before reducing the air pressure from 7.8 bar to 6.5 bar?

A1: The main risk was insufficient instantaneous air supply for mold blowing and part ejection, which may cause scrap sticking or ejection failure. The team carried out staged pressure reduction tests line by line. Starting from 7.8 bar, they lowered pressure step by step while monitoring ejection action, scrap cleaning effect and feeder clamping stability. All product molds were verified under 6.5 bar for continuous 72-hour trial stamping. No quality abnormality or ejection failure occurred. The test confirmed that the original high pressure setting was a conservative overdesign rather than a real process requirement, which brought long-term energy waste.

Q2: What was the most challenging problem during leakage repair implementation?

A2: Many leakage points were hidden inside mold bases, under press frames and inside bundled cable and air hose trays, invisible during daily inspection. The maintenance team used ultrasonic leak detectors working above human hearing range, which can locate tiny leaks even in noisy stamping workshop environment. After mapping all 217 points, they prioritized large leaks first. The top 18 large leakage points contributed nearly 45% of total air loss. Fixing these high-impact points delivered obvious energy-saving effect in the first month, helping gain recognition from production management.

Q3: Calculate the ROI and payback period of this compressed air energy-saving retrofit project.

A3: Total project investment was USD 28,400, including leak detection service, pipeline modification, buffer tanks, monitoring meters, spare seals and staff training. Annual direct electricity saving is USD 41,790, plus annual maintenance cost reduction of USD 9,260. Total annual measurable direct benefit equals USD 51,050. Simple payback period = 28,400 / 51,050 ≈ 0.56 year, around 6.7 months. Additional implicit benefits include reduced minor downtime, less mold contamination from residual scrap and improved carbon audit performance, which were not included in this calculation.

Q4: How did the stable air pressure improve OEE of the stamping lines?

A4: Before retrofit, pneumatic feeding jamming and scrap ejection failures caused 1.72% minor stops. These short stops interrupted continuous stamping, increased idle reset time and raised the risk of defective parts. After stabilizing pressure, pneumatic-related stop rate dropped to 0.26%. The workshop’s overall OEE increased by 2.8 percentage points, bringing extra output capacity without adding press machines. For automotive customers, reduced unplanned stops also improved delivery reliability and supplier performance score.

Q5: What long-term management rules were built to prevent leakage from bouncing back?

A5: The plant built a closed-loop management system. First, quarterly ultrasonic leak surveys with digital recording of all leak points and repair status. Second, real-time air flow monitoring: sudden flow rise triggers alarm for suspected new leakage. Third, standardized spare parts: replace low-quality hoses and quick couplings with industrial-grade durable models. Fourth, mold change SOP: inspect air circuits and seals every mold swap. This system prevents gradual accumulation of leakage, locking energy saving results permanently rather than a one-time improvement.

Case Comprehensive Conclusion & Industry Outlook

This 12-month mass production verification proves that compressed air system optimization is a low-risk, fast-payback lean transformation for stamping manufacturers. Many factories overlook compressed air as invisible utility waste, while systematic leakage remediation, pressure optimization and pipeline stabilization can sharply cut electricity expense, reduce pneumatic downtime and extend service life of cylinders, valves and related pneumatic accessories. As industrial energy cost keeps rising and ESG requirements become mandatory for automotive and new-energy supply chains, compressed air system energy management will turn from optional energy-saving project into standard lean configuration for modern stamping workshops.

Send your inquiry directly to us