Case Study · Medical Devices · Pakistan
PKR 12.93 Million Identified in Annual Compressed Air Savings
An ISO 11011-certified audit of an eight-compressor installation revealed that the facility was paying for significantly more compressed air than production required — and that the solution required no new equipment.
- Sector : Medical Devices Manufacturing
- Location : Pakistan
- Audit Standard : ISO 11011 Level B
- Installation : 334 kW / 8 Compressors
Total Annual
Savings Identified
PKR 12.93M
per year — fully verified against utility data
| Table Header | |
|---|---|
|
Sector
|
Food & Beverage Mfg. |
|
Standard
|
ISO 11011 + ISO 8573-1 |
|
Trigger
|
Proactive / scheduled |
|
Zones Assessed
|
Full facility |
The Situation
The facility operated eight compressors with a combined rated capacity of 334 kW — a significant compressed air installation for any industrial site. The maintenance team had followed standard service schedules, and the compressor room appeared functional on a routine walk-through. Energy bills were high, but management attributed this to production growth and industrial electricity tariff increases.
What a standard maintenance inspection cannot reveal is how the system actually performs under operating conditions — what percentage of that 334 kW rated capacity reaches the point of use, and what happens to the rest. That is the question an ISO 11011 audit is designed to answer.
What the Audit Found
The compressor room was operating at 35°C — a full 10–15°C above the optimal inlet temperature range. For a reciprocating or screw compressor, every 3°C rise in inlet air temperature reduces output by approximately 1%. At 35°C, the thermal penalty alone accounted for a measurable fraction of the efficiency gap.
The distribution network ran as a single open-loop GI (galvanised iron) pipe system. No flow metering was installed anywhere in the network. The piping included multiple sharp-radius bends — standard GI fittings — that introduced turbulence and friction loss at every change of direction. There was no ring-main configuration: air travelled from the compressor room in a single direction to each point of use, with the furthest machines receiving the worst air quality and lowest pressure.
-
Key Finding
The eight compressors rated at 334 kW combined were only delivering 72% of that capacity at the point of use. The facility was paying to produce 100% of the electricity cost — but receiving only 72% of the compressed air.
The Leak Survey
Using calibrated ultrasonic detection equipment, the audit team surveyed every accessible section of the distribution network. The results were systematic rather than exceptional — this is what the average industrial compressed air system looks like when properly measured.
| Location | Leak Points Found | Proportion of Total | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compressor Room | 11 points | 39% | |
| Production Area | 17 points | 61% | |
| Total | 28 points | 100% | 58.61 CFM wasted |
The types of leak point were consistent with typical industrial findings: loose fittings at hose connections, partially open condensate drains, damaged FRL (filter-regulator-lubricator) units, and open-ended branch connections left over from previous equipment layouts. None were catastrophic individually. Collectively, 58.61 CFM of compressed air was being produced, pressurised to operating pressure, distributed through the full network, and released directly into the atmosphere — with zero useful work performed.
At the facility’s then-current electricity tariff, 58.61 CFM of continuous leakage represented approximately 11 kW of constant electrical load running 24 hours a day. That is a compressor running continuously — producing nothing.
The Savings Breakdown
The audit identified savings across five distinct intervention categories. The total of PKR 12.93 million per year was not a single large number — it was the sum of five manageable, sequenced improvements, each with its own cost and payback period.
| Intervention Category | Annual Savings (PKR) | % of Total | Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency Depreciation (compressor performance recovery) | PKR 7.11M | 55% | |
| Off-Load Running (control system optimisation) | PKR 2.59M | 20% | |
| Ventilation (compressor room temperature reduction) | PKR 2.07M | 16% | |
| Leakage (leak repair programme) | PKR 0.91M | 7% | |
| T-Connections (piping configuration) | PKR 0.26M | 1% | |
| Total | PKR 12.93M / year | 100% |
-
The Capex Avoidance Angle
The 27% capacity loss recovery alone was equivalent to bringing an additional 90 kW of compressor capacity back into service. At prevailing capital costs for industrial compressors, that capacity — if purchased new — would have represented a capital expenditure of PKR 8–12 million. The audit cost a fraction of that figure and required no new equipment.
What This Means for the Decision-Maker
The PKR 12.93 million identified in this audit exceeded 1.6 times the facility’s estimated total annual compressed air operating cost. The system was not just inefficient — it was paying for the equivalent of running a spare set of compressors that delivered nothing to production.
The intervention priority list the audit produced allowed maintenance management to sequence repairs by return: fix the highest-value items first, validate the savings, then proceed to the next tier. The facility was not asked to shut down, invest in new infrastructure, or restructure its operations. The savings were embedded in how the existing system was operating.
For medical devices manufacturing — a sector where product quality is directly tied to compressed air quality and pressure consistency — the audit also produced a documented baseline for process validation, GMP compliance discussions, and future regulatory audits.
Key Lessons for Industrial Manufacturers
Compressor room temperature is a hidden cost. No alarm warns you that your compressor is working at 10°C above its optimal inlet temperature. It simply consumes more electricity and delivers less air — every hour, every shift, every year. Improving ventilation to bring the room to 25°C is typically a low-capital, high-return intervention.
The largest savings category here was not leaks. Leakage — the most discussed form of compressed air waste — accounted for only 7% of total savings at this facility. The majority (55%) came from recovering compressor performance degradation that maintenance records had not captured. Regular service schedules are not sufficient to maintain efficiency at rated specification.
Off-load running is programmable money. A compressor running off-load — unloaded but not shut down — can consume 20–35% of its full-load power. Control system reprogramming to match start-stop and cascade sequences to actual demand profiles costs nothing in capital and delivers immediate savings.
No new equipment was required. All PKR 12.93 million of identified savings were achievable through maintenance, control adjustments, leak repair, and one compressor room ventilation improvement. The installed 334 kW of capacity was sufficient for production once inefficiencies were removed.
Facility Profile
| Table Header | |
|---|---|
|
Sector
|
Medical Devices |
|
Location
|
Karachi, Pakistan
|
|
Compressor
|
8 Units
|
|
Rated Capicity
|
334 kW
|
|
Actual Delivery |
72% of rated
|
|
Compressor Room °C
|
35°C (vs 20–25°C optimal)
|
Audit Findings at a Glance
| Table Header | |
|---|---|
|
Total Savings/yr
|
PKR 12.93M |
|
Leak Points
|
28 |
|
Air Wasted
|
58.61 CFM
|
|
Continuous Leak Load
|
~11 kW
|
|
Savings vs Op. Cost
|
1.6× annual cost
|
|
New Equipment
|
None required
|
Leak Distribution
28 leak points · 58.61 CFM total · ~11 kW continuous electrical load
Savings by Category
| Table Header | |
|---|---|
|
Efficiency recovery
|
55%
|
|
Off-Load Running
|
20% |
|
Ventilation
|
16% |
|
Leakage repair
|
7% |
|
Piping (T-connections)
|
1% |
Does your facility have a similar profile?
A 20-minute pre-audit questionnaire is enough to assess whether a significant savings opportunity exists.
Could Your Facility Have a Similar Profile?
Most industrial compressed air systems have never been formally measured against their rated capacity. The savings are already there — they are simply unverified.