Case study
A furnace over-cycling, seen on the air and gas traces together
Compressed airNatural gasMetal Fabrication & FinishingBuilding Materials, Concrete & Aggregates
Short-cycling that neither the gas bill nor the air system showed alone.
A heat-treating furnace was firing more often than the process required. We put gas firing and compressed-air demand on the same time axis to show the cycling pattern that separate utility totals concealed.
What the data showed
Hover or arrow-key across the trace to read any interval. The flagged point is the one that started the conversation.
| Interval | Furnace 2 (m³/h) |
|---|---|
| 06:00 | 97 |
| 06:02 | 97 |
| 06:04 | 97 |
| 06:06 | 3.2 |
| 06:08 | 4.8 |
| 06:10 | 5.0 |
| 06:12 | 3.1 |
| 06:14 | 95 |
| 06:16 | 96 |
| 06:18 | 96 |
| 06:20 | 4.6 |
| 06:22 | 4.1 |
| 06:24 | 3.5 |
| 06:26 | 4.0 |
| 06:28 | 95 |
| 06:30 | 96 |
| 06:32 | 97 |
| 06:34 | 2.8 |
| 06:36 | 3.4 |
| 06:38 | 2.7 |
| 06:40 | 3.7 |
| 06:42 | 95 |
| 06:44 | 96 |
| 06:46 | 97 |
| 06:48 | 5.5 |
| 06:50 | 2.8 |
| 06:52 | 3.1 |
| 06:54 | 4.5 |
| 06:56 | 96 |
| 06:58 | 97 |
| 07:00 | 96 |
| 07:02 | 3.6 |
| 07:04 | 3.7 |
| 07:06 | 5.0 |
| 07:08 | 3.1 |
| 07:10 | 95 |
| 07:12 | 97 |
| 07:14 | 97 |
| 07:16 | 5.3 |
| 07:18 | 4.6 |
| 07:20 | 3.7 |
| 07:22 | 4.7 |
| 07:24 | 97 |
| 07:26 | 96 |
| 07:28 | 97 |
| 07:30 | 2.5 |
| 07:32 | 5.2 |
| 07:34 | 4.8 |
| 07:36 | 2.7 |
| 07:38 | 97 |
| 07:40 | 95 |
| 07:42 | 97 |
| 07:44 | 3.2 |
| 07:46 | 2.6 |
| 07:48 | 4.2 |
| 07:50 | 4.0 |
| 07:52 | 97 |
| 07:54 | 97 |
| 07:56 | 95 |
| 07:58 | 3.7 |
| 08:00 | 3.9 |
| 08:02 | 4.4 |
| 08:04 | 4.8 |
| 08:06 | 97 |
| 08:08 | 97 |
| 08:10 | 97 |
| 08:12 | 2.7 |
| 08:14 | 3.7 |
| 08:16 | 5.5 |
| 08:18 | 3.9 |
| 08:20 | 96 |
| 08:22 | 98 |
| 08:24 | 97 |
| 08:26 | 5.3 |
| 08:28 | 4.4 |
| 08:30 | 3.0 |
| 08:32 | 4.8 |
| 08:34 | 96 |
| 08:36 | 96 |
| 08:38 | 97 |
| 08:40 | 3.2 |
| 08:42 | 2.6 |
| 08:44 | 3.8 |
| 08:46 | 4.7 |
| 08:48 | 97 |
| 08:50 | 96 |
| 08:52 | 97 |
| 08:54 | 5.3 |
| 08:56 | 3.1 |
| 08:58 | 2.8 |
| 09:00 | 4.8 |
| 09:02 | 95 |
| 09:04 | 96 |
| 09:06 | 96 |
| 09:08 | 3.3 |
| 09:10 | 4.4 |
| 09:12 | 4.1 |
| 09:14 | 3.4 |
| 09:16 | 98 |
| 09:18 | 97 |
| 09:20 | 96 |
| 09:22 | 4.5 |
| 09:24 | 4.8 |
| 09:26 | 3.7 |
| 09:28 | 4.3 |
| 09:30 | 95 |
| 09:32 | 96 |
| 09:34 | 97 |
| 09:36 | 3.8 |
| 09:38 | 5.4 |
| 09:40 | 3.0 |
| 09:42 | 4.8 |
| 09:44 | 95 |
| 09:46 | 97 |
| 09:48 | 97 |
| 09:50 | 2.8 |
| 09:52 | 5.2 |
| 09:54 | 4.7 |
| 09:56 | 5.0 |
| 09:58 | 95 |
| 10:00 | 97 |
| 10:02 | 96 |
| 10:04 | 5.4 |
| 10:06 | 4.9 |
| 10:08 | 4.6 |
| 10:10 | 3.8 |
| 10:12 | 95 |
| 10:14 | 97 |
| 10:16 | 95 |
| 10:18 | 3.8 |
| 10:20 | 5.1 |
| 10:22 | 4.5 |
| 10:24 | 4.4 |
| 10:26 | 95 |
| 10:28 | 97 |
| 10:30 | 96 |
| 10:32 | 4.2 |
| 10:34 | 5.3 |
| 10:36 | 4.0 |
| 10:38 | 3.6 |
| 10:40 | 97 |
| 10:42 | 96 |
| 10:44 | 97 |
| 10:46 | 4.5 |
| 10:48 | 3.2 |
| 10:50 | 2.6 |
| 10:52 | 2.9 |
| 10:54 | 96 |
| 10:56 | 95 |
| 10:58 | 95 |
| 11:00 | 3.5 |
| 11:02 | 4.7 |
| 11:04 | 5.1 |
| 11:06 | 3.8 |
| 11:08 | 96 |
| 11:10 | 96 |
| 11:12 | 98 |
| 11:14 | 4.5 |
| 11:16 | 3.6 |
| 11:18 | 5.5 |
| 11:20 | 3.5 |
| 11:22 | 96 |
| 11:24 | 97 |
| 11:26 | 96 |
| 11:28 | 4.3 |
| 11:30 | 2.9 |
| 11:32 | 3.2 |
| 11:34 | 4.4 |
| 11:36 | 95 |
| 11:38 | 96 |
| 11:40 | 97 |
| 11:42 | 3.0 |
| 11:44 | 2.5 |
| 11:46 | 4.5 |
| 11:48 | 3.9 |
| 11:50 | 95 |
| 11:52 | 95 |
| 11:54 | 97 |
| 11:56 | 5.4 |
| 11:58 | 3.4 |
| Before | Two utilities, two bills, no pattern |
|---|---|
| After | One overlaid trace where the cycling is unmistakable |
Background
A heat-treating operation uses natural gas and compressed air at the same furnace. Each utility has its own record, while the furnace has a single operating cycle. Our review brings those records together around the asset so the team can examine what happens during the same period of operation.
The problem
The furnace fires more often than the process requires. On the monthly gas bill, the added consumption looks like ordinary seasonal variation. The separate air-system view also leaves the cycling unexplained. Neither total gives the team enough timing detail to connect the repeated firing with what the same furnace is doing.
How we found it
We use gas flow metering at the furnace and follow compressed-air demand at that asset. Firing-rate trends share a time axis with the air readings. The overlaid traces make the repeated pattern visible, allowing the team to compare the start and duration of each change within the same operating window.
What changed
The team can see the over-cycling in a shared view. Gas firing and air demand can be examined together instead of being discussed from separate bills. That gives operations a specific pattern to investigate at the furnace and a record to refer to when reviewing how often the asset fires.
The lesson
We start the comparison at the equipment and keep the timestamps together. In this case, the connection between the utility readings explains more than either total could on its own. The shared trace also gives the team a way to review a later adjustment against the same operating pattern, watching whether the repeated cycling changes and whether another investigation is needed.
What changed
Before
Two utilities, two bills, no pattern
After
One overlaid trace where the cycling is unmistakable
2 utilitieson one chart
The over-cycling pattern is only obvious when gas firing and air demand are overlaid.
Where to go next
The sector, the sibling studies, and the calculator that runs this same arithmetic on your own numbers.
Compressed airManufacturing: Automotive, Plastics & RubberMetal Fabrication & Finishing
Compressed air leaks in a stamping operation
A Tier 2 automotive stamping factory
Permanent monitoring revealed compressed air continuing to flow into an otherwise idle building overnight.
20–30%of compressor output
Natural gasBuilding Materials, Concrete & AggregatesManufacturing: Automotive, Plastics & Rubber
A 1970s boiler brought onto the dashboard
A heavy manufacturing factory
A fifty-year-old boiler, integrated through its 4-20 mA output. Nothing was ripped out.
4-20 mAintegration
Natural gasPharmaceutical & ChemicalFood & Beverage Processing
Steam trap failure monitoring
A pharmaceutical manufacturing site
A failed-open steam trap vents energy continuously and silently.
Continuousmonitoring
Find out what’s hiding in your factory.
Every study on this site started with somebody walking a floor and asking what the numbers actually were. Our team will do the same on yours and tell you honestly what we find.
Book a site visitAll case studies
or call 1-833-QUANTFY (1-833-782-6839)
