Energy Efficiency Analysis of Industrial Machines

Motors • Pumps • Compressors • Turbines — RPM, Torque, Temperature, Vibration, Power. Simulated 48 machines for 210 days, cleaned & analyzed in Python, summarized in Excel.

Last built: 2025-08-20 11:07:06

Project Outcomes

  • KPIs: Efficiency (η), Specific Power Consumption (SPC), Downtime analysis.
  • Type-level benchmarks (75th percentile efficiency) and estimated input kW savings to reach benchmark.
  • Predictive maintenance: linear trend on last 90 days; projected threshold crossing at η < 0.72.
  • Excel dashboard consolidates charts and sheets for quick review and pivoting.

Input Sources & Methods

  • Simulated Dataset: 48 machines × 210 days (Motors, Pumps, Compressors, Turbines).
  • Signals: load %, RPM, torque (Nm), temperature (°C), vibration (mm/s), mechanical output (kW), input power (kW), downtime (min).
  • Python: Pandas, NumPy, Matplotlib for cleaning, KPIs, charts.
  • Excel: Dashboard with charts; pivot-style summaries in TypeSummary; savings & predictive sheets.

Efficiency Distribution by Type

Efficiency by Type

Median and spread of η across Motors, Pumps, Compressors, Turbines.

7‑Day Rolling Efficiency — Worst 4 Machines

Rolling efficiency

Helps identify persistent underperformers for targeted maintenance.

Temperature vs Vibration

Temperature vs Vibration

Elevated vibration alongside high temperature often precedes efficiency decay.

Average Specific Power Consumption by Type

Average SPC by Type

Lower is better; SPC = input kW / unit output.

Type-level Summary (sample)

type avg_efficiency median_efficiency avg_spc avg_input_kW total_downtime_min eff_benchmark
Compressor 0.730 0.730 0.410 7.670 3560 0.742
Motor 0.843 0.842 0.467 5.164 3307 0.856
Pump 0.768 0.767 0.600 6.391 3992 0.780
Turbine 0.824 0.823 0.158 5.464 3511 0.837

Top Savings Opportunities (sample)

machine_id type current_efficiency benchmark_efficiency potential_input_kW_savings
CO-03 Compressor 0.727 0.742 0.161
CO-08 Compressor 0.728 0.742 0.142
CO-10 Compressor 0.729 0.742 0.133
CO-02 Compressor 0.729 0.742 0.131
CO-06 Compressor 0.730 0.742 0.126
PU-08 Pump 0.766 0.780 0.121
CO-05 Compressor 0.730 0.742 0.121
CO-04 Compressor 0.730 0.742 0.117
CO-01 Compressor 0.730 0.742 0.116
PU-09 Pump 0.767 0.780 0.110
CO-11 Compressor 0.731 0.742 0.108
CO-07 Compressor 0.731 0.742 0.107

Predictive Maintenance (sample)

machine_id current_eff_mean_90d trend_slope_per_day predicted_days_to_cross_threshold predicted_date_below_threshold
CO-02 0.727 -0.000 None None
CO-08 0.727 -0.000 None None
CO-06 0.727 0.000 None None
CO-03 0.728 0.000 None None
CO-07 0.729 0.000 None None
CO-05 0.729 0.000 None None
CO-04 0.731 -0.000 None None
CO-01 0.731 0.000 None None
CO-11 0.731 -0.000 None None
CO-10 0.732 0.000 None None
CO-12 0.732 0.000 None None
CO-09 0.732 0.000 None None

How to Reproduce

  1. Run the provided Python notebook/script to simulate data, compute KPIs, and export assets.
  2. Open Energy_Efficiency_Analysis_Dashboard.xlsx → Review “Dashboard” (charts), then explore TypeSummary, SavingsOpportunities, and PredictiveMaintenance.
  3. Adjust thresholds (e.g., η threshold = 0.72) or cost per kWh to translate savings into ₹/year.
  4. For Excel What‑If: vary load %, temperature, or vibration to see SPC and η sensitivities.

Formulas

  • Efficiency (η) = Mechanical Output kW / Input Power kW
  • Specific Power Consumption (SPC) = Input Power kW / Unit Output (per hr)
  • Potential Savings (kW) ≈ Output kW × (1/ηcurrent − 1/ηbenchmark)