第八届中国国际钢铁大会

PERT BS Stand
– The Real Eco-Friendly Stand

M. Tomba, M. Zuccato, A. Fontanini, N. Tomba

PERT srl
Via Palladio 17, 33010 Tavagnacco (UD) ITALY

1
 8th China International Steel Congress

PERT BS Stand – The Real Eco-Friendly Stand

M. Tomba, M. Zuccato, A. Fontanini, N. Tomba
PERT srl
Via Palladio 17, 33010 Tavagnacco (UD) ITALY
Phone: (+39) 0432 - 575258
Email: info@pertengineering.com

Keywords: rolling stands, energy saving, eco-friendly, innovation, housingless stands, cantilever stands

The reduction of energy consumption and the use of low-impact facilities, are now issues that every steel producer
faces, since plants that pollute generate high costs and a high degree of mistrust on behalf of civil society, that perceives
these works as a threat to its health.
This article takes into account the electricity consumption resulting from the use of different types of rolling stands
currently on the market, as well as the environmental impact due to their operation and considering the different technical
characteristics of each type of stand.
As well as introducing several advantages at a technical and economic level (reduction of CAPEX and OPEX) the
new revolutionary PERT BS stands also lead to considerable savings in electricity, drastically reducing consumption.
To date, the most commonly used rolling stands are the housingless and cantilever ones.
In the first analysis, we take into account the greater difference between BS and housingless — i.e. the absence of
spindles with regards to the BS.
From the point of view of energy saving, it is clear that the elimination of spindles involves a considerable
simplification of the kinematic chain that allows the transmission of motion from the electric motor to the rolls.

Fig. 1 Simple scheme of the spindles of Housingless Stand

This simplification results in considerable saving of electric power as the elimination of a component of the

2
 第八届中国国际钢铁大会

transmission kinematic chain, also involves the elimination of losses due to the component itself.
In our case, the cardanic spindles used in common housingless stands, have an efficiency that varies between η = 0.94
- 0.95 each, this is because spindles should work in an inclined position (as shown in Figure 1) in a range from a minimum
of 3° and a maximum that varies between 5° and 6°, depending on the rolling load and speed of the rollers, in order to meet
the adjusting needs of the gap between the cylinders.
Working constantly in an inclined position, losses on various components of the spindles, especially on journal cross,
are very high and increase as the angle of inclination to which the spindles works increases, hence the overall efficiency of
a transmission with 2 spindles is quite low.
In the BS stands instead, the spindles are replaced with a conventional gear couplings, working always aligned on the
axis of the rolls (FIG 2).

Fig. 2 BS Stand – Gear couplings are always aligned with the rolls
There not being components working in an inclined position, the kinematic chain that goes from the rolls to the gear
box is basically made from a single component that, besides having no wear, has a yield nearly equal to η = 1.
Below is a concrete example on how much electricity can be saved using the BS instead of the housingless, for a
small to medium sized mill of 300.000 tpy.
Production mix :
Hours of Real rolling
Diameter of final Production Spindles Motor power
production per power*
product [mm] mix efficiency [kW]
year [h/year] [kW]
2x8 10 % 720 3097 0.95 3260
2x10 15 % 1080 3412 0.95 3592
2x12 20 % 1440 3002 0.95 3160
14 20 % 1440 3342 0.95 3518
16 15 % 1080 2922 0.95 3076
18 5% 360 2787 0.95 2934
20 5% 360 2477 0.95 2607
25 4% 288 2077 0.95 2186
28 2% 144 1768 0.95 1861
32 2% 144 1733 0.95 1824
36 2% 144 1539 0.95 1620
* This is the value of the real rolling power calculated with PERT roll pass design software
In a rolling mill equipped with common housingless stands, which uses the cardanic spindles, the electrical power
delivered by the motor, will be :

3
 8th China International Steel Congress
Real rolling power/0.95
In a rolling mill equipped with PERT BS Stands, conversely, the electrical power delivered by the motor is equal to the
real rolling power, without mechanical losses due to the spindles.
Summary table :
Total motor Total motor
Difference of
power power Electrical savings
Diameter of final power
– – per year
product [mm] consumption
Common Stands BS Stands [kWh/year]
[kW]
[kW] [kW]
2x8 3260 3097 163 117’360
2x10 3592 3412 180 194’400
2x12 3160 3002 158 227’520
14 3518 3342 176 253’440
16 3076 2922 154 166’320
18 2934 2787 147 52’920
20 2607 2477 130 46’800
25 2186 2077 109 31’392
28 1861 1768 93 13’392
32 1824 1733 91 13’104
36 1620 1539 81 11’664
The total electrical savings per year is 1’128’312 kWh/year, assuming the cost of electrical energy of 0,11 $/kWh
( European cost ), the total cash saving per year will be approx. 124’115 $/year, corresponding to approx. 0,35 $/ton
Table of savings regarding different rolling mill capacities :
ANNUAL MILL CAPACITY ANNUAL SAVING
[tons/year] [$/year]
150’000 52’500

250’000 87’500

350’000 122’500

500’000 175’000

800’000 280’000

1’000’000 350’000

These electrical energy savings can be translated in to CO2 savings:

CO2 = 0.258 x P x h
All is equal to 291 tons/year of CO2 produced less.
As shown earlier, the BS stands allow considerable savings in energy and CO2 produced, on an annual basis, hence
big savings in economic and environmental costs. Improving the transmission of motion from motor to rolls does this.
From this point of view, the existing cantilever stands also have similar characteristics, i.e. they do not use spindles.
For this reason only, they are today considered as a stands which reduce the energy consumption.
Comparing BS stands with cantilever ones, we can immediately notice that major differences are in the rolling unit
itself and not on the transmission of motion.
The various solutions adopted in BS stands, allow additional energy savings compared to cantilever, for 1 fundamental
reason:
BS do not use oil film bearings, but roller bearings
Indeed, having regard to the cantilever configuration of the rollers and the high rolling loads (especially on the
roughing mill), the cantilever stands should mount oil film bearings and not roller bearings, vice versa the BS are bi-support,
therefore they mount multi-roll bearings.
The presence of oil film bearings involves innumerable problems from a technical and consumption point of view:

4
 第八届中国国际钢铁大会

1) Oil film bearings efficiency is very low compared to that of roller bearings
2) The use of oil film bearings involves using a large lubrication unit besides a device that removes water from oil
3) The oil used for lubrication is much more viscous.
These problems are reflected not only costs, but also on an increase of energy consumption, in fact in cantilevers, if on
one hand the motion transmission is very efficient, the technical solutions adopted on the rolling unit significantly reduces
the advantages acquired by the elimination of extensions.
As mentioned, BS have roller bearings while cantilevers mount oil film bearings, well the yield of a roller bearing is
approximately η = 0.01 while that of a oil film bearings is in the order of η = 0.06, therefore 6 times greater.
Furthermore in cantilevers, the diameters of the shaft necks, with the same diameter of the rings, are greater than those
of BS or Housingless.
With the same rolling load, the reaction diameter of the bushings is greater than the bearings (also needed to decrease
the specific pressure on the oil film bearings).
As can be seen from the diagram in figure 3, the braking torque resulting from the rolling load on the oil film bearings
of the cantilevers stand, is very high compared to the one on the BS bearings, this is because:
- The efficiency of the oil film bearings is very low, in fact, the friction is sliding and not rolling like on roller
bearings, in addition the high viscosity of the lubricating oil (which must also maintain high
hydro-sustenance, otherwise the oil film bearings can seriously be damaged) results in an increase of the
coefficient of friction itself.
- The reaction diameter of the cantilever oil film bearings is very high since the rollers are cantilevered (that is
the diameter of the necks is greater than the bi-support stands). This means that the load on the nearest
constraint to the rolling axis is very high, even higher than the rolling load.
In the BS stands, conversely, having a better distribution of loads on supports, normal multi-roll bearings can be
mounted that allow to decrease the reaction diameter and hence the reaction distance that generates the braking torque. In
addition, being the friction of rolling type and the oil used for lubrication with low viscosity, even the coefficient of friction
is dramatically reduced.
Moreover, the rolling load on constraints will in any case be smaller than the rolling load, something that does not
happen in cantilever stands.

5
 8th China International Steel Congress

Fig. 3 Braking load diagram for cantilever stand and BS stand

Referring to Figure 3, the total braking torque of cantilever stand is:
Tot. Braking Torque = (4725 + 23085) x 2 = 55620 Nm
The total braking torque of BS stand is:
Tot. Braking Torque = (1250 + 1250) x 2 = 5000 Nm
Being the brake torque in the cantilever stands 10 times greater compared to the BS, the electrical power delivered by
the electrical motor to win such force is also 10 times greater than that delivered by using the BS stand.
Hence the cantilevers do allow a great saving in terms of energy due to the absence of spindles, but instead use
technical solutions that increase consumption, compromising much of the advantages of a simplified kinematic motion
transmission. Ultimately, cantilever stands cannot be considered as a stand that allow large savings in terms of energy or
environment .
Load on
Reaction distance
Friction constraints (RA, Braking torque Lubrication unit
(rr)
RB)
High, due to greater
High, even higher High given the friction, increased
High
CANTILEVER than the rolling greater diameter of load on constraints Very big
(µ = 0.06)
load the necks and greater torque
arm
Low given less
Low given the
Low Low, given the friction, less load
BS STAND minor diameter of Small
(µ = 0.01) bi-support on constraints and
the necks
torque arm
The lubrication of oil film bearings is very complex; it must be as efficient as possible, so as to avoid burning and
damaging the same oil film bearings.
For this reason the lubrication unit is much greater in size, oil capacity, filtering devices and pump power (about 45%
more), compared to the one used for the BS stands.
Lubrication oil is also very viscous, which implies extra power needed to make it circulate in the circuit.
For all these reasons, a lubrication station serving, for instance, a group of 6 cantilever stands in roughing mill, has an

6
 第八届中国国际钢铁大会

installed capacity of approximately +65% to which the power of the unit removing water from oil must be added (see fig.
4)
In comparison, the BS stands use a lubricant oil that is the same used in gear boxes, it has low viscosity and high
cooling is not required, therefore the lubrication unit is quite reduced and has a much lower installed power.
BS stands do not require the unit for the removal of water from oil, like the cantilevers, because water and oil are not
in contact with each other, as all lubricated parts are protected and inserted into the housings.
Water from oil
Oil viscosity Tank capacity Installed power
removal device

Cantilever stand +45% compared to

460 CST 15 .000 litres Yes
lubrication unit BS lubrication unit

BS stand lubrication
220 CST 2.000 litres low No
unit
Fig. 4 Difference between BS and cantilever lubrication unit
Energy saving, as well as being important to reduce energy consumption and environmental impact, is also a
significant economic saving for the user of the equipment, because it reduces a major item in operating costs.
From an environmental point of view, we must also take account of the cost of oil disposal and of all devices used to
minimise environmental impact resulting from contact between oil and cooling H2O, that, by using cantilevers, are greater
than using housingless and BS, because there are much larger lubrication units and therefore much greater capacities. This
translates into many extra litres of oil to be disposed of.
In summary, analysing today's typology of rolling stands as a whole, we have seen that the BS are the ones that at a
saving level, guarantee the best performances.
In fact, the housingless have good efficiency with regards to the rolling unit but are the opposite with regard to the
motion transmission from the motor to the rolls.
The cantilevers, on the contrary, have a good efficiency in terms of transmission of motion, but much of the savings
due to this advantage is lost with a low yield from the proper technical side of the rolling unit operation.
The BS stands were created to combine all the advantages of the Housingless and cantilevers but without their
disadvantages and, as seen, this is also valid from the energy saving point of view, making BS stands the real eco-friendly
rolling stands.