MPT Grinding Tool Management

Case Study

MPT Grinding Technology

© Holcim Group Support Ltd

 Case study
Comparison of the following options for grinding tools:
1. Base option (Nihard-4) – replacement strategy
2. High Cr solution (17 % Cr) - replacement strategy
3. Ceramic inserts solution
4. Re-surfacing solution – (2 suppliers)

2
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Operational data / Maintenance window
Cement mill (Loesche):
Operational data:
Product: MIC cement
Production rate with new grinding tools: 210 t/h
Production rate with 100 % worn-out grinding tools: 180 t/h
Spec. el. energy consumption with new grinding tools: 32 kWh/t
Spec. el. energy consumption with 100 % worn-out grinding tools: 37 kWh/t

Yearly required operating hours: 7200 h

Maintenance:
Maintenance window: twice a year (every 3600 h), max. 7 mill down-
days 3
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Grinding tools
Grinding tools material: Nihard-4 (Base option)
Weight of new grinding tools: 45 t (roller and table liners)
Grinding tools are 100 % worn-out after 3900 hours
Due to the maintenance window, they have to be replaced after 3600 hours

4
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Life time factors (LTF)
• Base option (Nihard-4):
• High Cr:
• Ceramic inserts:
• Re-surfacing:
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
Life time factor = 1
Life time factor = 1.4
Life time factor = 2.8
LTF Supplier 1 = 1.8
LTF Supplier 2 = 2.1
5
 Costs (I)
Price for grinding tools base material:
Nihard-4: 3.9 US$/kg
High Cr: 3.9 US$/kg
Ceramic inserts: 5.1 US$/kg

Price for welding wire:

Supplier 1: 10 US$/kg
Supplier 2: 22 US$/kg

Welding labour cost: 10 US$/kg wire (both suppliers)

Electrical energy cost: 8 US$cents / kWh

6
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Costs (II)
Re-surfacing: equipment costs, transport, installation, dismounting, etc:
Both suppliers: 30’000 US$

Replacement: grinding tools transport, import fees, replacement labour cost on-site:
20’000 US$

Other costs at end of grinding tools life-time: disposal, scrapping

Nihard-4 / High Cr: 5000 US$
Ceramic inserts: 8000 US$

7
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Exercise 1
Comparison of the following options for grinding tools:
1. Base option (Nihard-4) – replacement strategy
2. High Cr solution (17 % Cr) - replacement strategy
3. Ceramic inserts solution
4. Re-surfacing solution – (2 suppliers)
(max. 6 times re-welding possible)

Take the following aspects into consideration and propose the best option:
1. Specific metal and energy cost
2. Total costs per year
3. Yearly cement production
4. Evolution of production rate over the grinding tools life time
5. Feasibility and risks of the option
6. Bounderies
8
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Exercise 2
Comparison of the following options for grinding tools…
1. Base option (Nihard-4) - replacement strategy
2. High Cr solution (17 % Cr) - replacement strategy
3. Ceramic inserts solution
4. Re-surfacing solution – (2 suppliers)

… considering the following new conditions:

1. New requested operating hours: 7350 h
2. Maintenance window per year: 1 (max. 7 days)

-> propose the best option

9
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Worksheet ‘Total cost of ownership for VRM wear parts ’

10
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Worksheet ‘Total cost of ownership for VRM wear parts ’

11
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Option comparison

Options
Re-welding (6 times)
Nihard-4 High Cr (17 %) Ceramic inserts
Supplier 1 Supplier 2
Life time factor -
Requested Operating Hours
h
(between maintenance windows)
Achievable Operating Hours h Total
h Between re-surfacing
Actual Operating Hours between replacement
h
/ re-surfacing
Avg production rate in life time t/h
Total grinding tools life time h
Specific metal cost US$/t product
Specific el. energy cost US$/t product
Total specific cost US$/t product
Total annual cost US$
Net wear rate g/t
Material to re-surfacing t First re-surfacing
Subsequent re-surfacings

12
© Holcim Group Support Ltd
 Expected production rate evolution
Production rate [t/h]
Options

4’250 h

3’600 h 7’200 h 10’800 h

Operating hours

13
© Holcim Group Support Ltd