|
|
Why Use PREDICT Obviously,
if a foundry chooses to use PREDICT, it's going to add a step to the process,
and there are costs associated with any change in operations.
The question becomes, why should a foundry want to use it? PREDICT was
written initially to prevent failing tensile tests in an iron foundry.
The failures didn't occur frequently but were of great concern when
they did. There were additional
testing costs when failures happened, but they were insignificant in the
foundry's mind compared to having to notify customers of tests failures for
castings that had already been shipped. They could have moved the testing
in-house to reduce the turn around time for results, but a more economical and
logical answer was to eliminate tests failures. The
simplest way of eliminating failures would have been to raise the target
tensile strengths, but that would adversely affect the machinability of the
iron. It appeared the best
solution to the problem was to reduce the variability of the tensile test
results. Of course, deciding that
was the best solution and accomplishing it were two different things.
A number of ideas were tried and the knowledge of the process improved
with each attempt. PREDICT was the
culmination of all of those attempts.
Illustration 1 - Class 40 Monthly Standard Deviation
Illustration 3 – 100-70-03 Yield Strength Monthly Standard Deviation Illustrations
1 through 3 show the improvement in the standard deviation of the tensile
results from three different grade of iron achieved from using PREDICT. In
each case, the first two-thirds of the chart shows the results prior to using
the program. Once
the improvement in control had been achieved, the other more directly measurable
benefits from using PREDICT became noticeable. Lower
Alloy Costs Some
customers will specify a minimum amount of a particular element must be
maintained for certain grades of iron. Usually
those specified elements are expensive. It's
easy to see that PREDICT, by improving control of the element, allows
targeting them closer to the minimum; thereby, reducing the amount that needs
to be added. One
of the first steps in improving control is reducing the test results that are
abnormally high. As the higher tensile strengths are frequently caused by
having more strengthening elements than needed, the answer is to lower the
content of them. The easiest
way of reducing them is simply not adding as much alloy. Finally
improved control allows the reduction of targets. I recommend targeting the
tensile strength at two standard deviations above the minimum. If the standard
deviation of the tests are 3.0 ksi on a class 40 gray iron, that means
targeting 46 ksi. If improved control takes the standard deviation down to 2.0
ksi, the target becomes 44. How much alloy does it take to get the additional
strength? I'll depend on the foundry and what they're using to obtain their
strength, but it will be a worthwhile figure. To
give an idea of magnitude of these potential savings, let's assume that copper
may be purchased for $1.40 per pound and ferro-molybdenum is $2.40 per pound.
(These are fairly realistic in-plant costs for these alloys.) If the
copper and molybdenum could both be reduced by .05 percent, for every 1000
pound ladle treated there would be a savings of $2.70. Since yield is about
50%, that means a saving of over 1/2 cents per pound of casting. Improved
Machinability Machinability
is important to the people who buy castings but is very difficult to apply a
dollar value to it. In fact, most
smaller foundries' customers can't even provide a good measure of it.
A more quantifiable definition of the effect PREDICT has is being
sought. Until that definition is
obtained, only anecdotal proof of its effectiveness can be supplied.
That comes in the form of a quote from a machinist who has machined a
ductile iron 80-55-06 part before and after PREDICT.
"Using a scale of 1 through 10, the parts used to be a 6.
Now they're a 9." Certainly,
it's a topic that's hard to sell with strict dollars and cents, but it's
something to think about. Charge
Costs It
doesn't take long working around foundries to learn the significance of charge
costs. Money saved on the charges
effects everything. PREDICT provides
a number of ways to save money on charge costs. One
of the limiting factors for induction melting of ductile iron is the manganese
in steel. If you're trying to make
65-45-12 and your manganese is too high, you'll fail elongation requirements.
By controlling the chemistry with PREDICT, one foundry has found that it
has been able to reduce pig and increase steel in their ductile charge when
making 65-45-12. (PREDICT pointed
out that they were keeping the manganese so low they were struggling to meet the
yield requirements.) Similarly,
a foundry making 80-55-06 found from using PREDICT that they could increase
their steel (manganese) and reduce their copper additions while making a more
controlled iron. They achieved cost
reduction through charge costs and alloy reduction. There
is also the opportunity available, at times, to obtain charge materials at lower
cost that may have more variable residual elements.
Those varying residual elements may have been avoided in the past, but
with PREDICT compensating for the changes the material can be used. There
are many ways that PREDICT can achieve savings and improve operations.
The trial period we offer with PREDICT allows the foundry to see if it
will work for them at no risk. |