Charge Optimization to Increase Quality and Competitiveness of Foundries

Transcription

1 MCTS Colloquium - Johannesburg, September 2015 Charge Optimization to Increase Quality and Competitiveness of Foundries AMV Alea Alberto Montenegro Correa CEO AMV Soluciones Informáticas

2 What is a Charge Optimization System? MINIMUM COST CHARGES

3 What is a Charge Optimization System? MINIMUM COST CHARGES Does the solution exist? Difference between Estimate Solution cost and Optimal Solution cost?

4 1

5 COST DECREASE DIRECTION

6 ROUGH ESTIMATE CHARGE VS OPTIMIZED CHARGE 1

7 Rough Estimate Charge MATERIALS USED QUANTITY (kg) Steel Scrap 250 FeCr 210 FeMn 13 FeSi 14 Graphite 1 Nickel 62 Return GX-40 (Stock = 450 kg) 450

8 Rough Estimate Charge WEAKNESSES MATERIALS USED QUANTITY (kg) Steel Scrap 250 FeCr 210 FeMn 13 FeSi 14 Graphite 1 Nickel 62 Very difficult (often impossible) to take the whole stock into account. No way of knowing how much higher is the cost compared to the optimal solution. Return GX-40 (Stock = 450 kg) 450

9 Optimized Charge MATERIALS USED QUANTITY (kg) FeCr 163 FeSi 13.6 Ingot 3.8C-0.7Mn-3.15Si 85 Nickel 38.4 Return GS Return GX-40 (Stock = 450 kg) 450 Return CF8M 234

10 ADVANTAGES Optimized Charge No calculation time required. Better use of returns. The whole stock is considered in calculations. If there is no solution, the system automatically reports the causes. The solution is the cheapest within the feasible region. MATERIALS USED QUANTITY (kg) FeCr 163 FeSi 13.6 Ingot 3.8C-0.7Mn-3.15Si 85 Nickel 38.4 Return GS Return GX-40 (Stock = 450 kg) 450 Return CF8M 234

11 Rough Estimate Charge Optimized Charge MATERIALS USED QUANTITY (kg) MATERIALS USED QUANTITY (kg) Steel Scrap 250 FeCr 210 FeMn 13 FeSi 14 Graphite 1 Nickel 62 Return GX-40 (Stock = 450 kg) 450 FeCr 163 FeSi 13.6 Ingot 3.8C-0.7Mn-3.15Si 85 Nickel 38.4 Return GS Return GX-40 (Stock = 450 kg) 450 Return CF8M 234

12 Rough Estimate Charge VS Optimized Charge 20 min 550 kg 450 kg CALCULATION TIME USE OF NEW RAW MATERIAL USE OF RETURNS 0 min 300 kg 700 kg US$ 2, CHARGE COST US$ 2,105.00

13 Rough Estimate Charge VS Optimized Charge 20 min 550 kg 450 kg CALCULATION TIME USE OF NEW RAW MATERIAL USE OF RETURNS 0 min 300 kg 700 kg US$ 2, CHARGE COST US$ 2, Cost reduction: 15.1 %

14 OBJECTIVE: NO MORE CASTING ADJUSTMENTS 1

15 Casting Adjustments Reduction Casting Adjustment Disadvantages Increased energy consumption of furnaces. Increase of losses during fusion. The quality of the adjusted casting may be inferior. 1

16 Casting Adjustments Reduction Configuring the Optimization System Overall performances of each material. Profits and losses per raw material, chemical element and type of furnace. Definition of charge templates to control the use of raw materials with greater uncertainties in their composition. 1

17 Casting Adjustments Reduction Configuring the Optimization System Overall performances of each material. Profits and losses per raw material, chemical element and type of furnace. Definition of charge templates to control the use of raw materials with greater uncertainties in their composition. Save the Know-How to anticipate deviations in composition during the melting CONTINOUS IMPROVEMENT 1

18 INTEGRATION WITH SPECTROMETERS

19 Integration with Spectrometers REAL TIME CALCULATIONS Recover the chemical composition of the casting. Calculate the raw materials required for the adjustment. Calculate the charge to complete a casting surplus. CONTINUOUS CASTING

20 Integration with Spectrometers CONTINUOUS CASTING Additions for cupola furnace CUPOLA OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM HOLDER 1 HOLDER 3 Additions for adjustment in Holders

21 FULL OPTIMIZATION: PURCHASING, QUALITY, PRODUCTION AND SALES

22

23 SIMPLIFYING TASKS: CONNECTION WITH EXTERNAL SYSTEMS

24

25 OPTIMIZATION IN FIGURES 1

26 Optimization in Figures DETERMINING FACTORS Number of alloys produced. Variety of raw materials. Cost of component elements. Complexity of the chemical composition. The production volume. 1

27 Optimization in Figures DETERMINING FACTORS Number of alloys produced. Variety of raw materials. Cost of component elements. Complexity of the chemical composition. The production volume. Cost reduction between 3% - 20% 1

28 Optimization in Figures COST REDUCTION ALUMINIUM US$ -130,000 (-8%) LOW ALLOYED STEEL US$ -40,000 (-6%) HIGH ALLOYED STEEL US$ -360,000 (-15%) CAST IRON US$ -30,000 (-5%) COPPER US$ -310,000 (-6%)

29 MCTS Colloquium, Johannesburg 2015 In conclusion Why should I use a Charge Optimization System? To minimize raw material costs. To eliminate unnecessary calculation time. To increase and register Know How. To reduce casting adjustments. To adapt to changes quickly. 1

30 THANK YOU! Additional information: Alberto Montenegro Correa AMV Soluciones Informáticas, Vigo - Spain Phone: amv@amvsoluciones.com Website: