Journals →  Chernye Metally →  2018 →  #9 →  Back

Economics and finances
ArticleName Comparative analysis of expenses for section rolling mills in different European and American countries
ArticleAuthor S.-E. Lundberg
ArticleAuthorData

University of Gävle (Gävle, Sweden):

S.-E. Lundberg, Dr., Prof., Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, e-mail: serikl2011@gmail.com

Abstract

Benchmarking is a method to compare similar plants. Several problems arise in the evaluation of the similarity. Therefore the actual benchmarking was divided into three areas, the European Union, North America and Eastern Europe. The transformation cost was compared for new mills rolling 750,000 t/a. The costs are of the same order in the different areas. The advantage of low hourly wages in Eastern Europe is lost due to the larger mill crew. Higher mill capacity give lower cost. This is a threat to many EU-located bar mills. A model to calculate the transformation cost as a function of the capacity was developed. The model give fairly good predictions. Comparison of the calculated cost to the costs of the investigated new mills show sufficient conformity. The weakest point is the estimation of the capital cost, which is not technologically determined. This is probably the main reason for deviations in transformation costs shown for similar plants.

keywords Expenses, analysis, enterprises, capital investments, shop capacity,section rolling, benchmarking, Europe, North America
References

1. Norlindh, E.: stahl u. eisen 75 (1955) No. 11, pp. 700/09.
2. Recalcati, C.: La Met. Ital. 52 (1997) No. 10, pp. 23/29.
3. Lundberg, S.-E.: Steel Grips 8 (2010), pp. 105/11.
4. Müller, H.: Iron Steel Techn. 4 (2007) No. 9, pp. 50/57.
5. Lundberg, S.-E.: Nuevo concepto en micromolinos laminares para mejorar su utilization y disminucion de costos operativos y de capital, Proc. V Congreso Internacional de Metalurgia de Transformacion, 24–27 Nov 2010, Tacna, Peru, pp. 166/70.
6. Masini, R.; Lainati, A.: Millennium Steel (2005), pp. 216/21.
7. Azadeh, A.; Ghaderi, F.: J Appl. Sci. 6 (2006) N0. 3, pp. 611/15.
8. Ljung, B.: Investeringsbedömning (Evaluation of Investments), 2nd ed., Akademilitteratur, Stockholm, Sweden, 1977.
9. Wolf, F.; van der Rijst, A: stahl u. eisen 102 (1982) N0. 5, pp. 233/38.
10. Paternoster, F.; Kumer, В.: Der Kalibreur 72 (2011), pp. 35/44.
11. Lundberg, S.-E.: An integrated system for minimizing the downtime for dimensional changes in bar mills, Proc. AISTech 2012, 7–10 May 2012, Atlanta, USA, pp. 2033/51.
12. Gonzalez, H.: Der Kalibreur 74 (2013), pp 19/26.
13. Fabris, R.; Lainati, A.; Masini, R.: MPT Intern. 27 (2004) No. 6, pp. 54/60.
14. Sanchez, D.: MPT Intern. 31 (2008) No. 2, pp. 98/100.
15. Boubli, H., Verlezza, L., Giacomini, L.: Rev. de Met. CIT (2009) July/Aug, pp. 280/86.
16. Lundberg, S.-E.: Quenched and self tempered rebar — process overview, layout, operational parameters and cost savings, Proc. AISTech 2010, 3-6 May 2010, Pittsburgh, USA, Vol 2, pp. 717/26.
17. Chatfleld, C: Statistics for Technology, 3rd Ed., Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1991.
18. Fleischer, M.: Der Kalibreur 69 (2008), pp 35/48.
19. Lundberg, S.-E.: Bar Mill Performance» [in:. Lundberg, S.-E. [ed.], The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, 11th Ed., Long Products Volume, AIST, Warrendale, USA, 2017, pp. 459/66, ISBN 978-935117 57–5.
20. Munther, P. A.; Wheeler, J. G.: The effect of market demand and operating philosophy on the productivity in a bar and wire rod mill, Proc. 44th MWSP Conference, 8–11 Sept 2002, Orlando, USA, Vol. XI, pp. 199/212.
21. Norden, К. E.; Tetlow, D. M.: The yield improvement technology — a new tool for monitoring rolling mill performance, Proc. 2nd Europ. Rolling Conf. (Rolling 2000), 24–26 May 2000, Västeras, Sweden.

Language of full-text russian
Full content Buy
Back