University of Gävle (Gävle, Sweden):

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

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.

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), 2^nd 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, 3^rd 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. 2^nd Europ. Rolling Conf. (Rolling 2000), 24–26 May 2000, Västeras, Sweden.