The Economics of Hardfacing: Home Page

THE ECONOMICS OF HARDFACING
Page 1 of 10
THE ECONOMICS OF HARDFACING Home Page

1.1 General The importance of hardfacing is widely recognized. There are many documented instances of savings that have been made in many industries by the use of hardfacing. However, this does not imply that hardfacing is best in all instances and an analysis of the costs involved in hardfacing and other alternatives should be made. The accurate calculation of costs involved may be quite complex, as many factors must be considered to determine whether hardfacing is cost effective. This section explains in detail the factors involved in costing. It is necessary that these factors be understood since their importance will differ from job to job and from workshop to workshop. Labor and overhead will always be major costs and will vary depending on company, size, complexity, technology level and type of output. It is essential that each organization keeps accurate cost data concerning their own particular operation since reliable costing will be required for quotations, comparison between maintenance methods, evaluation of design and evaluation of welding procedures. While labor and overhead, and material costs are the easiest costs to identify in computing the cost of any hardfacing application, the following factors should be considered, since they also will impact the total cost of the job.
(a)
Design
The design or geometry of the original component will determine the amount of weld deposit required and ease of applying it.
(b)
Position
The highest deposition rates are achieved in the flat and horizontal positions.
(c)
Process
The welding process and process parameters (procedure) chosen will govern the time required as determined by deposition rate, deposition efficiency and operator factor.
(d)
Costs
Additional costs associated with the work such as transportation, machining, heat treatment and inspection.
A comparison of deposition rates, expressed as pounds per hour, at different current setting is shown in Table 1.1.A. Current/Amps
110 125
Stick Electrode
1.8 2.0
Semi-Automatic
-
Submerged Arc
3
http://www.postle.com/ECONOMICS%20OF%20HARDFACING.htm
1/18/2013
Page 2 of 10
150 175 200 225 275 325 375 425 475 525
2.6 3.0 3.7 4.2 7.0 9.0 -
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -
4 4 6 8 10 12 14 17 20 24
Deposition efficiency is expressed as a percentage and is determined by dividing the weight of metal deposited by the weight of the consumable expressed as a percentage. Efficiencies will vary with process as shown in Table 1.1.B. Process
Manual (flux-coated electrode) GTAW (TIG) GMAW (solid and metal-cored) FCAW (open-arc or gas-shielded) SAW (submerged arc) Gas Welding (bare rod)
Deposition Efficiency %
60-70 95 95 85-90 90-95 (wire only) 95
Operator factor or efficiency is expressed as a percentage and is the effective deposition hours divided by total hours expressed as a percentage. Time study methods or arc monitors are used to determine the operator factor and some typical factors are shown in Table 1.1.C.
Table 1.1.C. Operating Factors Process

Manual GTAW GMAW FCAW SAW
*Semi automatic processes
Operating Factor %
30 20 60 60 65
Activities that affect the operator factor include: preparation, setting up, idle time, instruction, crane time, preheating, deslagging, operator skill and degree of automation.
1.2. Hardfacing Cost Calculation

1. Flux Cost (submerged arc welding only) per lb of weld metal deposited Unit Price ($/lb) x Consumption Rate (lb/hr) Deposition Rate of Wire (lb/hr)
(generally 1 lb of flux is used for each pound of wire deposited)
1/18/2013
Page 3 of 10
2.
Shielding Gas Cost (gas shielded processed only) per lb of weld metal deposited Unit Price ($/ft3) x Flow Rate (ft3/hr) Deposition Rate of Wire (lb/hr)
Example: Argon/CO2 @ $.15/ft3 Flow Rate of 30 ft3 per hour Deposition Rate of Wire @ 7 lbs/hr $0.15 x 7 30 = $.64/lb
3.
Power Cost per lb of weld metal deposited [Unit price ($/kw hour) x kw per hour] Deposition Rate (lb/hr)
Example Power Cost @ $0.126/kw hour Kilowatts = (welding volts x welding amps) 1000 Voltage @ 21 Current @ 200 amps $0.126 x Deposition Rate of Wire @ 7 lbs/lb 7
4.2
$.08/lb
4.
Welding Material Cost per lb of weld metal deposited Wire/Electrode Price ($/lb) Deposition efficiency (%)
Example Welding Wire @ $5/lb Deposit Efficiency @ 95% $5 .95 = $5.26
5.
Labor Cost per lb of weld metal deposited Labor Charge ($/hr) [Deposition Rate (lb/hr) x Operating factor (%)]
Example
Labor Cost @ $25/lb Deposition Rate @ 7 lbs/hr Operating Factor @ 60%
$25 x .60
$5.95/lb
6.
Overhead Cost per lb of weld metal deposited Overhead price ($/hr) [(Deposition Rate (lb/hr) x Operating factor (%)]
1/18/2013
Page 4 of 10
Example
Labor Cost @ $10/lb Deposition Rate @ 7 lbs/hr Operating Factor @ 60%
$10 x .60
$2.38/lb
7.
Total Cost per lb of weld metal deposited
Flux Cost + Gas Cost + Power Cost + Material Cost + Labor Cost + Overhead Cost Total cost to deposit one pound of hardfacing alloy (.64 +.08 + 5.26 + 5.95 + 2.38) = 14.31
8.
TOTAL COST OF HARDFACED COMPONENT

Note: Steel Density = 0.3 lbs/cu. in = .008kg/cu. cm
Width of hardfacing (in) x Thickness of hardfacing (in) x Length of hardfacing (in) x Total cost/lb (7 above) x 0.3 = Total hardfacing cost x Metric Equivalent - Width of hardfacing (cm) x Thickness of hardfacing (cm) x Length of hardfacing (cm) x Total cost/kg (7 above) x .008 = Total hardfacing cost This calculation provides the means to determine the total cost of depositing a hardfacing layer of a given thickness based on a given width and length, with the deposited cost per pound previously determined.
1.3
Cost Advantage
The determination of the cost advantage of hardfacing over replacement enables management to reach an informed decision on whether to hardface a particular component. The cost advantage (CA) of hardfacing compared with a new component, in $ per unit output, is given by: Equation 1: CA = PCN OPN PCR OPR
Where
PCN
= Prime cost of new component = Cost of new component + downtime cost (new)
1/18/2013
Page 5 of 10
PCR OPN OPR
= Prime cost of hardfacing ($) = Cost of hardfacing + downtime cost (hardfacing) = Work output during life of new component = Work output during life of hardfaced component
Where there is a positive cost advantage, hardfacing is likely to be the best solution, and an indication of the annual cost savings can be determined.
This simple equation for cost advantage does not take into account factors such as plant depreciation and replacement, cost of capitalization, taxation benefits, and other factors that may affect the decision.
Most of the data needed for the above calculation is relatively easy to obtain and will be available as predetermined costs in many shops. The cost of hardfacing can be calculated using the method shown in Table 1.3.
Other factors may require consideration, such as the value of work output for the hardfaced component which may not be known and has to be estimated initially.
1/18/2013
Page 6 of 10
1.4.
Annual Cost Savings and Extra Expenditure
Where significant extra expenditure is required to implement a new hardfacing repair method which has a positive cost advantage from equation 1, a supporting case will normally be required by management. Data required will include the annual cost savings and extra expenditure.
The annual cost savings (CS) expressed in $/year by using hardfacing instead of a new component is given by equation 2:
Equation 2:
CS = CA x PR
CA PR
= =
Cost advantage from equation 1 ($/unit output). Production rate (Averaged over the year including downtime, and here assumed equal for both new and repaired components) (unit output/year).
Example 1 Shear blade for Cold Punching (18 mm) Mild Steel
New Component
Blade cost Installation cost Downtime cost Prime cost - new
=$100 =$20/hr x 0.5hr = $10 =$210.00/hr x 0.5hr = $105 =215
Work output - new Cost per cut
=2000 cuts =0.1075
1/18/2013
Page 7 of 10
Hardfaced Component
Cost of hardfacing (see 1.2)
=$60
Installation cost and downtime cost
=$115 (same as new component since a second blade had already been hardfaced.
Prime cost - hardfaced
=175
Work output - hardfaced Cost per cut
=11,500 cuts =0.0152
Cost Advantage (CA) =
215 2000
175 = 0.1075 - 0.0152 11500
Savings
= $0.0923 per cut
Note: The figures shown are hypothetical.
This shows a positive cost advantage, meaning hardfacing is beneficial. A reduced prime cost for the hardfacing method contributes to this advantage, but the increased work output is the major contribution.
If the usage of the shear blade increases to 46000 cuts per year the savings increases as follows:
= =
0.0923 x 46000 $4246 (i.e. annual saving by using hardfacing instead of new component).
1/18/2013
Page 8 of 10
Example 2 Clinker Crusher
At the exit from the furnace is the clinker crusher, on which the hammers had to be changed every month. The shutdown of this crusher to change the set of 36 hammers caused a production shutdown lasting 2 days.
Cost of Lost Production:
2 days at 1000 tons/day and $17 per ton
$34,000
Cost of Set of 36 hammers:
Cost of 36 hammers
$450.
Labor and overhead
$300.
Total cost of machine downtime
$34,750.
Annual loss through 12 shutdowns
$417,000.
After a careful study, a hard overlay using a continuous wire was applied and enabled the service life of the hammers to be prolonged by 100% - i.e. from one to two months. Downtime and production
1/18/2013
Page 9 of 10
costs were halved and productivity increased.
Cost of lost production:
$34,000 x 6 =
$204,000
Cost of hammers:
($450 + $300) x 6 =
$4,500
Cost of hardfacing overlay:
$550 x 6 =
$3,300
Total annual cost:
$211,800
Total annual saving: ($417,000 - $211,800)
$205,200
Home Page
1/18/2013
Page 10 of 10
1/18/2013

The Economics of Hardfacing: Home Page

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Economics of Hardfacing: Home Page

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE ECONOMICS OF HARDFACING