New Approaches to Clay Control in Green Sand-Phase 2 (12-13#02a)
Coordinator: Dr. Sam Ramrattan, Western Michigan Univer- sity and AFS Green Sand Molding Committee (4-M)
Measurement of live clay in molding sand is critical to control of foundry green sand. Live clay levels must be controlled to develop and maintain proper strength levels and mechanical properties of the molding sand. Control of the live clay level is also critical to control moisture and compactability because clay is the primary moisture absorber in molding sand. If clay level could be better controlled, the moisture and compactability could be more closely controlled. Inadequate control of com- pactability is the leading cause of green sand casting defects, and the associated costs of scrap, rework, labor, and energy to individual foundries and the industry as whole warrant investi- gations into alternative methods of control.
The foundry industry needs a faster, more accurate, and low cost alternative to properly measure active clay in green sand. The Methylene Blue Clay techniques employed by the foundry industry for measuring active clay suffer poor reproducibility and are thus incapable of maintaining accuracy. Casting defects are consistently attributed to variations in green sand systems and limitations of the clay control methods for green sand. A better clay measurement and control program is necessary to improve green sand systems. Western Michigan University has a new set of tests that can be used as process control tools to characterize and measure clays in green sand. This study ex- plores the applicability of these tests to measure and control clay in green sand.
The AFS Green Sand Additives and Testing Committee (4-H) has been interested in finding a replacement for the Methy- lene Blue Clay Test as well as in studies of the heat damage to clays. The purpose of this study is to determine the ef- fectiveness of using alternative in-process tests for measuring active clay in green sand while simultaneously studying the heat damage to clays.
With research support from AFS during Phase 1, Western Michigan University (WMU) has developed a new method- ology based on dye absorption for measuring clays in green sand. The new procedure provides a direct instrument read that requires minimal operator training. In addition, the con- sumables are environmentally friendly, of lower cost and with easier clean-up compared to the current AFS Methylene Blue Clay standard. The AFS 4H Committee had endorsed Phase 1 efforts at WMU and during Phase 2 the AFS Green Sand Molding Committee (4-M) has identified a Steering Commit- tee that is willing to assist with plant trials and evaluation of the proposed test procedure. The purpose of this new phase of research is to further refine the dye absorption technique, and to develop a standard absorption curve for specific work- ing foundry sand. This will take the efforts of Phase 1 from an experimental lab test to one that can replace the existing MB Clay test. Besides the support of AFS, the NewGen Sand Consortium has agreed to fund half the Phase 2 project costs
88
and also assist with project monitoring. This is the first project sponsored by the NewGen Sand consortium and represents a unique collaborative effort.
Status Update: The Phase 2 work was extended to complete verification work. It included further refinement of the test and investigation of how it performs against various sand mixtures and foundry plant trials is being conducted at (5) foundries and WMU. The work is being monitored by the AFS Green Sand Molding Committee (4-M). Continued training and verification of the test is being done by the working group, including 1-day workshops at WMU. Once this activity is complete, a Phase 3 will be proposed with the purpose to conduct more exten- sive industrial trials, look at the effects of secondary foundry green sand additives on the test-to-test variability and create a standardized and validated test approach to be included in the AFS Core and Molding Handbook. Those wishing more information about the project, or participation should contact the Steering Committee chair Mike Slaydon at mslaydon@
rochestermetals.com or Dr. Sam Ramrattan at sam.ramrattan@
wmich.edu.
Identifying, Implementing and Sustaining Energy Savings (12-13#03)
Coordinator: James Wiczer, PhD, Sensor Synergy and AFS Energy Committee (1-G)
In order to reduce operational costs associated with operating individual pieces of equipment and processes, it is necessary to understand all of the costs associated with these opera- tions. One major cost category often neglected is the cost of the power required to operate equipment. This cost category can be very significant but it is often inconvenient to mea- sure and identify these costs. In fact, currently in foundries and other manufacturing facilities, there is very limited use of power monitoring for individual pieces of equipment. Due to perceived difficulties in monitoring power used for individual melts or production batches, power costs are frequently lumped with other overhead costs as necessary expenses that cannot be associated with a specific piece of equipment, process, or prod- uct. These power costs are usually viewed as costs that must be incurred in order to operate a facility but cannot be reduced, modified, or audited in detail.
Monitoring of power used by individual pieces of equipment is essential to control power costs and conserve energy. In order to reduce usage, management and staff must have ac- cess to real-time measured power-use information to be able to associate cause and effect for equipment and processes. Typically, costs of electricity, natural gas and other sources of power used in foundry operations are lumped into monthly or batch invoices. For the case of electricity costs, a monthly in- voice from the local electric utility typically provides the costs for all electricity used by the entire facility during a month- long period. From this monthly aggregate information, it is extremely difficult or impossible to determine the cost of operating a particular piece of equipment for a single batch, melt, production run, or time interval.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 8, Issue 2, 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97