manual for the foundry sector - kolhapur

MB Associates

. Kolhapur Foundry (Cluster Level Report)

ENERGY CONSUMPTION,

MEASUREMENT & CONSERVATION

IN THE KOLHAPUR FOUNDRY

SECTOR

For the BEE-GEF-World Bank Project

FINANCING ENERGY EFFICENCY

AT MSMEs

A joint activity by:

Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE)

&

Institute for Industrial

Productivity (IIP)

Prepared by:

MB Associates, UK,

March 2012

MB Associates


Disclaimer

While every care has been taken in compiling this Report, neither Bureau of Energy Efficiency nor Institute for Industrial Productivity nor MB Associates, UK accepts any claim for compensation, if any entry is wrong, abbreviated, cancelled, omitted or inserted incorrectly either as to the wording, space or position in the Booklet. The case study is only an attempt to create awareness on energy conservation and sharing of best practices being adopted in India. Each recipient must conduct its own analysis of the information contained in this booklet and is advised to carry out its own investigation into the proposed project, the legislative and regulatory regime which applies there and by all matters pertinent to the proposed project and to seek its own professional advice on the technical, financial, regulatory and taxation consequences of entering into any agreement or arrangement relating to the proposed project. BEE encourages use and distribution of its publication. Content from this document may be used freely and copied accurately into other formats without prior permission, provided that proper attribution is given to the original sources, and that the content is not used for commercial purposes.

MB Associates


Contents About the Project: FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT MSMEs

11..00 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN .................................................................................................... 2

22..00 AAUUDDIITT RREESSUULLTTSS ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Comparison of Results ............................................................................................ 3

33..00 CCLLUUSSTTEERR LLEEVVEELL...................................................................................................... 4

44..00 EEXXTTRRAAPPOOLLAATTIIOONN OOFF DDAATTAA ................................................................................. 5

55..00 CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE ...................................................................... 7

5.1 Process Yield .......................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Effective Production ............................................................................................. 11

5.3 Energy Consumption ............................................................................................ 14

5.4 Sand Consumption ............................................................................................... 15

5.5 Productivity .......................................................................................................... 16

66..00 AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT OOFF PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE RREESSUULLTTSS ..................................................... 17

6.1 Process Yield ........................................................................................................ 17

6.2 Effective Production ............................................................................................. 18

6.3 Plant Utilization (TEEP) ......................................................................................... 20

6.4 Energy Consumption ............................................................................................ 20

6.5 Sand Consumption ............................................................................................... 21

6.6 Productivity .......................................................................................................... 22

77..00 CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS AANNDD RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS .................................................... 23

7.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 23

7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 24

Attachment 1................................................................................................................... 25

Attachment 2 Product and Manufacturing Method Classification ................................ 26

Attachment 3 Audited Foundries................................................................................. 27

Attachment 4 Audited Foundries Weighted Average by Tonnage ................................ 28

Attachment 5 Audited Foundries Weighted Average Performance Comparison .......... 29

Attachment 6 Total Cluster ......................................................................................... 30

Attachment 7 Total Cluster Weighted Average Performance Comparison ................... 31

MB Associates


About the Project: FINANCING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT MSMEs

The “Financing Energy Efficiency at MSMEs” project is a part of the Global

Environmental Facility (GEF) Programmatic Framework (2010-14) for Energy

Efficiency in India with an objective to increase demand for energy efficiency

investments in targeted MSMEs clusters and to build their capacity to access

commercial finance.

The GEF implementation agency for the project is World Bank. The project will be

jointly executed by Bureau of energy Efficiency (BEE) and Small Industries

Development Bank of India (SIDBI).

The project aspires to address the current gap in the understanding between energy

auditors and bank loan officers and demonstrate a viable mechanism of synergic tie-

up between MSMEs, energy auditors, financial consultants/chartered accountants,

local industrial or MSME associations and local bankers.

The five Target clusters under the GEF-World Bank project “Financing Energy

Efficiency at MSMEs” are Ankleshwar (Chemical), Faridabad (Mixed), Kolhapur

(Foundry), Pune (Forging), and Tirunelveli (Lime Kiln)

Implemented as part of the large MSME energy efficiency program of the BEE, the

project has engaged focused efforts in 5 targeted clusters, which include:

To increase demand for energy efficiency products and services, and mobilize a large

group of “decision – ready” units in partnership with local industrial associations,

energy professionals, local service providers and leading vendors of energy efficiency

equipments.

These energy efficiency demand creation activities will then be linked with the

leading programmes of various financial institutions in the specific cluster.

Based on the findings of project-supported energy audits, enlisted units shall receive

support in preparation of bankable Detailed Project Report (DPR)/ application

document in a format acceptable to the banks to process the loan applications under

current or new lending schemes and hand-holding support in reaching closure for

identified investments.

MB Associates


2

11..00 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) under its BEE-GEF-World Bank project,

“Financing Energy Efficiency at MSMEs” in partnership with the Institute for

Industrial Productivity (IIP) initiated an activity for the development of a best practice

manual for the foundry sector, focussing on Kolhapur cluster. Consequently, MB

Associates, a UK based consultancy organisation having worldwide experience

related to foundry operations was commissioned to provide industry specific

technical guidance.

The objective of this activity was to develop an understanding of the overall

performance of the Kolhapur Cluster, carry out a comparison of this performance

and provide guidance towards the methods required for improvement. This is

expected to enable the foundries to check and improve their efficiency and

consumption of resources and energy.

As a part of the assignment, MB Associates, assisted by Shivaji University, carried out

energy audit of six representative units identified by Kolhapur Engineering

Association. Following the energy audits, a brief cluster study was carried out by in

an attempt to establish an overview of the size and make-up of the cluster as a

whole.

Understanding the nature of the cluster allowed an extrapolation of the audit data

which, together with the results of the cluster study, can show the energy

consumption levels of the cluster. Such consumption levels can then be compared to

similar groups of foundries in different parts of the world. Once consumption levels

have been established for the cluster – and compared with other foundry groups –

areas of potential improvement and the required actions were identified.

This report contains with the following:

the extrapolation of the audit results

an overview of the cluster study

a comparison of the Kolhapur Cluster to performance levels in other parts of

the world

Consideration of areas where improvement is required and possible remedial

actions that should be taken.

MB Associates


3

22..00 AAUUDDIITT RREESSUULLTTSS

The six foundries where the energy audits were carried out, represented a total

annual tonnage of 83,240 or an average of 13,873 tonnes per annum per foundry.

The breakdown of this tonnage into product and manufacturing categories is given in

Attachment 1. An explanation of the categories is given in Attachment 2.

As can be seen, the audit of the six foundries provided data for 9 of the 32 categories

normally used to describe ferrous foundry operation. This is 28.1% of the total

categories.

Similarly the size of the six foundries audited can be considered to be as follows:

Large Foundries – 1

Medium Sized Foundries – 3

Small Foundries – 2

The aggregated data for all six foundries is shown in Attachment 3. The combined

data shows energy consumption for melting of 1,057 kWh/tonne with an overall

plant consumption average of 1,770 kWh per tonne of good castings.

2.1 Comparison of Results

To gauge the level of performance, this data has to be compared with similar foundry

operation in other parts of the world. In Attachment 4, the audit results have been

weighted according to the tonnage of the individual foundries. It is believed that this

gives a much more accurate view of the situation and allows for a more meaningful

comparison to other foundries or foundry groups.

Attachment 5 compares the audit results (weighted average by tonnage) with other

foundries or groups of foundries producing the same product categories with similar

equipment and of a similar size. It can be seen that there are some substantial

differences in some areas between the audit results and foundry performances in

other parts of the world. This is particularly the case for melting energy

consumption, sand reclamation and productivity.

MB Associates


4

33..00 CCLLUUSSTTEERR LLEEVVEELL

As described in the previous section, the six foundries audit consisted of one large

foundry, three medium sized foundries and two small foundries and gave an average

production of 13,873 tonnes per annum per foundry. This distribution is certainly

not typical of India as a whole where the average foundry output is around some

2,000 tonnes per annum.

In order to understand the nature of the Kolhapur Cluster, and be able to relate the

audit results to a cluster level, an overview study of the cluster was carried out.

The Kolhapur Cluster contains approximately 200 foundries with an estimated

combined tonnage output of some 450,000 tonnes per annum which equates to an

average of 2,250 tonnes per annum per foundry. As a result of the study, some

details relating to a further 39 foundries were recorded. If the original six audit

foundries are included, we have a sample of 45 foundries which represents 22.5% of

the cluster population. However, the 45 sample foundries account for 203,790

tonnes output or 45.3% of the cluster tonnage. The breakdown of this tonnage is as

follows:

Grey Iron – 154,270 tonnes (75.7%)

Ductile Iron – 33,830 tonnes (16.6%)

Carbon Steel – 10,845 tonnes (5.3%)

Alloy/Stainless Steel – 4,845 tonnes (2.4%)

The breakdown of the 45 foundries by size is as follows:

Large Foundries – 1 (2.2%)

Medium Foundries – 11 (24.4%)

Small Foundries – 33 (73.3%)

Of the small foundries, some 8 plants could be considered to be micro enterprises.

MB Associates


5

44..00 EEXXTTRRAAPPOOLLAATTIIOONN OOFF DDAATTAA

The audit and cluster study accounts for 45 foundries, and 203,790 tonnes per

annum output. The table below identifies the relative size of the foundries

concerned and identifies the nature of the remaining unidentified foundries in the

cluster.

Audited Foundries Cluster Study

Audit and Cluster Study

Kolhapur Cluster Total

Remaining Foundries

No of Foundries 6 39 45 200 155

Production Tonnage 83,240 120,550 203,790 450,000 246,210

Average Output per Foundry 13,873 3,091 4,529 2,250 1,588

As can be seen from above, the unidentified foundries must be of a much smaller size

than those audited or those identified in the cluster study. Generally speaking,

foundries increase both their operational performance and energy efficiency as they

increase in size. Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the energy efficiency of

the foundries in the study group will be lower than those audited on a tonnage

weighted average as they are larger outputs per foundry. It also follows that those

foundries in the “unidentified” group will be even less energy efficient than the study

group due to the even lower average tonnage output. Experience gained by

MB Associates in other areas of the world would tend to suggest that the relationship

is as follows:

Audited Foundries – as measured

Study Cluster – ±10% consumption

Unidentified Foundries – + 20% consumption

MB Associates


6

Extrapolation Factor

Group No of

Foundries Average

Foundry Size Total Tonnage Factor

Audited Foundries 6 13,873 83,240 1.0

Cluster Study 39 4,529 120,550 1.1

Unidentified Foundries 155 1,588 246,210 1.2

200 2,250 450,000 1.136

The assumption, therefore, is that the cluster as a whole would operate at

performance levels lower than that of the foundries audited by a ratio of 1.136.

Therefore by using the weighted average data for the audited foundries, the

projected performance criteria for the whole cluster can be calculated. This

calculation is shown in Attachment 6. This attachment estimates that the cluster as a

whole consumes 1,506 kWh to melt one tonne of material and needs 2,713 kWh to

produce one tonne of saleable castings. Thus the Kolhapur foundry cluster probably

consumes the equivalent of 1.22 million megawatt hours of energy.

MB Associates


7

55..00 CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE

A comparison of the total estimated cluster performance against foundries or groups

of foundries with similar product categories and production methods is given in

Attachment 7. An assessment of the various parameters in the comparison is given

below.

5.1 Process Yield

The melting loss of 6.5% is higher than for either the “developing countries” figure

and for Western Europe. It is 41% higher than the average of other developing

countries and more than twice that in Western Europe.

*WE - West Europe *DC - Developing Countries

Also the material lost to pig and spillage is much higher in the cluster than for either

the developing countries and for Western Europe. It is 97% higher than for similar

foundries in developing countries and again more than twice the average

performance in Western Europe.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


8

The performance in terms of running and feeding, as reported, is quite good and is at

least comparable to other parts of the world as shown below:

MB Associates


9

The scrap and reject levels are similar to those in other developing countries but

more than twice the level of the average of similar foundries in Western Europe:

It must be stressed again that the scrap and reject figures quoted above relate to the

quality standards relevant to the countries that the foundries operate in. They are

not a true direct comparison.

By using the parameters above it is possible to calculate the process yield for the

cluster and compare with similar foundries elsewhere.

MB Associates


10

Process Yield

The process yield for the Kolhapur Cluster falls between average and best practice

when compared to other developing countries. It is, however, a lower performance

than a similar foundry in Western Europe. Kolhapur Cluster foundry consumes 5.0%

more metallic materials to produce the same tonnage of castings as an average

Western Europe foundry. This figure rises to 12% when compared to a foundry

operating on best practice.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


11

5.2 Effective Production

All of the foundries in the cluster that were audited claimed to have no breakdowns

or stoppages. This is highly unlikely to be the case as can be seen with the

comparison of other foundries below:

As can be seen, the downtime of other foundries varies from 30.6% for an average

developing country foundry to as low as 10.9% for a best practice Western European

foundry.

When the plant is operating the Kolhapur Cluster foundries output is only 56.7% of

the capacity output capability. This figure is only 69% of the average figure for other

developing countries and the lost production is more than 12 times that in Western

Europe. A comparison of the lost production due to slow running is shown below:

MB Associates


12

All foundries produce a number of “bad moulds”. The figure of 2.5% is higher than

either the “developing countries” figure and for Western Europe. It is 9% higher than

the average of other developing countries and more than twice that in Western

Europe.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


13

By using the parameters above, it is possible to calculate the effective production for

the cluster and compare with similar foundries elsewhere.

Effective Production

The Kolhapur Cluster foundries have a similar performance level to the average of

other developing countries. This performance level is, however, far below best

practice and Western European levels. The effective use of production time to

produce saleable castings is 55% higher in Western Europe than in Kolhapur.

This is illustrated by the fact that the effective plant utilisation (TEEP) of a plant in

Kolhapur is only 39.3% compared to 51.9% in Western Europe. The comparison is

given below:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


14

5.3 Energy Consumption

5.3.1 Melting

The energy required to melt is 1,506 kWh per tonne charged for foundries in the

Kolhapur Cluster. This figure is 15% higher than similar foundries in other developing

countries and is nearly three times higher than a foundry in Western Europe.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


15

5.3.2 Total Consumption

The Kolhapur Cluster requires 2,713 kWh of energy to produce one tonne of good

castings. This compares well with other developing countries, but is twice the figure

for an average Western European foundry and 2.3 times the best practice.

5.4 Sand Consumption

The average consumption of new sand to produce one tonne of castings is 0.34

tonnes. This is a lower figure than for other developing countries, but is 21% higher

than the equivalent foundry in Western Europe.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


16

Part of the reason for the high consumption of sand relates to the low sand

reclamation levels. In Kolhapur the foundries reclaim and re-use only 68.1% of the

sand compared to 89.3% in other developing countries and 92.0% in Western

Europe.

5.5 Productivity

The foundries in Kolhapur require, on average, 44.8 man hours to produce one tonne

of good castings. Other developing countries have a range of 23.5–80. For Western

Europe the figure for a similar average foundry would be 17.4 man hours per tonne

and for a best practice foundry 14.4 man hours per tonne.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Kolhapur

DC Average

DC Best Practice

WE Average

WE Best Practice

MB Associates


17

66..00 AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT OOFF PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE RREESSUULLTTSS

Monitoring of the performance of the cluster is just the start of the process. It is also

necessary to try to understand why the performance is at the level that it is, and

what can be done to improve it. In this section MB Associates has tried to suggest

reasons (some specific and some generic) as to why the performance levels are as

recorded. This is based on both observations made at the time of the audits,

together with many years experience of working in Indian Foundries.

6.1 Process Yield

6.1.1 Melting Loss

The melting loss figure for the cluster of 6.5% is considered to be high. This is the

case for both foundries that melted using cupolas and those using induction

furnaces. The main reasons for excessive melting loss are:

running the level of charge materials in the stack too low; this was found to

be a very prevalent practice in Kolhapur

quality of charge material; should be clean, dry and free from excessive rust

type of charge material; induction furnaces in Kolhapur tended to use too

high amounts of chippings and turnings which was found to be often not dry

or degreased

holding material at high temperature for extended periods of time

incorrect refractory application; inferior material as a lining would cause more

slag

poor slag chemistry control

Over blowing a cupola.

6.1.2 Pig and Spillage

The pig and spillage figure for the cluster is high at 6.1%. The main reasons for

excessive pig and spillage loss are:

MB Associates


18

Incorrect metal analysis; must not be poured as would result in scrap castings

Incorrect metal temperature

Moulding line breakdown after tapping

Skill level of casters if manual pouring

Poor control of auto pour of automatic pouring.

6.1.3 Runners and Feeders (Box Yield)

Although this figure was quite good in the cluster analysis, there are still areas where

improvements can be made to the box yield:

Runners too large for the size of castings

Feeders larger than is necessary

Large pouring cups

Insufficient number of impressions per mould

Size of moulding box inappropriate for casting size.

6.1.4 Scrap and Rejects

Again the figure for scrap in the cluster was found to be high at 6.5%. There are

many specific reasons for high scrap values, but generally related to:

Lack of process control

Incorrect metallurgy

Sand related problems

Incorrect manufacturing process

Casting design.

6.2 Effective Production

6.2.1 Downtime

All of the foundries in the cluster, who were audited, reported no downtime in their

plants. This is extremely unlikely to be the case and foundries in the cluster should

MB Associates


19

monitor the levels of downtime and stoppages experienced. Normally the reasons

for excessive downtime are:

Mechanical and electrical stoppages

Waiting for metal or sand

High number of pattern changes

Operational/organisational inefficiencies

Poor scheduling.

6.2.2 Slow Running

When the plant is running the foundries in the cluster only make half the moulds that

they should do with the equipment available. Reasons for excessive slow running

are:

very low level of basic handling equipment available

difficult casting to mould in normal moulding cycle time

series of small stoppages not recorded in the downtime figure – it is believed

that this is probably the reason why the Kolhapur foundries have no recorded

downtime

individual operations not synchronised with moulding operation

long pouring times for very heavy castings

Poor supervision.

6.2.3 Bad Moulds

A high bad moulds figure of 6.5% was recorded for the cluster. Reasons for excessive

bad moulds are:

Sand condition

Pattern condition

Moulding machine alignment

Non poured moulds.

MB Associates


20

6.3 Plant Utilization (TEEP)

The average plant utilisation to produce good castings for the foundries in the cluster

was less than 40%. This is a dangerous figure as too many small foundries with low

TEEP values will produce a cluster that is very vulnerable when economic conditions

change. Foundries must learn to improve their plant utilisation. Many of the

foundries concerned could and should produce their output on one shift, if they

improve their efficiency, instead of working three shifts. Reasons for low TEEP are:

The practice of melting and moulding on alternate days

Low effective production values

Lack of orders

Limited electricity available

Electricity penalty tariff during peak hours

Shortage of suitable labour

Local authority restrictions.

6.4 Energy Consumption

6.4.1 Melting

The energy consumption figure for melting in the cluster averaged at an equivalent

of 1,506 kWh per tonne charged. This is a very high figure. Reasons for low electrical

melting efficiency are:

Electrically inefficient old equipment

Holding liquid metal for long periods of time

Outdated procedures for operating the melting process (specific to arc furnaces)

Low power density furnaces causing long tap to tap times (specific to arc furnaces).

Reasons for low combustion melting efficiency are:

poor quality coke

incorrect blast rate

MB Associates


21

incorrect blast pressure

outdated or incorrect cupola design - it is believed that this is the largest single reason for high energy consumption in the cluster; almost all cupolas did not conform to an acceptable design

poor slag chemistry control

6.4.2 Total Energy Consumption

At twice the consumption as Western European foundry, the figure for the cluster of

2,713 kWh per tonne of good castings is too high. Reasons for high total energy

consumption are:

Inefficient production process

Low levels of process yield

Inefficient melting plant

Extensive heat treatment cycles

Inefficient heating and ventilation system

Lack of energy awareness.

6.5 Sand Consumption

The average new sand consumption of 0.34 tonnes per tonne of good castings is too

high and needs to be reduced. Reasons for excessive new sand consumption are:

Large or intensive core making requirements

Low sand to metal ratio causing high sand burnout

Poor quality sand (roundness, size distribution, refractoriness, pH)

Use of binder system where the sand cannot be reclaimed.

A substantial issue for the cluster is the low level of sand reclamation at only 68.1%.

Reasons for low rates of sand reclamation are:

Poor efficiency reclamation plant

No reclamation plant at all

Use of a binder system which is difficult/impossible to reclaim

High core usage

MB Associates


22

High burnout levels

Poor sand quality.

6.6 Productivity

The cluster has an average productivity figure of 44.8 man hours per tonne of good

castings. This figure must be reduced before the level of wages starts to rise as it

inevitably will. Reasons for low labour productivity are:

Low grade of mechanisation/automation

Overmanned

Business processes and operational practices.

MB Associates


23

77..00 CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS AANNDD RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

7.1 Summary

Based on the audit of six foundries and the Cluster study (which added another 39

units), the following comments can be made in relation to the performance levels

and energy consumption profiles, for the Kolhapur foundry cluster:

Operational performance levels of foundries in the cluster are significantly

lower than those in Western Europe and, for some parameters, lower than

those in other developing countries.

The energy consumption for melting in the cluster is some 15% higher than

similar foundries in other developing countries. It is 2.7 tonnes higher than

that of an average foundry in Western Europe.

A foundry in the cluster requires twice the total energy to produce one tonne

of castings when compared to an average foundry in Western Europe. The

ratio rises to 2.3 times for a best practice foundry.

A foundry in the cluster consumes 5% more metallic raw materials than the

equivalent average foundry in Western Europe. This additional consumption

rises to 12% when compared to a best practice foundry. Energy is required to

transport process and handle the additional material consumption which is

not included in the audit figures.

A foundry in the cluster consumes 21% more new sand to produce a tonne of

castings that its average counterpart in Western Europe. This figure rises to

42% when compared to a best practice foundry. As with the raw materials,

there is an additional energy consumption to transport and process this

additional sand which is not recorded in the audit results.

Foundries in the cluster reclaim and re-use only 68.1% of their sand compared

to 89.3% in other developing countries, 92.0% in an average Western

European foundry and 93.9% for best practice foundries. Obviously the sand

not reclaimed has to be transported away and dumped

MB Associates is of the view that a performance and consumption profile as

indicated above, if not improved, represents a significant threat to some of the

MB Associates


24

foundries in the Kolhapur Cluster – and probably many others in the Indian foundry

industry as well.

7.2 Recommendations

MB Associates would strongly recommend that the following actions should be

taken:

Extend the foundry audits in the Kolhapur Cluster. This will remove some of

the assumptions made and improve the accuracy of the extrapolation from

audit to cluster level.

Initiate a programme of performance improvement and energy saving

initiatives in selected foundries within the Kolhapur Cluster. This could

include such items as cupola design, operational efficiencies, scrap reduction

and process technology changes.

Transfer the initial foundry audit and cluster study initiative to other foundry

clusters within India to check the relative performance and energy

consumption indices.

MB Associates


25

Attachment 1

Tonnage Distribution by Category

Category Tonnage Percentage

GABH 1,260 1.5%

GAAG 38,640 46.4%

GMAG 1,620 1.9%

GMGE 16,620 20.0%

GHGE 9,960 12.0%

DAGE 2,100 2.5%

DMAU 6,480 7.8%

DMGE 6,480 7.8%

DHGE 80 0.1%

MB Associates


26

Attachment 2 Product and Manufacturing Method Classification

Grey iron product categories Ductile iron product categories Steel product categories Automatic moulding GABH = automotive engine blocks and

cylinder heads GAAO = automotive other GAAG = agriculture GAMI = mining

Automatic moulding DAAU = automotive other DAGE = general engineering

Automatic moulding SARC = railway components (c) SAMM = mining components (m) SAAC = commercial vehicles (c) SAGC = general engineering

Mechanised moulding GMBH = medium sized engine blocks and

heads (energy generation) GMAG = agriculture GMMI = mining GMGE = general engineering

Mechanised moulding DMAU = automotive DMGE = general engineering

Mechanised moulding SMRC = railway components (c) SMMM =mining components (m) SMPC = pumps and valves (c) SMPS = pumps and valves (s) SMGC = general engineering (c) SMAC = commercial vehicles (c)

Manual (hand) moulding GHBH = large size engine blocks and

heads (energy generation) GHMI = mining GHGE = general engineering

Manual (hand) moulding DHEN = energy generation components DHCO = compressor components DHGE = general engineering

Manual (hand) moulding SHMM = mining components (c) SHPC = pumps and valves (c) SHEA = energy components (a) SHGC = general engineering (c)

c = carbon steel, s = stainless steel m = manganese steel, a = high alloy steel

MB Associates


27

Attachment 3 Audited Foundries

Audited Foundries

Melting Loss 6.8% Pig & Spillage 4.6% Runners & Feeders 19.7% Scrap & Rejects 4.6%

Process Yield 68.1%

Downtime Nil Slow Running 50.0% Bad Moulds 2.4% Scrap & Rejects 4.6%

Effective Production 46.6%

TEEP 28.8%

Energy Consumption Per Tonne Melted 1057 kWh Per Tonne Good Castings 1770 kWh

Sand Consumption New Sand/tonnes castings 0.50 t

Cores/tonnes castings 0.08 t Sand Reclamation 59.0%

Productivity Man hours/tonnes castings 48.9

Direct Ratio 4

MB Associates


28

Attachment 4 Audited Foundries Weighted Average by Tonnage

Audited Foundries Audited Foundries Weighted Average

Melting Loss 6.8% 5.7% Pig & Spillage 4.6% 5.4% Runners & Feeders 19.7% 22.7% Scrap & Rejects 4.6% 5.7%

Process Yield 68.1% 65.0%

Downtime Nil Nil Slow Running 50.0% 38.1% Bad Moulds 2.4% 2.2% Scrap & Rejects 4.6% 5.7%

Effective Production 46.6% 57.1%

TEEP 28.8% 43.4%

Energy Consumption Per Tonne Melted 1057 kWh 1326 kWh Per Tonne Good Castings 1770 kWh 2388 kWh

Sand Consumption New Sand/tonnes castings 0.50 t 0.30 t Cores/tonnes castings 0.08 t 0.09 t Sand Reclamation 59.0% 77.4%

Productivity Man hours/tonnes castings 48.9 39.4 Direct Ratio 4 3.9

MB Associates


29

Attachment 5 Audited Foundries Weighted Average Performance

Comparison

Audited Foundries Weighted Average

Developing Countries Western Europe

Average Performance Best Practice


Melting Loss 5.7% 4.6% 2.4% 2.0% 1.0% Pig & Spillage 5.4% 3.1% 1.9% 2.6% 2.1%

Runners & Feeders 22.7% 35.2% 20.8% 30.8% 27.2%

Scrap & Rejects 5.7% 6.5% 4.9% 3.0% 2.3%

Process Yield 65.0% 56.0% 72.1% 64.1% 68.9%

Downtime Nil 30.6% 12.6% 13.4% 10.9% Slow Running 38.1% 18.1% 1.0% 3.5% 2.9%

Bad Moulds 2.2% 2.3% 1.5% 0.9% 0.6%

Scrap & Rejects 5.7% 6.5% 4.9% 3.0% 2.3%

Effective Production 57.1% 51.9% 80.9% 80.3% 84.0%

TEEP 43.4% 19.8% 33.0% 51.9% 61.5%

Energy Consumption Per Tonne Melted 1326 kWh 1312 kWh 716 kWh 568 kWh 554 kWh

Per Tonne Good Castings 2388 kWh 3967 kWh 3169 kWh 1347 kWh 1169 kWh

Sand Consumption New Sand/t castings 0.30 t 0.75 t 0.39 t 0.28 t 0.24 t

Sand Reclamation 77.4% 89.3% 93.3% 92.0% 93.9%

Productivity Man hours/t castings 39.4 80.4 23.5 17.4 14.4

MB Associates


30

Attachment 6 Total Cluster

Audited Foundries Weighted Average

Total Cluster Weighted Average

Melting Loss 5.7% 6.5% Pig & Spillage 5.4% 6.1% Runners & Feeders 22.7% 25.8% Scrap & Rejects 5.7% 6.5%

Process Yield 65.0% 60.9%

Downtime Nil Nil Slow Running 38.1% 43.3% Bad Moulds 2.2% 2.5% Scrap & Rejects 5.7% 6.5%

Effective Production 57.1% 51.7%

TEEP 43.4% 39.3%

Energy Consumption Per Tonne Melted 1326 kWh 1506 kWh Per Tonne Good Castings 2388 kWh 2713 kWh

Sand Consumption New Sand/tonnes castings 0.30 t 0.34 t Cores/tonnes castings 0.09 t 0.10 t Sand Reclamation 77.4% 68.1%

Productivity Man hours/tonnes castings 39.4 44.8 Direct Ratio 3.9 3.4

MB Associates


31

Attachment 7 Total Cluster Weighted Average Performance

Comparison

Total Cluster Weighted Average

Developing Countries Western Europe



Melting Loss 6.5% 4.6% 2.4% 2.0% 1.0% Pig & Spillage 6.1% 3.1% 1.9% 2.6% 2.1%

Runners & Feeders 25.8% 35.2% 20.8% 30.8% 27.2%

Scrap & Rejects 6.5% 6.5% 4.9% 3.0% 2.3%

Process Yield 60.9% 56.0% 72.1% 64.1% 68.9%

Downtime Nil 30.6% 12.6% 13.4% 10.9% Slow Running 43.3% 18.1% 1.0% 3.5% 2.9%

Bad Moulds 2.5% 2.3% 1.5% 0.9% 0.6%

Scrap & Rejects 6.5% 6.5% 4.9% 3.0% 2.3%

Effective Production 51.7% 51.9% 80.9% 80.3% 84.0%

TEEP 39.3% 19.8% 33.0% 51.9% 61.5%

Energy Consumption Per Tonne Melted 1506 kWh 1312 kWh 716 kWh 568 kWh 554 kWh

Per Tonne Good Castings 2713 kWh 3967 kWh 3169 kWh 1347 kWh 1169 kWh

Sand Consumption New Sand/t castings 0.34 t 0.75 t 0.39 t 0.28 t 0.24 t

Sand Reclamation 68.1% 89.3% 93.3% 92.0% 93.9%

Productivity Man hours/t castings 44.8 80.4 23.5 17.4 14.4

manual for the foundry sector - kolhapur

Documents

mb associates

energy conservation

financing energy efficiency

proposed project

kolhapur foundry sector

industrial productivity

sand consumption

measurement conservation