Reduction of Coke Rate from 428 kg/thm to 408 kg/thm at ‘I ...Blast Furnace 1 2 Reduction of Coke Rate will impact the Perceived Opportunity –Reduction of Hot Metal Cost 3 Improvement

1

Reduction of Coke Rate

from 428 kg/thm to 408

kg/thm at ‘I’ Blast Furnace

1

Vineet R TripathiHead Operation ‘I’ Blast Furnace

S. SubhachandharManager Operations & Support ‘I’ Blast Furnace

Tata Steel … values stronger than steel

2© Copyright 2017 Tata Steel. All Rights Reserved

1

5

500

81K28

110

First Integrated Steel Plant

in Asia

Over 28 Million tonnes of Steel

Produced p.a

Providing customized solutions across 5

continents

One of the few steel industries to

feature in FORTUNE500

Conglomerate with over 81,000

employee

110 Years of Successful operation

2

‘I’ Blast Furnace… Journey of Excellence : 2012 - 2017


2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Breaking the

Deadlock

• First breakthrough

in Operational

Efficiency – Tata

Steel benchmark

• Reduction of CO2

Emission to Indian

Benchmark

• Shram Bhushan

Award recipient

from Hon. President

of India

Outperforming

Ourselves

• Highest Ever Production

• Lowest Ever Coke Rate and

Highest Coal Injection –

Indian Benchmark

• Lowest Ever Utilities &

Consumable consumption

• Achieved Status of Power

Neutrality – We Consume

what we produce

Going Green

& Up skilling

Manpower

• Zero Effluent

Discharge for the first

time

• Highest Power

Generation

• 100% Involvement of

I BF manpower in

Improvement

Frameworks – TPM &

SGA

Pursuit of

Excellence in

Safety

• Centre for

Excellence in

Process Safety

• 1000 days of LTI

Free Operations

• Exemplar in Road

Safety Performance

in Tata Steel

World Class

Commissioning

• Benchmark Ramp

to the Rated

Capacity

• Leanest Man-

Power Blast

Furnace in Tata

Steel India &

EuropeCo

mm

issi

on

ing

of

I BF

–4

thA

pri

l 20

12

INDEX


Project and Team Selection 1 Slides – < 5 - 17 >

Current Situation and Improvement Opportunity Analysis 2

Solution / Improvement Development 3

Implementation and Results Verification 4

Sustaining Results Over Time 5

Beyond Results : Awards & Accolades 6

6’

7’

5’

6’

3’

3’

Slides - < 18 – 31>

Slides - < 32 – 48 >

Slides - < 49 – 59 >

Slides - < 60 – 63 >

Slides - < 64 – 66 >

3

Project and Team Selection1


Understanding the Context of the Project Selection

Project & Team Selection

Current Situation and Improvement

Opportunity Analysis

Improvement Development

Implementation & Result Verification

Sustaining & Communicating

Results

1.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.1.1.1 – Who was responsible for the selecting the project ?1.1.1.2 – What background information on the company or those who selected the project was provided to better understand the context of the project ?


Elaborate Project Selection Framework following ‘Top – Down’ ApproachTeam Responsible for

Selection of the project

Background Information for the selection of the project

1

2

4

The current position of I BF also states that there is scope of improvement







Results

Project Selection Process1.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.2.1.1 – How was the gap or opportunity brought to the attention of the project identification group ?1.2.1.2 – What was the opportunity (process improvement) ?


Company Level Strategy

(Tata Steel)

Increasing the savings by INR

2000 Cr

Divisional Level Strategy

(Iron Making)

Reduce the Cost of Divisions

product

Departmental Level Strategy (Blast Furnace)

Reduction of Hot Metal Cost

Cost Break Up of Finished Steel60 % of Cost of Hot metal is

incurred through Coke & Coal consumption in Blast Furnace

70%

30%

Bringing the Opportunity to the Attention of Project Identification Group1 Opportunity

Scope







Results

Project Selection Process1.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.2.1.3 – What area of the organization had the gap or opportunity ?


Opportunity

42% of the cost of Finished steel comes from the coke and

coal consumed in Blast Furnace – OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THE COKE CONSUMPTION & IMPACT

THE BOTTOMLINE

What ?

Area of Opportunity Identified

‘Blast Furnace’

Where ?2 3

60 % of Cost of Hot metal is incurred through Coke & Coal consumption in Blast Furnace ‘I’ Blast Furnace

5

To align the project to the strategic priority

To understand the current situation and scope for improvement

To identify the various cost affecting parameters

Project Selection Process







Results

1.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.2.2.1 – What data was generated to help select the project ?1.2.2.2 – What methods and tools were used to assess or prioritize the need for the project ?1.2.2.3 – Why were these methods and tools used to select the project ?


Dat

a G

ener

ated Input from BO&S

Operational Data

From Business Analysis Group

List of projects shortlisted

Prioritization Method used‘Project Prioritization Matrix’

S.No Project Legend Ease of Implementation Business Impact Strategic Priority

1Elimination of Nut Coke Discharge from I

BF Stock HouseA 1.2 3.8 6.5

2 Reduction in cold blast humidity B 1.6 3.5 5.9

3 Increase Gas Utilisation by 2% C 2.8 3.1 4.5

4 Reducing Carbon Rate D 2.9 4 6

5 Reduction of Coke Rate E 2.1 5 10

6Increasing HM Si Compliance(0.6

6

Team Selection and Preparation







Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.1.1 – How was the stakeholder groups identified ?1.3.1.2 – What or who were the stakeholder groups ?


1 All the Stakeholders were identified through the tool SIPOC

Raw Materials Management

Coke Plant

Sinter Plant

Pellet Plant

Fuel Management Division

Power House

Maintenance Team

Coke, Sinter, Pellet, Iron ore, Nut Coke, Fluxes, Cold

Blast, BF Gas, Humidity, Oxygen, Coal, Nitrogen

Blast Furnace Process

Hot Metal, Slag, BF Gas, Electric Power

Hot Metal Logistics

Steel Making Shop

Fuel Management Division

Slag Granulation and Drying Plant

Project Steering Committee

Project Mentor

Project Team Process Owner *Stakeholders2








Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.2.1 – What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the project ?1.3.2.2 – To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required ?1.3.2.3 – What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful ?


1

3

2 Stakeholder Knowledge assessment was made and accordingly training requirement was identifiedY – Already Trained, NA – Not Applicable, N – To be Trained

7








Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.3.1 – Before the project started, what specific training was done ?


1 Specific Training Imparted to specific Team Based on the Gaps identified

• Training were imparted based on the Gaps Identified, from the brainstorming sessions of the team. • Dedicated classroom sessions were organized with the help of Tata Management Development Centre & Total

Quality Management








Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.3.2 – Before the project started, what was done to prepare the team to work together as a team ?


2 Preparing the team, as a ‘Team’

Project Kick Off Meeting

Project Discussion with Team Lead

Workshop with the Project Members & Process Owners

Project Plan Formulation

Meeting of Project Steering

Committee to set business context and deliverables

Elaborating the project requirements to the Team

Leader and finalizing the Project Team Members

Workshop of Project Members & Process Owners with the Project Steering Committee where is context is set

and Team discussion of what each members can contribute and training needs were identified

The Team Brainstormed and planned the project ahead

To foster smooth functioning of the team thefollowing steps were taken• SharePoint – Common Repository was created

with access to all the stakeholders• A Group e-mail ID was created

8








Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.4.1 – What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project ?


Role ProjectMentor

Project Leader

Team Member

Team Member

Team Member

TeamMember

Process Owners

Name Amit Singh Vineet R. Tripathi

Subhachandhar S

Basant Kr Singh

Sanjiv Kumar Samik Nag Ujjal Ghosh / RajkumarVishwakarma

Designation Chief, I BF Head Operation

Manager Operations

Process Analyst, I BF

Sr Mgr, BF Process Analysis, Technology Group

Head, BFResearch & Development

Sr Mgr & MgrOprns

Expectation Guide the Team for Successful completion of the project

Team the Lead,Collaborate with various stakeholders and Problem Solving Expert

Data Analysis, Quality Assurance and Customer Relations

Process Expert & Data Analysis

Data Analysis, Process Expert

Process Modeling and Blast Furnace Simulations

Owners of Process & Successful implementation

Roles & expectation from the Team Members1








Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.4.2 – What deadlines and deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of actually starting the project ?


2 Deadlines and Deliverables

Phase Deliverables Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

DefineProject Selection , Project Charter Preparation, SIPOC

MeasureCause Effect Analysis, Root Cause Analysis, Data Collection Plan

AnalyzeIdentify and Validate the vital affecting kpis

ImproveGeneration of possible solution, prioritization and Validation through piloting

ControlProcess Control Analysis,Standardising the Procedure & Communication to the team

5th May 2015

20th Jun 2015

20th Oct 2015

31st Dec 2015

31st Mar 2016

9








Results

1.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

1.3.4.3 – Before the project started, what team routines, including communications, were established ?


3 Team Routines

S.No Meeting Frequency Chair Details

1 Group Internal Meeting Need Based - Lync Meetings(VC) & Discussion regd the progress of any analysis

2 Project Assessment by Team Lead

Weekly Team Leader Assessment of Progress

3 Meeting with the TeamMentor

Bi Weekly Team Mentor Assessment of Project Progress & Revisiting Charter

4 Meeting with Technology Group and R&D

Bi Weekly Team Leader Results Validation and Inputs for Analysis

5 Project Steering Committee Review

Monthly Project Steering Committee

Assessing Progress and revisiting targets and charter

6 VP Project Review Quarterly Vice President Review of Project

Current Situation & Improvement

Opportunity Analysis2


10

Key Measures Expected of the Project







Results

2.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.1.1.1 – What specific goals and/or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project ?2.1.1.2 – What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and / or measures was the project expected to impact ?


Improvement Opportunity

Current Performance (kg/thm)

Target (kg/thm)

Coke Rate 428 408

Project Statement : Reduction of Coke Rate of ‘I’ Blast Furnace by 5%, thereby save INR 20 Cr in FY 16

1

Thereby the reduction of Cost of Hot Metal

Reduction of Coke Rate Reduction of Hot Metal Cost

Reduction of Carbon Footprint

Improvement in Productivity

2

*Additional Benefits

Project Benefit

Possible Root Causes / Improvement Opportunities







Results

2.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.2.1.1 – What methods and / or tools used to identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities ?2.2.1.2 – Why were these methods and / or tools selected ?


Tools used to identify Improvement Opportunities

Tools Used

Process Mapping

Benchmarking

Brainstorming

Control Charts & Stability Charts

Ishikawa Diagram

Why

To understand the as-is process

To understand the scope for improvements and current gaps

To look for Opportunities for Improvement

To study the current capability and stability of the process

To map and group the various affecting parameters

1 2

11








Results

2.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.2.3.1 – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools ?


3

3 hours of hands on training imparted on Creation of Process Maps

1 day training program on Benchmarking methodology

5 Hours training on Systematic Focused group discussion and brainstorming

3 day training program on Six Sigma Green Belt Program and use of Statistica

3 Hours hands on refresher training imparted on the 7 QC Tools and a 6 day six sigma training program was organised

Preparation of Team for using the Tools

Process Mapping

Benchmarking

Brainstorming

Control & Stability Charts

Ishikawa Diagram(Six Sigma Green Belt)Training Imparted to

1. Project leader2. Project Members &3. The Process Owner

The Effectiveness of training was verified byconducting Pre Course and Post Course Assessments








Results

2.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.2.2.1 – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root cause / improvement opportunities ?



Tools Used

Process Mapping

Benchmarking

Brainstorming


Ishikawa Diagram

Data Generated

Process Inputs, Outputs, Sub Processes and Performance Indicators

In - Processes were also benchmarked along with the major KPIs

The various affecting parameters were jotted

The was found stable under 100 % availability

Various Affecting parameter were drilled down

How

Process Mapped through group discussion

KPIs Collected from various Blast Furnace and Studied

Dedicated Group discussion to answer what can improve the efficiency

Using Statistical Tool to predict

All the affecting Parameters that were operating in not optimized range were identified

1. What ?? 1. How ??

12








Results

2.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.2.2.2 – What were the possible root cause / improvement opportunities ?



Tools Used

Process Mapping

Benchmarking

Brainstorming


Ishikawa Diagram

Data Generated

Process Inputs, Outputs, Sub Processes and Performance Indicators

In - Process KPIs are also becnhmarkedalong with the major KPIs

The various affecting parameters were jotted

The was found stable under 100 % availabilty

Various Affecting parameter were drilled down

Raw Material• Sinter, Pellet, Coke – Chemical &

Physical Properties• Agglomerates• Moisture Input

In Process KPIs• Burden

Distribution• Slag

Composition• Blowing Rate• Oxygen

Enrichment• Coal Injection

Equipment KPIs• Availability• Interruptions

Human• Lack of

Knowledge Skill and Training

Final Root Cause / Improvement Opportunity







Results

2.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.3.1.1 – What methods and / or tools were sued to identify the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunities ?2.3.1.2 – Why were these methods and / or tools selected ?



Tools Used

Correlation Matrix

KPI Drill Down

Multiple Regression Analysis

Why

To figure out the most affecting parameter among the other KPIs

To drill down to final few important

To identify the most affecting parameter and impact of the every variable on the big Y

1 2

13








Results

2.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.3.1.3 – How was the team prepared to use these tools ?


3

3 day training program on Six Sigma Methodology including Correlation Matrix

3 hours of hands on training imparted on building and conducting KPI Drill Down Analysis

6 days training program on Six Sigma Methodology including Multiple Regression Analysis


Correlation Matrix

KPI Drill Down

Multiple Regression Analysis(Six Sigma Green Belt)

Training Imparted to 1. Project leader2. Project Members &3. The Process Owner

The Effectiveness of training was verified byconducting Pre Course and Post Course Assessments

Correlations (Spreadsheet22 19v*297c)COKE_RATE

PRODUCTION

COAL_RATE

HMT

BGV

COLD_BLAST_FLOW_RATE

O2_FLOW

K

RAFT

ETA_CO

Total Agglomerates in Burden, Burden Distrbution, Slag Composition, Blowing Rate, Oxygen Enrichment, Coal Injection



Current Situation and RC /





Results

2.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.3.2.1 – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the final possible root cause / improvement opportunities ?2.3.2.2 – What are specified examples of data analysis that led to the final root cause ?2.3.2.3 – What were the final root cause/improvement opportunity ?



Tools Used

Correlation Matrix

KPI Drill Down Analysis

Multiple Regression Analysis

Data Generated

The set of Variables with P

14



Current Situation and RC /





Results

2.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.3.3.1 – How was (were) the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunities validated ?2.3.3.2 – What evidence showed that the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies) were validated prior to solution development ?


ValidationCategory

Expert Validation – BF PIT Meeting

Modeling Software

Procedure Followed Advice from Experts Mr Ashok Kumar, CTOMr Tijuis Gerard, Tata Steel IjmuidenMr Uttam Singh, CoBF

Validation done through Static Dynamic Thermodynamic model

Evidence

1

2

Validation Impact of burden

Distribution and blowing rate

Current regime

Optimized regime

MOM of Blast Furnaces PIT Meeting

Meeting No. PIT/BF/07/16 Date: 09/10/2015 Time: 03.30 PM (India); 12.00 (NL); 11.00 (UK)

Chaired by Mr. Uttam Singh

Attendees :

Jamshedpur IJmuiden Port Talbot Scunthorpe

Uttam Singh Johannes de Lange Andrew McGregor No attendance

Sanjiv Kumar Mark van den Berg

AS Reddy Gerard Tijhuis (CoE)

Krishnendu Jan van der Stel (R&D)

Goutam Kr Raut

Vineet Tripathi

Sl. No

Item Discussed

Timeline / Action plan

Responsibility Status (Open /Closed/ Carry Forward)

Comment

A Share information on through life in Port Talbot Port Talbot (McGregor)

Open

B Share report on depressurising hose failure in IJmuiden coal preparation plant

IJmuiden (de Lange)

Open EBFC presentation on sharepoint

C Typical report on hearth temperature behaviour as presented in morning meeting

IJmuiden (de Lange)

Open PDF on sharepoint

D I BF Project on Coke Rate- Key Factors that affect Coke Rate

I BF, Jamshedpur

Closed Panel reached a conclusion

Pending points from previous meetings

3 Information on sealing material used to arrest tuyere leakage. Material, equipment, procedure, etc. Work in progress.

IJmuiden (Nugteren)

CF Separate lync to be set up in week 42

8 Information sharing on type of eyes and face protection safety gears at cast house

All Sites CF

Jsr & SCP info on share-point. Other sites to do.

MoM of BF Pit with the Point discussed about I BF

Coke Rate Project

Project Management Update







Results

2.4.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.4.1.1 – How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed (or what changes were made)?


Review of Progress with respect to the Project Charter1

Phase end review with the Project Steering Committee• Progress as per Charter• No Change of Scope Identified Plan

Actual

15








Results

2.4.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.4.1.2 – How were stakeholders involved and / or communicated with during root cause / improvement opportunity phase of the project ?


1. No change

2








Results

2.4.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.4.1.3 What stakeholder resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase of the project ?


Category of Stakeholders

Stakeholders Resistance Identification Resolved

Suppliers

Raw Material Management None None None

Coke PlantThrottling of Production might be reqd

Feedback in MonthlyReview Meeting

Supply from Batt 10 &11 to top up A-F BF Bunkers

Sinter Plant None None None

Pellet Plant None None None

Fuel Management Division None None None

Maintenance None None None

Internal

Project Steering Committee None None None

Project Team None None None

Process OwnerRequirement of Fine coal wil increase leading to depletion of Buffer

Brainstorming sessionMeasures to improve throughput were taken

Customer

Steel Melting ShopsNew Trials may increase Quality deviations

Customer Visit Feedback

Management of Quality Change Procedure used

Slag Granulation and Drying Plant None None None

Hot Metal Logistics None None None


3

16








Results

2.4.0

1

2

3

4

5

2.4.1.4 – How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines confirmed ?


Team Membership & Management Routines

Confirming Appropriateness Changes needed

Team Membership • Project Charter Review –Completion as per timeline

• Stakeholder Matrix Analysis –Work done as per plan

No Change required

Management Routines • Documentations were found in place

• Procedures followed• Proper Communication to all

stakeholders were evident

No Change Required

4

Solution / Improvement Development3


17

Possible Solutions or Improvements







Results

3.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.1.1.1 – What methods and / or tols were used to identify the possible solutions / improvements ?3.1.1.2 – Why were these methods and / or tools selected ?



Tools Used

Expert Consultation - PIT

Benchmarking

Focused Group Discussion – LEO (Learning from Each Other)

Literature Review

Why

To facilitate cross learning among the European and Indian Opportunity

Comparing various in processes to identify the directionality towards solution

Experts views from Blast Furnaces in Jamshedpur were taken

To identify the best practices in the industry

1 2








Results

3.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.1.1.3 – How was the team prepared ot use these mehtods and / or tools ?


3

All the Root Causes identified were compiled and sent across to the experts from various Tata Steel Plants around the world

1 day training program on Benchmarking methodology

5 Hours training on Systematic Focused group discussion and brainstorming

Dedicated Topic Research were given to each member of the team and a period of 1 week to come up with solutions


Expert Consultation

Benchmarking

Focused Group Discussion

Literature ReviewTraining Imparted to 1. Project leader2. Project Members &3. The Process Owner

The Effectiveness of training was verified by conducting PreCourse and Post Course AssessmentsThe progress was also tracked in the Weekly review meeting

18








Results

3.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.1.2.1 – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine the possible solutions / improvements ?



Tools Used


Benchmarking

Focused Group Discussion – LEO (Learning from Each Other)

Literature Review

Data Generated

The Solutions Ideas

Key Gaps were identified

Various Ideas were collated

Some best practices across other blast furnace and process changes at higher

coal were noted

How

Translated into Actions in Team meetings

Used Necessity and sufficiency checks to translate into results to check validity

Translated into Actions in Team meetings

Used Necessity and sufficiency checks to translate into results to check validity

1 1








Results

3.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.1.2.2 – What are the possible solutions / improvements?



Tools Used


Benchmarking

Focused Group Discussion –LEO (Learning from Each

Other)

Literature Review

Data Generated

The Solutions Ideas

Key Gaps were identified

Various Ideas were collated

Some best practices across other blast furnace and process

changes at higher coal were noted

In Process KPIs1. Opt for Flatter distribution2. Adjust the screening size3. Reduce the centre coke percentage4. Optimize slag composition5. Reduce the Wind Volume6. Reduce the Hot Metal Temperature7. Increase the Oxygen Enrichment8. Increase Coal Inecjtion9. Increase the Hot Blast Temperature10. Improve Cast House Operation

Raw Material1. Increase of Agglomerates2. Increase the size of Coke3. Increasing the Cold strength of Coke4. Improve the Reducibility of Sinter & Pellet5. Increase the Calorific value of coal

2

19








Results

3.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.1.2.3 – What evidence showed that the solutions / improvements identified were possible instead of final ?


Process No. Process Function

Product (Output)

Characteristics

Requirements

Potential Failure ModePotential Effect(s) of

Failure

A

Severity

(Out of 10)

Potential Cause (s) / Mechanism (s) of Failure

40.I1 Fluctuation in Wind Volume

40.I2 Raw material quality(Sn-RDI, C-Ash,

P-SI)

40.I3 Cooling water Flow

40.I4 Physical and Chemical Properties of

Raw Material

40.I5 Stock line

40.I6 Distribution of RM

40.I7 Fluctuation of Top Gas Pressure

40.I8 Variation in input coal quantity and

quality

40.I9 Variation in agglomerate percentage

40.I10 High input moisture load

40.I11 %Sn in burden

40.I12 Oxygen Enrichment

40.I13 Burden Distribution

40.I14 Low Sinter basicity

40.I15 High Al2O3 in raw material

40.I16 Phosphorus in input raw material

40.I17 Hot Metal Temperature

40.P1 SLC

40.P2 Coal Injection

40.P3 RAFT

40.P4 water Circuit make up

40.P5 Fuel rate

40.P6 Slag Chemistry

40.P7 ECO

40.P8 E H2

40.P9 Amount of dust dumped from dust

catcher

40.P10 Heat Flux (Circuit#3 Heat Loss)

40Furnace

Operation

Hot Metal Si (40.O1)

Hot Metal S (40.O2)

Hot Metal

Temperature (40.O3)

Slag Chemistry(MgO,

Al2O3 & B2) (40.O4)

Coke Rate (40.O5)

Hearth liquid level

(40.O6)

Si < 0.44%

Si >1.04%

S >0.065%

Coke Rate

20








Results

3.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.2.1.3 – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools ?


3

Usage and creation of Affinity Diagram was instructed and activity was carried out by the Project team along with the process owners

4 hours session in hands on training of Pay off Matrix

Modelling of different scenario and its results analysis were imparted to the team in a 2 day training module


Affinity Diagram

Pay Off Matrix

Modelling

Training Imparted to 1. Project leader2. Project Members &3. The Process Owner

The Effectiveness of training was verified by conducting PreCourse and Post Course AssessmentsThe progress was also tracked in the Weekly review meeting

Final Solutions or Improvements







Results

3.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.2.2.1 – How were the methods and / or tools used to determine the final solutions / improvement ?3.2.2.2 – What was (were) the final solution(s) / improvement (s) ?



Tools Used

Affinity Diagram

Payoff Matrix

Modelling

How

Brainstorming helped categorizing the solutions

Categorized the available solutions

Validated various scenarios after building in the model

1

2

Increasing cold strength of coke, Adjusting Screening size, optimize the slag composition, reduce wind volume, increase oxygen enrichment, coal injection and hot blast temperature

and improve the cast house operation

Final Improvement Opportunities

21








Results

3.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.2.3.1 – How were the final solutions / improvements validated ?3.2.3.2 – What evidence showed that the validation was performed prior to implementation ?


ValidationCategory

Expert Validation FMEA Pilot Scale Implementation

Procedure Followed Advice from ExpertsMr Ashok Kumar, CTOMr Tijuis Gerard, Tata Steel IjmuidenMr Uttam Singh, CoBF

Cross Referenced through the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

Pilot Scale Implementation of Various actions were tried with a small change and monitored for one month to capture data

Evidence

1

2MOM of Blast Furnaces PIT Meeting

Meeting No. PIT/BF/09/16 Date: 04/12/2015 Time: 03.30 PM (India); 12.00 (NL); 11.00 (UK)

Chaired by Mr. Uttam Singh

Attendees :

Jamshedpur IJmuiden Port Talbot Scunthorpe

Uttam Singh Johannes de Lange Andrew McGregor No attendance

Sanjiv Kumar Mark van den Berg

AS Reddy Jan van der Stel (R&D)

Shambu Nath Gerard Tijhuis (CoE)

Padma Pal

Shantanu Mallick

Krishnendu Mukhopadhyay

Manish Pandey

Vineet Tripathi

Sl. No

Item Discussed

Timeline / Action

plan

Responsibility Status (Open /Closed/ Carry Forward)

Comment

A

Low CSR coke was charged to I BF from 10 to 20 Nov. (slide 4 in presentation). What are the actions taken in such a case at TSE furnaces ? Request to share our procedures.

All sites Open Discussion in next PIT meeting

B Damage to stove #2 at KPO during heat-up. What is recommendation of TSE for start-up ? Blow-in with only two stoves ?

All sites Open

Port Talbot and IJmuiden adviced not to start with only 2 stoves. Risk in case of failure of other stove is too big.

C The Action points identified for coke rate reduction in I BF were discussed and deliberated – More discussion to held in person

Jamshedpur Open

D

Document on trough discharge in Jsr is made available on sharepoint. All sites are requested to share their practices on this, including safety measures

All sites Open Share you practice

E Port Talbot mentioned an investigation on the torpedo collision (~one month ago) is still ongoing.

Port Talbot Open Outcomes to be shared for learnings.

MoM of BF Pit with the Point discussed about I BF

Coke Rate Project Results of Pilot Trials in I BFPFMEA








Results

3.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.2.4.1 – What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solutions / improvements ?3.2.4.2 – Were the additional potential benefits anticipated prior to implementation ?


*Additional Benefits

Project Benefit

Additional Benefits anticipated from the final solutions1

2 These Benefits were anticipated from the implementation of solution

Reduction of Coke Rate Reduction of Hot Metal Cost

Reduction of Carbon Footprint

Improvement in Productivity

22








Results

3.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.2.5.1 – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify why the chosen final solutions / improvements should be implemented ?3.2.5.2 – What evidence showed that the justification was performed prior to the implementation of the solution ?


1 Final Solutions to be implemented

Method IncreasingCSR of Coke

Adjusting CokeScreen Size

Optimize Slag Composition

Softer Blowing Rate

Oxygen Enrichment

Coal Injection

Optimizing Cast House Operation

Hot Blast Temperature

Expert Consulta

ncyY Y Y Y Y Y N Y

Brainstorming

Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Correlation Matrix

N Y Y Y Y Y N Y

Final Decision

Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

- Final implementable solutions were decided based on the matrix tabulated below

2 Evidence that the justification was performed

Evidence of Brainstorming session and its finalized MoM








Results

3.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.3.1.1 – How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope, deliverables, and timings confirmed ?


Review of Progress with respect to the Project Charter1

Phase end review with the Project Steering Committee• Progress as per Charter• No Change of Scope Identified

PlanActual

23








Results

3.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.3.1.2 – How were the stakeholders involved and / or communicated with during the solution / improvement phase of the project ?


2








Results

3.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.3.1.3 – What stakeholders resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase of the project ?


Category of Stakeholders

Stakeholders Resistance Identification Resolved

Suppliers

Raw Material Management None None None

Coke Plant None None None

Sinter Plant None None None

Pellet Plant None None None

Fuel Management DivisionReduction of Wind Volume to the Threshold of the Blower House

Feedback during Monthly Review

Maintained at the minimum rpm of the blower house

MaintenanceTRT Power Generation mayreduced at softer blowing rates

Reduction of Generation during pilot implementation

Inreased Top Pressure and Inlet pressure of TRT

Internal

Project Steering Committee None None None

Project Team None None None

Process Owner None None None

Customer

Steel Melting Shops None None None

Slag Granulation and Drying Plant None None None

Hot Metal Logistics None None None


3

24








Results

3.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

3.3.1.4 – How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership and management routines confirmed ?


Team Membership & Management Routines

Confirming Appropriateness Changes needed

Team Membership • Project Charter Review –Completion as per timeline

• Stakeholder Matrix Analysis –Work done as per plan

No Change required

Management Routines • Documentations were found in place

• Procedures followed• Proper Communication to all

stakeholders were evident

No Change Required

4

Implementation and Results

Verification4


25

Stakeholders consideration in Implementation







Results

4.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.1.1.1 – How were the stakeholders involved in planning the solution/improvement implementation ?4.1.1.2 – How were the stakeholders involved in implementing the solution / improvement ?


1 2








Results

4.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.1.2.1 – What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred ?4.1.2.2 – What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution / improvements implementation ? (1/2)4.1.2.3 – How was the actual resistance identified ? (1/2)


Anticipation of Resistance: As a measure to predict the resistance, dedicated brainstorming session were organized and detailed discussion was carried out against each element in the stakeholder matrix

1

1 2 3

26








Results

4.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.1.2.1 – What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred ?4.1.2.2 – What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution / improvements implementation ? (2/2)4.1.2.3 – How was the actual resistance identified ? (2/2)


2 31








Results

4.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.1.3.1 – How was the actual resistance addressed ? (1/2)4.1.3.2 – How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance ? (1/2)


1 2

27








Results

4.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.1.3.1 – How was the actual resistance addressed ? (2/2)4.1.3.2 – How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance ? (2/2)


1

2

1 2








Results

4.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.1.4.1 – What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in ?4.1.4.2 – What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation ?


Evidence of Stakeholder Buy-in: 1

Bu

y in

fro

m S

take

ho

lder

s Sign off at the end of each stage of the Project

Following the Management of Quality Change - MQC

Recording the Changes incorporated in the MoUs and VoCs –Inmprovement in Customer Satisfaction

Regular Communications in various Forums and recorded MoMs

Evidence That Buy-in was obtained: 2

MoM of Quality Council Meeting

MQC Raised for reduction of Coke Rate

28

Solution / Improvement Implementation







Results

4.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.2.1.1 – What process or systems were changed or created to implement the solution / improvement ?4.2.1.2 – What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the performance of the implementation ?


Systems Processes

Implement Solution

Introduction of Modeling Software in Level 2 Automation : MOGADOR, Burden Distribution Model

ASAM Testing of Burden

HOSIM Testing of Burden

Enhancing the grinding system

Adjusting the screening rate in

stock house

Increasing the Size of laval tuyerefor higher injection

Optimize the casting rate to facilitate better

drainage

Creation of New SOPs

Updating Daily Management Checklist and documents

Measure / Manage the Implementation

Job Cycle Checks and updating the Old SOPs and Action Standards

FMEA , Control Plan and Risk Status Up-gradation

Increasing the Sampling frequency

Installation of Above Burden Probe with

Gas analyser to measure the Gas

Composition across the radial pattern

Training Process Strengthened and

change documents identified

1

2

Project Results







Results

4.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.3.1.1 – What were the results ?4.3.1.2 – How did the results compare to the specific project goals / measures from item 2.1.1 ?


ResultsResults Exceeded the TargetIn the first step it was broughtdown to 353 which furtherreduced to 328 kg/thm

1 Improvement Opportunity

Current Performance (kg/thm)

Target (kg/thm)

Actual Achieved (kg/thm)

Coke Rate 428 408 353

2 Performance of Coke Rate

This resulted in a Overall Saving of INR 65 Cr

The coke rate performance of I BF and the improvement journey is illustrated hereThe biggest step Jump in the last 30 years in Tata Steel Blast Furnaces

29

Project Results







Results

4.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.3.2.1 – What additional benefits were realized from the project ?


Coke Rate Reduction

Reduction of Carbon

Footprint

Q - Reduction of Mean HM

Si

Increase of Productivity

Reduction of Steam

Consumption

Additional Benefits Realized1

Two additional Benefits wererealized which were notanticipated earlier

Reduction from 1.52 tCO2/thm to 1.41tCO2/thm

Reduction of Mean HM Si from 0.84 to 0.72%

Increase of Productivity from 2.65 to 2.72 t/m3/day

Reduction of Steam Consumption from

17,000 tons/month to 1600 tons/month

Project Results







Results

4.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.3.2.2 – How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were “soft”?


Additional Soft Benefits Realized2

Soft Benefits

Customer Satisfaction

Increased Morale of

Team

Inspiration to other

departments

Awards and Accolades

Improved Customer Satisfaction and reduction of Customer Complaint by 35%

Becoming the Indian Benchmark gave motivation to the team to drive for excellence and change –Ripple Effect

Seeing the transformation of I BF other departments started

following the path of I BF –Sense of Pride to the Team

More Feathers were added to the cap of I BF – Recognitions, Awards

and Accolades

30

Coke Rate Reduction

Reduction of Carbon

Footprint

Q -Reduction of Mean HM Si

Increase of Productivity

Reduction of Steam

Consumption

Project Results







Results

4.3.0

1

2

3

4

5

4.3.2.3 – How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified in item 3.2.4 ?


Realization of Additional Benefits3

Anticipated and Fully Realized

Not anticipated realized

All the four additionalbenefits were fullyrealized

Sustaining Results Over Time5


31

Sustaining Results Over Time







Results

5.1.0

1

2

3

4

5

5.1.1.1 – What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation continued to be followed ?5.1.1.2 –What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy ?


Steps to ensure the changes to be followed:

1

Step

s fo

r Su

cces

sfu

l Su

sten

ance

of

the

Im

pro

vem

en

t

Updating the SOPs and Action Standards and subsequent Training

Updating the Daily Management Documentation

Updating the FMEA & CP and subsequent communication

Evidence : 2

Process No. Process Function

Product (Output)

Characteristics

Requirements

Potential Failure ModePotential Effect(s) of

Failure

A

Severity

(Out of 10)

Potential Cause (s) / Mechanism (s) of Failure

B

Occurrence

(Out of 10)

Current process Controls - Detection/Prevention

C

Detectability

(Out of 10)

Risk Priority

Number (RPN)

AXBXC

Actions to reduce RPNResponsi

bility

Target

Date

40.I1 Fluctuation in Wind Volume 3 Online monitoring & follow up with supplier 5 135

40.I2 Raw material quality(Sn-RDI, C-Ash,

P-SI)3 Lab analysis 3 81 Information to supllier CR Opr w.i.e

40.I3 Cooling water Flow 2 Online monitoring & follow up 3 54

40.I4 Physical and Chemical Properties of

Raw Material3 HBT data from control room 1 27

40.I5 Stock line 2 Online monitoring & follow up 3 54

40.I6 Distribution of RM 4 Online monitoring & follow up 4 144

40.I7 Fluctuation of Top Gas Pressure 2 Online monitoring & follow up 3 54

40.I8 Variation in input coal quantity and

quality3 Online monitoring & follow up 3 81

40.I9 Variation in agglomerate percentage 4 Bin level monitoring & adjustment in burden 2 72

40.I10 High input moisture load 3 CRMT report and adjustment in fuel rate 3 81 Information to supllier CR Opr w.i.e

40.I11 %Sn in burden 2 Online monitoring 2 36

40.I12 Oxygen Enrichment 5 Online monitoring 1 45

40.I13 Burden Distribution 4 Online monitoring 2 72 Information to supllier CR Opr w.i.e

40.I14 Low Sinter basicity 1 Online monitoring 1 9

40.I15 High Al2O3 in raw material 3 Online monitoring & follow up with supplier 2 54

40.I16 Phosphorus in input raw material 3 Online monitoring(HM) & follow up with supplier 2 54

40.I17 Hot Metal Temperature 4 Online monitoring(HM) & follow up with supplier 2 54

40.P1 SLC 3 Online monitoring & follow up with supplier 3 81

40.P2 Coal Injection 4 RAFT set point and PV 4 144

40.P3 RAFT 3 Furnace DP and K value at control room 5 135 SOP CR Opr w.i.e

40.P4 water Circuit make up 2 Make up trend of cooling circuits in control room 5 90 SOP CR Opr w.i.e

40.P5 Fuel rate 4 Fuel rate at tuyere data of level2 system 1 36

40.P6 Slag Chemistry 2 Online monitoring 2 36

40.P7 ECO 3 ECO data from furnace overvie page 2 54

40.P8 E H2 3 E H2 data from furnace overviw page 2 54

40.P9 Amount of dust dumped from dust

catcher4 DM log sheet 2 72

40.P10 Heat Flux (Circuit#3 Heat Loss) 7 Heat flux data from staves structure page 1 63

Section: IBF (Operations) Date : 01.09.2016 Approved by: Chief IBF Rev. : 03

Doc. No.: OPR/DM/PFC/03 Effective Date : 01/04/2016

Department: I Blast Furnace Revision No.: 5 Prepared by: Head Operations IBF Form No. : TQM/DM/FMEA/003

40Furnace

Operation

Hot Metal Si (40.O1)

Hot Metal S (40.O2)

Hot Metal

Temperature (40.O3)

Slag Chemistry(MgO,

Al2O3 & B2) (40.O4)

Coke Rate (40.O5)

Hearth liquid level

(40.O6)

Si < 0.44%

Si >1.04%

S >0.065%

Coke Rate

32

Communication of Results







Results

5.2.0

1

2

3

4

5

5.2.1.1 – How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder groups ?


Communication to Stakeholder1

Coke Rate Improvement

Suppliers

Internal

Customers

- TQM Council Meetings- RM Quality Meeting- Monthly Report Circulation

- Blast Furnace Process Review Meeting- I-Mirror Circulation- Monthly Report Circulation- Learning From Each Other – LEO – Meeting

- Customer Visits- TQM Council Meeting- War Room Meeting- Monthly Report Circulation

Apart from these forums, MD Online, Monthly Newsletter from VP and TQM Apex Project Review were also used to communicate across Tata Steel

Awards and Accolades6


33

Awards and Accolades

• Achieving the feat. of Indian Benchmark in Monthly Coke rate, coal Rate and carbon

footprint

• The Project was awarded in APEX Level by TQM Division

• Lauded by Senior Management and Ex Tata Steel Management and made them feel proud

of the achievement

• Won in Eastern region in Tata Groups Innovista Competition and represented in Tata Steel in

Finals of Innovista


Together We Can !!!


Documents

Reduction of Coke Rate from 428 kg/thm to 408 kg/thm at ‘I ...Blast Furnace 1 2 Reduction of Coke Rate will impact the Perceived Opportunity –Reduction of Hot Metal Cost 3 Improvement