Performance between Hardface Mill 100 and Mill 300 Vs Ni-Hard High Chrome White Iron

The test was performed in a cement Pfieffer Vertical Roller Mill on three rolls and the grinding table. It was carried out by the Colombian Division of Welding Alloys Panamericana in collaboration with one of the biggest cement plants in the country.

The test consists of looking at the performance and savings between refurbishment of a Vertical Mill with WA Hardfacing, using Mill 100/Mill 300 combination and using Ni-Hard High Chrome White Iron on three rolls, under the same working conditions.

The test took place between February 2016 and September 2017. During that period, several wear measurements were taken in nine different points on three grinding rollers, recording their running hours and material output at every maintenance stop. The data helped to compare the WA solution against the Ni-Hard High Chrome White Iron rolls.

The results after a year show that in the long run, the rolls refurbished with Mill 100 and Mill 300 lasted longer without reaching the wear limit, whereas the Ni-Hard exceeded the limit after 1309 hours of operation. See figure.

Further to these findings, the client now sees that Ni-Hard High Chrome White is not the most cost-effective solution long term. In fact, the savings in maintenance costs could exceed the initial cost of WA Material compared to Ni-Hard High Chrome White Iron.

In addition, further savings could be achieved at the end of the production life. While a Ni-Hard mill would have to be replaced, with WA it is possible to recover and refurbish the mill again.