CHAPTER CONVENTION ON QUALITY

CONCEPTS
(CCQC - 2019)

CASE STUDY
QC GROUP NAME – TECHNO SMILE

Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited

Kalinganagar Industrial. Complex
Duburi -755026. Jajpur , Odisha ,India.
Tel. No.- 06726 - 264001. Fax – 06726 - 264009
Web site :- www.ninl.in
 NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED
SERVING WORLD WITH STEEL WILL

INTRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATION
NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED:

An ISO 9001:2015 certified company (Promoted by MMTC &

Odisha Govt.) is located at Kalinganagar Industrial Complex,
Duburi, Odisha.

It is having major units like- Blast furnace (1.1 MT), Power

plant(62.5mw), Coke oven(0.8MT),Sinter plant(1.71MT), Steel
melting shop (SMS),BOF & CCP . We are one of the largest
producer and exporter of pig iron since 2004-05 in India, also
having Gas Turbine Generator first of it's kind in South East Asia.
We have also major share in producing Steel billets ,Coke and
Fertilizer.

NINL has bagged the prestigious 'Ispat Surakshya Puraskar-2017'

in 'No Fatal Accident in Integrated Steel Plant' Category for third
time in a row and ranks among Four Environment Friendly Steel
Plant in India.

I
1.
TITLE OF CASE STUDY: --
COKE OVEN GAS RESISTANCE ACROSS PRIMARY GAS COOLER IS
HIGH.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ORGANISATION AND QC TEAM:--

Name: Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited

Pig Iron, Steel billets, Coke, Power,

Product / Service
Fertilizer
QC Name TECHNO SMILE

QCFI Institutional membership No.: 071523100899

Department CO & BPP (Operation)

Shri A.K.Rout.
Coordinator:
Asst. General Manager, TQM.
Facilitator Narayana Prasad Mishra.
Sr.Manager, CO & BPP.
Team Leader S.K.Mohanta

K. C. Sahoo

D. P. Dash

Name of Members J. B. Giri

A. K. Bera

C. R. Palei

QC starting Date March'2017

Meeting Schedule Wednesday (Weekly)
Duration of Meeting 3.00PM to 4.00PM (1 Hour)
TH
Project Started : 13 MARCH 2019
RD
Project Implemented : 03 JULY 2019
II
 INDEX

Sr. No. Description Page No.

1. Introduction of organization I

2. Brief History of QC II

3 Index III

4. Identification of Problem 01-03

5. Selection of Problem 04-09

6. Defining the Problem 10-12

7. Analysis of the problem 12 -14

8. Finding out causes 14-16

9. Root cause analysis 16-18

10. Data analysis on root causes 18-20

11. Developing of solution 21-23

12. Foreseeing probable resistance 23

13. Trial implementation & check performance 24-26

14. Regular implementation 26-28

15. Follow-up and review 29-31

III
 STEP-1:- IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM
List of problems identified
[Through Brainstorming]
LIST OF PROBLEMS
Sr. No NO OF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED CAT.
1. Decreasing of the effectiveness of oil skimmer. A
2. Frequent damage of cooling tower fans of contaminated pump house. B
3. Disposal problem of treated water of BOD Plant. A
4. Removal of sludge from tar storage tank . A
5. Damage of shaft, pinion and wheel of aerators in BOD Plant. B
6. Abnormal heating of gear box of de-nitrification agitator in BOD Plant. B
7. High NH3,TDS, content in treated water which is undesirable for using A
SGP and PCM.
8. Problem after loading in wagon only with 2nos pump. C
9. Pit pump foot valve gets jamming frequently. A
10. High shock load given to the bacteria in BOD Plant. A
11. Slate conveyor frequent damaging.. A
12. ETP insulator not working in GCP. A
13. Requirement of new ammonium sulphate storage shed in the off season. C
14. Level indicator for caustic lye storage tank. B
15. High ammonia, oil and grease content in the inlet of BOD Plant. A
16. Bucket elevator belt conveyor moving off center. A
17. Hand railing & structure damage at BOD Plant. A
18. Dozing pump getting chocked and not lifting. A
19. PGC cooling tower strippers getting damaged. B
20. Pit tank top cover getting damaged in F L Pump House. A
21. Colour problem of effluent and treated water in BOD Plant. C
22. Problem of maintaining ph in ammonia column. A
23. Auto weigh machine in asp is not working. B
24. Frequent jamming of y-1 conveyor chute in A S P. A
25. Gland leakage of solar oil pump in N.S. A
26. Settling tank-2 gate valve under break down in BOD Plant. A
27. Supply of flushing liquor during power failure to battery. C
28. High condensate from NS. B
29. Disposal problem of ETP wash water. A
30. Frequent break down / damage of hot air fan in ASP. A
31. Pin hole leakage in decanter no.-1. A
32. Decanter top inspection holes cover getting damaged. B
33. Dozing pump pipe lines getting damaged. A
34. Lifting arrangement of equipments no available in BOD Plant. A
35. Damage of power cables of pump no. 9 a & 9 b in BOD Plant. A
01
 Sr. No NO OF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED CAT.
36. Maintaining of desired suction of exhauster during instrument panel A
power failure.
37. Frequent break down of scrubber pump in ASP. A
38. Contamination of storm water and effluent water during rain. A
39. Irregular dispatch of ammonium sulphate fertilizer. B
40. Improper condensate removal system from N S area. A
41. Frequent break down of s / d valves of compressor. A
42. Coal tar is not settling properly in the settling tank of FGC. A
43. Rain water block aging in the tar storage tank area. A
44. Temp. is not maintaining properly in the tar storage tank - 40b. A
45. High gland leakage from DAF in BOD Plant. A
46. Drive inner wheel not working properly in BOD Plant. A
47. Dewatering valve not functioning properly in BOD Plant. A
48. Equalizing pump 2- b having abnormal sound. A
49. Combined pump7- a having regular gland leakage at BOD Plant. A
50. Air blower discharge line duct having leakage in BOD Plant. B
51. No on- spot testing provision of ph at ASP. A
52. No level measuring instrument for hot water tank. B
53. Regeneration of rich solar oil is not carried out. A
54. Corrosion problem of structure in ASP. A
55. Break down of vibrator in ASP. A
56. Retrieval of tar and oil from BOD Plant . A
57. Modification of excess flushing liquor discharge line to maintain A
intermediate f/l tank level.
58. Maintaining inlet flow of effluent water after DAF more than 20 m3/hr. A
59. Frequent choking of submersible pump suction line of neutralizing pit in ASP. A
60. C o gas resistance across primary gas cooler is high A
61. Malfunctioning of tar flow meter in FGC. A
62. Malfunctioning of tar flow meter in PGC. A
63. Arrangement for hoisting device in effluent A
collection pump house for maintenance work.

TOTAL NO OF PROBLEM IDENTIFIED-63

CATEGORY OF PROBLEMS

‘A’ CATEGORY-The Circle with in their control and capacity to solve this type of
problems.

‘B’ CATEGORY-Need other departments’ resources and help.

‘C’ CATEGORY-Management sanction required to execute these projects.

02
 Categorization of Problems shows that there are 48nos. A-category problems, 11nos B-
category problems, and 04nos C- category problems. From pie chart it is found that 76%
problem is of ‘A’- Category, only 18% and 06% problems are of ‘B’& ‘C’ respectively. As to
solve ‘A’-category problems, minimum requirement is needed from other department and
agencies and confirming no other serious problem, it has been decided by our QC team members
that only ‘A’-category problems should be taken into consideration for problem selection. So
our prime focus has been concentrated on A-category problems to select the problem from our
'A' category problem list.
PIE CHART ANALYSIS FOR THE A, B, C CATEGORIZATION

C TYPE,
B TYPE,
4, 6%
11, 18% A TYPE
A TYPE, B TYPE
48, 76%
C TYPE

Pie chart

03
 STEP-2:-SELECTION OF PROBLEM

Procedure of problem selection

After categorization of problem ,an in-depth study was done on various aspects of A- category
problems, which are again sub-categorized as IMPORTANT, URGFNCY, FEASIBILTY and
ENIVRONMENT. Our group conducted a number of brainstorming sessions and identified 20 nos.
Problems associated with IMPORTANT category, 12 nos. Problems associated with URGFNCY
category, 05 nos. Problems associated with FEASIBILTY category & 11 nos. Problems associated
with ENVIRONMENT category. They are tabulated below as I- IMPORTANT category, U-
URGFNCY category, F- FEASIBILTY category and E- ENVIRONMENT category.

SL. NO. DESCRIPTION OF “A” TYPE PROBLEM I U F E

1 PROBLEM IN MAINTAINING PH IN NH3 COLUMN. √

2 DISPOSAL OF TREATED WATER FROM B.O.D PLANT. √

3 REMOVAL OF SLUDGE FROM TAR STORAGE TANK. √

HIGH NH3, CN, T.D.S CONTENT IN TREATED WATER

4 √
WHICH IS UNDESIRABLE FOR PCM AND SGP .

5 DECREASING OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OIL SKIMMER. √

6 PIT PUMP FOOT VALVE GETS JAMMING FREQUENTLY. √

7 HIGH SHOCK LOAD GIVEN TO THE BACTERIA IN B.O.D. √

IMPROPER CONDENSATE REMOVAL SYSTEM FROM NAPTHALENE

8 √
SCRUBBER AREA.

9 SETTLING TANK-III GATE VALVE UNDER B \ D IN BOD. √

10 DISPOSAL PROBLEM OF E.T.P WASH WATER. √

04
05
41 RAIN WATER BLOCKAGING IN THE TAR STORAGE TANK AREA. √

42 C O GAS RESISTANCE ACROSS PRIMARY GAS COOLER IS HIGH √

43 HIGH GLAND LEAKAGE FROM D. A. F. IN B O D. √

44 NO ON- SPOT TESTING PROVISION OF PH AT A. S. P. √

45 DEWATERING VALVE NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY IN B. O D. √

46 EQUILISING PUMP 2- B HAVING ABNORMAL SOUND. √

47 COMBINED PUMP 7- A HAVING REGULAR GLAND LEAKAGE AT B O D. √

DRIVE INNERWHEEL NOT WORKING PROPERLY IN B O D

48 √

06
With feeling the importance of “URGENCY TYPE” problems, so all members of our QC team are
interested to take this related problems for rating first.

 M1 = S. K. MAHANTA

 M2 = K. C. SAHOO

M3 = J. B. GIRI

 M4 = A. K. BERA

 M5 = D. P. DASH

 M6 = C.R.PALEI

RATING POINTS - 1 TO 10

SL.
‘U’ CATEGORY PROBLEMS M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 TOTAL
NO.

PROBLEM IN MAINTAINING PH IN NH3

1 7 5 6 6 5 5 44
COLUMN.

REMOVAL OF SLUDGE FROM TAR STORAGE

2 9 8 7 5 6 5 40
TANK.

HIGH NH3, CN, T.D.S CONTENT IN TREATED

3 8 7 5 6 7 8 41
WATER.

HIGH SHOCK LOAD GIVEN TO THE

4 7 8 6 6 8 7 42
BACTERIA IN B.O.D

07
SL.
“U” CATEGORY PROBLEMS M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 TOTAL
NO.

IMPROPER CONDENSATE REMOVAL

5 SYSTEM FROM 6 5 6 7 4 5 33
NAPTHALENE SCRUBBER AREA.

DOZZING PUMP GETTING CHOCKED

6 AND NOT 7 5 7 8 9 9 45
LIFTING IN BOD PLANT.

MAINTAINING OF DESIRED SUCTION

7 OF
8 7 8 8 7 6 44
EXHAUSTER AFTER POWER
FAILURE.

COAL TAR IS NOT SETTLING

8 PROPERLY IN THE SETTLING 7 5 5 6 4 5 32
TANK OF FGC.

REGENERATION OF RICH SOLAR OIL

9
IS NOT 7 5 4 6 7 4 33
CARRIED OUT.

10 C O GAS RESISTANCE ACROSS

7 8 7 9 7 9 47
PRIMARY GAS COOLER IS HIGH

11 NO ON- SPOT TESTING PROVISION

6 5 8 7 6 5 37
OF PH AT A S P.

12 DRIVE INNERWHEEL NOT

WORKING PROPERLY IN B O D .

PROBLEM NO. 10 GOT HIGHEST RATING, HENCE SELECTED.

08
 QC NAME : DEPT:-CO & BPP HOD:-G.N.SAHOO
GROUP MEMBERS:-
TECHNO SMILE FACILITATOR:-N.P.MISHRA
S.K ,MOHANTA(LEADER)
K.C. SAHOO
PROJECT NAME REASON FOR SELECTION :- GOT HIGHEST
D.P.DASH
:COKE OVEN GAS RATTING BY ALL MEMBERS.
J.B. GIRI
RESISTANCE
A.K.BERA
ACROSS PGC IS
C.R.PALEI
HIGH.

PRESENTATION TH RD
PROJECT NO : 2 STARTING DATE : 13 MARCH 2019 COMPLETION DATE : 03 JULY 2019

MEETING DAY:
MEETING TIME : 03:00 PM TO 04:00 PM
WEDNES DAY

ST PLA
EP
NO Activity Weeks NN
. ED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Defining the
3 problem. 2

Analysis of the
4 1
problem.

Identification of
5 Causes. 2

Finding out the

6 root causes. 1

7 Data Analysis. 2

Developing
8 solution. 2

Foreseeing
9 probable 1
resistances.

Trial
10 implementation. 4

Regular
11 implementation. 1

Follow-up/
12 Review. 1

09
 STEP-3:-DEFINING THE PROBLEM

PROBLEM : COKE OVEN GAS RESISTANCE ACROSS PGC IS HIGH.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Primary gas cooler(PGC) is meant for the primary cooling of coke oven gas(CO GAS), received from the
coke oven battery at 80°C and cools up to 35° C approximately.

For the cooling purpose of the CO gas, there is arrangement of water circulating tubes inside the PGC,
where the hot CO gas is cooled, when passed between the cooling tubes. Here the cooling tubes are acts
as heat exchanger and heat transfer is carried out from CO gas to water cooling tubes to decrease the
CO gas temperature.

Also there is an additional arrangement of hot crude coal tar flushing on the top and middle of the PGC
to absorb the naphthalene content from the CO gas and to clean the outer surface of the cooling tubes
for the better travel of CO gas across the PGC.

Having all these arrangement, still it is not able to maintain the CO gas resistance across the PGC within
the limit (i.e. ≤ 100 mm W c) 10
ACTUAL FIGURE OF PRIMARY C O GAS COOLER. DIAGRAM OF PRIMARY C O GAS COOLER.

11
 IMPACT OF THE PROBLEM
 EXHAUSTER LOAD INCREASE

 GAS PRESSURE BUILD UP IN INLET OF PGC (in GC Main )

 GAS COOLING AFFECTED.

 EXHAUSTER OIL AND BEARING TEMPERATURE INCREASE

 EXHAUSTER HUNTING

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROBLEM

 SMOOTH WORKING OF PGC

 TO WELL MAINTAIN CO GAS FLOW ACROSS THE PGC

 SMOOTH OPERATION OF EXHAUSTER

 MAINTAIN OIL AND BEARING TEMPERATURE IN EXHAUSTER

 SMOOTH OPERATION OF BATTERY

STEP : 4

ANALYSING THE PROBLEM BY 4W & 1H METHOD

OUR GROUP MEMBERS ANALYSED THE PROBLEM COKE OVEN GAS RESISTANCE ACROSS PGC IS
HIGH DEEPLY AND GAVE THEIR IDEAS UPON EACH CRITERIA OF 4W & 1H

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? DIFFICULTIES IN EXHAUSTER OPERATION.

WHERE IS THE PROBLEM ? AT PRIMARY GAS COOLER.

WHEN THE PROBLEM OCCURS ? DURING COOLING OF GAS.

WHO IS GETTING AFFECTED? EXAUSTER AND BATTERY.

HOW IS THE PROBLEM ? EXHAUSTER OPERATION HAMPERED DUE TO RISE IN RESISTANCE ACROSS
THE PGC.

12
 DATA COLLECTION:
DATA HAS BEEN COLLECTED FROM EXHAUSTER HOUSE LOG BOOK TO KNOW THE RESISTANCE OF PRIMARY
GAS COOLER FROM 01/01/2019 TO 28/02/2019.

PRESSURE DROP PGC WORKING

ACROSS .
READING OF CO GAS AT READING OF CO GAS PGC
IN LET OF PGC in AT LET OF PGC IN mm W c
SL. SHIF (ALL VALUES
DATE mmWc. (ALL in mmWc
NO T
VALUES ARE IN – (ALL VALUES ARE IN – ARE IN +
VE) VE) VE)

01 01/01/2019 A 40 400 360 1,2&3

02 03/01/2019 c 40 400 360 -do-

03 05/01/2019 B 40 420 380 -do-

04 07/01/2019 A 40 420 380 -do-

05 09/01/2019 A 40 420 380 -do-

06 11/01/2019 C 40 400 360 -do-

07 13/01/2019 A 40 400 360 -do-

08 15/01/2019 C 40 420 380 -do-

09 17/01/2019 B 43 400 357 -do-

10 19/01/2019 A 43 420 377 -do--

11 21/01/2019 C 43 420 377 -do--

12 23/01/2019 A 43 400 357 -do-

13 25/01/2019 B 47 450 403 -do-

14 27/01/2019 C 47 440 393 -do-

15 29/01/2019 A 47 440 393 -do-

16 31/01/2019 B 47 430 383 -do-

17 02/02/2019 A 45 430 385 -do-

18 04/022019 c 45 440 395 -do-

19 06/02/2019 B 45 440 395 -do-

20 08/02/2019 c 45 450 405 -do-

21 10/02/2019 B 47 480 433 1,2&4

22 12/02/2019 A 47 470 423 -do-

23 14/02/2019 C 47 460 413 -do-

24 16/02/2019 A 47 470 423 -do-

25 18/02/2019 B 50 470 420 -do-

26 20/02/2019 C 50 470 420 -do-

27 22/02/2019 A 50 480 430 -do-

28 24/02/2019 C 50 480 430 -do-

29 26/02/2019 B 50 488 438 -do--

30 28/02/2019 C 50 490 440 -do--

AVG.PR. DROP(RESISTANCE) ACROSS P G C - 395 mm Wc

GOAL :- TO MAINTAIN CO GAS RESISTANCE ACROS S PGC ≤ 100

mmWc.(millimeter Water coloumn)

STEP : 5
IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSES BY CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM
To draw cause and effect diagram we have done brainstorming, to find out all the possible causes influencing the effect.
We have organized the causes in to Sub-cause and Sub- sub -cause.

14
CATEGORY CAUSES SUB-CAUSES
1. Negligence. 1. Lack of Alertness
2. Unskillfullness
MAN
2. Non-Following of the Proper Operational 1.Lack of knowledge
Procedure. 2.over confidence
1. Damage of cooling pipes 1.Corrosion in pipes & any
internal damage inside PGC.
2.Gas flow meter malfunctioning 1.Gauge may choked
3.Scaling on outer surface of the cooling tubes. 1.Unsepareted inherent sludge
mixed tar flushing to PGC.
2.Foreign material from CO gas
may deposited on the surface of
the tubes
3. Corrosion on pipes.
4.Tar flushing temperature gauge malfunctioning 1. Faulty or sub –standard
gauge.
MACHINE 5.Tar pressure gauge malfunctioning 1. Faulty or sub – standard
pressure gauge used.
6.Tar flushing pump failure 1. Mechanical fault.

1. More sludge in flushing tar. 1. Malfunctioning of

decantation process .
2. Presence of foreign particle in co gas. 1. Improper coking in battery

3.Using low quality coal in battery. 1. Non availability of

imported coal.
4. Low pressure and temp.of flushing tar. 1.Tar pump failure.
MATERIAL 2. Temp.& pr.gauge
malfunctioning.

1. Seasonal tar flushing to PGC. 1. Environmental condition.

METHOD
1.Pump pressure decrease
2. Uneven tar flushing to PGC. 2. Tar nozzle choke.
 3.Cold coal tar flushing to PGC. 1. Condensate mix with tar.
2. Water may penetrate into
insulation cove r of pipes.
3. Temp. Gauge malfunctioning.

STEP- 6

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

CATEGORY CAUSES OBSERVATION REMARKS

1 Negligence. 1.By proper motivation and Minor Cause
M training work concentration can
A 2.. Non-Following of the be develop.
N proper operational Minor Cause
2. By Proper Training operational
procedure. procedure can be followed.
1. Damage of cooling pipes 1. Till date it is not Minor Cause
observed.
2.Gas flow meter 2. Can be easily rectified by
M malfunctioning Minor Cause
instrument maintenance
A
C 3. Scaling on outer surface people.
H of the cooling tubes. 3. It cannot be clean easily,
I unless taking a major Main Cause
N shutdown.
E 4.Tar flushing temperature 4. It can be rectified easily
gauge malfunctioning by instrument Minor Cause
maintenance
5.Tar pressure gauge 5. It can be rectified by
malfunctioning instrument people easily. Minor cause

6.Tar flushing pump failure 6. It can be detected easily by

proper supervision of Minor cause
concern operator.
 1. More sludge in 1.it can be minimize by proper Minor Cause
M flushing tar. vigilant operation of decanter.
A
2. Presence of foreign Minor Cause
T 2.It is not seen till date.
particle in co gas.
E
R 3. Using low quality coal 3Coal quality is maintained in
Minor Cause
I in battery. accordance with specification
A
L 4. Low pressure and 4.It can be minimized by proper
Minor Cause
installation of temp. & pressure
temp. Of flushing tar.
gauge.
M 1. Seasonal tar flushing 1. It is not adopted . Minor Cause
E to PGC.
T 2.It can be avoided by nozzle
2.uneven tar flushing to cleaning & maintaining pump
H Minor Cause
PGC. pressure .
O
D 3..It is inspected on regular Minor Cause
3. Cold coal tar flushing basis & can be control.
to PGC.

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSYS BY 5W & 1H METHOD

After finding out the main cause through validation of probable causes our QC team has made an
attempt for root cause Verification through 5W & 1H METHOD.

Scaling on outer surface of the cooling tubes.

What is the Problem?
At the cooling tubes of PGC.
Where is the Problem?
During cooling of CO gas.
When the Problem Occurs?
Reduction in gaps between cooling tubes due to scaling.
Who is the Problem?
Due to Reduction in gaps between the bundles of cooling tubes, passage
Why this Problem Occur? of gas reduced.

If any reason scaling occurred on outer surface of the cooling tubes , the
gaps between the bundles of tubes becomes reduced. As a result Coke
How this Problem Occur? Oven gas is not able to pass successively across the primary gas cooler
which causes rise of resistance in PGC.
After analyzing the main cause by 5W & 1H method we found that the root cause is

“ REDUCTION IN GAPS BETWEEN THE COOLING TUBES .’’

STEP :7 DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis of “Reduction in gaps between the bundles of cooling tubes ” is studied in detailed
and data has been collected for this from the Exhauster House log book.

Data collected from 01/01/2019 to28/02/2019 from Exhauster House log book.

READING OF READING OF
RESISTANCE
SL CO GAS AT IN CO GAS AT
ACROSS PGC REASON OF REDUCTION IN
. LET OF PGC OUT LET OF
N
DATE SHIFT IN mmWc(ALL GAPS BETWEEN THE BUNDLES
in mmWc. (ALL PGC in mmWc.
O. VALUES ARE OF COOLING TUBES.
VALUES ARE (ALL VALUES
IN + VE)
IN – VE) ARE IN – VE)

01 01/01/2018 A 40 400 360 Sludge mixed tar flushing

02 03/01/2018 c 40 400 360 Sludge mixed tar flushing

03 05/01/2018 B 40 420 380 Sludge mixed tar flushing

04 07/01/2018 A 40 420 380 Sludge mixed tar flushing

05 09/01/2018 A 40 420 380 Sludge mixed tar flushing

06 11/01/2018 C 40 400 360 Tar flushing nozzle choked

07 13/01/2018 A 40 400 360 Sludge mixed tar flushing

08 15/01/2018 C 40 420 380 Sludge mixed tar flushing

09 17/01/2018 B 43 400 357 Sludge mixed tar flushing

10 19/01/2018 A 43 420 377 Sludge mixed tar flushing

11 21/01/2018 C 43 420 377 Sludge mixed tar flushing

12 23/01/2018 A 43 400 357 Sludge mixed tar flushing

13 25/01/2018 B 47 450 403 Sludge mixed tar flushing

14 27/01/2018 C 47 440 393 Sludge mixed tar flushing

15 29/01/2018 A 47 440 393 Sludge mixed tar flushing

16 31/01/2018 B 47 430 383 Sludge mixed tar flushing

17 02/02/2018 A 45 430 385 Sludge mixed tar flushing

18 04/022018 c 45 440 395 Sludge mixed tar flushing

19 06/02/2018 B 45 440 395 Sludge mixed tar flushing

20 08/02/2018 c 45 450 405 Sludge mixed tar flushing

21 10/02/2018 B 47 480 433 Tar flushing nozzle choked

22 12/02/2018 A 47 470 423 Sludge mixed tar flushing

23 14/02/2018 C 47 460 413 Sludge mixed tar flushing

24 16/02/2018 A 47 470 423 Sludge mixed tar flushing

25 18/02/2018 B 50 470 420 Sludge mixed tar flushing

Sudden break down of stand- by

26 20/02/2018 C 50 470 420 tar flushing pump & main pump on
schedule maintenance.

27 22/02/2018 A 50 480 430 Sludge mixed tar flushing

28 24/02/2018 C 50 480 430 Sludge mixed tar flushing

29 26/02/2018 B 50 488 438 Sludge mixed tar flushing

30 28/02/2018 C 50 490 440 Sludge mixed tar flushing

PARETO ANALYSIS

It is cleared from the data analysis that the below mentioned factors are most
responsible for Reduction in gaps between the bundles of cooling tubes

19
No. FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR. CODE FREQUENCY OF CONTRIBUTION(%)
REDUCTION IN GAPS BETWEEN THE OCCURANCES In IND
BUNDLES OF COOLING TUBES nos.

1. Sludge mixed tar flushing to PGC. A 27 90 90

2. Tar flushing nozzle choked B 02 6.67 96.67
3. Sudden break down of stand- by tar C 01 3.33 100
flushing pump
Total 30 100
As per the contribution of all the sources.

Total = (A) 90.00% + (B) 6.67% + (C) 3.33% = 100%

SETTING TARGET

TO REDUCE CO GAS RESISTANCE ACROSS PGC

FROM 395 mmWc TO ≤ 100 mmWc

20
 STEP -8

DEVELOPING SOLUTION

AFTER FINDING OUT THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR PROBLEM THROUGH

VALIDATION OF CAUSES. OUR Q.C TEAM HAS DONE BRAINSTORMING
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTION AND SUGGESTED SOME
SOLUTIONS AS SHOWN IN TABLE. OUR TEAM SELECTED ONE
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION OUT OF FOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS,
WHICH IS ECONOMICAL AND SUITABLE FOR THIS PROBLEM.

FOR MAINTAINING REQUIRED RESISTANCE ACROSS PGC (≤ 100 mmWc)

Sl. Accepted /
Alternative Effect Solution
No. Rejected

Clean the tar It is not feasible due to More precautions

1 flushing nozzle unsafe position of tar and safety are Rejected
periodically. nozzle point. required .

Clean the total tar Difficulties in Detection

More manpower and
2 pipe line in regular of exact jamming Rejected
time is required.
interval. position

This process can

Insert a mesh in It will choke the pipe line Rejected
required more
3 the delivery line of easily due to deposition
manpower for
tar pump. of sludge material.
cleaning.

By this arrangement
Install a tar filter scaling due to tar
This will restrict the
along with a sludge on outer
4 sludge and foreign Accepted
strainer in tar surface of the cooling
material .
pump delivery line. tubes can be
avoided.

21
DEVELOPING SOLUTION
BEFORE Q.C . (PREVIOUS SYSTEM)
 Earlier tar flushing to PGC was carried out only by using a tar pump, no
tar cleaning apparatus was utilized . So the sludge content in tar,
directly enters to PGC ,which causes quick scale formation over the
cooling tubes. Hence it obstacle to pass the CO gas successively. As a
result the resistance increases across the PGC.


DEVELOPING SOLUTION
AFTER Q.C. (MODIFIED SYSTEM)

Keeping in view on the above problem our Q.C team made brainstorming.
Hence propose to install a filter along with a strainer arrangement at the
delivery line of the tar flushing pump.
This will restrict the sludge and any other foreign substance mixed with tar
during tar flushing PGC. As a result only clean tar can be used for flushing
purpose.

22
 ACTION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION
We have prepared time bound and responsibility share ,action plan to
implement our solution effectively within time limit.

TIME PERIOD
SL. TH
ACTION RESPONSIBILITY (08 MAY 2019 TO
NO. ST
21 MAY 2019 )

1 DESIGN & PLANNING. ALL MEMBERS 3 DAYS

S. K. MOHANTA &
2 ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIALS. 5 DAYS
J. B. GIRI
A. K. BERA &
FABRICATION AND
3 C.R.PALEI 4 DAYS
ERECTION.

WORK SAFETY CO-ORDINATION D. P. DASH &

4 2 DAYS
& SHUT DOWN PROCEDURE. K.C.SAHOO

STEP – 9
FORESEEING PROBABLE RESISTANCE
It is human nature ,that changes are not easily acceptable to the people . Before implementation
of our idea, “ the new modified system for ” reduction of resistance across PGC ”, our q. C. Members
has listed all the probable resistances that to be faced and done brainstorming to find out the
ways to overcome the resistances

Probable resistance Remedial measures

Sl.
No.

Proper co-ordination to operation Discussion was carried out with operation &
1
and maintenance staff. maintenance staff for proper co-ordination.

Handover of existing tar flushing Operation & maintenance staff are convinced for
2 pipe line and pump for new modification & we decided to carry out the work
modification. in a quick manner .

Modification was explained to our by-product in-

3 Availability of spares.
charge then he agreed.

H O D and other senior employees has been

4 Adoptability of the system. explained about the solution, methodology and
benefits.

Adoptability of the new system Our Q. C. Team talked to every operator ,also
5
by operators. demo operation was given .

23
 STEP :10 TRIAL IMPLEMENTATION AND
CHECKING PERFERMANCE
Trial implementation has been done from dt. 29th may 2019 to 25th june 2019
Sizeable and appropriate data indicating period of trial and findings for implementation of
our solution we have prepared chart as shown in table to indicate period of trials and
findings.

24
25
 STEP :11 REGULAR IMPLEMENTATION
Regular implementation of the modified system was started on dt.26th
June 2019 and found running in a excellent way till now .

26
 BENEFITS

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

SN VALUE
HEADS (ANNUAL FIGURES)

1 COST OF CO GAS / m3/ hr. (AT NO. OF OVEN PUSHING OF 75/ DAY) @gas Rs. 16,00,000.00
discharge 320m3/hr including crude coal tar & ammonium sulphate &
naphthalene =

TOTAL SAVINGS COST. Rs. 16,00,000.00

IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS.

1 M.S. PIPE OF DIA .100mm. (10 mtr. @Rs600/mtr.) 10 x Rs600= Rs . 6,000 .00

2 FILTER ATTACHMENT 25NB @15,000X01= Rs.15 ,000 .00

3 M.S BEND 100NB 03nos.@ 300= Rs. 900 .00

4 M.S VALVE . 01nos. OF SIZE .100mm. @Rs. 3,500X01= Rs.3 , 500.00

5 STRAINER ATTACHMENT (Y-TYPE). @5000 X 01= Rs. 5,000.00

6 M. S FLANGE. 09 Nos.OF Dia100mm. @Rs.250 x 09 nos.= Rs. 2,250.00

TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST Rs.32,650.00

NET SAVINGS PER ANNUM. Rs.15,67,350.00

27
 INTANGIABLE BENEFITS
1. Ability to motivate our co-workers towards positive thinking.
2. Problem analysis skill developed.
3. Self satisfaction increased.
4. Mutual understanding improved.
5. Positive attitude towards work.
6. Enthusiasm towards our work improved.

STEP 12
FOLLOW UP AND REVIEW

After the implementation of the project guidelines has been prepared as

follows :
 Safety & flushing of tar through new modified line with filter and strainer is
to be ensured in every two alternative day or as per requirement with
proper pump pressure maintain .
 Rise of co gas resistance. beyond normal value across PGC is to be record
with reason in log book every day. (if any)
 A weekly review on every Monday is also carried out by our Q.C team by
taking necessary feed back from the decanter & exhauster house
operator, time to time and took action for further improvement if required.

NEED BASED CHECK LIST TO SUSTAIN THE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

After doing our project , it was our pleasure about completion of it but
it was the time to review it. For this our team collected data of co gas
resistance across PGC and prepared a need based check list to sustain the
process improvement.

28
 STANDARDISATION
All the modification have been approved and issued as per
REF. BPP/MECH/OPER/A1/7694

Necessary instruction for s o p & s m p was given to operation and

maintenance staff, regarding the operation and maintenance through new
modified system for “Reduction of CO gas resistance across PGC” .

29
 TOOLS & TECHNIQUES APPLIED

 Brain Storming.
 Milestone Chart.
 Flow Diagram.
 Data Collection.
 Cause And Effect Diagram.
 Pareto Diagram.
 Rating Method.
 Bar Chart.
 4w & 1h Method / 5w & 1h Method.

BENEFITS BY SOLVING THE PROBLEM

1. Several time nozzle cleaning due to sludge, minimized.

2. Smooth PGC operation.
3. Smooth running of exhauster.
4. Time saved due to less maintenance of tar flushing line.
5. Environment friendly.
30
 SPECIAL GAINS FOR THE MEMBERS

1. Pride over our own design.

2. Improvement in duty consciousness.
3. Willingness to voluntary participation.
4. Improved team spirit.
5. Self satisfaction to individual.

OUR UPCOMING PROJECT

REMOVAL OF SLUDGE FROM TAR STORAGE TANK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to express our heartiest gratitude & thanks for the

encouragement, help and guidance provided by our department,
facilitator, co-ordinator, oprn. & maint. Staff TQM Dept. from time to time &
BHUBANESWAR SUB-CHAPTER for providing us the golden opportunity to
present this case study.

31