Paper machine rebuilds: factors for success: remove or improve? That's the tough question facing underperforming papermaking lines in today's unforgiving market.

In this age of downsizing, existing papermaking lines are under very tight scrutiny. Higher cost, underperforming papermaking lines are, more than ever, at risk of being mothballed or permanently closed. As the number of new paper machine installations decline, paper mills are choosing to rebuild existing units to improve operating efficiency and paper quality.

In evaluating papermaking lines that need improvement, a host of factors must be considered, including fiber supply, marketing, environmental concerns, and local conditions such as taxes and cost of labor. These concerns all contribute to the main issue: whether the machine can do what the company needs it to do, at the price that the company is willing to pay.

"In the end, production must be driven by sales and marketing and overall corporate strategy and goals, and not the other way around," said James W. Atkins of Atkins Inc., a consultancy based in Flemington, New Jersey, USA. He suggests a series of questions to help guide decision-making. "First, does this equipment produce grades of paper that fit into our overall sales plan and does it produce these grades in a profitable manner? Second, if the answer is 'no,' can the grade structure be changed or the machine rebuilt to correct the situation? Third, if the machine is shut down, what does this do to the profitability of the whole mill? Even high cost machines are carrying a portion of the fixed costs, which will have to be reallocated to the remaining production."

Before making the final decision to rebuild, mills should closely examine the limitations of the existing machinery, said Robert Wheeler; vice president sales and service lot Metso Paper USA in Norcross, Georgia, USA. "This should be done with some form of measured machine condition test followed by engineered calculations, preferably by someone who knows the existing equipment fairly well," he suggested. "Then the ultimate limit of the full line can be determined by section or component. When this limit is determined the scope of the rebuild can be determined, as well as the rate of financial return."

Decision-makers should pay close attention to potential objectives, which include efficiency gains, quality improvements, and cost reduction or linear production gains. "in some cases, not all are desired," wheeler noted

"In a market where excess capacity is available, rebuilding for quality improvement or cost reduction reasons will make the papermaking line competitive only if the new operating cost is below that of some other line, prompting shutdown of the less efficient, higher operating cost line," added Terry L. Bliss, an engineering consultant based in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. "If the potential isn't there to get the cost well below the next highest cost line, the line in question will eventually be shut down-assuming that there is nothing unique about that paper machine that would prevent the grades it normally manufactures from being produced on some other paper machine."

CREWS CAN BE CRUCIAL

Operator efficiency is a factor that mills sometimes overlook when examining a paper machine's potential. "In view of recent price wars--a consequence of overcapacity--the machine crew must ensure as high an efficiency of the paper machine as possible, as well as very high paper qualities. In this way, the costs per ton of paper can be reduced, which makes the product more competitive. The interaction of operators and machinery is a key flirter in the fight against bottlenecks and deficiencies," said Wolfram Sturm, sales manager Northern Europe, Voith Paper GmbH & Co. KG, Heidenheim, Germany.

"Sure, the crews have a hand in making a paper machine profitable and thus sustainable--a big one at that! The difference between paper machines that are running at high efficiencies and those that run poorly is often directly traceable to the skill and dedication of the operators," agreed Atkins. "Unfortunately, even the hard work and determination of the best crews can't save out-dated paper machines. We all have to walk that 'green mile' someday."

Mills should note that creating and maintaining a highly skilled crew also adds to the project's cost and sometimes, the crew can feel the pressure. "A rebuild's useful life is far greater than an economic cycle, yet we tend to define the economic success of capital projects in terms of cash flow in the first few years," said Bliss. "This threes us to minimize the reel-to-reel time, the time to reach rated capacity, and the time until the first salable reel. Failure to achieve the goals of the rebuild makes it more difficult to get funding for the next major project. This understandably puts pressure on everyone involved--no one wants to be identifiable as the reason why the rebuild failed.

"Rebuild capital is often spent to make a paper machine more automated or more foolproof, in lieu of depending on superior operator skills," he continued, "but fine best crew out there can't raise the dryer can pressure ratings, or make a speed-limited machine run taster. Every machine has mechanical and quality limitations. Skilled operators can make the line more profitable, but at some point the hardware must be upgraded."

According to wheeler, the real pressure should he on management, since they are the ones responsible for the final decisions. "Management needs to get together with the machine crew to make the best choice of equipment or technology," he suggested. "Then, when a team choice is made, chances for success are much more realistic." Equipment suppliers can be "equal partners" in the decision-making process, Wheeler noted, if they are knowledgeable about project objectives.

FLEXIBLE FLYERS 

Stiffer competition and tighter margins mean that managers must use every resource judiciously. A machine rebuild is the perfect opportunity for a careful assessment of how the machine can be altered to best contribute to the company's total resource pool. Are customers clamoring for quicker response to special orders? Rebuilds planned with an eye on grade flexibility, can offer paper companies a chance to squeeze extra value from their investment by increasing their ability to respond quickly to market fluctuations and changing customer demands. Conversely, greater efficiency-usually best achieved with a single-grade focus--might better complement the mill's strategy.

As Bliss points out, "Paper machines operate most cost effectively at production rates close to their maximum. It makes more sense to operate at or close to capacity, then shut down when there are no orders. The down time can be used for maintenance--who wouldn't like to have plenty of time to do the job right? Swinging from one grade to another can help fill machine time, but economics usually dictate that the primary grades are much more profitable."

Voith Paper's Sturm agrees. "On the one hand, a 'swing machine' gives the flexibility needed to respond to changing demands and markets. On the other hand, focusing on one grade only makes the process more efficient and keeps the losses low during grade changes. Machine suppliers can help to find the right compromise to optimize the machine for the core product and switch, if necessary," he suggested.

KEEPING IT REAL

From decision-making through project execution, the advice from our experts is clear: successful rebuild projects are goal-oriented. A mill should be certain about what it needs and wants from the machine, and plan the project accordingly. Open communications among all parties involved--mill management, the machine crew and equipment suppliers-is essential. "Common and realistic objectives must be chosen and agreed to by all: this includes the supplier, purchaser, engineering and operations," said Metso's Wheeler. "The key word here is 'realistic,' versus forced or too far extended."

Bliss agrees. "Adding a new press or rebuilding the forming section is great, but if the stock supply system can't supply the incremental tons, or if pressure pulsation problems are not addressed, the overall success of the project is not assured. Every major component needs to be requalified to ensure that it can support the new operating conditions. Failure to do so may delay success for 6 months or a year, with disastrous economic consequences," he said.

When so much of the project's success rides on realistic expectations and close communications, savvy managers will not neglect the "human factors." (See box above.) Crew training--or retraining--is "very critical," said Wheeler. "So is team building and [reinforcement of] a common set of objectives. Managers must avoid penalizing failure, but instead reward and motivate success. This results in a team that seeks resolutions to problems instead of blaming others or saying, 'not me!' in times el failure."

As with the expectations, training conditions should be kept realistic for best success. "Training of the maintenance and operating personnel during and after the rebuild has to be as close to real conditions as possible," said Sturm. "An open and honest form of cooperation in every phase of the project, with both sides--producer and supplier--frankly explaining their weaknesses and strengths, will lead to excellent results in a vow short time."

THIS ARTICLE IS BASED ON A SURVEY OF SEVERAL PAPERMAKING EXPERTS INCLUDING:

James W. Atkins

Atkins, Inc., Flemington, New Jersey, USA, a member of TAPPI's Editorial Board

Terry L. Bliss

an engineering consultant based in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and a member of TAPPI's Editorial Board

Wolfram Sturm

sales manager, Northern Europe, Voith Paper GmbH & Co. KG, Heidenheim, Germany.

Robert Wheeler

vice president sales and service, Metso Paper USA, Norcross, Georgia, USA

The responses were edited by Janice Bottiglieri, managing editor of Solutions! magazine.

WHAT TO CONSIDER WHEN CONSIDERING A REBUILD

Solutions/asked James W. Atkins, a consultant based in Flemington, New Jersey, USA, to sum up some of the top issues to consider when making the decision to rebuild.

"There have been a number of books written on this subject, so a short answer is a bit limiting," Atkins said, "but here are a few key factors:

1. Clear corporate goals, so that project goals are set correctly

2. A clear understanding of project goals

3. A well-defined project scope

4. Strict adherence to the project scope

5. Good project management

6. Excellent, timely communication in all directions (one of the toughest factors)

7. Training

8. Training

9. More training

"In the end, it's human beings that build, install, start up, and run the equipment. So the success of any project is virtually all 'human factors,'" he concluded.

About the author: Janice Bottiglieri is managing editor of Solutions! You may address email to: [e-mail]