Simple Solutions That Work! Issue 14

dimensions and many other details. So if a foundry asked for a 1 ton ladle, everybody knew exactly what they were getting and it didn’t matter if it didn’t quite fit into the foundry’s actual requirements. Then there were very few foundries who asked for something that was designed to match their specific requirements. Although we would often see that the ladle had later been modified by the customer, to better meet their particular needs The British standard were set out in 1960 and amended in 1961. They covered lip-pour, teapot spout and bottom pouring ladles. Finally being superseded in 2004 by a new combined British and European standard BS EN 1247 and while the original standards gave the impression they had been put together by a foundry man, the later 2004 standard, came across as being put together by a committee. (Possibly one that had never been in a foundry). 5 Continued on next page ADVANCED MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS There was the American standard AISE 9 but this seemed more applicable to 300 ton steel mill ladles and not 3t on foundry ladles. It was also first issued in September 1951 but I believe an update was issued in 1991. (If anybody has a copy I’d be grateful if they could send me one.) The problem with these standards was that they were never regularly updated, and failed to take into account changes in foundry practice. I’ve never been a fan of “one size fits all” and the original standards were focused on that. It didn’t matter if you needed a larger hook on your ladle to suit your crane or the spout needed extending for more efficient pouring of your mold box. As for ductile iron treatment ladles or motor drive. These were areas that were not covered. Especially ironic as the ductile treatment ladle places some very specific requirements on the ladle design. The limitations of the old UK ladle standards became apparent to us in the early 1980’s when we started to get a few complaints that our standard ladles were not holding the rated capacity. Something that didn’t make sense as they were, well, standard and the shell sizes corresponded to the standards. As office junior I would be dispatched to investigate, and you didn’t need to be “Sherlock Holmes” to work out what the problem was. The standard ladles were intended to have the firebrick linings and foundries were starting to use the new castable refractory types. The castable refractory type ladles are a lot thicker, so where a firebrick lining would have 1-1/2” lining allowance, a castable lining allowance would be 3” or even 4". Open Back Teapot Spout: Shows how the teapot spout is created by inserting a refractory board Teapot Spout Ladle with Closed Back: Shows a traditional teapot spout with the shell behind the spout still in place