M
ore than 10 years ago, EBAA Iron Co., Eastland, Texas,
decided it was done trucking loads upon loads of sand in and out of the facility. “We have a lot of things in Texas, but
sand isn’t one of them,” said Dick Mead, plant engineering manager for EBAA. “In the past, we would bleed sand out of the system and replace it with new sand. Tat’s expensive. Plus, we had the problem of disposing of used sand.” Te waterworks casting manufac-
turer started with a 1,000-lb./hour thermal sand reclaimer that burns off binder so the sand can be used repeat- edly. Because thermal sand reclamation units typically remove 90-100% of the binder, the reclaimed sand’s proper- ties are comparable to new sand. For EBAA, a large iron casting facility, the system seemed like a good investment. “It makes sense to clean up what
we have so it’s usable,” Mead said. “It’s a capital expense, another piece of equipment, another baghouse. If you were somewhere where it was relatively easy to dispose of used sand or buying new sand was a minimal expense, it might be difficult to get the return on investment.”
Justifying Cost Like many metalcasting facilities
in the U.S. Midwest, TyssenKrupp Waupaca, Waupaca, Wis., was fine with its sand costs for many years. According to Gregory Miskinis, direc- tor of research and process develop- ment, TyssenKrupp facilities had good, longstanding relationships with their sand suppliers, and land for sand disposal was plentiful and inexpensive. As a result, thermal sand reclamation couldn’t be cost-justified. But now the company is a step away
from installing a thermal sand reclama- tion system in its Waupaca plants. “Planning for the future led us to this
point,” Miskinis said. “As good as a rela- tionship as you can have with your sand suppliers, they still have to be responsible to their shareholders who are asking why they are selling to the foundry when so much can be sold to [the oil and gas industry] at a higher price. We looked at [the market] and knew we needed to protect our future raw material.” Te oil and gas industry has turned
up its demand for silica sand, which is used in the hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) process. Te demand is threatening the supply to other indus- tries dependent on sand, including the metalcasting industry. According to Miskinis, the potential sand short- age and increased costs are making it easier to cost-justify thermal sand reclamation.“It’s the right thing to do, as our CEO says,” Miskinis said. “And now it has a payback period that is acceptable to our parent company.” TyssenKrupp Waupaca has selected and engineered a system and plans to purchase the equipment in the first or second quarter of the next fiscal year.
Not Only for High Production As a high volume casting facil-
ity, TyssenKrupp Waupaca plans to run its thermal sand reclamation equipment constantly. Te units are designed and built to provide a con- tinuous amount of fresh sand to keep up with production. At Space Castings, the foundry
division of Flotech Inc., Jacksonville, Fla., the thermal sand reclamation unit runs just 50 hours a week. “We’re not a production foundry
that kicks out 6,000 or 7,000 pieces of something,” said Chris Casey, foundry operator. “We do a lot of one-, two- and three-offs.” Although Flotech is not dealing in the same volume of sand as TyssenK- rupp Waupaca or EBAA, the material’s cost is still critical. According to Casey, available landfills are scarce in Florida and new sand has to be trucked in with a blower unit. His plant was spending $5,000 for 20 tons of sand. “When you are spending $4,500 to
$5,500 for a load of sand, and that’s only a week’s supply, it adds up,” Casey said. “Tere are only so many times you can run mechanically reclaimed sand through [the system]. If you are doing 50% mechanical, 50% new, your costs are really going to start to go up.”
Size Matters Casey suggests a few considerations
for metalcasters—particularly smaller volume shops—that are performing a cost-benefit analysis of thermal sand reclamation: 1. Size of the unit.
2. Energy costs. 3. New sand costs. 4. Disposal and haul-away costs. In April 2008, Flotech upgraded its
thermal sand reclamation to a 1-ton/ hour unit. Te system reclaims more than 99% of its sand, with the remain- der lost to production and in fines, according to Casey. “Disposal cost is one of the easiest
areas to realize your savings,” he said. “Our disposal costs have been reduced to negligible. Plus, what we do have to haul away is now just sand to be dumped and not a hazardous material.” Casey said the return on investment
for the unit is expected to be three years. Energy costs have increased for the gas- fired unit, but Casey is satisfied with the fuel efficiency. New sand and disposal costs have been cut dramatically. TyssenKrupp Waupaca is taking
a different approach to running its thermal reclamation system. It plans to keep it in operation constantly, so it had to size the system to match production. “We wanted a size that would
provide the needs for our coreroom but also allow autonomous operation on nonproduction weekends and allow the sand to accumulate but not give us a mountain,” Miskinis said. “We went with a system that processes 3 tons/hour but is designed so that we could easily double it in the same location if needed.” EBAA recently upgraded its 4,000-
lb./hour system to 8,000 lbs./hour when it saw a marginal demand that would push its 4,000-lb. unit to run 24 hours a day six days a week. “Running it like that was not a
problem,” Mead said. “But it looked like we would have to go to a second shift, which would mean we wouldn’t have enough reclaim capacity.” At 8,000 lbs./hour, EBBA’s new unit
has more than enough capacity. Because the equipment works best when it runs continuously for a long period of time, the valve and pipe caster stores the sand that needs to be reclaimed.
Grading the Sand When TyssenKrupp Waupaca was
researching thermal sand reclamation, one of its main concerns was the qual- ity of the sand after processing. “We wanted to find out the poten- tial harm to the sand and compare it
October 2011 MODERN CASTING | 19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68