FOOD & BEVERAGE INDUSTRY FOCUS LOCATION AND LAYOUT – TAKING CARE OF SCRAP
was around 30% higher than necessary (based on 8,400 running hours and kWh unit cost). Fan motor power requirements calculated simplistically are a function of air volume and pressure required to overcome the circuit resistance. If either one of these are not well considered, it can have a significant influence on the size of the fan motors required and the associated running costs. “Air velocities recommended to convey
Dave Lansdell, technical sales director at Impact Air Systems, says system layout and conveying distance and velocities are crucial factors to consider when designing an efficient scrap handling solution
A
s with all modern production operations, the focus is often on
production efficiency, increased output and reduced energy consumption. But one area that is often overlooked is the scrap handling system itself, sometimes even with the misconception of it being a necessary evil that doesn’t add any value to the production process. Scrap handling systems that collect
waste material from a cupping press, bank of body maker trimmers or whole reject production spoilage, and then convey it through a pneumatic ductwork circuit to a hydraulic bale press are simple enough and can be found in every beverage can facility across the globe. However, in many instances, a lack of understanding from the end user or plant designer about the influence of the overall conveying
distances, layout of the system and sensible conveying velocities in the ducted circuit can often result in unnecessarily high annual running costs for the waste recovery fans, which form an integral part of the scrap handling solution. Industry specialist Dave Lansdell,
technical sales director for Impact Air Systems, has designed scrap handling and conveying systems for can making facilities all over the world. He explained that “a recent survey of scrap systems uncovered the effects of a poorly considered location for the main scrap handling equipment, ductwork route and layout and number of simultaneously operating collection points. When looking at energy consumption, it was found that poor system design meant that running costs for a typical 45kW or 60hp waste fan
RAISING THE BAR IN X-RAY INSPECTION CAPABILITIES
Food manufacturer, Brighter Foods, has recently invested in X-ray inspection technology from Loma Systems to support an increased emphasis in the company’s product checking processes. Launched in 2014, Brighter Foods has the capacity to make over a million bars a day for brand partners
in the slimming, sport, organic, free-from and other niche categories. As a means of complying with code of practice (COP) stipulations, an increasing number of customers required even greater checks through the use of X-ray inspection. This, in addition to recommendations made in their BRC audit, highlighted that Brighter Foods should consider further investment in X-ray inspection capability. The company approached Loma Systems to understand how an X-ray system could benefit their business. Following a full audit of Brighter Foods’ current operation, Loma Systems recommended its X5C compact,
which checks for a wide selection of contaminants from metal to hard plastics. Incorporating an air blast reject system to detect and remove any contaminated product, the system suits convenience food, ready meals and small packaged goods. Occupying a small footprint, the machine can easily fit into a relatively narrow production line length. The XC5 also provides the added benefit of being able to analyse product integrity, including counting
the number of bars within the pack, checking the volume per bar, and ensuring the product is undamaged. Previously a labour intensive, time consuming process, in the event of any defect, the product is now quickly removed from the production line and logged on the system, so that Brighter Foods can investigate. Loma Systems
www.loma.com
Impact Air Systems can design innovative solutions for various can scrap handling applications
typical beverage can scrap vary slightly depending on the size, shape and quantity of material being transported through the circuit. However, as a broad rule of thumb, most scrap conveying circuits will operate without issue at 28m/s (5,500fpm). We regularly encounter systems installed by other companies where conveying speeds are far in excess of this figure. Simple modifications and upgrades are one way to combat this for existing systems.” In recently awarded scrap conveying and
bale handling projects, Lansdell has also worked with robotic handling suppliers and can manufacturers to create an efficient, cost saving bale handling robotic palletising cell design, taking into consideration logistical activities during the recycling process once the bales leave the plant. Usually, scrap bales are stacked on a wooden pallet, strapped and removed from site like any other waste material. However, this doesn’t always provide the most economical payload in transportation from the plant to the recycler, nor does it take into account the additional handling required by the recycler once the scrap bales arrive, such as removing the bales from the wooden pallet. One of the key elements of the latest
palletising cell allows finished bale stacks to be transported away from the plant without using wooden pallets. A carefully considered bale stacking pattern was determined through trials and tests to provide a robust, stable bale stack that includes voids to allow a standard fork truck to lift and transport the finished stack from the cell and into a road vehicle. The pattern also ensured a maximum vehicle payload in terms of weight was achieved. “These examples of innovative
engineering and logistics and transport efficiency contribute greatly towards minimising the carbon footprint of the can manufacturing process. We continue to focus on system efficiency and cost- savings for the scrap handling process and ensure this is passed on to our customers.”
Impact Air Systems
www.impactairsystems.com
PROCESS & CONTROL | DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020 35
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
