from our readers: food & beverage manufacturing in 2014 · the 2008 financial crisis, including...

food & Bever age • concept to delivery • present to future • foodprocessing.com

February 2014

From our readers: Food & Beverage

Manufacturingin 2014

http://www.foodprocessing.com

Table of contentsthe swagger’s Back:results from our 2014 Manufacturing trends survey 3

rotary impingement tank cleaning equals significant Water and cost savings 8

Meeting today’s fresh food challenges 12

critical temperature tools for food safety 15

Methods for Mitigation of corrosion under insulation 18

Measuring volume in Bins, tanks and silos 22

Ad indexgamajet 7www.gamajet.com

infor 11www.infor.com/food-beverage

tegam 14www.tegam.com

polyguard 17www.polyguardproducts.com

BinMaster 21www.binmaster.com

federal equipment 24www.fedequip.com

FOOD & BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING 2014

2


Uncertainty dogged all manufacturing sectors in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, including food & beverage pro-cessing. But a much more bullish outlook is taking hold,

as responses to Food Processing’s 13th Annual Manufacturing Trends Survey suggest, making the outlook for 2014 the most upbeat since the pre-recession years.

In fact, fully two-thirds of food professionals participating in the web-based survey indicate they are optimistic as their organizations prepare to meet challenges in the New Year. However, the upbeat as-sessment may have less to do with production increases or workforce expansions than with personal pocketbooks.

Only two-fifths of last year’s respondents expected their salaries to increase in 2013, but 51 percent ended up getting 2013 salary bumps, according to this year’s respondents. Only a shade more than 1 percent saw salaries dip, a third of the number who anticipated pay cuts. For the year ahead, 44 percent anticipate higher pay, and less than 1 percent are concerned about payroll deflation. Uncertainty about compensation prospects declined fourfold.

Expectations for capital expenditures also show a small improve-ment, with most of those with growing budgets anticipating spend-ing increases in the high single digits or double digits. More tellingly, only one in 13 respondents say their firms will reduce capital spend-ing, a marked improvement over last year, when economic uncertain-ty was frequently cited as a reason for delaying or canceling projects.

Processing professionals are upbeat about their own facilities’ as-set utilization, with three-quarters anticipating throughput growth this year. The majority of those plants are on track for double-digit production increases. That helps explain why capacity constraints are frequently mentioned as a key manufacturing issue in 2014, along with regulatory challenges, equipment reliability and logistics.

Food safety is like motherhood and virtue, so it’s unsurprising that respondents overwhelmingly ranked food safety as 2014’s most important manufacturing issue, far and away the top priority in a list of 11 that readers were asked to rank (see Figure 1). Cost control re-ceived the second-highest ranking scores, followed by labor, inspec-

tions and certifications, sourcing and materials issues and the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

You can agree with the concept of food safety without support-ing the framework for improving outcomes, as readers indicated. Describing the vital manufacturing issues of 2014, one respon-dent grumped, “Over-regulation from FDA (FSMA), OSHA and EPA, as well as the growing requirements for certifications.” That last complaint is a swipe at industry self-regulation, notably the third-party certification programs endorsed by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). Almost two-fifths of respondents’ fa-cilities have been certified under one of the GFSI standards, and an additional 7 percent have received certification by outside auditors not affiliated with GFSI.

Validation of a plant’s food safety practices is a desirable assurance

figure 1Manufacturing priorities for 2014

first-place votes rating avg. rating avg.

last year

food safety 59% 8.4 8.2

cost control 27% 7.2 7.4

food safety Modernization act 24% 5.9 n/a

inspection/certifications 17% 6.1 5.9

sourcing and materials 13% 6.0 6.4

automation: 12% 4.7 5.1

labor 10% 6.1 6.3

energy concerns 9% 5.3 5.7

environmental/sustainability issues

8% 5.2 5.6

solid waste management 6% 3.3 n/a

Wastewater management 5% 3.6 n/a

The Swagger’s Back:Results from our 2014Manufacturing Trends SurveyRecovery remains anemic in much of the economy, but food processors are more confident about 2014 than they’ve felt in years.By Kevin T. Higgins, Managing Editor

respondents could vote for more than one first-place topic.

3

4


for customers, but it contributes little to ac-tual food safety and sanitation practices. Employee training is the key to continuous improvement in safe outcomes, and seven in 10 survey participants say their companies are investing in training. Half are either de-veloping or upgrading their HACCP plans, and about a third are acquiring more equip-ment for sanitation, improving the sanitary design of production equipment and/or im-proving their pest-control programs.

HACCP plans are a fundamental re-quirement of FSMA, and while only USDA facilities and juice manufacturers previously were required to have a plan, customer ex-pectations have made HACCP a condition for doing business for many food compa-nies. Past surveys consistently found about 85 percent of food manufacturers had initi-ated HACCP.

figure 5for 2014, is your whole company planning to…

Increase 20% or more......15% (LY 19%)

Increase 10-19% ................ 26% (LY 22%)

Increase 2-9%.................... 33% (LY 32%)

Stay about the same ....... 21% (LY 20%)

Decrease 2-9%..................... 1% (LY 3.6%)

Decrease 10-19% .................2% (LY 1.6%)

Decrease 20% or more...... 2% (LY 2.4%)

14Q.3Increase....................51% (LY 41%)

Decrease................... 1% (LY 4.1%)

Maintain..................42% (LY 36%)

Don’t know........... 5.4% (LY 19%)

14Q.2

Have not sought GFSI certification ..........36%Considering audits under GFSI standards..31%Certified under SQF........................................17%Certified under BRC ......................................... 7%Certified under FSCC 22000 ........................ 3%Certified under IFS............................................ 2%Certified under Other Standard................... 4%

14Q.6

14Q.5Expand production or no. of plants .......................31% (LY 32%)

Consolidate production or no. of plants.............11% (LY 12%)

Stay the same......47% (LY 47%)

Don’t know............. 11% (LY 8.8%)

Add to the workforce................31% (LY 37%)

Maintain sta�ng level ............. 40% (LY 41%)

Passively reduce workforce..9.3% (LY 9.4%)

Actively reduce workforce ....3.3% (LY 4.9%)

Don’t know...................................16% (LY 8.2%)

14Q.4

2009 2010

14Q.7

10%

30%

50%

70%

66% 67%

2011 2012

66% 63%

2013 2014

61%

44%

figure 6Manufacturers’ movement to gfsi- sanctioned food safety standards


Increase 10-19% ................ 26% (LY 22%)

Increase 2-9%.................... 33% (LY 32%)


Decrease 2-9%..................... 1% (LY 3.6%)

Decrease 10-19% .................2% (LY 1.6%)


14Q.3Increase....................51% (LY 41%)

Decrease................... 1% (LY 4.1%)

Maintain..................42% (LY 36%)

Don’t know........... 5.4% (LY 19%)

14Q.2


14Q.6




Don’t know............. 11% (LY 8.8%)





Don’t know...................................16% (LY 8.2%)

14Q.4

2009 2010

14Q.7

10%

30%

50%

70%

66% 67%

2011 2012

66% 63%

2013 2014

61%

44%

figure 4in 2014, does your facility plan to...


Increase 10-19% ................ 26% (LY 22%)

Increase 2-9%.................... 33% (LY 32%)


Decrease 2-9%..................... 1% (LY 3.6%)

Decrease 10-19% .................2% (LY 1.6%)


14Q.3Increase....................51% (LY 41%)

Decrease................... 1% (LY 4.1%)

Maintain..................42% (LY 36%)

Don’t know........... 5.4% (LY 19%)

14Q.2


14Q.6




Don’t know............. 11% (LY 8.8%)





Don’t know...................................16% (LY 8.2%)

14Q.4

2009 2010

14Q.7

10%

30%

50%

70%

66% 67%

2011 2012

66% 63%

2013 2014

61%

44%

figure 2do you anticipate your plant’s production in 2014 to…


Increase 10-19% ................ 26% (LY 22%)

Increase 2-9%.................... 33% (LY 32%)


Decrease 2-9%..................... 1% (LY 3.6%)

Decrease 10-19% .................2% (LY 1.6%)


14Q.3Increase....................51% (LY 41%)

Decrease................... 1% (LY 4.1%)

Maintain..................42% (LY 36%)

Don’t know........... 5.4% (LY 19%)

14Q.2


14Q.6




Don’t know............. 11% (LY 8.8%)





Don’t know...................................16% (LY 8.2%)

14Q.4

2009 2010

14Q.7

10%

30%

50%

70%

66% 67%

2011 2012

66% 63%

2013 2014

61%

44%

figure 3What will happen to salaries at your facility in 2014?


Increase 10-19% ................ 26% (LY 22%)

Increase 2-9%.................... 33% (LY 32%)


Decrease 2-9%..................... 1% (LY 3.6%)

Decrease 10-19% .................2% (LY 1.6%)


14Q.3Increase....................51% (LY 41%)

Decrease................... 1% (LY 4.1%)

Maintain..................42% (LY 36%)

Don’t know........... 5.4% (LY 19%)

14Q.2


14Q.6




Don’t know............. 11% (LY 8.8%)





Don’t know...................................16% (LY 8.2%)

14Q.4

2009 2010

14Q.7

10%

30%

50%

70%

66% 67%

2011 2012

66% 63%

2013 2014

61%

44%

4


The rigor of those programs and whether they will pass muster with FDA is another matter, and 10 percent of respondents indicate there is concern within their organizations that existing plans are not sufficiently grounded in the science-based evaluations FDA will require. More than a quarter of readers say their firms are evaluating their HACCP programs, and others are reviewing the accessibility of their records and current GMPs and prerequisite programs. Not everyone is concerned: One in eight say they have yet to assess the impact of FSMA on their operations.

Capital prioritiesMore than a third (37 percent) of respondents say their companies will increase capital spending this year, and half of those firms are budgeting double-digit increases. Given the number of new lines and new facilities either being planned or commissioned, some of those increases likely will stretch into triple digits.

Automation projects ranging from the addition of a robotic palletizer to automating entire lines are frequently cited priorities, along with re-placement of obsolete computers and other equipment. One participant put CapEx in the context of core competencies, writing, “We may do more contracting out (and) do what we are great at and have others … do what they are great at.” Another managed to blame Washington for a dearth of financing, grousing, “Obamacare took care of that budget.”

Some of the spending will be linked to sustainability objectives. More than a third say green manufacturing will take on added impor-tance in 2014, with only 15 percent suggesting sustainability is of little or declining importance. One green denier wrote, “Most green is high cost and fraud. Major loss of money, with no actual impact on environment.”

A more prevalent view is that green manufacturing implies an at-tack on waste, and waste is a cost that erodes a business’s bottom line.

Lighting upgrades are an example: Many manufacturers realized fast paybacks in recent years by converting to T-5 and T-8 fluorescent lighting from metal halide and other antiquated technologies, and now they are eyeing LED. “We just added automatic lights in sev-eral areas to reduce electricity waste,” one wrote. “Automatic light switches, LED light bulbs,” another offered.

Some costly projects are planned, such as boiler and compressor upgrades, but recycling programs and other efforts to attain zero waste, be it less trash to landfills or turning off machines that aren’t produc-ing, were the most frequently cited green initiatives. Water savings and personnel behavior modification also rated numerous mentions.

Energy management is a component of green manufacturing, and interest in trimming energy consumption is growing. In their rank-ings of 2014 manufacturing priorities, 9 percent of survey respon-dents ranked energy concerns No. 1, double the ratio of a year ago. More than one-quarter indicate their firms are conducting energy audits, matching the number who feel energy management is not a pressing need. Almost half are engaged in energy conservation ef-forts, and almost a quarter are interested in co-generation and other energy re-use opportunities. Some continue to pursue alternative en-ergy options, particularly solar arrays.

“We are LEED Gold certified,” one professional wrote, “with so-lar panels, solar hot water, collected grey water, etc. We will continue to cut energy consumption where we find (opportunities).”

Getting better all the timeThe corporate financial officer doesn’t have to sign off on efficiency improvements that involve human capital, and virtually every food manufacturer is interested in boosting efficiency through continuous improvement. Half of survey respondents indicate staff suggestions are encouraged, but no formal program is in place. For the others, multiple formalized approaches are being leveraged (see Figure 8).

Lean manufacturing, Six Sigma and other programs often coexist within a facility, and some companies mix and match elements to come up with a method that works best for their operations. Balance scorecards, centralized programs executed by plant-level engineers and monthly meetings where past actions are reviewed and new ini-tiatives are plotted were some of the other approaches mentioned.

The subject turned one participant philosophic. “Mapping more, as if it is a journey with destinations,” he wrote. “Everything starts from a rough rock, and its ending is a perfect rock – see Michelangelo.”

Altering processes and procedures can produce big gains in efficien-cy, but technology also has a role. To support the automation systems being implemented, manufacturers must recruit and retain workers with higher skills. Three-quarters of survey respondents indicate their companies are addressing this need with a variety of approaches.


Increase 10-19% ................ 26% (LY 22%)

Increase 2-9%.................... 33% (LY 32%)


Decrease 2-9%..................... 1% (LY 3.6%)

Decrease 10-19% .................2% (LY 1.6%)


14Q.3Increase....................51% (LY 41%)

Decrease................... 1% (LY 4.1%)

Maintain..................42% (LY 36%)

Don’t know........... 5.4% (LY 19%)

14Q.2


14Q.6




Don’t know............. 11% (LY 8.8%)





Don’t know...................................16% (LY 8.2%)

14Q.4

2009 2010

14Q.7

10%

30%

50%

70%

66% 67%

2011 2012

66% 63%

2013 2014

61%

44%

figure 7do you feel optimistic going into the new year?

5

6


A third of respondents’ companies are recruiting maintenance technicians and expanding in-house technical training to keep advanced machinery running, and 28 percent are beefing up their in-house engineering support. Other tactics include adding line operators to perform semi-automated tasks (14 percent) and outsourcing more job functions (13 percent). One in 10 com-panies are working with trade schools, community colleges and other educators to develop electromechanical curricula.

Safeguarding those skilled and semi-skilled employees puts a greater premium on workplace safety, but reductions in on-the-job injuries in U.S. manufacturing have not occurred in recent years. Sev-en in 10 survey participants indicate worker safety is a top priority of senior management at their firms, with active machine-guarding ini-tiatives in place at 56 percent of facilities. Almost half of employers are recording near-miss events and reviewing them for remedial changes and actions. Another strategy is peer-to-peer observations of how people perform their jobs, with direct feedback of at-risk activi-ties observed.

Those and other efforts to modify behavior and increase safety are having a positive impact. Two out of five respon-dents say reportable injuries are steadily declining at their workplace. On the other hand, that leaves three out of five fa-cilities where injury rates are either static or rising, causing some food professionals to look outside the organization for help. Singling out vital manufacturing issues in 2014, one respondent cited “the NLRB being without legal members to make any actual ruling.”

This year’s survey involved 150 Food Processing readers who responded to an invitation to complete the web-based ques-tionnaire in late November and early December. They represent a wide spectrum of processing categories, with the greatest con-centration (12 percent) in the meat/poultry/seafood segment and 7 percent each from baked goods, dairy and further processed & specialty foods. One in eight work at facilities with headcounts of more than 500, with the rest evenly split between plants with 101-500 workers and those with 100 or fewer.

14Q.8

Lean manufacturing

5S

Total Quality Management

Six Sigma teams

OEE data

Value Stream Mapping

Kaizen

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

35%

28%

24%

21%

19%

18%

16%

14Q.9

Energy conservation program

Energy audits

Cogeneration/energy recycling

Negotiations with suppliers

Alternative energy sources

Energy management consultants

Solar panel installation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

45%

27%

22%

17%

9%

15%

7%

14Q.10

Production sections

Packaging sections

Warehousing

MRO functions

Entire line

All/most of plant

No projects planned

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

39%

34%

19%

17%

10%

12%

13%

figure 8What programs do you use for continuous improvement?

14Q.8

Lean manufacturing

5S


Six Sigma teams

OEE data


Kaizen

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

35%

28%

24%

21%

19%

18%

16%

14Q.9


Energy audits






0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

45%

27%

22%

17%

9%

15%

7%

14Q.10

Production sections

Packaging sections

Warehousing

MRO functions

Entire line

All/most of plant

No projects planned

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

39%

34%

19%

17%

10%

12%

13%

figure 9energy management strategies

14Q.8

Lean manufacturing

5S


Six Sigma teams

OEE data


Kaizen

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

35%

28%

24%

21%

19%

18%

16%

14Q.9


Energy audits






0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

45%

27%

22%

17%

9%

15%

7%

14Q.10

Production sections

Packaging sections

Warehousing

MRO functions

Entire line

All/most of plant

No projects planned

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

39%

34%

19%

17%

10%

12%

13%

figure 10areas targeted for automation spending

As the name implies, our Annual Manufacturing Trends Survey is indeed an annual affair. While we’ve provided some year-over-year comparisons here, you can go back through the 12 previous editions to see how manufactur-ing issues played out. Go to www.FoodProcessing.com and enter “manufacturing survey” in the search bar. Sort by relevance, not by date – we do too many stories that use both terms.

more on the web

6

7

http://www.gamajet.com


Rotary Impingement Tank Cleaning Equals Significant Water and Cost SavingsBy Gamajet

Tank cleaning has always been viewed as a necessary evil for manufacturers. During the cleaning process, a significant amount of resources (time, chemicals, water, electricity and

labor) is required between batches not only to appease FDA stan-dards but to ensure a reliable, uncontaminated, quality batch is pro-duced. Although these repeating expenditures have a significant ef-fect on the bottom line, there are food and beverage manufacturers that continue to rely on outdated yet standardized technology for cleaning, not realizing the potential opportunity for substantial cost reductions and revenue recovery through CIP optimization.

To understand how to optimize a cleaning process, one must first understand the basics of cleaning. Herbert Sinner, a former chemical engineer for Henkel, first summarized the basic principles of clean-ing in 1959. His summary, now referred to as the Sinner’s Circle, describes the four factors that can be manipulated in any cleaning scenario: Temperature, Chemical Action, Time and Me-chanical Force.

When the effectiveness of any factor is re-duced, it must be compensated with the in-crease of one or multiple other factors. Wash-ing dishes is an effective example of how the four factors interact. Hot water (tem-perature) is going to remove stuck on food better than cold. Adding soap (chemical action) makes the process even easier, and you can either soak a dish overnight (time) or scrub the dish clean (mechanical force). When cleaning tanks, it is impera-tive to examine not only the effectiveness of the cleaning process but the efficiency as well, especially in such a competitive market.

Sinner’s Circle can be easily applied to tank cleaning as a way to compare the efficiency of processes. The most common tank cleaning processes are: wetting

(static spray balls), rotary wetting (rotary spray balls), boiling out, manual cleaning and rotary impingement cleaning. Rotary wetting and wetting are more easily understood as a “cascading method.” By applying massive amounts of cleaning solution to the tank interior, the residue eventually erodes off. This results in a significant amount of time and effluent consumption and a minimal reliance on temper-ature and mechanical force (the average force from a spray ball, rotary or static, is approximately .01 lbs). The effectiveness of this cleaning process is accurately described as “fair,” often resulting in additional manual cleaning (scrubbing and scraping). The boiling out method offers a similar cleaning at an even slower rate, with even more efflu-ent and temperature, and no mechanical action. Manual cleaning, on the other hand, offers a reasonable amount of mechanical force, with minimal effluent but often results in ineffective cleaning, due to human error. Also, with safety in mind, lower temperatures must

be utilized therefore increasing time. Rotary impingement cleaning utilizes the most mechanical force than any

other process, therefore reducing time and clean-ing solution drastically. Additionally, a repeat-

able and reliable result is assured.

how rotary impingement works Rotary impingement tank cleaning ma-chines combine pressure and flow to cre-ate high impact cleaning jets. Cleaning occurs at the point at which the concen-trated stream impacts the surface. It is this

impact and the tangential force that radiates from that point which blasts contaminants

from the surface, scouring the tank interior. In conjunction with this impact, these machines

are engineered to rotate in a precise, repeatable and reliable, 360-degree pattern. This full-coverage, index-

ing pattern ensures the entire tank interior is cleaned, every

Mechanicalforce Time

Temperature Chemicalaction

Sinner’s Circle

8


time. This combination of impact in a controlled indexing manner results in an economic homerun, because impact is a one-time invest-ment; chemicals, temperature and time are continual, never-ending expenditures.

Following are three specific incidences in which rotary impinge-ment tank cleaning was used to optimize an outdated cleaning solution.

Example 1: Rotary Impingement vs. Fill and Drain One of the largest hot dog manufacturers was seeking a solution

to the abundance of waste water the facility produced. A majority of the focus was spent trying to alter the manufacturing process, which resulted in minimal savings. Eventually they upgraded their entire CIP process, and the final water savings were staggering.

The company utilized a fill and drain cleaning process to clean a series of four ribbon blenders which were used to mix processed meat.

Cleaning was required daily, between each batch. The effective-ness of the clean, when dealing with such meats remained the pri-mary concern. The residue, a buildup of oil and fats, and the series of blind spots due to the tank design, caused even more difficulties for the company to clean. Like most food and beverage companies, their cleaning process proved effective enough, thus the cleaning method remained the same for many years. The process included filling the tanks with water and agitating the blenders. This was then followed by manually cleaning the blades and under part of the agitator as well as any visually missed spots. Total cleaning time resulted in 4 hours per tank, 5,840 hours of downtime per year. The water consumption

was approximately 18,000 gallons per tanks, 26,280,000 gallons per year (a cost of nearly $150,000).

After thorough evaluation, it was suggested the company upgrade their entire CIP process, starting with rotary impingement tank cleaning machines.

The new process included a Gamajet steam-operated pump pow-ering five directional Gamajet V rotary impingement tank cleaning devices. The steam pump allowed for the necessary increase in pres-sure, as well as the hot water needed to clean oils. Steam was also pre-ferred because the plant already had a steady source of steam and the steam pump is highly energy efficient. The pump allowed for the five Gamajet rotary impingement machines to operate at 15 gpm and 120 psi with 180-degree water. The cleaning process included a 5 minute pre-rinse to rid the tank of any bulk residue, a 10 minute wash and then a 5 minute final rinse. This process took 20 minutes for each tank, which was nearly 90% faster than the previous method, saving them 5,354 hours per year. The water usage was reduced by 92%, 1,500 gallons per tank verses the 18,000 gallons per tank previously. This resulted in the savings of 24 million gallons of water per year, and over $100,000 per year, on water alone. In addition, dangerous manual cleaning was eliminated.

Example 2: Rotary Impingement vs. Manual Cleaning Manual cleaning is a surprisingly common method. Facilities all

over the world are grabbing their hoses, pressure washers and scrub brushes, while locking and tagging out, for their CIP process. Al-though nearly every other process is automated, many companies

In one of the worlds largest ketchup manufacturing companies, the Gamajet was used in to clean ketchup from a blender.

9

10

still rely on manual cleaning as an effective way, not only to clean, but to validate the cleaning process as well. Human error aside, no manual clean can ever be absolutely replicated. In addition, margins for error are non-existent.

A facility in San Francisco, CA was utilizing manual cleaning to its fullest extent. The company manufactures a wide range of sauces and was experiencing significant revenue loss to their tank cleaning procedure and they were under significant pressure to provide a more validatable clean and eliminate confined space entry. Their process included 4 kettles with dual agitators and the sauces were burnt onto the tanks. The cleaning process included 2 hours of manual clean-ing every day. The manual cleaning included confined space entry, scraping and scrubbing which had a significant effect on their tank downtime and water usage. The tank cleaning downtime was 2,920 hours per year and the water usage was 3,504,000 gallons per year which was costing them a total of $16, 293.00 per year.

The solution included two Gamajet PowerFLEX rotary impinge-ment tank cleaning devices, positioned precisely around the agitator to ensure thorough cleaning. The machines operate at 90 psi and 40 gpm per machine with 150-degree water, no chemicals. Cleaning includes a 5 minute pre rinse for the bulk residue, a 10 minute re-cir-culated wash and a final 5 minute rinse. Total cleaning time per tank is now 20 minutes. The pre-rise of 5 minutes is the length of one-half cycle, and testing proved this to be sufficient for cleaning, however in cases where the residue has burnt on longer an entire cycle is re-quested for cleaning, followed by the final rinse. This ensures that every area of the tank is passed twice, and satisfies the plant sanitar-ian. As a result, the facility saves 2,434 hours total in tank downtime per year by cleaning 83% faster. They have also been able to lower the usage of water to 2,336,000 gallons per year, saving them $10,861.80 per year. Production was increased by nearly 10% and confined space entry was completely eliminated.

A quick history into spray balls and other “cascading” devices: Spray balls and rotary spray devices are, to this day, the most com-mon used tank cleaning devices. Static spray balls were introduced in the 1950’s with the development of CIP. They work in a way that the wash fluid is discharged from numerous holes.

This diffuses the energy of the fluid and, therefore, impact is min-imal, often as little as .01 lbs of force. The cleaning action thus results from a sheeting or cascading action with minimal impact from the turbulence as the cleaning solution (chemicals) cascades down the tank walls over long durations.

Rotary wetting, on the other hand, is often a rotating spray ball with nozzles or open orifices. The effluent is typically split four or more ways and, depending on the manufacturer, high body leakage reduces flow to each nozzle. As a result impact per nozzle is not optimal. In comparison to spray balls, the randomness of this wetting is limited resulting in a slightly more exact cleaning pattern, which still relies significantly on time, temperature and chemicals. Prior to the devel-opment of impingement cleaners, such devices were readily accepted, mostly because there were no alternatives, they were easy to install and inspect, and provided a better cleaning then the COP process.

Back to our third example: In an effort to establish a more ef-ficient and effective cleaning method, a major food manufacturer, turned to rotary impingement tank cleaning. The results were much more beneficial then expected. The company, located in Mason, OH, operates four continuous production lines, each with 3 tanks. Each day the tanks were shut down for cleaning, which took a minimum of one hour. In many cases cleaning took longer because of regular clogging of the spray balls. There was also addition manual cleaning needed from time to time when the spray balls could not remove the built up residue. The solution was a Gamajet Aseptic VI rotary impingement tank cleaner operating at 115 psi and 15 gpm. Clean-ing now begins with a 2 minute pre-rinse to remove the bulk of the residue followed by a five minute re-circulated wash with caustic and a final two minute rinse. The total cleaning time is 91% faster at only 9 minutes. The design of the machine coupled with a filter allows for the debris to pass through or be caught, resulting in no clogging. The facility utilizes the saved cleaning time to increase production by 71%, producing 1,042 batches more per year. In addition the facility reduced its water and chemical usage by 85%.

The above cases are not extreme situations. The evolution of tank cleaning devices has resulted in exponential learning and under-standing of cleaning in general. Sanitarians and engineers worldwide have begun not only to recognize the benefits of rotary impingement tank cleaning but also implement them companywide. Today the top food and beverage companies have begun to make the transition to rotary impingement tank cleaning.

For more information or a free consultation please contact Gamajet, which is part of the Alfa Laval Group. With over 70 years of tank clean-ing experience Gamajet is dedicated to providing customers worldwide with the most efficient and effective tank cleaning solutions, beginning in the tank with the residue and expanding outward to a complete, mo-bile state-of-the-art CIP system at an economical rate.


Leverage Infor Food & Beverage to produce the right amount of product at the right time

The demand for fresh foods, whether prepared meals, dairy

products, juices, or baked goods, continues to grow. Effective

planning, forecasting, and fulfillment processes are critical to

delivering high-quality products with short shelf life.

With Infor Food & Beverage, food manufacturers achieve greater

efficiency in fresh-food planning, production, fulfillment, and

distribution. Real-time visibility ensures you are producing the right

amount of the right product at the right time.

Copyright 2014 © Infor. www.infor.com. All rights reserved.

With fresh foods, timing is everything

Download our latest white paper:

“Meeting today’s fresh food challenge.”

1.800.260.2640

www.infor.com/food-beverage

11

http://www.infor.com/food-beverage


Meeting Today’s Fresh Food ChallengesBy Infor

Fresh foods imply many things: healthier choices, higher-qual-ity ingredients, and careful preparation. For food manufac-turers, fresh foods present something far more challenging:

a short shelf life. Worse yet is the highly volatile inventory with over-ages in some supplies, shortfalls in others, and a greater potential for selling unsafe food products.

Despite these challenges, producing fresh foods need not be im-practical. The real challenge for the food and beverage industry is to produce fresher foods with shorter shelf lives, without incurring unnecessary or impractical costs. It can be done.

The freshness of today’s food products is as much an issue with consumers’ changing perceptions of fresh foods as it is with manufacturers’ ability to control shelf life. As consumers make healthier lifestyle choices, they want fresher and less-processed foods and beverages.

Fresh food (and with it healthy food) is glamorized by the the-atrics of cooking as seen in television programs like Top Chef, on blogs and social media websites like Foodspotting and Pinterest, and in traditional food media, like magazines and cookbooks. But while consumers want fresh food, they don’t necessarily want to cook all their meals from scratch. They want their choices to be convenient.

Now, it is up to retailers and manufacturers to make the changes to meet this demand; but they also need to ensure that their business systems have the agility to plan daily production, look to long-term

sourcing and forecasting needs, and manage the daily activities of warehouse and production facilities.

ensuring transparency in food productionProducing a safer product is a greater challenge to food manufac-turers than ever before. According to the Center for Disease Re-search and Policy (CIDRAP), food contamination costs the US $77 billion a year in total healthcare costs, making contamination a serious issue for government regulation. Since the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, government regulations have become more focused on preventing food contamination rather than responding to it.

Food safety compliance can be assured by reducing labeling er-rors. Nearly 20% of recalls are due to labeling errors.

There are two key areas where label compliance can be an issue. The first is ensuring that the listed ingredients match what is actually in the product, in regards to completeness and correct order. Failure to disclose all ingredients, especially if there is potential for allergic reactions, can result in a recall.

Second, a product label’s nutritional and health claims must be accurate and comply with government standards. Due to changes in formulas, as well as raw material fluctuations, food manufactur-ers must make sure that the products they produce match the labels they are using.

Figure 1: The real challenge for the food and beverage industry is to produce fresher foods with shorter shelf lives, without

incurring unnecessary or impractical supply chain costs.

12


Sourcing ingredients: think local, plan globalFresh food is about more than just food safety. It is also about cost-effectively sourcing the necessary ingredients for food production and manufacturing.

For the restaurant industry, sourcing hyper-local ingredients has become a key differentiator, with chefs preparing smaller plates that feature a variety of flavors and seasonal ingredients. Increasingly, the home cook shares this sensibility.

The pressure is on to satisfy an item’s shelf life—especially if its shelf life is less than a calendar quarter. Meanwhile, consumers want to feel that their foods are produced ethically, safely, and with freshness at the top of mind. Food manufacturers must have a clear understanding of their supply chain in order to plan and schedule the creation and shipment of a fresher product. To do so requires the agility of an ERP system to plan and re-plan on a daily or even hourly basis.

One tested and proven planning assumption is that for a particu-lar product or product segment, the demand pattern is similar every week, assuming it is a normal week—one with no holidays or pro-motional events. If so, food manufacturers can anticipate the pattern with their ERP system, because consumer and retailer behaviors are repetitive and habitual.

Consumers, for example, resupply basics after the weekend or shop on Thursday for a weekend event. Retailers restock the shelves based on that pattern. Because they can’t keep stock, fresh-food manufacturers need to know the pattern and incorporate it into their planning. The more SKUs a manufacturer produces, though, the more complex this exercise becomes and simple Excel spreadsheets and manual calculations become overwhelming. With an ERP sys-tem, this data can be logged and analyzed to quickly understand customer and retailer behavior.

building a better warehouseThe warehouse is at the core of the food manufacturing supply chain. The software technologies that drive today’s warehouse functions operate on one, unchanging, crucial concept—first expired, first out (FEFO), flawlessly moving older products out to make space for newer products.

Food manufacturers need their products to hit retailer shelves during the optimum delivery times on their freshness dates, while

also reducing food waste and maintaining an efficient, cost-effective operation.

Internet-based tools are essential for viewing and operating an entire supply chain as a unified whole that encompasses participants inside and outside of an organization—including customers, con-tractors, and suppliers.

Due to the nature of fresh foods, typical distribution models of-ten don’t work. The shelf life is so short that you need to go directly from manufacturer to retailer within a day or two of production making the adoption of direct store delivery (DSD) more common.

A poorly executed DSD program is worse than none at all. Complex-ity comes with the territory, however, and must be managed with systems that offer exceptional power, agility, and a specifically focused functional-ity. Some manufacturers have tried to execute DSD programs using their existing ERP and CRM systems, only to find that most of those systems lack the speed and functionality they need to meet retailers needs.

The usual response is to implement specialized software to sup-port DSD operations outside of the main ERP installation. But if a specialized solution doesn’t interoperate smoothly with the ERP system of record, isolated silos of information emerge, which is a situ-ation that tends to undermine a DSD program’s goals of rapid, flex-ible responsiveness throughout the delivery chain. Therefore having that last mile visibility integrated with your overall business systems is imperative in a short shelf life environment.

Delivering fresher foods with software that won’t expireWhen it comes to successful fresh food planning, only a few hours exist between planning and execution. Like food products, software also shouldn’t expire. Yet, many companies are using outdated or “generic” software that doesn’t meet the needs of today’s food and beverage manufacturers.

Many of the world’s most successful food and beverage companies turn to Infor® software to help them manage the unpredictability of the food industry, while delivering great products profitably. Infor has the deep food and beverage experience that you need in a technology partner in order to stay competitive in this dynamic industry.

Infor solutions help food manufacturers maintain the highest standards of product quality and ensure food safety even with ex-tremely short shelf life products, by providing unmatched power to manage the food manufacturing industry’s top challenges.

13

14

http://www.tegam.com


Critical Temperature Tools for Food SafetyBy Claudia Bentley, HACCP Certified, Tegam Inc.

Temperature is a critical measure-ment for ensuring the safety and quality of food processing at many

stages. Whether monitoring temperatures at receiving, throughout production or fi-nal product storage and distribution, ther-mometer verification is essential.

The validation, verification reassess-ment section of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (9CFR 3:417.4) specifies that instruments used for monitoring critical control points must be calibrated. The food industry is aware of the critical nature of processing temperature requirements. Instrument calibration is not only a food safety is-sue, but also an economic consideration since accuracy of temperature monitoring devices also affects product quality and yield.

The goal of a HACCP program is not final product inspection to discover problems. Rather, it is the prevention of problems from entering the food chain in the first place. Monitoring temperature is important because of the “Food Tempera-ture Danger Zone” that is specified to be between 41 °F and 140 °F. Food must be stored below this point or heated above

this point. All known hazardous bacteria are killed above 165 °F and processes that prepare and sterilize food must be verified to ensure that this target is achieved. It is not sufficient to only test the surface of

the food product but the interior tempera-ture at all points must also reach 165 °F to ensure safety.

Processing is further complicated by the reality that food products do not

15

16


always come in uniform sizes and shapes. As an example, vari-ous cuts of meat will vary based on the animal from which they came causing the processing system to produce a variable output. Simply turning up the heat will result in a reduction in product quality that will also have a cost associated with the correspond-ing lesser yield. The thermometers used to monitor this process should not exacerbate the problem by errantly reporting and cre-ate either false negative or false positive readings. An effective HACCP program incorporates thermometer maintenance and inspection as part of its regimen.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an agency within the U. S. Department of Commerce that maintains the national standard by which thermometers and other precision instruments are calibrated. The term for this is “traceability” meaning that a particular thermometer being used in food production can trace the correctness of its measurement through a series of intervening instruments all the way to the national standard.

In addition, the user of a thermometer must also have a qual-ity system in place that ensures and documents a periodic check of the instrument. This period can vary from daily to several years depending on the criticality of the measurement and the consistency of the instruments in use. In food processing, a typi-cal quality plan verifies the thermometer before the start of each shift and calibration equipment on an annual basis. Calibration is the process of standardizing a temperature monitoring instru-ment to ensure that it will measure within a specific temperature range in which the instrument is designed to operate.

The rigors of the food processing environment can affect the accuracy of both instruments and probes. Therefore, good man-ufacturing practices indicate that process or product temperature monitoring equipment be verified daily before use. A traditional method of verifying a thermometer is the ice water bath. This involves mixing a solution of crushed ice and water that achieves exactly 32 °F. The thermometer probe is inserted into the bath and the display is verified. Unfortunately, this method is time consuming and requires some experience to get the proportions of water and ice exact while properly locating the probe in the

slurry. Finally, this only verifies the measurement at one point. To address the shortcomings of the ice water bath and to make

verification more convenient, TEGAM has developed a line of handheld temperature simulators that can be used to verify and calibrate all the digital thermometers, digital displays, control-lers and monitors used in your production and quality control programs.

The food processing industry demands safety first! Tegam brings safety to the table with thermometers that are

reliable; possess a high degree of accuracy, produce consistent results, proven to withstand harsh environments while retaining their integrity. For further information and to learn more about Tegam’s products and how they can fit into your HACCP plans please visit our website at www.tegam.com.

Phone: (1) 214.515.5000 www.PolyguardProducts.com

Innovat ion based. Employee owned. Expect more.To learn more, visit:

www.ReactiveGel.com/mag

Why would you choose any unproven product?ReactiveGel is a PRoven technoloGy®

04 YEARS OFPERFORMANCE

UNITED STATES NAVY

OIL/GAS/CHEMICAL/POWER INDUSTRIES

OIL WELL CASING CORROSION REPAIRS

BIG 3 AUTOMOTIVE

FROZEN FOOD/REFRIGERATED WAREHOUSES

24 Years of RG protecting deck side elevator cables, watertight door dogs, detachable anchor links with never a reported failure on a Navy vessel.

15 Years correcting corrosion issues for major oil and chemical companies, hydro-electric, electrical transmission poles, and many other industries across the U.S. and Canada. No corrosion under the gel has ever been reported.

10 Years ago major oil companies asked us to solve their down-hole casing corrosion. As of last discussions this year, it has cured a $20+ million dollar issue for a fraction of that.

40 Years of RG in brake cables with no reported failure.

12 Years of RG protecting piping systems at 70% of the top 100 food processing companies in the U.S. and Canada. Never had an RG failure on a cold system; 8 year inspections at one facility showed that the pipe looked as new as the day they installed it!

17

http://www.reactivegel.com/mag

http://www.reactivegel.com/mag

http://www.polyguardproducts.com


Corrosion of steel operating equipment and piping under insulation has been recognized as an important problem in the ammonia refrigeration, chilled water, chemical

and petroleum industries. Insulation is a necessary component and there to function in three ways: save energy, control process temperatures, and protect workers from high wall temperatures. The environment under insulation, the CUI environment, can be hot, wet, and promotes aggressive corrosion.

The American Petroleum Institute has directives that address the CUI problem and detail a program of identification, main-tenance, and remediation. These directives, as well as efforts by professional societies (NACE and ASTM), promote the develop-ment of new solutions. The issue in achieving a good end result is that no clear solution exists for new installed piping as well as maintenance and remediation of existing installations.

NACE Standard RP0198-98 [1] is an excellent source of in-formation for preventing corrosion under insulation, but many corrosion engineers would agree that electrolytes will eventually find their way into even the best system. Selecting the right coat-ing is extremely important. The coating is the last line of defense for keeping the electrolyte from the metal surface and preventing corrosion.

Recent coating innovations include a hydrophobic anti-corro-sion gel that is tolerant of less than optimal surface preparation, is designed to keep the electrolyte away from the surface of the substrate, and also has the ability to neutralize the electrolyte if it breeches the vapor barrier and insulation.

technologyThe reactive anti-corrosion gel utilizes mineralization technol-ogy. Mineralization is the ability to grow very thin minerals on metal surfaces for useful purposes. The minerals are formed when reactants are delivered to the surface of the substrate as shown in Figure 1.

How the reactive gel corrosion treatment works:

When the ferrous (steel) surface (1) is covered with a layer of reactive gel (2), the metal surface reacts with components in the gel to form a mineral layer (3). This thin, glasslike layer (3) acts as a barrier between chlorides and the metal surface, thus provid-ing corrosion resistance.

The mineral layer (3) has a thickness of 50-200 angstroms, only 0.01 percent as thick as a piece of paper.

Although the thin mineral layer can be damaged by mechani-cal abuse, there is extra protection built into the system.

The presence and uniqueness of the mineralized layer can be confirmed by conventional analytical surface methods such as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) or atomic force micro-scope (AFM) (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

The anti-corrosion gel works in three basic ways:Barrier system – The specially formulated products have great

FIGURE 1- Mineral Formation

Methods For Mitigation Of Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI) And Other Crevice CorrosionBy Patrick Dunn, Polyguard Products Inc.

18


adhesion characteristics and are hydrophobic to help keep mois-ture away from the substrate.

Buffering system – If moisture migrates through the gel, it is buffered to a high pH which is protective to steel piping.

Mineralization – Growing an engineered surface, or surface conversion – creating a surface which resists corrosion even if moisture gets to it.

The anti-corrosion gel has a maximum service temperature of 350°F (177°C).

backgroundThe mineralization technology in the anti-corrosion gel has a history of solving unique corrosion problems. The first applica-tion of the mineralization technology was by a major automotive supplier in a crevice corrosion application on the strand of brake cables. The strand in sleeve design of the brake cable combined with the cyclical environment of heat and moisture creates a se-vere crevice corrosion environment. The technology has been used for over 30 years in this application, which has resulted in an increased service life and greater reliability.

The first non-automotive industrial application was with the US Navy. Following successful laboratory, pier side, and ship-board demonstrations of the effectiveness of the gel in preventing

crevice corrosion in anchor chain detachable link cavities, the US Navy in 1999 changed the Planned Maintenance System (PMS) to specify the use of a mineralizing gel as the replacement for white lead and tallow in all surface ship anchor chain detachable links. Also in 1999, following extensive testing, the Navy issued MACHALT 526 which changed the design of the internals of weather deck watertight and airtight door dogging mechanisms. The basis for the change is the use of a mineralizing lubricant inside the spindle sleeve in the door frame to stop the corrosion that had been the cause of dogging mechanism failure. The wa-tertight door dogging mechanism corrosion problem was one of the top maintenance issues for the f leet. In May 2002 a second MACHALT, 544, was approved to apply the same technology to ballistic type dogs in three watertight doors in DDG-51 Class ships. These solutions represented a significant savings for the f leet.

The gel has years of history on Corrosion Under Insulation applications in the Food & Beverage Industry. It has also been used as an anti-corrosion coating in well head casings, on pig doors, structural steel, tank chimes, ammonia systems, vessels, and as f lange filler. Field trials are currently underway to further evaluate this technology in areas where it is cost prohibitive to achieve optimal surface preparation.

FIGURE 2 – Untreated Steel Surface FIGURE 3 – Mineralized Steel Surface

19


20

testingAerated Salt Bath: A test was conducted to determine the abil-ity of the anti-corrosion gel to protect pipes in an aerated bath of 5 percent salt solution. Fifteen black iron pipes were used to measure the effectiveness of the gel in conditions similar to CUI. Fourteen pipes were coated with the gel, seven were glass-bead-blasted prior to the application, seven pipes were left as received with mil-scale, and one pipe was left uncoated to act as a control. All of the iron pipes were covered with fiberglass insulation and partially submerged in an aerated bath of 5 percent salt solution. One glass-bead-blasted and non-bead-blasted sample were pulled at 7, 31, 80, 138-day, and 1-year intervals.

The results of tests show a very distinct line separating the sections of the iron pipes that were treated with the anti-corro-sion gel and the sections that were left untreated. The untreated pipe sections had significant corrosion at 7, 31, 80, 138-days, and 1-year intervals. There were no sign of corrosion on the coated sections of the pipes. Performance of the gel was good even with minimal surface preparation prior to the application.

Isothermal: One such laboratory test was a simulated CUI cell under isothermal and wet/dry cycling test conditions [2]. The test conditions selected for the research program were (1) isothermal and (2) wet/dry cycling. The isothermal tests included maintain-ing the temperature at the ring surfaces at 150°F (65.5°C) con-tinuously. The wet/dry tests included two cycles of maintaining temperature at 150°F (65.5°C) (wet) for twenty hours followed by at 250°F (121°C) (dry) for four hours. The samples were evaluat-ed using electrochemical polarization resistance data per ASTM G59 and mass loss (ML) data per ASTM G1. The results of the test were that the anti-corrosion gel reduced the corrosion rate by a factor of ten and was effective in four practical applications: on bare steel at isothermal (isothermal at 150°F, 65.5°C), on pre-corroded steel at isothermal (150°F, 65.5°C) on bare steel in wet/dry environment (150/250°F, 65.5/121°C cyclic), and on pre-corroded steel in wet/dry environment (150/250°F, 65.5/121°C).

Weight Loss: ASTM B117 Salt Spray protocol was used to evaluate the anti-corrosion performance. The ASTM B117 pro-tocol simulates a severe corrosion environment using salt-water spray. The control coupons (bare steel) were tested alongside the coated samples to insure a predictable corrosion rate.

A total of 10 samples (1/2 x 3 x 0.062 inch 1020 steel coupons) were used for this test. The coupons were weighed prior to being coated or being placed in the ASTM B117 cabinet. 5 coupons were coated with approximately 20 mils of gel (Group #1) and

5 coupons were left uncoated to be used as controls (Group #2). The coupons were placed in an ASTM B117 corrosion cham-

ber. Each coating system was inspected and photographed at 504 hour (21 day) increments until 2520 hours and then again at 5016 hours. One coupon from each group was removed at each 504 hour (21 day) increment until 2520 hours and then again at 5016 hours. Group #1 was removed, the gel was cleaned off with a citrus cleaner and the corrosion was removed by submerging the coupon in acid. After each sample from Group #2 was re-moved, the corrosion was removed by submerging the coupon in acid. Each coupon was weighed after the corrosion was removed to determine the amount of weight loss. The weight loss results are shown in Table 1 and Figure 7.

The gel samples showed significantly less corrosion than the control. After 5016 hours of exposure in ASTM B117 Salt Spray, the gel sample showed 5.67 percent weight loss versus 50.04 per-cent for the control sample. The gel was 90.2 percent more effec-tive than the uncoated control after 2520 hours and 88.66 per-cent more effective than the uncoated control after 5020 hours of ASTM B117 testing. Much of the weight loss on the coated sample came from the corrosion that enveloped the hole used to hang the coupons in the test as shown in Figure 8. While this increased the corrosion rate on the coated coupons, there was no other feasible way to hang or suspend the coupon without further damaging the coating during the test.

environmental testingA 96-hour static acute toxicity screening test with the saltwa-ter mysid (Mysidopsis bahia)” was conducted on this technology by Wildlife International Ltd. at the Wildlife International Ltd. aquatic toxicology facility in Easton, Maryland (Project Number 486A-106).

Groups of saltwater mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) (<24 hours old) were exposed to three concentrations of the test substance, a negative (dilution water) control and a solvent control for 96 hours under static test conditions. One replicate test chamber was maintained in each treatment and control group, with 10 mysids in each test chamber for a total of 10 mysids per test concentration. Test chambers were 2-L glass beakers contain-ing 1000 ml of test solution. Nominal test concentrations were negative control, solvent control, 1.0, 10, and 100 mg of the anti-corrosion gel.

Click here for the full version of this white paper.

Enhance Safety and Efficiency!

Non-Contact Inventory Management in Bins & Silos

RL • Acoustics-based, continuous level indicator for dusty environments

• Works in powders and solids including low dielectric materials

• Self-cleaning, minimal- maintenance sensor

NEW! BinMaster RL Level Sensor

BINMaSter level CoNtrolSwww.binmaster.com • [email protected]

402-434-9102©2014 BinMaster, Lincoln, NE 68507 uSA

3DLevelScannerAccurate Volume & 3D Mapping• True volume measurement for silos• Works reliably in high levels of dust• Accurate, multiple-point measurement• Measures and maps bin topography• Eliminates climbing for employee safety

21

http://www.binmaster.com


Measuring Volume in Bins, Tanks and SilosBy BinMaster

If your operation requires storing materials in bins, tanks or silos containing ingredients, finished goods, or waste mate-rials, chances are monitoring the inventory in those bins is

important to continuous manufacturing operations and timely replenishment activities. An acoustics-based inventory manage-ment system has many advantages for food processing operations and offers a variety of sensors that can meet the accuracy require-ments and budgetary parameters for any type of operation that routinely manages powders, granular and bulk solid materials.

Commonly referred to as a 3DLevelScanner or generically a scanner, this technology has revolutionized inventory manage-ment by taking the data available to operations personnel from a simple, single point of level measurement to a complex volume estimation with a very high level of accuracy.

non-contact for food safetyOne of the many advantages of scanner technology is that there is nothing that comes into contact with the material, so there’s no risk of contamination, making it safe for use in food pro-cessing operations. The technology works by sending very low frequency acoustical signals to the surface of the material. Scan-ners are proven to work in light powders like flour, fine granular material such as sugar, all types of grains, and even hard to mea-sure materials like the waste of blood and feathers from poultry processing operations. It is recommended for any material with a bulk density greater than 12 lb./ft.3

Reliably Penetrates Dust: Perhaps one of the greatest ben-efits of acoustics-based versus other level measurement tech-nologies is its ability to measure reliably in high levels of dust. Many food processing operations routinely handle excessively dusty materials that can be difficult to measure. Dust particles are prone to confusing some types of level sensors that won’t measure at all or provide inaccurate data when dust is present. Scanners will perform reliably in high dust environments such as soybean meal, providing highly accurate inventory data.

Self-Cleaning Reduces Maintenance: Due to the nature of acoustic pulses that “chirp” and send an almost imperceptible vi-bration through the device, the sensor stays clean. This means it

will perform consistently and reliably over a long period of time and require virtually no maintenance. For excessively sticky, clingy materials, a Teflon® coated option can be used to further prolong the preventive maintenance cycle. Other types of sensors may require routine maintenance at short intervals or an air purge for cleaning, which can be expensive to run to the top of a tank. Some scanners also have the ability to track the topography of the material in the silo, making it possible to detect side-wall buildup, so removal of the buildup can be scheduled in a timely fashion.

Multiple-Point Measurement Accuracy: Most every device for monitoring materials in silos measures only a single fixed point repeatedly in the same location. The scanner has the abil-ity to measure multiple points within the silo, which enables the

22


software to calculate a much more precise volume of material contained in the silo. Plus, these measurement coordinates can be used for three-dimensional mapping of the contents to create a visual representation of the material topography. It can be valu-able to know if buildup exists or if a cone is up or down when planning maintenance or replenishment of inventory.

No Climbing Enhances Safety: No one likes risking an ac-cident or OSHA violation and all of the hassles, time and money that they present. By eliminating the need for climbing silos to check inventory levels, acoustic sensors make the workplace safer by preventing accidents. As inventory data is sent from each silo to a personal computer, the data can be viewed from the safety of an office. OSHA regulations for climbing or entering silos require compliance with stringent rules and complicated paperwork that can be avoided using an automated measurement system.

A Model for Better Accuracy: Scanners come in a variety of models to address the accuracy desired, the vessel size, the behav-ior of the material, and the budgetary parameters of an operation. The most basic model – referred to as an RL for detecting reliable levels – will measure material within a narrow beam directly be-low the device. It is recommended when the level of material in the vessel needs to be monitored continuously and is well suited to materials that flow freely and are less prone to buildup.

When an estimation of volume is also needed, more complex processing of data is performed by an S model that determines av-erage volume based upon an average level in the vessel determined

by multiple measurements taken within a 30° beam angle. This model is ideal for smaller diameter silos up to 16 feet in diameter and up to 200 feet tall.

For very high levels of volume accuracy, the M model mea-sures material within a wider 70° beam angle and is appropriate for larger silos or silos with highly irregular topography. The M model provides high, low and average levels, plus a very accurate volume estimation based upon multiple measurements across the material surface.

The addition of visualization of the material surface is provid-ed by an MV model that measures and maps the surface and dis-plays a graphical representation of the topography of the material in the silo on a computer screen. This can be used in the detection of cone up or down conditions or to identify where there may be buildup in the vessel that may need removal. This model is most often applied in powders or other materials prone to buildup or in larger vessels with multiple filling and emptying points.

Although any scanner model can be used in any size vessel, a thorough understanding of the desired level of accuracy will determine which model will provide the best performance.

Acoustic level sensors are revolutionizing inventory manage-ment in bins, tanks and silos by providing more accurate, con-tinuous, real-time information to help make operations safer and more efficient. Plant managers report that they are able to buy smarter, replenish when needed, reduce safety stock and keep their employees out of harm’s way with a scanner system.

The RL detects level in a narrow beam and

is ideal for bins of all size where a single

measurement point is adequate.

For larger silos, the M model measures

multiple points within a 70° beam angle to

accurately calculate volume.

The S model measures multiple points within

a 30° beam angle and is ideal for smaller silos.

23

24

Federal Equipment is pleased to offer the following equipment:

Liquidation: Sale Direct From Plant: Cheese Ingredients Processing Equipment

Silos/Tanks :: Stainless Steel/Jacketed•41818-60000GalPaulMuellerSilo/StorageTank,S/S•41817-50000GalPaulMuellerSilo/StorageTank,S/S•41816-45000GalPaulMuellerSilo/StorageTank,S/S•41825-20000GalDCISilo/StorageTank,S/S•41822-10000GalStainlessSteelSilo/StorageTank

•41823-10000GalStainlessSteelSilo/StorageTank

Misc.•41850-AlfaLavalPlateHeatExchanger,S/S

•41828-HMRPX514AlfaLavalCentrifuge,S/S

•42056-HartelCIPSystem,ModelAqueousHC22132

Tanks :: Stainless Steel•41840-160GalStainlessSteelTank•41827-250GalStainlessSteelKettle•41844-250GalStainlessSteelTank•41845-250GalStainlessSteelTank•41846-250GalStainlessSteelTank•41847-250GalStainlessSteelTank

•41838-474GalStainlessSteelTank•41832-700GalAgitatedTank,S/S

•41835-1000GalSANI-FABKettle,S/S,40#•41833-1200GalStainlessSteelTank•41831-1500GalStainlessSteelKettle

Processors :: Stainless Steel, Jacketed, Agitated

41830-700GalPaulMuellerKettle,S/S

food Processing Equipment Includes:•43019-18”X168”FrankenDewateringConveyor•42999-NothumBatterproBatterTempuraSystem,ModelBP-24•43000-NothumRotaryBreaderPreduster,ModelFD-24

Misc.•42843-60GallonGasFiredKettles(3)•42846-125GallonGroenKettlewithScrapperAgitator•42997-8.5”UrschelInlineSlicer,S/S•43007-36”FrankenRotaryDewateringScreen,S/S•42847-AMSFiller,ModelTA-400•42995-70”FrankenVibratingScreen,S/S

Liquidation: Food Processing Equipment

8200 Bessemer Ave. • Cleveland, Ohio 44127 T (800) 652-2466 • www.fedequip.com • [email protected]

(800) 652-2466 [email protected]

Used Food Processing Equipment

http://www.fedequip.com

from our readers: food & beverage manufacturing in 2014 · the 2008 financial crisis, including...

Documents