This website uses cookies primarily for visitor analytics. Certain pages will ask you to fill in contact details to receive additional information. On these pages you have the option of having the site log your details for future visits. Indicating you want the site to remember your details will place a cookie on your device. To view our full cookie policy, please click here. You can also view it at any time by going to our Contact Us page.

Close

Proactive maintenance for heat exchangers is key

01 July 2022

Ben Green explains why a run-to-fail maintenance strategy is not a good cost-saving tactic for food processors. 

The rising cost of energy continues to impact all aspects of UK industry – including food processors. Faced with skyrocketing costs, food manufacturers are under greater pressure to make economies, with many identifying a move from preventative to reactive maintenance schedules as offering a potential tactic to achieve savings. However, the risk of key equipment breaking down under a ‘run-to-fail’ strategy could have even greater consequences in a sector where bottom lines are becoming increasingly squeezed. 

Doing more with less is a common directive for manufacturers, linked with a need for continued competitiveness in a cost-sensitive market sector, paring down costs elsewhere is to be expected, including adopting reactive maintenance strategies. The reasons for adopting this mindset can be understandable, as short-term costs can be immediately lowered and extensive forward planning can take a back seat to other pressing concerns.

Yet this is an approach fraught with risk, and relies on one big assumption – that everything will run perfectly fine both now and in the long term. While the cost of being wrong makes sense in areas where the chance of failure is low and parts are easily replaceable this ethos does not extend to all specialist, precision-engineered equipment used in the food sector.

Plate heat exchangers 
Plate heat exchangers (PHE) are one key area where adopting a run-to-fail strategy over proactive maintenance is inefficient. Used in heating and cooling applications in food processing, the PHE holds an invaluable position on the factory floor.

As such, minor leakages and fouling that can result from a less active maintenance programme can lead to multiple issues, including lower production yields, increased downtime and reduced efficiency. Given continually rising energy costs these concerns can easily grow in size and scale if not addressed quickly. 

Though decreasing bottom lines continue to dominate conversations across the food industry and are undoubtedly a major, immediate concern, the effect reactive maintenance strategies have on long-term environmental goals must also be noted. The passage of net zero pledges into law in 2019 – which mandates carbon neutrality in all businesses by 2050 – has undoubtedly turned sustainability from a consideration into a priority.

In turn, this landmark legislation has been advanced since coming into force, with the UK’s 2021 Sixth Carbon Budget enshrining emission cuts of 78% by 2035. With targets drawing ever nearer and becoming increasingly stringent, keeping PHEs well-maintained is not only a cost-saving exercise – it also has real sustainability benefits.

Best practice
On the other hand, not doing so can actively hamper an organisation’s decarbonisation efforts. This can be seen through fouling – where in which unwanted deposits of crystallisation and decomposition accumulate on the PHE’s transfer surface, alongside settled particulates and biological matter. Though this can be staved off with continued maintenance, allowing these materials to build up can create an insulating layer that will lower heat transfer between the two media processed by the exchanger.

Consequently, more energy is required to enable adequate heat transfer, which, if adjusted for scale across large-scale factories, can result in much more time and energy required to meet production yields. Taking into account stringent environmental legislation and spiking energy costs, such a situation should be avoided.

Beyond big-picture concerns, inadequate maintenance of PHEs can also have an impact on equipment within the factory. For example, the additional resistance created by fouling means that greater force is required to ensure flow remains unimpeded when it passes through units. In turn, this can put pumps under additional stress, and lead to internal and external leaks due to localised plate corrosion.

These leakages can lead to multiple media becoming cross-contaminated to the point where product quality may be impaired to the point of non-acceptance by retailers and other businesses subject to strict guidelines. External leaks can even endanger nearby employees working on the plant floor, which might also become impaired.

Though the concerns around reactive maintenance strategies are well-established, issues and concerns can only be addressed through the effective implementation of a proactive approach. By seeking assistance from sector experts with established service capabilities, organisations will leave themselves well-placed to tackle cost, sustainability and logistical hurdles.

Alfa Laval, for example, is able to conduct continued in-field analysis to detect potential inefficiencies before they become full performance problems in need of resolution. As a result of this strategy, key components such as PHEs do not need to be shut down for remedial work to take place.

Due to partner-based approaches such as these, organisations will be much better placed to keeping production on-schedule while utilising engineer skillsets that might not otherwise be available in their current workforce. Combined with the easy availability of parts for next-day delivery in case of equipment being taken offline, disruption and its ensuing expense can be minimised.

In conclusion, while proactive maintenance may be considered as an area where economies can be made, given the current energy pricing strain on the sector, the opposite is in fact true. Effective strategies surrounding PHEs can have a knock-on effect on the entire production process, allowing for greater yields and improved sustainability performance at a time where budgets are becoming further constrained. More critically, pared back remedial work can increase the chance of higher energy costs, breakdowns and other unplanned downtime, putting affected organisations at a competitive disadvantage.

Ben Green is food & water divisional manager UK & Ireland at Alfa Laval.


Contact Details and Archive...

Print this page | E-mail this page