Gb2013 wim brandsema_euromáquina

268 views
161 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
268
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gb2013 wim brandsema_euromáquina

  1. 1. Fluxcleaning by Indufinish
  2. 2. Wim Brandsema  Managing Director, Owner of Indufinish  25 years of experience HDG  Board member branch organization
  3. 3. Short story of company We are an innovative full service-oriented manufacturer in the surface treatment industry, with a unique combination of market knowledge Galvanizing, Powder Coating, Anodizing, Electroplating and E-coat. Based on 25 years knowledge and experience, we provide quality, sustainable solutions, cost effective technical and logistical solutions and lean processes.
  4. 4. Our company in Emmen, The Netherlands
  5. 5. Facts       Grounded in 1991 Owned by Wim Brandsema & Han Kleijn 40 full time employees Company surface 7.500 m² R&D budget 2-3% of annual turn-over Installations throughout Europe.
  6. 6. Powered by Dutch technology
  7. 7. Powered by Dutch technology     Intelligence, Dynamic, Driven Passionate about their company and products Development power 40 ambitious people to improve constantly
  8. 8. Quality     ISO 9001 DVS, Deutsche Verein für Schweißtecnik TÜV, Anerkennung Fachbetrieb Continuous training of employees
  9. 9. Social media  Linkedin  Twitter  You Tube
  10. 10. Portfolio      Galvanizing Powder Coating Anodizing Plating E-coat
  11. 11. Galvanizing pre treatment
  12. 12. Pre-treatment plants
  13. 13. Pre-treatment plants
  14. 14. Linings
  15. 15. Spinning
  16. 16. Fluxcleaning 1.0
  17. 17. Goals      Getting the Iron out Compact unit Easy to maintain & service Transportable Online servicing  
  18. 18. The unit
  19. 19. Result     Protoype 6 months trial Still up & running Learning curve  
  20. 20. Facts     Standard chemistry No overdosing H2O2 No sludge in your tank Fe on constant level  
  21. 21. Fluxcleaning 2.0
  22. 22. Process control & Quality improvement of galvanized steel
  23. 23. Flux parameters      Temperature Concentration and Ratio pH Fe content Surface tension  
  24. 24. Flux parameters temperature  Important but not influenced by flux treatment  Minor drop during proces in external unit  Heater can be installed in unit  Drying is very important!  Reduces splatter  
  25. 25. Flux parameters concentration  Concentration in between 200-550 g/l total salt Although lower concentrations are mentioned  Ratio Mono, double, triple, quadra salts  Influenced by flux treatment NH4OH pH correction will influence ratio and density Correction with ZnCl2 is necessary Possible through ZnCl2 solution or stripping acid!  
  26. 26. Flux parameters pH  The “least” discussed parameter What is your pH? 4,5  Why pH 4,5? Because we’ve done so for ages Less agressive/active flux less Fe built up  What are the benefits of pH 2,3? More active flux Will “polish” the surface Fe building is not an issue with a flux treatment Better circumstances in the flux treatment Dry filter cake, faster reaction, no Zn oxidation  
  27. 27. Fe content  Drag in of Fe gives higher dross and ash production  Iron content < 5 g/l is recommendable Hard to achieve without flux treatment  Main reason to start with flux treatment! Concentrations < 1 g/l are achievable Amount of rinses between pickle and flux can be 1 or even none  Oxidation with hydrogen peroxide is most common  
  28. 28. Surface tension  Important for an equally fluxed surface  Modern wetting agents are stable towards H2O2  Automated dosing of wetting agent in small amounts is recommendable and can be performed in the flux treatment  
  29. 29. Quality improvement 1. Case 1, proto type  Dutch general galvanizer  7 metres 2. Case 2, crash barriers, extremely high Fe content  German crash barrier galvanizer  13 metres 3. Case 3, advantages low pH  German general galvanizer  15 metres  
  30. 30. Quality improvement, case 1     Prototype Fluxcleaner Dutch general galvanizer 15.000 tons/year capacity 30 m3 flux  pH at start 3,9  Fe content 19 g/l  Colour at start coffee brown  Start up at October 27th 2007, no cure no pay  Started with iron removal at 1 g/l program  Stable situation from february 2008 different programs (removal rate) changed pump  
  31. 31. Quality improvement, case 1  Status April 2008  pH 2-3  Color coffee brown  Iron content < 5 g/l  Filter press is emptied once a week  Customer purchased unit  Savings  30 m3 new flux  Disposal of 30 m3 old flux  Disposal sludge from flux tank  Overall impression of better quality  
  32. 32. Quality improvement, case 2     Extremely high Fe content German crash barrier galvanizer 25.000 tons/year capacity 48 m3 flux  pH at start < 0,5  Fe content 78 g/l  Color at start pitch black  Start up February 2009  Corrected pH to > 1  Started iron removal at 5 g/l program  Filter press is emptied multiple times a week  
  33. 33. Quality improvement, case 2  Status June 2009  pH 2,3  Fe content < 1 g/l  Color coffee brown  Savings  48 m3 of new flux  Disposal of 48 m3 heavily contaminated flux  Disposal of sludge from flux tank  Lower dross production (from 0,35% to 0,24%)  Lower ash production (from 0,54% to 0,48%)  
  34. 34. Quality improvement, case 3     Advantages low pH German general galvanizer 35.000 tons/year capacity 92 m3 flux  pH at start 4,5  Fe content 1,3 g/l  Color coffee brown  Test to see if the expected advantages of pH found in praxis  Test for 7 months using identical, numbered products   2,3 are
  35. 35. Quality improvement, case 3  Test followed the following steps;  Filtration at pH 4,5  Iron removal at pH 4,5  Lowering pH to 2,3 combined with iron removal  months of testing to ensure quality 5  Conclusions  Distinguished quality improvement after mas)  Less pickle and roughness  Less ashes, different type of ashes   improvement is stable lowering pH (over X-
  36. 36. Quality improvement, case 3 As iron was already low specific attention was given to dross production. A higher dross production related to lower pH was not found. Higher dross production was identified and originating from change of products Conclusion in a, by the galvanizer written, report was that a lower pH gives a considerable quality improvement but can’t be achieved without a   Fluxcleaner
  37. 37. Quality improvement, case 3  Status June 2013 pH 2,3 Fe content < 0,5 g/l Colour coffee brown Customer purchased the unit  Savings Slightly cheaper then sludge removal from the The improved quality meant less after work, the savings on this labour were not calculated estimated to be at least one FTE!   tank but
  38. 38. Indufinish proposition www.fluxcleaning.com
  39. 39. Indufinish proposition            Compact Lowest chemistry consumption Usage of basic chemistry only Corrosion resistance, only plastic Will clean up existing flux with high iron content Best ROI Fully automated Easy to maintain Short delivery times 35 units in the European market Knowhow and experience with the unit since 2006  
  40. 40. Thank you for your attention ADD your surface

×