Questions about automatic quantitative packaging machines

This post was last edited by yulin1973 on 2009-8-25 at 22:10. It was posted before and no one responded, so the original poster is hoping someone can take a look and provide some analysis. In the years 2005–2006, when the company first started operating in the fertilizer industry, there were no quantitative packaging machines available; instead, manual weighing was done using platform scales and electronic scales, along with manual packaging and sealing. In 2007, the first quantitative packaging machine was introduced: it was made of stainless steel, equipped with an F701 instrument, and operated pneumatically with a single hopper. Its packaging speed was 25 tons per hour, and it was manufactured by Beidou Automatic Control. The advantages of this machine were its fast packaging speed, flexible operation, and accurate weighing; overall, it performed well, with no production disruptions caused by mechanical failures. The instrument was easy to adjust, and there were no issues related to instrument malfunctions that affected production. The downside is that working in the northeast, the manufacturer did not take into account the impact of low winter temperatures on the scales; at the start of production each day, ice forms in the compressed air pipelines, resulting in insufficient air pressure and abnormal operation of the packaging scales. It takes about half an hour each time to get it working properly. 2. In 2008, I came into contact with the second batch weighing scale for quantitative packaging. Material: ordinary carbon steel; instrument: GM8804C2; operating mode: pneumatic hopper type; packaging speed: 10–15 tons per hour; manufacturer: Siping Rishan Machinery (it is likely that it wasn’t produced by them, but is a branded product). Experience of use: There are few advantages – it allows for setting of different packaging weights, and switching between these settings is simple. The instrument is easy to adjust, and no malfunctions have occurred that would affect production. The disadvantages are a slow packaging speed, as well as the tendency to rust due to the use of carbon steel. This leads to the finished products sticking to the discharge door, thereby affecting its proper operation and thus production. 3. At the end of 2008, I came across a third type of quantitative packaging scale. Material: stainless steel; instrument: GM8804CD; operation mode: electric dual-bin; packaging speed: 30 tons per hour. Manufacturer: not specified. Experience of use: it’s troublesome; no advantages were observed. The disadvantages are a complex circuit design, and circuit failures often occur due to poor operating conditions. It is not flexible in operation (compared to pneumatic scales), and mechanical failures occur frequently (I thought electric scales would solve the problem of air line icing, but they have even more issues than that). Instrument adjustment is cumbersome (compared to pneumatic scales), and frequent instrument failures disrupt production. Moreover, the accessories are hard to find locally. The most worrying thing is that the scales often give inaccurate readings; dual-bin scales share the same gauge, which affects each other – when one is adjusted, the other may become inaccurate. Sometimes, problems arise that even the manufacturer’s technical staff cannot solve. There are some faults that require reprogramming using a computer; we simply can’t resolve them on our own. (The above issues are related to the operating environment of our factory and the skill level of its maintenance staff; it’s not entirely the manufacturer’s fault.) Overall, it gives the impression that the technology is not yet mature. 4. Currently, I’m in contact with the fourth type of quantitative packaging scale. Material: stainless steel; instrument: F701C; operation mode: pneumatic double-bin; packaging speed: 40 tons per hour; manufacturer: Changzhou Rongchuang. Experience so far: It’s still under installation and hasn’t been used yet, so no comments can be made. The scale body has been installed now, but the instrument hasn’t been installed yet. Overall, the quality of construction and the materials used appear to be significantly better than those of the first three scales; it remains to be seen how it will perform in actual use. Additionally, the performance of a packaging scale depends greatly on the weighing sensors, and since I’m not familiar with sensors, I’m unable to identify any related issues. I hope everyone can discuss this topic.

I wonder which manufacturer the original poster belongs to

2# yulin1973 As you requested, I’ll analyze it for you: When choosing a packaging scale, it is first necessary to consider the characteristics of your company’s products – including whether the materials are in granular form, powder form, or a mixture; the weight, specific gravity, flowability, moisture content, corrosiveness of the materials, as well as the particle size of granular materials – along with the annual production volume. For production lines with an annual output of around 50,000 tons, a single scale is more than sufficient to meet the requirements for production and packaging. For those with multiple requirements, specific configurations are needed based on the individual circumstances. There are no universal scales in the packaging industry; choosing the right model of scale is a fundamental prerequisite. Secondly, the quality of a packaging scale is determined by the following factors: 1. As mentioned above, it depends on which model of packaging scale is chosen based on the characteristics of your materials; if the wrong scale is selected, it won’t function well no matter how it is used. 2. The response speed, sensitivity, and stability of the scale itself. This mainly depends on whether the equipment itself has advanced technology, whether its design is reasonable, and whether the internal components chosen are reliable; these factors directly affect the lifespan of the scale, its measurement accuracy, and the packaging speed. Putting technology and structure aside (if you’re interested, feel free to contact me; our company holds invention patents in this area), technology directly determines the viability and future prospects of a product and a company, while the design of equipment determines its stability and the level of failure rates. The main internal components that affect the scale include: control instruments, load cells, cylinders, frequency converters, and motors. In the packaging industry, these internal components are all purchased items, and their quality largely depends on the capabilities of the suppliers chosen by each company. Based on the four types of packaging scales you mentioned, it seems that the main issues are technical in nature; in addition, there are problems with the choice of materials and components as well. I won’t go into detail about the third option in the second category; it’s a product that is eliminated right away, as its manufacturer’s qualifications alone are sufficient to rule it out. In short, keep in mind one thing: the simpler and clearer something is, the lower its failure rate – of course, this is on the condition that the structure is optimized without compromising the product’s performance.

3# yulin1973 www.ahyt.com.cn – You can visit our company’s website directly. If you have any questions, just reply with a comment, and we can continue to communicate and learn from each other*

How does your company address the issues associated with using packaging equipment at low temperatures?

6# yulin1973 uses intermittent ventilation through stamping; air is allowed to flow only when the cylinder is in operation. The ventilation frequency can be controlled via a throttle valve, and an air filtration device is installed at the front, which generally helps to prevent excessive residual moisture in the pipes. This also depends on the technology of various manufacturers as well as the quality of their components

The packaging scale keeps spilling the material. What should I do?

You should take a close look at where the packaging scale is dispensing the material; usually, such problems can be resolved on your own

I wonder whether the original poster works in technology or sales at the factory?

The original poster has raised a good question; have you, the original poster, conducted any research on whether vacuum packaging can be used in conjunction with automatic fertilizer packaging lines? If automatic quantitative packaging for nitro compound fertilizers could be developed in vacuum form, I think there would definitely be a large market for it; I want to try it out first.