By Gerhard Puttinger
Electrical Engineer at Wheelabrator
A blast machine is a complex beast. Assessing its energy consumption behaviour to find room for improvement therefore isn’t as straightforward as it sounds.
For my degree project in mechanical engineering, I made it my mission to systematically measure, evaluate and compare all the factors contributing to one machine’s energy consumption and efficiency. So, for several months in 2017, a Wheelabrator IBC-12/45-540-432, the trusted inclined belt conveyor concept, had my undivided attention. Every nook and cranny of it. Here’s what I did and what I found.
Here’s what happened: In its new specification for rail wheels, the AAR has tightened up rules around the manufacturing of carbon steel train wheels in an effort to improve wheel durability. As part of this, the AAR has also made some seemingly minor adjustments to the prescribed peening spec – with potentially significant knock-on effects for manufacturers. And with the US a lead market for the rail sector with global supply chains, we expect the new spec to travel way beyond North America.
Wheelabrator is always looking at new ways to develop and test parts that we put into our machines. After all, there’s little point producing something that won’t deliver the optimum performance in real world conditions.
The additive manufacturing process itself creates its own new cleaning tasks and blast requirements. Powder residue, half sintered-on during the build process, may need removing. Additive manufacturing of metal parts can also result in a relatively rougher surface which then needs polishing.
During my career I gained a wide knowledge of surface finishing and the use of wet and dry blast equipment, wheelblast and vibratory finishing, and, in particular, the selection and use of abrasives.
