buy used vs new equipment 4

[schnipp]

I was recently given a project (a week ago) to develop some proposals for a new drying system in my plant. Currently, we use two rotary dryer in series for drying and a third for cooling the product back to more ambient conditions. All three units are in poor shape and are in need of replacement. Since fluid bed technology is a heck of a lot better (energy, space, easier to control), I started looking at that.

A few problems exist, the product is not produced in very many places (I think 4 plants worldwide) and with trade secrets and such, there isn't a lot of info around about handling this stuff in a fluid bed dryer. This is manageble by sending some wet samples to testing labs for various dryers. Time and shipping wet product overseas still need to be addressed.

Bigger issue, and one I need help on, is that my boss's boss wants me to look for used fluid bed dryers to replace the three rotary units. One, because it is cheaper. Two, a faster install. Three, I think he thinks these things are a standard feature. I just cannot fathom going this route since these units are typically manufactured for a very specific set of parameters. How do I convince this guy that I cannot justify wasting my time looking for anything used that will not come close to working right?

I can see the production staff (opepations and maintenance) throwing me in the Mississippi River with a large concrete block attached to my ankle if I would continue through this approach because I just know it would work poorly.

I'm relatively new at this plant and company (6 months) and I came from a competitor (not that it really matters). One of the things I was told when I hired in here was to not accept status-quo (hence looking for a better technology). This plant has a history of putting in used equipment with little regard to what it was actually designed to process. I don't want to fall in that same rut.

 

[Montemayor]

schnipp:

I’m responding because I believe this is a very important and sensitive subject that is often swept under the rug – especially at the upper management levels – when things turn out bad or go awry.

I’m intimately experienced in this subject. I spent the first 8 years of my career working in an environment where I had to enter as a newcomer to a scene where old, used, or “revamped” equipment was invested in for a specific production and it had failed to produce at the conditions that were imposed on it. I learned most of my hands-on and practical engineering “savy” during those taxing and sacrificed years – but I was lucky in that I inherited also some very wise and practical engineering mentors who helped me tremendously to succeed where others had fallen. And many will fall where a “used” piece of equipment is bought by others (who refuse to acknowledge decision responsibilities) foreign to the project at hand. Used equipment, per se, is not a bad decision to invoke; what is totally bad is that the people involved in deciding what gets purchased (and under what conditions) don’t know beans about the application nor do they do their homework regarding limitations and future tradeoffs – characteristics that are inherent to used equipment. Nothing in life is “free” or “easy as pie” without it costing you a price – a tradeoff. And all used equipment comes with tradeoffs – things that most in top management are unwilling to confront or admit to out in the open.

It is truly unjust and obnoxious that young engineers are often selected to be the prime drivers in the field application of used equipment in the process area. These young engineers are given nothing more than verbal assurance that “all has been taken care of” in the area of warranties, calculations, inspections, applicability, and safety. If you have been burned like I have in the past, DON”T BELIEVE OR BUY THIS HYPE! In this kind of situation, if you are not involved directly from the very beginning, YOU have to ensure that all the above is taken care of or identified for what it is or isn’t. I was responsible for saving two projects and one foreign company by successfully inheriting such type of equipment and making it work – after many 90-hour work weeks, eating and sleeping at my plant desk. Oh, I was promoted all right. But not out of gratitude; I was deemed valuable because of what I learned and could do with used equipment – save a lot of front-office management people their managerial and VP jobs. It was after I took a bankrupt foreign operation into a positive cash flow (it took 3 years) that my International VP told my Engineering Manager in front of me: “If I ever mention buying used equipment at a bargain again to you, I want you to kick my A__! And if you ever mention doing the same thing again, you can bet I’ll kick yours!”

The point I want to make is that applying used equipment is not necessarily a bad investment or decision. What hurts a project is when that equipment is turned over to operations without full engineering backup in the manner of calculations, inspections, performance testing, safety and production warranties, drawings, and capacity ratings without acknowledging it in writing to the operators. Without the proper and required engineering being done up front, expensive and risky field modifications are often required to salvage a project. For example, I have had to design and machine out a complete 3rd stage cylinder for a Worthington reciprocating compressor, rated for 1,500 psig operating pressure – all out of a huge billet of cast steel. And this was done in Lima, Peru with no other participating engineer except myself, at the age of 27 years.

On the other side of the coin, there are advantages and rewards to reap when using used equipment. I had my extraordinary experience enriched, for example. Delivery time on equipment is shortened dramatically. Investment costs are reduced – although, in the long run, operating and modification costs may increase. You may obtain more “bang for your buck” by using oversized equipment available at a smaller price.

I whole-heartedly agree with you on the issue of all equipment not being “a standard feature”. Equipment such as fluid bed dryers are designed and rated for each, specific application. And there are good reasons for this: the most important one being the performance warranty. In your case, the performance of your dryer will rest solely on the shoulders of your company’s operations engineers – probably yours. I can appreciate your concern because I believe it is understandable if you don’t have any acknowledged decision responsibility in writing by your management.

If it were me, I would do what I did over 40 years ago: I would immerse myself in the application from the very onset, make sure I got my hands on all existing or available information, and got instructions and help on the operation and design of the equipment from knowledgeable engineers. This may be tough or impossible for you, but if you plan to continue in the same job it’s what you must do to succeed and not have this potential failure tied as an albatross around your neck in the future.

Needless to say, I wish you all the luck in the world.

 

[StoneCold]

schnipp
I know exactly what you are going through. My current company is big on going to auctions and buying whatever and then asking me to make it work. Good for the imagination but tough to get a decent design. I guess I would focus on operating costs to dissuade them. Dryer efficiency is very important and it tracks directly with costs. Luckily or not so lucky my boss was recently bitten on a used chiller. He now will not buy anything rotating that is used. It's not much but it's a start in the right direction.

Good Luck
StoneCold

 

[schnipp]

Montemayer and StoneCold,
Thanks for the advice.

At this point, I'm still progressing fully with buying new. I have already contacted four vendors and they are working on providing me a quote.

I think what is helping in my search is that all that I have found so far online in the used equipment department are a few small batch dryers that would be neat on a lab table, but not quite up to industrial scale.

 

[katmar]

You can hear the ring of years of hard-won experience in the comments by Montemayor and StoneCold, and all I can do is endorse their sentiments.

I have not kept accurate records of successes and failures over the years of using used equipment, but I would estimate my success rate as less than 5%. Probably 2%. By "success" I mean that I did actually save time and money. It often looks like you are saving time and money, but I have installed vessels that were "tested and guaranteed" that leaked within hours of start-up. If you factor in the exorbitant cost of emergency in-plant repairs and lost production time a new vessel would have looked like a bargain.

Something that non-engineers don't always understand is that bigger is not necessarily better. You will often get the argument that the equipment is not perfectly matched to your production rate, but because it is so big it will handle whatever you throw at it. But this is not true. A dryer that is too big may over-dry or otherwise degrade your product. An oversize fluid bed dryer will require an oversize blower which will use more power than necessary. The dust handling system will be bigger than necessary and your losses could be excessive relative to your production rate. You get my drift - the more you look at it the worse it gets.

I have seen re-used distillation columns that were so oversized that they had to be over-steamed to stop the trays weeping. Steam costs money. The condenser had to be made bigger. It used more cooling water. Now we need bigger cooling water pumps and push the fans harder. All this uses more electricity. Electricity costs money. Switchgear has limited capacity.

Spares and maintenance on obsolete equipment are a nightmare. Montemayor's experience of having to build a compressor block from a lump of steel is a very real scenario, even if it is an extreme case.

If you feel that these dryers are not right for your application you should put together a case that will put the true situation in perspective. Management only sees the initial costs, but if you paint them the full picture you should get their support. If necessary, baffle your management with a bit of science. Don't use the dryer if you are not 100% satisfied it is the right thing.

 

[Latexman]

schnipp,

You have received some very sage advice on a subject that has the potential to make or break a project. As such and whether rightfully or wrongfully, it has earned the following saying around the chemical industry, "it only costs a little extra to use used equipment."

Good luck,
Latexman

 

[TBP]

Stonecold - The used chiller nightmare isn't just confined to rotating equipment. I have firsthand experience with 3 used absorbers. An absolute operational & maintenance nightmare, perpetrated by an upper management duo that couldn't engineer their way out of a room. If anyone ever suggests that you buy & install a used absorption chiller, try to talk him out of it. If reasoning doesn't work, kill him quietly and try to make it look like "an accident"