TPT November 2020

AR T I C L E

Allied PhotoChemical

Conclusion In both examples, UV Coatings allowed the Customer to run much faster, with a smaller physical footprint, lower WIP, quality and energy costs, resulting in a much cleaner, green, sustainable process while delivering an improved ROI to the bottom line.

⇒ Smaller – ~ 70% less coating shipped into plant/less overall handling – No work-in-process – Coat, then immediately cure – Lower energy costs (UV lamps vs induction heating) – Lower cost of quality ⇒ Cleaner – No clean-up costs due to wet coating downstream – UV has no VOC’s or HAP’s (water-based has over 2.0 lbs/gallon) – Eliminating the handling/exposure of flammable water-based coatings – Less permitting required for UV coatings 4.0 – Return on Investment Cost per linear foot comparison – water-based vs UV coatings (see table 6) 5.0 – Process solution/equipment Based on the results of the testing and cost analysis, the customer made the decision to implement a new UV coating system (see picture 7) , which was being installed at the time this paper was written.

Picture 7: Mechanical tube UV system Courtesy of Terrell Manufacturing Sy

Picture 8: UV coated galvanised mechanical pipe Courtesy of Allied PhotoChemical

Allied PhotoChemical – USA info@alliedphotochemical.com www. alliedphotochemical.com

71

www.read-tpt.com

NOVEMBER 2020

Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter