A study on carding waste collection system in mill

In an energy audit trial in a continuous waste collection system of a modernised spinning unit, M Muthuvelan, H Balasubramanian and A Sivaramakrishnan find that control through shut-off damper is not an effective tool in terms of smooth regulation of suction pressure. Continuous waste collection system (WCS) has become an integral part of the spinning mills especially in the preparatory section at the expense of additional electricity. It is observed in a majority of the spinning mills that the power spent on this system varies from 4% to 10% on the total energy consumption considering all waste collection systems serving blowroom, carding, combing, spinning and winding. Most of the systems working in the spinning mills are basically similar in construction, installation type, operation and performance. A study was conducted on carding waste collection system (WCS) of a spinning mill to reveal facts specifically in terms of energy saving. The selected mill is a modernised mill and a full-fledged waste collection system is in place for each section. The present study focused only on the carding section WCS. Carding WCS Carding waste collection system in this mill has two main suction blowers with compactors. One is dedicated for flats suction line and the other is for licker-in wastes. Each blower is driven by 45kW motor through V belt transmission medium. The study was aimed with single point objective of varying the suction pressure at the plenum (header) and to discover energy saving options out of it. To proceed in this task, suction control damper was selected as a primary tool to vary the suction pressure and the results are presented here with reference to suction optimisation using control damper only. Control (shut-off) Damper The circular duct system is designed to evacuate wastes for 16 carding machines but presently serving for 14 cards only. This single speed WCS develops and maintains suction pressure without any leverage for feedback and control. Manual control dampers fabricated with butterfly louvers are in use in the inlet of plenum as well as on the duct risers (after the plenum) for shut-off operation. The control damper has 9 positions and is provided with extended handle to move from one position to other for suction control.

Existing operational setup (Original setup) The damper control of the suction system was set to deliver its full capacity to an extent of about 180 mm WC suction pressure. The suction level at the machine is higher than the required level of 80 mm WC. The pressure switch was to trip the machine whenever the pressure drops below 80 mm WC and this pressure setting was not altered throughout the study for better performance. Study procedure The study was characterised by simultaneous measurement of power and suction pressure for various levels of openings such as 100%, 75%, 50% and 25%. The reference measurement point for suction pressure was fixed as plenum in the case of upstream and card No. 16 in downstream. Trial 1 The following table shows power and suction values corresponding to damper position 8 (the existing condition).

Trial 2 The damper was moved from the position 8 to 6 by pulling the lever and the measurement procedure was repeated.

Trial 3 The damper was moved from position 6 to 4. The corresponding power and suction values are tabulated.

Trial 4 The damper was moved from the position 4 to 2 and the study was ended. The outcome of trials is consolidated in the following Table for analysis and depicted in Figure 1.

Consolidated information It can be clearly seen from the above Table that the reduction in suction pressure and power consumption are not proportional to each other with the percentage reduction in damper position. Even a fifty per cent reduction in damper control results only in minor reduction in power as well as suction.

Conclusion The following conclusions have been drawn from the energy audit trials.
Control through shut-off damper is not an effective tool in terms of smooth regulation of suction pressure Power saving observed was negligible compared to the drastic reduction in suction pressure. Finally, it is a crude technique not suitable for suction optimisation application and thereby energy saving, which was the primary aim.