Revamping & capacity increase
Before buying new capacity, we measure the capacity you're losing. Audit of the existing plant, bottleneck analysis, alternative capacity-increase scenarios with investment, required downtime and effect on yield and consumption.
In increasing order of invasiveness and investment. The audit selects the combination that reaches the target with the shortest shutdown.
Lever 01
Review of process recipe, temperatures, dwell times, sieve perforations and set points. In many plants part of the lost capacity is in the parameters, not the hardware.
No long shutdown: interventions within maintenance windows
Lever 02
Once the station limiting the line is identified (often refining, heat exchange or filling), we intervene only on that one: change the unit, add a stage, new exchanger.
The rest of the line stays unchanged
Lever 03
Buffer tanks and accumulation conveyors between departments to absorb micro-stops: real capacity rises without increasing the nominal flow rate of the machines.
Recovers efficiency, not nameplate flow rate
Lever 04
New PLC, HMI, inverters, measurement instrumentation and production-data collection. Needed both to stabilise yield and to make measurable what is currently only estimated.
Necessary base for any OEE target
Lever 05
Condensate and heat recovery, review of the steam and water circuit, insulation. Affects OpEx more than capacity, but often funds the rest of the intervention.
Effect on cost per tonne processed
Lever 06
When the capacity target is beyond reach for the current plant, a new section (preparation, concentration or packaging) is added and interfaced with the existing one.
Intervention with planned shutdown and dedicated commissioning
Site survey of layout, machines, utilities, instrumentation and condition. Collection of real production data: hours worked, downtime, reject rates, consumption, yield per campaign.
Output: A snapshot of the current state and shared starting data
Mass and flow balance station by station, to understand where the line actually stops and to separate the flow-rate limit from the availability limit (micro-stops, format change, cleaning).
Output: Current real capacity and the limiting station identified
We build several alternative scenarios with achievable new capacity, the associated investment, required shutdown time and the effect on yield and consumption. Scenarios are compared, not imposed.
Output: Scenario comparison with CAPEX, downtime and expected capacity
Verification of the intervention's impact on overall CE marking, machinery safety, food-contact materials and cleanability. A revamp that changes the function of the assembly must be managed as such, not as a simple part replacement.
Output: Documentation scope and responsibilities clarified in writing
Shutdown planned within the off-campaign window, assembly, assisted start-up and commissioning against agreed parameters, with operator training on the modified part.
Output: Performance verified against the agreed test criteria
A revamp touches machine safety, food-contact materials and surface cleanability. In the audit we establish whether the modification affects the assembly's declaration, which documents must be updated and who is responsible: MCF, the original manufacturer or the end user. This scope is put in writing in the quotation, so the intervention leaves no grey areas in case of a customer audit or certification.
The decision is made on the audit numbers. If there is a single limiting station and the rest of the line is in good condition, revamping costs a fraction of a new plant. If the capacity target is far above the current one, or most of the machines are near end of life, the comparison shifts toward a new plant. We present both scenarios with investment and expected capacity.
It depends on the chosen lever: interventions on parameters and automation can often be completed in short windows, while adding a new line section requires planned downtime. Downtime is stated in the scenario and scheduled outside the campaign.
Yes. The audit and revamping start from the plant as it exists, regardless of the original supplier. Where the original manufacturer is still active, we interface with its documentation and spare parts.
Through test criteria written before the intervention: flow rate, yield and product specification measured over an agreed real production cycle, with the customer's raw material. Where raw material is the critical variable, we verify it first with laboratory yield trials.
It can: it depends on the nature of the modification and how the assembly was originally declared. In the audit we define the documentation scope and who takes which responsibility, and we put it in writing in the quotation instead of leaving it implicit.
Achievable capacity, investment, downtime duration and energy savings depend on the condition of the existing plant and the raw material processed: they are quantified in the audit and the feasibility study, not before. No indicative value on this page replaces the mass and flow balance surveyed on site.
