Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists' Association - June 1994

A REVIEW OF MODIFIED SHREDDER' SYSTEMS

MT CROSSMAN

CG Smith Sugar Limited, Pongola

Abstract
Cane preparation arguably has the most influence on extraction. The capital outlay of cane preparation plant is relatively high because the arduous duty requires a sturdy
construction and heavy duty components. Power consumption constitutes about 25% oftotal factory requirements. The
choice of plant, therefore, warrants careful consideration.
Modified shredder systems which prepare whole stalk cane
as an alternative to conventional heavy duty shredders and
cane knives are considered.

Introduction
It is just over 20 years ago that the first Tongaat shredder
was commissioned. The design incorporated a number of
departures from the traditional one at the time. Perhaps the
most important feature of the design was the full coverage
of hammers across the shredder width. However, with the
passage of time the Tongaat shredder has earned the reputation of a truly heavy duty shredder. The fact that some 80
units have been installed testifies to its success.
A few years before the first Tongaat shredder was commissioned, the old ZSM factory at Empangeni was experimenting with an anvil drum and a washboard mounted above
a set of knives rotating against the direction of the cane.
This concept of a contra-rotating set of knives is now widely
applied in the South African sugar industry.
In the Brazilian industry this concept has also been widely
applied but as a shredder, not as a cane knife set. The basic
concept is shown in Figure 1. The rotor tip velocity is almost
60 m/sec, and the feed drum peripheral velocity is 15-20%
greater than that of the carrier.

Leveller Knives

15 to 18deg

OTHER TECHNICAL DATA

60 m/sec
15 - 20%

Rotor tip velocity:

Drum peripheral velocity:

FIGURE 1 Schematic diag~am of a Deon Hulett/Copersucar shredder.

There have been some dramatic improvements to this

concept over the years to the extent that there are now shredders being marketed which claim to produce, from wholestalk cane, long fibres with a minimum of fines ideal for the

Feeder Drum
90 kW

500 kW
Main Cane Knives
1.5mW

---(]

()

Shredder
2.2 mW

Belt Conveyor
Belt Conveyor
to Shredder

CAPITAL OUTLAY (R OOO's)

Leveller Knives:
Feeder Drum:
Cane Knives:
Shredder:
TOTAL

> Carrier

Not to Scale

875
250
1 600
2 800
5525

Belt Conveyor to Diffuser

.' or Milling Tandem

FIGURE 2 Conventional cane preparation system for 300 tons cane/ hour.

166

Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists' Association - June 1994

Feeder Drum
75 kW

Leveller
Shredder
2,5 mW

90 kW

Apron Slat
Conveyor

Belt Conveyorto Diffuser

or MillingTandem

CAPITAL OUTLAY (R ODD's)

Marginal Cost of
Apron Slat Conveyor(15 M): """"
"""" .. 240
Leveller Drum: """""""""" ..""""""" " ..... 215
Feeder Drum: " ...." ..""""""""""""""""""" 350
Shredder:
"""""
"""
"",,
3 200
TOTAL .:"" ..""" .." ..""""""""""""..."""" 4 005

FIGURE 3 Whole stalk cane shredder for 300 tons cane/hour.

extraction process. A radical change is that maintenance intensive cane knives are no longer necessary.
Several of these shredders have been installed in recent
years. Distinguishing features of the design are discussed and
some of the problems experienced are reviewed.
Distinguishing features of the whole-stalk cane shredder
A typical layout of a conventional cane preparation system is shown in Figure 2. The installed power is about
4,3 MW for a 300 tons cane/hour factory and the capital
outlay required is about R5,525m, comprising R875 000 for
leveller knives, R250 000 for the feeder drum, Rl 600000
for cane knives and R2 800 000 for the shredder.
The layout of a whole-stalk cane shredder for a 300 tons
cane/hour factory is shown in Figure 3. This comprises a
leveller approximately 2 m in diameter, rotating at 30 r/min
and positioned 750 mm above the carrier. Absorbed power
is about 65 kW. The levellers of this design operating in
Mauritius and Reunion are extremely effective and it is important that they are so if the speed recover power demand
of these heavy duty shredders is to be kept to a minimum.
Also required is a feed drum of about 2,4 m in diameter
fitted with a variable speed drive to ensure that the peripheral speed of the drum equals the carrier speed. The feed
drum is positioned about 500 mm above the carrier and
absorbs about 60 kW. The cane stalks are gripped between
the carrier slats and the drum to provide a controlled delivery of cane to the rotor hammers.
Figure 3 shows the shredder positioned at the head shaft
of the slat conveyor. The advantage of this arrangement is
that is permits a washboard with a 1800 angle wrap. However, there are a number of installations in Mauritius and
Reunion where the shredder is positioned above the carrier,
similar to the layout shown in Figure 1.
The two most recent whole-stalk shredder installations at
Bois Rouge in Reunion and at Sucoma in Malawi have drives
of2,5 MW for 325 tons cane/hour and 2,8 MW for 320 tons
167

cane/hour respectively. However, Fives Cail Babcock have

called for a 3,5 MW drive on the proposed Noodsberg shredder which is a 300 tons cane/hour factory. The absorbed
powers at Bois Rouge and Sucoma are respectively 1,6 and
1,3 MW so a 3,5 MW drive for the Noodsberg factory appears to be unnecessarily high.
The texture of the prepared cane in Mauritius and Reunion is uniform and the fibres are indeed long. Prior to the
installation of the whole-stalk shredder at Bois Rouge, 7%
of time lost was attributable to rock damage. Subsequent to
its installation, no stoppages have been recorded. None of
the other factories could quantify the reduction in lost time
due to rock damage but in general they are of the opinion
that rock damage is no longer a major problem. However,
tramp iron is still a major problem and invariably damages
the anvil bars of the washboard. Of course, an advantage of
a set of cane knives before the shredder does permit the
installation of a magnet to remove tramp iron.
The installed power of the whole-stalk shredder is about
2,7 MW for a 300 tons cane/hour factory and the capital
outlay is about R4m, comprising R240 000 for the marginal
cost of an extra 15 m of apron carrier, R215 000 for a leveller
drum, R350 000 for a feeder drum and R3 200 000 for the
shredder itself. The capital outlay advantage relative to a
conventional system is thus Rl,52m or about 27%, and the
installed power advantage is 1,6 MW or about 38%.
Problems experienced with recent installations
The inertia of these shredder rotors need not be greater
than the conventional shredder, but the duty they are required to perform is more arduous because there are no cane
knives to assist them. One must therefore cater for large
load fluctuations. The effective operation of the leveller and
an effective control system on the shredder deed conveyor
certainly will help to contain these.
Despite this though the method of drive requires careful
selection to avoid severe peak loads. An abnormally high

Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists' Association - June 1994

load will pull down the drive unit speed. If this is a steam
turbine then it will recover to the set speed by using for
acceleration the excess of available power above that required for normal operation. This excess of power can be
limited by nozzle block controls or other means.
However, if the drive unit is an electric motor then the
solution is not so easy. A motor with a relatively low resistancerotor willhave a lowrunningslip,whichis desirable,
but will draw a high starting current and will have a low
starting torque, which are undesirable features, particularly
when the motor is trying to recover its speed after a load
increase. Conversely, a motor with a relatively high-resistance rotor will have the desirable features of a higher torque
and a lower starting current, but will have a high slip at full
load.
With a squirrel-cage rotor the choice must be made in the
design. Of course, a slip-ring motor offers the possibility of
connecting an external resistorinto the rotor circuit. In either
case, the choice of the drive unit requires very careful
consideration.
Mon Desert Alma SugarMill in Mauritius and BoisRouge
and Le Gol in Reunion have whole-stalk shredders. Each of
these factories reports a rotor bearing life of 3 or 4 months.
The shredder manufacturer claims that the short life-is attributable to the incorrect shaft material. At each of these
factories, the bearings used are 23144 CCKlC3 W33 which
are 220 mm diameter bearings. On at least two occasions at
Le Gol during the 1993 season it was necessary to change
bearingsbecauseof crackedinner races. A crackedinner race
is typicalofa bearingthat has beensubjected to shockloading.
Elgins have recently supplied a new shredder rotor shaft
to Le Gol machined from EN 24, condition T, which means
it is oil quenched and tempered, and which has a tensile
strength in the range 850 to I 000 MPa. As a matter of
interest, the Tongaat shredder rotor is machined from EN
3A which has a tensile strength in the range420 to 700 MPa.
It will be of great interest to see what effect this new shaft
will have on bearing life at Le Gol.

168

The bearingson the Sucoma shredder are 23156 CCKlC3

W33 on a 280 diameter tapered landing machined on the
shaft. The shaft material is EN3A. At the commencement
of the 1993 season, which was their shredder's first season,
the residual clearance after mounting the bearings was the
recommended minimum of 140 microns. At the end of the
season the clearance was 180 microns. A possible explanation for this increasein clearanceis that the shaft material
has extruded. This certainly was the case with a rotor shaft
at Le Gol which was made from EN3A.

Conclusions
The reductions in capital outlay, absorbed power and
maintenance cost are significant for a whole-stalk shredder
when compared with a conventional heavy duty shredder
and cane knives.
If the drive is an electric motor then carefulconsideration
must be given to the trade-offbetweenthe degree of slip and
the speed recover current.
The choice of rotor shaft material and of rotor bearings
are issues which have not been resolved. There is evidence
to suggest that EN3A and 23144 bearings are not suitable
for the arduous duty required of whole-stalk shredders. The
recommended rotational speed of these shredders is I 000
r/min. At this speed a i22256 bearing has a dynamic load
rating some 50% higherthan a 23144bearing. Mounting this
bearing on a tapered landing of an EN24 shaft would be the
best option until more experience has been gained.

Acknowledgements
The assistance given by Geoff Walsh and Arnold Taylor
of Techserve, Ian Ivason of Elgins and Wolgang Schroder
of FAG is appreciated.'