Tag: beverage manufacturing

  • Why We Are Giving Away Our Shutdown Planning Checklist

    Why We Are Giving Away Our Shutdown Planning Checklist

    The Most Expensive Week on Your Production Calendar

    Ask any engineering or maintenance manager in a beverage or FMCG plant to name the most stressful week of their year and the answer is rarely a breakdown. It is the planned shutdown. A shutdown is the one window where every deferred job, every capital project and every compliance item competes for the same few days, with a restart date that production has already promised to the business. Every hour of that window is paid for twice, once in labour, parts and contractor costs, and again in the production the line is not running.

    After more than 25 years of shutdown and project work in Australian beverage and FMCG plants, we have seen shutdowns that restarted early and shutdowns that dragged a week past their date. The difference between them is almost never how hard people worked during the window. It is the quality of the scoping and planning done in the weeks before anyone picked up a tool. That conviction is why we have put our shutdown planning approach into a practical document, the FMCG and Beverage Plant Shutdown Planning Checklist, and made it freely available to download from our website.

    EM10323 HDR
    EM10318 HDR

    Why Give It Away?

    The honest answer is that well planned shutdowns are better for everyone, including us. When we arrive on site for shutdown work, the jobs that run smoothly are always the ones where the scope was locked early, the parts were sighted on the shelf, and the control system changes were written and tested before the window opened. The jobs that turn into overruns are the ones scoped on the back of a purchase order three weeks out.

    We would rather work with plants that plan properly, and we would rather be part of that planning early, when engineering input can still change the outcome. Sharing the checklist costs us nothing except a few trade secrets that were never really secrets, because none of this is complicated. It is simply the discipline of doing the right things in the right order, starting earlier than feels necessary.

    There is also a simpler reason. Our business is family owned and has been built over decades on long relationships with manufacturers, from the largest names in Australian beverage production through to smaller regional operations. Useful, practical help has always been how those relationships start.

    What Poor Planning Actually Costs

    The visible cost of an overrun is easy to calculate: extra contractor hours, weekend penalty rates, expedited freight on the part that should have been ordered six weeks earlier. The larger cost is the one on the production side. A high speed canning or bottling line produces enormous value per hour, and every hour the restart slips is product that was promised to customers and is now not coming. In a contract packing environment, a late restart can mean penalties or a customer quietly moving volume elsewhere.

    Then there are the costs that never appear on a spreadsheet. Work rushed at the end of an overrunning shutdown is work done tired, under pressure, with testing compressed or skipped. That is how a shutdown intended to improve reliability ends up causing the next three months of niggling faults. It is also how safety shortcuts happen, and in our view no schedule is worth that.

    Against all of this, the cost of proper planning is a few structured meetings, a master work list, and the discipline to order long lead items on time. It is the cheapest insurance available in plant engineering.

    EM10104 HDR

    Where Shutdowns Go Wrong

    The failure patterns repeat across almost every site. Scope arrives late, added in the final fortnight by people who were not in the early meetings, and every late addition bumps something else off the critical path. Long lead items are ordered on optimistic assumptions, so the gearbox or the PLC hardware arrives the day after the window closes. Contractor crews are booked late in shutdown season, when the good tradespeople are already committed. And control system work is treated as something that happens during the shutdown, rather than something developed and bench tested beforehand, so the window that should have been used for installation and commissioning gets consumed by programming.

    That last one deserves special attention, because it is the most common gap we see. PLC changes, HMI updates, drive replacements and safety circuit modifications all need engineering time before the shutdown and structured testing time during it. When we delivered the automated control system for two glycol refrigeration units cooling large beer tanks, built on a Siemens 1500 series PLC, the logic was developed and proven before installation, which is precisely why commissioning went to plan. The same applied to the hot water rinse system we implemented for a can seamer clean in place process on a Siemens 1200 series platform. Control work rewards preparation, and punishes improvisation.

    What the Checklist Covers

    The checklist is a working document, not a glossy brochure. It walks through six phases of a shutdown, starting eight to twelve weeks out and finishing after the line is handed back. The early sections cover building a single master work list across mechanical, electrical and automation scopes, ranking every job by production risk, and identifying the design, fabrication and long lead items that decide your critical path. The middle sections deal with parts, people and engineering readiness: confirming deliveries in writing, locking in contractor crews, backing up every PLC, HMI and drive parameter set, and walking every job at the machine before the window opens.

    The later sections cover the shutdown itself and what follows: protecting the critical path shift by shift, testing safety functions as they are reinstated, recommissioning system by system, and holding the review that makes the next shutdown easier. Each item exists because we have watched its absence cost a plant real money.

    One recommendation in the checklist is worth highlighting here. A shutdown window is the cheapest opportunity you will ever get to deal with control system obsolescence. Legacy Allen Bradley and Siemens hardware moves steadily through manufacturer lifecycle stages, and a planned migration during a scheduled window costs a fraction of an emergency migration after a failure. If your site has processors that have run untouched for fifteen years, the next shutdown is the time to act, and the checklist prompts you to assess exactly that.

    EM10307 HDR

    How to Use It

    Download it, print it, and take it into your next shutdown planning meeting. Mark it up, argue about it, and adapt it to your site, because every plant has its own quirks and no generic document survives contact with a real production line unchanged. Its job is to make sure the right questions get asked early enough for the answers to matter.

    Use it alongside your existing maintenance systems rather than instead of them. The checklist does not replace a CMMS or a project plan. It sits above them as a sanity check that the fundamentals, scope discipline, long lead items, controls preparation, testing and handback, are actually covered.

    Planning a Shutdown? Talk to Us Early

    BevTech Engineering and Automation delivers shutdown work across mechanical, electrical and automation scopes from our Richlands base in Brisbane, with our own machine shop for fabrication and change parts, TUV certified functional safety engineers for compliance work, and deep experience on Allen Bradley and Siemens PLC platforms. The plants that get the most value from us are the ones that involve us at the scoping stage, when engineering input can still shape the plan rather than rescue it.

    The checklist is available to download now on our website. And if there is a shutdown on your horizon, whether it is three months away or next year, reach out through the contact form on our website and talk it through with our team while the calendar is still your friend.

  • How PLC Upgrades Cut Unplanned Downtime on Beverage Production Lines

    For procurement and operations leaders in food and beverage manufacturing, few line items are harder to justify in a capital budget than a control system upgrade. There is no new conveyor to point to, no shiny new filler, just a cabinet of relays, terminals, and a processor that has been quietly running the line for fifteen years. Yet ageing programmable logic controllers, or PLCs, are consistently one of the leading causes of unplanned downtime on Australian beverage and FMCG lines, and the cost of deferring an upgrade is almost always higher than the cost of the upgrade itself.

    The real cost of an ageing control system

    When a PLC fails on a production line, the cost is rarely limited to the repair invoice. A stopped filler or labeller on a beverage line can halt an entire production run, idle packaging staff, delay despatch, and in the worst cases put product quality at risk if temperature or pressure control is lost mid process. Add in the premium cost of emergency electrical callouts, the scarcity of technicians who still understand obsolete processor families, and the difficulty of sourcing spare parts for discontinued hardware, and the true cost of an unplanned breakdown climbs well beyond the headline repair figure.

    Older systems also tend to fail without warning. Where a modern PLC and HMI combination can flag drifting performance, intermittent faults, or component wear before a full failure occurs, legacy systems built on superseded processor families generally cannot. Operations teams are left reacting to breakdowns rather than planning around them, which is precisely the opposite of what a procurement function wants from its capital asset base.

    Signs a control system is due for renewal

    There are a handful of reliable indicators that a PLC upgrade should move up the priority list. Recurring, unexplained faults that electricians cannot fully diagnose are usually the first sign. So too is a growing reliance on a single technician or contractor who happens to understand the legacy programming, which creates a serious single point of failure for the business. If the manufacturer has discontinued support or spare parts for the processor family, every additional month of operation is a gamble. Finally, if the current system cannot talk to newer line equipment, vision systems, or data collection platforms, it is actively holding back the plant’s broader automation and reporting goals.

    What a structured PLC upgrade involves

    A properly scoped upgrade is not simply a hardware swap. It begins with an audit of the existing control philosophy, wiring, and I/O, followed by a design phase that maps out the new platform, typically built around Allen Bradley or Siemens processors depending on the existing plant standard and the skills available on site. From there, the programming is rebuilt or migrated, the HMI is redesigned for clarity, and the system is commissioned with minimal disruption to the production schedule, often during a planned shutdown window.

    One useful example is a recent project where an automated control system was implemented to manage two glycol refrigeration units responsible for cooling large beer tanks. The system, built on a Siemens 1500 series PLC with a Siemens touchscreen HMI and ABB variable speed drives, uses temperature and pressure feedback with PID control loops to regulate cooling precisely. Because beer temperature falling out of specification is a critical quality issue, the reliability of that control loop directly protects product quality, not just uptime. This is the kind of outcome a well-executed PLC upgrade should deliver, control that is both more stable and more transparent than what it replaced.

    Building the ROI case

    For an operations or procurement stakeholder, the business case for a PLC upgrade should be built around three numbers, the cost of historical unplanned downtime attributable to control faults, the premium paid for emergency electrical support versus planned maintenance rates, and the risk exposure created by relying on obsolete or single sourced expertise. When these are laid out against the cost of a structured upgrade, the payback period is frequently inside twelve to eighteen months, particularly on lines where downtime directly delays despatch or triggers contractual penalties with retail or wholesale customers.

    It is also worth factoring in the indirect benefits. A modern HMI gives operators clearer fault diagnostics, which reduces the time technicians spend troubleshooting and shortens mean time to repair when issues do occur. Better data visibility also supports broader continuous improvement initiatives, since production data becomes available for analysis rather than disappearing into a legacy black box.

    Choosing the right partner

    Because a PLC upgrade touches safety systems, production continuity, and product quality simultaneously, the choice of engineering partner matters as much as the choice of hardware platform. Bevtech Engineering and Automation has worked across the food and beverage manufacturing sector for over 25 years, with a team of control system engineers, industrial electricians, and TUV functional safety engineers experienced in both Allen Bradley and Siemens platforms. That dual platform capability is particularly useful for sites that have grown through acquisition or expansion and ended up with a mixed fleet of control systems, since it avoids locking the business into a single vendor relationship for future support.

    Bevtech also offers 24/7 electrical shift coverage, which matters during the commissioning phase of an upgrade, when a new system needs close monitoring through its first full production cycles. For plant and operations managers planning a control system renewal, that combination of multi platform expertise and ongoing maintenance support reduces the risk profile of the project considerably.

    Next steps

    If your facility is relying on a control system that nobody fully understands, or your maintenance team is spending more time firefighting electrical faults than running planned preventative work, it is worth having a conversation before the next failure forces the decision. Bevtech Engineering and Automation, based at 25 Silvio St, Richlands QLD, can assess your existing control architecture and outline a staged upgrade path that fits your production calendar and budget cycle. Contact the team on +61 400 881 321 or admin@bevtech.com.au to arrange a site assessment.

  • Reducing Changeover Downtime on Filling and Labelling Lines

    Reducing Changeover Downtime on Filling and Labelling Lines

    For beverage manufacturers running multiple SKUs across the same filling and labelling line, changeover time is one of the most predictable, repeated sources of lost production capacity, yet it rarely gets the same structured improvement attention as unplanned breakdowns. A changeover is planned, expected, and built into the production schedule, which paradoxically makes it easy to treat as an unavoidable fixed cost rather than a process that can be systematically shortened.

    Why changeovers deserve more scrutiny

    Unplanned downtime tends to attract investigation because it disrupts the schedule unexpectedly. Changeover time, by contrast, is simply absorbed into the plan, which means a line running ten SKU changeovers a week at forty five minutes each, when a well optimised process could achieve the same changeover in twenty five minutes, loses over three hours of available production time weekly without ever showing up as a notable incident on a downtime report. Across a year, that gap compounds into a significant volume of recoverable capacity, often enough to defer or avoid a capital investment in additional line capacity altogether.

    Where changeover time actually goes

    A detailed time study of a typical changeover usually reveals that the time is not evenly distributed across the process. Container and format specific tooling changes, adjusting guide rails, star wheels, and infeed and outfeed conveyor guides for a new bottle or can size, frequently account for a disproportionate share of total changeover time, particularly on older equipment not originally designed with quick change tooling in mind. Label format changes on the labeller, recipe and parameter changes on the filler, and verification and quality checks before restarting the line at full speed each add further time, and the order in which these tasks are sequenced often creates unnecessary serial delays where parallel work would be possible with better planning.

    Mechanical interventions that shorten changeover

    Several mechanical design improvements consistently reduce changeover time on multi format lines. Quick release guide rail and star wheel systems, designed for tool free or minimal tool adjustment, cut the mechanical reconfiguration time considerably compared to fully bolted systems requiring extensive manual adjustment. Purpose built container handling solutions, such as inverter blocks used for product rotation during coding, rinsing, drying, or sterilisation steps, can also be specifically engineered to accommodate quick changeovers, reducing one of the more fiddly aspects of multi format conveyor reconfiguration. Where conveyor accumulation and transfer points are properly sized and designed for the range of formats a line actually runs, rather than optimised only for the most common format, changeover related conveyor adjustment time drops correspondingly.

    Automation and recipe management

    On the control system side, well structured recipe management on the PLC and HMI allows operators to select a stored format profile rather than manually re-entering filler parameters, labeller settings, and line speed targets for each changeover. This not only saves time directly but reduces the risk of operator error during the changeover, which is itself a common source of quality issues or restart delays immediately following a changeover. For lines still running on older control platforms without structured recipe management, this is frequently one of the more cost effective automation upgrades available, since it leverages existing equipment rather than requiring new capital purchase.

    Sequencing and parallel work

    Beyond mechanical and automation improvements, a surprising amount of changeover time can be recovered simply by reviewing the sequence of tasks. Many changeover procedures evolved informally over years rather than being deliberately designed, and frequently include tasks performed serially that could be performed in parallel by two technicians working different sections of the line simultaneously, or preparation steps, such as staging the next format’s tooling and label rolls, that could be completed before the line actually stops rather than after.

    Building the business case

    For procurement and operations teams, the case for investing in changeover reduction should be built around the recovered production time multiplied by the line’s contribution margin per hour of output. Even modest reductions, ten to fifteen minutes per changeover on a line running several changeovers weekly, compound into a meaningful annual capacity gain, often comparable to a fraction of a new shift’s worth of output, without the ongoing labour cost that an additional shift would carry.

    Engineering support for changeover improvement

    Bevtech Engineering and Automation works across both the mechanical and electrical automation dimensions of changeover reduction, from quick change conveyor and tooling design through to PLC recipe management upgrades, drawing on over 25 years of experience specifically within beverage and FMCG production environments. To discuss a changeover time study and improvement plan for your filling or labelling line, contact Bevtech on +61 400 881 321 or admin@bevtech.com.au, or visit 25 Silvio St, Richlands QLD.