1. Fluxcleaning
by
Indufinish

2. Wim Brandsema
 Managing Director, Owner of Indufinish
 25 years of experience HDG
 Board member branch organization

3. Short story of company
We are an innovative full service-oriented manufacturer in
the surface treatment industry, with a unique combination
of market knowledge Galvanizing, Powder Coating,
Anodizing, Electroplating and E-coat.
Based on 25 years knowledge and experience, we provide
quality, sustainable solutions, cost effective technical and
logistical solutions and lean processes.

4. Our company in Emmen, The Netherlands

5. Facts






Grounded in 1991
Owned by Wim Brandsema & Han Kleijn
40 full time employees
Company surface 7.500 m²
R&D budget 2-3% of annual turn-over
Installations throughout Europe.

6. Powered by Dutch technology

7. Powered by Dutch technology




Intelligence, Dynamic, Driven
Passionate about their company and products
Development power
40 ambitious people to improve constantly

8. Quality




ISO 9001
DVS, Deutsche Verein für Schweißtecnik
TÜV, Anerkennung Fachbetrieb
Continuous training of employees

9. Social media
 Linkedin
 Twitter
 You Tube

10. Portfolio





Galvanizing
Powder Coating
Anodizing
Plating
E-coat

11. Galvanizing
pre treatment

12. Pre-treatment plants

13. Pre-treatment plants

14. Linings

15. Spinning

16. Fluxcleaning 1.0

17. Goals





Getting the Iron out
Compact unit
Easy to maintain & service
Transportable
Online servicing

18. The unit

19. Result




Protoype
6 months trial
Still up & running
Learning curve

20. Facts




Standard chemistry
No overdosing H2O2
No sludge in your tank
Fe on constant level

21. Fluxcleaning 2.0

22. Process control
&
Quality improvement of
galvanized steel

23. Flux parameters





Temperature
Concentration and Ratio
pH
Fe content
Surface tension

24. Flux parameters temperature
 Important but not influenced by flux treatment

Minor drop during proces in external unit

Heater can be installed in unit
 Drying is very important!

Reduces splatter

25. Flux parameters concentration
 Concentration in between 200-550 g/l total salt
Although lower concentrations are mentioned
 Ratio
Mono, double, triple, quadra salts
 Influenced by flux treatment
NH4OH pH correction will influence ratio and density
Correction with ZnCl2 is necessary
Possible through ZnCl2 solution or stripping acid!

26. Flux parameters pH
 The “least” discussed parameter
What is your pH?
4,5
 Why pH 4,5?
Because we’ve done so for ages
Less agressive/active flux
less Fe built up
 What are the benefits of pH 2,3?
More active flux
Will “polish” the surface
Fe building is not an issue with a flux treatment
Better circumstances in the flux treatment
Dry filter cake, faster reaction, no Zn oxidation

27. Fe content
 Drag in of Fe gives higher dross and ash production
 Iron content < 5 g/l is recommendable
Hard to achieve without flux treatment
 Main reason to start with flux treatment!
Concentrations < 1 g/l are achievable
Amount of rinses between pickle and flux
can be 1 or even none
 Oxidation with hydrogen peroxide is most
common

28. Surface tension
 Important for an equally fluxed surface
 Modern wetting agents are stable towards H2O2
 Automated dosing of wetting agent in small
amounts is recommendable and can be performed
in the flux treatment

29. Quality improvement
1. Case 1, proto type
 Dutch general galvanizer
 7 metres
2. Case 2, crash barriers, extremely high Fe content
 German crash barrier galvanizer
 13 metres
3. Case 3, advantages low pH
 German general galvanizer
 15 metres

30. Quality improvement, case 1




Prototype Fluxcleaner
Dutch general galvanizer
15.000 tons/year capacity
30 m3 flux
 pH at start 3,9
 Fe content 19 g/l
 Colour at start coffee brown
 Start up at October 27th 2007, no cure no pay
 Started with iron removal at 1 g/l program
 Stable situation from february 2008
different programs (removal rate)
changed pump

31. Quality improvement, case 1
 Status April 2008
 pH 2-3
 Color coffee brown
 Iron content < 5 g/l
 Filter press is emptied once a week
 Customer purchased unit
 Savings
 30 m3 new flux
 Disposal of 30 m3 old flux
 Disposal sludge from flux tank
 Overall impression of better quality

32. Quality improvement, case 2




Extremely high Fe content
German crash barrier galvanizer
25.000 tons/year capacity
48 m3 flux
 pH at start < 0,5
 Fe content 78 g/l
 Color at start pitch black
 Start up February 2009
 Corrected pH to > 1
 Started iron removal at 5 g/l program
 Filter press is emptied multiple times a week

33. Quality improvement, case 2
 Status June 2009
 pH 2,3
 Fe content < 1 g/l
 Color coffee brown
 Savings
 48 m3 of new flux
 Disposal of 48 m3 heavily contaminated flux
 Disposal of sludge from flux tank
 Lower dross production (from 0,35% to 0,24%)
 Lower ash production (from 0,54% to 0,48%)

34. Quality improvement, case 3




Advantages low pH
German general galvanizer
35.000 tons/year capacity
92 m3 flux
 pH at start 4,5
 Fe content 1,3 g/l
 Color coffee brown
 Test to see if the expected advantages of pH
found in praxis
 Test for 7 months using identical, numbered
products
2,3 are

35. Quality improvement, case 3
 Test followed the following steps;

Filtration at pH 4,5

Iron removal at pH 4,5

Lowering pH to 2,3 combined
with iron removal
 months of testing to ensure quality
5
 Conclusions

Distinguished quality improvement after
mas)
 Less pickle and roughness
 Less ashes, different type of ashes
improvement is stable
lowering pH (over X-

36. Quality improvement, case 3
As iron was already low specific attention was
given to dross production.
A higher dross production
related to lower pH was not found.
Higher dross production was identified and
originating from change of
products
Conclusion in a, by the galvanizer written, report was that
a lower pH gives a
considerable quality improvement but
can’t be
achieved without a
Fluxcleaner

37. Quality improvement, case 3
 Status June 2013
pH 2,3
Fe content < 0,5 g/l
Colour coffee brown
Customer purchased the unit
 Savings
Slightly cheaper then sludge removal from the
The improved quality meant less after work,
the savings on this labour were not calculated
estimated to be at least one FTE!
tank
but

38. Indufinish proposition
www.fluxcleaning.com

39. Indufinish proposition











Compact
Lowest chemistry consumption
Usage of basic chemistry only
Corrosion resistance, only plastic
Will clean up existing flux with high iron content
Best ROI
Fully automated
Easy to maintain
Short delivery times
35 units in the European market
Knowhow and experience with the unit since 2006

40. Thank you
for
your attention
ADD your surface