A close up photograph of a large pile of drying soybeans.
by Roy Olsen & Luke Zebroski
Soybean

RMS Endurance Rolls Provide Superior Wear Resistance

Challenge

Image of components for maintenance and repair.

A major Midwest soy processor needed a way to keep its soybean de-hullers running continuously between its planned fall and spring maintenance shutdowns.

Solution

Roll Exchange Icon.

The soy processor tested RMS Endurance Rolls and a competing roll technology on two side-by-side Roskamp crackers to determine which rolls had the longest life.

Result

Testing and Consulting Icon.

The RMS Endurance Rolls showed less wear over time than the competing rolls, resulting in about two times the life expectancy.

Overview: Efficient Soybean Milling

Our tester was one of the largest soybean processors in the Midwest. It processes 40 million bushels per year. Worn cracker rolls in the company’s soy crackers required costly shutdowns that interfered with throughput and efficiency.

This case study highlights a side-by-side comparison of RMS Endurance Rolls and a similar roll technology from a competitor in a soybean cracking application. The testing company hoped to determine which rolls lasted longer and could provide greater value over the course of several months between planned milling shutdowns.

Problem: Avoiding Costly Shutdowns

A close up photograph of a large pile of drying soybeans.The soybean processor operates its soybean mills for seven months between planned fall and spring shutdowns. For efficiency and cost savings, they need the crackers to operate continuously with no unplanned shutdowns for maintenance or parts replacement.

The problem is that their current rolls, K36 rolls, only lasted four months before wearing down to the point of needing to be replaced. To make it through seven months of operation, the rolls in their mills had to last longer.

Even a trained and qualified technician needs at least ten hours to change the rollers on the processor’s Hulloosenators. This kind of shutdown in the middle of the milling season would cost the company a significant amount of money.

Solution: Side-by-Side Roll Test Comparison

To solve the problem, the company decided to run side-by-side tests of two different rolls: RMS Endurance Rolls and a competing company’s new roll technology. The idea was to determine which rolls would perform longer and provide better value.

Our testing soy processor used two Roskamp 16 x 84 double-pair mills positioned to receive soybeans from the same product stream. One machine was equipped with the RMS Endurance rolls and the other with the competing rolls. To track wear on the corrugation, they took impressions. This gave them a side profile of the roll flutes that could be viewed and measured under a microscope.

Results: RMS Endurance Rolls Provide Greater Wear Resistance

Competing roll technology #1 at 14.25 Million Bushels vs RMS ENDURANCE ROLL #1 at 14.25 Million Bushels side by side comparisonTo determine which roll lasted longer and performed better, the soy processor compared impression measurements at several points. They took impressions on the new rolls, a few times throughout milling, and at the final dull point, when the rolls had 0% life left.

Both rolls lasted seven months, but the RMS Endurance Rolls had significantly more useful life left. The competitor rolls showed significantly more wear at the end of the trial. Some had gone below the dull point and others were at an average of 1%. In comparison, the RMS rolls at the end of the trial were at an average of 46%. The RMS Endurance Rolls were projected to continue being useful for several months and to be able to process a total of 26.4 million bushels of soybeans.

A graph shows the wear on roll mills over time, with competitor rolls wearing out faster than RMS Endurance mills.

The graph of roll life percentage over time shows that the RMS Endurance rolls had nearly two times the life left at the end of the trial as compared to the competitor’s rolls.

You can see more specific details about roll life percentage in our data tables:

Competitor Rolls
Date9/18/202312/11/20233/21/20244/28/2024
Roll 1 Front Left Life %100%61%25%-8%
Roll 1 Front Right Life %100%45%14%10%
Roll 1 Left/Right Average %100%53%19%1%
Roll 2 Front Left Life %100%78%68%54%
Roll 2 Front Right Life %100%82%56%35%
Roll 2 Left/Right Average %100%80%62%44%
RMS Endurance Rolls
Date9/18/202312/11/20233/21/20244/28/2024
Roll 1 Front Left Life %100%67%64%38%
Roll 1 Front Right Life %100%69%65%54%
Roll 1 Left/Right Average %100%68%64%46%
Roll 2 Front Left Life %100%75%71%64%
Roll 2 Front Right Life %100%85%84%72%
Roll 2 Left/Right Average %100%80%78%68%

Impressions measured four times throughout the trial indicate that the competitor rolls deteriorated quicker. By the end date, one of the competitor’s rolls was down to an average of 1% life left. The comparable Endurance roll still had 46% life left at the same point. 

Interested In Learning More?

If you would like to see more case studies like this, reach out to us and we’ll set up a trial against any competitor’s roll technology. At RMS Roller Grinder, we welcome customer feedback and challenges. If you have any questions about the trial or case study, please contact us.

Visit our website or reach out to us to learn more about RMS products, including RMS Endurance Rolls.

0.0
0.0 out of 5 stars (based on 0 reviews)
Excellent0%
Very good0%
Average0%
Poor0%
Terrible0%