Interpack 2026: spiral conveyor systems technical observations

A trade fair becomes useful when observing real problems

Attending Interpack 2026 inevitably means encountering a large number of technologies, solutions and engineering approaches. But beyond the visual impact or the sheer scale of the event, what truly makes a trade fair like this valuable is the opportunity to observe how different companies address similar technical challenges through often very different design philosophies.

In our case, the visit to Düsseldorf also had a specific purpose. Beyond our general interest in packaging and food handling systems, we attended the fair to directly compare approaches used by manufacturers working with spiral conveyor systems — observing how they address issues related to motion management, conveyor dynamics and, above all, maintenance accessibility.

The reason is straightforward: we are currently studying an application involving a spiral system within a food processing environment. The product will need to pass through a temperature reduction process with a defined dwell time while simultaneously moving from an upper level to a lower one, inside a space considerably more constrained than what is typically associated with systems of this kind. This is precisely what made the comparison with the solutions observed at the fair particularly meaningful.

Designing spiral conveyor systems within constrained spaces

While observing the different machines on display, one thing became increasingly clear: in applications of this kind, the challenge is not simply making a spiral conveyor system work. The real complexity emerges when kinematics, accessibility, maintenance and operational continuity must coexist within real dimensional constraints.

At a trade fair, inevitably, everything appears more straightforward. The systems on display often benefit from open floor space, ideal configurations and layouts designed in part to enhance the visual impact of the machine itself. This is perfectly understandable, but it can also obscure many of the difficulties that arise in real installations — particularly when space becomes a critical constraint.

In our case, the central question revolved around maintenance accessibility. As available space decreases, every design decision carries significantly more weight: if not carefully evaluated, it can compromise the final outcome. The challenge is not only fitting a machine within a defined volume, but understanding how that machine will be maintained, inspected and managed over time — without turning every intervention into a costly and complex downtime operation.

An equally practical issue concerns installation itself. Assembling a machine of this kind inside a constrained environment is a substantial challenge in its own right. The entire system must be designed to allow modular installation without compromising functionality, given that every geometric limitation imposed by the environment directly becomes a design constraint.

Even aspects that might initially appear secondary become central: conveyor traction management, accessibility to motion components, the ability to replace worn parts without dismantling major sections of the system, and the need to maintain continuous operation while respecting the dwell times required by the cooling process.

This is precisely where direct comparison with other manufacturers becomes genuinely valuable.

Different approaches to motion and maintenance

It was particularly interesting to observe how different companies addressed these challenges through markedly different engineering approaches — especially regarding conveyor motion and spiral drive management. Some solutions were more traditional, others considerably more inventive, but nearly all of them pointed to the same underlying reality: every design choice inevitably introduces advantages on one side and trade-offs on the other.

Many of the systems on display appeared highly customized and, in some cases, likely oversized relative to real-world applications. Yet this also made it possible to observe a range of engineering philosophies rather than being limited to a single construction logic.

Among the companies that drew our attention most was Vimek, particularly for the way maintenance had been integrated into the design philosophy from the outset. Their patented belt-link system was especially noteworthy, having been developed specifically to reduce replacement times — and consequently production downtime — substantially.

Beyond the specific technical solution, what stood out most was the overall engineering mindset: not focusing exclusively on nominal machine performance, but treating maintenance operations, accessibility and long-term serviceability as first-order design considerations.

During the fair we also had the opportunity to speak not only with commercial representatives, but with technical and technical-commercial staff who explained some of the design principles behind these systems. This was one of the aspects that made the visit genuinely useful: it allowed us to understand not only what works, but also which trade-offs are accepted depending on the final application.

Reflections we brought back from the fair

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the visit was precisely this: not searching for a ready-made solution, but validating certain design assumptions and gaining a clearer picture of where the real criticalities lie.

Some internal concepts we had already been developing were confirmed; others were partially reconsidered after observing different approaches to motion management and maintenance. The clearest takeaway is that, in applications like these, there is no universally "best" solution. Much depends on the machine context, dimensional constraints, required dwell times and, above all, on how maintenance and accessibility are handled.

In our case, the space constraint became even more significant after the visit. We came to recognise that designing spiral conveyor systems under critical dimensional conditions requires a considerably more systemic way of thinking — particularly to avoid future maintenance becoming the real bottleneck of the plant.

One of the directions we are currently evaluating stems directly from these considerations. Externalising, wherever possible, part of the motion compartment would make critical components — motors, bearings, transmission shafts, chains and drive systems — significantly more accessible. If this was previously only a design hypothesis, the comparison made it a working assumption.

In applications where internal space is limited, functionally separating certain areas can make a substantial difference both during initial installation and throughout ongoing maintenance. And perhaps this is the most valuable aspect of events like Interpack: not simply observing new technologies, but using comparison with other manufacturers as a means of reasoning more clearly about one's own engineering decisions.

Because in industrial engineering, real constraints — space, maintenance, accessibility and operational continuity — often determine the actual quality of a solution far more than the theoretical narrative used to present it.