Sustainable Development Goals
PROJECT INFORMATION AT A GLANCE:
Project Status:
Historical reference; decommissioned
Organizations Involved:
GVG Gummiverwertungsgesellschaft, Austrian Industrial Research Promotion Fund, MeWa, Vienna University of Technology, Institute for Road Construction & Maintenance
Services / Equipment:
Relevant Klean expertise: Due Diligence, Supply Chain Management and application-specific preprocessing equipment selection
GVG’s tire-recycling plant in Ohlsdorf, Upper Austria, had advanced processing equipment, the capability to handle 15–20 tonnes of tires per hour, and the ability to produce high-quality recovered materials. Yet the project failed. Securing enough feedstock became increasingly difficult, higher-value product markets were insufficiently developed, and lower-cost competitors put further pressure on selling prices.
The case illustrates why Klean evaluates tire recycling from collection through to the final application. The equipment must fit the tires available, the cost of getting them to the plant, and the material the customer or downstream process actually needs. Understanding those connections determines which sorting, shredding, separation and material-handling systems belong in a commercially viable operation, including preparation for continuous tire pyrolysis.
GVG’s approximately 60,000-tonne annual design capacity created a substantial collection requirement. Establishing access to that volume from dependable suppliers was costly and time-consuming, particularly in Austria. As the project developed, obtaining sufficient feedstock became more difficult.
The supply task extends from identifying who controls the tires to arranging collection, transport, receiving, sorting and storage. Each step affects the quantity, condition and delivered cost of the material available to the processing line. A wider collection area may provide access to more tires, but the additional transport must still work within the plant’s economics.
This is where collection knowledge becomes an equipment-selection issue. The available passenger and truck tire mix, delivery pattern and required output must inform the receiving area, sorting arrangements, machinery and material flow. A plant’s capacity should follow a workable supply plan. The collection network cannot simply be assumed to grow around the machinery after it is installed.
Tires are reinforced composites designed to keep rubber, steel and textile fibres bonded together. Recovering useful materials requires controlled cutting, grinding and separation through several stages.
The GVG reference describes a 70% passenger-tire and 30% truck-tire mix, with accurate sorting and separation central to the process. It reports separation-quality figures of 99% for steel and 99% for textile fluff, reflecting the emphasis placed on clean recovered rubber.
The commercial purpose of that processing was to produce grades for specific applications. Its product range served the following applications:
| Material Size | Intended Application |
|---|---|
| Approximately 150 mm | Tire-derived fuel |
| 8–50 mm | Thermal-conversion feedstock, including pyrolysis applications, and noise-protection filling material |
| 1–5 mm | Sports surfaces, roof and playground matting, drainage and noise-protection products, and paving products |
| 1–3 mm | Rubber-modified asphalt |
| 0–1 mm | New rubber products and oil-binding material |
Each application creates a different processing duty. Producing a coarse fuel chip, clean rubber granulate or fine powder requires a different combination of equipment and operating cost. The selection starts with the required material specification and works back through separation, screening and size reduction to the incoming tire supply.
For the developer, this is a consequential decision: how much processing does the application require, and what value does each additional stage earn? Buying more processing capability makes commercial sense when its output has a market that supports the additional investment and cost.
GVG’s plant was capable of processing 20 tonnes per hour, while Klean identified 15 tonnes per hour as the preferred operating rate. The reported maximum daily basis was 240 tonnes, corresponding to 20 tonnes per hour over 12 processing hours.
Klean’s operating experience highlights the importance of allowing for maintenance when planning productive shredding hours. In this case, around 12 productive hours per day provided the practical planning basis. Extending the schedule requires an understanding of wear, maintenance and long-term equipment durability; multiplying an hourly rating by 24 does not establish sustainable daily production.
Typical capacities for the processing stages described in Klean’s assessment were:
These figures describe different duties and configurations. They show why the number of downstream lines and modules must match the intended product mix. The typical operating arrangement comprised one loader operator for pre-shredding, two people for granulation, one for fine milling and a shift supervisor.
Equipment selection therefore involves the complete production route: receiving and loading, processing stages, separation, transfer, storage and dispatch. The useful measure is the quantity of the required material that the whole system can reliably deliver at an acceptable cost.
These decisions are equally relevant when preparing tires for continuous pyrolysis. The downstream process defines the required feed specification; that specification must guide the upstream machinery and material-handling arrangement.
Klean considers the incoming tire mix, required chip size and consistency, steel and textile separation, and how prepared material will be stored and delivered to the process. GVG’s 8–50 mm product category illustrates the range of thermal-conversion applications. The correct size within a project must follow the selected process and feeding system.
The operating schedules must also work together. A shredding operation with planned maintenance periods and a continuously fed pyrolysis process need a coordinated production and storage arrangement. That relationship belongs in the plant design and costing from the outset.
Klean’s preprocessing knowledge connects the collection operation to the downstream process. It helps developers determine the equipment, separation stages and material flow needed for their application, with the objective of supplying consistent feed at a commercially workable cost.
GVG entered a European crumb-rubber market already facing abundant supply and insufficient development of new applications. Its technology could produce high-quality materials, but the project failed to establish enough higher-value outlets. Other Central European processors could supply the established markets at lower cost, intensifying price competition.
Rubber-modified asphalt illustrates the missed commercial challenge. Successful North American applications did not automatically create European demand: stone-mastic asphalt required a different approach to mix design. Developing that opportunity meant connecting the recovered rubber to the requirements of the road-building customer.
Klean’s assessment identified the absence of a sufficiently developed feasibility case and poor long-term planning. Grants, subsidies and anticipated policy changes were treated as drivers of opportunity while the fundamentals of dependable feedstock, competitive production cost and secured product sales, remained inadequate. Klean’s approach is to establish whether the recovered products can support the business on their own economics, with grants and collection or gate-fee income identified separately.
As feedstock became harder to obtain, product demand weakened and commodity prices fell, GVG could not continue.
Klean estimates more than 30,000 tonnes of tires were recycled annually and more than 150,000 tonnes during the operation covered by this case study. At a passenger tire equivalent (PTE) of 10 kg, the latter represents more than 15 million PTEs. These volumes show that substantial material processing took place; the business nevertheless failed to fulfil its commercial potential.
1. Develop the collection operation alongside the plant.
Tire availability, supplier relationships, logistics, sorting and delivered cost determine the feedstock the equipment can actually process.
2. Select preprocessing equipment for the application.
Product size, separation requirements, operating hours and downstream demand determine the machinery and material-handling configuration. Klean connects these decisions across granulation and continuous pyrolysis preparation.
3. Establish the business before committing to the machinery.
GVG had capable technology and high-quality products. Its failure demonstrates why feedstock security, production economics and paying customers must support the investment from the start.
Before selecting a shredder, granulation line or pyrolysis feed-preparation system, talk to Klean about the tires you can obtain and the material you need to produce. We can help connect collection and logistics with sorting, size reduction, separation and material handling and determine which equipment configuration fits your application.
A paid Detailed Equipment Quotation (DEQ) establishes the initial equipment and cost basis. A Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) develops the technical and commercial case, followed by Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) when the project is ready to advance. Existing operations can begin with a focused assessment of their preprocessing and supply-chain requirements.
Discuss Your Tire Preprocessing Requirements with Klean >> GO.
Learn More:
ABOUT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED
This case study presents Klean’s assessment of a historical project. Detailed technical and commercial information is shared within an agreed engagement and appropriate confidentiality arrangements.
