Both the Tower Press TP60™ and the Tower Press TP16™ are fully automatic vertical pressure filters and how they work built on the same core technology. They share the same filtration principle, the same automated cycle, and the same commitment to producing consistently dry filter cake. What separates them is scale. Choosing between the two is fundamentally a question of matching filtration area to production throughput, but site constraints, slurry characteristics, and operational requirements all shape the final decision. This comparison gives engineers the technical grounding to make that call with confidence.
Key technical differences between the TP60 and TP16
The most significant difference between the two models is filtration area. The Tower Press TP60™ delivers filtration areas ranging from 60 to 168 m², making it suited to high-throughput applications in minerals processing, metallurgy, and large-scale tailings dewatering. The Tower Press TP16™ covers a smaller filtration area range, positioning it for mid-scale operations, pilot-scale production, or applications where footprint and feed volume are constrained.
Both models operate on the same automated cycle: slurry feed under pressure, primary filtration through horizontal filter chambers, high-pressure diaphragm pressing to mechanically squeeze residual liquid from the cake, compressed air drying, automatic cake discharge via a single continuous filter cloth, and cloth washing. This cycle runs without operator intervention and can be monitored remotely through the Roxia Malibu™ online portal. The TP60 achieves typical cake moisture values of 7 to 8% for base metal concentrates and 13 to 18% for tailings, depending on slurry characteristics. The TP16 follows the same operating logic with proportionally adjusted capacity figures.
Both models include the same integrated safety architecture: perimeter protection, safety-interlocked doors, and a caged ladder with a fall arrest system. Safety specifications do not scale down with the smaller model.
Matching model capacity to your production scale
Selecting the right model starts with production throughput, expressed as filtration capacity in kgDS/m²/h (kilograms of dry solids per square metre per hour). This figure, combined with the required daily tonnage, determines the minimum filtration area needed. From that starting point, the choice between the TP60 and TP16 becomes more straightforward.
Operations processing high feed volumes continuously, such as copper or iron ore concentrate circuits or large tailings facilities, will generally require the filtration area that only the TP60 range can deliver. Smaller operations, batch processes, or facilities where feed volume is moderate will often find the TP16 adequately sized, with room to handle process variability without running the filter at its ceiling.
It is worth noting that running a filter consistently near its maximum capacity reduces operational flexibility and increases wear on filter cloths and diaphragms. Sizing slightly above the calculated minimum is standard practice. Filtration testing on a representative slurry sample of at least 20 litres is the only reliable way to determine actual filtration rates for a specific application. Theoretical capacity figures provide a starting point; testing confirms the real-world number.
Operational and site factors that influence the decision
Capacity is not the only variable. Physical footprint, installation height, and structural load requirements all affect which model is practical for a given site. The TP60, with its larger filter plate pack and greater filtration area, requires more vertical clearance and a heavier supporting structure. Retrofit installations in existing buildings may face constraints that make the TP16 the only viable option regardless of throughput targets.
Feed slurry characteristics also matter beyond simple throughput. Slurries with high solids content, difficult dewatering behaviour, or variable feed rates place different demands on the filtration system. In some cases, two TP16 units operating in parallel provide more operational resilience than a single TP60, because one unit can continue running while the other undergoes maintenance or cloth replacement. This redundancy argument is particularly relevant in operations where continuous production cannot be interrupted.
Energy consumption per tonne of dry solids produced is another practical consideration. Larger filtration area per unit generally improves energy efficiency at scale, which favours the TP60 in high-volume applications. For lower-volume operations, the TP16 avoids the overhead of running a larger system at partial load.
Common selection mistakes and how to avoid them
The most common mistake is sizing equipment based on nominal feed volume without accounting for variability. Feed rates in minerals processing fluctuate with ore grade, mill throughput, and upstream process changes. A filter sized exactly to average conditions will be undersized when feed rates spike, creating a bottleneck that limits plant production.
A related error is relying on filtration capacity figures from a different slurry or a different site without testing the actual material. Cake formation behaviour, filtration rate, and achievable moisture content all depend on particle size distribution, mineralogy, and pulp density. Two copper concentrates from different deposits can behave very differently under pressure filtration. Roxia’s filtration testing service exists precisely to eliminate this uncertainty before equipment selection is finalised.
Underestimating the importance of footprint and access requirements is another frequent oversight. Engineers sometimes select a model based on capacity alone, then encounter installation challenges that delay commissioning or require costly structural modifications. A full site assessment, including ceiling height, floor loading, access for maintenance, and cake discharge logistics, should be part of the selection process from the outset.
Finally, avoid treating the Tower Press TP™ selection as a one-time decision disconnected from lifecycle planning. Both models are supported by Roxia’s Life Cycle Support programme for dewatering equipment, which covers spare parts, inspections, refurbishments, and process optimisation throughout the equipment’s operational life. Factoring in long-term serviceability and parts availability is as important as the initial capacity calculation.
Contact Roxia to request a filtration test on your slurry. Our engineers will recommend the most effective model and size the equipment for your specific process conditions.