T

Rosy Wang,
GlobalSolutions Director
for Cement, Schneider
Electric, outlines how
production resource
optimisation can improve
efficiency, quality and
sustainability.

he COO, general manager or plant manager of

a cement business faces increasing energy costs,
an unsecured supply of fuel and power, volatile
volume fluctuations by geographic region,
limited capex to expand capacity, increasing sustainability
requirements and competitive pressures resulting in a weak
operating margin. In response to these growing challenges,
solutions have been developed to help win the battle of
future competition with maximised business profits and
prolonged sustainability.

Asset optimisation and corporate

governance
l Trend 1: volatile volume fluctuations by geographic
region (Figure 1).
l Trend 2: merger, acquisition, restructuring and market
consolidation.
l Implications: with the anticipated reduction in
construction of new production lines, cement companies
will increasingly need technological modifications to
master and strengthen existing plant operations and, in
emerging markets, to quickly gain a better market share
by maximising production of existing facilities.
l Possible actions: asset optimisation.

Production Resource
Optimisation
[May 12] Reprinted from worldcement.com

Table 1. KPI impact on revenue from COO perspective

KPIs

Average

Top 20%
(as target)

The
best

RF (reliability factor)

93%

98%

99.5%

68%

PF (performance factor)

92.5%

98.5%

120%

75%

Impact on revenue (top 20% vs

average)
Annual clinker production of one line
(million tpa)

1.51

1.69

Total clinker production in the

company (million tpa)

75

84

Additional clinker if optimised

(milliontpa)

9.2

Company additional profit

(millionUS$ pa)

276

The number of equivalent clinker lines

6.1

Notes (assumptions)
Rated capacity of one clinker line
(tpd)

500

Planned overhaul shutdown (days)

15

Margin from clinker production

(US$/t)

30

Annual clinker production for one line

(15 days for planned overhaul, 0 days
for external circumstances)

5000 x (365
- 15) x RF
x PF

Total clinker lines in the company

50

ll

RF (reliability) = operation
hour / (opening hours - planned
shutdown hours - stoppage hours
due to circumstances) x 100%.

ll

PF (performance factor) = average

kiln output / rated capacity x 100%.

ll

MTBF (mean time between

failures) = total operation hours
in a year / number of stoppages
for incidents.

ll

Clinker volume (yearly

production) = rated capacity
x 365 x UF x PF or = rated
capacity x (365 - planned
shutdown days - stoppage hours
due to circumstances) x RF x PF.

The
worst

Benchmark
For well mastered cement plants, the
kiln RF can reach 99.5%; the annual
UF can reach 96%; MTBF can reach
30 days, with a longest record of
145 days continous running; PF
reaches 98 120%.
For average plants, the kiln RF is
about 90 93% (many companies do
not even measure this); the annual
UF is around 85%; MTBF stands at
5 days and PF at 92%.
For poorly managed plants,
the kiln RF averages 68%; the
annual UF is <80%; with MTBF of
2 3 days and PF of 75%.

KPI impact on revenue and

profit

Figure 1. World cement production by region.1

Definitions
To begin with, the definitions for plant performance key
performance indicators (KPIs) must be consistent. The
following are standard KPI definitions:
ll UF (utilisation factor) = operation hours / opening
hours x 100%.

Reprinted from worldcement.com [May 12]

The impact of two KPIs from an

operations perspective can be
seen in Table 1. This shows the
statistics for RF and PF in the
cement industry, with representative
coverage.
The average performance
delivers RF 93% and PF 92.5%,
whilst the top 20% achieved RF 98%
and PF 98.5%. The top 20% level is
realistic, achievable and should be
the companys target.
For example, a company with
50 lines, including a US$30/t margin
from clinker production, can gain
US$276 million pa based on the
average companys ability to
achieve a top 20% level. The
additional production is
equivalent to 6.1 new clinker
lines. Even in the current economic climate and with
the limited availability of Capex, a company can save
up to US$6.1 x 200 million (a new line costs about
US$200 million), resulting in greater flexibility and
competitiveness in an uncertain market.

Solution 1: KPI reporting and

benchmarking
An online benchmarking tool can consolidate the KPIs
on production, energy consumption and downtime. This
tool also allows corporate executives to provide better

governance by having instant and remote access to an

overview of the KPIs across sites, in order to make accurate
and quick decisions, including prioritisation of corporate
agendas and identification of sites that need additional
support (Figure 2).

Solution 2: downtime management

Visibility of plant operations can help to ensure that
a production facility is operating at its peak efficiency
by identifying where, how, and why production
delays are occurring. By reporting scheduled and
unscheduled events, as well as underperforming
equipment, a complete analysis of production
downtime causes can be obtained. This information
is crucial for prioritising maintenance and improving
operating procedures.
The automatic capture of downtime events helps
operators to become more efficient and removes the
inaccuracies and inconsistencies of manual systems
(Figure 3).
Ampla Downtime defines downtime as:
ll Real downtime the time production has actually
stopped.
Figure 2. Online reporting/benchmarking of KPIs.

ll Virtual downtime the time when production is

below the user-defined threshold, but production
has not stopped.

Example
Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd, Australia, implemented
downtime management, the result of which is illustrated
in Figure 4.
The Adelaide Brighton example demonstrates how
a modern IT solution provides a tool for continuous
improvement. Not only did the implementation of
Ampla reduce downtime stoppages and slow running in
the year of implementation, it continued to facilitate y/y
continuous improvement.

Energy optimisation
Energy optimisation covers energy consumption
and energy costs. The typical energy cost structure is
illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 3. Ampla Production Analyst.

Specific energy consumption

Many plants initially begin the path to energy
efficiency by fixing the basics (for example,
retrofits, process optimisation and VSD),
which is viewed as a short-term success.
After some time, these plants experience
performance drifts. Energy management
and optimisation cannot be accomplished
and sustained through short-term efforts.

Case study

Figure 4. Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd, Australia, reduced kiln stoppage with
downtime management.2

A plant in Beijing, China, reduced its power

consumption from 121 kW/t to 100 kW/t by
following a 3 year intensive improvement
programme. However, the positive results
that were achieved were not improved upon
further. This was due to a variety of factors,
the most important being that the plant did

[May 12] Reprinted from worldcement.com

Figure 5. Energy cost structure in cement manufacturing.

not have a real-time energy management system to aid

continuous improvement (Figure 6).
Figure 7 shows the air compressor power consumption/t
for cement grinding. The average is 2.5 kWh/t, with
fluctuations ranging from 1.5 kWh/t (the best this plant
achieved) to 7 kWh/t. If the plant maintained its best power
consumption level on a daily basis, it could save 1 kWh/t with
the same facility through optimisation. For this 1 million tpa
cement plant, the savings could be 1 million kWh pa and
US$80 000 pa. The solution air compressor system
optimisation consists of VSD and smart control, can avoid
idle running and maintain stable pressure of the system.

Solution: online energy optimisation

system (EOS)

Figure 6. Plant EE story need for continuous improvement.

An EOS can provide online production and energy KPIs

with the dashboard views for different profiles in the cement
plants and different levels in a company (Figure 8). The
plant is able to carry out production and energy analysis
in addition to real-time benchmarking, which can be done
by region, plant, workshop or crew. This system enables
operators to react faster and management to make decisions
earlier to avoid big energy losses.
Today, with an EOS, the kiln coach can focus more on
analysis and other duties rather than generating statistics,
since key reports, including shift, daily and monthly, can be
automated. The operators get more eyes to optimise kiln
operation with real-time feedback through the Operator
Tool Box.

Process efficiency and optimisation

solutions
Figure 9 indicates process parameters in clinker making; a
10% difference in the process parameters can be observed
from plant to plant. Therefore, the heat consumption
can vary greatly even with the same process depending
on process mastery. These fluctuations can indicate
opportunities for optimisation.
From the central control room (CCR), one can easily
observe the two key parameters:
l The temperature of preheater exhaust gas (T of C1).
Figure 7. Plant power consumption on air compressors.

l The temperature of cooler exhaust air (T of cooler

exhaust).
The energy efficiency level of a plant can be
quickly evaluated with these two parameters.
The following are some benchmark examples:
ll For a 4-stage preheater plant, the T of
C1 exhaust can be 350 400 C, whilst
for a 5-stage preheater plant, the T of C1
exhaust can be 300 360 C.
ll For a typical plant with a 5000 tpd line, at a
fuel cost of US$3.6/GJ, if the C1 T reduces
by 10 C, the specific heat consumption
can be reduced by 0.7%. This results
in an annual saving of approximately
US$150 000.

Figure 8. EOS dashboard view for energy KPIs.

Reprinted from worldcement.com [May 12]

ll If the cooler exhaust T reduces by

10 C, the specific heat consumption can
be reduced by 0.4%, which amounts to an
annual saving of approximately US$80 000.

Process efficiency assessment energy

step
Today, a systematic methodology is available to assess
process efficiencies. Energy Step contains the necessary
measurements and in-depth diagnostics on all major energy
consumption areas. Through this solution, root causes for
high heat consumption and high power consumption can
be analysed and a prioritised improvement project list,
including investment and payback, can be provided.

a root cause was found uncompleted combustion of fuel

in the calciner due to temperatures that were too low.
The modification was designed and conducted during
kiln shutdown, resulting in the waste gas temperature
at preheater outlet (C1) being reduced from 400 C to
360C.3 The plant can save 10000 tpa in standard coal, a
savings value of about US$1.5 million pa.

Energy cost

Case study

Situation and trends

Lunan Cement in China, containing two 2500 tpd kilns with

4-stage preheater, had a high heat consumption. Through a
kiln audit and a diagnostic with simulation for combustion,

Electricity demand and price are increasing by 7.5% pa y/y.

Thermal energy prices increase by 14% pa globally. In
countries where alternative fuel (AF) is not yet commonly
used, the thermal energy price has increased by 20% pa,
whereas in developing countries where AF is commonly
used, the mixed thermal energy price is less dependent
on coal markets (Figure 10).
Many cement companies are suffering profit loss
due to energy cost increases. Conch, the largest cement
producer in China, claimed that pressure from rising
electricity prices remains (6.31% more than the previous
year), the price of coal is soaring and energy costs are
68.6% of total costs, even with waste heat recovery
(WHR) contribution. The margin for cement businesses
is reducing while the price of cement has increased.4

Solution 1: turn waste heat to green

energy WHR
Figure 9. Clinkering process. The process parameters vary greatly,
allowing plenty of room for optimisation.

WHR can make the most use of the heat from waste gas
from the preheater and cooler, to generate electricity
of 30 45 kWh/t clinker without additional coal. This
depends on the process and process mastery of the
plant. The payback period is usually within three years.
It mainly depends on the country location and its
electricity supply rate. If the rate is >US$80/MWh or
US$90/MWh, it will be profitable to build WHR. WHR
is a matured technology; approximately 1000 WHR
systems have been installed around the world. WHR
not only reduces energy costs, it also improves a plants
carbon footprint.

Solution 2: energy procurement services

and solutions
One can gain an overview of energy usage at the site,
regional and enterprise level and optimise energy
procurement through the following means:

Figure 10. The energy price revolution for cement plants.

Third party market intelligence to drive

decisions.

Leveraging competition in deregulated markets

and rate structures in regulated markets.

Managing energy sourcing as a strategic

component of energy spend.

Matching sourcing activities to the risk profile

of the organisation.

Increasing visibility across an enterprise to

usage and best practices via dashboard views.

This can result in a reduced energy cost (US$/MWh)

of up to 10%, as well as a more reliable energy supply.

[May 12] Reprinted from worldcement.com

Quality mastery
What is good quality?
Good quality entails the strength to meet customer
needs and reduce energy consumption in a
sustainable manner. This includes:
ll The uniformity of cement (for example, the
standard deviation of strength). The lower the
deviation, the better the uniformity. The higher
the confidence when a concrete maker designs
his concrete, the less cement he has to use per
m3 of concrete and the lower his concrete cost.

Figure 11. Quality Management Information System.

ll The fineness and workabilities. If the cement

is ground too fine with high Blaine (specific
surface area m2/kg), this not only consumes
more energy for finish grinding but may
also lead to poor workability of cement when
making concrete.
By visiting several ready mix stations, it
was observed that concrete customers value the
uniformity of cement as a key quality indicator.
They are willing to pay higher prices for cement
with better uniformity and workability, which will
make their control easier and costs lower.

How to achieve good quality?

Quality is determined by process, quality,
and operation management. Kiln and cement
mill operators play important roles in quality
optimisation. Optimising daily operations can
improve clinker and cement uniformity. Today,
tools are available to assist with this:
ll Quality Management Information System
(Figure 11).

Figure 12. Cement industry projected CO2 emissions.6

ll Advanced Process Control. 5 This can

significantly help to stabilise quality,
especially when multifuels are used in the
kiln.

Sustainable development
Cement, especially clinker manufacturing, is a
carbon-intensive transformation process:
ll 1 t of clinker production generates 0.81.1t
CO2.6 This depends on: MJ/t, kWh/t and loss
from (CaCO3 + MgCO3).
ll 1 t of cement production generates 0.51.0t
CO2. This depends on: C/K ratio and kWh/t for
finish grinding.

Figure 13. CO2 online reporting, benchmarking and breakdown.

Reprinted from worldcement.com [May 12]

The cement industry has been challenged

to reduce CO2 emissions/t of cement. However,
total emissions are increasing due to growing
total cement demand worldwide. Figure 12 shows
projected CO2 emissions (in million t).
CSI drafted the CO 2 protocol on cement and
therefore only CSI members have been reporting
their CO2 emissions annually and manually.
Today, the tool for online reporting and

benchmarking for CO 2 emissions in the cement process

is available to report on the following:
l l Total CO 2 emissions (tpd, tpm and tpa).
l l Unit emission t CO 2/t clinker, t CO 2/t cement (by type
of cement).
l l The breakdown for direct CO 2 from fuel combustion,
CaCO 3 decomposition and indirect CO 2 from
electricity consumption.
With this tool, cement companies can have better
visibility with immediate emissions data. As a result,
actions can be taken quickly to reduce GHG emissions
and carbon tax if applicable (Figure 13).

Conclusion
Production resource optimisation covers asset and
equipment efficiency, energy and quality optimisation
and sustainability.
l l By improving equipment efficiency (RF, PF, MTBF),
a company can increase revenue/profit and market
share in a growing market without huge investment
in new production lines, as well as being more
flexible with less risk to cope with market changes.
Online benchmarking helps corporations to
consolidate and enhance existing plant operations.
ll Energy cost is 40 70% of production cost, with
increases each year. Online energy management
systems, energy audits and process optimisation
can help reduce energy consumption/t. Energy

trading services can help cement plants to pay less

US$/MWh. WHR can generate power from waste
process heat and reduce power use from the grid,
thereby reducing energy bills and CO 2 footprint.
l l Quality optimisation impacts upon energy
consumption and customer satisfaction. Uniformity
is a very important quality indicator and can be
achieved with quality management information
systems and advanced process control.
l l Cement manufacturing is a carbon-intensive process.
Online CO 2 reporting helps cement companies have
better visibility and reduce their CO 2 footprint.

All of the above can be achieved through people.

Fostering an optimisation culture within the company
and having a good system for continuous improvement
can help with future competition, while remaining
sustainable.

References
1. Key facts and figures, Cembureau (2011).
2. Aurora, V., Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd Presentation (2011).
3. Wang Zhirong, R., Simulation of RSP Preheater/Precalciner
System, 4th International Cement Conference, Beijing (1998),
p. 32.
4. Conch Cement Energy Cost, Digital Cement (2008).
5. Stettler, D. Controlling the Burn, ICR, March (2010), p. 73.
6. Wang, R., Low Carbon Low Energy-Solutions from Schneider
Electric, Beijing International Cement Summit (2010).
7. CSI-GNR (Get the Number Right) Report (2011).

[May 12] Reprinted from worldcement.com