Cement Production Optimization Modeling
Cement Production Optimization Modeling
This paper deals with cement production optimization modeling using Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) and the results was compared with Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Pattern Search (PS). This
optimization modeling took into account mixtures of primary fuel (mineral coal, pet-coke and heavy oil)
and its alternative fuel which is agricultural waste (rice husk, sugar waste and ground shell). The
optimization simulation models predict the cost benefit to the manufacturer using alternative fuel,
environmental impact to world and finally the quality of the cement produced to the end user.
Production cost for one ton of cement using PSO ($23 = 4945), GA ($33 = 7095), PS (38.2 = 8170). The
oxides in this research work met standard cement specification: Silica Modulus (M.S-2.9), Alumina
Modulus (M.A- 1.3), Lime Saturation factor (LSF-93.3%). The results show that the cost of cement
production can be reduced by 30 to 70% with the use of alternative fuel (Rice husk, Sugar cane waste,
ground nut shell) and without greatly affecting the final product.
Key words: Fuel mixture, energy consumption, cement cost, cement quality.
INTRODUCTION
In cement production energy consumption takes the
largest bulk of production cost. Due to this impact the
cement manufacturers are always concerned about using
alternative fuel mixture with low production cost without
losing the quality of the final product and less
environmental impact to the society. The process
consists basically the replacement of the primary fuels by
residues generated by other industries such as used
tires, waste oils and other industrial wastes, agricultural
waste, municipality waste, among others (Kleppinger,
1993).
This research work presents the possibility of using the
54
55
C Pic Xi Pe A exp
( B. S )
(1)
The first term (linear) represents the raw materials and fuels
(primary and alternative) costs used in the clinker production (p i, is
the raw materials and fuels costs i = 1,2....... 10, that participate in
the burning, with their respective percentages X 1, X2,......X10). The
objective function (C) of the model tried to obtain a minimum cost in
the clinker production, considering the raw materials costs as well
as the consumption of the energy required for grinding.
The second term (nonlinear) represents electricity cost (p e) and the
energy consumption required in kWh/t for the grinding process of a
certain specific surface (S is the specific surface area in cm 2/g, A
and B are constants that depend on the clinker composition).
Based on raw material, fuels chemical composition values and on
the Equation (1), an objective function was set up, which represents
costs minimization problem, considering the operational and
environmental costs presented as it follows:
MINCost1 X 1 Cost 2 X 2 Cost3 X 3 Cost 4 X 4 Cost5 X 5 Cost6 X 6 Cost7 X 7
Data processing
The method of analysis was the use of Particle Swarm
Optimization, Genetic Algorithm and Pattern Search simulation
model. This was generated from MATLAB software.
Different sets of data were used at each stage. Thus the data were
used at each simulation stage are based on the Raw material
percentage (%) and Alternative Fuel percentage (%).
The following training procedures were used:
1. A training set used in determining the Particle Swarm
Optimization, Genetic Algorithm and Pattern Search simulation.
2. A validation set, used in estimating the Particle Swarm
Optimization Genetic Algorithm and Pattern Search and decide
when to start training.
3. Testing of the Particle swarm optimization Genetic Algorithm and
Pattern Search tool with other optimization tools
4. Inputting the result of the simulations and also checking that all
the constraint X1, X2, X3 X10 are satisfied.
M .S
(2)
(3)
The constraints
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
56
Material
Notation
Cao
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
MgO
SO3
Na2O
K2O
Limestone
X1
52.18
6.20
1.12
0.47
0.80
0.05
0.07
0.20
Clay
X2
1.03
63.62
17.19
9.65
3.00
0.30
3.00
Laterite
X3
1.0
94.70
3.67
1.43
0.17
0.78
0.50
1.28
Iron
X4
0.11
3.60
0.98
92.97
-
Component
Notation
C
H
N
O
S
Cl
P2O (In ash)
Na2O (In ash)
K2O (In ash)
CaO (In ash)
Fe2O (In ash)
Al2O (In ash)
SiO2 (In ash)
MgO (In ash)
NiO (In ash)
LHV (kJ/kg)
0.04
33,700
43,000
Component
Notation
C
H
O
N
S
Cl
LHV(kJ/kg)
(16)
(18)
(17)
(19)
57
Oxides composition
in clinker (%)
CaO =65.42
SiO = 22.65
Al2O3 = 4.5
Fe2O3 = 3.4
MgO = 1.01
Modulus
(20)
EquationS (4) and (5) show the percentage of calcium oxide (CaO)
contained in raw meal (clinker) 1 ton should be between 64 to
71.2%, Equation (6) and (7) show the percentage of silicon oxide
(SiO2) is contained in calcareous granules 1 ton should be between
20 to 25%. EquationS (8) and (9) show the percentage of aluminum
trioxide (Al2O3) is contained in the calcareous grains per 1 ton
should be between 4 and 7%. EquationS (10) and (11) show the
percentage ferrous trioxide (Fe2O3) is contained in calcareous
granules 1 ton should be between 2 to 5%. Equation (12)
represents the percentage of magnesium should be less than or
6.50%. Equation (13) represents the heat value (Heating Value)
used in the production of clinker, which requires an amount of heat
equal to 3.6 GJ per ton of clinker. Equation (14) represents the
percentage of sulfur (Sulphur) should be less than or equal to 5% of
the sulfur from the fuel type. Equations (15) to (16) is the equation
of an acid and a base of clinker, which comes from the ingredients
used in the production of each species which is between 0.2 and
2.07%; Equation (17) to (18) is the best of sodium oxide (Na2O)
should be between 0.03 to 0.33% equations (18) to (19) values.
Best of potassium oxide (K2O) should be between 0.31 to 1.76%
(Joseph and Obedeh, 2014).
Conclusion
In cement production equipment optimization, the
operating rate is different from design rate of the
equipment. The design rate gives room for increasing or
decreasing the feeding phase for the raw meal and the
fuel usage in a rotary kiln allows some freedom for
change in the composition of raw meal (raw mix and
corrective materials) and fuel consumption. The aim is to
minimize cost of production without losing the quality of
the final production, prolong the life of the equipment,
while satisfying the environmental and operational
restriction. The alternative fuel used is an agricultural
waste (sugar cane waste, ground nut shell and rice
husks) and primary fuel are mineral coal, pet-coke and
heavy oil. These Agricultural wastes present a great
potential use in the production of cement via rotary kilns.
A model is presented in this paper work in which the
composition of the raw meal and the fuels mixtures
enters as variables of a non-linear programing problem.
The solution to this optimization problem finds
composition values for the variable which will result is a
cement production with low free lime (CaO) 0.5-1.5, less
58
Conflict of Interest
The authors have not declared any conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Carpio RC, Silva RJ, Jorge AB (2004). Heavy metals influence in the
mixture optimization of industrial waste fuels in cement industry, XXV
Iberian Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in
Engineering, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Carpio RC, Coelho LS, Silva RJ, Jorge AB (2005).Case Study in
Cement Kilns Alternative Secondary Fuels Mixing Using Sequential
Quadratic Programming, Genetic Algorithms, and Differential
Evolution, Proceedings of 6th World Congress on Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Conesa JA, Font R, Fullana A (2008). Kinetic Model for the combustion
of tyre wastes. Chemosphere 59:85-90.
CEMBUREAU (1999). Environmental Benefits of Using Alternative
Fuels in Cement Production, 19:25-39.
Smidth FL and Co. (2000). Dry process kiln systems, technical
brochure.
Gabbard WD, Gossman D (1990). Hazardous waste fuels and the
cement kilns The Incineration Alternative. ASTM Standardization
News, September 1990. http://gcisolutions.com/HWF&CKS.htm,
Accessed August 2014.
Gulyurtlu I, Boavida D, Abelha P, Lopes MH, Cabrita I (2005). Cocombustion of coal and meat and bone meal. Fuel 84:2137-2148.
Hendriks CA, Worrell E, De Jager D, Blok K, Riemer P (1998).
Emission reduction of Greenhouse Gases from the cement industry
presented at the 4th International conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies, 30 August 2 September 1998, Interlaken,
Switzerland.
Hewlett PC (2004). LEAs Chemistry of Cement and Concrete (4th Ed).
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. 3:45-57.