You are on page 1of 28

Raw Material Grinding - VRM vs.

HPGR
Determination Criteria of Modern Raw Material Grinding Systems

Sven Jankhöfer
Heidelberg Cement AG
HTC Leimen, 2015-04-20

ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions


New raw material grinding plant
Vertical roller mill QUADROPOL QMR2 Concept

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
2 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ Vertical roller mill QUADROPOL QMR2

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
3 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ Vertical roller mill QUADROPOL QMR2

• Mill housing free of grinding forces


• Equal hot gas and material distribution
• Full damping of roller unit by foundation
• Low vibration
• Good accessibility to main components
• Easy maintenance
• Four or two roller operation
• Designed for 500 to 10.000 kW

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
4 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ Vertical roller mill QUADROPOL QMR2

• Less moving masses


• Only two roller bearings
• Only one roller sealing, positioned
outside the mill
• Easy changing of bearing seal
• Only one hydraulic cylinder for mill operation
• Only one piston accumulator for mill operation
• Low vibration during operation
• Easy maintenance

• Dislocation by standard maintenance


equipment
• Local maintenance on pylon
• Partial local disassembly of roller unit
• Mobile crane concept suitable

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
5 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant
POLYCOM with SEPOL PC Concept

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
6 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ POLYCOM with SEPOL PC

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
7 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ POLYCOM with SEPOL PC

• Separated grinding and drying


• Low vibration and reliable operation
• Good accessibility to main components
• Easy maintenance
• Best energy utilisation of all grinding systems

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
8 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Wear Protection – Two Different Wear Concepts
Forged and hard faced Compound Cast

profiling
profiling
Hard
Hard layer
facing
Base Base
material material

Weldability High compressive


High toughness strength due to high
insensibility against chromium layer
tensions and cracks no material fatigue
moderate wear High wear resistance of
resistance outer layer
Cheapest solution
Achieved Lifetime: Achieved Lifetime so far:
Max. 22,000 h > 75,000 h

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
9 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Profiling of compound cast Polycom® roll

Welding can be done without dismantling


• of the Polycom
Only profiles are applied with a small
• amount of welding material
• (largest roller 21/16 needs about 100 kg/unit,
only)
No heating of tyres necessary
Same procedure for re-profiling
Manual welding possible for local repair
No special qualification of staff required

About 100 roller pairs worldwide

Max. operating time so far > 75,000 h

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
10 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ POLYCOM with SEPOL PC

• Unique wear protection Material:


POLYCOM compound cast tyres!
• Best available technology
• Shrink fitted tyre (wear part) on
POLYCOM shaft

• Autogenous wear protection (material layer):


Surface profiles for autogenous wear
protection and optimized draw-in behaviour
• Required maintenance work can be done
without dismantling (in situ):
local repair, intermediate profiling,
re-profiling and re-building.

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
11 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Determination Criteria of Modern Raw Grinding Systems
HPGR VRM

Limestone, Chalk,
India Russia

Limestone, Clay,
India Mozambik

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
12 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Optimum Raw Material Mixture for HPGR Grinding

5.47% 91.05%

2.0% 3.7%

2.26% 1.22%

12.1% 10.2%

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
13 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR VRM

Low drying capacity Disadvantage of


required/ Optimum water injection
range of HPGR
Transition zone

Advantage of high
drying capacity

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
19 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR VRM

Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM


HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
20 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR Typical range of Typical range of VRM
HPGR application VRM application

Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]


5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM


HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
22 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR Typical range of Typical range of VRM
HPGR application VRM application

Average grindability of
approx. 400 grinding
tests

Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]


5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM


HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

Average max. moisture


of approx. 320
limestone samples

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
23 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR has a better grinding efficiency compare
HPGR VRM
to VRM, hence the higher the grindability the
higher the power saving effect by using HPGR
instead of VRM

Relevant for operation costs!

Optimum range of
HPGR application

Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]


5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of VRM


Optimum range of HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
25 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR VRM covers drive power range from 0.5 up to VRM
10 MW in a single machine
Single HPGR is limited to 4.0 MW

Relevant for Investment costs!

0,5 4,0 Installed Power [in MW] 10,0

Optimum range of HPGR

Grindability 5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of VRM


Optimum range of HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
27 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR VRM
VRM covers drive power range from 0.5 up to
10 MW in a single machine
Single HPGR is limited to 4.0 MW

Optimum range of HPGR Optimum range for VRM

0,5 4,0 Installed Power [in MW] 10,0

Optimum range of HPGR

Grindability 5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of VRM


Optimum range of HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

Raw material moisture [%]


0 5 8 10 15
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany
Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
28 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Case Study for a New Raw Material Grinding Plant – Basic Data

Plant design basis:


Kiln line up-gradation: 4,000tpd
Required raw meal production: 4,000tpd x 1,65 / 20h RM Operation = 330tph
Plant altitude: approx. 400m (ASL)
Ambient Temperature: -5°C to +25°C

Raw mill design basis:


Raw mill concept: Two identical mills = 180t/h (each)
Raw material grindability: 8,5kWh/t @ 15%R90µm @ VRM shaft
Raw material feed moisture: min. 3%; max. 6%
Raw material feed wear rate: high
Raw meal fineness: 15%R90µm
Raw meal product moisture: < 1%

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
29 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Case Study – Process determination criteria

Raw material properties:


Moisture: max. 6%

Mill capacity:
2 x 180t/h
QUAROPOL QMR2

POLYCOM
Grindability:
8.5kWh/t @ VRM shaft

Wear rate:
high!

Investment, operating and spare


part costs

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
32 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Case Study – Process determination criteria

Raw material properties:


Moisture: max. 6%

Mill capacity:
2 x 180t/h
QUAROPOL QMR2

POLYCOM
Grindability:
8.5kWh/t @ VRM shaft

Wear rate:
high!

Investment, operating and spare


part costs

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
33 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Case Stdy – Power Consumption
Two identical circuits: 2 x 180t/h @ 15%R90µm (8.5kWh/t 15%R90µm @ VRM shaft)

QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6


SEPOL PC 20/290

1,530kW (8.5kWh/t) Min. required power 1,260kW (7.0kWh/t)


@ mill shaft
QUAROPOL QMR2

POLYCOM
385,000m3/h @ 85mbar Min. required power @ 325,000m3/h @ 45mbar
1,140kW (6.3kWh/t) fan shaft 510kW (2.8kWh/t)

Mill: 8.5kWh/t TOTAL power Mill: 7.0kWh/t


Fan: + 6.3kWh/t consumption @ shaft Fan: + 2.8kWh/t
BE: + 0.8kWh/t
TOTAL = 14.8kWh/t TOTAL: = 10.6kWh/t

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
35 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Case Study – Power Consumption
Two identical circuits: 2 x 180t/h @ 15%R90µm (8.5kWh/t 15%R90µm @ VRM shaft)

QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6


SEPOL PC 20/290

1,530kW (8.5kWh/t) Min. required power 1,260kW (7.0kWh/t)


@ mill shaft
QUAROPOL QMR2

POLYCOM
385,000m3/h @ 85mbar Min. required power @ 325,000m3/h @ 45mbar
1,140kW (6.3kWh/t) fan shaft 510kW (2.8kWh/t)

Mill: 8.5kWh/t TOTAL power Mill: 7.0kWh/t


Fan: + 6.3kWh/t consumption @ shaft Fan: + 2.8kWh/t
BE: + 0.8kWh/t
TOTAL = 14.8kWh/t TOTAL: = 10.6kWh/t
∆ ~4.2kWh/t (~28%)
energy consumption

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
36 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant – Mill concept
Two mill concept: 2 x 180t/h @ 15%R90µm

QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6


SEPOL PC 20/290

One mill concept: 1 x 360t/h @ 15%R90µm

QMR2 48/24-440 POLYCOM 20/15-9


SEPOL PC 36/380

Power saving for one mill concept in the same range as for the two mill concept

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
37 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant – Example 3D-GA models (unscaled!)

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
38 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
Thank you for your
attention!

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany


Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
39 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions