Original Article

Energy & Environment

0(0) 1–15
Energy-efficient operation of ! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
pump drives in a cement plant sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X18769864
journals.sagepub.com/home/eae

PK Choudhary and SP Dubey

Abstract
Electric motors consume a large share of electricity in cement industries. Traditionally, most of
the motor applications use variable frequency drive to save electricity, but they do not optimally
minimize power consumption always. Pumps and fans are the applications where significant
energy savings can be obtained at partial load by implementing optimal flux control. The present
work identifies 10 large-size pump motors of an integrated cement manufacturing unit and
proposes optimal flux control in a novel way during their operation. The proposed method
eliminates run-time optimal flux computations, perturbations, and convergence issues as com-
pared to conventional techniques along with excellent dynamic response. Significant savings of
$0.237 million in annual energy cost, 3261.6 tons of combusted coal, and reduction of 3359.5
tons green-house gas emissions in a year are estimated at an average 90% loading condition.
The estimated energy saving will be in line with “good practice” benchmarks for industries.

Keywords
Energy-efficiency, cement manufacturing, pump, partial load, optimal flux operation, optimization

Introduction
Presently, the energy needs of the world are mainly fulfilled by burning fossil fuels,a i.e. oil,
gas, coal, and so on. This results in huge amounts of green-house gas (GHG) emissions1 that
contain carbon dioxide (CO2) as their major component along with other constituents like
carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxides. As per reports, a total of 29 Gt of CO2 emissions occur every year and only quarter
of it gets absorbed naturally.2 The rest enters into the atmosphere, causing global warming,

RCET Bhilai, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India
Corresponding author:
PK Choudhary, RCET Bhilai, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 490024, India.
Email: prof.prashant.kumar.choudhary@gmail.com
2 Energy & Environment 0(0)

environmental pollution, and acute and chronic effects on human health.3 Further, due to
rapid industrialization and changing lifestyle of human beings, energy demand is expected to
increase from 12.5 gigatonne of oil equivalent (GTOE) today to 25 GTOE by the year, 2035
with the simultaneous increase in CO2 emissions to 75 Gt annually.2 The growing consump-
tion of fossil fuels and their sinking reservesb are enforcing the scientists, researchers, acad-
emicians, and the government authorities to work towards implementation of energy-
efficient policies and practices by keeping “triple bottom line,” i.e. social, economic, and
environmental aspects of a business in view.4
Heavy industries such as iron and steel, aluminium, cement, petrochemicals, and pulp
and paper are the energy intensive industries. They account for almost 50% of the total
industrial energy consumption and around three-quarters of industrial GHG emissions.5
These industries are good candidates for implementation of energy-efficient policies and
practices. In terms of absolute energy consumption, the cement industry occupies a front
position6 and consumes approximately 15% of total industrial energy use.7 This industry
accounts for nearly 10% of the total industrial fuel use8 and nearly 8% of global CO2
emissions.9,10 The industry is considered to have the largest energy saving potential
around 28%–33%,9 and this is the motivational factor to choose cement industry in present
work for inspecting energy-efficiency opportunities.
Cement manufacturing involves many sequenced processes like raw material extraction,
limestone crushing, raw meal grinding, blending, pyroprocessing, cement grinding,
packaging, and dispatch.11 The process flow diagram is shown in Figure 1. Today,

Figure 1. Process flow diagram for the cement manufacturing showing energy and heat consumption as
well as gaseous and particulate emission.11
Choudhary and Dubey 3

the best performing plants with pre-heater calciner kilns consume around, 2950 MJ/t
(690 kcal/kg clinker),12 while in some countries, the consumption exceeds even 5 GJ/ton.13
The typical electrical energy consumption of a modern cement plant is about 110–120 kWh
per tonne of cement.
The trends of Indian cement industry, the second largest after China, and the world best
achieved levels in terms of energy consumption are shown in Table 1 which reveals the huge
potential of energy-efficiency improvements in Indian cement industries.6
Chhattisgarh is a mineral rich state which produces nearly 20% of India’s total installed
capacity and is emerging as cement hub in central India. With the expansion plan and new
green field projects, ACC Limited has set up a new clinker unit in Jamul Cement works with
a capacity of 2.79 million tons per annum and allied grinding units in Durg district of
Chhattisgarh.14,15 The plant consumes nearly 60 MW electricity per hour and has been
considered for study of energy-efficiency in the present work.
Motor operated systems have significant share in this electricity consumption.16–18
There may be around 500–700 numbers of motor applications in a typical single kiln
cement plant,8 mostly operated with variable frequency drives (VFDs). Among them,
high-pressure (HP) process fans, blowers, compressors, and pumps are used practically in
all stages, and they share major part of total electrical energy consumption in plant.19–21
Compressed air, pumping, and fan systems involve largely untapped cost-effective areas
for improving the energy efficiency. They have unique load characteristics and experience
frequent partial loading as compared to any other motor application. Partial loading and
idle running are the common undesirable conditions which generally occur with motors
driving such loads. Rather, oversizing is quite common and intentionally done in fan and
pump applications to account for future increase of gas or liquid flows, and these results in
considerable amount of wastage of electrical energy.17,22–24
The present work is focused on such applications and proposes a novel method of
optimal flux operation during partial load conditions in order to reduce electrical energy
consumption. The good features of conventional flux optimization techniques are

Table 1. Comparison between Indian trends and world’s best achieved energy consump-
tion level.6

Process Energy consumption India average World best practice

Raw materials preparation

Coal mill kWh/t clinker 8 2.4
Crushing kWh/t clinker 2 1
Raw mill kWh/t clinker 28 27
Clinker production
Kiln and cooler Kcal/kg of clinker 770 680
Kiln and cooler kWh/t clinker 28 22
Finish grinding
Cement mill kWh/t cement 30 25
Miscellaneous
Mining and transportation kWh/t clinker 1.6 1.5
Packing house kWh/t cement 1.9 1.5
Others kWh/t cement 2 1.5
Total electric kWh/t cement 95 77
4 Energy & Environment 0(0)

implemented together to run the motor drives at optimal flux level during its variable load
cycle. The proposed method totally eliminates run-time computations, optimal flux pertur-
bations, and convergence issues as compared to conventional techniques and earlier works
and can be treated as advantages of the proposed method. Significant energy savings have
also been obtained as compared to conventional constant flux operations.

General energy-efficiency trends in cement manufacturing

There are many processes, machines, and equipments involved in cement manufacturing
which consume very high amount of energy. The energy-efficiency practices should be
multidirectional and multiobjective and should be implemented at various levels. The rec-
ommendations made by the US environmental protection agency and similar other agencies
play a key role in this effort. Efficient control of crosscutting equipment, proper and efficient
operation of the process, and ensuring the most efficient technology in place are essential to
realize energy savings in a plant’s operation. Time to time replacement of technologies/
machines/components, improved control and process automation techniques, process
tuning, improved raw material preparation, optimization of fuel mix, optimization of
power consumption, waste heat recovery, condition monitoring, regular energy audit,
proper load management and load shedding are the measures generally taken for improving
energy efficiency.4,12 A concentrated energy audit was conducted in a cement manufacturing
plant located in California in 2007 by a team of experts. Eleven separate energy-efficiency
project ideas with energy saving estimation of 12,000 MWh/year were identified in the plant.
The operational performance of various equipments/systems such as vertical finish mill fan,
compressed air system, tipping kiln induced draft (ID) fan, raw mill recirculation, finish ball
mill ID fan, lighting apparatus, clinker cooler fan, and pre-heater section were thoroughly
investigated phase-wise. After implementing various energy-efficiency improvement proj-
ects, total incentives worth $710,125 were earned cumulatively in three years.16
In recent years, the industry has addressed and adopted many energy-efficient technol-
ogies and alternative arrangements in their manufacturing facilities. There have been many
such improvements discussed in various literatures which can be referred by readers.4,6,25,26
In electrical systems solely, poor power factor, power quality, voltage unbalance, oversized
motors, inefficient motors, and improper lighting arrangements have been noticed respon-
sible for degraded electrical energy efficiency. All these issues are considered and corrected
in modern cement manufacturing facilities by installing harmonic filters, power factor cor-
rection equipments, voltage controllers, strategic motor sizing, and selection as per National
Electrical Manufacturers Association guidelines and VFDs. Various-related case studies and
its results have been discussed in different literatures.4,27 Installation of VFDs in electric
motor–driven systems like crushers, grinders, mixers, fans, blowers, pumps, and compres-
sors are common practices to improve electrical energy efficiency. Such installations of
VFDs have resulted in tremendous energy savings from 10% to 60% in the past along
with other benefits.4,9
Conventional VFDs do not optimally minimize motor input power at any given motor
speed and load torque especially in wider speed range applications. Minimization of losses
has a great significance in partial load conditions.28,29 A low-partial load efficiency of
motors in some specific applications like pumping, compressors, and fans have been noticed
by many authors. They operate over wide speed range and generally are oversized also.
These are low dynamic drives operating in the constant torque mode with frequent partial
Choudhary and Dubey 5

Table 2. Selected pumps from various sections.

Utility Capacity Numbers

Water transfer pump for process 55 kW 2

Pump for cooling water recirculation 160 kW 4
Booster pump for fire fighting at Pump House building 55 kW 1
Pump motor for Start Air Compressor Hydraulic drive 160 kW 1
Pump motor for tiling Hydraulic drive 110 kW 1
Pump motor for clamping 75 kW 1

load intervals. Fast dynamic response is not a critical issue in these applications, and most of
the time they run far below the rated load. Significant improvements have been achieved by
implementing optimal flux control over rated flux control in such conditions especially in
steady state.28,30–35 The present work identifies such applications in various sections of
cement manufacturing plant under consideration and proposes a novel way of optimal
flux operation of motors utilized there to achieve better energy savings in steady state as
well as other performances.

Selected energy-efficiency load points

There are multiple numbers of pump applications of various capacities in the entire process.
Out of them, 10 large pumps, driven by electrical motors (all above 50 kW capacities), are
selected for detailed investigation of electrical energy efficiency. The list of these motors
along with their capacity is shown in Table 2.

Proposed methodology
It has been observed that motors have very high efficiency near rated load conditions.
During partial loading, if motors are operated at rated flux, they would operate below
their rated efficiency even at full speed due to over-excitation and poor power factor.
Under such conditions, operation of motors at optimal flux level is better for energy
saving. In order to reduce losses, motor magnetizing flux is varied, and this is performed
by two methods, namely, loss model control (LMC) and search control (SC). LMC is a feed-
forward and analytical method which involves loss computation using motor loss model,
and then optimal flux value is estimated by implementing optimization principles.
Minimization of total loss value is the desired objective during optimization process.
This method is quick but suffers parameter sensitivity issues under running conditions.
Precise information of motor loss equation parameters is difficult to assess due to skin,
temperature rise, and saturation effects, and so these are treated as constraints/drawbacks of
this method. In SC method, which works on run-time optimal flux search principle and is of
feedback in nature, flux is decremented in steps till the measured DC link input power comes
to lowest possible value for delivering the same performance. This method is fully insensitive
to parameter variation but has few drawbacks, as it produces objectionable torque ripples,
suffers slow convergence problem, and never achieves the optimal operating point.
The inner part of the control algorithm may be realized in scalar or in vector control
6 Energy & Environment 0(0)

environment. The scalar control method is based on the steady-state model of the motor and
can exhibit poor dynamic response whereas flux vector control scheme enables decoupled
control of the torque and flux, so it provides better performances.22,28–34,36–45
In the proposed work, good features of LMC and SC are used in a novel way, and
remarkable electrical energy savings and dynamic performances are achieved. Firstly, an
offline estimation of optimal flux value is done using LMC technique, and then those opti-
mal flux values are directly used to operate the motor in run-time load condition with the
help of optimal flux controller as shown in Figure 4. This offline optimal flux estimation
process eliminates the need of run-time complex computation, as it usually required in LMC
method. It also eliminates the searching process of SC method. Determination of optimal
flux value as per projected load condition and development of controller along with perfor-
mance evaluation is discussed in “Estimation of optimal flux value” and “Design of optimal
flux controller” sections. The entire work has been done on MATLAB platform, and the
inbuilt simulation model “Vector Control of AC Motor Drive” from “SimPowerSystems
Library” is used for performing simulation studies.

Estimation of optimal flux value

In vector control principle, flux is represented by flux component of current, i.e. Ids.
The method used for estimation of motor optimal Ids has been well established and
proved in many earlier research works.29 ,37 These analytical methods are still advantageous
and widely used.34,35,40,45 By using the induction motor loss model in the field reference
frame (Figure 2), the total loss expression is derived first. Later, by applying classical opti-
mization mathematics on this loss expression, the expression of optimal flux component
current is derived (equations (1) and (2)). These expressions are function of motor param-
eters (Rq, Rd, Rs, Rqls, Rr, and Md) and load parameters in terms of torque (Iqs) and speed
(x). Then, the optimal values of flux component of the current (Ids*) are estimated offline by
using equations (1) and (2), motor parameter values and load parameters. These optimal
values ensure minimum loss condition in a motor for any projected load under steady state.
The motor parameters are assumed constant which affect the estimations slightly. Also, the
inverter losses are not included in total loss expression while deriving optimal flux equations.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rq
ids ¼ iqs ¼ Kmin ðxÞjiqs j (1)
Rd ðxÞ

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ffi
Rs Rqls þ Rr þ Rqls Rr
Kmin ðxÞ¢   (2)
Rs Rqls þ Rr þ M2d x2

As sample, the optimal flux values for a 215 HP pump motor are estimated by the above
discussed procedure and are shown in Table 3. The table is defined for different load torque
conditions (from 90%, 80%, 70%, and 60% of rated load) and different speed variations
(100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of rated speed), as usually happens in real-time opera-
tion. In the same way, the optimal values of Ids* have been produced for all the other
selected pump motors as mentioned in Table 1 for their variable load pattern.
Choudhary and Dubey 7

Figure 2. Steady-state simplified equivalent circuit in field reference frame.

Table 3. Sample Ids* values for a 215 HP motor.

Torque Ids* at Ids* at 80% of Ids* at 60% of Ids* at 40% Ids* at 20% of
Load condition value (Nm) rated speed rated speed rated speed of rated speed rated speed

Full load 1067 223.5 223.3 222.83 222.19 222.14

90% of full load 960 201.55 201.31 200.79 200.27 199.69
80% of full load 854 180 179.51 179.16 178.06 175.85
70% of full load 747 158.05 157.58 157.00 156.48 155.20
60% of full load 640 136.1 135.60 135.14 134.14 132.878

Such tables are further used for designing proposed optimal flux controller discussed in
Design of optimal flux controller section.

Design of optimal flux controller

All the values of Ids* generated by using equations (1) and (2), as discussed in the previous
section and shown in Table 3, are used for the development of look-up tables in MATLAB.
The look-up tables reproduce Ids* as command signals in the flux vector control loop
(shown in Figure 3) instead of its default constant value. The look-up table works as optimal
8 Energy & Environment 0(0)

Figure 3. Conventional vector controller for 215 HP, 415 V induction motor drive.
(Source: https://in.mathworks.com/help/physmod/sps/powersys/ug/building-your-own-drive.html)

flux controller according to load condition for the selected motor drive as shown in Figure 4.
Each aforesaid motor as mentioned in Table 2 is treated individually, and their individual
optimal flux controllers are designed in the similar fashion.

Results and discussion

Dynamic and steady-state performance validation
The sample simulation model, shown in Figure 5, is developed to evaluate the dynamic- and
steady-state performances of 215 HP, 415 V, 50 Hz pump motor operated at two different
operating flux levels, i.e. rated and optimal, at same projected load conditions. Similar
models are developed for all the pump motors mentioned in Table 1 individually.
Excellent dynamic performance, torque tracking, and speed tracking are observed every-
where while operating at an optimal flux level and found very similar to those obtained with
rated flux operation.c Along with excellent dynamic performances, significant efficiency
improvements ranging from 1% to 15% at different load conditions have also been achieved
while operating at optimal flux levels under steady state (Figure 6). Hence, considerable
amount of electricity savings, as shown in Table 4, is offered by optimal flux control of
pump motors at partial loads without compromising with the dynamic performance.
The reduction in electrical energy consumption results not only in cost saving but also in
reduction of coal consumption and CO2 emissions, as seen in Tables 5 and 6.
Choudhary and Dubey 9

Figure 4. Sample optimal flux controller (look-up table) for 215 HP, 415 V induction motor drive.

Figure 5. Sample model of a 215 HP, 415 V, 50 Hz motor for performance validation.

From Figure 6, it is clearly observed that the torque and speed performances are almost
overlapping with each other, and efficiency performance is improved under optimal flux
operation as compared to rated flux operation in partial load condition at steady state.
The performances at variable load cycle are also investigated, and it is observed that similar
improved results are obtained. A load cycle applied on the selected 215 HP pump motor
running at 150 rad/s is defined as, 90% load from 0 s to 4 s, 70% load from 4 s to 6 s, 90%
10 Energy & Environment 0(0)

Figure 6. Speed, torque tracking, Stator Current and Efficiency Performance by rated flux operation (blue)
and optimal flux operation (red) at 90% load for a sample 215 HP, 415V, 50 Hz pump motor, OPT: Optimal,
VEC: Vector.

Table 4. Efficiency performance at variable load cycle (90% and 70% of rated load torque) by optimal flux
operation (red) and rated flux operation (blue).

30 rad/s 60 rad/s 90 rad/s 120 rad/s 150 rad/s

Speed Rated Optimal Rated Optimal Rated Optimal Rated Optimal Rated Optimal

Flux programming
Efficiency at 90% 15.00% 17.14% 27.27% 33.33% 38.00% 47.30% 49.05% 60.77% 60.90% 70.92%
of rated load
Efficiency at 70% 13.63% 14.06% 26.08% 27.27% 36.57% 38.29% 46.16% 51.60% 59.81% 62.47%
of rated load Nm

Table 5. Sample savings at 90% of full load at 150 rad/s speed.

Capacity Power saving Annual electricity Annual energy

(HP) (kW) saving (8500 h) in kWh cost saving in $

215 48.87 415,395 33,231.6

150 36.65 311,525 24,922.0
100 21.38 181,730 14,538.4
75 15.26 129,777 10,382.1

load from 6 s to 8 s, and 70% load from 8 s to 10 s, all at similar speed of 150 rad/s. Similar
improved efficiency performance with same accuracy of torque and speed tracking are
obtained for the projected load cycle as shown in Figure 7.

Energy cost saving calculations

The selected pump motors, as detailed in Table 1, were modelled and simulated in
MATLAB for performance analysis as explained in “Proposed methodology” section.
The current drawn from supply by all of them was measured for both flux control modes
individually to deliver same output power at all possible partial load conditions. Further,
Choudhary and Dubey 11

Table 6. Total savings in energy, energy cost, coal consumption, and green-house gas emission.

Annual electricity Total annual

Number of saving (8500 h) electricity saving Annual Annual reduced
Capacity operating per motor in (8500 h) in energy cxost Annual coal CO2 emission
(HP) units million units million units saving in ($) saving in ton in ton

215 5 0.415 2.07 166,158.0 2289.5 2358.18

150 1 0.311 0.311 24,922.0 344 354.32
100 1 0.181 0.181 14,538.4 199 204.97
75 3 0.129 0.389 31,146.3 429.1 442.04
Total 2.951 236,764.7 3261.6 3359.5

Figure 7. Efficiency performance of 215 HP, 415 V, 50 Hz pump motor at a load cycle of 10 s.

the estimations of power savings, annual energy savings, and annual energy cost savings are
done. Table 5 shows these savings of individual pump motors for one year. Energy costs
saving calculations have been done by taking electricity cost of $0.08/kWh.46 The average
operating hours of motors were taken to be 8500 h in one year.14 It was assumed that for the
remaining 200 h, the motors are under breakdown or scheduled maintenance. Also the load
factor of motors was assumed to be 0.9 throughout the operating hours for simplicity.
Practically, the load factor is variable and depends on liquid and gas flow heads and
patterns. The results shown in Table 5 are estimated for single unit of pump motors.
Total energy saving (in kWh), energy cost saving, reduced coal consumption, and reduced
CO2 emissions are calculated further considering all the 10 numbers of motor pumps, and
these results are shown in Table 6. A total savings of 2.951 million units in electricity,
$236,764.7 in energy cost, and 3261.6 tons in coal consumption were obtained along with
reduction in CO2 emissions by 3359.5 tons in one year. Coal savings are estimated by
considering that its 1 kg quantity is burnt to produce 1 kWh electricity.47 The reductions
in GHG emissions have been obtained by taking the emission factor as 1030 g CO2/kWh.48
Similar improvements are also seen on other load factors for all the pump motors.

Conclusion
The present work focused on reducing electricity consumption of pump motors from different
subsections of cement plant located at Durg district of Chhattisgarh, India. A total 10 num-
bers of large-size pump motors ranging from 75 HP to 215 HP were selected. The selected
pump motors were operated at optimal flux level by the proposed novel method in place of
rated flux level in partial load conditions. Multidirectional improvements were achieved while
implementing optimal flux operation by the proposed method. Firstly, significant energy
savings ranging from 1% to 15% are achieved by operating motor at optimal flux level at
partial load conditions as compared to rated flux operation. Secondly, the way of implemen-
tation of optimal flux values in real-time system is unique, as the optimal flux values are
12 Energy & Environment 0(0)

predefined. The proposed method eliminates the need of run-time computation complexity in
traditional LMC, hence cost-effective. No run-time perturbations happening, as it usually
happen in conventional SC, so no torque ripples, hence less wear and tear of motor drive. This
will result in lesser maintenance cost of the system. Thirdly, the working with vector control
principle itself insures high-level dynamic performance. The proposed method ensures good
dynamic performance along with energy saving both. Generally, dynamic performance gets
degraded while looking for efficiency improvement. Also, the performances obtained in load
transitions are seen excellent. Above all, a total savings of 2.951 million units of electrical
energy and $0.237 million in energy cost have been observed in one year. On environmental
front, it is found that there will be a reduction of 3261.6 tons of coal usage and around 3359.5
tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere annually. Thus, it will be a remarkable contribu-
tion towards social health and environmental protection.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
a. At present, oil, gas, coal, renewable, and alternative energy resources share 36%, 27%, 23%, and
14%, respectively, in the global energy requirements. While solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and
hydel accounts for 8% and nuclear power has a just 6% fragment.49,50
b. These fuel reserves are limited in nature. The oil, gas, and coal reserves are projected to end by
year 2066, 2068, and 2126, respectively, with the present rate of their consumption.2
c. Generally, dynamic performance gets degraded when we work towards efficiency improvement
using optimal flux principle.

References
1. Hook M and Tang X. Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—a review.
Energy Policy 2013; 52: 797–809.
2. Abas N, Kalair A and Khan N. Review of fossil fuels and future energy technologies. Futures
2015; 69: 31–49.
3. Asif M and Muneer T. Energy supply, its demand and security issues for developed and emerging
economies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007; 11: 1388–1413.
4. Worrell E and Galitsky C. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for cement
making. Berkeley, CA: Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Energy Analysis
Department, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2008.
5. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Global industrial energy efficiency bench-
marking, 2010. http://apki.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Global-Industrial-Energy-Efficiency-
Benchmarking-An-Energy-Policy-Tool.pdf.
6. Radwan MA. Different possible ways for saving energy in the cement production. Adv Appl Sci
Res 2012; 3: 1162–1174.
Choudhary and Dubey 13

7. Madlool NA, Saidur R, Hossain MS, et al. A critical review on energy use and savings in the
cement industries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011; 15: 2042–2060.
8. Eskom. Concrete steps towards profitability, 2011. http://www.eskom.co.za/sites/idm/Documents/
128251_Cement_Brochure.pdf.
9. Kajaste R and Hurme M. Cement industry greenhouse gas emissions—management options and
abatement cost. J Clean Prod 2016; 112: 4041–4052.
10. Choate WT. Energy and emission reduction opportunities for the cement industry. Germantown: U.
S Department of Energy, 2003.
11. Huntzinger ND and Eatmon DT. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing:
comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 2009; 17: 668–675.
12. Bhattacharya S and Saha J. High level automation to achieve improved productivity, energy
efficiency and consistent cement quality. In: 2015 IEEE-IAS/PCA cement industry conference,
Toronto, Canada, 26–30 April 2015, pp. 1–7. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
13. Engin T and Ari V. Energy auditing and recovery for dry type cement rotary kiln systems––a case
study. Energy Convers Manag 2004; 46: 551–562.
14. India brand equity fund. http://www.ibef.org (accessed 16 May 2016).
15. Cement directory, http://cement.industry-focus.net/ (accessed 16 May 2016).
16. Sperberg R and Ruegg T. Mining for energy efficiency in cement plants a teamwork approach. In:
2012 IEEE-IAS/PCA 53rd cement industry technical conference, San Antonio, TX, 14–17 May
2012, pp. 1–5. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
17. Abrahamsen F, Blaabjerg F and Pedersen JK. Energy efficiency improvements in electronic motors
and drives: efficiency improvement of variable speed electrical drives for HVAC applications. Berlin:
Springer, 2000, pp. 130–135.
18. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Motor systems efficiency supply curves,
2010. https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/resources/unido_-_un-energy_-_2010_-_
motor_systems_efficiency_supply_curves_2.pdf
19. Cement Sustainable Initiative. Existing and potential technologies for carbon emissions reductions
in the Indian cement industry, 2013 https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/0a7431004fa1997ea
c97ee0098cb14b9/india-cement-carbon-emissions-reduction.pdf ?MOD=AJPERES
20. Viholainen J, Tamminen J, Ahonen T, et al. Energy-efficient control strategy for variable speed-
driven parallel pumping systems. Energy Effic 2013; 6: 495–509.
21. Jahmeerbacus MI. Flux vector control of an induction motor drive for energy-efficient operation
of a centrifugal pump. In: 2015 international conference on industrial engineering and operations
management, Dubai, UAE, 3–5 March 2015, pp. 1–6. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
22. Saidur R, Mekhilef S, Ali MB, et al. Applications of variable speed drive (VSD) in electrical
motors energy savings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012; 16: 543–550.
23. Mirzaeva G and Sazdanoff L. The effect of flux optimization on energy efficiency of induction
motors in fan and pump applications. In: 2015 Australasian universities power engineering confer-
ence, Wollongong, Australia, 27–30 September 2015, pp. 1–6. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
24. Ahonen T, Tamminen J, Viholainen J, et al. Energy efficiency optimizing speed control method for
reservoir pumping applications. Energy Effic 2015; 8: 117–128.
25. Radgen P and Blaustein E. Compressed air system in the Europian Union: energy, emissions, saving
potentials and policy actions. Stuttgart: LOG-X Verlag GmbH, 2001.
26. Worrell E, Martin N and Price L. Potentials for energy efficiency improvement in the US cement
industry. Energy 2000; 25: 1189–1214.
27. Segal B. Energy efficiency improvement in the cement industry. In: 2002 IEEE-IAS/PCA 44th cement
industry technical conference, Jacksonville, FL, 5–9 May 2002, pp. 53–62. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
28. Turner MW, McCormick VE and Cleland JG. Efficiency optimization control of AC induction
motors: Initial laboratory results. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 1996.
14 Energy & Environment 0(0)

29. Chakroborty C and Hori Y. Fast efficiency optimization techniques for the indirect vector-
controlled induction motor drives. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2003; 39: 1070–1076.
30. Yatim AHM and Utomo WM. To develop an efficient variable speed compressor motor system.
Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 2007.
31. Yakhelef Y. Energy efficiency optimization of induction motors. Boumerdes: Boumerdes University, 2007.
32. Fletier T, Eichhammer W and Schleich J. Energy efficiency in electric motor systems: technical
potentials and policy approaches for developing countries. Vienna: United Nations Industrial
Development, 2011.
33. Kumar N, Chelliah TR and Srivastava SP. Adaptive control schemes for improving dynamic
performance of efficiency-optimized induction motor drives. ISA Trans 2014; 57: 301–310.
34. Xie F and Wang Q. FOC for loss minimization of induction motor using SVM. Metall Min Ind
2015; 4: 79–84.
35. Kuriakose MM, Sukeshkumar A and Beevi MW. Efficiency optimization of vector controlled
induction motor drives. In: 10th National conference on technological trends, Trivandrum, India,
6–7 November 2009.
36. Garcia GO, Mendes Luis JC, Stephan RM, et al. Fast efficiency maximizer for adjustable speed
induction motor drive. In: Proceedings of the 1992 International conference on industrial electronics,
control, instrumentation, and automation, San Diego, CA, 13 November 1992, pp. 37–42.
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
37. FemBndez-Bernal F, Garcia-Cerrada A and Faure R. Model-based loss minimization for DC and
AC vector controlled motors including core saturation. In: Thirty-fourth IAS annual meeting on
industry applications, Phoenix, AZ, 3–7 October 1999, pp. 1608–1615. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
38. Vukosavic SN and Levi E. Robust DSP-based efficiency optimization of a variable speed induc-
tion motor drive. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2003; 50: 560–570.
39. Almeida DDS, Filho WCPDA and Sausa GCD. Adaptive fuzzy controller for efficiency optimi-
zation of induction motors. IEEE Trans Ind Mot 2007; 54: 2157–2164.
40. Uddin MN and Nam SW. New online loss-minimization-based control. IEEE Trans Power
Electron 2008; 23: 926–933.
41. Raj CT, Srivastava SP and Agrawal P. Differential evolution based optimal control of induction
motor serving to textile industry. IAENGI Int J Comput Sci 2008; 35: 201–208.
42. Raj CT, Srivastava SP and Agrawal P. Energy efficient control of three phase induction motor—a
review. Int J Comput Electr Eng 2009; 1: 61–70.
43. Bazzi AM and Krein PT. Review of methods for real-time loss minimization in induction
machines. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2010; 46: 2319–2328.
44. Razali R, Abdalla AA, Ghoni R, et al. Improving squirrel cage induction motor efficiency: tech-
nical review. Int J Phys Sci 2012; 7: 1129–1140.
45. Stumper JF, Dotlinger A and Kennel R. Loss minimization of induction machines in dynamic
operation. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2013; 28: 726–735.
46. Cserc.gov.in. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2016. http://www.cserc.gov.
in/admin/upload_terrif_order/033017_104805.pdf.
47. Cbalance.in. GHG inventory report for electricity generation and consumption in India, http://
cbalance.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cbalance_white-paper_Electricity-emission-factors_
28Dec2012_revised_V21.pdf (2013, accessed 26 March 2018).
48. Mittal ML, Sharma C and Singh R. Decadal emission estimates of carbon dioxide, sulphur diox-
ide, and nitric oxide emissions from coal burning in electric power generation plants in India.
Environ Monit Assess 2014; 186: 6857–6866.
49. Dusi B and Schultz R. Energy management and efficiency—a systems approach. In: 2012 IEEE-
IAS/PCA 53rd cement industry technical conference, San Antonio, TX, 4–17 May 2012, pp. 1–8.
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
50. Mohr SH, Wang J, Ellem G, et al. Projection of world fossil fuels by country. Fuel 2015;
141: 120–135.
Choudhary and Dubey 15

Prashant Choudhary graduated in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Birla Institute
of Technology, Mesra, India in the year 2003. He completed his Master of Technology
(Instrumentation and Control) from Bhilai Institute of Technology, Durg, (CSVTU) in
2009. At present, he is working as Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at J.D.C.O. E.M, Nagpur. His areas of interest include energy efficiency, opti-
mization, artificial intelligence, smart grids and renewable energy systems.

Satya Prakash Dubey has received his Bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering from
Government Engineering College (Now National Institute of Technology) Raipur, India
in the year 1995. He completed his Master in Engineering (Power Apparatus and Electrical
Drives) from Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India in 2000. He obtained his Ph.D.
from Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India in 2006. Currently, he is a
Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering, R.C.E.T. Bhilai, India. His research
areas include power converters, active filtering, power conditioning, AC and DC drives,
energy efficiency, renewable energy and its applications, neural network and fuzzy logic
based controller design for electrical drives and genetic algorithm technique for LC
filter design.