Cross Belt Analyzer Technical Agenda Study v1

bi Technical
g
e
n
d
a
Network : Raw Mix

Study :
Cross Belt Analyzer
April 2012 – Version 1.0
© Copyright 2012 Lafarge – Internal use only.

All rights of reproduction, representation, adaptation and translation relating to this report belong to Lafarge SA. Lafarge SA reserves the right to exploit this report or not
and to freely distribute it to all of its current and future subsidiaries worldwide in any form, whether paper, electronic or digital, including via internet and/or intranet.
This report along with its content is of a confidential nature. In particular, it may not be reproduced, copied, transmitted, published, divulged and/or appropriated in whole
or in part for personal use or for use by a third party without prior consent from Lafarge SA / Direction des Performances Cimentières, except for reproduction by or for
affiliated Lafarge companies.
Foreword
During the past 10 years, the cement industry and Lafarge application of PGNA on-line
analysis in the raw-mix logic of both new plants and as a retrofit has grown from an
innovation to a fairly standard practice. The variety of applications has grown and
presents a challenge to designers to choose the optimum raw-mix logic. With growth of
the number of analyzers in plants, the need for guidelines and standards for operators
has become apparent.
The equipment manufacturers refer to their units variously as bulk-material, cross-belt,
on-belt, full-stream or elemental-belt analyzers. The cement industry started using the
technology in 1987; since the introduction of the cross-belt configuration in the mid
1990’s, the rate of installations started grew rapidly to over 100 per year circa 2009.
The cement industry has around 700 units in service today.
The earliest use of PGNA occurred in the solid fuels industry and this use has
continued to steadily grow as well. In addition these, analyzers have seen increased
applications in the mining and metals industries, for example for copper, scrap, iron ore,
magnesite, and phosphate. Fuels and these other applications amount to around 200
analyzers, so the cement industry still accounts for the widest application of the
technology.
Use of the technology in cement plants has the overall purpose of improving the
efficiency of production. Much of the payback comes from improved operation
management and reduced fuel consumption in cases where the technology improves
kiln-feed uniformity.
Economic impact
For new lines, accurate cross-belt analysis may avoid significant investments in pre-
homo system installation and minimize the size of homo-silos. Such an installation
costs about 0.5 million US$ (unit itself costs from 250,000 to 350,000$). Capital cost
savings for large projects can range in order of magnitude of $1 million to $10 million.
Operating cost implications in plants are on the order of magnitude of $1 million/year.
The realization of expected payback depends not only on the analytical and control
success of the planned application (does the project meet the control objectives?) but
also on realization of extended benefits from kiln-feed uniformity (i.e. the extent that kiln
operations capitalize on improved consistency to operate the pyro-process line more
efficiently). Continued control success over the long term requires adequate and well-
documented procedures for maintenance and calibration of the analyzer and software
system.
Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 2/103

Some PGNA developments include:
 Transition from analogue to digital processing and generally improved electronics,
leading to improved repeatability performance versus neutron flux;
 Considerable improvement to the ease of mechanical installation and attendant
reduction of installation cost;
 Expanded neutron-source options (tube-based systems now available, and
formalization of isotope supply);
 Expansion of the variety of applications addressed with PGNA analyzers.
Future Directions
Going forward the cement industry has opportunities to manage increasing raw-material
and fuel complexity with further adaptations of PGNA technology. The industry can
expect several trends/ innovations likely to occur in this area:
 Continued improvement in analyzer performance (e.g., detectors);
 Increased sophistication of compensation methods (e.g., for layering);
 Evolving computer platforms for analyzers;
 Increasing numbers of plants with multiple PGNA and other on-line analyzers;
 Further development and application of software solutions to reduce investment in
physical equipment;
 Increasing variations of applications conceived by cement makers.
The ability of the analyzer manufacturers to continue to decrease the project costs in
constant dollars will favour the continued expansion of applications by progressive
cement makers. The continued evolution of the component technology should enable
this progression. Competitively priced analyzer systems, may prove applicable in down-
stream areas of the plant, such as kiln feed, clinker, fuels and even cement production.
Championship
Whether with development of new applications or a routine PGNAA application in a
plant, the single greatest determinant for success remains the quality of the project and
sustaining Champion.

How this study should be used
The study contains elements of an introductory nature as well as details related to:
A. Applications: Justification for a CBA, selection of an analyzer and its installation.
B. Operation and maintenance guidelines, including calibration.
For those new to the technology or planning on installing a system the sections relating
to the parts “A” would have the most relevance.
Those already having an analyzer can compare their status and procedures to parts
“B”.
Strong emphasis was put on the safe use of a CBA analyzer, in dealing with its
radioactive source.
We want to thank all contributors, and in particular:

 Mohamed YOUNES (CTC, leader of the study)
 James BOND (CTS)
 Pieter du TOIT (ETC)
 Tarek KAMAL (CTC)
 Ahmed HANAFI (CTC)
 Weidong XIE (ATC)
 Dong WOOK KIM (ATC)
Knowledge consolidation and data gathering for all types of CBA used make this study
a referential to any current or potential user of cross-belt analyzers.
Jacques Denizeau Lionel de Lumley

Process & Automation Expertise Director Geomining Manager
DPC - Direction des Performances Cimentières DPC

Executive Summary

1. Objectives
The aim of this study is to ensure the right selection, installation and use of cross-belt
analyzers for raw materials, and the accuracy and reliability of analysis.
2. Results
This report and its appendices include:
a) A brief description of the analyzers from different manufacturers, and assesses
their differences (operating principle, functionalities, and performance)
b) Review of status of current industrial applications (limestone, raw mix, clinker,
fuels etc…)
c) Review analyzer performance for different elements and characteristics of
material to analyze.
d) Installation guidelines to provide spectrometer stability and repeatability of
results
e) Procedures for calibration
f) Examples of incidents and recommended maintenance practices
g) A troubleshooting guide to ensure accurate results
The appendices include further details and examples in some of these areas.
3. Recommendations
a) Safety: In order to maintain a safe working environment,
plants should implement the following actions:
 Each site must have a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) certified from the nuclear
authority as able to handle the radiation sources and responsible to ensure
compliance with the jurisdiction’s regulations.
 Each site shall have a Radiation Safety Program supervised by the RSO, including
annual audit procedures and emergency/ contingency plans.
 The cross-belt analyzer (CBA) area should be considered restricted in terms of
access. As a minimum, clear signage and policy define the restriction, depending

on the context. In high-traffic or other risk areas a locked enclosure may be
required. A risk assessment with the participation of the RSO and Technical Centre
shall determine if the site needs a locked enclosure.
 All works done inside this area require a risk assessment and an approved work
permit under supervision of the RSO.
 All those needing to routinely work in the restricted area shall use a radiation
dosimeter for (gamma & neutron and X-ray) if required by statute or the judgment of
the RSO, based on the risk assessment, and the dosimeter must be analyzed every
3 months by external certified institution.
 An applicable medical check up should be carried out 2 times per year for all
radiation workers (everybody who routinely works in the restricted area)
 Third party should measure radiation level on site at least 2 times per year (leak
test).
b) Organization: Lafarge needs to increase formalized

responsibilities concerning CBA
 Assign a site champion at each plant with a skill set appropriate to the local
conditions; this person should come from either the Process, Quality or
Maintenance areas, depending on the local organization. The site champion needs
to be able to or have the authority to ensure adequate performance in diverse
areas, including for example, the instrumentation, communication, calibrations and
calibration monitoring of the CBA.
 Assign a contact person in each Technical Centre as responsible for CBA support
in each zone (maintenance and operation procedures) and do the following actions:
 Animate and support SOP development and validation in the plants
 Apply Lab Equipment reliability index (LERI, see definition in BRS) 99.5%. In
some contexts the TC champion may establish a site-specific target index lower
than 99.5%, but no lower than 98% if justified by local factors and the
formulation of back-up plans to mitigate adverse effects to the control.
 The CBA experts should contribute to a specific LERI definition for this type of
equipment.
 Following up CBA performance and prepare action plan to increase the
performance if it’s lower than 99.5% or the locally defined target.
 Interlocutor on behalf of Technical Centre with the suppliers
 Animate a user group
 Assign someone as interlocutor on behalf of Lafarge (all Technical Centres) with all
suppliers and to animate the development of frame agreements and issue a report
evaluating the Supplier’s performance every year. This person can be one of the
TC contacts or attached to the DPC.

c) Applications
 In both new plants and for retrofits, the decision to install an analyzer can occur for
example due to the following:
 Variable geology
 Many and variable additives
 High KFUI
 Simix study showing superior control
 to avoid prehomo-pile investment
 to avoid sampling tower investment
 to avoid homo-silo maintenance cost or Size extension
 Automation increase
 The cement industry and Lafarge use analyzers in several different types of
applications, for example pile control and raw-mix control. New applications should
reference prior applications to benefit from the experience of others. A SIMIX study
should be obligatory for applications where a change in the existing control logic
(pile building or raw mill control) is proposed.
 The basic choice between pile applications, raw-mix control (or both) depends on
the source of variations and control levers available to mitigate the variations. New
analyzer projects should identify these aspects and where possible reference pre-
existing analogous sites inside and/or outside Lafarge.
d) Analyzer Selection
 Isotope-based versus Tube based:

 No proven performance difference exists, no practical safety difference exists,
isotope systems are fundamentally more reliable, and isotope supply appears
reliable. We recommend choosing the option best meeting project objectives
based on performance guarantees and investment and operating cost.
 The Zone experts should provide updates as needed concerning the outlook for
isotope supply and cost.
 The Zone experts should continue to compile relevant performance experience
to determine if a proven difference exists between tube and isotope methods.
 The Zone experts should design specific tests to support the above
investigation.
 Isotope-based vendors:
Lafarge has acceptable experience with Sabia and Thermo. The choice should
depend on performance guarantees and investment and operating cost for a
particular project

 Tube-based vendors:
Lafarge has acceptable experience with Sodern (Panalytical); Thermo recently has
offered “flex” systems. The choice should depend on performance guarantees and
investment and operating cost for a particular project.
 Bid comparison
Each project should use a bid comparison table. Each Zone should share bid
comparison tables and develop a complete table template.
 Guarantees
 The project guarantees should include a static and dynamic method. The
project should ensure comparability by addressing the pertinent variables, for
example, specifying the time integration, belt loading, neutron source load /
flux.
 The Zone experts should develop a common request document to formulate
the pertinent variables.
 Service and support
At the time of purchase the negotiation should include the terms and cost of the
maintenance contract. The plant and Technical Centre should evaluate their local
context (examples: criticality of application, availability and proximity of service rep
and plant capability to perform maintenance and calibration) to determine the scope
of the required service contract. Scope examples: number of days available -- five
or seven per week, 24-hr service availability, calibration assistance. See
maintenance section for more details.
e) Analyzer Installation and Commissioning

 Maintaining maximum belt loading favours repeatability performance.
 A belt-loading-control loop (to maintain constant kg/m) favours dynamic accuracy.
 A consistently well-mixed load, (no layering) favours consistent dynamic accuracy;
however layered materials can work in many cases, particularly when the layers
don’t change. In some cases of variable moisture or material type and amount,
layering compensation has yielded adequate performance.
 Transfer points can lead to improved mixing of the belt load; however the resultant
mixture must maintain a consistent belt-load position and geometry. Risky or
problematic cases should have a camera system to monitor the belt-load geometry.
At-risk projects should investigate designing the transfer point to reliably yield a
favourable and consistent material presentation.
 The minimum tunnel height without undue risk of material striking the housing
favours repeatability performance. However, take care to determine the maximum
material height, to control the height and to install protection and over-height

detection devices. In case of doubt, install a monitoring system prior to actual
analyser installation.
 Control automation should be included in the project. Analyzer data and status info
should be mapped into IP21 or equivalent to enable monitoring. The
commissioning plan should include verification of data integrity as mapped into
plant systems and control software.
 The analyzer should have network access to facilitate commissioning and
continued monitoring by the supplier.
 The project should have an installation and commissioning plan and project
manager on the plant side and vendor side.
 The plant should ensure site preparations are in place before arrival of the vendor’s
commissioning technician.
f) Operation and Calibration

 Define SOP suite appropriate for each site. The SOP’s should include:
 Site-specific calibration methods
o Static
o Dynamic
 Site-specific calibration monitoring procedures;
 Monitoring belt-load conditions and relevant indicators if applicable.
 Define requirements and implement training for site champions, maintenance
responsible and operators.
 Establish Reliability Factor tracking / LERI (lab equipment reliability index).
 Define, document and prepare backup procedures (control by alternate means to
reduce effect of availability incidents).
 Monitor analyzer status data in IP-21 or similar.
 Monitor and address alarm criteria in IP21 or similar and plant control system
(Control Room) including connection to control software.
g) Maintenance
 Maintenance applies to the analyzer and its electronics as well as related sub-
systems, such as communications, belt-load control, impact protection ploughs and
over-height sensors.
 The maintenance planning schedule for the plant should include these systems. At
some sites the context would require a site maintenance champion with an
instrumentation background to be responsible for preventive and corrective
maintenance of all laboratory equipment including the CBA.

 All CBA systems must be covered with maintenance contract. Assign annual
budget for maintenance contract.
 Potentially the contract covers, for example:
o Monthly remote system evaluation and report,
o Phone assistance (24/7 or 8/5),
o Parts replacement,
o On-site service calls if needed,
o Bi-annual site visits for PM and radiological requirements,
o Calibration assistance and a
Vehicle for computer and software upgrades.
o
 For a given plant, the optimum scope and terms of the contract should be
determined with the assistance of the Technical Centre Experts
 Assign budget for source replenishment no less frequently than every 2.6 years (30
months) and start replenishment procedure as often as every 2 years if needed by
control requirements.
 Tube-based systems shall have an effective contract in place and back-up tube
procedures if warranted to assure minimum interruption to neutron supply.
 Develop an equipment sustainability plan to avoid obsolescence – upgrade
schedule based on negotiations and quotations from main suppliers.
 Typically each manufacturer supports their own models; however Sabia has
proven competent and lower cost to provide service contracts for various
Thermo models (LNA: Lafarge North America). Thermo could do the same but
Lafarge has no experience with that.
 Upgrades
 Plants should evaluate upgrades as a business case and invite competitive
quotes.
 Analogue systems should be upgraded to digital processing.
 Analyzers may require an upgrade of electronics if the manufacturer no longer
has parts available or newer technology sufficiently improves the performance
to justify the cost.
o Normally the systems should last at least 10 years before requiring
upgrades. Typically upgrading has to be investigated:
 When spare parts are not anymore available
 When performances becomes too low due to the equipment itself
(LERI results to be investigated)
o Historically, most upgrades have converted the 1990’s analogue
technology to digital. In 2011 Thermo has announced lack of support for
the ASYS FSA and EBA and are marketing upgrades. Plants should
compare service and upgrade alternatives with Sabia.

 Typically each manufacturer upgrades their own models; however Sabia has
proven competent and lower cost to provide upgrades for various Thermo and
ASYS models (LNA). Thermo could also upgrade other models but Lafarge has no
experience with that.

Table of contents
1. Theory _______________________________________________________ 15
1.1. PRINCIPLE OF ANALYSIS _____________________________________________ 16
1.2. ANALYSED ELEMENTS _______________________________________________ 17
2. Safety ________________________________________________________ 18
2.1. SAFETY __________________________________________________________ 19
2.2. CROSS BELT ANALYZER RADIATION (ISOTOPE NEUTRON SOURCE)______________ 20
2.3. CBA RADIATION DOSE RATE MAP ______________________________________ 21
2.4. THE SAFE DISTANCE ________________________________________________ 23
2.4.1. Radiation Safety for Neutron-generator-type instruments ____________________ 24
2.4.2. Neutron Emitting Module handling______________________________________ 24
2.4.3. Electrical Hazard ___________________________________________________ 25
2.4.4. Source Leakage Test________________________________________________ 26
3. Applications ___________________________________________________ 27
3.1. INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 28
3.2. DECISION TO INSTALL AN ANALYZER ____________________________________ 28
3.3. PGNAA VERSUS ALTERNATIVES _______________________________________ 30
3.4. QUARRY / NON-BLENDING STOCKPILE APPLICATIONS (A, B, C, J, K, L)___________ 34
3.5. BLENDING PILE APPLICATIONS _________________________________________ 34
3.6. RAW MILL AND DOWNSTREAM PROCESS CONTROL AND MONITORING ____________ 37
3.7. CHOICE OF CONTROL STRATEGY _______________________________________ 38
3.8. LAFARGE PLANTS - TECHNOLOGY EVOLUTION _____________________________ 39
3.9. STOCK PILE CONTROL _______________________________________________ 40
3.10. RAW MIX CONTROL _________________________________________________ 41
3.11. RAW MIX CONTROL – WET PROCESS ____________________________________ 41
3.12. APPLICATIONS OUTSIDE CEMENT _______________________________________ 43
4. Analyzer Performance and Selection ______________________________ 49

4.1. PERFORMANCE ____________________________________________________ 50
4.1.1. Introduction _______________________________________________________ 50
4.1.2. Spectrum Processing________________________________________________ 50
4.1.3. PGNAA performance ________________________________________________ 54
4.2. ANALYZER SELECTION_______________________________________________ 64
5. Installation & Commissioning ____________________________________ 69

5.1. ANALYZER LOCATION _______________________________________________ 70
5.1.1. Maximum belt loading _______________________________________________ 71
5.1.2. Belt-loading stability_________________________________________________ 71
5.1.3. Layering __________________________________________________________ 71
5.1.4. Transfer points_____________________________________________________ 72
5.1.5. Tunnel height ______________________________________________________ 73
5.1.6. Recommendation Recap _____________________________________________ 73
5.2. MECHANICAL ASPECTS ______________________________________________ 74
5.3. PROJECT ORGANIZATION _____________________________________________ 77
6. Operation & Calibration _________________________________________ 78

6.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS __________________________________________ 79
6.2. CALIBRATION _____________________________________________________ 80
6.2.1. Reference standards ________________________________________________ 80
6.2.2. Plant-specific Standards _____________________________________________ 81
6.3. STATIC TESTING ___________________________________________________ 82
6.3.1. Static Accuracy Tests _______________________________________________ 82
6.3.2. Static Repeatability Test _____________________________________________ 83
6.4. DYNAMIC TESTING __________________________________________________ 85
6.4.1. Dynamic Calibration (bias correction) ___________________________________ 85
6.4.2. Stockpile Dynamic Testing____________________________________________ 87
6.4.3. Back calculation from Raw-mix chemistry adjusted for additives dosed at the mill _ 87
6.4.4. Comparison to a sampling tower _______________________________________ 88
6.4.5. Crash stop belt and sample belt load____________________________________ 88
6.4.6. Obtain dynamic samples from belt______________________________________ 88
6.4.7. Raw-mix Dynamic Testing ____________________________________________ 89
6.4.8. Example Procedure _________________________________________________ 89
6.4.9. Dynamic Monitoring _________________________________________________ 90
6.4.10. Recommendations Recap ____________________________________________ 92
7. Maintenance___________________________________________________ 93
7.1. INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 94
7.2. VALUE OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ___________________________________ 94
7.3. PRESENTATION OF TA CBA MAINTENANCE APPENDIX _______________________ 96
7.4. CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE FOR THERMO GAMMA METRICS (TROUBLESHOOTING GUIDE)
________________________________________________________________ 96
8. Appendix _____________________________________________________ 99
8.1. LAFARGE CBA TECHNICAL COMPARISON ________________________________ 100
8.2. LAFARGE CBA LIST 2012 ___________________________________________ 100
8.2.1. Printable A3 table mentioned in Chapter 3.8 _____________________________ 100
8.2.2. CBA Division dashboard 1: CBA Lafarge repartition per TC _________________ 100
8.2.3. CBA Division dashboard 2: CBA Lafarge repartition _______________________ 100
8.3. CBA INSTALLATION ________________________________________________ 100
8.4. CBA MAINTENANCE ________________________________________________ 100
8.5. RADIATION SAFETY MANUAL _________________________________________ 100
8.5.1. Controlled Neutron Analyzer, Sodern CAN – GEN III – Safety instructions (EADS
Sodern) _________________________________________________________ 100

8.5.2. Radiation protection program, ThermoFisher scientific, 2007 ________________ 100
8.5.3. CBXTM Radiation safety manual, Thermo Electron Corporation, 2003 _________ 100
8.5.4. ASYSTM Elemental belt analyzer (EBA) and Full stream analyzer (FSA), Radiation
safety manual, Analyser Systems Inc, 2004 _____________________________ 101
8.5.5. Controlled Neutron Analyzer Sodern CANTM evolution – User manual _________ 101
8.6. ELEMENT DETECTION WITH CBA ______________________________________ 101
8.6.1. On-line Prompt Gamma Neutron Activation Analyzers, R.J. Proctor, 1999 ______ 101
8.6.2. The history and future of nuclear elemental analyzers for product optimization in the
cement industry, S. Foster (SABIA), J. Bond (CTS). Conference Record. IEEE, 9–14
April 2006________________________________________________________ 101
8.7. STATIC CALIBRATION _______________________________________________ 101
8.8. DYNAMIC CALIBRATION _____________________________________________ 101
8.8.1. Instructions for Dynamic Calculations – Lafarge, Davenport Plant (USA) – 2011 gives
an example from a plant with circular pile and pile model for inferential comparison
versus raw-mill data ________________________________________________ 101
8.8.2. Dynamic evaluation of a thermo Gamma-Metrics on-line analyzer, General procedures
for manual sampling, Thermo Gamma-Metrics ___________________________ 101
8.8.3. Dynamic calibration – Phase 2 – Data collection procedure Gamma-Metrics on-line
analyzers, ThermoFisher Scientific ____________________________________ 101
8.9. OTHER REFERENCES _______________________________________________ 102
Note: the mention of commercial products or trade processes; their source or vendor; or
their use in connection with material reported in this document should not be construed
as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products/services
The project-specific details and commercial aspects need to be discovered and defined
for each particular contract or something to that effect.

1. Theory

1.1. Principle of Analysis
The CBA performs a non-destructive elemental analysis of the process material
passing through it. The analysis uses a method often called Prompt Gamma Neutron
Activation Analysis (PGNAA). This method consists of a type of neutron-induced
gamma-ray spectroscopy.
Conveyed material is exposed to neutrons produced by a neutron source, californium
252 (Cf-252), a fission isotope with a 2.6 year half-life or a neutron-generator tube.
Shielding, the inherent moisture, and the conveyed material itself, ‘slow’ or thermalize,
the neutrons. Nuclei of the atoms in the material capture the slowed neutrons. Nuclei
that capture neutrons become "excited" and many quickly regain a stable condition by
producing gamma photons. The distribution of gamma-photon energy levels produced
by the return to stability is unique for each major element.
Gamma photons are detected by scintillation detectors that produce pulses of light
when exposed to gamma photons. High-speed electronic circuits, housed in the
analyzer’s electronics module, amplify and process the pulses yielding a composite
gamma-photon spectrum. A computer continuously analyzes the composite spectrum
to determine the concentration of individual elements. The mass-weighted average
elemental composition is computed from minute-by-minute elemental analyses and
mass flow rates as measured by a belt scale and tachometer located preferably
upstream of the CBA. Oxides are computed based on the molecular weight ratio of the
element and corresponding oxide.
Nucleus Excited Stable Gamma
Thermal Neutron Nucleus Nucleus Ray
The process of thermal neutron capture by a nucleus is shown in the Figure
A/D Converter
Digital
Signal Processor
2
5
2
Multi-
Multi-Channel 0
1
Analyzer 5
1
Cf-
Cf-252 Neutron Source x 30 x 15
0
5
BIOLOGICAL SHIELDING
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Principle of Analysis for Neutron Tube (PFTNA)
The CNA performs a similar non-destructive elemental analysis of the material passing
through it. Unlike the nuclear isotope-based instrument, the Controlled Neutron
Analyser (CNA) uses 14 MeV neutrons, which are electrically produced with a neutron
generator (Neutron Emitting Module or NEM) from a deuterium-tritium reaction (D-T)
while gamma-ray energy is measured with a Bismuth Germinate Oxide Crystal (BGO).
The generator pulses the neutrons on an off rapidly and can use spectra from three
reactions (fast, slow and activation), however the slow reaction (thermal neutrons same
as produced by Cf) accounts for most of the useful information.
1.2. Analysed Elements

Direct Analysis:
 Calcium, Silicon, Iron, Aluminum
 Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium, Titanium, Sulfur, Carbon, Chlorine,
Manganese
 Hydrogen, Nitrogen
 Sulphur and Ash analysis (Coal)
Indirect Analysis - Coal:

 Caloric Value (Btu/lb)
 Emissions Potential (lbs SO2/MBtu)
 Oxygen
 Ash%
Indirect Analysis - Cement:

Any module based on the analysed oxides.
Since the analyzer measures hydrogen in the material on the conveyor belt and the
surroundings, it can produce a moisture analysis for a given belt loading provided that
background is not too high.
The following Section 4 includes more details on the practical application of the theory.

2. Safety

2.1. Safety
Introduction
The design and integration of the components comprising the CBA involve electronic
and nuclear technology. When operating and servicing this equipment, take care to
avoid inherent electrical and radiation hazards which could result in personal injury or
property damage.
Radiation Safety
The neutron sources (Cf-252 or tube) in the analyser emit neutron and gamma
radiation. Although the radiation levels in the vicinity of the system are comparable to
those emitted by naturally occurring sources, it is prudent to ensure that exposure to
personnel is minimized.
Radiation Fundamentals
Radiation is defined as the emission and propagation of energy through space or
through matter in the form of waves or particles. The process of emitting this energy is
called radioactivity. The emitted wave or particle is called radiation. There are five basic
types of radiation:
Alpha Radiation Beta Radiation
Legend: Neutrons Proton
Legend: Neutron Proton

Gamma Radiation X‐Ray Radiation
100 keV
High Speed
Electron
Heavy Atom like Tungsten
Legend: Neutron Proton


Neutron Radiation
2.2. Cross Belt Analyzer Radiation (Isotope Neutron

source)
The figure below shows the physical location of the Cf-252 inside the source shield
block. Each Cf-252 source is located on the end of a polyethylene rod that is only
accessible through a key-locked source access hatch on the source shield block.
EBA Cross-Sectional View
NaI
NaIDetector
Detector
Biological Material
Material
Biological
Shielding
Shielding
Gamma
GammaRayRay
Shield
Shield
Californium
Californium
Sources
Sources
The position of the Neutron tube for CNA analysers is in a similar position. Due to the
higher-energy 14-MeV neutron emissions, there is a lot more shielding material around
the instrument.

2.3. CBA Radiation Dose Rate Map
The radiation dose received from the analyzer depends on your activity. The following
practical examples of accumulated doses while working around the analyzer
demonstrate that it is quite safe for all plant personnel.
1.0 mR/hr
2.2 mR/hr
5.0 mR/hr*
7 ‐ 19 mR/hr
30 mR/hr*

1.2 mR/hr
0.5 mR/hr
2.8 mR/hr 2.0 mR/hr
6.0 mR/hr* 4.0 mR/hr*
* Belt Empty 1 meter from
The working scenarios are summarized below, calculated for four scenarios
 Inspecting the CBA tunnel daily
 Simply Passing by the CBA 5 times/day
 Working overhead on the CBA electronics
 Working on the Idler Assemblies
Inspecting the CBA tunnel daily

 Looking directly in the CBA tunnel would expose you to radiation at a rate of
30mR/hr
 Time = 5 seconds (0.0014 hours)
 Dose = 30mR/hr X 0.0014 hr X 365 days/yr = 15 mR (150 mSv)
Walking by the CBA 5 times/day
 Dose rate at the side of CBA exposes you to radiation at a rate of 1.2 mR/hr
 Time = 5 seconds = 0.0014 hours
 Dose = 1.2mR/hr X 0.0014 hr X 365 days/yrX5 = 3 mR (30 mSv)


Working overhead on the CBA electronics
 Dose rate at the top of EBA exposes you to radiation at a rate of 5 mR/hr
 Time = 1 hour, 4 times per year
 Dose = 5 mR/hr X 1 hr X 4 days = 20 mR (200 mSv

Adjusting the Conveyor Belt Idler Assemblies near the CBA
 Dose rate in the Idler Area exposes you to radiation at a rate of 2 mR/hr
 Time = 1/2 hour, 12 times per year
 Dose = 2mR/hr X 1/2 hr X 12 days = 12 mR (120 mSv
Maximum Time at EBA Tunnel Opening Allowed by Regulations.
We can calculate the maximum time that a worker would be allowed to spend at the
Tunnel Opening of the Analyzer, where the dose rate is the highest, typically 5 to 31
mR/Hr. We will also assume the worker performs this hypothetical task 1 time per
month, or 12 times per year. The calculations are presented below, yielding an Allowed
Time per month of 13.5 Hours.
 German Regulations: 50 000 mSv whole body
 EBA Tunnel Opening Dose (Empty) = 283 mSv
 Time Allowed = 50 000 / 283 = 176 Hours
 Assume: 1 Period per Month
 Time per Month = 176 / 12 = 14 Hours / Period

2.4. The Safe Distance
The safe unshielded distance for two Cf-252 sources of nominal 40 µg size is 12
meters. This distance in the unshielded condition will produce a dose rate of 1.33
mR/Hr, which is well below our guideline of 2 mR/Hr
2 m = 24 mR/h
4 m = 6 mR/h
(2 sources 12 mR/h)
8 m = 1.5 mR/h
(2 sources 3 mR/h)
16 m = 0.37 mR/h
(2 sources =.75mR/h)
1m = 96 mR/h 0.5m = 384 mR/h 0.25m = 1536 mR/h
The attached table shows the radiation measurements at Lafarge Cement Emirates
plant far one meter from CBA, and it shows very low rate of dosing pre hour:
Up 0.1 mR/h
Down 0.1 mR/h
Right 0.8 mR/h
Left 0.8 mR/h
Front 0.40 mR/h
Back 0.40 mR/h
Recommendation
No matter how low the dose levels are, personnel are required to keep their received
doses to As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The ALARA principle is
internationally recognized and consists of the following three guidelines:
 Minimize time in the radiation area
 Maximize the distance between yourself and the source of radiation
 Utilize shielding whenever possible

 Radiological Postings and Restricted Areas
 Source Removal Procedure
Measure the radiation around one meter from the analyzer every six months.
2.4.1. Radiation Safety for Neutron-generator-type instruments
Because the levels of emission from the Neutron Generator are higher (14MeV) there
are some particular details relevant to this type of instrument.
In International System of Units, the activity of a radioactive source is measured in
Becquerel
(symbol Bq), where one Becquerel is equal to one nuclear disintegration per second
(an older unit is the curie, 1 Bq=2.7 10-11 Ci).
The absorbed dose of ionizing radiation is measured in grays (symbol Gy) where one
gray is equal to one joule of energy being imparted to one kilogram of matter (the rad is
the previously used unit, 1 Gy=100 rad).
The dose equivalent, which is a measure of the effects of radiation on living organisms,
is the absorbed dose multiplied by a suitable factor that depends upon the type of
radiation. It is measured in sieverts (symbol Sv), where one sievert is a dose equivalent
of one joule per kilogram (an older unit is the rem, 1 Sv=100 rem).
Dose rates when the neutron generator is ON:

SODERN provides the dose rates area limits as follows
< 25 μSv/h area
< 7.5 μSv/h area
< 2.5 μSv/h area
The choice of the area delimited by the fence is decided by the user according to the
local regulation and the frequentation of the surrounding areas.
SODERN usually recommends setting the boundaries of restricted area corresponding
to a rate of 7.5 μSv/h.
2.4.2. Neutron Emitting Module handling
Because the neutrons are produced by the NEM and not an Isotope source, there are
different and specific handling requirements.

As a general rule, make sure these minimum precautions have been taken:
When being changed, the NEM must be handled with care in order to avoid risks of
accidental breakages. When in use, the NEM is activated by its neutron emission.
Even when it is stopped, neutron induced photons are still emitted by material of the
NEM. The radiation is only significant in the tube area near the target. Therefore, the
operator must wait for 15 minutes after CNA shut down before handling the NEM and it
must be handled in the part having the largest diameter, where dose is lowest.
In case of emergencies, the following instructions should be followed:
 Turn off all power to the CNA and close and lock the CNA main switch
 Rope off and restrict access to the area 15 meters around the Measuring
Module
 Notify the Manufacturer and the appropriate authorities responsible for
emergency response activities.
2.4.3. Electrical Hazard
During operation, the CNA uses several types of voltage according the electronic
module: typical values are 230V, 850V, 2kV and 100kV. These high voltage systems
are dangerous. All doors of the electronic cabinet should be closed except for
equipment maintenance or repair.
The CNA must always remain connected to earth.
The presence of an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) in the electronic control
cabinet implies that the main switch must be OFF any time before servicing.
Because of the presence of an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) in the electronic
control cabinet, turning off the main supply outside the cabinet does not guarantee that
the power is off. Always turn the main switch off!

See Annex 8-5-5 Controlled Neutron Analyzer Sodern CANTM evolution – User
manual including a complete description of the Neutron source characteristics
2.4.4. Source Leakage Test
Contamination is defined as the presence of radioactive material where it is not wanted.

To prevent contamination, the Cf-252 radioactive sources in the CBA are double-
encapsulated in stainless steel to prevent their escape due to fire, corrosion, and
mechanical damage. North American regulations require that the sources be tested for
leakage every six months. This involves using a cotton pad to wipe surfaces around the
source where contamination might be expected to accumulate. The pad is then tested
for the types of radiation emitted by the source. Such a test is called a source leakage
test. The exact test and time interval requirements may vary from country to country. It
is the individual site’s responsibility to assure that it is in compliance with the
regulations of the host country.
See Appendix 8.5 Radiation safety manual
Also the “Safety Compendium” group on the Lafarge Collaboration Platform has
some good examples from plants:
http://it-lafarge.jivesbs.com/groups/rme-safety-compendium.

3. Applications

3.1. Introduction
Since the introduction of neutron-induced gamma-ray spectroscopy (commonly referred
to as PGNA analysis) in the late 1980’s and the CBA configuration of it around 1994,
the cement industry has found an increasing variety applications for this control
technology. Use of it has the overall purpose of improving the efficiency of plant
operations. Much of the payback most often comes from improved operation
management and reduced specific fuel consumption in those cases where the
technology improves kiln-feed uniformity and thus increase kiln PF and RF.
3.2. Decision to Install an Analyzer

In both new plants and for retrofits, the decision to install an analyzer can occur for
example due to the following:
 Variable geology
 Many and variable additives
 High KFUI
 Simix study showing superior control
 to avoid prehomo-pile investment
 to avoid sampling tower investment
 to avoid homo-silo maintenance cost or Size extension
 Automation increase
The following table provides some more detail on the factors for this decision:
Assessment for No interest of Potential High interest of Prerequisite

CBA installation CBA interest of CBA CBA
Geological variability Only one type of Two types of More than two Simix study, Sampling
limestone quality quality (Clay, types of quality protocol
Magnesium, and critical cut off
Sulfide, Chlorine) limit
or cut off limit
Number of additives One or two types More than two types of additives Simix study, Sampling
and their variability of additives with highly variable protocol
no variability
Simix study showing C3S variance with 40<C3S variance C3S variance Sampling protocol,
need of better control 120m minutes with 120m with 120m Understanding of Raw
average <40 minutes average minutes average Materials variability
< 100 > 100

High KFUI and High KFUI < 14 or 14<KFUI<40 and KFUI >40 and Raw Mix audit, Simix
RMUI RMUI <50 RMUI >50 RMUI >50 study, Sampling
protocol
Avoid sampling No sampling tower No sampling No sampling Drilling chips analysis,

tower investment and no interest for tower and tower and Sampling protocol,
interest to know necessity to know Raw Mix audit
the precise the precise
chemistry of the chemistry of the
incoming material incoming material
Avoid prehomo-pile No prehomo and No prehomo and No prehomo and Raw Mix audit, Simix
investment no need for difficulty to possibility to study, Sampling
control KFUI with control KFUI with protocol
only CBA only CBA
Avoid homo-silo No problem with High Homo Silo High Homo Silo Homo Silo
maintenance cost or Homo Silo maintenance cost maintenance cost maintenance
management or need of its or need of its procedures, Raw Mix
Size extension Size extension Size extension audit, Simix study
but present
procedures to be
improved
Automation increase Low Manpower High Manpower High Manpower Simix study, Sampling
cost, Low general cost, high level of cost, high level of protocol
level of automation to be automation to be
automation increased increased and
high KFUI
variability
In any event the project requires a business case, particularly to elaborate and justify
the aspect of operational efficiencies.
The realization of expected payback depends not only on the analytical and control
success of the planned application (does the project meet the control objectives?) but
also on realization of extended benefits from kiln-feed uniformity (i.e. the extent that kiln
operations capitalize on improved consistency to operate the pyro-process line more
efficiently). Continued control success over the long term requires adequate and well
documented procedures for maintenance and calibration of the analyzer and software
system.
Since the mid 1990’s the use of PGNA analysis has grown steadily from less than 100
units installed in 1997 to probably over 700 units operating now and from perhaps three
units installed on raw mills to likely over 200 used for raw-mill control. The use of
PGNA analysis technology has evolved from a rarity in cement plants to become for the
most part a common retrofit and nearly a standard for new plants.
The earliest use of PGNA occurred in the solid fuels industry and this use has
continued steady growth. In addition it has also seen increased applications in the
mining and metals industries, for example for copper, scrap, iron ore, magnesite, and

phosphate. Taken together with the cement applications, the total number of analyzers
service approaches 1000 units (2011).
3.3. PGNAA versus Alternatives

Use of alternative on-line technology, such as energy-dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence,
EDXRF, (suitable for on-line analysis of raw-mill product) has remained a relative rarity
in cement plants, even though 15 years ago it seemed on equal footing. This has
happened largely due to three factors:
 Relative cost difference between the technologies has narrowed
 More robust control loop possible with PGNA
 Mechanical complexity of XRF systems, thus reliability challenges
During the past 10+ years the cost of PGNA equipment has fallen by more than half
and the project cost, mechanical, electrical, automation, commissioning – all in, often
today amounts to less than $US 500k. During the past several years several instances
have occurred where a plant has tried EDXRF and subsequently replaced the system
with a cross-belt-type PGNA system. Some examples of this: Port-la-Nouvelle, Kujawy,
Harleyville and Theodore (Holcim).
Some other PGNA developments include:

 Transition from analogue to digital processing and generally improved
electronics, leading to improved repeatability performance versus neutron flux.
 Considerable improvement to the ease of mechanical installation and attendant
reduction of installation cost
 Expanded neutron-source options (tube-based systems now available, and
formalization of isotope supply)
 Expansion of the variety of applications addressed with PGNA analyzers
The bulk of PGNA applications fall into two classes, quarry (pile control and sorting)
and raw mill (raw-mix control). Several other uncommon and potential applications
exist.

The table below summarizes some application methods for PGNA analysis.
Code Class Description Material Analyzer Use Example Comments

analyzed frequency
A Quarry Monitoring Drill cuttings "Static" Uncommon Cupertino Any quarry sample, e.g. rock
analyzer from loading to direct trucks.
Also at Joppa Cave-in-Rock
B Quarry Monitoring Crushed rock CBA Uncommon Alpena Soley used to give feedback
to quarry (ex. To update
quarry model) without
changing number of
truckloads, etc.
C Quarry Sorting Crushed rock CBA Common Roberta Also Rillito, Clarkdale (major
(MGO, SiO2) Oxds alkalis etc)
D Pile Truck proportioning Crushed rock CBA Very Buderus Significant feedback to quarry
Common operations
E Pile Loader Proportioning Crushed rock CBA Very Several Works well if monitored by
into pre-blend pile Common Cimpor plants crusher operator, who directs
the loader
F Pile 2 Feeder (partial) Crushed rock CBA Very Exshaw Increases the automation
dosage into batch pile Common
G Pile 3 0r more Feeder Crushed rock CBA Common Oro Grande Old plant, before new pre-
Dosage into batch pile blending system installed.
Dosed to target, no RM
correction. Works well
provided pile-end segregation
not a problem
H Pile Truck/Loader/Feeder Crushed rock CBA Common Lucerne Dual control continuous and
Dosage into Valley batch -- Davenport IA doses
continuous pile additives as well
I Pile Feeder Dosage into Crushed rock CBA Common Egypt Possible to build raw mix in
continuous pile ± pile the pile and have little or
additives correction at RM
J Pile Barge loading Crushed rock CBA Uncommon Cave-in-Rock Can build barge load to a
target (QC) and/or certify the
load is on spec (QA)
K Pile Feeder Dosage into Crushed rock CBA Uncommon Alpena Keep limestone in bin on
mill feed bin spec while drawing from 2 or
more conic secondary piles
L Raw Monitoring raw- Raw CBA Hypothetical Could reduce contamination

mix material delivery to materials incidents and cost of
bins operating a reception facility.
Discussed for HRL 100
project.
M Raw Feed forward on pile Crushed rock CBA Uncommon A Geoscan application?? The
mix output general case monitors
several materials using
multiple analyzers for feed-
forward control (Hypothetical)
N Raw Feed back on Crushed raw CBA Very Alamo Early adopters also
mix complete mill feed mix Common Cement Mannersdorf, Retznei,
Richmond and Nesher Israel.
Greater than 200 systems
worldwide

O Raw Feed back on partial Crushed raw CBA Uncommon Union Bridge One or more material added
mix mill feed mix downstream, use virtual
feeder for control
P Raw Feedback on RM Slurry Slurry Uncommon Midlothian Cormeilles, Paulding first

mix product applications
Q Raw Feedback on RM Powder "chute" Uncommon Alpena In continuous use since 1991.
mix product style But manufacturers have no
modern system available for
powder
R Process Kiln Feed Powder "chute" Hypothetical Would be possible if a PGNA
style powder system is available.
ATC has an EDXRF used for
this
S Process Clinker Partially "chute" R&D Technology works, but needs
cooled clinker style or undefined, tested at Exshaw.
CBA
T Process Fuels CBA Hypothetical Not known if implemented
thus far, but equipment
available and widely used in
mines and powerplants
This table references three types of PGNA analyzer:

 Static analysis of discreet samples → “Static” type
 Cross-belt type on conveyor → “CBA” type
 Vertical flow of material through the analyzer body → “Chute” type
Note that while fuel applications are as of now hypothetical in cement, the fuels industry
has made wide application of the PGNA technology.

The diagram below schematically summarizes these applications:

The number of plants using analyzers in these applications varies from very common
(more than 100 installed) to uncommon (to some examples where to date no plant has
yet tried the application (“Hypothetical”).
The location of the installed analyzer in the plant flow sheet and the number and nature
of levers available to act on the analyses defines each category (A to S).
3.4. Quarry / non-blending stockpile applications (A, B,

C, J, K, L)
These include applications of a monitoring nature having no automatic control levers
and no blending in the stockpile as well as feeder-controlled production of an
intermediate limestone product:
 Drill cuttings analysis with a static analyzer as done at Hanson Cupertino
(California) plant [3] and Cave-in-Rock (Lafarge Joppa quarry)-- A.
 Simple monitoring of quarry production with an on-belt analyzer – B.
 Sorting into two or more chemical-grade stockpiles as at Roberta [6] and
Davenport California [7] – C.
 Barge Loading, example Cave-in-Rock– J.
 Feeder dosage from multiple crushed-rock stockpiles to a raw-mill feed bin
(Alpena) – K.
 Monitoring corrective-additive deliveries to raw-mill feed bins (none known to
date) – L.
3.5. Blending pile applications

Analyzers have a substantial role together with blending piles to enable the operator to
attain one or more chemical target(s) in the completed storage pile. The earliest
application of the technology in the cement industry occurred for pile control, dating
back to the first chute analyzers prior to 1990.
Several methods have been described prior to year 2000 [8, 9, 10].
Some common features of these arrangements:

 In simple cases, the belt load likely consists of a mono-product at any given time,
thus adverse effects such as layering should not affect the analysis. This condition
applies as well if the operation co-crushes any other added materials, however in

cases where a feeder adds additives to the belt after the crusher, layering may
affect the analysis. Layering has an effect in cases where the belt load has distinct
layers of different materials and those materials have very distinct neutron
interactions – classic cases are high-moisture and high-iron materials
 The system obtains direct information concerning the material coming from the
quarry, and the quarry manger can use this data for forecasting future quality,
provided that tracking of the production location occurs.
 The analyzer software package will usually display the appropriate interval and
batch averages. The supervisory personnel may make adjustments to production
locations in the quarry and may use a custom spreadsheet or various other
software packages to calculate the required combination to reach the batch target
or control feeders if applicable.
The capital investment varies according to the amount of accessory equipment needed,
for example, feeders, bins, bunkers, crusher loader and of course whether the pile has
a cover.
A given blending pile either works in a pure batch mode (linear or circular batch
blending pile) or in semi-batch continuous mode (circular pile).
Batch piles may contain a variety of materials either solely from the limestone quarry or
other quarry or the limestone plus other additives. Some common features of batch
piles include:
 The averaging effect of the batch permits a lesser analyzer-repeatability
performance (thus analyzers in these applications generally have a lower rate of
neutron consumption).
 The layout footprint requires a relatively large area in cases of linear piles.
 The analyzer location after a crusher likely has large belt-load variation unless the
project includes specific measures to control the variations (including a VFD).
 The material size on the belt will consist of that fed to the pile and thus normally the
size fed to the raw mill.
 Operational calibration adjustments have no straightforward reference to adjust
analyzer accuracy, unless the operation has a pre-existing sampling tower on the
same line.
Circular continuous piles serve similar purposes to batch piles. In terms of analyzer
applications they have the following distinctions:
 Smaller practical batch blending volume of perhaps 20% of the pile capacity
 High-frequency analyzer-based control fits well with this characteristic
 Analyzers used for demanding continuous-control applications likely have a higher
rate of neutron consumption than those used for batch-blending piles
 Less flexibility to manage the quarry or add other materials in multi-hour campaigns

 No pile end, hence no chemical variations caused by a pile end
 Smaller foot print for a given capacity – less expensive to cover
In both cases the distinction between applications, as outlined in the table and
schematic, lies with the number and nature of the control levers and degree of possible
automation. Defined in this sense, the typical blending-pile applications include:
 Truck-load proportioning to batch-blending pile – “D”
 Loader (+ trucks) proportioning/dosage to batch-blending pile – “E”
 Feeder/Loader/Truck proportioning/dosage of mainly limestone to batch-blending
pile – “F”
 Three or more feeder dosage of limestone and additives to batch pile – “G”
 Feeder/Loader/Truck proportioning/dosage of mainly limestone to continuous-
blending (chevcon) pile, example at Lucerne Valley [11] – “H”
 Feeder dosage of limestone and additives to continuous-blending (chevcon) pile –
“I”
See below the examples of batch and continuous control with piles and at the raw mill.

3.6. Raw mill and downstream process control and
monitoring
Early in the history of the cement industry application of PGNA limited use occurred for
raw-mix dosage at the raw mill. This occurred with chute-style analyzers located before
or after the mill and eventually with belt-mounted systems. This application became
more widespread after 1999 to the point that now 30-40% of the systems control raw
mix. Some cement producers, for example Ashgrove, appear to have applied this
method in most of their plants [6].
The analyzer, mounted on the collection belt, determines the raw-mix chemistry each
minute and software processes the data to determine new feeder settings, working in
continuous closed-loop feedback control. Since the control can enact many more
control actions in a given time, compared to the classic method of basing control on
samples taken of the ground raw mix after the mill, it can compensate more readily for
chemical variations in raw materials. Since this high-frequency control results in higher
frequency residual variations, it enhances the effectiveness of blending silos located
between the mill and kiln feed. With these advantages, numerous plants have
experienced notable success with this application. However to achieve success, the
application has prerequisites, for example:
 Adequate feed system to deliver the materials without interruptions;
 Adequate weigh feeders able to deliver to proportional set points issued
automatically by software;
 A strategy for determining and maintaining the analyzer dynamic calibration;
 Normally the system using an analyzer for raw-mix control will include a VFD to
maintain constant mass loading (expressed as kg/m) on the belt passing through
the analyzer;
 Close to 100% analyzer reliability -- normally attainable with this technology;
 Strategy to anticipate, detect and resolve problems with any of the above and a
have backup plan to control raw mix;
 Mastery of the effect of dust flows, particularly for PH/PC plants.
Concerning the dynamic calibration and the stability of it, the equipment layout has a
particular role. The Performance and Installation sections 4 and 5 have more
discussion on this.
The raw-mill application demands relatively good analyzer repeatability performance
and thus higher neutron consumption compared to purely batch pile-monitoring
systems.

Applications downstream from the mill are currently uncommon however as plants
increasingly work with multiple raw-material additions deeper in the process (at kiln
feed, to the pre-calciner, near the cooler) the advantages of on-line monitoring of bulk
chemistry may justify these investments.
The table and schematic show the following potential raw-mix-control and downstream
applications:
 Feed-forward on pile output (analyzing one or more materials individually) – “M”
 Feedback control on complete raw-mill feed (analyzer located on collection belt
ahead of mill)
 Feedback control on partial raw-mill feed (some material added after the analysis
point) example, Lehigh/Heidelberg Union Bridge Maryland USA – “N”
 Feedback control on raw-mill product (analysis of powder1,2) –“Q”
 Feedback control on raw-mill product (analysis of slurry) –“P”
 Kiln-feed (analysis of powder: to compensate for dust flows, mill down periods,
material added after mill) – “R”
 Clinker (to compensate for the above + kiln additions) – “S”
 Fuels (to blend multiple fuels to ash or sulphur target) – “T”
Notes:
1 Alpena plant is an example of a growing number of plants with two or more
PGNA systems (they have four).
2 Currently PGNA has little application for dynamic powder analysis (Alpena
being an exception) and the available means for higher frequency control
after the mill consists of autolabs and near-line EDXRF. However the
relatively low cost of PGNA and robustness with respect to particle size
and mineralogy imply a possible renaissance in the application of it.
3.7. Choice of control strategy

Given the wide possible application of PGNA to stockpiles and other process points,
and furthermore the other methods to increase control frequency, the designer has
many options to improve control and ultimately kin-feed and clinker uniformity. The
choice of control strategy depends on several factors, for example the anticipated
sources of variation, the layout pre-existing or dictated by other considerations such as
investment constraints.

3.8. Lafarge Plants - Technology Evolution
Lafarge plants have a great variety of analyzers, having installed some of the earliest
made systems continuing up to the most modern. Since some published articles review
the analyzer technological history [ref], the following briefly summarizes these sources
and casts the history in the Lafarge context.
The following summarizes the evolution of the technology in the Lafarge context:
System Thermo- ASYS Sabia Appx yrs Thermo ASYS, Sodern
Gamma example Sabia
Chute style "1812" "1812" 1987-1994 Alpena
etc
Analogue cross belt CBA 1994-1998 Saint-Pierre-la-Cour
Digital electronics CBGN FSA 1998-2003 Davenport Roberta Kujawy

(pile)
Frame mounted CBX EBA 2003-2007 Joppa Soetenich Cave-in-
Rock
Light frame Omni XL5000 2007-2011 Bazian Alpena
 Lafarge + Holcim participated with 1st CBA; SP le Cour 2nd unit installed
 Sabia introduced XL in 2005, 1st light-frame cross belt
 Omni developed by ASYS then melded with Thermo technology after Thermo
acquired ASYS
 Sodern (tube source) started around 1998 marketed as Polysius (example Kujawy
pile analyzer) and revamped the line around 2005
 Thermo also now markets an Omni-flex which can accept either an isotope or tube
source.
The CBA is distributed and applied among Lafarge plants to control and optimize the
prehomo stock pile and/or the total raw-mix composition feed to the raw mill, and it is
also used for controlling and sorting the limestone. The table below shows the total
distribution of CBA and its application in all Lafarge plants; in summary there are 43
different instruments in 36 plants; there is one or more plant in progress to install the
CBA.
The most common applications for cross-belt analyzers in Lafarge occur with stockpile
control representing 57% with 35% used for raw mix control and 9 % for limestone
control.

Figure1 shows the current (2011) distribution of CBA per its application in Lafarge
plants.
9%
35%
57%
Limestone Sorting/ Proportioning/Control

Raw Mix Control
Stockpile Optimization
Table 1 shows the distribution of CBA per each model and technical centre
See Appendix 8.2.1: CBA distribution in all Lafarge plants

See Appendix 8.2.2: CBA Division dashboard 1: CBA Lafarge repartition per TC
See Appendix 8.2.3: CBA Division dashboard 2: CBA Lafarge repartition
3.9. Stock pile control

The earliest application of CBA in Lafarge occurred with stock pile control to assist the
optimization of pre-blending process at St-Pierre la Court plant. In this case the

analyser provides data to the quarry to dose the pile. The raw mill only has one
corrector.
3.10. Raw mix Control

An early example of this method occurred at the Mannersdorf plant.
The attached below flow sheet shows the installation and location of CBA there.
CBA systematic diagram for raw mix control (dry process)
3.11. Raw mix Control – Wet process

PGNAA is not limited for dry materials but it can be used for slurry analysis. The slurry
analyzer is installed at the outlet of the raw mills and provides elemental analysis of the
slurry and percent solids. This information is used to control the raw-mix composition
and water addition to mill automatically
The Figures show the systematic application of CBA for slurry control used Lafarge
Ravena and its location

Slurry
tl t
Slurry
Inlet
Lafarge Ravena
L F Hi
G Alumin Mag.
H
G
H
G Rod
Rod
Informatio Discharge
Processin
Modul SL- Basin
Analyze
Plant Primar
Smar
Sample
Materi
Controlle
CBA
To Blending Tanks
CBA systematic diagram for raw mix control (slurry control)

3.12. Applications outside Cement
Other non-cement applications include is coal quality control and testing, phosphate
industry to test P2O5, and iron ore mining to test the Fe2O3 content.
In Coal testing, the CBA is used to determine the carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, and
nitrogen content by direct testing, and to calculate the calorific value, ash content, by
indirect testing.
Sampled coal PGNAA analyzer that can analyze 2-25 Small Sample PGNAA Analyzer that analyzes 3-5Kg of coal
TPH on a dedicated belt. or rock in plastic buckets using minimal skilled labour
Full-belt analyzer in a coal mine

Figure shows slurry analyzer used in fertilizer industry
Sample stream PGNAA slurry analyzer that analyzes fertilizer and mineral slurries. Multiplexed slurries flow through
the analyzer from 75mm sample lines into a urethane flow cell.
Analogue CBA system at Rillito, AZ (examples Richmond, Mannersdorf)

CBGN system (example Davenport)
Reference Standard
with Lifting Straps
EBA (ASYS) (example Soetenich)

Light frame design (Sabia XL5000 at Whitehall) installed at the end of the collection belt
Install location
Before After
Polysius – Sodern (Suwanee, Florida, similar to Kujavy system)

Application References
[1] Foster, S.; Bond, J. April 2006. “The history and future of nuclear elemental
analyzers for product optimization in the cement industry” in: Cement Industry
Technical Conference, 2006. Conference Record. IEEE, 9-14 April 2006 Location:
Phoenix, AZ
[2] Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina; March 2008. “Energy Efficiency Improvement and
Cost Saving Opportunities for Cement Making. An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy
and Plant Managers.” Energy Analysis Department, Environmental Energy
Technologies Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
University of California, Berkeley, California
[3] Foster, Steve. September 2007. “Limiting Variability.” International Cement Review
[4] Bond, J.E.; Coursaux, R.; Worthington, R.L.; November/December 2000.

“Blending systems and control technologies for cement raw materials.” IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine
[5] Lafarge, 2010. http://www.lafargenorthamerica.com/wps/portal/lna/products/cement

(cement plant brochures/davenport) accessed 11/28/10
[6] Lanz, Victor. May 2002. “Raw Material Management.” International Cement Review
[7] ICR Research. June 2004. “Analyzers Line Up.” International Cement Review
[8] Woodward, Richard. April 1997. “Transforming Pre-Blending Strategy.” World

Cement.
[9] Bourgon, J., Woodward R., Ackermann R. May 1995. “Cementos Apasco Succeeds
with New On-line Elemental Analyzer.” World Cement.
[10] Endress M. ; Baehr-Mörsen R. ; Jordan C. ; Rott C. ; “Operating experience with

the Gamma Metrics Cross Belt analyzer.” June 1999, ZKG International, vol. 52, no6
[11] Leetham, Darrell. January 2008. “Online Stockpile Analysis”. World Cement
[12] Foster, Steve; Graham, Jonathon. February 2009. “Lafarge, Whitehall Opts for
PGNA Analyzer.” World Cement.

[13] Hook, Jeff., Leetham, Darrell. November 2008. “CrossBelt at Union Bridge”.
International Cement Review
[14] Jacobs, Richard; Regis, Steven. March/April 2006. “Automated Cement Plant
Quality Control” IEEE Industry Applications Magazine
[15] Scheuer, Albert. November 2000. “Technical Innovations.” International Cement

Review

4. Analyzer Performance and
Selection

This section addresses:
 Analyzer performance drivers and technology
 Analyser vendor selection
4.1. Performance
4.1.1. Introduction
As described in chapter 1; if a material is bombarded with neutrons, interactions with

the nuclei result in the emission of high-energy gamma rays at a variety of energy
levels. Two mechanisms predominate in the application of PGNAA to elemental
analysis:
 Thermal (2 Mev) neutron capture and
 Fast (14 mev) neutron inelastic scattering.
Both mechanisms produce high-energy gamma rays but thermal neutron capture is
more efficient and more achievable with the most readily available neutron source
material, micrograms of the radioactive isotope 252Cf. The fast scattering reactions
typically require a neutron generator system that is not normally as efficient at
producing thermal neutrons. While ready availability of 252Cf has encouraged its use for
commercial PGNAA analyzers, in fact its neutron energy is suitable to provoke thermal
neutron capture gamma rays.
4.1.2. Spectrum Processing
The resulting gamma-ray spectrum collected over a one-minute period is actually a

distribution of all the incoming gamma-ray energy levels ranging from zero to 10 Mev
(Million electron volts). In cement applications anywhere from five to fifteen elements of
interest are represented in the spectrum. A typical spectrum is shown below which over
in one minute amounts to several million pulses.

Below a typical PGNAA Gamma-ray Spectra high and low energy
and typical PGNAA Gamma-ray Spectra high energy
- typical PGNAA Gamma-ray Spectrum- High and low energies
- typical PGNAA Gamma-ray Spectrum- High energies
The MLR (Multiple Linear Regression) is used to calculate the entire shape of all the
elemental peaks. Most commonly, vendors use a full-spectrum analysis such as Library
Least Squares that utilizes the instrument response to pure elements used as a library

against which the incoming spectral data can be compared on a minute-by-minute
basis. Typically a multiple linear regression technique is used which solves a linear
matrix equation with matrix inverse math. The time required for this mathematical
treatment (de-convolution of the spectra) of the data amounts to only seconds and
becomes transparent to the end user. Prior to presentation of the final output from the
analyzer, the software normalizes results of the multiple linear- regression with respect
to each other.
Example of MLR calculation

Step 1: The analyzer collects one minute of gamma data from the cement sample and
prepares to perform a multiple linear regression (MLR) using its library of elements
against the cement sample gamma spectra
Step 2: The regression software calculates the amount of each library response that will
most nearly approximate the shape of the signal spectra when added together
PGNAA library
spectra
PGNAA library
spectra
One minute
Elemental Spectra for
One minute
Elemental Spectra
The MLR results have been applied to the Elemental Response Library and shown here
graphically juxtaposed with the original Sample Gamma Spectra.
Typical analysis steps (details vary between manufacturers):
 The MLR produces a basic elemental analysis (in mass terms, raw coefficients)
 Stoichiometric conversion to oxides

 Normalization
 Dynamic corrections (gain, offset) based on an external reference (the dynamic
references discussed later).
.
Recommendation:
To identify factors affecting PGNAA spectral analysis, the calibration standard
samples should include at least one standard sample from the plant in-house
material.
This means that the analyzers can be immune to changes in raw-material types if the
references include all materials. If the plant introduces a new material, then they
should evaluate the risk of effects on the spectrum (see discussions on neutron poisons
and layering effects).

4.1.3. PGNAA performance
4.1.3.1. Sensitivity
Sensitivity is the capability of CBA to detect the elements. The stronger elements are
those with the higher cross sections thus stronger gamma-ray production and with
distinct emission energies.
The table below shows the theoretical range of sensitivity for each of the elements in
the periodic table for a PGNA instrument, from which guarantees are derived.
Sensitivity in Weight1% Elements

< 0.01 % Cl, Sc, Ti, Cd, Hg, Sm, Gd, Dy, Ho
0.01 - 0.1 % S, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Rh, Ag, In, Hf, Ir, Au, Nd, Eu, Er, Yb, H
0.1 - 0.3 % N, Na, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ga, Se, Y, Cs, La, W, Re, Os, Pt, Pr, Tm
0.3 - 1.0 % Li, Be, Mg, P, Zn, As, Mo, Te, I, Ta, Pb, Ce, Tb, Lu, Th, U
1.0 - 3.0 % C, Ge, Br, Sr, Zr, Ru, Pd, Sb, Ti
> 3.0 % Other elements
1
Three-sigma detection limit in 10 minutes within an elementally simple rock matrix ≥150mm
thick.
For cement industry the most interesting elements are SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO,
MgO, SO3, K2O, Na2O, P2O5, Mn2O3, TiO2 and Cl, which are indicated in red colour
in the above table.
See Appendix 8-6: Element detection with CBA
4.1.3.2. Elements detections and accuracy
The performance of PGNAA in detection the elements differs from one element to
another depending on neutron cross section and spectrum resolution.
In cement manufacturing the following tables shows typical results for oxides commonly
reported in both raw-mix control and stock-pile control.
The higher the inverse ratio with the Coefficient of Variation2 (relative standard
deviation) the more apt the system, analyzer+ control software, to have good control.
2
Coefficient of Variation (COV) = relative standard deviation = Average / Stdev

Raw mix control Stock pile control
Typical Typical
Typical Raw- 10-min Average
10-min mix Oxide stdev stockpile 1/VOC
Oxide stdev average 1/COV SiO2 0.13 12.69 97
SiO2 0.2 14 70 Al2O3 0.17 3.41 20
Al2O3 0.2 3.3 17 Fe2O3 0.02 1.89 84
Fe2O3 0.05 2.1 42 CaO 0.23 41.73 180
CaO 0.25 44 176 K2O 0.03 0.62 21
MgO 0.25 3 12 SO3 0.07 0.16 2
SO3 0.1 0.4 4 MgO 0.26 2.68 10
K2O 0.05 0.4 8
Na2O 0.1 0.1 1
TiO2 0.02 0.2 10
P2O5 0.5 0.5 1
MnO2 0.02 0.05 3
Cl 0.005 0.015 3
The relative control capability is best with the major oxides of Ca, Si and Fe while for Al
is relatively lower due to it is strongly influenced by Fe, and analyzer designers should
improve the resolution of spectral capture.
While for minor elements, the relative control capability is very low however it can be
increased with longer integration times.
Below shows the neutron cross section (3in barns) of each element in comparison with
Gamma rays per 100 neutrons.
N-Gamma G-Rays per Barns X G´s Rel. Signal
Atomic No. Element Cross Section 100 per 100 strength
in Barns neutrons neutrons raw mix*
19 K 2.1 9.81 20.6 12.4

6.8
17 Cl 332 20.5 680.6
1.8
11 Na 0.4 22.18 8.87
18.9
13 Al 0.23 27.43 6.31
149.5
26 Fe 2.5 29.32 74.77
719.0
20 Ca 0.43 38.89 16.72
12 Mg 0.063 48.62 3.06 6.1
15.1
16 S 0.512 59.08 30.25
14 Si 0.16 62.69 10.03 130.4

N-Gamma Cross Section in Barns
100
33.2
10
2.1 2.5
1
0.4 0.23 0.43 0.512
K Cl Na Al Fe Ca Mg S Si
0.16
0.1
0.063
N-Gamma Cross Section in Barns
0.01
G-Rays per 100 neutrons

70
60 62.69
59.08
50
48.62
40
38.89
30
27.43 29.32
20 22.18
20.5 G-Rays per 100 neutrons
10
9.81
0
K Cl Na Al Fe Ca Mg S Si
Mg has a much smaller neutron cross section and therefore delivers performance which
may prove challenging to an operation with an MgO control issue due to the gamma
rays emitted per neutrons are normally depressed by the influence of some elements
like Si and Al, therefore the vendor’s guarantees must fit with the intended application.
Cl has relatively high neutron cross section and acts as a mild neutron poison, therefore
it can affect performance for the other oxides. The vendor can guarantee the detection
of very low Cl, around 0.005%, but if it is high (> 1%) Cl % in the materials it can
compromise results for the other elements. Also note that this character explains the
needs for low-Cl belt material.
K and Na despite of the very smaller neutron cross section, but the performance is very
low due to it has inherently weak signals that are interfered with by the stronger
elements.

4.1.3.3. PGNAA issues
As described above CBA by using PGNAA is a powerful technique for obtaining and
testing on-line elemental analysis of stream flow of bulk materials either it is wet of dry,
but it also has some issues or shortcomings that must be considered in the evaluation
of the performance on an existing system. In some cases the end user can do things to
minimize the effects of some of these issues.
Belt-load (kg/m) variations

The following graph shows repeatability versus conveyor loading (kg/m).
Note that the repeatability improves as Kg/m increases.
Density Effects
If the density of the material being analyzed changes significantly it can have an effect
on the neutronics, affecting the number and/or distribution of available neutrons that get
captured by the elements in the sample as well as the number of gamma rays that are
able to make it to the detector for analysis.
For example, different sources of iron ore, magnetite, pyrite, etc. or large moisture
variations could affect the density. To a large extent, the normalization routine in the
analysis software should compensate for density variations. In some analyzers,
(notably Sabia) tracking and review of the total-counts data can help to determine if
density variations occur.

Source Decay
Californium-252 is the isotope used to power the PGNAA reaction, unless the analyser
uses a neutron generator tube. It decays at about 2.15% per month as described
above. This decay affects the calibration of the Analyzer, both the gain and the offset.
To a great extent, the vendors of source-based systems include source-decay
compensation in their analysis routine to maintain accuracy. However, keep in mind
that no compensation can occur for loss of repeatability so the application design needs
to take into account repeatability performance at 24 to 30 months depending on the
expected source-replenishment period. Concerning accuracy, a prudent approach
would incorporate a check of the calibration from time to time, at least each six months.
The following shows a guarantee table provided by SABIA for 80Kg/m belt load
following the analyzer performance every 3 months in terms of repeatability versus
source strength up to 36 months (half life).
Table1 shows the one-standard deviation 10-minute Repeatability Guaranteed at
80Kg/meter versus the source age (in month).
Table2 shows the percentage of repeatability loss versus the source age (in months).
Source
Age Repeatability Guaranteed at 80Kg/meter
(Month)
SiO2 Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O SO3 Cl
0 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.17 0.07 0.17
3 0.155 0.045 0.18 0.28 0.281 0.034 0.176 0.047 0.176
6 0.16 0.045 0.185 0.289 0.288 0.034 0.183 0.075 0.183
9 0.174 0.045 0.146 0.299 0.299 0.034 0.189 0.075 0.189
12 0.179 0.045 0.194 0.309 0.31 0.034 0.195 0.047 0.195
15 0.184 0.05 0.204 0.318 0.317 0.038 0.201 0.079 0.201
18 0.189 0.05 0.146 0.328 0.328 0.038 0.208 0.084 0.208
21 0.194 0.05 0.214 0.342 0.338 0.038 0.214 0.084 0.214
24 0.203 0.055 0.194 0.352 0.349 0.041 0.22 0.047 0.22
27 0.208 0.055 0.194 0.362 0.364 0.041 0.227 0.089 0.227
30 0.213 0.055 0.238 0.376 0.374 0.041 0.233 0.093 0.233
33 0.218 0.06 0.248 0.386 0.385 0.045 0.246 0.098 0.246
36 0.223 0.06 0.253 0.4 0.4 0.045 0.252 0.098 0.252
Table1

% performance decrease due to Source decay
Month SiO2 Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O SO3 Cl
0
3 3.3 12.5 5.9 3.7 4.1 13.3 3.5 3.5
6 6.7 12.5 8.8 7.0 6.7 13.3 7.6 7.1 7.6
9 16.0 12.5 ‐14.1 10.7 10.7 13.3 11.2 7.1 11.2
12 19.3 12.5 14.1 14.4 14.8 13.3 14.7 14.7
15 22.7 25.0 20.0 17.8 17.4 26.7 18.2 12.9 18.2
18 26.0 25.0 ‐14.1 21.5 21.5 26.7 22.4 20.0 22.4
21 29.3 25.0 25.9 26.7 25.2 26.7 25.9 20.0 25.9
24 35.3 37.5 14.1 30.4 29.3 36.7 29.4 29.4
27 38.7 37.5 14.1 34.1 34.8 36.7 33.5 27.1 33.5
30 42.0 37.5 40.0 39.3 38.5 36.7 37.1 32.9 37.1
33 45.3 50.0 45.9 43.0 42.6 50.0 44.7 40.0 44.7
36 48.7 50.0 48.8 48.1 48.1 50.0 48.2 40.0 48.2
Table2
Thermo has also provided predicted CBA performance in terms of 10min static
repeatability test against the belt load (Kg/m) and the source life time as shown from
the below graph for CaO.
The following graphs show the 10-minute repeatability versus the belt load (Kg/meter),
and versus the source age at 80 Kg/meter for all elements.
Static Repeatability of CaO
0.70
0.60
10 min repeatability
0.50
source age
conveyor load
0.40
0.30
0.20
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33
months
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Kg per meter

Neutron Poisons
Neutron poisons are typically elements that have unusually large neutron capture
cross-sections. Examples are Chlorine, Boron, Gadolinium (Gd is an element that can
occur at high enough levels at some cement sites to cause some problems). If these
elements occur at high enough levels and vary significantly in day-to-day operation they
can cause problems with the performance.

Matrix effects
The Analyzer works by collecting and deconvoluting (turning the spectrum into a wt%
analysis) a gamma-ray spectrum every minute. The spectrum is a signal continuum
that represents up to 30 elements. Within the spectrum many of the elements overlap
and interfere with each other. There are many known strong interference relationships,
for example iron and aluminium. A big change in iron will often affect the aluminium
result. Many of the smaller weight percent elements like Al, Mg, Na, and K can be
dramatically affected by other elements. If the analyzer performance has been well
characterized with excellent dynamic data (this usually means multiple lab results on
data with a large elemental range) customers can often implement a multiple element
calibration. For example, if the relationship between iron and aluminium is understood
the aluminium calibration equation can include an iron correction term to enhance the
performance of aluminium.
Belt-load Geometry
The analytical environment varies according to the geometry of the belt load as
expressed as follows:
 Layered
 Transfer point (90 deg)
 Actively mixed
A fully mixed belt load is least likely to cause analytical drifts (for the reason discussed
earlier), however many layered and transfer-point (not mixed) plant environments
successfully use analyzers. The specifics of the material chemistry and moisture
contents determine the likelihood of problems with this issue. In some problematic
cases, compensations have successfully mitigated layering issues (Whitehall).
An example of the layering effect occurred in MANNERSDORF plant (referenced in Les
Cas/ Plant Experience) and indicates the LSF standard deviation and KFUI improved
by decreasing the layering effect as shown below from the attached illustration.

Gamma-Metrics Superimposed
Layers
Mix
on the belt
Conveyor
Standard deviation calculated on differences in LSF from FX and Gammametrics

analysis:
Type of mix / date Deviation LSF (FX / GM) St Dev LSF raw mix
Regular mix no. 1 1998 4.24 3.00
Regular mix no. 2 1998 3.33 3.46
Mix for 0 C3A 1998 4.27 3.18
March 1999 1.98 6.00
April 1999 2.57 2.48
May 1999 2.79 2.03
Plant KFUI:
Year KFUI Comments
1997 16.2 Start up GM and homo shut down
1998 22.4 Continuous operation with GM without homo
03/1999 19.3 First optimization step with GM without homo
04/1999 13.2 Further optimization steps
05/1999 9.5 System optimized
Weak Elements
Elements like Al, Mg, Na, and K have inherently weak signals with which the stronger
elements interfere. The performance of these elements can be enhanced with a high
precision detector, higher levels of source strength, and optimized detector response
sets.
See Appendix 8-6: Element detection with CBA

Tunnel opening
As smaller the subtended angle at the detector gets (as larger the distance between
material surface and detector gets) as worse the repeatability.
Detector
Detector
Subtended
Angle
Duration of Measurement
The longer the system can integrate the captured impulses; the better will be the
repeatability.
The shortest integration is for the one-minute analyses.
Performance guarantee for repeatability is based on an integration of 10 minutes.
The repeatability in standard-deviation terms improves by the square root of the
multiplication factor for the integration time up to one-hour integration.
Contamination
Depending on the analyzer design, belt spillages make result in residual extraneous
material inside the zone of analysis. If this potential exists, the plant should ensure that
analysis zone remains free of extraneous material.

4.2. Analyzer Selection
The section of an analyzer and the vendor depends on the business evaluation of the
quotations received and the confidence that the successful bidder can deliver as
expected. The criteria for evaluation include initial price, on-going expense,
performance under the application conditions and commitment by the vendor, service
response and level of assistance provided.
Essentially the bulk of Lafarge experience has occurred with Sabia, Sodern and
Thermo-Fisher (Thermo). Our limited experience with GeoScan aka Scantech at the
Alexandria plant had many negative aspects, thus this study does not include them.
The following matrix summarizes some aspects how the vendors stand:
Vendor Source Commitment/Service Price
Sabia Cf source only high commitment/good Typically lowest price

service
Sodern tube based only moderate medium to high price

commitment/good
service
Thermo source or tube variable service higher price
A key initial decision point relates to the source of neutrons. The decision of either tube
or Cf isotope limits the choice to two vendors either way. As a practical matter normally
a project will request quotes from all three vendors in order to explore pricing.
Some aspects of Cf isotope versus tube:
Cf Pro Cf Con Tube Pro Tube Con
Inherently 100% Decays Constant flux Can fail at any

reliable time
Always on “Wastes” neutrons Off when not

operating
Supply and Cf Depends on “Married” to

Maintenance government original supplier
competition reactors
Can be stored for Turned off for

maint in area maint in area
Tends to Cheaper Tends to Cheaper

for RM for Pile (1 op. shift)

The importation of both isotope and tubes requires significant permitting as well as the
site use.
While (mainly the tube supplier) tubes have rumoured performance benefits, Lafarge
has no clear evidence in this regard.
Our conclusion so far: certain sites may prefer tubes while others prefer isotopes. The
vendors will each present their case as convincingly as possible. The final selection for
a Lafarge project should depend on the business case for the alternatives.
Some guidelines/ generalities:

 Make sure that the business case includes the full project cost and DCF
(discounted cash flow analysis, to take into account operating costs and savings).
 Isotope systems inherently have a cost advantage for RM applications from an
operating-cost perspective, whereas the contrary applies for pile applications (one-
shift operations).
 Sabia is competing in the area of source supply and service of all isotope-based
systems; whereas once a plant buys a tube-based system they have no choice for
service (no competition).
The appendices have a technical comparison; the following page presents this
comparison.
See Appendix 8-1 Lafarge CBA technical comparison

CBA Comparison - October 2010
Criteria Thermo Gamma Metrics Sabia EADS - Sodern

Origin USA USA France
Number of installed equipment 472 90 70
Number of supplied equipment to Lafarge 28 7 3

Total ash, Si, Fe, Al, Ca, Mg, Na, S, Mn, Cu, Sn, Cl,
Elements detected Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, S, Na, K, Cl Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, S, Na, K, Ti, Mn, H, Cl
K, and Ti
Cl detection limit 2 to 3% 0.005% 0.5 to 1%
Minimum Material flow rate 40 Kg / m 40 Kg / m 30 Kg / m
Belt size 600 mm - 2200 mm 600 mm - 1800 mm 650 mm - 2000 mm
Shield Material Mixture of high hydrogen wax Bismuth, lead, high hydrogen wax Polyethelyn & Parofin wax - hydrogrn
Radiation level from 1 meter 2 micro sivert 2 micro sivert Standard 25 micro sivert / Medium 7.5 micro sivert
Neutron Source Californum source - CF 252 Californum source - CF 252 NEM - Neutrom Emmiting Module
Source weight 2 * 20 Micro grams 2 * 20 Micro grams
Source life time 2.6 year 2.6 year 12000 to 14000 hours and guranteed 6000 hours
Number of sources Min2 & Max6 Min 1 & Max 8 1
Detector type NaI NaI BGO
Number of detectors 2-4 1 or 2 or ? 1 or 2 or ?
40 40 30
Detector operation Temperature
Cooling for detector = No Cooling for detector = No Cooling for detector = Yes
Moisture Meter Option Option Option
Software Compatible with QMC, QCX, Polab, ….. QMC, QCX, Polab, ….. QMC, QCX, Polab, …..
PLC Yes Yes Yes
Signal Interface OPC Server, ModBus, ProfiBus,4 --20 ma OPC Server, ModBus, ProfiBus,4 --20 ma OPC Server, ModBus, ProfiBus,4 --20 ma
Remote Access Yes Yes Yes
Installation & Commissioning 3 Weeks 1 Week 2 Weeks
Training on site Included Included Included
Standard System Price ( 2 detectors &

Medium shield) Standard
300.000 to 550,000 USD
Shipment 6 Months 3 Months 3 Months
25% up on contract signature 60% up on contract signature 20% up on contract signature
Payment Term 30% on delivery 70% on delivery

75% on shipment
10% upon on-site acceptance 10% upon on-site acceptance
Maintenance Contract / year Cost = 42,000 USD Cost = 30,000 USD Cost = 10,000 Euro = 14000 USD
Recommednded spare parts package 47,000 without detector 70,000 including new detector 71,300 including new detector
Detector Price New detector Price = 70,000 Euro New detector Price = 40,000 Euro
10 micro grams = 21,000 USD 10 micro grams = 10,000 USD
20 micro grams = 27,500 USD / 30 months 20 micro grams = 14,500 USD / 30 months
Neutron Emitting Module = 35000 / Year Euro (without
Neuton source price
maintenance contract
30 micro grams = 33,750 USD
Delivery time for the source 6 to 9 Months 3 Months 1 Week
Liners Modules 23,0000 USD Not needed Yes
Control Panel
Detectors
The price comparison is given for 2010. Updated prices can be found in appendix and
in the frame agreement.

Recommendations recap
 Isotope-based versus Tube based:
 No proven performance difference exists, no practical safety difference exists,
isotope systems are fundamentally more reliable, and isotope supply appears
reliable although only two reactors produce it. We recommend choosing the
option best meeting project objectives based on performance guarantees and
investment and operating cost.
 The Zone experts should provide updates as needed concerning the outlook for
isotope supply and cost.
 The Zone experts should continue to compile relevant performance experience
to determine if a proven difference exists between tube and isotope methods.
 The Zone experts should design specific tests to support the above
investigation.
 Isotope-based vendors:
 Lafarge has acceptable experience with Sabia and Thermo. The choice should
depend on performance guarantees and investment and operating cost for a
particular project
 Tube-based vendors:
 Lafarge has acceptable experience with Sodern (Panalytical); Thermo recently
has offered “flex” systems. The choice should depend on performance
guarantees and investment and operating cost for a particular project.
 Bid comparison
 Each project should use a bid comparison table. Each Zone should share bid
comparison tables and develop a complete table template.
 Guarantees
 The project guarantees should include a static and dynamic method. The
project should ensure comparability by addressing the pertinent variables, for
example, specifying the time integration, belt loading, neutron source load /
flux.
 The Zone experts should develop a common request document to formulate
the pertinent variables.
 Service and support
 The plant should evaluate their local context (examples: criticality of application,
availability and proximity of service rep and plant capability to perform
maintenance and calibration) to determine the scope of the required service
contract. Scope examples: number of days available -- five or seven per week,
24-hr service availability, calibration assistance.

Thermo models.
 Upgrades
quotes.
 Normally the systems should last at least 10 years before requiring
upgrades
 Historically, most upgrades have converted the 1990’s analogue
technology to digital. Recently Thermo has announced lack of
support for the ASYS FSA and EBA and are marketing upgrades.
Plants should compare service and upgrade alternatives with
Sabia.
ASYS models.

5. Installation & Commissioning

This section addresses:
 Selection of the analyzer location (raw-mix logic aside) in terms of the effects on
analyzer performance,
 Mechanical Aspects and
 Project aspects
5.1. Analyzer location

Assuming that the analyzer performs reliably, communications work well and control
software and procedures work well, the primary cause of analytical drifts arises from
variations in the nature and presentation of the material on the belt – belt load and belt-
load geometry. That said the technology is inherently robust to variations in material
due to the penetrating nature of neutrons and relatively mild attenuation of the resulting
gamma rays.
Generally speaking the presumed problems arise from the variations of the distribution
of materials that either affect the neutron-flux field uniformity in the analysis zone,
attenuation of gamma rays (signal), or the signal-to-background ratio. The main causes
relate to variability of the position and distribution of high-moisture material and iron-rich
material as these affect the distribution of neutron interactions.
Unfortunately no hard-fast rules exist to guide the installation engineering. The project
must rely heavily on the vendor to provide guidance, but keep in mind that they do not
have always an exact answer and in any event the technical-centre expert should
validate the discussion. In effect the majority of installations have little or no
discernable problems with belt-load effects; however we have some exceptions. These
exceptions attract considerable attention and can prove challenging to resolve; in most
cases the plant and vendor eventually find a suitable set of procedures and/or physical
mitigating factors to make the project successful.
Procedural examples consist for example of rigorous calibration feedback to adjust
targets or the analyzer calibration. An example of a physical mitigation would consist of
belt ploughs to regulate the belt-load geometry.
In some cases the vendor has successfully implemented an analytical compensation
based on additional process inputs. This area in fact represents a potential for further
innovation.
The following discusses some general guidelines for analyzer installation:

5.1.1. Maximum belt loading
Maintain maximum belt loading to favour repeatability performance. The amount of

usable signal varies in proportion to the amount material on the belt, provided the bed-
load does not become sufficiently thick so as to attenuate gamma rays. The
manufacturer can provide guidance in this area and provide estimated performance at
various belt loads (examples in the following Section 6).
5.1.2. Belt-loading stability
A belt-loading-control loop (to maintain constant kg/m) favours dynamic accuracy.

Raw-mix control applications demand constant belt-load since they have a short
integration time (minutes) for continuous control; batch pile applications sometime do
not require this since they have a longer integration time for control (hours), provide the
belt tends to a constant average. In all cases though, constant belt load will favour
accuracy, so if possible install a scale and VFD on the analyzer belt.
5.1.3. Layering
A consistently well-mixed load, (no layering) favours consistent dynamic accuracy;

however layered materials can work in many cases, particularly when the layers don’t
change. In some cases of variable moisture or material type and amount, layering
compensation has yielded adequate performance.
In the case of Sugar Creek the analyzer works adequately with a layered presentation;
the plant occasionally has had to make target adjustments when introducing a new
material (changes the layering effect). In this case, plant calibration tracking procedures
mitigate the problem.
In the case of Whitehall the layering effects changes the calibration due to the rate and
moisture of a material; the vendor (Sabia) successfully developed a compensation
routine to reduce the effects on the analysis. The plant also monitors the dynamic
calibration carefully.
In the case of Mannersdorf the plant experienced unacceptable layering effects due to
material and moisture changes. The vendor (Thermo) tried to implement compensation,
based on the moisture-meter signal, with inadequate results. The plant developed a
plough system with better results (referenced in the prior section). Eventually the
installation of an in-line crusher led to complete material mixing and this gave the best
results.

5.1.4. Transfer points
Transfer points can lead to improved mixing of the belt load; however the resultant
mixture must maintain a consistent belt-load position and geometry. To avoid layering
problems some projects have expressly chosen an analyzer location to take advantage
of the mixing afforded by a transfer point. In some cases this has led to a successful
project. However, some of the most difficult cases to resolve have arisen from this
strategy.
In the case of Retznei, the plant has their analyzer installed after a 90-degree transfer.
The plant has not reported insurmountable effects on the dynamic calibration. They did
however install a “ski-jump” plate on the iron feeder belt to avoid “splotches” of iron on
the belt. We do not know with any certainty to what extent the installation must mitigate
iron splotches, however Retznei seemed to improve their results by reducing this effect.
In the case of Richmond, the transfer point tends to deposit the coarse and fine
materials on one side of the belt after the transfer point. While in the past, the coarse
material reported to the viewer’s left-hand side of the conveyor, one can see in the
following pictures that coarse material now favours the right -hand side. The
concentration of the coarse material affects the analysis since, depending on the
material contents, the alumina, silica and iron may change their distribution according to
the distribution of the various particle sizes.

In the Richmond case, the plant has installed a deflector plate at the transfer point and
this has led to the change of the material distribution. This action appears to have
reduced dynamic calibration shifts – this will require further monitoring and follow up.
This plate now becomes a key maintenance item as its wear can affect the material
distribution, leading to dynamic-calibration shift.
In the case of Harleyville, the wide variations of moisture content of the material
affected the distribution on the belt after the transfer point, leading to suspicion of
dynamic effects. However further investigation showed that the belt load (kg.m) varied
widely. Since the belt-load control depended on the sum of feeders and the marl feeder
was inaccurate, it was recommended to install a belt scale on the analyzer belt.
Stabilizing the belt load improved the dynamic stability, however the variations of
material positioning on the belt may still cause dynamic variations – this will require
follow up.
5.1.5. Tunnel height
The minimum tunnel height without undue risk of material striking the housing favours
repeatability performance. Of course the arrangement must always include protection
devices to remove oversize material from the belt and over-height detection to stop the
belt in time to prevent a collision if the protection fails. A belt with controlled constant
load can operate with a lesser nominal tunnel clearance. Several plants have
experienced excessive material collisions against the housing due to over height/
oversize material on the conveyor and/or having an analyzer designed with a tight
tunnel.
In the case of Davenport, the analyzer had a very tight tunnel in order to favour
repeatability performance (continuous control into a circular pile). Collisions caused
housing damage (belt speed running around 2 m/s). Les Cas/ Plant Experience has
several case histories from this project, including an inexpensive way to monitor the risk
of material collisions. Eventually the vendor had to raise the tunnel height about 10 cm
as no solution worked to adequately regulate surges from the crusher.
5.1.6. Recommendation Recap

 Maintaining maximum belt loading favours repeatability performance.
 A belt-loading-control loop (to maintain constant kg/m) favours dynamic accuracy.
 A consistently well-mixed load, (no layering) favours consistent dynamic accuracy;
however layered materials can work in many cases, particularly when the layers
don’t change. In some cases of variable moisture or material type and amount,
layering compensation has yielded adequate performance.
 Transfer points can lead to improved mixing of the belt load; however the resultant
mixture must maintain a consistent belt-load position and geometry. Risky or
problematic cases should have a camera system to monitor the belt-load geometry.

At-risk projects should investigate designing the transfer point to reliably yield a
favourable and consistent material presentation.
 The minimum tunnel height without undue risk of material striking the housing
favours repeatability performance. However, take care to determine the maximum
material height, to control the height and to install protection and over-height
detection devices. In case of doubt, install a monitoring system prior to actual
analyser installation.
5.2. Mechanical Aspects

The vendors provide thorough documentation and guidance for the various mechanical
aspects of analyzer installation and commissioning activities. The vendor will also
collect relevant information with an application questionnaire – the project must take
great care to completely and accurately provide data on the questionnaire. In general
the questionnaire should provide the foundation of the “request for quote” (RFQ) in a
well-organized project.
The mechanical aspect has changed over the years as the analyzer design has evolved
to make the system easier and less expensive to integrate into the conveyor system.
Key aspects include:
 Analyzer assembly
 Depending on the manufacturer, the integration of the analyzer assembly will
require 1-2 days to a week to mechanically integrate. It may require or at least
benefit from crane access. At-height installations likely require structurally
reinforcement, depending on the model selected. In any event the project
members need to well plan and schedule the work.
 Analyzer protection structure
 Modern designs require minimal protection from weather; however a simple
sunroof is usually advisable. In some cases a more elaborate building with
locked access may be needed or at least advantageous to prevent
unauthorized access.
 Slider Bed
 Some designs still have a slider bed, others do not. In cases with slider beds
the wear rate will depend heavily on correct belt alignment. This will greatly
affect operating cost.
 Radiation Sources and Source Cask
 The project needs to consider the correct storage aspect and delivery time of
the sources (isotope or tube). If ordered too early the strength wastes; ordered
too late, commissioning delayed.

 Reference Standards
 Plan for neat storage and easy access to the reference standards
 Conveyor Loading
 See above discussion
 Belt Alignment
 Misaligned belts can cause maintenance headaches and contribute to belt-load
geometry issues (see above).
 Vibration
 Excessive vibration can adversely affect electronic components, both in the
housing (the detectors and the electronics module.
 Material Height Control and detection
 Cases have occurred where mild to severe damage occurs to the housing due
to poor material-height control
 Electrical Panel
 Proper placement will make commissioning and service easier. In some cases
the arrangement need to mitigate dusty conditions. The Les Cas/ Plant
Experience has a relevant case from Joppa on this issue.
 Belt Composition
 The belt must not contain elements interfering with the analysis, notably
Chlorine and Iron. In particular variations in these elements will introduce
variations in the analysis. The vendors have clear guidelines in this regard.
 Mass-flow rate
 See the above discussion. The best results always come with a controlled belt
loading (kg/m).
 Electrical/ Network Interfaces
 The project team should take care to understand and specify network
interfaces. Some vendors include an OPC server in their system, others not.
All projects should ensure that the analyzer computer has network access and
a means for the vendor to connect by network to the computer to monitor the
performance and perform remote maintenance.
 Licensing
 The vendor will support the licensing process, but the plant or BU needs to
actually submit the documents and hold the permits. The project should pan for
this activity and ensure that it does not cause delays.
The Installation Appendix 8-3 includes details on the above aspects.

Analyzer with no shelter (Alpena).

5.3. Project Organization
A well-organized installation project will greatly improve the likelihood of smooth and
on-time implementation. The project should have an installation and commissioning
plan and project manager on the plant side and vendor side. They should develop and
monitor a project schedule and lead regular teleconferences with the plant, vendor and
Technical Centre Expert.
The project team should include the eventual sustaining Plant Champion.
The project plan and execution should ensure site preparations are in place before
arrival of the vendor’s commissioning technician.
Control automation should be included in the project. Analyzer data and status info
should be mapped into IP21 or equivalent to enable monitoring. The commissioning
plan should include verification of data integrity as mapped into plant systems and
control software.

6. Operation & Calibration

The plant needs to ensure that their analyzer operates reliably and with sufficient
accuracy to meet their business objectives. Accomplishing this goal involves actions
and procedures in several areas, essentially related to maintenance and calibration.
The following Section 7 addresses maintenance; this section addresses operation and
calibration.
6.1. General Considerations

A sustaining analyzer champion needs to coordinate the actions and procedures and
ensure that they work effectively. This may have a background in quality, process or
maintenance, but in any event needs sufficient authority in these areas to ensure that
the actions occur. They should also have in-depth training from the analyzer supplier to
understand their system and it requirements for success.
The key actions include definition of an SOP suite appropriate for their site. The SOP’s
should include site-specific calibration methods. The calibration methods comprise
both static and dynamic methods. Each site should a method to monitor the calibration
with readily available process variables in for example IP21 or equivalent.
Some sites should have a means to specifically monitoring belt-load conditions and
relevant indicators.
They should develop and implement a training plan for themselves and others involved
in the process, including the maintenance responsible and operators. The TC expert
can provide guidance in this area.
Establish Reliability Factor tracking / LERI (lab equip relative index).
Define, document and prepare backup procedures (control by alternate means to
They should endures the means to monitor analyzer status data in the control system,
IP-21 or similar.
Monitor and address alarm criteria (e.g. communications link, detector temperature) in
IP21 or similar and plant control system (Control Room).
The appendices and other Lafarge documentation (see On-line Analyzer e-library in
EASI Plus!) has examples of SOP’s.

6.2. Calibration
Introduction
Calibration strategies are application specific and may vary from one installation to
another depending on the available sampling, arrangement, feasibility of preparing
static samples, and accuracy requirements
The main approaches commonly used, dynamic and static have complementary, but
not identical purposes, thus the plant should have procedures for both.
6.2.1. Reference standards
The reference standards are used for static tests, including:

 Initial belt compensation
 Performance verification test
 Source replenishment benchmarks
 Conveyor belt changes and periodic checks
 Periodic calibration checks to verify basic analyzer function
Normally the manufacturer supplies 5 Reference standards which have a specific range
for each oxide (e.g. SiO2 4%-24%). The ‘middle’ standard is usually on target with the
chemistry of the raw material passing through the analyzer.

6.2.2. Plant-specific Standards
The plant can prepare one or more plant-specific calibration standards, the mass of
these standards should be sufficient to obtain the targeted belt load and therefore used
for static testing of a matrix containing the same elements as the production material.
Most plants with Thermo analyzers might have one or two plant-specific samples to
complement the factory standards. Thermo supplies the factory standards prepared
from pure materials. An exception is Richmond which has the original Thermo “boats”
in addition to local material in tubes. Plants with Sabia analyzers have all the reference
standards prepared from plant materials using appropriate recipes. Some Sodern
analyzers also use local materials for the reference.
The below picture shows a plant-specific standard sample comprised of 36 bags of 5 kg
each.
Example for plant-specific Standards: Each standard

comprising 36 bags of about 5 kg each. The standards were
analyzed and certified by XRF analysis
Recommendations and Key points

 Standards may consist of “artificial” or “local – plant specific” materials
 The standard’s packaging may be “boats”, tubes or sacks.
 Boats are robust and geometrically reproducible (placement repeatability) on
the belt but hard to handle
 Tubes are robust, easier to handle and fairly easy to geometrically reproduce
on the belt but have least representative load profile

 Sacks can have a very representative load profile and have placement flexibility
for tests but have the highest risk for non reproducible geometry
 The plant should have SOP for the reference standard use: to address safety,
placement repeatability, and data collection, processing, tracking and archiving
 The standards shall be stored close to the analyzer in a protected (from people,
dust and water) and shaded environment.
 The reference analysis of the standards must be kept on file where accessible to
those needing it and the standards well marked so as to not mismatch the analyses
and the standards run.
6.3. Static Testing
6.3.1. Static Accuracy Tests
The static accuracy test was based on factory concentration measurements obtained
on the standard samples supplied by manufacture or local materials and compared with
the results obtained on site, for which each standard was measured for a period of 1 h.
The deviations are expressed as Root Means Square Deviation (RMSD), which can
also be expressed as 1 sigma.
n
 x i  y i 2
RMSD  i1
n
Where: xi = factory value
yi = current value
n = number of standards
This is normally the “guaranteed” performance of the instrument and is strongly

dependant on the range for each oxide for which the instrument has been calibrated. A
large or wide range has higher guarantee numbers than a small range.
Conversely, a small range has lower guarantee numbers than a large range; a small
range is usually applicable for a raw-mill analyzer.
The RMSD given in the table below is connected with the range for each oxide.
Therefore in the table below the range should also be stated.

Two examples from ThermoFisher for different oxide ranges are given in the Tables
below:
Guaranteed Maximum RMSD Standard Range Notes 1&2

Oxide Range RMSD
SiO2 4,4% - 33,9% 0,26%
Al2O3 0% - 10,1% 0,35%
Fe2O3 0% - 10,7% 0,15%
CaO 18% - 53,5% 0,32%
MgO 0% - 7,1% 0,30%
K2O 0% - 3% 0,11%
Na2O 0% - 3% 0,22%
Note 1: Range of material composition in reference standards. Guarantees are a function of the range; a larger range will dictate a
larger guarantee. Conversely, a smaller range will dictate a smaller guarantee
Note 2: Root Mean Squared Deviation, one hour period
Guaranteed Maximum RMSD Extended Range Notes 1&2

Oxide Range RMSD
SiO2 1% - 92% 0,52%
Al2O3 0% - 20% 0,43%
Fe2O3 0% - 15% 0,18%
CaO 1% - 55% 0,45%
MgO 0,5% - 18% 0,48%
K2O 0% - 3% 0,16%
Na2O 0% - 3% 0,27%
SO3 0% - 3% 0,18%
Note 1: Range of material composition in reference standards. Guarantees are a function of the range; a larger range will dictate a
larger guarantee. Conversely, a smaller range will dictate a smaller guarantee
Note 2: Root Mean Squared Deviation, one hour period
Recommendation:
CBA performance should be verified as a minimum by static accuracy test
every 6 months by measuring one standard sample delivered by supplier or
by measuring a plant-specific standard. In cases of doubtful calibration
stability, the standards should be run each month or more often.
See Appendix 8-7: Static calibration
The other suppliers have similar procedures.
6.3.2. Static Repeatability Test
The static repeatability test is determined by measuring one standard sample for a
period of 5h = 300 minutes. The obtained 300 one-minute analyses are summarized in
blocks of ten-minute analyses, for every ten-minute block the average value for each

oxide is calculated and from the 30 average values, the standard deviation for each
oxide is computed.
The static repeatability performance is a function of the conveyor loading and for a
nominal tunnel opening. It also depends on the number (time in minutes) of analyses
collected - the longer the time, the lower the guaranteed repeatability. Normally the
Reference standard in the ‘middle’ of the range is inserted
The following list contains the major factors that affect repeatability.
 Conveyor Loading
 Neutron Source Strength
 Tunnel opening
 Duration of Measurement
 Neutron Cross Section & Gamma Production of the Elements
 Length of Measurement
 Detector Efficiency
Conveyor Loading
The Tables below show typical guaranteed values of Static Repeatability from
ThermoFisher versus belt loading
Belt Guaranteed Ten-minute Repeatability by Oxide Note 1
Load
Kg/m
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O
110 0,21 0,21 0,04 0,30 0,33 0,07 0,15
130 0,18 0,18 0,04 0,27 0,29 0,06 0,13
150 0,16 0,16 0,03 0,24 0,26 0,05 0,12
170 0,16 0,16 0,03 0,23 0,25 0,05 0,11
190 0,15 0,15 0,03 0,22 0,24 0,05 0,11
Note 1: The values apply for a nominal tunnel opening 313 mm and 38ug Cf source
Belt Guaranteed Thirty-minute Repeatability by Oxide Note 1

Load
Kg/m
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O
110 0,12 0,12 0,03 0,18 0,19 0,04 0,09
130 0,10 0,10 0,02 0,15 0,17 0,03 0,08
150 0,10 0,10 0,02 0,14 0,15 0,03 0,07
170 0,09 0,09 0,02 0,13 0,14 0,03 0,07
190 0,09 0,09 0,02 0,13 0,14 0,03 0,06
Note 1: The values apply for a nominal tunnel opening 313 mm and 38ug Cf source

Neutron Source Strength
As noted in section 4, neutron-source strength, while compensated, can affect
accuracy. A static test can verify that the has not shifted or that the vendor needs to
make adjustments. Tube-based systems should not have this issue, however may also
benefit from an occasional static test.
Recommendation:
CBA performance verification should be conducted every six months by static
repeatability test
See Appendix 8-7: Static calibration
The other suppliers have similar procedures.
6.4. Dynamic Testing
6.4.1. Dynamic Calibration (bias correction)
Dynamic calibration refers to comparison of analyzer data obtained while the belt runs
versus some independent sampling and analysis method. The samples may come
directly of the same material, but more often will come from another sampling point in
the process and may or possibly not represent precisely the same material and have
time delays between the analyzer data and reference samples.
The dynamic calibration generally encompasses the operating performance of the

analyzer in terms of its value for control purposes. In these terms, two main classes of
factors affect the dynamic calibration:
 The analyzer hardware and software
 Electronics
 Detectors
 Software
 Environmental Conditions
 Belt load (kg/m)
 Material geometry – layering, positioning
 Belt materials and other background

Note that the static calibration/monitoring discussed earlier normally can detect issues
with the first class of factors: Hardware and Software, however only the dynamic
calibration/monitoring can detect issues with the Environmental Conditions.
From a practical standpoint, the results of a dynamic comparison also include a third
factor – the error due to the reference measurement used. The evaluation of the
results should take these errors into account and test protocol needs to control these
errors to a tolerable level.
Most commonly the dynamic calibration will adjust only the offset between the
reference and the CBA, however a data set with sufficient points and having good
correlation between methods can allow a gain correction as well. Sufficient would
generally mean 20 to 30 points of comparison.
The project contractual guarantees may include a dynamic test and calibration. The
plant should also have a means to track the analyzer’s dynamic performance and
perform a more detailed test at such time as the tracking method indicates the need to
do so.
The methods used and issues encountered vary somewhat between stockpile and raw-
mix applications. However common issues include:
 Take care to manage bias in the reference methods -- the plant control plan needs
to have coherence between analytical systems and control targets.
 Understand possible conditions affecting the dynamic calibration and reduce their
effects during the calibration tests.
 If these conditions change at a later date, then run another dynamic calibration test
 In general, CBA measures coarse materials; generally > 3-cm top size, often 10 cm
or even coarser, thus direct sampling from the belt would require increments with
masses of 25 kg – 250 kg or more.
 The CBA integrates the chemistry for the entire time period defined and integration
time for each dynamic point of reference typically = 1 hour. The reference method
must thus obtain a composite sample to represent the entire comparison mass.
 The ranges of calibration should be adjusted to fit the intended use of the analyzer.
 Generally a larger range in the calibration adversely affects repeatability and
standard error. However in some cases, the manufacturer has the ability to
implement a multiple calibration (either with a manual or automatic trigger). This
can allow for a greater range without degrading the standard error.
 The normal method to quantify the difference from reference to analyzer uses the
RMSD (root mean square deviation) = the average of the squared differences
between the reference and the analyzer; this average to the square root. A
“standard error” calculation can also be used.
 The criteria for judging the results depends on experience in the particular plant
conditions; clearly however the original system guarantee can give some guidance
for the analyzer accuracy under dynamic conditions,

 The dynamic comparison will not likely result in a better statistic than the static test
– the dynamic test has considerably more potential for errors in the reference data,
 A calibration monitoring scheme can indicate when a drift has occurred and another
dynamic calibration required.
6.4.2. Stockpile Dynamic Testing
The case of stockpile monitoring/control the dynamic testing presents challenges in

terms of available sampling points. The following lists some options:
 Back calculation from Raw-mix chemistry adjusted for additives dosed at the mill
 Comparison to a sampling tower
 Crash stop belt and sample belt load
 Obtain dynamic samples from belt
6.4.3. Back calculation from Raw-mix chemistry adjusted for additives

dosed at the mill
The on-line analyzer accuracy is verified by back calculating the composition of the
stockpiles using the raw meal composition and subtracting the proportion of the
correctives (Limestone and clay, sand …etc). The bias between the values given by the
CBA and the results obtained from the back-calculation will be established by analyzing
a certain quantity of stockpiles (in most cases 5 stockpiles), taking into consideration
that the dynamic accuracy based any given data point may have considerable error.
The performance of this comparison presents several challenges and should consider
the following factors:
1. Only one comparison can be made for each stockpile, thus requiring months of
data collection in order to achieve statistical significance.
2. The CBA and the raw meal sampler are not presented with the same material.
The raw meal sampler receives all the “correctives” from the raw mix
proportioning which did not pass through the CBA. The XRF results must be
corrected mathematically for the composition of the correctives.
3. This may require sampling each corrective stream several times per shift, for
several months.
4. The XRF analysis of the raw meal sample must properly account for the lot of
the raw material. Keep in mind that the analyser data consists of a continuous
integration of the material chemistry; the samples will always consist of
increments from this lot and the test protocol must ensure sufficient number of
increments to have adequate representation of the “lot”.
5. All of the other drawbacks associated with the raw-meal sampler mentioned
earlier still apply.
The RMSD of each oxide is computed and the analyzer adjusted, provided the data
shows a bias, by the supplier or locally if capable.

6.4.4. Comparison to a sampling tower
In some retrofit cases the plant may have a sampling tower available. In these cases
the dynamic calibration may use a direct comparison between the tower hourly
composite samples and hourly analyzer averages. Since in several ways this
resembles the method used for raw-mill-sample calibration, refer to that section for
more details.
Particular issues to consider include:
 Take particular care with sample preparation and analysis (fused bead
recommended)
 Review the sampling tower design and maintenance to ensure that it takes
accurate and repeatable samples.
 In most cases we find that the tower has some bias issues (all the more likely if the
plant plans to replace it with a CBA); in these cases, the calibration sampling may
potentially use a special protocol designed to correct tower’s problem temporarily.
 A validation may be possible by using another method to cross-check the dynamic
samples, e.g. that described in the above section or comparison with blast-hole
samples for the piles tested. The validation may be used for example, to detect a
bias for one or more oxides.
6.4.5. Crash stop belt and sample belt load
In the case where the plant can crash stop the belt and preserve the dynamic condition
of the material, then a complete sample of the material can provide the basis of a
reference analysis by XRF. Few plants have tried this method, as it requires
substantial effort; however a least one successful case occurred at Exshaw.
6.4.6. Obtain dynamic samples from belt
In this case the plant has a means to obtain samples from the moving belt; a transfer
point may provide this opportunity. Keeping in mind that each data point in the
calibration must represent 30-minutes to one-hour of material and with five to ten
increments required of at least 25-kg each (for 2cm stone), the scope of this procedure
becomes very large. For plants having 10-cm rock or greater on the belt the increment
size becomes extremely problematic (apprx. 200 kg).
Clearly the sample-collection and sample preparation methods need to respect
sampling rules (see L.O., Two Golden Rules of Sampling). In addition, each
circumstance requires a careful risk assessment and critical look at the means for
obtaining the sample increments from an operating conveyor system.
The data treatment for this method resembles that used for a sampling-tower reference.

6.4.7. Raw-mix Dynamic Testing
In the case of raw-mix proportioning control by CBA at mill inlet, we can generally use
the post-mill raw-mix sampler and analysis by XRF as the reference data. Particularly
in cases where certain factors may degrade the comparison, use of a calculated raw
mix as a second comparison can add value to the calibration project. In order to ensure
the correct range of calibration, the test method should include “feeder bumps”. This
means that the test will prescribe a variety of raw-material feed settings to obtain
various combinations of raw-mix chemistry.
In the case of raw-mix proportioning control by CBA at mill inlet, the following includes
some complicating factors:
 The errors associated with the system of raw meal sampling, sample preparation
and XRF analysis
 The time delay from the CBA to the raw-meal sampler may vary according to
material type and re-circulating load, making it challenging to adequately
synchronize the analyzer analysis time with the raw-meal sample time.
 Intervening dust streams between the CBA and the raw-meal sampler reduce the
equivalence of the lot of material which the CBA and sampler each measure
6.4.8. Example Procedure
With QMC controlling and stable feeder operation, begin sampling for one hour. The
average feed rate percentages, during this time, become the baseline. Stop raw-mix
software control. Manually step feeders, guided by table 1, to the percent increments
from baseline for sequence #1. Continue sampling throughout all sequences. Maintain
each sequence for one hour. Then step feeders to the setting for the next sequence #2.
Note, all settings are departures from baseline, they are not cumulative. Repeat
process though all nine sequences.
Sequences #3,#6, and #9 return to baseline percentages. After thirty minutes, check
the CBA analysis rolling average to judge, if the baseline is near criteria set points. If
acceptable, continue next round of deltas using same baseline. If not, then make
adjustment to baseline and apply deltas.

Table 1. Sequence Listing
Sequence % Marl Iron Ash Sand C3S C3A Fe2O3
1 1.53 -0.03 0.06 -1.56 + 0 0
2 -1.15 0.02 -0.05 1.18 - 0 0
3 – Baseline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1.79 0.21 -3 0.99 + - 0
5 -1.32 -0.14 1.93 -0.47 - + 0
6 – Baseline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 1.02 0.95 -0.59 -1.39 + - +
8 -0.3 -1.24 -0.6 2.13 - + -
9 – Baseline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Samples analyzed using fused bead preparation.

To obtain 20 to 30 comparison points (advisable if gain corrections desired), the
“recipes” can be repeated or other combinations calculated. If the normal operation
and control results in a variable signal, then the plant can supplement the data set with
production samples provided that they obtain the reference samples correctly.
6.4.9. Dynamic Monitoring
The dynamic relationship between the analyzer and reference may shift quickly or
slowly over time. The plant should have a method to monitor the calibration
relationship versus a production reference.
For raw-mix analyzers, a reference to clinker, if possible adjusted for other inputs, can
serve this purpose. A trend of hypothetical raw mix calculated from estimated material
chemistry can add insight as well.
For stockpile analyzers, the back-calculated pile chemistry can work as described in the
calibration section. The use of a spreadsheet polling data from IP21 or other historian
can provide the basis of this calculation on a semi-automatic basis.
The following simple example shows a graph from Exshaw. In this case they track the
MgO in kiln feed versus average pre-homo-pile MgO as a ratio. In their case MgO
plays an important role in pile control and the MgO content of materials added at the
mill does not vary too much. Changes in this ratio can indicate a drift of the calibration
if gradual or a particular incident in more abrupt cases.
The deviations of the ratio exhibit a “statistical” behaviour thus each site should develop
a “control chart” method based on for example SPC or Shift-away in order to detect
drifts requiring corrective action

2010 MgO - Ratio KF vs. Gamma
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Pile #
MgO Ratio - KF10/Pile MgO Ratio - KF50/Pile
Recommendation:
It is recommended to have a means to continuously monitor the dynamic
calibration. In the case that the monitor shows an anomaly or other problems
occur, possibly caused by a drift of the dynamic calibration or a specific
condition occurs that could shift the dynamic calibration, then a calibration test
should take place, based on the above methods.
For pile systems, see Appendix 8-8

6.4.10. Recommendations Recap
 Define SOP suite appropriate for each site. The SOP’s should include:
 Site-specific calibration methods
o Static
o Dynamic
 Site-specific calibration monitoring procedures;
 Monitoring belt-load conditions and relevant indicators if applicable.
 Define requirements and implement training for site champions, maintenance
responsible and operators.
 Establish Reliability Factor tracking / LERI (lab equip relative index).
 Define, document and prepare backup procedures (control by alternate means to
 Monitor analyzer status data in IP-21 or similar.
 Monitor and address alarm criteria in IP21 or similar and plant control system
(Control Room) including connection to control software.

7. Maintenance

7.1. Introduction
Preventive maintenance is a schedule of planned maintenance actions aimed at the
prevention of breakdowns and failures. The primary goal of preventive maintenance is
to prevent the failure of equipment before it actually occurs. It is designed to preserve
and enhance equipment reliability by replacing worn components before they actually
fail.
Preventive maintenance activities include equipment checks, partial or complete
overhauls at specified periods. In addition, operators can record equipment parameters
so they know to replace or repair worn parts before they cause system failure or effect
system performance.
7.2. Value of Preventive Maintenance

Without preventive maintenance, for example, costs for lost production time from
unscheduled equipment breakdown will be incurred. Also, preventive maintenance will
result in savings due to an increase of effective system service life.
Long-term benefits of preventive maintenance include:
 Improved system reliability.
 Decreased cost of replacement.
 Decreased system downtime.
 Better spares inventory management.
The core mission of this equipment in the plant’s control scheme typically leverages the
costs associated with downtime as the attendant increase in chemical variability tends
to increase the downtime and maintenance costs of major plant equipment, particularly
the kiln.
For the analyzer to function properly it depends on several subsystems, thus
maintenance applies to the analyzer and its electronics as well as related
communications, belt-load control, impact protection plows and over-height sensors.
Therefore the maintenance considerations must address these systems as well.
The maintenance planning schedule for the plant should include these systems. At

While the plant has a significant direct involvement in several aspects of analyzer and
sub-system maintenance, certain aspects are extremely specialized, for example the
detector and related electronics thus the vendor or qualified third party must service
them. In addition, the cost of replacement of detectors, around $70,000 if done under
parts and service terms, means some financial risk exists; the maintenance contract
alleviates this risk, since it covers detector replacement. To ensure prompt response
and availability of service, the plant should have a service contract. The plant should
assign an annual budget for the maintenance contract.
According to decay rate of Cf isotope, the plant should assign budget for source
replenishment no less frequently than every 2.6 years (30 months) and start
replenishment procedure as often as every 2 years if needed by control requirements.
Tube-based systems should have an effective contract in place and back-up tube
As the analyzer equipment key elements consist of electronic, software and computer
equipment, the system will become obsolete within approximately 10 years. Ideally the
maintenance contract may cover a certain amount of upgrade possibilities, perhaps for
software and computers. However the suppliers have historically charged extra for all
upgrades. In any event the plant should develop an equipment sustainability plan to
avoid obsolescence – upgrade schedule based on negotiations and quotations from
main suppliers.
The maintenance contract should also have response times in line with the site
requirements and provide assistance with calibration calculations and implementation.
The keys to optimal maintenance thus consist of a complete PM plan for plant
responsibilities, including all subsystems as well an effective maintenance contract,
ideally with terms covering upgrades, contact response times appropriate for the site
and calibration assistance.
The following section addresses many specific maintenance items for monitoring by the
plant.

7.3. Presentation of TA CBA Maintenance Appendix
The TA CBA Maintenance Appendix contains many details concerning maintenance
issues based on experience with Thermo-Fisher analyzers. The concepts generally
apply to ASYS, Sabia and to some extent, Sodern products as well.
The topics covered include:

 Preventive Maintenance
 Daily works by shift operator
 Weekly Maintenance
 Monthly Maintenance
 Three Months Maintenance
 Six Months Maintenance
 Two Years Maintenance
See Appendix 8-4: CBA Maintenance
7.4. Corrective Maintenance for Thermo Gamma Metrics

(Troubleshooting Guide)
1. Start up procedure
2. Eight steps for Start up programs consisting of:
3. Communication Check – Status Screen
4. Communication Check Via Anacomm
5. Communication Check - Com Port
6. Communication Check Via Remote Video
7. Communication Check – Modem (IPM Panel)
8. Communication Check – PLC (IPM Panel)
9. Communication with – IPM Panel

10. LDStone Backup – IPM Panel
11. Detectors Heating System Check
12. Detectors Spectra

Each vendor supplies maintenance and troubleshooting documentation. The
Appendices also contain some examples of these materials. A plant should ensure that
their system manuals are available, accessible and well understood by the site
Champion, and Maintenance responsible.
See Appendix 8-8-1: Davenport Instructions for dynamic calculations, which
gives a troubleshooting-guide example from a plant.
Recommendations Recap
 Maintenance applies to the analyzer and its electronics as well as related sub-
systems, such as communications, belt-load control, impact protection ploughs and
over-height sensors.
 The maintenance planning schedule for the plant should include these systems. At
 All CBA systems must be covered with maintenance contract. Assign annual
budget for maintenance contract.
 Potentially the contract covers, for example:
o Monthly remote system evaluation and report,
o Phone assistance (24/7 or 8/5),
o Parts replacement,
o On-site service calls if needed,
o Bi-annual site visits for PM and radiological requirements,
o Calibration assistance
o Vehicle for computer and software upgrades.
 For a given plant, the optimum scope and terms of the contract should be
determined with the assistance of the Technical Centre Experts
 Assign budget for source replenishment no less frequently than every 2.6 years (30
months) and start replenishment procedure as often as every 2 years if needed by
control requirements.
 Tube-based systems shall have an effective contract in place and back-up tube
 Develop an equipment sustainability plan to avoid obsolescence – upgrade
schedule based on negotiations and quotations from main suppliers.

Thermo models.
 Upgrades
quotes.
o Normally the systems should last at least 10 years before requiring
upgrades
o Historically, most upgrades have converted the 1990’s analogue
technology to digital. In 2011 Thermo has announced lack of support for
the ASYS FSA and EBA and are marketing upgrades. Plants should
compare service and upgrade alternatives with Sabia.
ASYS models.

8. Appendix

8.1. Lafarge CBA technical comparison
Printable A3 table mentioned in Chapter 4.2.
8.2. Lafarge CBA list 2012
8.2.1. Printable A3 table mentioned in Chapter 3.8
8.2.2. CBA Division dashboard 1: CBA Lafarge repartition per TC
8.2.3. CBA Division dashboard 2: CBA Lafarge repartition
8.3. CBA installation

This Appendix explain in details the points mentioned in Chapter 5
8.4. CBA maintenance

The TA CBA Maintenance Appendix contains many details concerning maintenance
issues based on experience with Thermo-Fisher analyzers. The concepts generally
apply to ASYS, Sabia and to some extent, Sodern products as well.
8.5. Radiation safety manual
8.5.1. Controlled Neutron Analyzer, Sodern CAN – GEN III – Safety

instructions (EADS Sodern)
8.5.2. Radiation protection program, ThermoFisher scientific, 2007
8.5.3. CBXTM Radiation safety manual, Thermo Electron Corporation,

2003

8.5.4. ASYSTM Elemental belt analyzer (EBA) and Full stream analyzer
(FSA), Radiation safety manual, Analyser Systems Inc, 2004
8.5.5. Controlled Neutron Analyzer Sodern CANTM evolution – User

manual
8.6. Element detection with CBA
8.6.1. On-line Prompt Gamma Neutron Activation Analyzers, R.J.

Proctor, 1999
8.6.2. The history and future of nuclear elemental analyzers for product
optimization in the cement industry, S. Foster (SABIA), J. Bond
(CTS). Conference Record. IEEE, 9–14 April 2006
8.7. Static calibration

Static calibration procedure, ThermoFisher Scientific
8.8. Dynamic calibration
8.8.1. Instructions for Dynamic Calculations – Lafarge, Davenport Plant

(USA) – 2011 gives an example from a plant with circular pile and
pile model for inferential comparison versus raw-mill data
8.8.2. Dynamic evaluation of a thermo Gamma-Metrics on-line analyzer,

General procedures for manual sampling, Thermo Gamma-
Metrics
8.8.3. Dynamic calibration – Phase 2 – Data collection procedure

Gamma-Metrics on-line analyzers, ThermoFisher Scientific
8.8.4. Dynamic calibration – Verification Evaluation procedure

8.9. Other references
File
Name Source Author
#
ON line control or raw mix case of Retznei manuscript CTEC technical B.Köck, G.Miklau
A003 Lafarge CTEC
meeting Retznei 1998 03.09.98
A004 Trouble shooting CB GN Lafarge CTS

TSG_ATC600_CLB_061106_OLA_DynamicGuarantee_Calculation_
A005 Lafarge CTS
procedure
A006 SODERN Analyzer Bouskoura Plant Lafarge CTEO JC Angulo
A007 KFUI Improvement via Cross Belt Analyzer Lafarge CTEC A. Ebenschweiger
A008 STANDARD Elemental Belt Anlyzer EBAPROPOSAL for ASYS ASYS
A010 Performance Verification of Gamma #2 to SABIA Electronics SABIA
MIXING OF THE RAW MIX COMPONENTS ON THE BELT Lafarge

A011 DRECHSLER W.
UPSTREAM OF THE GAMMAMETRICS Mannersdorf
A Report on the Findings of an Audit Performed by NISCO on the

A012 1812SL Nuclear Elemental Analyzer in use at the LaFarge Paulding SABIA
Cement Plant
A013 Initial Review of Static Precision Data NISCO CABIA
Claude
A014 Dynamic Accuracy Test of On-line analyzer at Okke Plant Lafarge ATC
Bellehumeur
A017 Example CBX Accuracy Test -Joppa Plant -Raw MIll1 Lafarge NA CTS
A018 Example CBX Accuracy Test -Joppa Plant -Raw MIll2 Lafarge NA CTS
A019 Dynamic Data Collection Format Thermo Fisher
SABIA® X1 Series Analyzer Operation and Maintenance Manual SABIA

A020 Revision 2
A021 Detctors for online PGNA anlysis Gamma Metrics
Operating Experience with on line analyzer for automatic raw mix
Gamma Metrics
A022 control
A023 On-line Prompt Gamma Neutron Activation Analyzers - Handbook Gamma-Metrics
A027 Vortrag VDZ_EM version english 2003 VDZ
A028 GAMMAMETRICS ANALYZER – Plant Experience Les Cas 032-04 Lafarge CTS
NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS OF THE RAW MATERIALS ON
A029 Lafarge SPLC
BELT -Les Cas 053-04
ACCURACY OF THE NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS ON BELT
A030 – Plant Experience Les Cas 053-05 Lafarge SPLC
CLINKER SAMPLING FOR GAMMADENSITOMETRY - Les Cas 059- Lafarge Val
A031
13 d’Azergues
RAW MIX CONTROL LOGIC (GAMMAMETRICS vs. METOREX)-
A032 Plant Experience Les Cas 075-02 Lafarge PLN
A033 Performance Guarantees for Pre Blend - Limits Lafarge CTC
A034 Sodern - CBA Form for Manufacture Survey - Rev2Sodern Lafarge CTC
A035 System Administrator Guide ASYS

A036 Installation Guide ASYS
A037 User Manual ASYS
A041 Maintenance_and_Service Sodern
A042 Site_preparation_and_installation Sodern
A043 System_Operating_Sodern Sodern
A044 Radiation Safety Training01.07 Thermo Fisher
A045 Thermo GM_CBX_O&M Thermo Fisher
A046 Thermo GM_CBX_SitePrep Thermo Fisher
A047 Biological Effects of Radiation Thermo Fisher


Cross Belt Analyzer Technical Agenda Study v1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross Belt Analyzer Technical Agenda Study v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bi Technical

Network : Raw Mix

Cross Belt Analyzer

April 2012 – Version 1.0

© Copyright 2012 Lafarge – Internal use only.

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 2/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 3/103

We want to thank all contributors, and in particular:

Jacques Denizeau Lionel de Lumley

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 4/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 5/103

b) Organization: Lafarge needs to increase formalized

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 6/103

 Isotope-based versus Tube based:

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 7/103

e) Analyzer Installation and Commissioning

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 8/103

f) Operation and Calibration

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 9/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 10/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 11/103

4. Analyzer Performance and Selection ______________________________ 49

5. Installation & Commissioning ____________________________________ 69

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 12/103

6. Operation & Calibration _________________________________________ 78

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 13/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 14/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 15/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 16/103

1.2. Analysed Elements

Indirect Analysis - Coal:

Indirect Analysis - Cement:

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 17/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 18/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 19/103

2.2. Cross Belt Analyzer Radiation (Isotope Neutron

EBA Cross-Sectional View

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 20/103

Inspecting the CBA tunnel daily

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 21/103

Maximum Time at EBA Tunnel Opening Allowed by Regulations.

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 22/103

1m = 96 mR/h 0.5m = 384 mR/h 0.25m = 1536 mR/h

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 23/103

2.4.1. Radiation Safety for Neutron-generator-type instruments

Dose rates when the neutron generator is ON:

2.4.2. Neutron Emitting Module handling

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 24/103

2.4.3. Electrical Hazard

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 25/103

2.4.4. Source Leakage Test

Contamination is defined as the presence of radioactive material where it is not wanted.

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 26/103

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 27/103

3.2. Decision to Install an Analyzer

Assessment for No interest of Potential High interest of Prerequisite

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 28/103

Avoid sampling No sampling tower No sampling No sampling Drilling chips analysis,

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 29/103

3.3. PGNAA versus Alternatives

Some other PGNA developments include:

Technical Agenda Study - Cross-belt Analyzer v1.0 Page 30/103

Code Class Description Material Analyzer Use Example Comments

L Raw Monitoring raw- Raw CBA Hypothetical Could reduce contamination