Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Strategy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/esr

A decision support tool for cement industry to select energy

efficiency measures
Alireza Mokhtar a, *, Mohsen Nasooti b
a
The United Nations Consultant in Energy Management Systems, Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering Department, Shiraz University of Technology, Modarres
Blvd., Shiraz, Fars, Iran
b
Graduate from Industrial Engineering Department, Shiraz University of Technology, Modarres Blvd., Shiraz, Fars, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cement industry is one of the most energy intensive industrial sub-sectors. It accounts for almost 15% of the total
Cement industry energy consumed by manufacturing. Numerous energy efficiency initiatives and measures have been introduced
Energy efficiency and employed in this industry. To implement the most appropriate solutions for a certain cement plant, both
Decision support tool
technological and non-technological constraints need to be considered. To date, researchers have focused on
Energy management
outcomes such as energy savings, investment and emission reduction and therefore, both qualitative criteria and
current circumstances of the plant have been largely overlooked. In this study, an integrated 3-phase model is
presented to address these shortcomings and assist the plant managers to select and invest in the most suitable
projects. The proposed tool, which is founded on a multi-criteria decision model, will assist the cement managers
in achieving their energy saving targets. The tool is tested for 3 cases showing its applicability with real data
resulting in the ranked list of opportunities for each of the plants.

1. Introduction commercialized retrofitting projects which aim to reduce energy con­

The cement market plays a central role in economic growth of
developing nations. This contribution can be demonstrated by the added
value of the cement production to the national domestic production and
job opportunities [29]. Demand for cement in construction drives pro­
duction and without hindrance on the demand side, the cement pro­
duction is expected to grow steadily. Within the last decade, annual
production has risen rapidly and soared to 3.4 billion tones [1,2].
Manufacturing cement requires energy intensive processes; and
consumes almost 15% of the total demand for energy in industry [3]. On
average, to produce one ton of cement, 3.4 GJ of thermal energy (in dry
process) and 110 kWh of electrical energy are needed [4,5]. Further­
more, manufacturing a ton of cement releases 0.73–0.99 tons of CO2 [6]
which primarily depends on the clinker-to-cement ratio and other fac­
tors. Unlike many other industries, energy consumption is not the
dominant driver of CO2 emissions, in turn over 50% of the emissions are
the result of the calcination process, wherein calcium carbonate is
cracked into lime and carbon dioxide.
Recent achievements in this industry have focused on improving
energy efficiency whilst trying to maintain the quality and capacity of
production. As such there are a wide variety of introduced and
sumption and CO2 emission. These technologies could be classified into
four groups as follows:
1.1. Energy efficient technologies
Due to shortage of fossil fuels sources, emerging technologies for
energy conservation have become more noteworthy. Today, a wide
variety of such technologies is being employed worldwide; these mea­
sures include transportation systems of product and raw materials, high-
efficiency roller mills, high-efficiency classifiers, high pressure roller
presses, multi-stage pre-heater with pre-calciner, reciprocating great
coolers, high efficiency electric motors, adjustable speed drives, and
improved refractories [7–10].
1.2. Product and feedstock modification
Beside technological improvements, the composition of raw mate­
rials and the final product may also influence energy consumption. As
shown in Fig. 1 after the crushing process, pre-blending and grinding,
the raw materials are calcined to produce the semi-final product called
clinker. The calcination process uses approximately 24% of the total

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mokhtar@sutech.ac.ir (A. Mokhtar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100458
Received 24 November 2016; Received in revised form 18 December 2019; Accepted 15 January 2020
Available online 8 February 2020
2211-467X/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti
Fig. 1. Energy consumer flow diagram of cement manufacturing.
electrical and 38% of the total thermal energy in a typical cement fac­
tory [11,12]. Decreasing clinker-to-cement ratio by replacement sub­
stitutes such as blast furnace slag and pozzolana may substantially
reduce the energy required [7]. Manufacturing low alkali and limestone
cements are alternatives to reduce the required thermal energy [13].
1.3. Alternative fuels and recovering energy measures
Conventionally, coal and petro-coke have been the most common
fuels in cement plants [14]. Since these fossil resources are precious and
barely renewable, five alternatives are introduced [15] as below:
i. Gaseous alternative fuels such as refinery waste gases and landfill
gases.
ii. Liquid alternative fuels, e.g. used hydraulic oils.
Fig. 2. Decision making scheme for prioritizing the measures.
2
Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458
iii. Pulverized and granulated solid alternative fuels, such as sawdust
and granulated plastic.
iv. Coarse-crushed solid alternative fuels, like crushed tires.
v. Lumpy alternative fuels such as plastic bales.
The chemical reactions in producing clinker require a high temper­
ature heating 1500 � c to be supplied by the kiln burners [11]. A
remarkable amount of the heat which is wasted in the cooler and
released to the air from the stacks could be recovered for reuse or for
power generation [16–18].
1.4. CO2 emission reduction systems
Although almost all of the energy efficiency measures implicitly help
reduction of CO2 emission, some measures have been implemented
specifically to mitigate the GHGs (Green House Gases) [19]. Most of
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti
Fig. 3. The three-phase proposed model.
these measures such as CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) are not
generally cost effective except in countries having significant emission
taxes [20].
In the literature, technical characteristics like process specification,
capacity enhancement, energy savings, CO2 emission reduction and
quality enhancement have been attributed to each measure. In a
comprehensive study, Worrell et al. gathered and classified energy ef­
ficiency measures for the cement industry [21]. In their study, some
quantitative indicators were recognized such as required investment,
3
Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458
payback period as well as energy savings and CO2 emission reduction
[22]. Emerging energy efficiency and CO2 emission reduction technol­
ogies for cement and concrete production were discussed by Hasanbeigi
et al., in 2012, addressing the commercial status of technologies such as
research, development, pilot plant and semi-commercial plants [19].
Moreover, by means of benchmarking techniques, some research was
carried out to identify energy saving opportunities of the cement in­
dustry in some countries [23–25]. Utilizing EII (Energy Intensity Index)
which compares the current situation of a plant with its best practice,
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti
potential energy savings have been calculated in a few case studies [19].
Energy efficiency measures were also sorted using both CSC (Conser­
vation Supply Curve) and economic analysis [26]. In a different
approach, eco-efficiency of the typical cement plants has been investi­
gated employing DEA (Data Envelopment analysis) and directional
distance function approach [27,28]. Nonetheless, CO2 mitigation is a
direct positive effect of energy saving, and focusing on carbon reduction
is not in the scope of this article, although it has been extensively dis­
cussed by the authors in another work [33].
2. Problem definition
Despite of the numerous studies, there is still a lack of holistic and
integrated model to systematically evaluate and prioritize energy effi­
ciency measures. Although, the abovementioned researches have
attempted to rank measures by some limited criteria such as energy
savings, investment cost and payback period, these evaluations mostly
overlook the current conditions of the plant and provide a general so­
lution for the sector. In the other hand, these methods mainly ignored
some significant factors influencing the energy consumption.
As shown in Fig. 2, there are internal parameters impacting priority
of energy efficiency measures. At first, the plant objectives need to be
clearly determined. Managers often find it easy to set target and objec­
tives on the total energy consumption. This target will be associated to a
ton of cement produced and could be extracted from benchmarking tools
or national legal requirements. In countries with noticeable subsidies on
energy cost (e.g. Iran) the specific energy consumption limits are to be
regulated by the government which is meanwhile the monotonous en­
ergy supplier.
Qualitative criteria may include ease of implementation, level of
knowledge for technology transfer, adaptability with current equip­
ment, and operator’s skill level to conduct a new action plan whilst a
quantitative criterion could be interruption time during project imple­
mentation. Budget constraints as another criterion is still the main
barrier to launch many of the costly measures. Also, decision making
techniques and managerial tools might be utilized in prioritizing energy
efficiency measures.
In summary, prioritizing energy efficiency measures is a multi-
criteria problem with inter-conflictions.
In this study, a novel model is developed for prioritizing the energy
efficiency measures. Goals and policies, both quantitative and qualita­
tive criteria and constraints are dealt with as well as the current plant
conditions and its technological limitations. The logic of the model is
based on receiving required data as input from real cement factories and
representing the results in the form of prioritized measures to be rec­
ommended to the corresponding plant.
3. Methodology
The proposed model is designed in three phases (Fig. 3). At the
beginning, factors affecting energy consumption in a typical cement
production plant are to be identified. Accordingly, using an Energy Ef­
ficiency Measures Data Base (EEMDB), an initial list of feasible tech­
nologies will be built.
Then energy efficiency opportunities are represented to stakeholders
(i.e. decision makers). It shows how the energy consumption is different
in the corresponding plant from the available benchmarks. Meanwhile,
total potential energy savings, potential CO2 emission reduction, cost
estimation of all feasible measures, operation and maintenance will be
provided.
In the second phase, targets and goals are to be interactively defined
by the stakeholders. Two kinds of policy are to be considered: improving
efficiency of existing equipment and implementing new measures and
4
Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458
technologies. Then, stakeholders will specify decision making criteria as
well as budgetary and time constraints and their financial expectations.
Taking these considerations into decision making techniques (a combi­
nation of AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and TOPSIS (Technique
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), will lead to
prioritized measures.
EEMDB, the database, contains technical and economic data of en­
ergy efficiency measures collected from analogous projects in different
countries. This bespoke model will be used by a certain factory with its
unique internal and external circumstances. According to the fact that
the model is in developing stage and its database should be evolved, we
add the third phase to ensure the validity of the second phase output.
Throughout the third phase, applicability of the selected measures is
investigated from managerial point of view. Detailed economic evalu­
ation will be then carried out for the top priority measures. These phases
are described as follows:
3.1. Phase one
In general, the required data will be collected for two purposes: for
monitoring the current state of the plant and for determining the
applicability of the measures. For the sake of delivering these outputs,
significant data need to be available for processing classified as below:
� Current condition
General data including annual production capacity, age of the plant,
the current electrical and thermal specific energy consumption (ESEC
and TSEC), CO2 emission per ton of cement production. These are
mainly to prepare the energy relevant indicators and further
comparisons.
� Raw materials and product properties
Raw material specifications such as humidity, hardness and lime­
stone dimension could directly influence on energy use. Materials with
high humidity and hardness and larger dimension need greater amount
of energy for the processes like crushing and drying [3].
In the cement composition, percentage of clinker-clinker to cement
ratio-significantly impact the required heating load. Furthermore, alkali
rate of the final product affects energy use since burning the clinker with
lower alkali rate consumes less fuels. Assessment of this rate is per­
formed at this stage. Raw material and fuel prices are to be considered to
investigate the substitute materials as a measure in detailed economic
evaluation of the third phase.
� Energy supply conditions
All types of fuel currently used by the plant are to be identified.
Alternative fuels could be suggested by the model as possible energy
efficiency measures. This suggestion will be based on the evaluation of
some variables such as fuel purchase price, operating costs, the attrib­
uted CO2 taxes, shifting cost from one fuel to another, interruption time
(for fuel changeover), and probable lost sale. If energy managers
encounter changing issue from the current fuel to other alternative fuels,
the following evaluation will be undertaken by the model:
The total cost of current fuel � Total cost of alternative fuel þ
shifting cost þ lost sale
� � �� � �
Acf � Pcf þ OCcf þ Ecf � PF � C � D � Aaf � Paf þ OCaf
��
þ Eaf � PF � C � D þ CScf to af þ Di � C � Pc
Where:
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti
Acf : Amount of current fuel required for producing
one ton of
cement
ðm3; liter or kgÞ
PCf : Unit price of current fuel ($)
OCCf : Operating cost of current fuel to produce one ton of cementð$Þ
Ecf : Emission released to the atmosphere for producing one ton of
cement using current fuel ðkgÞ
PF : Pollution fines for producing akilogram of emission ð$Þ
C : Plant capacity ðtones of cement per dayÞ
D : Duration of using alternative fuel ðdayÞ
Aaf : Amoun of alternative fuel required for producing one ton of
cement ðm3; liter or kgÞ
Paf : Unit price of alternative fuel ð$Þ
OCaf :
Operating cost of alternativefuel to produce one ton of cement ð$Þ
Eaf : Emission released to the atmosphere for producing one ton of
cement using alternative fuel ðkgÞ
CSCf to af : Cost of shifing from current fuel to alternative fuel
Di : Duration of interuption time for shifting from current to
alternative fuel ðdayÞ
Pc : Cement sale ð$ =tonÞ
For a given duration of D, if the left side of the above relation is
greater than the right side, shifting from current fuel to a new alternative
fuel is cost effective and will be suggested by the mode.
� Production processes and consumption
If production processes utilize out of date and inefficient technolo­
gies, more energy efficiency measures will become feasible in the plant.
The model requires the initial data about processes and technologies
such as crushing, transporting, homogenizing, grinding, pyro processing
as well as process control systems, compressed air system, refractory
type, type of drives, lighting system etc. Moreover, the energy con­
sumption of each department should be accessible to compare with best
practices. However, the contribution of some of the measures like effi­
cient lighting could be proportional to the number of fittings rather than
tonnage of production.
� Operational condition
Percentage of elapsed lifetime, maintenance level, nominal capacity,
percentage of working hours per day, ambient humidity, temperature
and the level of dust in the working area as well as actual production
capacity need to be considered.
� Climate conditions
It has been technically proved that some climate conditions might
influence on energy consumption [12]. For instance, the higher the
altitude of the factory location above the sea level, the more the air
pressure drop in the preheater cyclones leading higher power con­
sumption in the main kiln fan.
Having these critical data at hand, the EEMDB can contribute to the
following outcomes: amount of electrical and thermal energy savings,
CO2 emission reduction, investment required, operating costs, payback
5
Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458
period, project duration as well as ease of implementation, knowledge
and technology transfer, adaptability with current equipment and skill
of operators to conduct measures. For each measure, these qualitative
criteria might be valued from 0 to 10 by the experts. After receiving the
above-mentioned input, the model will start investigating all measures
in EEMDB in compliance with plant conditions and processes to deter­
mine their applicability. This is literally occurred via a broad search over
the list of measures and their given characteristics. When matching
completed, a feasible list will come up along with some monitoring re­
ports to be presented to the stakeholders. These outputs encompass
Energy Intensity Index, detailed differences with best practices and
available standards, number of feasible measures, total potential elec­
trical and thermal energy savings, possible CO2 emission reduction,
overall operation and maintenance level etc. The measures restored in
the EEMDB are listed in Table 1, these measure are the initial available
solutions in the database and will be filtered out once incorporating the
plant characteristics and other constraints.
3.2. Phase two
At first, policies and goals along with managerial constraints should
be determined by the stakeholders. Two types of policy could be pursued
in this model: enhancing efficiency by keeping current processes and
technologies and improving processes implementing energy efficiency
projects. In the former, poor efficient processes and equipment will be
considered to improve their efficiency using retrofitting actions. It is
remarkable that in addition to nominal and actual capacity, some
additional parameters could affect identifying the inefficient equipment
such as percentage of elapsed lifetime, maintenance level, percentage of
working hours per day, humidity, temperature and the amount of dust in
the working area. In the latter policy, the model will acquire other pa­
rameters. In most cases, goals are defined in such a way that specified
amount of SEC and CO2 emission need to be obtained in a certain
timeframe. Then, budget constraints and expected payback period as
well as preferred project duration and production stoppage are given by
the stakeholders. Ten qualitative and quantitative criteria to prioritize
feasible measures via decision making technique are imbedded in the
model.
The model proposed a combination of AHP and TOPSIS as decision
making techniques. Regarding to the variety of criteria and their
inherent differences, it would be more straightforward to contrast and
weighting criteria in a pair-wise comparison using AHP.
First introduced by Thomas Saaty, AHP has been extensively applied
to multi-attribute multi-alternative problems particularly where there is
mix of quantitative and qualitative criteria [30]. AHP starts with a
problem which is decomposed into a hierarchy of criteria (and
sub-criteria). After construction of the logical hierarchy, the decision
makers can systematically assess the alternatives by making pair-wise
comparisons for each of the chosen criteria. This comparison may use
concrete data from the alternatives or human judgments as a way to
input subjacent information [31].
After weighting criteria by the stakeholders, all feasible measures
delineated in the first phase are examined to investigate whether they
meet the restrictions. Measures that don not comply the limitations will
be ignored. The remaining ones are prioritized via TOPSIS. Since often
we have multi different criteria with numerous feasible measures having
diverse characteristics in criteria, TOPSIS is chosen to solve this multi-
criteria problem. The TOPSIS method was first developed in 1981 by
Yoon and Hwang [32]. Its basic concept is that the chosen alternative
should have the shortest distance from the ideal solution and the farthest
from the negative-ideal solution.
The prioritized feasible measures will be then extracted considering
their normalized differences with positive and negative ideal measures.
Besides the prioritized measures, some reports could be generated for to
the stakeholders answering some of their critical inquires: by imple­
menting which measures, their desired goals will be satisfied? How
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Table 1
Measures and their potentials for saving.
List of measures in eemdb Electrical saving Thermal saving Investing cost Payback period Installation duration
kwh/t gj/t $/t (year) (month)

Efficient transport systems (elevator instead of air 3.40 0.00 3.0 10.0 3.0
conveyor)
Raw mill blending systems 3.00 0.00 3.7 10.0 4.0
Process control vertical mill 1.55 0.00 1.0 2.0 3.0
High-efficiency roller mills 11.05 0.00 5.5 10.0 18.0
High-efficiency classifiers 5.55 0.00 2.2 10.0 12.0
Energy management and process control 4.00 0.00 1.0 10.0 3.0
High-pressure roller press 18.00 0.00 5.3 1.5 12.0
High efficiency classifiers in cement (product) mill 3.95 0.00 2.0 10.0 12.0
Improved grinding media in ball mills 4.00 0.00 0.5 8.0 1.0
High efficiency motors (applying variable speed drive) 3.00 0.00 0.2 1.0 1.0
Efficient fans with variable speed drive 7.00 0.00 1.3 2.5 5.0
Optimization of compressed air systems 3.00 0.00 0.2 1.0 9.0
Efficient lighting (led) 0.30 0.00 0.3 3.0 1.0
Production of blended cements (11.00) 2.15 0.7 3.0 2.0
Use of waste derived fuels (incl. tyres etc.) 0.00 0.60 1.9 1.0 3.0
Production of limestone cement 2.80 0.30 0.0 1.0 1.0
Production of low alkali cement 0.00 0.44 0.0 0.0 1.0
Use of steel slag in kiln process (clinker to cement ratio) 0.00 0.19 1.0 2.0 1.0
Preheater kiln upgrade to precalciner kiln 0.00 0.43 18.7 5.0 12.0
Long dry kiln upgrade to preheater/precalciner kiln 0.00 1.40 18.8 10.0 24.0
Older dry kiln upgrade to multi-stage preheater kiln 0.00 0.90 34.5 10.0 24.0
Convert to reciprocating grate cooler (3.00) 0.27 2.9 1.5 12.0
Kiln combustion system improvements 0.00 0.30 1.0 2.5 2.0
Optimize heat recovery/upgrade clinker cooler (2.00) 0.105 0.2 1.5 2.0
Seal replacement in the kiln process 0.00 0.011 0.1 0.5 0.5
Low temperature heat recovery for power 27.50 0.00 3.3 3.0 12.0
High temperature heat recovery for power 22.00 0.00 3.3 3.0 12.0
Low pressure drop cyclones 2.55 0.00 3.0 10.0 9.0
Efficient kiln drives motors 2.50 0.00 0.3 3.0 5.0
Improved refractories material 0.00 0.50 0.3 1.0 1.0
Kiln shell heat loss reduction 0.00 0.365 0.3 1.0 1.0
Adjustable speed drive for kiln fan 6.10 0.00 0.2 2.5 5.0
Selecting raw material with lower friction coefficient 0.10 0.00 0.1 1.0 6.0
Selecting raw material with lower humidity 0.00 0.10 0.1 1.0 6.0
Selecting raw material with lower dimension 0.10 0.00 0.1 1.0 1.0

much budget do these measures require? How much energy savings represents the variety of data in terms of climate and altitude as required
could be realized applying these measures? How energy indexes will be for the initial assessment. The tool assists the users to choose from va­
eventually ameliorated? riety of 9 grey and white cement types. These plants and their initial
specifications are briefly introduced in Table 2.
For each production line, the following data need to be available:
3.3. Phase three
Subgroup of PL in Standard; Production capacity of clinker (ton/day);
Production capacity of cement (ton/day); Age (year); Altitude (meter);
In this phase, each prioritized measure is surveyed to examine their
Electrical Specific Energy Consumption (Kwh/t cement); Thermal Specific
applicability. For instance, suppose that in a specific plant, using vertical
Energy Consumption (Kcal/t clinker); Emission average (Kg/Kg clinker);
roller mill instead of ball mill for cement grinding ranked as the first
Working days per year.
precedence measure. However, at the same time, the plant has a huge
And for each raw material like silica, limestone, iron ore, alumina,
clinker inventory and cannot not stop the production line to implement
and for each product, the following data should be provided:
the measure. Therefore, this project has incoherence with current con­
Friction Coefficient; Humidity Average (%); Dimension Average (m2);
ditions and should be discarded from the selection. In the final phase of
Distances to mine (Km)
the model, top selected measures that meet technical constraints are
Then, energy prices for each of the careers described in Table 2, are
evaluated from economic point of view. A detailed economic evaluation
to be entered in the associated worksheet followed by the energy con­
is carried out for each selected measure. Since economic data of mea­
sumption of each department and the type of technology that each
sures which is already in EEMDB is gathered by identical projects from
production line utilizes. Later on, the weight factors for the qualitative
different plants, it should be evaluated by local conditions to ensure the
and quantitative criteria need to be assigned by the decision maker.
accuracy of the results. It is accomplished by determining some eco­
These criteria include:
nomic indicators such as Rate of Return (ROR), Payback Period (PP),
Quantitative criteria:
and Present Value (PV). The following section explains how the model is
Electrical energy saving; Thermal energy saving; Investing cost;
physically implemented.
Payback period;
Qualitative criteria:
4. Case study
Implementation possibility; transferring technology possibility;
Adjustment level with existing equipment; Operators skill to operating;
In order to investigate the applicability of the developed tool, three
Disruption time for executing.
cement plants for which data were available and were kin to participate
In criteria preference matrix (appendix), the pair-wise comparison
in this study have been selected. These plants are located across different
will be performed. The resulted independent weights will be used by
geographical zones of Iran with average distance of 500 km from each
TOPSIS method afterwards. For each of the case study plant, the
other in Fars, Isfahan and Tehran province. Therefore, this selection well

6
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Table 2 follows (the total annual production of these 3 plants are estimated as
Summary of case studies. 4.4 million tons)
Cement Products Altitude Age Clinker to Fuel use Plant A: 11.6 Million Kwhþ600,000 GJ.
Plant & (m) (years) cement Plan B: 28 Million kWhþ 960,000 GJ.
Location ratio Pant C: 32.4 Million Kwhþ800,000 GJ.
A-Fars, Subgroup 1600 40 88% Gas, Heavy oil,
Iran 2-2 coal 5. Discussion and conclusions
Subgroup
1-2
B-Isfahan, Subgroup 1500 6 74% Gas, heavy fuel,
The cement industry is a large consumer of energy. Energy man­
iran 1-2 Gaseous agement in this sector is essential in both financial and environmental
White alternative fuels aspects. Energy efficiency in this industry was discussed in this paper
cement and a multi-criteria decision-making framework was developed to rank
C-Tehran, Subgroup 1900 33 80% Coal, Heavy
the efficiency measures. Technical specifications such as raw materials,
Iran 2-3 fuel, Gaseous
Subgroup alternative fuels production processes, energy policies such as desired specific energy
2-5 consumption and carbon emission, time and budget constraints and
economic preferences were all considered in three phases of a compre­
hensive model. The aim was to prioritize the alternative measures via a
program was run and the ranked the list of efficiency improvement combination of AHP and TOPSIS techniques. The proposed model has
measures. For simplicity, the top 4 measures recommended by the model been developed using Excel spreadsheets and implemented with real
are represented as below: data received from plants in Iran. The results are validated and two of
In the first case, using raw meal blending system and limestone the plant managers decided to invest in the first two measures ranked.
cement have been advised since the thermal energy usage of this plant is The main contribution of the current work is dealing with specific
significant due to the old technology, they have been using for the last details of the studied plant and accordingly apply to the criteria to tailor
50 years. Limestone cement may substantially drop the thermal specific the most applicable list of measures for each plant. The cement plants
energy since it decreases the ratio of clinker to cement. might employ variety of technologies, production lines and capacity, age
The second factory is recommended to use a high pressure roller and altitude and its efficiency targets. Moreover, the variables associ­
press as well as alternative fuel in its heating process. This is mainly due ated with raw materials, energy supply and production processes of each
to the management preference to use waste instead of fuel as the long- plant are collected and taken into the calculations. Since these inputs
term goal of the company is reduction of carbon and greenhouse gas might vary from one plant to another, a general list of energy efficiency
emissions. On the other hand, the current mine from which they are measures that is mostly addressed by the current research cannot be
harvesting has high density ore and therefore, using the conventional optimum for every single case. However, to enhance the applicability
roller press become less efficient. and accuracy of the outputs, the EEMDB needs to be developed, testing
The third plant is recommended to use low alkali cement as this can the model with more than three cases.
reduce the current thermal energy used in the kiln process. The second
selected measure is using high pressure roller mill in cement mixing Author contributions
resulting in reduction of electricity required within the final production
processes. Alireza Mokhtar: Topic selection, research conduct and supervision,
Assuming that the first and the second measures are selected by the model development, output analysis, paper revision and proofread.
managers for their plants, the electrical and thermal energy savings Mohsen Nasooti: Model development, programming and implementa­
which are proportional to their production capacity are estimated as tion, manuscript preparation, data collection and analysis.

Table 3
Results of running the model for 3 case studies; the ranked measures (Top: Plant A, middle; Plant B, bottom: Plant C).
Measure description Rank using Final score using Rank using Proposed method and or Final score using Proposed method and or
AHP AHP TOPSIS TOPSIS

Raw meal blending systems 2 5.95% 1 0.5345

Limestone cement 3 3.50% 2 0.4724
High-efficiency classifiers S 2.44% 3 0.4255
High temperature heat recovery-for 6 2.52% 4 0.4155
power

Measure description Rank using Final score using Rank using Proposed method and or Final score using Proposed method and or
AHP AHP TOPSIS TOPSIS

High-pressure roller press 3 7.50% 1 0.5675

Use of waste derived fuels
Preheater kiln upgrade to precalciner
kiln
High temperature heat recovery for
power
5 4.00% 2 0.4534
6 3.40% 3 0.3876
7 2.52% 4 0.4155

Measure description Rank using Final score using Rank using Proposed method and or Final score using Proposed method and or
AHP AHP TOPSIS TOPSIS

Low alkali cement 6 8.10% 1 0.6163

High-pressure roller press 5 3.50% 2 0.5231
Preheater kiln upgrade to precalciner 11 4.50% 3 0.4123
kiln
Efficient transport systems 10 2.34% 4 0.3987

7
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Annex. Implementation and run

The model has been implemented using spreadsheet software (MS Excel). It has been formulated in a manner that by entering the required inputs,
the results and the reports will be generated automatically. The file could be used for factories with maximum 6 cement production lines. At the
beginning, the data is captured and presented in 24 sheets including but are not limited to:

� General factory information, cement and clinker capacity for each production line, plant age, current electrical and thermal SEC, amount of CO2
emission.
� Portion of raw material ingredients, their friction coefficient, humidity, average dimension, final cement composition, alkali rate.
� Current applied fuel, fuel information such as required amount for producing one ton of cement, purchase and operation costs, pertinent amount of
emission, shifting costs between current fuels to possible alternative fuels
� Technologies used for production processes (as partly shown in Fig. 4). It encompasses all work areas, departments and utilities applied to produce
cement and clinker.

Plant Information

Production capacity of clinker (ton/day), Production capacity of cement (ton/day), Age (year), Altitude (meter), Electrical Specific Energy Consumption
(kWh/t cement), Thermal Specific Energy Consumption, (Kcal/t clinker), Emission average(Kg Co2/Kg clinker), Working days per year.

Raw Materials

Ingredients percentage, Friction coefficient, Humidity average (%), Dimension average (m2), Distances to mine (km), Clinker - cement ratio, Minimum
percent of alkali, Conversion rate of raw materials to clinker.

Product Specification

Ingredients percentage: e.g. clinker, 88.0%, gypsum, 9.0%, pozzolan, 3.0%, slag furnace, 0.0%, fly ash, 0.0%, % of alkali, 10.0%

Energy Types

Natural gas, Fuel oil, coal, Gaseous alternative fuels, Liquid alternative fuels, finely crushed solid alternative fuels, Coarse-crushed solid alternative fuels,
Lump alternative fuels, Basic fuel, Disruption time for changing fuel type (day), energy unit price, existence of heat recovery system.

Production Processes

List of technologies being in use by different department.

Energy consumption for each process

Annual thermal energy consumption (GJ), Annual electrical energy consumption (kWh), Thermal best practice (GJ), Electrical best practice (kWh)

Operation and Maintaining Conditions

Equipment code, Production line, Department, Equipment description, Age (year), Maintaining conditions, Overall efficiency.

8
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Fig. 4. Production process information.

� Detailed thermal and electrical energy consumption, producing energy using low and high temperature heat recovery.
� Equipment data such as, equipment code, percent of elapsed useful life, nominal and actual capacity if any, operation conditions and maintenance
level.
� Climate conditions including altitude and ambiance average humidity and temperature.

The model initially processes the inputs to identify energy efficiency opportunities using comparisons with best practices available standard. As
shown in Fig. 5, detail comparison reveals variances between current energy consumption and best practices in the defined processes. Total electrical
and thermal energy savings as well as total emission reduction opportunities are calculated. Furthermore, inefficient equipment is identified
considering operation conditions mentioned in section 3.1.

Fig. 5. Energy efficiency opportunities chart.

9
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Afterwards, energy management policy is adopted. As discussed before, two different policies could be considered: Improving the efficiency,
keeping the current technology, materials and products and implementing energy efficiency measures by alteration in technology, raw materials and
final product. As shown in Fig. 6, the sheet acquires electrical and thermal targeted savings as well as amount of required CO2 emission reduction.
Decision making constraints such as time and budget limitations are also identified.

Fig. 6. Energy policies, goals and constraints setup sheet.

If managers prefer to choose the first policy, the model gives the possibility of recognizing inefficient equipment and departments. Efficiency of
equipment is evaluated by dividing actual capacity/power to nominal capacity/power considering some allowances for percentage of elapsed life
time, working environment and maintenance conditions. As shown in Fig. 7, departments could be sorted by their efficiencies to identify inefficient
departments for managers to peruse the corrective actions or replacing tasks.
If second policy i.e. implementing energy efficiency measures is taken, the comparative preference of criteria should be determined by decision
makers.

10
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Fig. 7. The output of weight factor method.

A pair-wise matrix is designed employing comparison expressions for convenience of decision makers. These expressions are converted into 1/9 to
9 ranges of digits for further calculations.
Applying criteria, weight factors extracted from the matrix, remaining measures are prioritized using TOPSIS method described in section 3.2.
Illustrated by Fig. 8, the final results of implementing the suggested measures could be evaluated in accordance with the pre-defined objectives and
constraints. Potential cumulative thermal and electrical energy savings and CO2 emission reduction are estimated and the deviation from the target
values are calculated.

11
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Fig. 8. The initial result sheet.

As illustrated in Fig. 9, eventually, an economic evaluation is performed for top ranked measures incorporating some significant economic indexes
such as net present value, payback period and rate of return.

12
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

Fig. 9. Economic evaluation of top priority measures.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100458.

References [16] M.D. Mirolli, The Kalina cycle for cement kiln waste heat recovery power plants,
in: 2005 IEEE Cement Industry Technical Conference Record vol. 2005, 2005,
pp. 330–336.
[1] B. Soediono, U.S. Geological survey, mineral commodity summaries,, J. Chem. Inf.
[17] R. Dong, Z. Zhang, H. Lu, Y. Yu, Recovery of waste heat in cement plants for the
Model. 53 (703) (2015) 160.
capture of CO 2, Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 6 (1) (2012) 104–111.
[2] M. Azhar Khan, M. Zahir Khan, K. Zaman, L. Naz, Global estimates of energy
[18] A. Naeimia, M. Bidi, M. Ahmadi, R. Kumar, M. Sadeghzadehd, M. Nazari, Design
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29
and exergy analysis of waste heat recovery system and gas engine for power
(2014) 336–344.
generation in Tehran cement factory, Thermal Sci. Eng. Prog. 9 (March 2019)
[3] A. Avami, S. Sattari, Energy conservation opportunities: cement industry in Iran,
299–307.
Int. J. Energy 1 (3) (2007) 65–71.
[19] A. Hasanbeigi, L. Price, E. Lin, Emerging energy-efficiency and CO 2 emission-
[4] N.A. Madlool, R. Saidur, N.A. Rahim, M. Kamalisarvestani, An overview of energy
reduction technologies for cement and concrete production: a technical review,
savings measures for cement industries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19 (2013)
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (8) (2012) 6220–6238.
18–29.
[20] J.A. Moya, N. Pardo, A. Mercier, The potential for improvements in energy
[5] B. Afkhami, B. Akbarian, N. Beheshti, A.H. Kakaee, B. Shabani, Energy
efficiency and CO2 emissions in the EU27 cement industry and the relationship
consumption assessment in a cement production plant, Sustain. Energy Technol.
with the capital budgeting decision criteria, J. Clean. Prod. 19 (11) (2011)
Assess. 10 (2015) 84–89.
1207–1215.
[6] WBCSD, Getting the numbers right: cement industry energy and CO2 performance,
[21] E. Worrell, Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for
World Bus. Counc. Sustain. Dev. (2011) 42.
cement making. An Energy Star Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, Lawrence
[7] CEMBUREAU - the European Cement Association, Best Available Techniques, The
Berkeley Natl. Lab. (November 2015) (2008) 8–48.
European Cement Association, 1999 for the Cement Industry, No. December.
[22] E. Worrell, C. Galitsky, Energy Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for Cement
[8] A. Atmaca, R. Yumrutaş, Analysis of the parameters affecting energy consumption
Making, 2004.
of a rotary kiln in cement industry, Appl. Therm. Eng. 66 (1–2) (2014) 435–444.
[23] D. Phylipsen, K. Blok, E. Worrell, J. De Beer, Benchmarking the energy efficiency of
[9] S. Fujimoto, Modern technology impact on power usage in cement plants, IEEE
Dutch industry: an assessment of the expected effect on energy consumption and
Trans. Ind. Appl. 30 (3) (1994) 553–560.
CO2 emissions, Energy Pol. 30 (8) (2002) 663–679.
[10] G.E. Du Plessis, L. Liebenberg, E.H. Mathews, The use of variable speed drives for
[24] R. Saidur, M.T. Sambandam, M. Hasanuzzaman, D. Devaraj, S. Rajakarunakaran,
cost-effective energy savings in South African mine cooling systems, Appl. Energy
An analysis of actual energy savings in an Indian cement industry through an
111 (2013) 16–27.
energy efficiency index, Int. J. Green Energy 9 (8) (2012) 829–840.
[11] N.A. Madlool, R. Saidur, M.S. Hossain, N.A. Rahim, A critical review on energy use
[25] A. Hasanbeigi, L. Price, H. Lu, W. Lan, Analysis of energy-efficiency opportunities
and savings in the cement industries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4) (2011)
for the cement industry in Shandong Province, China: a case study of 16 cement
2042–2060.
plants, Energy 35 (8) (2010) 3461–3473.
[12] B. Afkhami, B. Akbarian, N. Beheshti, A.H. Kakaee, B. Shabani, Energy
[26] A. Hasanbeigi, C. Menke, A. Therdyothin, The use of conservation supply curves in
consumption assessment in a cement production plant, Sustain. Energy Technol.
energy policy and economic analysis: the case study of Thai cement industry,
Assess. 10 (2015) 84–89.
Energy Pol. 38 (1) (2010) 392–405.
[13] R. Detwiler, P.D. Tennis, The Use of Limestone in Portland Cement : A State-Of-
[27] G. Oggioni, R. Riccardi, R. Toninelli, Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: a
The-Art Review, 2003.
data envelopment analysis, Energy Pol. 39 (5) (2011) 2842–2854.
[14] K. Srinivasan, et al., World business council for sustainable development (WBCSD).
[28] R. Riccardi, G. Oggioni, R. Toninelli, Efficiency analysis of world cement industry
(2008): energy efficiency in buildings facts & trends - full report, Energy Build. 55
in presence of undesirable output: application of data envelopment analysis and
(3) (2013) 1641–1645.
directional distance function, Energy Pol. 44 (2012) 140–152.
[15] E. Mokrzycki, A. Uliasz-Bochenczyk, Alternative fuels for the cement industry,
[29] N. Ali, The role of cement industry in the economic development of Pakistan, Int. J.
Appl. Energy 74 (2003) 95–100.
Phys. Soc. Sci. 5 (No. 3) (2015).

13
A. Mokhtar and M. Nasooti Energy Strategy Reviews 28 (2020) 100458

[30] N. Bhushan, K. Rai, Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy
Process, Springer, New York, 2004.
[31] T.L. Saaty, Extending the measurement of tangibles to intangibles, Int. J. Inf.
Technol. Decis. Making (8) (2009) 7–27, 1.
[32] K. Yoon, C.L. Hwang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981.
[33] Z. Jokar, A. Mokhtar, Policy making in the cement industry for CO2 mitigation on
the pathway of sustainable development-A system dynamics approach, J. Clean.
Prod. 201 (2018) 142–155.

14