More efficient

cement grinding
processes

Juan Camilo Vanegas

Christian Pfeiffer Maschinenfabrik GmbH
Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Cement grinding systems

3. Factors affecting ball mill performance

4. Performance of the latest grinding plants

5. Improvements achievable for older plants

 Cement manufacture is higly energy intensive

• Modern cement plant consumes typically 3,100 - 3,400 MJ of fuel per tonne of clinker
and 80 -120 kWh electricity per tonne of cement;
• The industry consumes 2% of the global primary energy -or 5% of all industrial energy-
and accounts for almost 8% of the global CO2 emission -the main culprit for global
warming & climate change;
• Energy efficiency and sustainable developments are major challenges of the industry.
Cement mill is the single biggest consumer of
electricity in the process
Electrical energy consumption for cement production
5% 5%

22%
24%

Quarrying & preblending

raw grinding
cement grinding
raw meal homogenizing
burning & cooling
6% conveying, packing, loading

38%

• Approximately 2/3 of the electricity consumed in the process is required for grinding
of raw materials, coal and cement;
• The single biggest consumer of electricity is the cement mill, which consumes typically
25 – 40 kWh/t, depending on the fineness.
 Grinding is inherently inefficient

• Theoretically, < 0.1% of the energy absorbed by a mill is required for the surface
production, or < 25% when the energy required to first fracture the clinker is included,
the rest is lost as heat, frictional wear, noise and vibration;
• If a mill temperature exceeds much above 125 ⁰C, grinding efficiency falls due to
increased particle agglomeration & media coating; the cement quality -especially
setting time - may also suffer if excessive gypsum dehydration occurs.
Theory of comminution
No theoretical formula to determine the grinding energy required, only empirical
“laws” based on generalized equation, 𝑑𝐸 = −𝐶(𝑑𝑥/𝑥 n), viz:

where W = Grinding work required, k = a constant, xf = grain size of feed and xp =

grain size of product
Most applicable for cement grinding is the Bond’s law

The Bond’s law is generally expressed in terms of the specific energy required to reduce
a feed from size F80 to a product of size P80 as follows:

𝟏 𝟏
𝑬 = 𝟏𝟎𝑾 ( − )
𝑷𝟖𝟎 𝑭𝟖𝟎
where:
E = energy required (k Wh/t)
W = Bond’s work index of the particular material (kWh/t)
P80 = particle diameter of product, 80% passing (µm)
F80 = particle diameter of feed, 80% passing (µm)

Grinding energy is related to the feed characteristics and product fineness

Energy to power a ball mill
The power absorbed by a ball mill (Pab) is independent of the material characteristics
or throughput of the mill, and depends only on its physical parameters, ie:

Pab = Di x A x W x N [kW]
Where Di = mill inside diameter [m]
A* = power factor relating to the media size [see next slide]
W = mass of grinding media [t]
N = mill rotation speed [min-1]
n usually lie in the range of 72-75% of the mill critical speed, which is related to the
mill diameter, ie:

𝟒𝟐. 𝟑𝟎𝟓
𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕 =
𝑫𝒊
Energy to power a ball mill
* Power factor A is a function of the media size & filling %
1.2 - Ball Mill with open / hybrid HPRM pregrinding

Feed Feed

Fines Fines

Open pregrinding Hybrid pregrinding

• Retro-fitting a HPRM as a pre-grinder to increase output by up to 30% in open or 50%

in hybrid mode gained popularity in the 80’s;
• Maintenance was a major issue in the early days due to roller wear / spalling & the
hydraulic system;
• Output increase often lower due to sensitivity of HPRM to feed change or presence of
tramp metals, which could cause skewing of the roll;
• Plant availability generally lower resulting in little or no energy savings.
1.3 - Ball Mill in combined grinding with HPRM

Feed

Fines

• Combined grinding affords better mill optimization, including conversion to mono-

chamber mill, and can almost double the capacity and reduce energy consumption by
10-20%, when compared with ball mill only;
• Actual energy saving often lesser or even negative as a result of lower plant
availability as stated previously;
• Investment & maintenance costs also higher compared with ball mill.
1.4 - Latest combined or finished grinding with HPRM & DSS separator.

Fines

Feed

• Use of a single dynamic separator system (DSS) reduces complexity and investment
cost and enables the HPRM to operate independently

* Performance of a recently commissioned plant presented later

 2. HPRM for finished grinding

• Interest in High Pressure Roller Mills

revived with improved roller life and
advent of the V-separator;
Fines
• Suggested for stand alone cement
grinding in recent years;
• Except for slag grinding, no known
commercial plant for OPC Feed
production;
• Potentially offers the lowest energy
consumption of the 4 mill systems,
reliability and operating cost remain
an open question.
 3. VRM for finished grinding

• Gained acceptance since early 2000’s due to higher unit

capacity & lower energy consumption, but success has
been mixed;
• Plant availability usually lower due to greater complexity
& operational sensitivity, actual energy saving tended
to be lesser or not at all, especially where hot gas
generator required for gypsum dehydration & reduce
cement moisture ;
• Cement early strength may be lower due to water
injection to reduce vibration & higher water demand
because of the narrower psd;
• Silo blockages may be aggravated due to higher residual
cement moisture;
• Investment and maintenance costs usually higher and
max fineness limited to ~ 4,000 cm2/g.
Comparison of the specific energy consumption of the
3 most common cement mill systems

Basis: 3,200 g/cm² OPC Ball Mill BM + HPRM VRM

Ø4.0 x 8.75 m
Comparable equipment Ø4.6 x 14.25 m Type 46
+ HPRM 16/10
Output [t/h] 150 150 150
Mill power absorbed [kW] 4,350 3,400 2,900
Sp power consump [kWh/t] 29.0 22.7 19.3
Mill power absorbed
[%] 100 78 67
relative to ball mill
Ancilaries power [kWh/t] 5.0 8.0 11.6
Plant total power [kWh/t] 34.0 30.7 30.9
Plant total relative to ball
[%] 100 90 91
mill installation
Comparison of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of the
3 most common cement mill installations

Ball mill in closed circuit often offers the lowest TCO

Decision considerations between BM & VRM*
Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Cement grinding systems

3. Factors affecting ball mill performance

4. Performance of the latest grinding plants

5. Improvements achievable for older plants

According to Bond’s law & the mill power formula,
the factors affecting a ball mill performance are:

1. Characteristic of the feed materials

2. Fineness of the product
3. Equipment design & plant engineering
Additionally, due to different practices, also:
4. Use of additives and admixtures
5. Operations and maintenance of the plant
1. Grindability of feed materials

Most important is the clinker grindability

 1.1 Clinker grindability

Clinker grindability is affected by the:

• Clinker composition and mineralogy,
particularly the amount of C2S, crystal size and
extent of micro fracturing of the crystals;
• Thermal history, ie. temperature and duration
of sintering and cooling, which affects the
crystal size and micro cracking;
• Fineness to be ground.

• Hence mill performance is affected by changes in the quarry operation, raw meal
preparation, kiln burning & cooler operations;
• Advent of bigger kilns, AFR & low-NOx burners have contributed to an increased clinker
grindability since the 80’s.
 1.2 Influence of feed moisture

• Every 1% increase in moisture content above

0.5% increases energy consumption by >10%, t/h kWh/t
especially at higher product fineness
• At moisture above 3 - 4%, a ball mill without
drying chamber may not be operable

Feed moisture

• Use of waste gypsum or additives with excessive moisture may adversely affect the mill
performance if not well managed.
 2. Fineness of product

60
Grindability of a 95/5 OPC
Energy 55
at various Blaine fineness: Consumption
(kWh/t) 50
• 27-32 kWh/t at 3,000 cm²/g 45

• 39-47 kWh/t at 4,000 cm²/g 40

• 58-69 kWh/t at 5,000 cm²/g 35

30

25

20
2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Open circuit kWh/t Closed circuit kWh/t

Blaine Fineness (cm²/g)

• Use of waste gypsum or additives with excessive moisture may adversely affect the mill
performance if not well managed.
3.1 Ball mill design

Mill feed
system

Lateral drive Slide shoe bearings Lubrication system

3.2 Design of mill internals
 3.3 Shell liners

Christian Pfeiffer progressive activator liners Christian Pfeiffer classifying liners for 2nd
for 1st compartment compartment
(coarse grinding) (fine grinding)
3.3 Shell liners, further development by means of modern technologies like
DEM (Discrete Element Method)

112 %
100 %

Conventional step lining Christian Pfeiffer progressive activator

lining with better lifting height
3.4 Monobloc®flow-control intermediate diaphragm

• Highly robust Monobloc® structure provides long service life

• Rolled-steel slotted plates not subjected to “peening” / blinding to maintain optimum
slot size for passage of material to the 2nd compartment
• Flow control allows material level to be regulated for optimum grinding
• Large central opening + free slot area ensures low ΔP & maximum ventilation

Output / power can be improved by 5-7% & cement consistency higher

3.5 Media filling degree

tph

kWh/t

15 20 25 30 35
Media filling degree (%)

Filling degree based on production needs to achieve lowest grinding energy, generally in
the range of 24-26%
 3.6 Separators

• Separator allows the mill to grind

coarser as the product is separated
externally, hence the mill residence
time is shorter, throughput higher, and
over-grinding & energy consumption
reduced;
• PSD of the product is narrower & the
strength of cement higher for the same
Blaine fineness; PSD - Closed circuit

% retained
• The higher the efficiency of the Conventional High
separator, the greater is the effect, Separator Efficiency
especially for finer grinding Separator

Coarse Fine
 3.7 High efficiency separator

Optimized based on CFD modeling, the latest Christian Pfeiffer separator is able to
achieve an extremely low bypass of 4-10% depending on the cement fineness & improve
mill performance by 20% or more!
 3.8 Comparison of the latest Christian Pfeiffer high efficiency separator
QDK with 1st, 2nd & 3rd generation separators

Latest
Generation 1st 2nd 3rd
CPB
Bypass [%] 30 - 60 10 - 35 8 - 20 4 – 10*
Min. Cut size [µm] > 20 15 - 20 < 15 < 15
Imperfection [-] > 0.50 0.35 - 0.50 < 0.4 < 0.35
Sharpness of cut - < 0.5 > 0.45 > 0.5
Max. Blaine [cm²/g] 3,800 4,500 ≈ 5,500 ≈ 6,000

( x75  x25 )
Imperfection: I ( < 0.35 for QDK Next Generation*)
2  x50
x25
Sharpness of cut: x ( > 0.5 for QDK Next Generation*)
x75
* By-pass is dependent on the product fineness
 4. Use of additives & admixtures

• Adding gypsum, limestone, slag, fly-ash,

pozzolana, etc, reduces the clinker factor
and hence overall energy consumption of
the cement product

• Use of amine, glycol, and increasingly

polycarboxylate polymer (PCE) based
grinding aids at low dosage rates of just
0.02 - 0.05%, can improve grinding
efficiency by 5-10%, or more for finer
grinding, as well as reducing media /
liners coating
 5. Operations & maintenance
• Operations: training and motivation, sampling, feed-fineness control and shift
performance monitoring are essential to maximize output

• Maintenance: systematic planned maintenance, plant condition monitoring and

analysis are essential to maximize plant availability

• Technical audit*: periodic axial analysis and circuit sampling can detect changes in
grinding and separator efficiency, air in-leak, material grindability, time to replace the
mill internals etc, to enable early implementation of correction actions for continual
optimum grinding conditions.