State of the art raw grinding

By J. M. Brugan, Bethlehem, USA (English text provided by the author)

Summary - The vertical roller mill has been the common choice for a large percentage of large expansions. This is because it has been proven for low power consumption, ease of operalion, large capacity range, and competitive costs over a wide range of duferent raw n~aterials. ?'he use of the hydraulic roll crusher, although more energy efficient than a hall mill, does not ojfer a clear advantage over a vertical roller mill in terms ofpower, cost, and proven reliability. nor in terrns ofcapacity and moisture range. The applicatiolz of the lzydraulic roll crusher is morefeasible in the augmentation of existing ball millsysterns, of which there are ntany still operating. The circumstances for justification are installation specific and are difJicult togeneralize. The ball mill is the only choice for wet tnilling sysletns. Otherwise, new dry ball mill systems are very rare. The large population of existing ball mills can be upgraded with the high efliciency separator and IfRC, often at, a nzuch lower cost than a new VRM system.

(Complete German version in ZKG 111992, pp. 9-13)

1. Introduction
The methods and machines used for the preparation of cement raw meal have undergone significant changes in the past several years, especially when the changes are compared against the past several decades. This paper will describe the recent evolution of dry raw milling to the present. and shed some light on future trends. Raw milling technology has been, and is being, driven by capital costs, maintenance and power consumption. The raw meal preparation area of a cement producing facility consumes 15-25% of the required power consumption of 90-110 kWhlt of cement. Therefore, it is not surprising that raw milling processes have basically focused on the lowest power consumption possible, even if the capital expenditure is higher than alternatives with lower capital but higher specific power requirements. The following discussions will make reference to the capitaYpower equation and to the dependability of the machinelprocess combination, without which the economics of cement production can be quickly degraded. The ball mill (BM) and vertical roller mill (VRM) processes represent 99'%, of all raw mill systems. High efficiency separators (HES) and hydraulic roll crushers*) (HRC) have invigorated these systems in the past five years, especially in the case of ball mill processes. Additionally, the application of a hydraulic roll crusher makes it possible to eliminate the ball mill and make it a stand-alone alternative to the vertical roller mill.

..----

The vertical roller mill was basically introduced for large capacities ( > 100 TPH) in the early 1970's. The mill and process were initially challenged in certain applications, such as abrasive feed materials, hard feed materials, large capacity, and high moisture materials. Since then, the vertical roller mill has proven itself in all of these areas that were before considered or predicted to be borderline or marginal. What was said to be impossible before has been proven true in the light of a growing list of references. The advantages are many: - The vertical roller mill offers simplicity by combining the functions of secondaryltertiary crushing, drying, grinding and classifying in one compact machine. - Power consumption is the lowest or is as low as any present alternative process. - Capital expenditure is typically lower than other processes. - Abrasive raw materials do not exclude this application. - Availabilityldependability/rnaintenance costs are comparable to the other alternatives. - Vertical roller mills can accept up to 22 moisture in the mill feed. - Single machine capacities are available from 50 to 600 TPH. The previous discussion leads one to ask if there is any case where the roller mill is unattractive. Quite frankly, there are very few instances, if any, where the roller mill is not the

2. Vertical roller mill

The vertical roller mill is clearly the dominant choice for raw milling as evidenced by a 90-95 % market share for new milling systems. The market is defined as North and Latin America, Pacific Rim, South Asia, Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The largest, recent market growth has occurred in the Pacific Rim countries, where approximately 40 million TPA of new capacity has been installed or purchased in the last four years. All of these producers are installing vertical roller mills for raw meal production. The vertical roller mill (Fig. 1) has been the obvious and preferred tool of choice for raw milling. Its dependability, economy and versatility are hardly matched in a wide variety of applications. The capacity range of these mills has increased to 600 TIH, making it possible to match a single kiln production of 7500 TPD with only one roller mill for optimum economy. In other cases, two roller mills are being used to supply single kiln capacity of 10,000 TPD or 3 million TPA.
*)Also known as high-pressure grinding rolls or roller presses

MATERIAL FLO PATH

, -

GRINDING TABLE

J/-\

FIGURE 1: Sectional diagram of a Fullcr-Loesche vertical roller mill with 4 grinding rollers

BYPASS

MILL RECIRCULATION

1 I

FIGURE 2: Process arrangement of a vertical roller mill with a rotary kiln plant using 2 fans

most economical/low risk choice for raw milling, particularly with reference to new expansion projects. Alternatives to the roller mill generally rest on very special circumstances. The use of high-efficiency classifiers to replace static or conventional dynamic VRM classifiers has further improved the VRM performance. The coarse particle residues have been reduced for better raw meal burning characteristics and higher VRM capacity at a lower mill power consumption. Additionally, the use of mill-external material recirculation has lowered the mill pressure loss, which in turn lowers the system fan power consumption. These and other VRM improvements will be discussed in greater detail in a following paper. There are two basic VRM process arrangements as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. They are commonly referred to as 2-fan and 3fan systems. The 2-fan system is lower in cost, but the dust filter must be operated under 800-1000mm wg under pressure, making air infiltration a significant factor. The 3-fan system has a much lower dust filter pressure but is 7-10% more expensive to install. It is more suitable for high moisture feed materials where operational isolation from the kiln system is more necessary or when the kiln waste gas volume exceeds the VRM requirements and this excess gas must be bypassed around the VRM. The VRM has recently gained additional attraction because of its ability to easily accept all kiln exhaust gas and serve as an SO, scrubber due to the intimate gaslmaterial contact in the mill and by passing the same kiln gas through the mill product filter cake formed in a baghouse when one is used as the dust filter. In the past three years, Fuller has supplied over thirty roller mills to the cement industry. Table 1 outlines a few of these

TABLE 1: Technical and technological data for selected vertical roller mills supplied by the Fuller Company during the last 5 years

Table Diameter(m)

Capacity th

Feed moisture
'X

Mill motor kW

recent applications. The capacity and size range, including the moisture, are seen to be inclusive of practically any conceivable situation. Table 2 outlines the hardness and abrasive character of VRMs in operation. The SiOz content of most raw meals is between 12- 14%. The mix quartz content commonly ranges between 3 and 8 %, or up to 11X,of the necessary 14'X) SiOzin the mix. The mills are economically processing these mixes with comparatively high quartz contents. It is important to note that the quartz content itself is not an indication of abrasive character, however, the natural grain size is critical relative to the VRM product size. This is conveniently evaluated by the measurements of the VRM residual quartz found on the

DUST COLLECTOR

COLLECTOR FAN

ahFIGURE 3: Process arrangemcnt of a vertical roller ]nil1 with a rotary kiln plant using 3 fans

TABLE 2: Data for characterizing material abrasiveness

Table Diameter (m) Hardness*) Abrasion Index Feed Quartz ('YO)
Mill

Residual
Quartz '70
16

2.7

1.6

10

less power than dry milling and is therefore competitive on a power consumption basis, however, this is more than offset by the higher kiln fuel consumption necessary to evaporate the slurry moisture content. Wet milling systems are also sometimes employed in countries that have low fuel cost or in developing countries where smaller capacity range and system simplicity balance the higher operating cost factors. The ball mill system is dependable, but it normally cannot compete on power consumption and capital investment. The power consumption is normally 15-25'' higher than a vertical roller mill system. The use of high efficiency separators and hydraulic roll crushers has slightly reduced the power gap to 10-20%) higher than a VRM system, but they increase the capital gap, making it difficult to justify for new systems. The ball mill alternative can be employed for capacity expansions where the use of hydraulic roll crushers and high- efficiency separators are used to augment existing ball mill capacity. These instances are dependent on the installation, and various specifics require careful comparison to other alternates, making generalizations very difficult. Upgrading existing ball mill facilities can sometimes be more cost effective than a new mill facility, provided waste kiln gas is utilized for drying.

5.0

0.6

19

10

*) 1.0 is average hardness. Less than 1.0indicates increasing hardness.

grinding table. Also of interest is that some mixes with low quartz content and small natural quartz size can demonstrate an abrasive character and vice versa.

4. Hydraulic roll crusher

3. Ball mill
The ball mill has .not been a common choice in the recent past, mostly because of higher system cost, complexity and power consumption. The ball mill was the most prevalent machine before the advent and subsequent acceptance of the vertical roller mill. Nevertheless, there may be special circumstances where a ball mill system is preferred, nor can we neglect the huge population of existing systems which will be discussed in another paper. The discussions in this paper center on dry milling. Occasionally, wet ball mills are employed in new systems where the raw materials are excessively wet and/or sticky and it becomes prudent to process a slurry in the raw milling and kiln process. Wet ball milling consumes approximately 30% It is possible to use a hydraulic roll crusher to produce raw meal without a ball mill or vertical roller mill (Fig. 4). The particle size distribution characteristics of HRC products is not a limitation in the case of raw meal like it is for finish cement where serious quality problems can occur. The recirculation rates through the rolls must be sufficiently high (6-7 times) for a given production. This limits the capacity potential for this process as the machine size becomes too large for over 2000 TPD kiln systems (bare roll weight = 30 tonnes each). Higher kiln capacities would necessitate dual HRC systems making this option less attractive. Analysis indicates that although hydraulic roll crusher application for raw meal processing is feasible, it does not show a clear advantage over the vertical roller mill in system cost, power consumption or simplicity. Added to, at best,
DUST COLLECTOR

'

.
FAN

FIGURE 4: Hydraulic roll crusher in closed circuit with a high efficiency separator and a deagglomcrator (impact mill)

equal cost/power consumption, is the risk of the application itself because of the higher risk of the mechanical difficulties sometimes encountered. Raw materials present a higher risk of roll surface damage than clinker due to the fact that the feed is more incompressible. Therefore, more care needs to be taken in assuming an appropriate top size control of the new feed. That is, unlike the use of clinkerlcement milling where power consumption savings are significant, there is no present advantage to justify the risk of using a hydraulic roll crusher over a proven application like the vertical roll mill. In most instances, the application of an HRC will be only attractive when it is combined in a n existing ball mill process, making the overall investment costs attractive compared to a totally new equipment installation. This situation is normally found when the kiln capacity increase is an incremental percentage of the original system rating. This situation needs to consider the utilization of kiln waste gas and the multiplicity of equipment, that is, inability to recover heat in the kiln gases, and the additional equipment to feed and recycle HRC product compromises the feasibility of using an HRC process. The age and maintenance condition of the existing ball mill system(s) are also factors.

The material was assumed to contain 6 % moisture and have a Bond work index of 10.5 kWNt. Although it may not be all inclusive, the comparisons in Table 3 do demonstrate our experience that the VRM is the most cost effective choice for new systems. The power comparisons in Table 4 (for which the same assumptions apply as in Table 3) show the VRM to have the lowest specific power. . Retrofits or incremental expansions draw in too many considerations t o generalize.

QUARRY PRIMARY CRUSHER

5 . Comparison
A typical cosffpower consumption comparison between VRM, BM and HRC is made in Tables 3 and 4 for a 150t/h system.
TABLE 3: Capital cost comparison in million US$
Description Secondary crusher Tertiary crusher Mill
"

VRM 0.00

BM 0.50

HRC 0.30
DRYING GAS

3.20 0.93 0.22

2.00 0.70 0.18

1.90

FIGURE 5: Raw grinding alternatives

0.75 0.20

ESPIGCT Fans

Misc. items TranslInsur/'I'ax ErectionICivil works

1.00 0.57 6.00

1.00 0.58 7.24

1.00 0.60 6.83

ErectICornm Spares Total Est. Cost (million US $)

0.75 0.61 14.95

-

0.75 0.32
-

0.75 0.57
-

16.02
-

16.28

TABLE 4: Comparison of the specific power consumption in kWhlt

Description Secondarycrusher Tertiary crusher Mill Classifier Disagglomerator B. Elevators Conveyors 8.00 0.70 0.00 0.20 0.00 15.00 0.70 0.00 0.80 0.60 9.00 0.70 1.50 1.50 0.90 VRM 0.00

BM
0.60

HRC 0.30

Est total power (kWhIt)

Fig. 5 is a simple flow chart of the three basic dry milling choices for raw meal preparation. It is easy to visualize the relative simplicity of the VRM system compared to the BM and HRC. The VRM has fewer separate machines because it combines several functions in a more compact arrangement. It is important to note the circulation factors of the BM (x3) and the HRC (x6). These factors require conveyor systems not necessary for the VRM, and impose capacity limits because of the practical size limits of the conveyors themselves or the milling machine, and could require dual systems to match the higher kiln capacities necessary for scale economy. The VRM has a much higher limitation in this critical factor. The simplicity of dryinglgas flow arrangements is also another positive factor for the VRM, where generally a single inlout point is all that is necessary for a wide moisture range. The BM and HRC often require elaborate divided gas flows to achieve the necessary moisture reduction and dewpoint elevation. The aspect of abrasive wear is obviously important. In general, VRM wear compares favorably for even abrasive raw materials, because abrasive materials are no less forgiving on other processes. grarnlton product vertical roller mill 1-4 grinding balls 20-50 hydraulic crushing rolls 0.08-0.12 The HRC rolls have a very low wear rate but the amount of material available for wear is also much less where 6000 to 15,000 hours of service life is expected before the roll surface requires renewal. The VRM achieves roll lifetimes in the same range. Grinding balls cost 2-3 times less than equlvalent weight of VRM wear components, but the ball wear rate is ten times as high.

''