Rawmaterial Grinding

Raw Material Grinding - VRM vs.
HPGR
Determination Criteria of Modern Raw Material Grinding Systems
Sven Jankhöfer
Heidelberg Cement AG
HTC Leimen, 2015-04-20
ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions

New raw material grinding plant
Vertical roller mill QUADROPOL QMR2 Concept
HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

Raw Material Grinding – VRM vs. HPGR
2015-04-20
2 ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions
New raw material grinding plant/ Vertical roller mill QUADROPOL QMR2

2015-04-20
• Mill housing free of grinding forces

• Equal hot gas and material distribution
• Full damping of roller unit by foundation
• Low vibration
• Good accessibility to main components
• Easy maintenance
• Four or two roller operation
• Designed for 500 to 10.000 kW

2015-04-20
• Less moving masses

• Only two roller bearings
• Only one roller sealing, positioned
outside the mill
• Easy changing of bearing seal
• Only one hydraulic cylinder for mill operation
• Only one piston accumulator for mill operation
• Low vibration during operation
• Dislocation by standard maintenance

equipment
• Local maintenance on pylon
• Partial local disassembly of roller unit
• Mobile crane concept suitable

2015-04-20
New raw material grinding plant
POLYCOM with SEPOL PC Concept

2015-04-20
New raw material grinding plant/ POLYCOM with SEPOL PC

2015-04-20
• Separated grinding and drying

• Low vibration and reliable operation
• Good accessibility to main components
• Best energy utilisation of all grinding systems

2015-04-20
Wear Protection – Two Different Wear Concepts
Forged and hard faced Compound Cast
profiling
profiling
Hard
Hard layer
facing
Base Base
material material
Weldability High compressive

High toughness strength due to high
insensibility against chromium layer
tensions and cracks no material fatigue
moderate wear High wear resistance of
resistance outer layer
Cheapest solution
Achieved Lifetime: Achieved Lifetime so far:
Max. 22,000 h > 75,000 h

2015-04-20
Profiling of compound cast Polycom® roll
Welding can be done without dismantling

• of the Polycom
Only profiles are applied with a small
• amount of welding material
• (largest roller 21/16 needs about 100 kg/unit,
only)
No heating of tyres necessary
Same procedure for re-profiling
Manual welding possible for local repair
No special qualification of staff required
About 100 roller pairs worldwide
Max. operating time so far > 75,000 h

2015-04-20
• Unique wear protection Material:

POLYCOM compound cast tyres!
• Best available technology
• Shrink fitted tyre (wear part) on
POLYCOM shaft
• Autogenous wear protection (material layer):

Surface profiles for autogenous wear
protection and optimized draw-in behaviour
• Required maintenance work can be done
without dismantling (in situ):
local repair, intermediate profiling,
re-profiling and re-building.

2015-04-20
Determination Criteria of Modern Raw Grinding Systems
HPGR VRM
Limestone, Chalk,
India Russia
Limestone, Clay,
India Mozambik

2015-04-20
Optimum Raw Material Mixture for HPGR Grinding
5.47% 91.05%
2.0% 3.7%
2.26% 1.22%
12.1% 10.2%

2015-04-20
POLYSIUS grinding units – determination criteria
HPGR VRM
Low drying capacity Disadvantage of

required/ Optimum water injection
range of HPGR
Transition zone
Advantage of high
drying capacity
Raw material moisture [%]

0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
HPGR VRM
Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM

HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
HPGR Typical range of Typical range of VRM
HPGR application VRM application
Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]

5,0 7,5 10,0


0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
HPGR Typical range of Typical range of VRM
HPGR application VRM application
Average grindability of
approx. 400 grinding
tests

5,0 7,5 10,0

Average max. moisture

of approx. 320
limestone samples

0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
HPGR has a better grinding efficiency compare
HPGR VRM
to VRM, hence the higher the grindability the
higher the power saving effect by using HPGR
instead of VRM
Relevant for operation costs!
Optimum range of
HPGR application

5,0 7,5 10,0
Optimum range of VRM

Optimum range of HPGR drying air > carrying air volume

0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
HPGR VRM covers drive power range from 0.5 up to VRM
10 MW in a single machine
Single HPGR is limited to 4.0 MW
Relevant for Investment costs!
0,5 4,0 Installed Power [in MW] 10,0
Optimum range of HPGR
Grindability 5,0 7,5 10,0


0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
HPGR VRM
VRM covers drive power range from 0.5 up to
10 MW in a single machine
Single HPGR is limited to 4.0 MW
Optimum range of HPGR Optimum range for VRM
0,5 4,0 Installed Power [in MW] 10,0
Optimum range of HPGR
Grindability 5,0 7,5 10,0


0 5 8 10 15
2015-04-20
Case Study for a New Raw Material Grinding Plant – Basic Data
Plant design basis:

Kiln line up-gradation: 4,000tpd
Required raw meal production: 4,000tpd x 1,65 / 20h RM Operation = 330tph
Plant altitude: approx. 400m (ASL)
Ambient Temperature: -5°C to +25°C
Raw mill design basis:

Raw mill concept: Two identical mills = 180t/h (each)
Raw material grindability: 8,5kWh/t @ 15%R90µm @ VRM shaft
Raw material feed moisture: min. 3%; max. 6%
Raw material feed wear rate: high
Raw meal fineness: 15%R90µm
Raw meal product moisture: < 1%

2015-04-20
Case Study – Process determination criteria
Raw material properties:

Moisture: max. 6%
Mill capacity:
2 x 180t/h
QUAROPOL QMR2
POLYCOM
Grindability:
8.5kWh/t @ VRM shaft
Wear rate:
high!
Investment, operating and spare

part costs

2015-04-20
Case Study – Process determination criteria
Raw material properties:

Moisture: max. 6%
Mill capacity:
2 x 180t/h
QUAROPOL QMR2
POLYCOM
Grindability:
8.5kWh/t @ VRM shaft
Wear rate:
high!
Investment, operating and spare

part costs

2015-04-20
Case Stdy – Power Consumption
Two identical circuits: 2 x 180t/h @ 15%R90µm (8.5kWh/t 15%R90µm @ VRM shaft)
QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6

SEPOL PC 20/290
1,530kW (8.5kWh/t) Min. required power 1,260kW (7.0kWh/t)

@ mill shaft
QUAROPOL QMR2
POLYCOM
385,000m3/h @ 85mbar Min. required power @ 325,000m3/h @ 45mbar
1,140kW (6.3kWh/t) fan shaft 510kW (2.8kWh/t)
Mill: 8.5kWh/t TOTAL power Mill: 7.0kWh/t

Fan: + 6.3kWh/t consumption @ shaft Fan: + 2.8kWh/t
BE: + 0.8kWh/t
TOTAL = 14.8kWh/t TOTAL: = 10.6kWh/t

2015-04-20
Case Study – Power Consumption
Two identical circuits: 2 x 180t/h @ 15%R90µm (8.5kWh/t 15%R90µm @ VRM shaft)
QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6

SEPOL PC 20/290
1,530kW (8.5kWh/t) Min. required power 1,260kW (7.0kWh/t)

@ mill shaft
QUAROPOL QMR2
POLYCOM
385,000m3/h @ 85mbar Min. required power @ 325,000m3/h @ 45mbar
1,140kW (6.3kWh/t) fan shaft 510kW (2.8kWh/t)
Mill: 8.5kWh/t TOTAL power Mill: 7.0kWh/t

Fan: + 6.3kWh/t consumption @ shaft Fan: + 2.8kWh/t
BE: + 0.8kWh/t
TOTAL = 14.8kWh/t TOTAL: = 10.6kWh/t
∆ ~4.2kWh/t (~28%)
energy consumption

2015-04-20
New raw material grinding plant – Mill concept
Two mill concept: 2 x 180t/h @ 15%R90µm
QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6

SEPOL PC 20/290
One mill concept: 1 x 360t/h @ 15%R90µm
QMR2 48/24-440 POLYCOM 20/15-9

SEPOL PC 36/380
Power saving for one mill concept in the same range as for the two mill concept

2015-04-20
New raw material grinding plant – Example 3D-GA models (unscaled!)

2015-04-20
Thank you for your
attention!

2015-04-20

Rawmaterial Grinding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Rawmaterial Grinding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raw Material Grinding - VRM vs.

ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

• Mill housing free of grinding forces

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

• Less moving masses

• Dislocation by standard maintenance

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

• Separated grinding and drying

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

Weldability High compressive

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

Welding can be done without dismantling

About 100 roller pairs worldwide

Max. operating time so far > 75,000 h

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

• Unique wear protection Material:

• Autogenous wear protection (material layer):

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

Low drying capacity Disadvantage of

Raw material moisture [%]

Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM

Raw material moisture [%]

Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]

Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM

Raw material moisture [%]

Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]

Optimum range of Optimum range of VRM

Average max. moisture

Raw material moisture [%]

Relevant for operation costs!

Raw material grindability [kWh/t @ 12%R90 @ VRM shaft]

Optimum range of VRM

Raw material moisture [%]

Relevant for Investment costs!

0,5 4,0 Installed Power [in MW] 10,0

Optimum range of HPGR

Grindability 5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of VRM

Raw material moisture [%]

Optimum range of HPGR Optimum range for VRM

0,5 4,0 Installed Power [in MW] 10,0

Optimum range of HPGR

Grindability 5,0 7,5 10,0

Optimum range of VRM

Raw material moisture [%]

Plant design basis:

Raw mill design basis:

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

Raw material properties:

Investment, operating and spare

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

Raw material properties:

Investment, operating and spare

HeidelbergCement AG – HTC Leimen, Germany

QMR2 36/18-300 POLYCOM 17/9-6

1,530kW (8.5kWh/t) Min. required power 1,260kW (7.0kWh/t)

Mill: 8.5kWh/t TOTAL power Mill: 7.0kWh/t