INCREASING CEMENT GRINDING CAPACITY WITH VERTICAL ROLLER MILL TECHNOLOGY

Gary R Roy General Manager Product Management F.L.Smidth, Inc.

ABSTRACT With the many large-scale plant expansions made in the US in recent years, there has been a need to use new and complex burning and emission control technologies to comply with modern emission regulations. However, in many cases these same plants have chosen to use very traditional technology for finish grinding typically a ball mill and separator. With todays power price issues in the US, and the large experience base that the rest of the world has with the use of new technology in finish grinding, the US market is considering the use of modern Vertical Roller Mill technology for cement grinding. This paper discusses the different options available for upgrading the capacity of an existing plant, provides comparisons of operating costs, simplicity of operation, product quality considerations, etc., based on the OK mill project at Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) as the first vertical mill for cement grinding in the US.

INTRODUCTION When a new cement production facility is to be built, it is relatively simple to make a decision on what type of technology should be incorporated. The decision will be made based on cost of the installation, constructability, projected operating and maintenance costs, product quality issues, and customer preference. For a new installation, all of these variables are fairly well defined and comparisons of one technology vs another is fairly straightforward. When an existing facility is investigating how to significantly increase the cement grinding capacity, there are many different solutions that can be considered. However, it is important to realize that although the goal of increasing production seems to be very straightforward from a technology standpoint, each retrofit is a unique situation. The details of the existing facilities can often become the critical factor in making the justification for one type of system vs another. The justification may then be additionally influenced by the layout, re-use of existing equipment or other constraints as opposed to technology issues only. What is a good solution for one installation may be a terrible solution for another.

INCREASING CAPACITY: PREGRINDING OR NEW MILL CIRCUITS In order to significantly boost the grinding capacity of an existing facility, it requires that additional grinding power be added. Depending on the situation, this additional grinding power can either take the form of a pregrinding system attached to the existing grinding circuit, or a completely new grinding installation to make up the desired additional capacity. For cement grinding circuits, there are several options available for pregrinding. Depending on the type of pregrinder and system selected, a 10 to >100% production increase can be expected. Pregrinding solutions include vertical shaft impactors, hydraulic roller presses, and vertical roller mill pregrinders. Not only do pregrinders add grinding power to the grinding circuit, but they also provide an opportunity to increase the overall grinding efficiency of the circuit so that not only is the capacity increased, but the

overall specific power consumption is reduced compared to the original ball mill circuit. Although many of published materials are available in the literature regarding these technologies, a quick review should be included as background for the case study related below. Vertical Shaft Impactors ( VSIs) have been employed in the cement industry for pregrinding clinker in order to boost the capacity of existing mill circuits. The VSI reduces the size of the feed by accelerating the material and projecting it against a stationary surface. The amount of work that is done on the clinker is directly related to the speed of the rotor, or the impact velocity, and is typically in the range of 2-3 kWh/mt fresh feed. The power consumed by the VSI is roughly equivalent to the power saved in the ball mill in crushing, therefore little savings in specific grinding power consumption is realized unless the reduced ball mill feed size eliminates other problems inherent in the original mill. It is typical to have the VSI in closed circuit with a screening system to prevent any uncrushed particles from being fed directly to the ball mill. Literature shows that production increases of 20-30% are possible without changing the separator circuit. However, each case must be analyzed for the inherent problems with the existing circuit. A more realistic prediction is a 10-20% production increase for a well operated ball mill. Although the cost of the VSI itself is relatively attractive, the cost of installing the auxiliary equipment (screens, elevators, etc.) can be significant, as can the maintenance and down time attributed to wear of the VSI and screens. Vertical Roller Mill (VRM) Pregrinders have also been used as pregrinders to boost existing mill production. The vertical pregrinder differs from the vertical roller mill in that only the grinding portion of the vertical roller mill is employed. There is no airflow or separator attached directly to the machine, as its purpose is to perform the coarse grinding only. A partial recirculation of the product is made both to balance the mill operationally and to crush any clinker that passes through the mill uncrushed on the first pass. With a recirculation rate of 50-70%, the vertical roller mill pregrinder can take up 6-8 kWh/mt feed. This means that an additional 20-25% more grinding power can be added to an existing ball mill circuit. In combination with adjustments to the ball charge in the mill, a 30-40% capacity increase can be attained. For a well operated system, an overall specific grinding power savings of about 10% can be realized. With a capacity increase of this magnitude, normally the auxiliary systems in the mill circuit, including the separator, will need to be evaluated to insure that it can accommodate the increased throughput, else a larger capital investment will be required. Down time of the original system may be an issue during the erection period if the separator needs to be replaced. The overall cost of the vertical roller mill pregrinder is much higher than the VSI due to the much heavier machinery and foundation works, however greater increases in the capacity can be realized. Also, the wear of the rollers and table is very low, and maintenance downtime and associated costs are quite low. Hydraulic Roller Press (HRP) have been used in the cement industry for years, and today there are hundreds operating worldwide. The major attractiveness to using an HRP is that high pressure grinding is much more efficient in grinding than a ball mill, therefore a significant power savings can be achieved which can offset part of the investment and maintenance costs. Maximizing the work done by the HRP results in a more efficient overall grinding process. In order to increase the amount of work done by a HRP, it is necessary to recycle a portion of the pressed material back to the press for further grinding. However, the HRP suffers from operational instability if the amount of fines recirculated becomes excessive. For these reasons, there are two main arrangements using an HRP: Pregrinding and Semi-finish Grinding. In a pregrinding arrangement, the HRP can be erected separately from the ball mill and separator circuit. This can allow the HRP to be erected while the ball mill is still in operation, reducing the downtime associated with the conversion. There is no separation of the recycled material back to the press; therefore the circulation is limited to prevent operational instability. For this reason, the amount of work that the HRP inputs to the material is only about 4.5 kWh/mt of fresh feed. As the HRP is more effective in grinding than a ball mill, the result is a decrease in the specific power consumption of the entire mill

circuit by about 10%, depending on product Blaine. Changes can be made to the mill ball charge to take advantage of the smaller feed size as well. In total, a capacity increase of 25-35% can be achieved by adding an HRP as a pregrinder. To maximize the capacity of an existing ball mill, the work done by the press must also be maximized. This will require a large size press with a high material recirculation rate in order to maximize the specific power input. As the press operation will become unstable due to the large amount of fines that is generated, the press must then be put in closed circuit with a grit separator so that the fines in the material recirculated to the press can be extracted. In this arrangement, the press can do most of the grinding work, and the ball mill only finish grinding the material and flatten the product particle size distribution. A capacity increase of greater than 100% can be realized in this semi-finish grinding arrangement. The fines separator, elevators, and transport systems will all need to be upgraded/replaced due to the significantly higher capacity, and therefor the investment cost and downtime associated with the modification can be quite high. As the wear of the roller press is proportional to the amount of clinker pressed, there can be some significant maintenance costs associated with the system. Milling circuits with a VSI or vertical roller mill pregrinder do not provide a significantly lower grinding power consumption than a ball mill in closed circuit with high efficiency separator. As a circuit with a pregrinder has more mechanical equipment, higher maintenance and lower run factors can be expected. Only the HRP in a semi-finish arrangement significantly lowers the power consumption of the finish milling circuit. However, this option is more expensive to install and maintain due to the additional equipment. It is only when the power costs are significant that the HRP can give a positive ROI to offset the initial capital investment. TABLE 1 gives a short summary of the benefits of each of these pregrinding options as compared to a standard ball mill system.
TABLE 1: General Comparison of Pregrinding Options

Ball Mill (Base) System Capacity Potential Specific Grinding Power Maintenance Availability Ease Operation of 100% 100% Low 100 95-99% 1

VSI Pregrinder 110-120% 90-100% High 130 80-90% 2

VRM Pregrinder 130-140% 85-92% Moderate 115 90-95% 3

Roll Press Pregrinder 125-135% 75-90% Moderate 125 88-95% 2

Roll Press Semi-Finish 135->200% 60-80% High 130 80-90% 4

New Grinding Circuits can be a more economic solution when considering the options available for increasing the grinding capacity significantly. Depending on the inefficiencies and physical condition of the older, existing equipment, actual layout of the plant and requirement for new storages, transport and structures, it may be preferable to install a completely new grinding circuit rather than upgrade the existing mills. This is particularly attractive when there are several small mills that all need to be modernized to achieve the desired final capacity. This would have a high cost not only for the additional equipment, but also in terms of down time and constructability. If some of the existing mills are very small and inefficient or suffer with high maintenance costs, the incremental cost of increasing the new mill size can be offset by the operating advantage of shutting down the smallest mills.

CASE STUDY INCREASING CEMENT GRINDING CAPACITY AT PHOENIX CEMENT COMPANY Phoenix Cement Company (PCC), located in Clarksdale, AZ, currently operates (2) two-stage preheater kilns and one long dry kiln, built between the late 1950s and early 1960s. The annual output of the plant is in the range of 600,000 short tons of clinker. In 1997, Phoenix Cement Company began to discuss plans for increasing the plant capacity to one million short tons per year. In the initial planning for the expansion, it was considered that the additional clinker capacity would be gained by adding a small, new kiln line, and maintaining production on the older lines. In order to support the increased clinker production, it was determined that the overall plant cement grinding capacity should be increased by about 30%. On site there are four 1500 HP ball mills, in which all of the raw material and finish grinding take place. As the capacity of both the raw and finish grinding needed to be addressed, it was originally thought that some synergy could be gained by converting the raw mill to a finish mill, and install a completely new vertical raw mill. Although this would save the cost of the mill and some building/civil works, it would involve a lot of transport of materials both to the mill and back out to the silos. As the project started to develop, the scope was changed to that where a new precalciner kiln would provide total clinker production, and the older, inefficient kiln lines be shut down. At that time PCC abandoned the idea of converting the used raw ball mills to finish grinding, and began to pursue the purchase of an existing 4400 HP Nordberg ball mill for making up the required finish grinding capacity. There were very brief discussions held at the time to consider the addition of hydraulic roll presses, but it was determined that the initial capital investments did not warrant its use, and PCC would have enough grinding capacity with the existing ball mills. The next challenge came about when the used Nordberg mill ball mill was sold and no longer available on the market. Naturally, the project then came to consider a completely new ball mill to supplement the finish grinding capacity. Although more expensive than the used mill, this would be a fairly straightforward installation comprised of all new equipment. PCC has a history of installing progressive process solutions in the U.S. cement industry. In 1988, the first SEPAX flashdryer was installed in the US, operating as not just a classifier, but also a flash dryer for the raw material. Additionally, Gamma Metrics installed the first on-line analyzer for raw material proportioning back in 1985. PCC was also one of the first cement companies to explore the use of a vertical shaft impact (VSI) crusher to boost the cement mill output. However, this VSI was never commissioned for various reasons. At the time when PCC was considering the new ball mill circuit, they were introduced to vertical roller mill technology for cement grinding. For decades, the vertical roller mill (VRM) has been used for grinding of cement raw materials and coal, and the VRM has become the dominant mill for these applications. The VRM for cement grinding has been used in other parts of the world for many years; however; it had not been installed in the North American market to that time. In considering the VRM for cement grinding, PCC had to not only consider the financial implications of this technology in terms of installed and operating costs, but also the product quality and comfort of using this technology as a supplement to the existing finish grinding ball mills. It is a well known fact that the energy consumption of a vertical roller mill system is significantly lower, 6575%, of that required for a comparable ball mill system. See TABLE 2 for a comparison of the proposed installed power for a new ball mill system and new vertical mill system. As the capacity of the vertical mill is higher than that proposed for the ball mill option, the table normalizes the power consumption by the capacity. The operating power saving is expected to be in the range of 10 kWh/mt as compared to a new ball mill installation.

TABLE 2: Comparison of Installed Power for Ball Mill and Vertical Mill

Ball Mill Mill Size Mill Capacity (@ 3900 Blaine) Installed Power Mill Drive Separator Drive Fan(s) Total 41.1 kWh/mt 1.6 kWh/mt 4.0 kWh/mt 46.7 kWh/mt UMS 4.6M x 13.0M 90.7 mtph

Vertical Mill OK 33-4 118 mtph

25.3 kWh/mt 1.3 kWh/mt 11.5 kWh/mt 38.1 kWh/mt

The vertical mill provides the grinding, transport and separation processes in a single, compact unit that can perform with the same reliability as seen with roller mills in raw grinding. As a result of the reduced equipment requirements, the layout of the finish grinding solution is simple and foundation and building costs are low, especially in temperate environments when an enclosure is not required. The cost difference between the ball mill and vertical mill system, on an installed basis, can be 10% or less depending on the final building requirements for the vertical mill. At Phoenix, the mill is arranged with only a minimal weather covering. A light, open structure is used, with access for a mobile crane to be used for maintenance and repair work. FIGURE 1 provides a sketch of the compact arrangement of the Phoenix installation.
FIGURE 1: Phoenix Ok Mill Arrangement

The quality of vertical mill cement can be different from that produced by a ball mill and the main reasons for that is the steeper particle size distribution, and the low retention time which can impact the dehydration of the gypsum. The vertical mill is quite flexible in its operation, and the particle size distribution can be adjusted though changes in the dam ring, grinding pressure, and airflow rates. A higher dam ring results in a thicker grinding bed, and a longer retention time on the table. The material

will thus receive more overrollings before leaving the table and therefore a lower circulating load to the separator. The result is a flatter particle size distribution. A lower grinding force provides a lower energy input per overrolling, resulting in a higher circulation to the separator and a steeper particle size distribution. See FIGURE 2 for a graphical depiction of these relationships.

N-value
1.4

1.3

High dam ring Medium dam ring

1.2

Low dam ring

1.1 78 83 89 100 % Compressive Force

FIGURE 2: Relationship of Product PSD and Operating Parameters

The dehydration of the gypsum can be adjusted by changing the mill exit temperature, which is simply done by recirculation of the mill exit gases and adding additional heat from an auxiliary furnace if necessary. Both the setting times and water to cement ratio can be adjusted by controlling the amount of gypsum dehydration. As gypsum can come from different sources and have different characteristics, the system is initially set up to operate with a mill exit temperature of 110C (230F) to insure that the gypsum dehydration is sufficient, however it can be operated up to 125C (257F) if required. The biggest concern regarding the use of the vertical roller mill was the impact on the product quality. As the market in which PCC operates in is accustomed to receiving cement produced in ball mills, there was naturally some concern that the product quality would be different than that of the existing ball mill circuits. The impact of the changing product quality is a very serious marketing concern for any cement producer. Before PCC would decide on a vertical mill solution, these questions had to be answered. FLSmidth was able to supply information from many of its vertical mill installations that also operated with ball mills in order to answer these questions. PCC also went to Cementos Progresso in Guatemala, a plant that has two OK vertical mills and two ball mills in closed circuit with roll presses, to further investigate these quality issues. TABLE 3 provides a comparison of the main cement quality data between the ball mill and OK mill cement at that plant. As can be seen in Table 3, the cement from the OK mill has a somewhat lower Blaine value and lower sieve residue on the 45 m sieve, i.e. a more narrow particle size distribution. Nevertheless, all other quality figures, including water to normal consistency, setting times, and compressive strengths are almost identical.

TABLE 3: Comparison f Cement Quality Between Ok Mill and Ball Mills

Mill OK BM 1 BM 2

Blaine 2 cm /gm 3700 4000 4000

Residue %>45 6.4 7.5 7.6

SettingTime W/C % 28.6 27.7 28.0 Initial min 130 130 130 Final min 310 310 310

Compressive Strength (ASTM) MPa 1 3 7 28 Days Days Days Days 12.3 22.3 26.8 34.2 12.8 21.3 25.4 32.0 12.7 21.6 25.8 32.9

* PCC cement: 75% clinker, 15% Pozzolan, 5% limestone, 5% gypsum At the end of all of the evaluations, PCC was confident in the vertical roller mill technology for cement finish grinding and selected a new, OK mill system to supplement its existing cement ball mills. FINAL FINISH GRINDING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The new finish grinding area consists of an OK 33-4 vertical roller cement mill with a 4000 HP (2983 kW) motor and an OKS-70 classifier with a 200 HP (149 kW) motor that is capable of producing 130 STPH (118 MTPH) of cement at 3900 Blaine. As mentioned previously, the mill is arranged with only a minimal weather covering. A light, open structure is used for the mill itself, with access for a mobile crane for maintenance and repair work. The dust collector is outside the weather protection. The mill exit gas is vented directly to a baghouse dust collector. The gas then goes through the dust collector fan, after which part of the gas is recycled back to the mill inlet, while the remainder is vented to atmosphere. There is little energy wasted on heat generation in the mill as compared to a ball mill, so an auxiliary air heater is supplied to provide additional heat if required for drying the gypsum. The product collected in the baghouse is then conveyed to cement product coolers. Two identical cement product coolers (100 x 208") are provided to cool the cement temperature from 110C (230F) to 63C (145F). The cool cement is then conveyed to the existing cement storage silos. CONCLUSION Many different options were considered before the final decision to use the OK vertical roller mill for cement grinding was made by Phoenix Cement Company. With the changing scope of the project, the options including the use of existing mills, pregrinders, as well as new mill circuits were evaluated, and a new vertical finish mill was finally selected. Even though there are no running references for vertical cement mills in the U.S., PCC decided to go forward with this cutting edge technology. After thoroughly investigating all of the aspects of vertical mill performance, PCC has shown confidence that this solution will provide them with the most economic operation while producing the high quality product that their customers demand.