You are on page 1of 7

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Process Systems Engineering (PSE ASIA) 25 - 27 June 2013, Kuala Lumpur.

Optimization of Fuels Mixture in Cement Plant to Meet Environmental Constraint

S. A. Ishak,a,b, H. Hashim,a,b*

Process System Engineering Centre (PROSPECT),Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. b Department of Chemical Engineering,Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. * Corresponding Authors TEL:+607-5535478

Climate change has been a problem from past decades with the increase of worldwide industrial activities. Contributing to that, cement industry is considered as one of the industry that generates high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. With that, this paper proposes the development of a systematic optimization model where minimized production cost is anticipated within the CO2 reduction target and fuels mixture. The optimization models consider fuel switching measure which replaces carbon rich fuels with lower carbon fuels in order to achieve lower carbon emissions. The optimization models are executed using General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS). With 20% of carbon emission target implemented, the minimum manufacturing cost is 30.972/t clinker. Keywords: Optimization, GAMS, Fuel Switching, Cement Industry.

1. Introduction
Cement is a product manufactured from the combination of clinker; a mixture of limestone and other raw materials (e.g.: sand, ash) heated in a kiln, with gypsum and other additives (Murray and Price, 2008). However, producing cement is not without any shortcomings. Cement production is recorded to have released about 5% of current global man-made CO2 emissions (Stefanovi et al., 2010). CO2 from cement manufacturing came from the burning of fossil fuels in kiln, electricity usage from grinding of raw and finished materials, and from the calcination of main raw material; limestone to produce clinker (Hendriks et al., 2004). Fuel switching to waste derived or natural fuels is seen the most applicable for emission reduction option as can be shown from the increase share in the energy market for alternative fuels in the past decade (Mokrzycki and Bocheczyk, 2003) thus the increased amount of studies dedicated to the finding of best alternative fuels and fossil fuels mix in cement industry. Kookos, et al. (2011) mainly researched via mathematical programming for optimized fuels mix in cement production. For Conesa, et al. (2008), they analytically studied the emitted pollutants sampled from existing cement plant when kilns are working with mixtures of fuels fed at different points. Schuhmacher, et al. (2009), using mixture of petroleum coke and SS as fuels, concluded that slight reduction in emitted

Optimization of Fuels Mixture in Cement Plant to Meet Environmental Constraint pollutants was seen when less carbon intensive fuels are partially used. MATLAB was used in studying the feasibility of alternative fuels in Carpio, et al. (2008). Thorough study of optimal fuel mixtures is discussed in Tsiliyannis (2012) where energy balance, internal mass and energy circuiting associated with compound operation are considered. Modeling using ASPEN PLUS is studied by Kntee, et al. (2004) where alternative fuels are studied by the amount of energy demand and air demand.


2. Methodology
2.1. Superstructure representation This study considers the minimization of manufacturing cost and the reduction of CO2 emissions from the mixture of raw materials and fuels with the implementation of fuel switching retrofits to the plant. The model is formulated as a mixed integer linear program (MILP) and executed using GAMS. Figure 1 shows the superstructure of the case study. Raw Materials Production cost Fuels: High carbon fuels, Low carbon fuels Fuel switching Figure 1 Superstructure representation for cement production cost 2.2. Model formulation 2.2.1 Objective function 3 different costs combined for the optimization problem are as follows: (1) Cost of raw materials

The model involves the cost of raw materials j in the cement manufacturing process where Cj is the cost of raw materials j in /kg of raw materials and mj is the mass of raw material j in kg/t clinker produced. (2) Cost of fuels (2) The model described two types of fuels involved which are fossil fuels k and alternative fuels l. Ck and Cl in the model represents cost of fuels k and cost of fuels l respectively in /kg of fuels while mk and ml represents mass of fuels k and mass of fuels l respectively in kg/t clinker produced. (3) Retrofit cost for fuel switching



S.A Ishak and H. Hashim

AC is the annual capacity of the plant in t clinker/year. FCIl is the fixed capital investment for non-fossil fuels l in while VCl is the variable cost for non-fossil fuels l in /kg of fuels. To translate the fixed capital investment to annual basis, coefficient l is introduced. l is a linearization coefficient where: (3.1) Linearization of the non-linearize is basing on Torres (1991). Al is the availability of non fossil fuels l (t fuel/year) while Xl is a binary variable for fuel l used where: 1 fuel l is used Xl = 0 otherwise The minimization of the objective functions in equations (1), (2) and (3) are subjected to constraints in equations (4) to (11). 2.2.2 Constraints a. Overall mass balance for clinker produced

Oxides, alkalis, sulfur and heavy metals produced in kiln came from raw materials and ash from the burning of fuels. They enter the system through raw meals and ash from fuels while sulfurs come through raw meals and the fuels themselves (Tokheim, 1999). (4) Where mo, ma, ms and mh represents the total mass of oxides, total mass of alkalis, total mass of sulfurs and total mass of heavy metals respectively in kg/t clinker. Oxides in clinker produced are subjected to: (4.1) Where o,j is the mass fraction of oxides o in raw materials j, o,k is the mass fraction of oxides o in fossil fuels ash k and o,l is the mass fraction of oxides o in non fossil fuels ash l. Mass of alkalis and heavy metals are also subjected to the same formula as in 4.1. Sulfurs in clinker produced are subjected to: (4.2) Where s,j is the mass fraction of sulfurs s in raw materials j, S,k is the mass fraction of sulfurs s in fossil fuels k and S,l is the mass fraction of sulfurs s in non fossil fuels l. The mass fractions of the sulfurs in fuels are calculated by expressing the S in as SO3 by introducing 80/32. b. Total CO2 emissions

Optimization of Fuels Mixture in Cement Plant to Meet Environmental Constraint Total CO2 emissions per tonne of clinker are contributed by the clinkerization process and combustion of fuels. CO2 emissions from fuels are a combination of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and CO2 emissions from non-fossil fuels. (5) Mass of CO2 emission from clinkerization process (mcz) is formulated as: (5.1) Where CaO,j is the mass fraction of CaO in raw materials j and MgO,j is the mass fraction of MgO in raw materials j. Both 44/55 and 44/40 are introduced since CaO and MgO respectively are used as the basis of the calculation. Mass of CO2 emission from combustion of fuels (mcm) is formulated as: (5.2) Where CEFk is the carbon emission factor of fossil fuels k and CEFl is the carbon emission factor of non fossil fuels l. c. Heat of consumption in kiln by fuels


Heat consumed in kilns is supplied by both types of fuels thus generating: (6) Where NCVk is the net calorific value of fossil fuels k in GJ/kg of fuels and NCVl is the net calorific value of non fossil fuels l in GJ/kg of fuels. TED represents the thermal energy demand in GJ/t clinker. d. Heat of consumption in kiln by non-fossil fuels

Use of alternative fuels is subjected to approvals and permits thus: (7) Where TSR is the thermal substitution rate that is expressed as a percentage of TED. e. Chemical analysis of clinker

Based on Bogue methodology, there are assumed to be 4 major phases (p) in clinker; C3S, C2S, C3A and C4AF formed by oxides from the raw materials.

(8) Where MPL represent the lower limits for clinker phase C3S, C2S, C3A and C4AF while MPU represent the upper limits. mo,j, mo,k, and mo,l are the mass of oxides in raw materials j, fossil fuels ash k and non fossil fuels ash l respectively. Bogue value is obtained from Kookos, et al. (2011). Every term in (8) is expressed in kg/t clinker.

800 f. CO2 emission reduction target

S.A Ishak and H. Hashim

(9) Where %CO2 is the emission reduction target and CO2GHG is current CO2 emission in kg/t clinker. For greenhouse gases impact, CO2 emissions from nonbiogenic fuels are the only emissions considered, thus, coefficient is introduced. g. Fuels availability

Fuels usage must not exceed the availability of the fuels while the numbers of fuels mixed must not exceed the maximum amount of fuels that can be mixed. (10) (11) Where Ak is the availability of fossil fuels k in t fuel/year and Al is the availability of non fossil fuels l in t fuel/year. Xk is the binary variable for the use of fossil fuels k, where: 1 fuel k is used Xk = 0 otherwise 2.3 Case study Cement plant with an annual capacity of 1 Mt/y plant with 5-stage pre-heater pre-calciner kiln system which represents a standard cement plant is considered. Raw materials options are limestone, clay, sand, iron source while fuels options are coal, petroleum coke (PC), refuse derived fuel (RDF), sewage sluge (SS), tire derived fuel (TDF), meat bone meal (MBM). TSR value and %CO2 of 20% are implemented. The cement plant produces ordinary Portland Cement. Data are gathered from Kookos, et al. (2011), Willett (2011), U.S. Geological Survey (2012), Murray and Price (2008) and Moya, et al. (2010).

3. Results and Discussion

Results for this study are shown by the base case (TSR and %CO2 are 0%) and after optimization (TSR and %CO2 are 20%) as follows. Table 4 Case study results Results Minimized cost (/t clinker) Total CO2 emitted (kg CO2/t clinker) Raw materials Limestone Sand Iron source Fuels Coal Petroleum coke TDF

Before After 32.007 30.972 629.282 622.394 Mass (kg/t clinker) 1311.678 1311.606 161.111 160.540 10.858 11.134 Mass (kg/t clinker) 0.019 106.061 84.848 21.875

Optimization of Fuels Mixture in Cement Plant to Meet Environmental Constraint


Table 4 shows that minimized cost of cement production is 30.972/t clinker while for base case, the production cost is 32.007 /t clinker which is slightly higher than the optimized cost. This is because the higher cost for coal as compared with alternatives fuels thus resulting in alternative fuels (TDF) to be chosen as fuels that are to be used in the manufacturing process. Raw materials used are limestone, sand and iron source with mass of 1311.606 kg/t clinker, 160.540 kg/t clinker and 11.134 kg/t clinker respectively with limestone being the major raw material. 21.875 kg/t clinker of TDF and 84.848 kg/t clinker of petroleum coke fuels are used to provide thermal energy to the kiln as opposed to base case where heat are contributed from coal and petroleum coke with amount of 0.019 kg/t clinker and 106.061 kg/t clinker respectively.

4. Conclusion
In conclusion, CO2 reduction of 20% produced lower cement production cost of 30.972/t clinker as compared with the base case. This is due to the fact that coal is pricier compared to the other fuels, thus, contributing to why TDF and petroleum coke are chosen as the fuels mixture rather than coal and petroleum coke.

5. Acknowledgement
Special thanks to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia. This research is funded by GUP research grant Vot number QJ 130000.2525.01H52.

Carpio, R. C., Junior, F. S., Coelho, L. S., and Silva, R. J. (2008). Alternative fuels mixture in cement industry kiln employing particle swarm optimization algorithm. Journal of the Brazil Society of Mechanical Science and Engineering. 2008. No 4. 335 340. Conesa, J. A., Glvez, A., Mateos, F., Martn-Gulln, I., and Font, R. (2008). Organic and inorganic pollutants from cement kiln stack feeding alternative fuels. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 158 (2008) 585592. Kntee, U., Zevenhovenb, R., Backmanc, R., and Hupac M. (2004). Cement manufacturing using alternative fuels and the advantages of process modeling. Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 85, Issue 4, 15 March 2004, Pages 293301. Kookos, I. K., Pontikes, Y., Angelopoulos, G. N., and Lyberatos, G. (2011). Classical and alternative fuel mix optimization in cement production using mathematical programming. Fuel. Volume 90, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 12771284. Mokrzycki, E., and Bocheczyk, A. U. (2003). Alternative fuels for the cement industry. Applied Energy. 74 (2003) 95100. Moya, J. A., Pardo, N., and Mercier, A. (2010). Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions: Prospective Scenarios for the Cement Industry. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010. Murray, A., and Price, L. (2008). Use of Alternative Fuels in Cement Manufacture: Analysis of Fuel Characteristics and Feasibility for Use in the Chinese Cement Sector. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Schuhmacher, M., Nadal, M., and Domingo, J. L. (2009). Environmental monitoring of PCDD/Fs and metals in the vicinity of a cement plant after using sewage sludge as a secondary fuel. Chemosphere. 74 (2009); 15021508.


S.A Ishak and H. Hashim

Stefanovi., G. M., Vukovi, G. D., Stojiljkovi, M. M., and Trifunovi, M. B. (2010). CO 2 Reduction Options in Cement Industry. Thermal Science. Year 2010, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 671-679. Tokheim, L. A. (1999). The impact of staged combustion on theoperation of a precalciner cement kiln. Doctor Philosophy, Telemark University College, Norway. Torres, F. E. (1991). Linearization of mixed-integer products. Mathematical Programming. 49, pg 427 428. Tsiliyannis, C. A. (2012). Alternative fuels in cement manufacturing: Modeling for process optimization under direct and compound operation. Fuel. 99 (2012). 20 39. U.S. Geological Survey, 2012. Mineral commodity summaries 2012. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. Willett, J. C. (2011). 2010 Minerals Yearbook: STONE, CRUSHED. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey.