See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261501871

Power generation by different waste heat

recovery methodologies with reference to
cement works in Pakistan: A case...

Conference Paper · October 2012

DOI: 10.1109/ICET.2012.6375473

CITATIONS READS

0 231

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea
government (MSIP) (No. R0113-15-0002, Automotive ICT based e-Call standardization and after-market
device development) View project
This research was supported by the MISP (Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning), Korea, under the
National Program for Excellence in SW (2015-0-00914) supervised by the IITP (Institute for information &
communications Technology Promotion). View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Abbas Kazmi on 02 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Power Generation by Different Waste heat recovery
Methodologies with reference to cement works in
Pakistan
A case study for cement industry in Pakistan

S. Ali Abbas Kazmi1, M. Zahir Khan2

Electrical Engineering Department
1,2
University of Engineering and Technology
Peshawar, Pakistan
engrkazmi_15186@yahoo.com, zahirkhan@nwfpuet.edu.pk

Abstract² Cement industry is one of the strongest candidates
for waste heat recovery (WHR) due to the reason that about 40%
of heat utilize for clinker production process is exhausted to
atmosphere from exhausts of suspension preheater (SP) and air
quenching chamber (AQC), without utilization. In this paper,
different technologies for power generation by WHR system are
discussed, as main concern nowadays is increasing power
generation by different WHR technologies by the same source.
The demonstration is done on a case study where WHR unit is
not yet installed. Comparison of power generation is done
utilizing different methodologies along with their results. The
applied CDM methodology applied and resultant emission
reductions are also shown. The conclusions are given for the best
system that is suitable as per our limitations and operational
conditions. The monitoring policy of waste hear recovery power
plant for billing and power usage is also devised. The advantages
and barriers in-terms of installation of waste heat recovery
system are also mentioned. It can be a role model for other third
world countries like Pakistan, for sustainable development.
Index Terms² Waste Heat Recovery (WHR); Waste Heat
Recovery System (WHRS), Suspension Preheater (SP); Air
Quenching Chamber (AQC); Waste Heat Recovery Power Plant
(WHRPP); National Transmission and Dispatch Company
(NTDC); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs); Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC).
I. INTRODUCTION
Cement industry is one of the main industries of Pakistan in
which about 40% of heat produced in clinker production
process is exited to atmosphere causing pollution to the
environment as well [1]. Also the shortage of power all around
the world especially in Pakistan, economical concerns and high
energy requirements demands a standby system that is
environment friendly for producing a reasonable power
quantity. Waste Heat Recovery System full fills all the criteria.
As cement industry in Pakistan are located in those areas where
waste heat gases are comparatively high and they can be good
candidates for installation of WHRS. It results in partial
reduction on dependence of national grid like National
Transmission and Dispatch Company in Pakistan in-terms of
load, bill and cement production cost. It also ensures normal
kiln operation during time off demand (TOD) when each
cement factory has to reduce load as instructed by NTDC and
reduction in emission reduction of GHG like CO2 that is a
major contributor to the global warming and environmental
pollution and can be capitalized in-terms of selling of carbon
credits as per implementation of methodology by clean
development mechanism with reference to Kyoto Protocol [2].
II. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PAPER
A. Specification of demonstration Project
our project is done on Askari Cement Limited (ACL), situated
near Hassan-Abdal, Punjab province in Pakistan. It is 3700
tons per capacity of cement plant with single production line;
also it has no captive power plant previously nor is waste heat
recovery system installed yet. It has automation of ABB with
medium voltage of 6.3KV and 50Hz. This effort is done for
demonstration purpose to give an approach that how a WHRS
is installed on a plant in which WHRPP is not installed yet and
an overall view of the project. For this purpose, different
effective techniques employed worldwide are utilized to sort-
out the best WHRS in terms of operation, maintenance and
have correlation to our requirements.
B. Different WHRPG Technologies worldwide
The three major technologies used in the world are
discussed as per their power production, auxiliary equipment
consumption [3]. The WHRPP steam based rankine cycle like
single flash system and dual pressure system can be considered
in Asia and south-Asia because the exit gases temperatures are
high form SP and AQC of cement plants situated here and also
working medium used is water which is environment friendly,
safe, low cost and abundant. The Organic Rankine Cycle
system is simple in configuration and best for low temperature
waste heat recovery but has limited power generation due to
certain factors like pinch points, working fluid decomposition

978-1-4673-4451-7/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

at high temperature, high cost of working fluid, environmental
concerns like they destroy ozone layer (being mostly CFCs and
refrigerants) etc. The Kalina cycle employs a mixture of water
and ammonia and the power generation by this system directly
depends upon the concentration of the mixture applied pressure
and temperature. It has a complex system it generally overlaps
with the WHR conditions of cement plants in Pakistan. All the
results are proved by simulations programs on Matlab.
C. Emission Reductions
Another advantage by this WHRS technology is the
reduction of GHGs like CO2. The CO2 reduction plays an
important task of reduction of global warming and
environmental production. The CDM methodology that can be
used for our case study is AMS-IIIQ for small scale projects
for waste gases and emission reduction. It generates carbon
credentials that can be sold to international market to generate
additional income helps in further fast payback as compare to
without CDM as per Kyoto protocol of UNFCCC [2] and [4].
III. WASTE HEAT RECOVERY POWER GENERATION
METHODOLOGIES
The exit waste gases quantity and quality majorly depends
upon the capacity of kiln of cement plant. The more of the
capacity of cement plant, the more power is produced as shown
in figure 1.
Plot of Cement Plant Capacity vs Power Generation via Waste Heat recovery System
25
20
15
due to pinch point that restricts mass flow and cause
temperature limitation effect on temperature, so results in
comparatively less power generation capability for our
environment [5]. It is also not used due to the reason that the
working fluid used in ORC is very costly (25$/Kg), they are
flammable, cause serious environmental threats and have
comparatively large boiler (heat exchanger) as compare to
steam rankine cycle. The auxiliary equipment required in such
system is of small consumption usage up to 6% of the power
generated by WHRPP based on such technology. It has a high
cost of purchase and high cost of maintenance due to high price
of fuel and other factors but it is very easy to operate [6].
Another technology gaining popularity worldwide is Kalina
cycle based which employs a mixture fuel containing a specific
proportion of ammonia and water. It absorbs more heat and
result in more power generation as compare to steam based
rankine cycle. The auxiliary equipment required in such system
is of high consumption usage up to 14% of the power
generated by WHRPP based on such technology. The power
generation by this technology is highly affected by ammonia
water concentration. It is very costly and demands a high level
of observation and maintenance [7]-[8].
A. Cement Plant Data Required for Waste Heat recovery
Power Generation by WHRPP majorly depends upon
process parameters of the cement plant. Typical parameters of
demonstration study (3700 tons per day) are shown in table I.
TABLE I. TYPICAL WASTE GAS CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT
Serial Waste heat Gases Parameters of Cement Plant
No. Parameter Unit Value
1 Preheater Gases Temperature Û& 380
Power in MW

2 SP boiler Gases Temperature Û& 220

10
3 Clinker cooler Gases Temperature Û& 370

4 Mass flow of Preheater exhaust gas (kg/s) 92

5
5 Mass flow Clinker cooler exhaust gas (kg/s) 63
3
0 6 SP exhaust gases mass flow-rate m /h 167500
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Cement Plant Kiln Capacity
7 AQC exhaust gases mass flow-rate m3/h 192500
Fig. 1. Power Production vs. Cement plant Capacity. 3
8 Density of waste exhaust gas of AQC kg/m 2.12
3
Different waste heat technologies used in world are steam 9 Density of waste exhaust of SP kg/m 1.82
based rankine cycle like single flash system and dual pressure
system especially for comparatively high temperature
environment like in asia especially in South-Asia due to the B. Equations and Units
reason that the fuel used in it is water which is safe, cheap and
environment friendly. The auxiliary equipment required in The temperature range starts from temperature of working
such system is of normal consumption usage up to 10% of the fluid T1 to maximum temperature attained of working fluid by
power generated by WHRPP based on such technology. It has boiler, that is T4 and the temperature range is between T1 to
affordable price with many factors that can be manipulate T4.
easily as per conditions of temperatures in cement industries of Boiler: Waste heat gases send to boiler for heat addition to
Pakistan [1]. Other system that is simple in proportion and the working fluid at high pressure and high temperature, It is
mostly used in Europe is ORC which are excellent for further divided into economizer, preheater and super heater
comparatively very low temperature based WHR but limited respectively:
Economizer: From pump to boiler to raise fluid temperature C. Simulation results and comparison of different Waste heat
[9]. recovery techniques.
The different techniques utilized worldwide for waste heat
4 P[ȡ[& x (T2-T1) (1) recovery systems constitutes of general (single flash
p
technology), dual pressure technology, ORC technology and
Preheater: To Preheat working fluid to steam. kalina cycle technology due to the reason of effective power
generation. The main parameter involves two main input
4 P[ȡ[& x (T3-T2) (2) parameters, temperature of the flue gases and flow of gas [3].
p
The schematic diagram of single flash based WHRPP
system is shown in figure 2, showing its working. The Flasher
Super-heater: To heat steam to super-heated saturated steam. not only removes oxygen but also increase temperature of less
saturated steam for its reuse in turbine for power generation.
4 P[ȡ[& x (T4-T3) (3)
p

Boiler Efficiency [10]:

િB =0.8
Boilers combine Efficiency: For both AQC and SP Boilers.
િBC =0.8×0.8=0.64
Actual Heat recovered:

QA = િBC î>ĮîPîȡî& × (T4-T1)] (4)

p

Actual Heat recovered in KWt: Fig. 2. Schematic Diagram of Single Flash based WHRPP.

QAMW = િBC î>ĮîPîȡî& × (T4-T1)] × 0.001163 (5)

p The schematic diagram of single flash based WHRPP
system is shown in figure 3, showing its working. It
Where: 0.001163 = (1/860) Units in KW incorporates an additional boiler for make use of drained/bled-
off steam for some more power generation and little high
else shut off value drain operate for emergency situations process efficiency for electrical power production as we are
Turbine practical Efficiency: interested in electrical power only.
િT =0.75
// The rest of the steam is bled off to flasher or secondary
boiler for regenerative use.
Actual work done by turbine in KWt:

PAMWT = િBC × િT î>ĮîPîȡî& × (T4-T1)] × (6)

p
0.001163

else shutoff valve operate in case of reverse power

Generator practical Efficiency:
િG =0.90
Actual work done by Generator in KWe: Fig. 3. Schematic Diagram of Dual Pressure based WHRPP.

PAMWG = િG × PAMWT (7) The schematic diagram of organic rankine cycle (ORC)
based WHRPP system is shown in figure 4, showing its
else Generator trip
Condenser along with cooling tower, for cooling working working. It has very simple configuration and is very easy to
fluid to take its temperature to relatively low. use but it is good for low temperature heat recovery for power
Pumps (multistage) to take back working fluid back to aerator generation and limited in used due to high maintenance cost,
and to boiler section (Economizer). operation cost and high cost of working fluid in addition to
else emergency exit environment hazards [6].
 Superheated
Steam
6 31.4545 31.4545 49.9596 33.566
by AQC boiler
(T/h)
Superheated
Steam
7 13.8810 13.8810 15.7509 16.4855
by SP boiler
(T/h)
Auxiliary
8 0 5.6666 0 0
Boiler
Superheated
9 45.3355 51 65.7105 50.0515
Steam (T/h)
Fig. 4. Schematic Diagram of ORC based WHRPP.
Output of
10 8.6713 8.9702 5.9139 9.8738
Turbine (KW)
Output of
The schematic diagram of kalina based WHRPP system is 11 Generator 7.8042 8.0732 5.3226 8.8864
shown in figure 5, showing its working. (KW)
Auxiliary
12 0.7804 0.8477 0.3194 1.2441
Power (KW)
Net power
13 7.0238 7.2255 5.0032 7.6423
output (KW)
Process
14 27.6480 27.7344 30.9251 40.5000
efficiency (%)

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION AND CDM METHODOLOGIES

To calculate the quantity of GHGs reductions like CO2
reduction by the project implementation, the CDM
methodology used as per our project demonstration case
study, is AMS-111Q , which is approved methodology for
Fig. 5. Schematic Diagram of Kalina based WHRPP.
small scale projects for Waste energy recovery
(gas/heat/pressure) projects version 4 (CDM methodology
The kalina cycle has complex working but higher
process and electrical efficiency. But the power generation is guide). The emission reduction can be calculated during a
limited to a specific level of 10MWe due to design and process certain year y given by equation [4]:
limitations [11]. It has high cost of system, operation,
maintenance cost and auxiliary equipment power consumption ERy = EBy ±EPy (8)
but for small single line based old cement plants, these are
better choices for utilization and giving a new life to cement Where:
plant because in future only those cement plants will be in ERy = GHG emission reduction due to WHRPP during y year
competition which will install this system on right time with in (tons of CO2)
additional advantage of sharing one third load of cement plant EBy = GHG emission production in absence of WHRPP
with production of carbon credentials as an additional source of during y year in (tons of CO2).
income. The overall comparisons of all WHRPP systems are EPy = GHG emission production after WHRPP during y year
shown in table 2 on the basis of simulation results [12]. in (tons of CO2). This parameter is considered to be zero.
Enet,y = Net electricity used by the plant = 6000KW.
EFy = Emission Factor of Pakistan = 0.483 (tCO2/MWh).
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF WHRPP BASED ON DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES
General/
EBy = Enet,y× EFy (9)
Sr. Dual
Parameters Single ORC Kalina
#: Pressure
Flash That results in reduction of 20866 tons of CO2 per MWh
AQC Boiler and if CDM commitment period is 5 years along with 18$/14
1 24.479 24.479 16.687 34.772
input (MW)
tons of CO2 then the effects on payback is more visible.
SP Boiler
2 10.804 10.804 4.822 13.9872
input (MW)
Calculated
3 35.283 35.283 21.509 48.7592 V. EFFECT OF WHRPP ON CEMENT PLANT
input (MW)
Actual input The case study for demonstration is a 3700 tpd (tons per
4 28.2269 28.932 17.210 39.0076
(MW)
Effective heat
day) cement production plant with a maximum demand of
recovered by 19MW and we assume that we utilized single flash based
5 18.0652 18.6880 25.2118 21.9418
Boilers Output WHRPP system with gross electricity production of 7.2MW,
(KW) auxiliary consumption of maximum 1MW. The cost of clinker
production before WHRPP is based on actual data of 51.5
Kwh/tons and total cement production of 108.3251Kwh/tons.
The overall effect of WHRPP is shown in figure 6. [12].
Clinker Prod in KWH/tons without WHRPP.
10
Clinker Prod in KWH/tons with WHRPP.
10
9 9
8 8
7 7
Time in months
Time in months
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
51.5 52 52.5 34
production of clinker in Kwh/tons Production of clinker in Kwh/tons
Fig. 6. Overall Effect of WHRPP on Clinker production.
Cement Prod in KWH/tons without WHRPP. Cement Prod in KWH/tons with WHRPP.
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
Time in months
Time in months
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
108.2 108.4 108.6 108.8 73
Production of cement in Kwh/tons Production of cement in Kwh/tons
Fig. 7. Overall Effect of WHRPP on Cement production.
A. Monitoring Policy for Billing
Either power produced can be utilized on site but it is costly
along with special arrangement in hardware so overall cost is
high and leads to a least robust system of power utilization
with subject to limited power generation availability from
WHRPP only. A simple and better solution is to install reading
meters both on receiving power from national grid and
transmitting meter on WHRPP side from where the power is
transmitted to national grid. So overall bill will be units
received from national grid from units generated from WHRPP
and also ensure availability of power from national grid during
shutdown and fault conditions. The algorithm for billing
system is shown below:
if PNET generated,
Power transmitted to cement plant Main sub-station (MSS) to
WAPDA/NTDC (National grid) giving reading on
sending/transmitting meter.
else if P is not generated, Power taken from WAPDA/NTDC
(National grid), giving reading on receiving meter
end if
if Power Produced by WHRPP
Net Bill = Bill of Received Power from WAPDA - Bill of
Transmitted/generated Power by WHRPP
else
Net Bill = Bill of Received Power Net Bill = Bill of Received
Power
end if
end
B. Barriers and advantages of WHRPP installation
1) Barriers: Barriers in installation of WHRPP includes
Barriers due to Cost of installation of WHRS. More the cost of
a project, less it is viable for investor. Barriers due to
investment have to be considered because investment
providing mechanism varies from bank to bank along with the
35 36 37 38
familiarity of the financing mechanism with the technological
aspects of WHRS technology and related risks for
implementation of a project. It might be a risk that power
generation and internal rate of return (IRR) from WHRPP can-
be lower than expected, in this case the bank has an option not
to extend loan period other than grace period so an alternative
arrangement for the project must be their if any worse case
scenario happens. This also cause hurdle in implementation of
project. Barriers due to Technology for WHRPP mainly
depend on the type of equipment used. As there is no domestic
equipment for WHRPP is produced in Pakistan, so we are
dependent on other countries. The trained manpower is main
issue for running and smooth operation of WHRPP. As steam
based WHRPP is short magnitude version of conventional
74 75 76 77
steam based power plant with design change up to greater
extent as per requirement of the process. So steam based
WHRPP is easy to handle by trained manpower. The ORC
WHRPP is even easier to handle but it requires high level
security of man power and handling of working fluid, as most
of the organic fluids are volatile. Kalina cycle is even more
complex in operation and difficult to handle because it
requires high level of observe-ability and monitoring by
trained staff as a little change in concentration of water and
ammonia in working fluid at high temperature can affect the
amount of output power by the process. Also the maintenance
staff at Kalina based WHRPP requires special training, as it is
relatively new technology, which further increase cost of
process and discourage investor to invest in such kind of
project. The main process restriction for WHRPP in cement
LQGXVWU\LVWKLVWKDWÛ&WHPSHUDWXUHPXVWEHNHSWDW63IRU
raw material and coal preheating, which do not allow
maximum heat achievability from SP. Also waste gases that
flow through process have high content of dust and stickiness
can cause damage to the boiler tubes in-terms of chocking.
Other barriers includes WHRPP capacity such as the WHRPP
should produce that much significant power which helps kiln
and cooler area to run at full capacity other than auxiliary
equipment even in-case of power shutdown from national grid
and barrier due to lack of vision [13].
2) Advantages: The technical and economic advantages of
WHRPP installation includes dependency reduction of
electrical load on national grid, CO2 reduction, It also
 contributes to the smooth production process because NTDC
instructed all cement factories in Pakistan to make their load
to minimum during TOD (Time-off Demand) which results in
feed cutoff of kiln & its rotation to minimum speed, thus
causing huge production loss. The installation of this system
ensures complete production process of cement during TOD
because electricity production Via waste heat recovery will
give enough power to work in close loop of kiln operation
because waste gases are produce only if kiln is running and if
once kiln is shutdown, it will take at least 30 hours to bring
back to operation. It saves costly revenue in terms of
electricity which always has a main economic impact on
company economics [14]. It has given new life to old plants
because they have maximum waste heat emissions, thus
converting their potential for achieving a useful & costly
product that is electricity [15]. It results in significant
greenhouse gases emission reductions and due to reduction in
temperature of the exit hot gases, the local environment and
surrounding [16]. Reduction in cost for generating electricity
because no additional fuel is used and Setting up trend and
make an example of sustainable development, to be followed
by other process industries [17].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
From the results we deduced regarding selection of WHRS
for cement plant, it is proved that maximum power is produced
by Kalina based WHRPP as compare to steam based WHRPP
with maximum process efficiency but has comparatively high
auxiliary equipment requirement than any other methodology
and requires high level of monitoring. Also the cost of fuel and
maintenance cost is high. As it is relatively new technology so
availability of trained man power is also an issue. On the other
hand ORC produce minimum power with high cost of fuel and
environment concerns but has requires least auxiliary
equipment and is easy to monitor. As steam based WHRPP
produce great amount of power with average amount of
auxiliary equipment and the system is environment friendly as
it requires water as working fluid and monitoring and
availability of trained man power is not an issue and this is
tested technology as it requires relatively high waste gas
temperature and temperature of waste gases in Pakistan are
normally high. It is concluded that the strongest contender to
be selected is Kalina based WHRPP due to Maximum Power
and steam based WHRPP due to stability and reliability. One
more thing that the more power is produced, the more CO2 is
reduced and the more carbon credits are produce, on quantity
basis, Kalina based WHRPP produces maximum number of
carbon credits. Also this technology shares one-third of plant
load in-terms of electricity and production as a whole.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am very thankful to my colleagues at Askari cement
Wah for their support for the completion of this paper
especially Mr Asad Ali and Mr Hasnain Kazmi, engineers of
View publication stats
ACL WAH, Mr Raza Mir, Manager(E), Bestway chakwal and
Mr Muraad SDM(E), Fecto cement company.
REFERENCES
[1] Zhang Gaozuo;Zhu Guozhen;Wang Chunli ³A New
Application of Waste Heat Recovery Power Generation in
Clinker Kiln´, IEEE Cement Industry Technical Conference
Record, 2009.
[2] Yang Wei-hua ; Xu Tao ; Jia Li-yue ; Guo Yue-jiao ; Chen
Guang ; Li Wei³Waste heat recovery and power generation in
cement works´, 2nd International Conference on Power
Electronics and Intelligent Transportation System (PEITS), 2009
[3] Jiangfeng Wang, Yiping Dai, Lin Gao, ³Exergy analysis and
parameteric optimizations of different cogeneration power
SODQWV LQ FHPHQW LQGXVWU\´ ELSEVIER. accepted on 4-
september-2008, applied energy article 86 (2009), pp 941-946
[4] CDM methodology for Waste energy recovery projects AMS-
IIIQ version 04, pp 1-9.
[5] Ignace Vankeirsblick, Bruno Vanslambrouck, Sergei Gusev,
Michel De Paepe, ³Efficiency comparasion between the steam
cycle and the organice rankine cycle for small scale power
generation´ 2nd European conference on polygeneration, 30th
march to 1st april 2011, Tarragona Spain, pp 1-3.
[6] Huijuan Chen, D. Yogi Goswami, Elias K. Stefanakos, ³A
review of thermodynamic cycles and working fluids for the
conversion of low grade heat´ accepted on 13-july-
2010,Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 14 (2010),
Pages 3059- 3067.
[7] Mark D. Mirolli ³The kalina cycle for cement kiln waste heat
UHFRYHU\ SRZHU SODQWV´, IEEE Cement industry technical
conference 2005.
[8] Mark D. Mirolli, ³Ammonia-Water Based Thermal Conversion
Technology: Applications in Waste Heat Recovery for the
Cement Industry´, IEEE Cement industry technical conference
2007.
[9] Bureau of Energy Efficiency,´ Waste Heat Recovery´ Chapter
8, pp 1-5.
[10] Thomas Börrnert, Dr. Thomas Bürki ³Waste heat conversion
LQWR HOHFWULFLW\´, 52nd Cement industry technical conference
2010.
[11] Pall Valdimarsson and Larus Eliasson ³Factors influencing the
economics of the Kalina cycle power and situation of superior
performance´ international geothermal conference, Reykjavik,
September 2003.
[12] 6 $OL $EEDV .D]PL 7KHVLV RQ ³3RZHU JHQHUDWLRQ YLD :DVWH
KHDW UHFRYHU\ LQ FRQWH[W RI FHPHQW ZRUNV LQ 3DNLVWDQ´
unpublished.
[13] Project Design Document of Maple Leaf Cement Ltd,
Islamabad, Pakistan for Fuel Switching, vol 1, pp 3-8, 2009.
[14] Project Design Document of Fecto Cement Company Ltd,
Dawood Khail, Mianwali, Pakistan, PDD Ver 01, vol 1, pp 3-9,
2011.
[15] Project Design Document of lucky Cement Company Ltd,
Karachi, Pakistan PDD Ver 01, vol 1, pp 3-9, 2011.
[16] Project Design Document of lucky Cement Company Ltd, Pezu,
NWFP, Pakistan PDD Ver 01, vol 1, pp 3-9, 2011.
[17] Project Design Document of DG Khan Cement Company Ltd,
DG Khan, Punjab, Pakistan PDD Ver 01, vol 1, pp 3-9, 2011.