CPB Sem2012 p14 Separator Case Studies

3-days Training Course
September 24-26, 2012

Table of contents
Separator modernisations – 2 case studies

Presented by Mr. Michael Halbur
o Case study I, Cement plant Schelklingen, HeidelbergCement AG

• Motivation of modernisation
• Refurbishment of CPB separators
• Results
• ROI (estimated)
o Case study II, Phoenix Zementwerke Krogbeumker

• Motivation of modernisation
• Process of modernisation (investigation, engineering, erection)
• Results
2 Separator modifications – 2 case studies – September 24-26, 2012 © Christian Pfeiffer Maschinenfabrik GmbH
Case study I, Schelklingen
Modernisation of separator – case study 1

Cement plant Schelklingen, HeidelbergCement AG, Germany
Facts and figures

Cement plant Schelklingen, HeidelberCement AG, Germany
o 4 Grinding units at cement plant Schelklingen overall

o Grinding plant CM8, where modernisation was planned
• Mill tube: - Ø 4.4 m
- 15.25 m effective grinding length
• Separator: - QDK 38-N (installed 1994)
- 198 t/h capacity
- 248.000 Am3/h
• Cement type: - main product: CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
- range of cement types with fineness
3,100 up to 4,800 cm2/g according to Blaine
Motivation of modernisation
o Maintenance requirement due to normal wear during operation

• Change of separator cage (after 18 years of service life)
• Renew of mechanical seal of the separator cage
CPB recommendation: Upgrade to new separator design

o For saving costs retaining of separator housing, but changing of
• Separator cage
• Air guide vanes
• And installing of an air confined seal
CPB separator modernisation
Short overview on CPB separator optimisation

based on CFD analyses (Computational Fluid Dynamics)
Short overview on separator optimization

o Homogenisation of velocity in the separating area

o Avoiding of turbulences in the separation area
o Reducing pressure drop
New design Former design

Short overview on separator optimisation

o Changes in air guide vanes and rotating cage
New design
Air guide vanes
(louvres)
Rotating cage
Separation zone
Former design
Short overview on separator optimisation

Approximation of an ideal spiral

design
Leading to an almost ideal

circumferential distribution of
separation air into the separation
area
(New spiral housing was not

changed at Schelklingen!)
Confined air seal

Installed for the first time at cement plant Schelklingen
Confined air seal
Production increase after modernisation

Results of modernisation
o Conversion made in February 2012

o First verifiable results taken in March 2012
Product. in %
Production increase:
120 14,4%
114,5 %
100
100 %
90
80
CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
70
Energy savings after modernisation

o Conversion made in February 2012

o First verifiable results taken in March 2012
Product. in %
Energy savings:
120 13,78%
100
100 %
90
80 86,22 %
CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
70
Energy savings after modernisation

o Before conversion:
Bypass 20%
Fineness of 3800 cm2/g is
needed for required strengths
before after
conversion conversion
o After conversion:
Bypass less than 7%
Fineness of 3600 cm2/g is
now enough for required
strengths
Estimated return on investment (ROI)

Regarding cement plant Schelklingen for the German market
Cement type: CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R

Production rate (based on 7200 h/a, figures rounded)
before conversion: 111 t/h ≈ 799,200 t/a
after conversion (+ 14,5%): 127 t/h ≈ 914,400 t/a
Differenz: 115,200 t/a
Average profit per tonne production: 10 €/t

Profit correlates by production increase: 1,152,000 € (=96,000 €/month)
Cost of modernisation in this case: 210,000 €
Return on investment (ROI) after: 2,2 month
Case study II, Phoenix
Modernisation of separator by exchanging – case study 2

Phoenix Zementwerke Krogbeumker GmbH & CoKG, Beckum, Germany
Motivation of upgrade
o Enhancement of product capabilities

• increase of early cement strength
o Elimination of production weaknesses

• efficiency improvement, production cost reduction
o Diversification of products
• specific cement types of higher product fineness
Situation before upgrading
o Cement types: CEM I – CEM III, special types
o Two closed circuit cement grinding units

(including horizontal impact crusher)
• CM1 with two dynamic Heyd separators (1969) (1st generation )
- Mill tube: Ø 3.8 m, 12 m effective grinding length
• CM2 with cyclone separator (2nd generation)
o Requirement of immediate switch-over, without significant

production break
o Adaption of existing restricted equipment layout
Process survey before upgrading
o Situation
• Axial sampling
• Grindability measurement of clinker (according to Zeisel)
• Tromp curve determination of installed separators
RESULT Process weakness of Heyd separators

o Design and operating principle depending weak points
• Low separation efficiency
• Low sharpness of separation
• Insufficient fineness setting range
Process approach
o Exchange of both Heyd separators with

one QDK 29-NZ high efficiency separator
o Characteristic figures:
• Rated volumetric flow: 143.350 Am3/h
• Operating temperature: up to 120 °C
• Installed motor rating: 200 kW
• Max. feed rate: 258 tph
• Max. fine product: 115 tph
Plant layout
former Heyd separators and new QDK separator
2 Heyd separators
QDK separator
with cyclones
Project period
Main installation:
3d
6 weeks
Erection and Commissioning: Switch-over:

6 weeks 3 days
Comparison of sieve residues on 63 µm

CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
Effect of cement fineness on strength development

CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
Sample Separator Blaine fines Residue 63 µm 2 days 28 days Production

Early strength Final strength Rate
[cm²/g] [%] [N/mm²] [N/mm²] [%]
CEM II/A-LL 32,5R Heyd 4100 6.5 – 8 24 48 100

CEM II/A-LL 32,5R QDK29-NZ 4144 <1 31 59 110
CEM II/A-LL 32,5R QDK29-NZ 3844 1 27 54 112
CEM II/A-LL 32,5R QDK29-NZ 3450 2 – 4.5 25 49 120
Results of Modernisation
Compressive strength at different product fineness
CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
Product fineness
CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
Production capacity
CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R
Tromp curves on different CEM I cements
o CEM I 32,5 R (light blue),
correlating to existing
product capabilities
o Bypass < 10%
o CEM I 52,5 R (light green)

New cement with higher
product fineness
Conclusion
Specific energy savings only by exchange the separator
Results based on 1.5 years operation
o CEM I 42.5 R
Specific energy savings of around 10%
o CEM II/A-LL 32.5 R

Specific energy savings of around 20%
o CEM I 52.5 R
Established new product at the market
2 separator case studies
Any questions?
Feel free to ask!
Thank you for your

kind attention.

CPB Sem2012 p14 Separator Case Studies

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

CPB Sem2012 p14 Separator Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3-days Training Course

September 24-26, 2012

Separator modernisations – 2 case studies

o Case study I, Cement plant Schelklingen, HeidelbergCement AG

o Case study II, Phoenix Zementwerke Krogbeumker

Modernisation of separator – case study 1

Facts and figures

o 4 Grinding units at cement plant Schelklingen overall

o Maintenance requirement due to normal wear during operation

CPB recommendation: Upgrade to new separator design

Short overview on CPB separator optimisation

Short overview on separator optimization

o Homogenisation of velocity in the separating area

New design Former design

Short overview on separator optimisation

o Changes in air guide vanes and rotating cage

Short overview on separator optimisation

Approximation of an ideal spiral

Leading to an almost ideal

(New spiral housing was not

Confined air seal

Confined air seal

Production increase after modernisation

o Conversion made in February 2012

Energy savings after modernisation

o Conversion made in February 2012

Energy savings after modernisation

Estimated return on investment (ROI)

Cement type: CEM II/A-LL 32,5 R

Average profit per tonne production: 10 €/t

Cost of modernisation in this case: 210,000 €

Return on investment (ROI) after: 2,2 month

Modernisation of separator by exchanging – case study 2

o Enhancement of product capabilities

o Elimination of production weaknesses

Situation before upgrading

o Cement types: CEM I – CEM III, special types

o Two closed circuit cement grinding units

o Requirement of immediate switch-over, without significant

Process survey before upgrading

RESULT Process weakness of Heyd separators

o Exchange of both Heyd separators with

Erection and Commissioning: Switch-over:

Comparison of sieve residues on 63 µm

Effect of cement fineness on strength development

Sample Separator Blaine fines Residue 63 µm 2 days 28 days Production

CEM II/A-LL 32,5R Heyd 4100 6.5 – 8 24 48 100

o Bypass < 10%

o CEM I 52,5 R (light green)

Results based on 1.5 years operation

o CEM II/A-LL 32.5 R

Thank you for your

You might also like