Draft Final Thesis

Alternative Fuel and Its Utilization for Cement
Industry Sustainability.
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
RAJIV GANDHI PRODHYOGIKI VISHWAVIDHYALAY

BHOPAL (M.P)
In fulfillment of the Degree of
M. Tech (Chemical Engineering)
Specialization in Computer aided Chemical Engineering Design
By
DAVINDER PAL SINGH

Supervisor
Mr. RAJESH KAUSHAL
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & SCIENCE
IPS ACADEMY INDORE

SESSION: 2013-2015
IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 1

IPS ACADEMY INDORE
CERTIFICATE
We are pleased to certify that the project entitled “Alternative fuel and its utilization for
cement Industry Sustainability” submitted by Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, with roll no.
0808CM13MT01 is accepted.
INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER
Date: Date:

IPS ACADEMY INDORE
RECOMMENDATION
We are pleased to certify that the project entitled “Alternative fuel and its utilization for
cement Industry Sustainability” submitted by Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, with roll no.
0808CM13MT01 is accepted.
Mr. RAJESH KAUSHAL Mr. RAJESH KAUSHAL
GUIDE HOD
Dr. Archana Keerti Chowdhary

PRINCIPAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of God, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my creator for giving me a still functioning body and
mind in order to live life and learn, and particularly to work on my dissertation project, hereby
completing my Master’s studies.
I must give my profound gratitude and deep regards to my supervisor, Mr. RAJESH Kaushal,
Professor Chemical Engineering Department, IES IPS Academy Indore, for her valuable
inspiration, able guidance and untiring help, which enabled me to carry out and complete this
work.
I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Archana Keerti
Chowdhary, Principal & Head of Civil Engineering Department, IES IPS Academy Indore, for
extending all the facilities during the course of study.
At this juncture I also take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to all the teachers of
Chemical Engineering Department, for their appreciation and moral support. I would also like to
extend my thanks to the technicians of the laboratory of Chemical Engineering Department for
their help in offering me the resources in running the program.
I wish to thank my parents for their support and encouragement throughout the study. Thank
you for being around, and for never ending motivations I have been getting all this while.
Finally, I am thankful to my dear friends, family and colleagues, who helped me directly or
indirectly to bring the dissertation work to the present shape.
Davinder Pal Singh
Dated:

CONTENT
I. List of Figures 7
II. List of Tables 8
1. Introduction 9
1.1 General 10
1.2 The Reasons Behind Using Alternative Fuels 11
1.3 The Cement Manufacturing Process 12
2. Objective of The Study 14
2.1 Main Objective to Use Alternative Fuels in Cement Industry 15
3. Literature Review & Survey 16
3.1 Literature Review Based On Alternative Fuels 17
3.2 Literature Survey 20
3.2.1 Some of The Alternative Fuels and Their Properties 22
3.3 Problems Faced While Using Alternative Fuels 29
3.4 Challenges While Using of Alternate Fuels to Meet out Targets 32
3.5 Impact of Alternative Fuels 37
4. Methodology 44
4.1 Existing Co-Processing System at ACW 46
4.2 Major Initiative Taken 47
4.3 Key Technical Challenges and Action Taken 52
4.4 Criteria of Alternative Fuels 55

4.5 Feeding Points for Co-Processing 61
5. Case Studies 62
5.1 (A) Hazardous Waste/Alternative Fuel Used and Tested in

Calciner 63
5.1 (B) Carbon Black as Alternative Fuel Firing Source in Cement

Preheater 68
6. Results and Discussion 86
6.1 Material Testing Result and Discussion 87
7. Conclusion 146
8. References 148
9. Appendix A 149

LIST OF FIGURES
S. No. Figure No. Description Page No.
1 1.1 Injection of AFR in Pyro System 12
2 1.2 Cement Manufacturing Process 13
3 3.1 Pyro System AFR Injection in PH and Kiln 24

Illustration of The Many Details to be Coordinated when
4 3.2 firing Alternative Fuels on a Cement Plant 35
Overview of Particle Sizes and Burnout Times For Different
5 3.3 Fuels Used in the Cement Industry 36
6 3.4 Optimization of Kiln Operation With Emission 38
7 3.5 Coating Formation Due to Alkali Formation 38
8 4.1 AFR Development Process 45
9 4.2 AFR Introduction Workshop 45
10 4.3 Shredder Machine 48
11 5.1 Fuel Cost Contributes 57.16% of the Total Clinker Cost 64
12 5.2 Outline of Equipment & Process 65

13 5.3 AFR Feeding System 66
13 5.4 Feasibility Study 74

14 5.5 Petcoke Firing Process 80
15 5.6 Problem Identified 81

16 5.7 Modification in Refractory Material 84

LIST OF TABLES
S. No. Table No. Description Page No.
1 3.2.1 Composition Wise Petcoke and Coal Comparison 22
2 3.2.2 Properties of Some of the Alternative Fuels 26
3 3.3 Ultimate and Proximate Analysis of Some of the Samples 28
4 3.4 Alternative Fuels Used as Per Their Quantities 29
5 3.5 A Typical AFR Composition Wise Requirement 32
6 3.6 Alternative Fuel Calorific Values 34
7 3.7 Emission Norms Trends 43

Guiding Principles For Co-processing Alternative Fuels in
8 4.1 Cement Kilns 60
9 5.1 Project Matrix 69
10 5.2 Cost Economics 76
11 6.1 Kiln and Preheater Parameters 88
12 6.2 During Trial Typical Alternative Fuel Composition 92
13 6.3 Process Operation Quality/Lab Data Taken During Trial Run 120

CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION

1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The produce of Portland cement is an energy concentrated process. It produces significant
pollution and uses large amounts on nonrenewable resources. With increasing pressures to cut
greenhouse gas emissions due to cement manufacture, research and expansion of fuel
alternatives and their effect on the manufacturing process have become an industry focal point.
The intrinsic properties of sintering cement in a rotary kiln allows for a large number of fuels to
be cooked which are normally forbidden for use as fuel in other processes. As world population
increases, daily trash generated by human beings too goes up. Regrettably it is no more possible
to get rid of this solid garbage problem via the recycling arrangement of the nature. Labouring in
this field is a permanent investment and contributes also to national objectives of our country.
Cement industry has a main role in solving garbage issues. It offers to keep fossil fuels and helps
to shield environment by using different wastes as optional fuels. Hence, eliminating calorific
wastes by using them as alternative fuels has been a widespread method in cement industries in
most developed countries. Utilization of this variety of waste in this manner has reached 60-70%
in European Union countries.
Fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas supply most of the energy needs of the globe
today. Coal and natural gas be used in their ordinary forms, although petroleum and other fossil
fuels such as shale and bituminous sands want distillation and improvement to give utilizable
fuels. These fuels be present in any of the subsequent forms: solid, liquid and gas. The limited
nature of global fossil fuel resources, towering prices and most importantly, their harmful effect
on the environment highlight the need to develop different fuels for many industrial systems that
rely on fossil fuels. Enlarged use of renewable and alternative fuels can broaden fossil fuel
supplies and help out resolve air pollution troubles linked with the use of conservative fuels.
The most important energy used in cement industry is coal. An ample range of supplementary
fuels such as gas, oil, liquid waste materials, solid waste materials and petroleum coke (Waste of
petroleum industry) contain all been productively used as sources of energy for firing cement-
making kilns, either lying on them possess or in a variety of combinations.

Cement making is an extremely energy intensive production method. The energy consumption
by the cement industry is estimated at about 2% of the global primary energy consumption, or
almost 5% of the total global industrial energy consumption. Due to the dominant use of carbon
intensive fuels, e.g. coal, in clinker making, the cement industry is also a major emitter of CO2
emissions. Besides energy consumption, the clinker making process also emits CO2 due to the
calcining process. Cement manufacturing releases a lot of emissions such as carbon dioxide
(CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) It is estimated that 5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions
originate from cement production. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing, therefore do
not only afford considerable energy cost reduction, but they also have significant ecological
benefits of conserving non-renewable resources. Use of alternative fuels in some kiln systems
reduces NOx emissions due to reburn reactions. There is reduction in CO2 emissions when waste
is combusted in the cement kiln. So now a day’s alternative fuels usage is prominent and its use
increases the sustainability of Cement industry in today’s Era to comply environment policies.
Carbon foot print reduction and NOx Reduction is our main aim. In our plant Aditya cement we
have used many Alternative fuels such as MusterdBhussi, Ground Nuts Husk Saw/Wooden, dust
Soya Husk, Paint Sludge etc. depends on their property to fire in Kiln and preheater.
We found many resultant outcomes such as environment impact and effect on Clinker like that
but its overall usage positive. Several problems encountered in firing system and we had to
modify our system to increase usage of Alternative fuel.
The study report consists of usage of alternative fuel and its impact on environment, cement,
clinker and process.
1.2 The reasons behind using alternative fuels are:
• Reduction of fossil CO2 emissions;

• Reduction of fossil raw materials and fuels;
• Service performance in waste valorization with accompanying benefits of
environmentally compatible valorization (avoidance of landfill space, utilization of
energy content, creation of waste valorization structures for (almost) all types of
waste material(s);
• Significant reduction in the import of fossil fuels, with resultant increase in GDP;

• Creation and preservation of workplaces;
• Increase in competitiveness;
• Cost savings in aspects of cement production.
Alt Fuel Alt fuel

Injection
Injection
main
Fig 1.1: Injection of AFR in Pyro system

1.3 The Cement Manufacturing Process
Cement manufacturing consists of raw meal grinding, blending, pre-calcining, clinker burning
and cement grinding. In short, limestone and other materials containing calcium, silicon,
aluminium and iron oxides are crushed and milled into a raw meal. This raw meal is blended (in
for instance blending silos) and is then heated in the pre-heating system to initiate the
dissociation of carbonate to calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. A secondary fuel is fed into the
preheating system to keep the temperature sufficiently high. The meal then proceeds to the kiln
for heating and reaction between calcium oxide and other elements to form calcium silicates and
aluminates at a temperature up to 1450 0C. Primary fuel is used to keep the temperature high
enough in the burning zone for the chemical reactions to take place. The reaction products leave
the kiln as a nodular material called clinker. The clinker will be inter-ground with gypsum,
limestone and/or ashes to a fine product called cement. Figure shows a cement manufacturing
process from raw material quarrying to the bagging of the cement. The waste tyre particles are
fed into the lower part of the kilns pre-heating system, hereafter referred to as the riser duct.

Fig. 1.2: Cement manufacturing process
Kiln System Chemistry

The chemical reactions that occur in the kiln are described in detail in (3). The temperature is
increased when going from the meal feed to the rotary kiln. The most important oxides that
participate in the reactions are CaCO3, SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3. Up to about 700°C water is
removed from the meal. In the preheating section (700-900°C) calcination as well as an initial
combination of alumina, ferric oxide and silica with lime takes place. Between 900°C and
1200°C belite, C2S (= 2CaO*SiO2), forms. Above 1250°C a liquid phase appears and this
promotes the reaction between belite and free lime to form alite, C3S (= 3CaO*SiO2). During
the cooling stage the molten phase forms C3A, tri calcium aluminate, (= 3CaO* Al2O3) and if
the cooling is slow alite may dissolve back into the liquid phase and appear as secondary belite.
Usually the production of clinker is done so that one type of clinker allows the plant to
manufacture several well-defined types of cement that comply with the physical demands as
specified by cement standards.

CHAPTER -2
OBJECTIVE

2
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The major cost drivers for cement manufacturing are raw material, fuel and power. Fuel
constitutes approx. 25% of the total cost of production and is highest. It is worthwhile to mention
here that the anthracite coal was the primary fuel for cement manufacturing till the year 2001.
But because of continuous increase of price of coal, fuel price was increasing at very fast pace.
To cut down the cost, a petroleum refinery by-product known as petroleum coke, which was
available in plenty at much cheaper price, was used as fuel in ACW. In spite of its very high
ignition temperature which makes it difficult to burn and presence of high percentage of sulphur
which gives rise to jamming and clogging problem at kiln inlet and riser duct, plant people had
modified their equipment and changed operating conditions thereby gradually switching over to
100% pet coke usage in the year 2008.
Hence, the distinct focus on reduction of fuel cost, either by improving the operational efficiency
or by adopting other innovative measures like utilizing waste fuels through installation of a
tailor-made handling & feeding system which helps the existing cement manufacturing
technology to accept waste fuels without any major change in operation procedures, is definitely
going to help the cement industry in a big way for a long time to come. The concept of utilization
of waste fuels is conceived because of huge availability of alternate fuels throughout the country
which otherwise is being dumped as land-filling, burning in unauthorized & unorganized way
thereby creating high level of pollution in atmosphere & water. Hazardous wastes when dumped
for land filling also contaminate soil.
Boards to permit the use of alternate fuels on environmental grounds.
2.1 Main Objective to use Alternative fuels in Cement Industry: -
• Convert fuel costs into earnings/Profit.

• Greenhouse gas like CO2 emissions can be reduced.
• Save natural resources and fossil fuels for future.
• Put waste to good use by turning it into energy.
• Achieve Zero fuel cost, if feasible negative also.
• Contribute in creating clean and green environment for sustainability.

CHAPTER -3
LITERATURE REVIEW AND SURVEY

3
LITERATURE REVIEW & SURVEY
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW BASED ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

• M. Naranjo et al. (2011). The first part of this paper presents the criteria to determine the
most suitable CO2 capture technology in an integrated CCS system for a cement plant.
The second part of this paper summarizes how CO2 sequestration potential in proximity
to one of CEMEX’s cement plants was a critical factor in determining the suitability to
host a commercial CCS demonstration. Findings of this work showed that the
development and demonstration of a commercial-scale CCS in the cement industry is still
far from deployment. Retrofitting a very compatible CO2 capture technology for the
cement industry is a limiting factor for early implementation of CCS.
• H. Potgieter (2012). This paper tries to answer the question: Is cement production still a
sustainable industry in the 21st century. It starts off by considering the current status quo
and potential alternatives for the production process, right from the raw meal composition
stage through to the final application of cement in concrete. In the process alternative raw
meal components and energy sources are reviewed in detail. The changes that could and
should be made to cement plants and equipment to produce cement more sustainably, as
well as different types of other binders that can be used for construction, are discussed.
The suitability of the cement production process to destroy wastes and utilize byproducts
from other industrial processes, are highlighted and analyzed.
• K.T. Kaddatz et al. (2013). This paper discusses and summarizes the simulation results of
three alternative fuels, namely spent carbon lining, used industrial lubricants and used
tires, for identifying the most effective fuel source among these three. Among the
selected fuels used, industrial lubricant is found to be the best option regarding the CO2
emission, while the spent carbon lining is the worst one. In contrast, feed material
requirements can be reduced by up to approximately 15% by using spent carbon lining.
Further research is recommended to justify the findings.
• A. Rahman et al. (2013). This paper summarizes and reviews literatures on the usage of
different types of alternative fuel and their impacts on the plant performance. The past
research suggests that the maximum benefit can be derived by using an appropriate blend

of different types of alternative fuels together with fossil fuels. However, the studies on
quantification of appropriate mixing ratio of different alternative fuels to increase the
plant performance are scant. Further study is required to determine the correct blending
ratios.
• Sharma (2013). This paper provides a thorough understanding and status of alternative
fuels and their usage in cement industry and highlights their positive impact on
environment. This study offers a guideline for planning and implementing alternative fuel
usage in cement industry around the world, particularly in Australia. The paper revealed
that meat and bone meal (MBM) could be the best alternative fuel option for Australia
with a substitution rate of 40%.
• J. Zhang et al. (2014). In this study, a LCA-based CO2 accounting framework with
alternative raw materials was constructed to analyze the CO2 emissions from concrete
with different kinds of low carbon substitution, within which cement production process
was divided into six stages associated with the environmental impacts. A better routine is
expected to understand the environmental hazards of cement products and to optimize the
design to reduce adverse environmental impacts.
• A. Rahman et al. (2014). This paper presents the effects of the flow rate of waste derived
fuels on the energy efficiency and emission from the preheater tower. Three different
waste derived fuels, namely tyre derived fuel, meat and bone meal and refuse derived fuel
are considered for this study. Fixed substitution rate of conventional fuel by the
alternative one has been considered to identify the differences among the selected
alternative fuels. Results show that maximum 3% increase of energy efficiency and 2.5%
reduction of CO2 can be achieved by using tyre for about 25% of thermal energy
requirement. Simulation results presented in this paper offer a guideline for implementing
selected waste derived fuels in cement industry.
• W. Schakel et al. (2017). This study assesses the impact of using different fuels, namely
coal, natural gas, woody biomass and a fuel mix (50% coal, 25% biomass and 25%
animal meal), on the environmental performance of tail-end calcium looping applied to
the clinker production at a cement plant in North-western Europe. Process modelling was
applied to determine the impact of the different fuels on the mass and energy balance of
the process which were subsequently used to carry out a life cycle assessment to evaluate

the environmental performance of the different systems. Using natural gas, biomass or a
fuel mix instead of coal in a tail-end calcium looping process can improve the efficiency
of the process, as it decreases fuel, limestone and electricity consumption.
• R. Maddalena et al. (2017). This study deals with decarbonizing the cement and
construction industry is to replace Portland cement systems with lower carbon
alternatives that have suitable properties. We show that seven cementitious binders
comprised of metakaolin, silica fume and Nano-silica have improved thermal
performance compared with Portland cement and we calculate the full CO2 emissions
associated with manufacture and transport of each binder for the first time.
• W. Matar et al. (2017). This paper presents a multi-criteria analysis to examine how two
competing objectives affect the performance of the cement industry in Saudi Arabia.
Namely, these criteria are profit and CO2emissions. We examine the joint effects of
economic costs and biases of the industry’s senior management on decisions. Relevant
decisions include fuel use, and investment in carbon capture and storage and more energy
efficient kilns.
• F. Zhao et al. (2018). this paper proposes a cost-efficient, green, and low carbon
development roadmap for the Chinese cement sector, and puts forwards countermeasures
as follows: first, different ministries should enhance communication and coordination
about how to promote the co-control of NOx and CO2 in cement industry. Second, co-
control technology list should be issued timely for cement industry, and the R&D
investment on new technologies and demonstration projects should be increased. Third,
the phase-out of old cement capacity needs to be continued at policy level. Fourth, it is
important to scientifically evaluate the relevant environmental impact and adverse
motivation of ammonia production by NOx removal requirement in cement industry.

3.2 LITERATURE SURVEY
Alternative fuels are predominantly agricultural biomass, non-agricultural biomass (e.g. animal
waste and by-products), chemical and hazardous waste, and petroleum-based fuels. Biofuels are
from organic origin (plants or animals based) including organic waste, residues from agriculture
and energy crops, meat and bone-meal, methane from animal excrement or as a result of
bacterial action, ethanol and biodiesel from plant materials, as well as the organic part of waste.
Solid biofuels (generally called biomass) include plant tissues such as wood, charcoal and yarns;
farm wastes such as coffee husks, straw, sugarcane leaves, sugarcane bagasse, rapeseed stems,
palm nut shells, rice husks, etc.; and non-agricultural biomass such as animal fat, dung, meats
and bones; and household or industrial biological degradable wastes. These materials are
primarily composed of carbon-based organic matter, which releases energy when it reacts or
combusts with oxygen. Solid biofuels should be distinguished from solid fossil fuels which are
of biological origin but which are non- renewable. Similarly, liquid biofuels should be
distinguished from fossil liquid fuels which are also of biological origin but which are non-
renewable. Liquid biofuels are transport fuels, primarily biodiesel and ethanol. Another form of
biofuel is biogas. Biogas is the product of organic material decomposition, composed mainly of
methane and carbon dioxide.
Candidate materials for the hazardous waste fuel/waste derived fuels are too many to list. They
include almost every residue from industrial or commercial painting operations from spent
solvents to paint solids including all of the wash solvents and pot cleaners, metal cleaning fluids,
machining lubricants, coolants, cutting fluids, electronic industry solvents
(chlorinated/fluorocarbon solvents), oils, resins and many more. The list of candidate materials
for use as alternative waste fuels continues to expand. Regulatory pressures, economic
considerations, shrinking traditional solid waste disposal capabilities, and a host of similar
factors are reflected in the constant change of the candidate waste fuel universe (Gabbard, 1990).
Cement production involves the heating, calcining and sintering of blended and ground raw
materials, typically limestone (CaCO3) and other materials containing calcium, silicon oxides,
aluminum and iron oxides to form clinker. Clinker production takes place at material
temperatures of about 1450oC in either rotary or shaft kilns. Carbon dioxide is released during

the production of clinker. Specifically, CO2 is released as a by-product during calcination, which
occurs in the upper, cooler end of the kiln, or a pre-calciner, at temperatures of 600-900oC, and
results in the conversion of carbonates to oxides. Most modern cement kiln systems3 have a
special combustion chamber called a ‘precalciner’ as part of the preheating tower, as shown in
Fig. 1. The limestone (calcium carbonate) decomposition process known as ‘calcination’
(CaCO3 → CaO + CO2) is virtually completed (approximately 95 percent) in the precalciner if
50 – 60 percent of the total fuel required for clinker production is added to this chamber (The
clinker is then removed from the kiln to cool, ground to a fine powder, and mixed with a small
fraction (about five percent) of gypsum to create the most common form of cement known as
Portland cement.
The following provides some general statistics on alternative or waste derived fuel use in the
International cement industry:
• CEMEX Panama’s cement plant runs on 15% alternative fuels
• In 2003, Holmium Ltd. consumed 12.9 million tons of alternative raw materials. The thermal
substitution rate in 2003 was 13.1 percent.
• Holcim Switzerland’s five cement plants have thermal substitution rates of between 10 and
60%, using wastes including solvents, waste oil, plastic and used tires.5
• The Obourg plant of Holcim (Belgium) has been using alternative fuels and raw materials for
over ten years and now uses about one million tons per year.6
• In 2002, Taheiyo Cement Corporations ten cement plants used 6.64 million tons of
alternative raw material and fuel.
• Alternative fuels comprise more than 7 percent of Italcementi Group’s total energy
consumption.
• In 2001, alternatives to coal represented 10% of kiln energy consumed by Castle Cement, the
UK arm of Heidelberg Cement Group.9
• In 2002 the Australian cement industry replaced almost six percent of its thermal energy
consumption with alternative fuels

3.2.1 SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND THEIR PROPERTIES
• PETCOKE: Petcoke is widely used as a supplementary fuel in the Cement Industries in

many countries, including India. Petcoke (full name Petroleum Coke) is a residual
product of the crude oil refining process. It has a high calorific value, but low volatile
content, thus leading to poor ignition characteristics. It is a black solid obtained as an end
product from the distillation of heavier petroleum crudes. Petcoke has higher levels of
Sulphur and nitrogen as compared to coal.
A comparison of the composition and calorific value of typical petcoke and typical
Indian coal is given in
Table
Items Typical Petcoke (%) Typical Indian Coal (%)
Ash Content 1.3 18.2
Carbon 86.4 56.1
Sulphur 5.4 1.3
Nitrogen 1.8 1.1
Hydrogen 3.5 4.6
Oxygen 1.6 18.7
Volatile Components 10.9 43.8
Net Calorific Value 33,700 (kJ/kg) 21,600 (kJ/kg)
Table 3.2.1: Composition Wise Petcoke And Coal Comparison.
Use of petcoke presents certain problems due to its low volatility and high sulphur content. Due
to its lack of volatiles, petcoke has to be ground very finely, in order to enable it to burn
completely, so that full advantage of its higher calorific value is obtained. High Sulphur content
creates operation problems in the kiln. This problem can normally be sorted out by using a

bypass system. Petcoke with a Sulphur content of up to four percent, can be used 100% as a fuel.
Petcoke with a sulphur content between four and six per centcan be used as 60% of the fuel. But
to utilize petcoke with higher percentages of sulphur, a bypass system that withdraws around 15-
20% of kiln gasses, is needed. Another big advantage of petcoke, apart from its higher calorific
value, is that, being almost a waste product, its price is generally much lower than that of coal.
• TYRE CHIPS: Tyre chips or Tyre Derived Fuel (TDF) was first used in cement kilns, in
Germany, in the 1970s. Few years later, kilns in the USA began using TDF, which
proved quite a popular step. At present, USA produces over 300 million used tyres
annually, out of which around 150 million are converted into TDF, their cement industry
using approximately 60 million tyres worth in its kilns. Other countries soon started using
TDF also, including the UK, which uses several million tyres worth annually.
TDF has several advantages. Firstly, it utilizes on a large scale, waste material which
would otherwise require huge landfill sites for its disposal. Secondly, it has a high
calorific value, generating around 25% more energy than good quality coal. Thirdly,
when used in place of high sulphur coal (which type a good percentage of Indian coal is),
it reduces Nitrous Oxide (NOx) emissions. Fourthly, it can be used in the form of chips (5
cm x 5 cm being the most common) or also as whole tyres. Fifthly, if fed properly into
the kiln, TDF produces a more even rate of burning, thus increasing the life of the
refractory bricks used to line the kilns. Sixthly, as every kilo of TDF used reduces the use
of coal by 1.25 kg. The wear and tear on coal roller mills is proportionately reduced.
Seventhly, the steel in the tyres gets combined with the clinker material, giving a more
consistent end product. Seeing the advantages of TDF, the Indian Cement Industry
requested the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to allow its use in cement
kilns. After some delay, MOEF has finally permitted the use of shredded tyres as a
supplementary fuel in cement kilns. This decision has been conveyed to the Central and
State Pollution Control Boards. (CPCB and SPCBs).
• SLUDGE: Several types of sludge can be used as alternative fuels in cement kilns. These
include paint sludge, refinery (petroleum) sludge, Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) sludge
and Tar Waste. During the last few years, several Indian Cement companies have
undertaken successful plant trials using various types of sludge’s as alternative fuels, in
their kilns. These trials were carried out in collaboration with the respective SPCBs and
under the supervision of the CPCB. The results of these trials were then submitted to the
MoEF, and the latter has now granted permission for the use of paint sludge as a
supplementary fuel in cement kilns. This permission has come along with certain
conditions, including compulsory plant trials in each and every case.
• BIOMASS: This includes agricultural waste, food industry waste and biodiesel waste.
Commonly used materials include rice husk, sawdust, animal waste and tapioca.
• RICE HUSK: Rice is the basic food grain consumed by billions of people around the
globe. Rice husk is the inedible covering on grains of rice. It is removed during the
dehusking or milling of rice. Around 600 million tons of paddy is produced worldwide
every year. Paddy on an average, consists of 70-72% of rice, 5–8 percent of bran and 20-
22% of husk. Hence approximately 120 million tons of rice husk are produced every
year. Most of this is just destroyed by burning or is dumped somewhere. A small amount
is used as fuel for generation of electricity, or as a bulking agent for composting of
animal manure. The cement industry can easily use bulk rice husk from mills as kiln fuel,

though transportation and storage may cause problems. Rice husk has one more
advantage for the cement industry. Rice husk, after burning, produces about 20% ash.
Rice husk ash has high pozzolanic activity, and so can easily be used to produce good
quality blended cement. It is an excellent replacement for fly ash, slag or silica fume.
• Animal Wastes: These include both dung and fat. Dung, especially cow dung, has been
used as a domestic fuel for centuries. However, it is not easy to procure in bulk
quantities. Animal fat wastes however, are comparatively easier to procure. These can be
got in bulk from the factories that do processing for the meat industry. In fact, several
European cement factories have been saving around 20% of their kiln fuel, for many
years, by using animal fat waste for combustion. These factories are located mainly in
France and Germany.
• Plastic Bags: The problem with the burning of omnipresent plastic bags, is that this is
normally done at around 800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, burning of polythene
(out of which plastic bags are made) produces hazardous gasses. Disposing of plastic
bags by burning them, has thereby been almost universally banned. They are therefore
disposed off by burying in landfills, where they will take hundreds of years to
decompose. Cement kilns however, operate at 1200 to 1500 degrees Celsius, to produce
clinker. At these high temperatures, polythene burns up completely, without producing
any noxious gasses. Some cement factories in Madhya Pradesh have received permission
from environmental agencies, including the State Pollution Control Board, to carry out
trials of burning used polythene bags, as a supplementary fuel, along with coal.
Fig. 3.1: Pyro system AFR injection in PH and Kiln.

• Alternative fuels Type and properties
The range of fuels is extremely wide. Traditional kiln fuels are gas, oil or coal. Materials like
waste oils, plastics, auto shredded residues, waste tyres and sewage sludge are often proposed as
alternative fuels for the cement industry
Typical Alternative fuel properties used at Aditya Cement Works
A. Agro Waste C. Hazardous Waste
Mustard Husk 1. ETP Sludge of Textile Industries
Mustard Boosi 2. ETP sludge of Braveries unit
Groundnut Husk 3. Organic residue &Spent clay
Cotton Husk of re-refiner of used/waste oil
Bioseed (Britate) 4. Paint sludge of Automobile sector
SoyabeanBoosi 5. ETP Sludge of Automobile sector
Paddy Husk
B. Alternative Fossil Fuels /
Bio-mass Fuels
Tyre Chips
Wooden Dust / Powder
Saw Dust
Cow Dung
Mehndi Plant

Table 3.2.2: Properties of Some of the Alternative Fuels
Moisture
S. No. Name Of A.F. Bulk Density Ash% GCV
(% )
1 Mustard Bhoosi 0.08 - 0.15 8-15 5-8 3500-4000
Ground Nuts
2 0.14 - 0.18 8-10 5-10 3600-4000
Husk
Saw/Wooden
3 0.22 - 0.28 8-25 8-12 3000-4000
Dust
4 Soya Husk 0.14 - 0.2 8-15 4-6 3500-3800
5 Paint Sludge 0.60 - 0.70 10-15 25-30 4000-4500
6 Etp Bhilwara 0.55 - 0.60 20-30 45-50 1400-1800
7 Etp Maruti 0.50 - 0.60 20-35 45-50 1000-2000
Phosphate
8 0.7-0.8 15-20
Sludge
9 Bed Ash 1.3

Photograph 3.1 : Photograph Samples of Some AFR

• Composition of Various Alternative fuels
Table 3.3: Ultimate And Proximate Analysis of Some of the Samples Taken of Alternative
Fuels.
Graph 3.1 : Paticle Size Distribution of Some of the Alternative Fuel Samples

Alternative fuel Usage at our Plant site Adityacement Works.
SAW DUST (IMPORTED) 6844

3000 MT 4000 563 0 - 5 OK
WOODEN SCRAP
7358
IMPORTED(II)
5864 500 MT 7250 1236 0 - 20 OK

TYRE CHIP
3932 25 - 100 Agro waste

MUSTARD HUSK(I) availble for 03
2000 MT 1250 314
months
MUSTARD HUSK(II) 4028 5-50 (seasonal )
Less than 20
COTTON HUSK 3872 500 TON 3000 775 20 - 30
mm
BIO SEED / BRITATE 3680 2000 2750 747 150 - 500
CHITTOR WOODEN
3889 1000 1800 463 20 - 25
HUSK
Waste fuel which is using with Raw coal
ETP Sludge (Bhilwara) 1800 1000 Free transporation, loading & unloading with negative Regular using
cost Rs.500/-per ton
Bio solid / spent Carbon Free transporation, loading & unloading with negative
2940 15 Regular using
(Jaipur) cost Rs.700/-per ton
Spent Clay containing oil Free transporation, loading & unloading with negative
4000 10
( Jaipur) cost Rs.700/-per ton
Table 3.4: Alternative Fuels Used as Per Their Quantity
3.3 PROBLEMS FACED WHILE USING ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Analysis
Mass balance
Weighing
Kiln feed systems
Requirement of extra oxygen
Rules and regulations

• ANALYSIS
Alternative fuels often contain harmful elements such as mercury cadmium, arsenic, lead and
nickel. Burning of material containing these toxic elements is subject to strict laws. Many
countries do not allow incineration of products containing more than 0.5 parts per million (ppm)
of mercury and cadmium. Arsenic and lead are similarly not allowed to exceed 10 ppm for safe
combustion. Hence, alternative fuels have to be analyzed, before being used, in order to prevent
illegal emissions. A further complication arising from the use of waste fuels is the considerable
variation that can occur in the composition of fuel batches. This makes it difficult to define a
method for monitoring different samples using only one type of reference material. Furthermore,
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) are generally not available for a majority of the materials
contained in alternative fuels. While use of standardless methods may give good results in these
situations, for extremely low detection limits (as required for Mercury and Cadmium) a
quantitative analysis technique using certified calibration standards is necessary. The method
normally used for such analysis is energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry,
details of which are beyond the scope of this article.
• MASS BALANCE
This is the process by which effect of different materials in the composition of the alternative
fuel being used, on the finally produced clinker, is estimated. Corrective steps can then be taken
to reduce or eliminate unwanted characteristics. A couple of actual problems faced by cement
companies, who were going to use alternative fuels, will explain what balancing mass can entail.
A cement company once wanted to evaluate the implications of burning spent pot liners, from
the aluminum industry, in its kilns. The liners were composed of carbon and were originally used
to line the electrolytic cells used in the production of aluminum. The electrolyte used in these
cells was cryolite and some of this was absorbed into the liners, which meant that they had high
sodium and fluoride content. The carbon liners themselves had a good calorific value and the
anticipated price to burn the liners was attractive; but what would be the impact of the sodium
and the fluoride on the clinker? And would a bypass need to be installed. If so, how big would
that bypass need to be? Answering such questions requires the development of mass and energy
balance. The mass and energy balance is required because the total energy input to the kiln has to
be kept constant, as the fuel mixture is varied. Would replacement of coal with spent pot liners or

other alternative fuels give a direct one-for-one replacement in terms of the energy input to the
kiln? Probably not, as differences in the particle size and volatile content affect the heat release
characteristics in the kiln. Another company, a European one, was being paid to burn animal
bones on a large scale, in its kiln. Burning of the bones produced significant quantities of
phosphorous pentoxide. Impact of this gas on clinker mineralogy was totally unknown at that
time. So it took several trials and subsequent kiln modification, before actual large scale usage of
bones could begin.
• WEIGHING
Once an alternative fuel has been selected, the rate of which it is to be fed into the kiln will have
to be worked out. Obviously, once this rate is decided, weighing options will have to be
considered. These will mainly depend on the type of alternative fuel and design of the kiln
delivery system. Generally speaking, weighing is done electronically, using load cells, which are
suitably located.
• KILN FEED SYSTEMS
From the storage silos, the alternative fuels are sent via conveyor belt, into the kiln. The feeding
system must be such that it can operate successfully at kiln temperature. It should also ensure
that there is no leakage of flue gasses from the kiln. And, of course, it should be able to feed fuel
in the right quantities and at the required intervals. Normally, these systems consist of a number
of flap valves operated by pneumatic cylinders. They can also contain anti-blockage air guns.
• REQUIREMENT OF EXTRA OXYGEN
Oxygen is required for any combustion process. Although air is the most common source of
oxygen, it is not the most effective, since it also contains about 79% nitrogen. Nitrogen in air
takes up volume, absorbs heat, and lowers flame temperature. Adding pure oxygen (oxygen
enrichment) improves the overall combustion process by increasing the flame temperature and
the amount of available heat. Inside the kiln, oxygen enhances burning zone control and
improves kiln stability. The use of oxygen to improve the combustion of alternative fuels has
been shown to reduce or eliminate emission excursions and increase flame temperature. The
resulting improved burning zone control enables operators to maintain feed and burn at a more

consistent rate. Over time, improved kiln stability translates into more production, increased fuel
substitution rates, and lower operating costs. Depending on the value of the alternative fuels,
increased substitution can lead to the net negative fuel cost (including the cost of oxygen). The
extra oxygen must be suitably injected, depending on required quantity, timing and kiln design.
• RULES AND REGULATIONS
Mention has already been made, of various laws that may create problems for potential users of
alternative fuels. In India, these include clearances required from local authorities, Central and
State Pollution Control Boards, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Cement manufacturers in other countries also face similar problems, especially as pollution
control norms and laws vary from country to country and sometimes, from state to state. This
often adversely affects the plans of cement companies that are trying to extend their operations
overseas.
Property Value Comment

CV net kcals/kg 4000 Should aim for > 3000
H2O % 12 < 20%
Ash% 15 < 20%
Cl % 0.5 As low as possible to help high TSR
N% 0.2 Generally lower than coal helps NOx
Volatiles % 50 These if higher than coal helps low NOx
S% 0.2 Generally lower than coal can help build up
Size % < 50mms Needs to be < 30 mms for burner
Table 3.5: A Typical AFR Composition Wise Requirement
3.4 CHALLENGES WHILE USING OF ALTERNATE FUELS TO MEETOUT

TARGETS:
Many cement plants are burning alternate fuels like whole tires, tire chips, pump able and non-
pump able hazardous waste, waste oils, consumer byproduct waste (paper diaper scraps),
municipal refuse, wood byproducts and the list goes on. Each alternate fuel presents its own

challenge to successfully substitute for fossil fuel without loss of quality, production or an
increase in emissions.
• The challenges of these fuels can be generalized into these categories:

Lower Flame Temperatures
Difficult to Meter
Variable Heating Value
Difficult to Ignite
Process Issues
• LOWER FLAME TEMPERATURES
Many of the alternate fuels have significantly higher hydrogen content than the traditional fuel.
Whether this is due to the hydrocarbon content of the fuel or the presence of free water in the
fuel, hydrogen burns to water vapor and water vapor has a higher heat capacity (and volume)
compared to burning of carbon to carbon dioxide. Methods must be implemented to offset the
reduction of the amount of available heat at high temperature from fuels with higher hydrogen
and water contents. When evaluating the substitution of fuels, one can use an “Available Heating
Value” to compare fuels. The “Available Heating Value” is similar in concept to the difference
between lower heating value and higher heating value but it is the heat available above 700 C. A
temperature of 700 C for the evaluation since this is just above the temperature where calcination
begins. The concepts of high-grade heat and low-grade heat are well discussed by Weber. Weber
states, “The boundary between the main and the subsidiary thermal system is assumed always to
correspond to a material temperature of 550 C, since decarbonation in the rotary kiln in general
already begins at this temperature. A certain amount of heat whose temperature is below the gas
temperature at the commencement of decarbonation will always be left over from the calcining
zone. This heat is “lower-grade” in the sense that, because of the low temperature, it cannot be
further used for decarbonation or sintering, but only for preheating and drying.” He indicates that
with heat exchangers for dry raw meal, the temperature difference between the gas and raw meal
can be reduced to about 150 C.

Table 3.6: Alternative Fuel Calorific Values
• Difficult to Meter
Many of the alternate fuels are difficult to meter. Whole tires, tire chips, municipal refuse and
other alternate fuels are extremely difficult to meter uniformly in the time frame required for
combustion. One could imagine dropping a SUV tire then one from a sub-compact car. Even
with variable spacing of the tires to keep a constant ton per hour flow on a 2 or three-minute
average, the feed is non-uniform in the time frame of the combustion process ultimately
requiring increased excess oxygen to maintain CO levels. Excess oxygen adversely affects the
available heat from a given fuel. See Figure 2 “Available Heat” vs. Excess Oxygen
• Variable Heating Value
Most fuels have variable heating values, including the traditional fuel coal. Even a fuel like coal
can pick up variability in heating value in the plant handling. When filling a bin with coal there
is a natural segregation, the fine particles separate from the coarse particles, with the higher
moisture fines feeding first and the coarse coal feeding later. Many plants can witness an obvious
variability in the coal heating value even when the feed rate is uniform.
Many plants experience difficulty in getting uniform feed from coal and as a result have
difficulty in maintaining uniform combustion conditions. Add to this fossil fuel variability, the
variability of an alternate fuel that also has non-uniform feeding characteristics, combustion
control becomes quite challenging.
• Difficult to Ignite
Many alternate fuels have different ignition characteristics than conventional fuels. Often
alternate fuels have delayed ignition characteristics either due to their volatile content or particle

size. Petroleum coke or tire chips may have delayed ignition and combustion rates to the point
that unburned material falls onto the clinker bed and creates localized reducing conditions that
effects the quality of the clinker and potentially the sulfur dioxide emissions.
• Process issues
Process considerations are important in order to maintain clinker quality, kiln system availability,
low emissions etc. A very important aspect is also handling of alternative fuel prior to being
admitted to the process. This frequently poses overlooked challenges, which should be dealt with
at the design stage.
Figure 3 presents an overview of the many aspects to be coordinated when firing alternative fuels
on a cement plant. Consequently, early and thorough process considerations are important in
order to maintain clinker quality and the kiln system availability. Also issues related to handling
of alternative fuels prior to being admitted to the process should be dealt with at the earliest
design stage. Suppliers of equipment often neglect the coupling between the alternative fuel
handling system and the process, which may result in a poorly designed overall system with e.g.
excess emissions and an unstable process. eg. A fluctuating feed rate of alternative fuel may
result in fluctuating CO emission.
Receiving,
storage & Overall aspects:
pretreatment • Control/regulation
• Clinker production, heat consumption, availability
• Chemistry
Conveyal Emissions
Dosage Calciner
&
HOTDISC
Kiln burner
Back-end
&
Bypass
mid-kiln
Figure 3.2: Illustration of the Many Details to be Coordinated When Firing Alternative
Fuels on a Cement Plant.

FL Smidth Alternative Fuels coordinates these different issues considering both process and
alternative fuel handling.
The main differences between using fossil fuels and alternative fuels are:
Physical and chemical properties of alternative fuels vary substantially more than those of fossil
fuels.
A large number of alternative fuels are typically used at the same time, whereas fossil fuel use
typically is limited to one or two at a time.
They have different combustion characteristics
1000
Bulky waste
& biomass
Shredded waste
Burnout time (s)
100
& biomass
Pulverised
fuel
10
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Diameter (mm)
Figure 3.3: Overview of Particle Sizes And Burnout Times For Different Fuels Used In The
Cement Industry
Heating values of alternative fuels are frequently lower
Alternative fuels frequently contain impurities such as phosphates, chlorine, heavy metals, etc.
There are several characteristic differences between the combustion behavior of solid alternative
fuels and solid fossil fuels:
The pyrolysis rate typically has a great influence on alternative fuel burnout, whereas its
influence typically is insignificant for fossil fuels

Diffusion of O2 limits alternative fuel combustion rates to a much larger extent than fossil fuels
Temperature does not have a strong effect on burnout of alternative fuel
Particle size is not simply related to sieve residue for alternative fuel
Cement plants have traditionally been designed for burning pulverized fuels with particle sizes
generally smaller than 0.1 mm, which generally burn out within 10 s of particle residence time.
Alternative fuels – in shredded or bulk form – generally have much larger particle sizes, which
result substantially increased time required to burn out the fuels. Unless specific design
considerations are taken, operational difficulties are to be expected.
For shredded waste and biomass extended calciner residence times provide for sufficient fuel
burnout. However, when using less processed streams of waste and biomass, greater design
changes provide substantial benefits; e.g. by installation of a HOTDISC.
An important difference typically distinguishing solid alternative fuels’ combustion behavior

from that of solid fuels’ is that devolatilisation generally is responsible for the largest heat
release when burning alternative fuels whereas char combustion dominates when burning fossil
fuels. In addition, chars from alternative fuels have a much greater reactivity. This has the
consequence that the sensitivity of combustion rates to temperature and O2 concentration are
substantially different between alternative fuels and fossil fuels. When converting from coal to
petcoke the effect of its lower reactivity can be offset by raising the operating temperature in the
calciner. However, when converting from coal to alternative fuel the effect of temperature is
much less pronounced. In addition to the effects of different physical characteristics such as
particle size, calciner and burner design must take these fundamental differences into
consideration.
3.5 IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Fuel changes now a day invariably have an impact on the cement production. Using of
alternative fuels such as liquid wastes, solid wastes, pet coke, etc. create their own process
problems due to their composition as they introduce impurities into the production process,
which upsets the operating conditions to varying degrees and often increases kiln downtime. This
is caused by a change of the fuel chemical properties which changes the clinker chemistry. Fuel

ash changes, for example, will have an effect on the potential clinker mineral phases, tricalcium
silicate (C3S), dicalcium silicate (C2S), calcium aluminates (C3A) and tetra calcium
aluminoferrite (C4AF). Potential properties of the cement made from the clinker, such as the
cement strength development, workability and color are dependent on the percentage of these
mineral phases. Figure 4.4: AFR showing factors to be considered for use
Fig. 3.4: Optimization of Kiln Operation With Emission
Fig. 3.5: Coating Formation Due to Alkali Formation

• Impact of Co-Incineration On Kiln Operation
• Most Secondary Fuels Are Coarser Compared to Coal (E.G. Mixed Plastic, Industrial
Wastes, Waste Wood, Animal Meal,)
• Such Fuels Produce a Longer and Lazier Flame
• Maximum Temperature in Sintering Zone Is Reduced
• NOx Emission Is Often Lower Than with 100% Coal Firing
• Kiln Inlet Temperature May Be Increased
• Coatings Are Shifted Towards Kiln Inlet
• Free Lime Can Be Higher
• Kiln Operation/Control More Sophisticated
• Environmental Aspects of Alternative Fuels
Every incineration or combustion process generates gas and dust emissions. Especially the
cement industry produces huge quantities of emissions. On the one hand the combustion of fuel
by itself produces already considerable volume of gas and dust emissions. On the other hand, the
calcination process of lime stone generates huge volume of CO2, CO and other gases depending
on stone composition. It’s well known that production of 1 MT clinker generates nearly 1 MT
CO2/CO. In addition, SOx and NOx are harmful major emissions which cannot be avoided in the
clinker process.
One option to reduce emissions in cement production is utilization of clinker substitute materials,
like blast furnace slag and fly ash. Since a few years there is a strong tendency in the cement
world into this direction under consideration of reducing CO2 emission and “valorization” of
otherwise difficult to dispose of waste materials. Many European cement companies market
already brands mainly made of slag with minor clinker addition. There are also some slag cement
brands not using any clinker available on today’s market.
Addition of fly ash from power generation plants and, to a smaller extent, waste incinerators
became quite common practice in areas with sufficient availability, with the same target: To
substitute clinker to a certain extent, thus reducing emissions from clinker production. Actually,
India’s cement makers are one of the world’s leading appliers of fly ash and slag. More than 53%
of all cement sold in India is blended cement.

Despite these few sustainable and
growing possibilities to improve the
environmental impact of cement CO22
CO CO22
CO CO2
CO2
production, the clinker process will still +

remain for long time the major source for
Waste
Reduced
cement making. Waste Fossil Used
Fossil
Fuels As
Fuels
Fuels
By replacing traditional fossil fuels (coal, Incineration Cement Co-Combustion
Plant Plant In Cement Plant
oil, gas) with Alternative Fuels based on
waste materials, the cement industry can contribute significantly to improve the environmental
balance on two fronts: Valorizing otherwise difficult to dispose of waste materials by converting
them into fuel reduces the quantity of waste to be incinerated in special waste incineration plants
or, still most common practice in the developing world, being dumped in landfills.
Both these practices, landfill and incineration, are not really sustainable. Waste incinerators
generate also considerable quantities of greenhouse gases (though it’s claimed that these are re-
absorbed by plants) as well as other hazardous emissions, though the technologies are getting
better and better. But due to the lower temperature range compared to a cement plant,
incinerators are inferior to cement kiln in terms of emission of especially hazardous PCDD and
PCDF (dioxins) gases. The temperature ranges in a typical waste incinerator, the oxidizing
atmosphere, the presence of products of incomplete combustion such as carbon and chlorine
precursors such as HCl and chlorinated hydrocarbon intermediates, catalytic surfaces like Cu
chloride, oxidative atmosphere favor the formation of dioxins. All these conditions are more or
less existing in waste incinerators. Even the latest state-of-the art incinerators struggle to reach
the dioxin levels permitted by regulations and many still consider these regulations too
“generous”.
Quite complex processes are required to neutralize or reduce various harmful substances in the
incineration plant in secondary process steps. Even if the resulting heat is used to generate
power, so far the efficiency of such plants doesn’t reach more than 27 – 30%.
Further on, from the overall quantity of waste burned in such incineration plants some 10-20%
by weight and around 10% by volume remain in form of fly ash and bottom ash with high

concentration of heavy metals remaining to be disposed of otherwise. Currently, the highly
contaminated bottom ash is still mainly disposed of in landfills.
Burning the “same waste” as Alternative Fuel in cement kilns is much more efficient and
environmentally friendly. High temperature in the kiln system (about 1450oC ambient
temperature in burning zone and 2000oC flame temperature in main burner and about 1000 -
1100oC ambient in calciner with around 1200oC flame temperature (depending on calciner type,
e.g. combustion chamber of RSP type)) assures that especially the hazardous gases like
PCDD/PCDF (“Dioxins”) are basically not formed and only fractions of the emissions from
incinerators are emitted from the kiln system. Other gaseous emissions such as hydrochloric acid
or hydrofluoric acid are nearly completely captured by the inherent and efficient alkaline
scrubber effect from counter current principle of a preheater kiln system.
Graph 3.2: Temperature and Retention Time in Cement Kiln System
Above Graph 3.2 Shows the temperature vs. time diagram during the clinker process. In
principle there are two factors which make a cement kiln the “cleanest waste incinerator”
available: High temperature and long retention times for total combustion as well as the “closed
circuit” of Volatile matters in the kiln system as illustrated in figure 4.7

The Volatile matter (S, Cl, K, Na) is gaseous in temperature
zones > 800~900oC and flows with the hot kiln gas to the pre-
heater.
Once reaching temperature zones below their condensation

points, the Volatiles condense on the meal particles in the
Critical preheater, react to high extent to S- and CL-Alkali
temperature compounds which are emission norms.
zone for Dioxin
formation
NaCl ....... ~ 800oC (melting point)
KCl ....... ~ 770oC
Na2SO4 . ~ 880oC
K2SO4 .... ~ 1070oC
~ 750oC CaSO4 ... ~ 1300oC,
and flow with the meal back to the kiln. Partly they remain in
stable composite in the clinker, partly they volatize again and
circuit starts from begin.
Basically the volatiles are not leaving the system in the

~ 1,150oC ~ 1,450
exhaust
o
gas in Chazardous compounds.
Volatiles Circuit S - Cl – Na - K
Fig. 3.7: Below Shows the “Closed Circuit” of Cl, SOx and Alkalis in A Cement Kiln:

Table 3.7: Emission Norms Trends
This mechanism makes cement kilns superior over waste incinerators in terms of emission of
PCDD/PCDF and other VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) and emissions are usually well
below the permitted levels. Concrete data in that regard follow later in this paper.
It has to be remarked here, that generally waste incinerator plants have more stringent emission
and pollution regulations than cement plants and they are stricter monitored as well. However,
fact is that cement plants exhaust less dioxins, VOC, HCl etc. than incineration plants. As for the
gashouse emissions, certainly incinerator plants emit less but with or without Alternative Fuels
cement plants would emit these in any case.

CHAPTER-4
METHODOLOGY

4
METHODOLOGY
AFR Development Process
Fig. 4.1: AFR Development Process
Fig. 4.2: AFR Introduction Workshop

4.1 Existing Co-processing system at ACW
Alternate fuel are collected from different locations through different suppliers, and stored as per
allotted space in closed yard of size 25X36 square meters. Presently the unit has two shed of
same size. The oversize material whose size is above 50 mm is shredded through the shredder
machine. The shredded alternate fuel transfers through the belt conveyor and stored in yard.
Since the alternate fuel are heterogeneous in character therefore the different CV alternate fuel
are mixed with help of loader in different proportions to achieve a mix of alternate fuel of CV of
2500to 6000 kcal/kg. Further the mixed alternate fuel dumped into two hoppers with loader and
tipper. The alternate fuels are extracted from the underneath of hoppers through belt weigh
feeder. Its discharges go to a single belt conveyor. Above the belt conveyor a magnetic separator
is mounted to separate out the metals in the mixed AF. Further these material discharges to the
bucket Elevator. The bucket elevator discharges the AF into the KRD (Kiln riser duct) at about
15 m above the kiln inlet. The discharge chute is having a high level sensor in chute and two
pneumatic gate are provided to avoid back fire and false air ingress during operation. Safety
interlocks are provided to meet the safety of equipment and process. Whenever kiln trips
alternate fuel circuit will trip immediately. Alternate fuel feed will start only after kiln achieves a
feed rate of 200 TPH. For better control of calciner temperature and to avoid CO generation at
kiln inlet due to AF fluctuation conveyor belts are provided with VFD drives and looped with PC
outlet temperature. For any reason if PC outlet temperature crosses above 900*C the conveyor
belt speed will reduce to 50% of existing speed and the weigh feeder speed will have reduced to
minimum 1 TPH.
➢ The Initiatives Taken by ADITYA BIRLA Cement Works-Both The Unit Level and
Corporate Level
1. To decide about the waste fuel handling units at plant
Based on availability & physical characteristics of various alternative fuels that were available in
the surrounding areas like Plastic waste, Paints sludge, agro waste a system for handling and
feeding of alternate fuel to the precalciner of the cement kiln was designed such that it can use
any type of solid fuel having size not more than 30 mm. The equipment was mostly indigenous
and in-house fabricated. The covered storage yard for storing of different kinds of alternate fuels
was also planned at the remote backyard of the plant where it does not affect human being.

2. To explore the availability of different types of alternate fuels.
The unit has set a target of maximizing alternate fuels from commissioning. ADITYA CEMENT
WORKS both technical & commercial had lot of initiative in exploring the availability of
different kinds of alternate fuels to maximize AFR usage, and in this process while exploring the
Availability ACW had considered the logistics so that transportation cost does not go up.
However, based on the availability, to meet continuous requirement of around 10-15%

substitution of primary fuel focus was made on following fuels:
• Saw dust.
• ETP sludge.
• Plastics waste.
• Cement bags
• Rice husk.
• Phosphors sludge.
• Groundnut shell.
• Paint sludge
• Agro waste
• Carbon black
• Soya husk
• Corn waste
4.2 MAJOR INITIATIVE WERE TAKEN
1. Installation of plastics shredding machine:
In this machine hazardous plastic materials are shredded to small pieces and dispose in pre
calciner for combustion.

.
Shredder Transport belt Stacking point
Fig. 4.3: Shredder Machine
2. Wood cutting machine:
Figure 4.4: Wood cutting machine
With the help of wood cutting machine scrap woods cut down to small pieces and fed to calciner
for combustion
3. To take up the matter with state & central pollution control boards for obtaining their
clearance for usage of the same, which was a major challenge?
A target was set to obtain permission for transportation / trial run from pollution control boards
(CPCB) within one year from commissioning of the system for use of hazardous alternate fuel
which can give the benefit to negative fuel cost. To meet the above target of clearance from
CPCB and other government agencies, a detail survey report of availability of such alternate fuel
was prepared and ensured that such alternate fuel are available in abundant quantity for disposal
purpose and was in any way not being use for any other purpose. The study was supported by the

data from concerned government agencies to give permission for alternate fuel usage in cement
kiln. The official of state pollution control boards and central pollution control boards Bhopal
visited the unit for trial run of alternate fuel and its impact on environment during the trial run it
was observed that the emission parameters are not exceeding the base line parameter. Terms and
condition are made by the state pollution control boards and CPCB and ensured its compliance
before granting authorization for usage of hazardous waste material in kiln and calciner as
alternate fuel.
Brief about Authorized Alternate Fuel:
Paint sludge- it is procured from
Automobile industries (Maruti Suzuki) on negative
Cost. Big size and foreign material pre processing
Like cutting and shorting is required .it absorbs
Water and omitted unpleasant odour. Drying and Fig. 4.5: Paint Sludge
Handling of wet paint sludge is difficult so proper Storage system for raw and processed paint
sludge is required.
Gross Calorific Value (GCV): 4000 -4500 Kcal/kg
Ash Content: 6.29%
Moisture: 9.12%
Volatile matter: 80.14%
Sulphur content: 0.34%
Paint sludge is a very good alternative fuel considering its GCV. Also, the company gets heavily
paid to dispose off this highly polluting environmental waste.
ETP sludge (effluent treatment plant):

It is procured from Textiles industries Bhilwara (raj.) on negative Cost. Due to heavy moisture
we cannot use directly as receive before usage it’s drying than storage on separate yard we use it
in raw material like lime stone pile approx. 1-2% because of low GVC and high Alumina and
silica.
Gross calorific Value: 1,000-1,500kcal/kg
Inherent Moisture: 3.5-4.0%
Ash content: 40-45%
Received Moisture: 45-50%
Plastic waste:
It mainly source from paper andboard Industries, Vapi (Guj.) and consist of CV around4000kcal
and moisture content 2.0-3.0%. Due to light.
In weight we cannot use as received, before use shredding is required
Figure 4.5: plastic waste.
Agro waste:
It is procuring from nearby area about 80km it contains mustard Bhoosi, ground nut shell, soya
husk and saw dust.it is directly use in calciner
Average Gross Calorific Value: 3,500-4,000Kcal/kg

Ash Content: 5-10%
Inherent Moisture: 2%
Total Moisture: 10%
Size: 30-75 mm
Bulk density: 0.10-.15 t/m3
Pet coke:
In present scenarios of the cement plant it is a main fuel.it have following specifications.
Gross Calorific Value: 8,200kcal/kg
Ash content :< 1%
Inherent Moisture: 0.5%
Total Moisture: 7-8%
Volatile matter: 10.5 – 11.50 %
Fixed carbon: 86-90 %
Imported coal:
Gross Calorific Value: 6,400-6,600kcal/kg
Ash content: 13-16%
Inherent Moisture: 1.8-2%
Total Moisture: 8-10%
Volatile matter: 25 - 27 %
Fixed carbon: 54 - 58 %
Carbon black:

It is derived from waste tire; we received it’s in powder form so we directly store in separate
hopper and mix in fix proportion with main fuel for grinding in coal mill and fired in calciner. It
has
Gross calorific value: 6000-6500 kcal/kg
Moisture: 1-2%
Ash is approx. 10-15%
Fixed carbon: 75-85%
Volatile matter: 5-10%
4.3 Key technical challenges and action taken.
There are several challenges associated with using industrial waste in kiln. It is a highly
heterogeneous in nature which make difficult to maintain kiln stability. Several efforts are
underway to overcome the challenges, some of the key challenge are as follow.
a. Calciner temperature fluctuation:
There is huge fluctuation in calciner temperature followed by co-generation at kiln inlet during
AFR (industrial waste) injection in calciner. The problem was analyzed and found variation was
mainly due to variation in CV and size. To overcome the problem VFD installed in AFR feeding
conveyor belt. Interlock provided to reduce belt speed by 50% and weigh feeder set point to
minimum (i.e.1MT) whenever calciner temperature exceeds 900oC. To avoid variation in CV, to
minimize CV variation mixing of high and low CV alternate fuel started with help of wheel
loader.
Issue related to size and flow ability of solid AFR
Flow ability was bigger issue during AFR feeding, due to bigger size in solid AFR and high
moisture content the material frequently stuck up at bucket elevator discharge chute. To improve
the flow ability, hopper discharge chute is modified (area increase) and bucket elevator discharge
chute modified along with provide compressed air system to continue flow.

Surveillance camera:
A surveillance camera is installed to monitor the flow ability of material as well as the alertness
of attendant during jam cleaning. The display of surveillance camera is given in CCR; this helps
the CCR officer to monitor alertness of weigh feeder attendant and material followability.
Installation of surveillance camera helps to improve alertness fuel feeding
Planned for multiple AF feeding arrangement in pre-calciner:
At present ACW has single feeding arrangement at precalciner i.e. alternate fuel discharge from
the AFR bucket elevator and fed to pre calciner bottom at single location. Since the alternate fuel
is heterogeneous in size and quality, Aditya cement has planned to modified AFR bucket
elevator in multiple discharge point this will improve the combustion process in calciner
Existing AFR elevator Planned for extension of AFR
Figure 4.6: single discharge elevator with multiple discharge
Aditya cement is planned to increase the existing plastic shredder output capacity by fabrication
of a big size hopper and installation of belt conveyor system which will help to provide
continuous feeding of AFR material to shredder, it will be complete in the month of March-2016.
Generally alternative fuels can be divided into two main groups:
1. WASTE FUELS.
2. BIOFUELS.

1.WASTE FUELS
These are the fuels derived from household waste and13
Industrial waste and include:
• Paper
• Used tires
• ETP sludge
• Paint sludge
• Spent oil
• Sewage sludge
• Plastic waste
• Packaging waste
• Oil sludge from refineries
• Municipal solid waste, either raw or sorted and refined
• fractions such as refuse derived fuel (RDF)
• Meat and bone meal.
2. BIOFUELS
Biofuels are fuels that are derived from forestry and14
Agricultural waste. The types are many and will reflect the
Local agriculture and forestry. Examples of biofuels include:
• Wood chips
• Straw
• Rice husk
• Soya husk
• Coffee husk
• Ground nut shell
• Bio oils (e.g. palm oil)
• Ethanol produced from biomass (bioethanol)

• Chicken manure
• Residues from palm oil production.
Waste materials not to be used as AFR:

As per guideline of CPCB the following waste materials shall not be used as alternate fuel or raw
material source under any circumstances.
• Nuclear waste,
• Asbestos-containing waste,
• Wastes containing heavy metals including mercury, lead or cadmium
• Electronic scrap
• Explosives,
• Wood treated with copper, chrome, arsenic etc.
• Mineral acids, Infectious medical waste,
• Chemical or biological weapons destined for destruction,
• Entire batteries and Unknown or non-specified waste.
4.4 Criteria of alternative fuel
There are no set criteria for selecting AFs today. The specific criteria that a material must meet in
order to be considered as a fuel is typically set by the individual cement producer according to
their own needs. AFs are generally a mixture of various wastes and therefore consistency in their
composition cannot be guaranteed. There is a need for ensuring the chemical contents of the AF
that meets regulatory requirements for environmental protection. The following properties are
expected to be considered as alternative fuels.
• Physical state of the fuel (solid, liquid, gaseous),

• Content of circulating elements (Na, K, Cl, S),
• Toxicity (organic compounds, heavy metals),
• Composition and content of ash and content of volatiles,

• Calorific value — over 14.0 MJ/kg, (3000kcal/kg.)
• Chlorine content — less than 0.2% and Sulfur content — less than 2.5%,
• PCB content—less than 50 ppm, heavy-metals content — less than 2500ppm [out of
which: mercury (Hg) less than 10ppm, and total cadmium (Cd), thallium (Tl) and
mercury (Hg) less than 100 ppm].
• Physical properties (scrap size, density, homogeneity),
• Grinding properties,
• Moisture content,
• Proportioning technology,
• The emissions released,
• The cement quality and its compatibility with the environment must not decrease,
• Alternative fuels must be economically viable.
• Availability
Technical feasibility
several countries have been using waste as fuel for over 20 years. Based on their experience, it
has been found that the cement kilns are highly suitable for burning waste. This is mainly due to
its following reasons:
• High flame temperatures (2000 oC) ensures complete destruction of harmful pollutants
• Residence time of combustion gases above 1000 oC in excess of 3 to 4 seconds ensures
complete destruction of pollutants
• Complete scrubbing of exhaust gases due to countercurrent flow of raw material resulting
in trapping of heavy metals, Sulphur and other pollutants within clinker
• Inclusion of ashes and residual metals from the waste within the clinker crystal structure
• Kiln lines are equipped with ESPs/bag filters to ensure negligible particulate emission
• Intense contact between solid and gas phases ensures condensation of volatiles, absorbs
SO2 and neutralizes acid gases.
Cement kilns present an opportunity where burning waste is a recovery operation and the term
often used is valorization. This is because of the fact that the combustible parts of the waste
replace fossil fuels and the non-combustible parts replace raw materials like silica and iron. The

environmental impact is negligible and the energy efficiency is the highest compared to
incineration equipped with power generation. At the same time, the option offers benefits to the
society in the following form:
• Conservation of non-renewable fossil fuels

• Alternative fuels are generally cheaper than the fossil fuels
• Reduction in environmental impact related to coal mining
• No need for investment in incinerators
• Overall lower CO2 and methane emissions by replacement of fossil fuel
• Conservation of raw materials for the cement industry, as hazardous wastes partially
replaces some of the traditional materials like silica, iron. Etc.
There could be process problems associated with burning waste in the cement kiln, which can be
tackled by adopting some technological changes and through process mastery
Advantages and disadvantages
Alternative fuels are generally cheaper than the fossil fuels because most of the AFs are
generated from wastes which only require some processing cost. A mixture of fossil fuels and
AF in optimal proportion is used to produce the thermal energy required in cement industry. The
significant advantage of alternative fuel Substitution is the preservation of nonrenewable energy
sources and the reduction of waste disposal sites. Contribution towards lowering of emissions
such as greenhouse gases by replacing the use of fossil fuel with material that would otherwise
have to be incinerated with corresponding emission and final residue. Switching to alternatives
fuels presents several challenges as they have different characteristics compared to the
conventional fuels. Poor heat distribution unstable and precalciner operation, blockages in the
preheater cyclones, build-ups in the kiln riser ducts, higher SO2, NOX, and CO emissions, and
dusty kilns are some of the major challenges which need to be addressed. One potential
constraint on the implementation of alternative fuels is the final clinker composition since the
combustion by-products are incorporated into clinker. The substitution of AFs inherently
requires initial investment costs associated with adjustment or replacement of burner,
establishment of alternative fuel delivery systems, new fuel storage facilities, and fuel
distribution systems.

Advantages of co-processing
Benefits of co-combustion of alternative fuels in a cement plant. A life cycle comparison of

using dedicated incinerators and cement kilns reveals that there are significant advantages to the
latter. Burning waste fuels in cement kilns utilizes pre-existing kiln infrastructures and energy
demand, and therefore avoids considerable energy, resource and economic cost. When
alternative fuel is combusted in cement kilns, ash residues are incorporated into the clinker, so
there are no end products that require further management.
Waste recovery by the cement industry reduce emission
CO2
CO2 SO2 CO2
SO2 NOx SO2
NOx NOx
Fossil fuel (Coal, waste Fossil fuel

WASTE
as (Coal, oil,
oil, natural gas)
(Alt
nat. gas)
.fuel)
NONEATATIONCEMENT PLANT PLANT + CO-COMBUSTION IN

CEMENT PLANT
Key considerations for co-processing alternative fuels:
The potential benefits of burning alternative fuels at cement plants are numerous. However, the
contrary is possible, where poor planning results in projects where cement kilns have higher
emissions or where alternative fuels are not put to their highest value use.

Principle Description
co-processing respects the waste hierarchy -Waste should be used in cement kilns if and
only if there are not more ecologically and
economically better ways of recovery
-Co-processing should be considered an
integrated part of waste management
-Co-processing is in line with international
environmental agreements, Basel and
Stockholm Conventions
additional emissions and negative impacts on -Negative effects of pollution on the
human health must be avoided environment and human health must be
prevented or kept at a minimum
-Air emissions from cement kilns burning
alternative fuels cannot be statistically higher
than those of cement kilns burning traditional
fuels
the quality of the cement must remain -the product (clinker, cement, concrete) must
unchanged not be used as a sink for heavy metals
-the product must not have any negative
impacts on the environment (e.g., leaching)
-the quality of the product must allow for end-
of-life recovery
companies that co-process must be qualified -have good environmental and safety
compliance records
-have personnel, processes, and systems in
place committed to protecting the environment,
health, and safety
-assure compliance with all laws and
regulations
-be capable of controlling inputs to the
production process

-maintain good relations with public and other
actors in local, national and international waste
management schemes
implementation of co-processing must consider -country specific requirements must be
national circumstances reflected in regulations
-stepwise implementation allows for build-up
of necessary management and handling
capacity
-co-processing should be accompanied with
other changes in waste management processes
in the country
Table 4.1: Guiding Principles for Co-Processing Alternative Fuels in Cement Kilns
Waste Management Hierarchy

1. Wastes can be managed in a number of ways, depending on their physical and chemical
nature, and on the economic, social, and environmental context in which they are produced.
2. Specific decisions on waste management will always be influenced by local circumstances
such as the availability of waste treatment facilities, alternative markets for materials, and the
infrastructure available to safely collect, manage and transport waste materials.
3. The essential process characteristics for the use of waste can be summarized as follows:
• Maximum temperatures of approximately 2000°C (main firing system, flame temperature) in

rotary kilns.
• Gas retention times of about 8 seconds at temperatures above 1200°C in rotary kilns and more
than 2 seconds at temperatures above 850°C in the secondary firing system.
• Uniform burnout conditions due to the high temperatures at sufficiently long retention times
and Oxidizing gas atmosphere in rotary kilns.
• Complete utilization of fuel ashes and wastes as clinker components and hence, simultaneous
material recycling and energy recovery.
4. Sorption of gaseous components like HF, HCl, and SO2 on alkaline reactants.

5. Short retention times of exhaust gases in the temperature range known to lead to formation of
PCDDs/PCDFs.
6. Chemical-mineralogical incorporation of non-volatile heavy metals into the clinker matrix.
Cement production process
Cement is considered one of the most important building materials around the world. Cement
production is an energy-intensive process consuming thermal energy of the order of 700kcal/ton
of clinker produced, which accounts for 25% of production costs, coal is the predominant fuel
burned in cement kilns. Cement production consumes of coal approximately 10 – 11% of the
production of the clinker per day.
Cement production involves the heating, calcining and sintering of blended and ground raw
materials, typically limestone (CaCO3) and other materials containing calcium, silicon oxides,
aluminium and iron oxides to form clinker. Clinker production takes place at material
temperatures of about 1450oC in rotary kiln. Carbon dioxide is released during the production of
clinker. Specifically, CO2 is released as a by-product during calcination, which occurs in the
upper, cooler end of the kiln, or a pre calciner, at temperatures of 600-900oC, and results in the
conversion of carbonates to oxides. Most modern cement kiln systems have a special combustion
chamber called a ‘pre calciner’ as part of the preheating tower
4.5 Feeding points for co processing

Different feed point can be used to insert the co processing materials into the cement production
process the most common once are.
Via the main burner at the rotary kiln outlet end.
Via a feed chute at the transition chamber at the rotary kiln inlet end.
Via secondary burners to the riser duct.
Via precalciner burners to the precalciner and.
Via a feed chute to the precalciner.

CHAPTER – 5
CASE STUDIES

Case Studies and Work done at Aditya Cement Works Plant Site.
Case Studies are related to the cement plant (Aditya Cement Works) and optimum use of
alternative fuels with cost consideration were done.
5.1 CASE STUDIES
5.1 (A)Hazardous waste /Alternative fuel used and tested in Calciner.
Work and test carried out at Cement Plant.
Cost Reduction by Utilization of Hazardous Waste & Agro waste as Alternate Fuel & Raw
Material (AFR) i.e. Paint sludge, ETP sludge, Saw dust, Groundnut husk, Mustard bhoosi and
Phosphate sludge
Methodology of Theme / Problem Identification:
• Cement Industry is energy intensive industry and approx. 57 % fuel cost contributes to
total clinker production cost.
• Fuel cost is regularly increasing and it is beyond our control. So it is decided to explore
the alternative material to reduce fuel cost.
• As per CPCB study, Cement kiln is the best incinerator for productive use of HW due to
high burning temperature (14000C).
• It is strategic decision of Unit Management to identifying and use Hazardous waste as

AFR for supplementary resource or for energy recovery which is negative cost material.
• Obtain various statutory clearances to usage hazardous waste as AFR in cement kiln.
• COST ANALYSIS -

FUEL
6.04
14.82 POWER
RAW
57.16 MATERIAL
21.98
STORE
Fig. 5.1: Fuel Cost Contributes 57.16%. of the Total Clinker Cost
1.5 1.12 0.983

0.64
0.5
Rs/1000 Kcal
Imp. Coal Petcoke Indian Coal Paint sludge ETP Sludge

-0.5
-1.5 -1.303
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
Graph 5.1 Comparison of Different Type Fuel Cost (RS. /1000 kcal)
Root cause/Analytical Analysis:
Business Case: -
• Explored availability of HW (negative cost) in nearby industry to use as AFR.
• Testing of HW to confirm its technical feasibility for using as AFR.

• Feasibility study of potential HW in view of legal and regulatory requirements.
Environment Protection Initiatives: -
• Less Co2 generation from HW as compared to coal.
• To solve the HW disposal problem of nearby industry.
• To save community from adverse impact of HW on land, air and ground water.
Usage of different Tools & Techniques
• Ultimate, Proximate & Chemical analysis of samples to explore feasibility for use of
HW and Agro waste.
• Check availability of HW & Agro waste at periodic frequency.
• Conducted PFMEA to identify potential failures.
• Developed and executed road map to eliminate potential failures and start the use of
HW and Agro waste as alternate fuel.
Fig. 5.2: Outline of Equipment & Process
Problem Faced
➢ High CO generation at kiln inlet.

➢ High moisture problem.
➢ Disturbance in the kiln parameters due to improper mixing of HW in coal.
➢ Safe storage, Handling, Cutting and Feeding.
Fig. 5.3: AFR Feeding System
ACTIONS TAKEN:
• Conducted HW emissions monitoring as per CPCB guidelines.
• Obtained Trial & Regular permissions from RPCB and CPCB to use MUL HW in
cement kiln.
• To ensure strict compliance with world class safety norms as per SWP, SOPs and
use of PPE’s.

• Reduction of size and moisture removal from material before feeding in kiln for
smooth operation.
• Optimize max. 7.0% (Wt. basis) consumption of HW in total fuel requirement.
Result Achieved:
% Thermal substitution Rate TSR Utilization

3
2.05
1.92
2
%
1 0.82
0
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Graph 5.2: TSR Utilization
Intangible Benefits:
• Reduction in CO2 emissions.
• Natural Resource Conservation i.e., Coal.
• Solved the HW disposal problem of nearby industries gainfully and environment

friendly utilization.

5.1(B) Carbon Black as alternative fuel firing source in Cement Preheater
A case Study on UNIT Project
Back ground & reasons for selecting the project
Cement Industry is energy intensive industry and continuous rising cost of inputs like fuel,
power, raw material and spares parts have put a challenge to reduce and sustain production cost.
Higher the input material cost is higher the cost of clinker production. Hence, the requirement to
reduce the above elements of cost is as follows-
• Reduction in fuel cost through innovations and using alternate fuels.

• Reduction in power cost through innovations in plant machinery.
• Reduction in power generation cost by using alternate fuels.
Linkage with strategic objectives at the business
The unit is committed to reduced overall cost of cement production and to be a lowest cost
producer. Hence the project was taken up in line with the strategic objective of the unit.
Project Objective:
Our business objective is to reduce manufacturing cost as minimum as possible to increase the
profitability of the business. On the same line the Aditya Cement has set Unit objective as “To
bring down the cost/ ton of cement production".
1. Problem statement:
In the present scenario, with the entry of new domestic and international players competition in
cement market is very tough and profit margins are shirking very fast. For sustenance and
retaining the position of market leader it is very essential to be cost competitive.
As fuel is the major cost contributor in clinker cost, we have to reduce and sustain the cost of
fuel by using low cost fuel / alternate fuel.
2. Goal statement:
To reduce cement manufacturing cost through optimization and use of alternate fuel.

3. Gains:
A) Reduction in variable cost of clinker production.
B) Improved productivity.
C) Reduction in carbon foot print.
D) Natural resources conservation i.e., coal.
Project Matrix:
Primary Secondary Consequential Financial Business

Environmental Shrinkage
High Fuel Cost Product Un-competitive Profitability
Impact in NCR
Product Increase in Carbon
Decrease in sale
Un competitive footprint
Baseline Target
Pet-coke cost- Rs. 7000 & NCV is 5% Reduction in cost by use of

Primary
7900 Kcal/kg. carbon black as alternate fuel.
Secondary Heat value substitution by AF : 3% Heat value substitution by AF : 5%
Table 5.1: Project Matrix
Use of Analytical Tools and Techniques –
01. Cost Analysis-
A) Cost analysis of clinker production-
The data has been collected for previous years to analyze the clinker production cost.
After analysis it has been found that fuel is the major contributor in clinker
production cost.

5 FUEL
14
POWER
59
22
RAW MATERIAL
STORE
Graph 5.3: Cost Analysis
It was felt necessary to use low cost alternate fuel without adverse effect on
environment norms and productivity. Cost analysis chart is as below:
B) COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TYPE FUEL COST (Rs. / 1000 Kcal)
1.5
1.25 Lowest
1.2
0.80
0.89 0.90
Rs/1000 Kcal
0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3
0
Imp. Coal Petcoke Linkage Coal Agri waste Carbon black
Graph 5.4: Comparison of Different Type Fuel Cost
As per Cost driver analysis, about 59 % of clinker cost is for Fuel. As power is generated from
own CPPs, where coal/pet-coke cost is 90% of the cost of generation, fuel emerges as a single

cost element, constituting more than 60% of total cost of cement production, e.g., for each bag of
cement costing Rs.70, more than Rs.40/- goes into cost of the fuel. Increasing prices and
downgrading quality are resulting in huge increase in fuel cost. As coal production in India is
controlled by Govt. and PSU Coal companies are not meeting full demand, all cement producers
have to source fuel from open International markets which are prone to rapid fluctuations.
Higher Fuel Cost is directly proportional to per kg cost of Cement.
To address above problem, it has been our constant endeavor to bring down the cost of fuel and
to constantly and vigorously look for Alternate fuels (AF), which has cost per unit of heat value
lower than traditional fuels, viz coal, petcoke etc. During this process of constant evaluation of
various AF, it has been found out that Carbon black powder generated as a by-product by Tyre
Pyrolysis industry, has sufficient high calorific value. We visited 2-3 such Units and discussions
were held with them. The samples were taken, analyzed and found that Carbon black has GCV
> 6000 Kcal/Kg.
Due to following reasons, it was not attracting users and hence, was available at lower cost.
• Sourcing from very small unstructured plants.
• Consistency of Quality of Carbon Black Powder.
• Feeding constraint due to high fineness of product & foreign particles.
• Low material unloading rate due to material availability in HDPE bags.
• Manual unloading having health & pollution hazard.
Team has discussed the matter and following actions were identified -
01. Vendors were prepared to supply the material packed in HDPE bags.
Problem Faced-
Fineness (Blaine) of material was high, mixing with coal / pet-coke at pile end was
not working feasible because of wind losses and pollution issues.

02. Brain storming session conducted to overcome the above problem and
various options were explored and following action have been taken.
A) Discussions were held with vendors to supply material in Bulkers / closed

tankers. As all vendors were used to supply the material in bags, hence they
were reluctant to supply in tankers due to problems of filling into the tankers
from top lid and as well as very high logistics cost involved in transportation
of material in bulkers, in comparison to ordinary trucks.
B) After a lot of counseling, one vendor was persuaded to start supply on trial
basis in closed bulkers.
Photograph 5.1: Tanker unloading at point.
C) Installation of pneumatic air conveying line for unloading the material in fine
coal bin.
This mechanism makes cement kilns superior over waste incinerators in terms of emission of
PCDD/PCDF and other VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) and emissions are usually well
below the permitted levels. Concrete data in that regard follow later in this paper.
It has to be remarked here, that generally waste incinerator plants have more stringent emission
and pollution regulations than cement plants and they are stricter monitored as well. However,
fact is that cement plants exhaust less dioxins, VOC, HCl etc. than incineration plants. As for the

gashouse emissions, certainly incinerator plants emit less but with or without Alternative Fuels
cement plants would emit these in any case.
Photograph 5.2: conveying line.
D) One compressor was made available for unloading the material as set norms
of bulker unloading.
E) After installation of system, bulker unloaded in fine coal bin for firing the
carbon black with fine coal.
Problem Faced-
The firing system (Pfister) was able to convey the material but during the trials, it was observed
that Pfister was taking high current intermediately and tripping on overload frequently.
Fish bone analytical tool was used to get the solution of the problem.

Fig. 5.4: Fish Bone Diagram
Based on the problem analysis we have taken following actions:
A) One raw coal hopper was made available for unloading the carbon black and
to grind this material with raw coal to overcome the problem of high residual
material/ foreign particles.
B) To unload the carbon black bulkers in the raw coal hopper, the pneumatic
conveying air line was connected to raw coal hopper in place of fine coal bin.
C) Carbon black grinding has started with raw coal in 1:10 ratio

Cost Economics
Landed cost comparison on dry basis of Petcoke & Carbon Black
Petcoke Carbon Black

Particular
Jun-16 Jun-16
Suppliers RIL MR Enterprises

PO No. 2620500180 1610501476
Country Origin India India
MODE OF TRANSPORT Road Road
GCV 8200 6300
FM 5.68 2.00
ASH 0.50 21.00
Transit Shortage 0.75 0.00
Rs./MT Rs./MT
Basic Price 5075 3500
Excise duty 14% & 6% 711 0
Cess /Edu. Cess 2% 14 0
Cess /She Cess 1% 7 0
SUB TOTAL 5807 3500
Sales Tax 2% & Vat 5% 116 175
SUB TOTAL 5923 3675
Inland freight 1068 0
SUB TOTAL 6991 3675
Transit Shortage 45 0
Total cost for Entry Tax calculation 7036 3675
Entry Tax 3 % 188 0
SUB TOTAL 7223 3675
Less :-Service Tax & Vat 68% 0 -119

LESS :--Cenvat -732 0
Landed cost at site (Rs/Ton) 6492 3556
Less : Fly ash rebate 3 137
Nett Landed cost/MT 6488 3420
Add Moisture 391 73
Landed Cost on Dry Basis(Rs/Ton) 6879 3492
Landed Cost on Dry Basis(Rs/Mill GCV) 839 554
(ADV)(NCV)(ADB+250)
Table 5.2: Cost Economics
Benefits:
• Cost (Rs/million CV) of Carbon black is less by Rs 285/-(839-554) i.e. 34% lower
than Petcoke.
• Consumption of carbon black in April to June’ 13, is 4064 MT, resulting in saving of Rs
85.00 lacs in 1st quarter of FY14.
• Reduction in carbon foot print.
• Natural resources conservation i.e., coal.
Following chart is a reflection of above achievements:
MONTH WISE CARBON BLACK UTILIZATION

2000 1818.89
1800
1600 1519.64
1400
1200
MT/Month
1000 889.0
725.44
800 565.67
600 495.12
400 92.8
200 58.5
0
Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16
Graph 5.5: Month Wise Carbon Black Utilization

MONTH WISE CARBON BLACK SAVINGMONTH WISE ALTERNATE FUEL TSR %
50 10
8.96
40 37.82 8
31.6 6.6 6.28
Rs. IN LAKH
Rs. IN LAKH
30 6 5.62
4.75 11.76
1.93
20 18.5 4
15.08
11.76 2.64
10.3
10 2
1.93
1.2
0 0
Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16
MONTH MONTH
Graph 5.6: Carbon Black Saving AFR/TSR
Annualized saving in 2016-17 is expected to be > Rs 350 lacs

Sustenance:
1. From far off places, like Jaipur, where majority of Pyrolysis units are located,
transportation cost was exorbitantly high due to one side empty ferrying of bulkers. To
bring down this cost element, it was explained to vendors to transport materials in bags in
ordinary trucks up to Chittorgarh or a nearby place and for transshipment i.e. loading of
bulkers at that point. This proposal was found feasible by vendors and they could bring
down transportation cost, thereby increasing supply quantity.
2. Bonus / Penalty clause has been built in the orders to motivate them to increase the
supply quantity.
3. A fair and transparent system of ordering with same price, terms & conditions and
bonus/penalty is extended to all the vendors to attract more vendors.
Uniqueness
Transportation of Carbon black powder in Bulker and feeding through pneumatic arrangement
has been introduced first time in Cement Industry. This innovative Project has helped in cost
reduction, Joint project with Business partners (Win- Win situation), focus on Environment, safe
procedure.
5.2 (C)REDUCTION IN FUEL COST BY USE OF PETROLEUM REFINERY WASTE -
PETCOKE

REASON FOR SELECTION PETCOKE
1a. HIGHER FUEL COST.
1b. LOWEST COST OF FUEL
1c. HIGH HEAT VALUE OF PETCOKE k Cal / kg
fuel
8000
8000
6500
6500
5000
COAL CV PETCOKE CV
Graph 5.7: CV Comparison
1d. UTILISATION OF EVEN LOW GRADE LIMESTONE
PROPERTY IMPORTED COAL PET COKE
VM % 23 – 28 6–8
ASH % 12 – 16 0.8 – 1.0
CV(kcal/kg) 6500 8000
SULPHUR % 0.7 – 0.8 7.0 – 7.5
HGI 48 - 50 37 – 45
INHERENT MOISTURE 1.0-1.8 % 0.4 – 0.8%

COMPARISION OF FUELS
• LIGNITE: -
1. HIGH MOISTURE.
2. HIGH COST.
• IMPOR.COAL: -
1. AVAILABILITY DEPENDS UPON GOVT. POLICY.

2. HIGH COST.
• PETCOKE: -
1. NO ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE IS REQUIRED FOR USING

PETCOKE.
2. AVAILABLE IN NEAR BY STATE.
3. CHEAPER FUEL.
COMPARISION OF FUELS
CHALLENGES FOR USING PET COKE IN PROCESS
1. HIGH SULPHUR. - HIGH SULPHUR CREATES JAMMING IN PROCESS
2. LOW VOLATILE MATTERS (VM) - LOW VM FUEL IS DIFFICULT TO BURN
3. LOW HARD GROVE INDEX = LOW INDEX REDUCES COAL MILL OUTPUT DUE
TO HARDER TO GRIND

Fig. 5.5: Feasibility Study

Fig. 5.6: Petcoke Firing Process

Table 5.3: Modification Carried Out

Fig. 5.7: Problem Identified

Fig. 5.8: Modification in Refractory Material

1. ENHANCEMENT IN PET COKE CONSUMPTION
2. IMPORTED COAL AND PET COKE COST
Graph 5.8: Imported and Petcoke Cost
3. MINERAL CONSERVATION USE OF WASTE LOW GARADE LIME STONE,
YEARS
80
74
70
65
60
50
COAL PETCOKE
INCREASED MINES LIFE
Graph 5.9: Showing Increasing the Mines Life

CHAPTER – 6
RESULT

6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
6.1 MATERIAL TESTING RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
Aditya cement have online monitoring system at Bag house and ESP stack for CO2, SO2, NOx
and dust emission reading continuous showing in CCR but during use of hazardous waste some
of heavy metal, organic carbon and mercury emission reading not showing in CCR as per CPCB
guideline sampling done during co-processing of hazardous waste and result are discuss as
follow.
The general observation of emission during the trial of co-processing are: -
• The particulate matter emission was always less than 50 mg/Nm3, maximum observed was
37.9 mg/Nm3;
• Sulphur dioxide emission during trial co-processing with hazardous waste were observed
ranging between 6.4-7.5 mg/Nm3;
• Oxide of nitrogen emission, which are much dependent on the temperature, were ranging
between 713 to 746 mg/Nm3 during co-processing;
• HCL and HF emission value were found between 12.6 – 20.3 mg/Nm3 and 1.0 – 1.6 mg/Nm3
respectively during co-processing;
• Volatile organics were generated in 0.68 - 0.91 µg/Nm3 level only;
• Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon(PAH) emissions were observed in the range of 0.22 –
0.32 µg/Nm3during trial co-processing;
• Dioxins and Furans were found between 0.013 ng/Nm3 during pretrial period, 0.011 – 0.012
ng/Nm3 during trial co-processing with hazardous waste and 0.015 ng/Nm3 during post trial
period;
• The total heavy metals and mercury emissions values are 0.224 – 0.232 mg/Nm3 and 0.007 –
0.010 mg/Nm3 during co-processing;
• Total organic carbon was 5.3 – 5.6 mg/Nm3during co-processing; and
• Ambient air quality was found to be normal representing the industrial activities and within
permission limits

Study work based on (5) five day’s trial run of AFR in Pyro system as per methodology:
Table 6.1 Kiln and Preheater Parameter
AdityaCe
ment
1 Data of Pyro system
1.
Kiln feed
1
LSF fluctuations sdv 94.85
Dosing fluctuations % 2
Coefficient of variation R90 m % 2.8
1.
Coal / petcoke (at main burner)
2
Fineness at R90 m % 20.99
Fineness R90 m fluctuations sdv 0.3
Fineness at R200 m % 2.38
Dosing fluctuations % 0.25
Pressure fluctuation at the burner within +/-5mbar % 0.5
P fluctuation at the burner within +/- 5 and 7.5mbar % 0.5
2 KILN OPERATION
2.
Combustion (based on 5-days campaign)
1
O2 at kiln inlet %O2 3
CO at kiln inlet %CO 0.05
Temperature at kiln inlet °C 1080
Temperature at exit lowest cyclone °C 880
2.
Hot meal (based on 5 days-campaign)
2
% calcinations % 91.85
SO3 %SO3 1.76

Cl %Cl 0.121
K2O %K2O 1.27
gm/100kg
Sulfur Volatility
clk 735
2.
Main Firing
3
% total
Heat distribution to main firing
fuel 40
Ash input at burning zone % in cli 0

Length of fixed coating x Ækiln
% total
Fine AFR powder in main flame (diam.<0.5mm)
fuel 0
% total
Solid AFR diam.<1.5 mm in main flame
fuel 0
% total
Solid AFR diam<5 mm or foils < 50 mm
fuel 0
% total
#REF!
fuel
Comment: all substitution refers to total sub. of the fuel and
cannot be accumulated
2.
Precalcination, secondary firing or MKF
4
% total
Heat distribution to precalcination
fuel 60
% total
Whole tires
fuel 0
% total
Lump fuel >50mm
fuel 40
Solid AFR < 50 mm % total 10

fuel
Gas residence time in calciner seconds 1.9
3 MAIN BURNER
% Primary Air( radial/axial) % 11
Axial Momentum N/MW 1475
Coal injection velocity m/s 29
4 CHEMISTRY
4.
Clinker
1 Current
Liquid phase 1450°C of main clinker % in cli 27.7
CaOfree % in cli 1.15
% off-spec clinker % in cli 0.5
P2O5 in Clinker % in cli 0.17
4.
Alkali & Sulfur (based on A/S balance)
2
"Calculated" Alk/S - ratio in clinker - 2.4
"Calculated" SO3 in clinker % in cli 1.09
Alkali input (process point of view) % in cli 0.42
4.
Chlorine & Dust
3
Relevant Cl input from raw materials & fuels g/t cli 0.03
Chlorine output through all cement g/t cem 0.03
Filler in cement % in cem 5
5 KILN PERFORMANCE
Current
OEE net % 99.83
Rate % 206.92
Availability % 99.83

MTBF hours 1338.93
Number of kiln stops stop/a 6
Stops due to cyclones plug-ups stop/a 0
Refractory consumption (4 years rolling av.) g/tcli 433
Emissions (below legal limits: "Yes" or "No") - Yes
6 AFR: for each AFR installation individually
Current
6. AFR Installation 1: describe installation (e.g. "solvent
1 installation for main burner)
Storage capacity t
Feeding capacity t/h
NCV Fluctuation of AFR 1 +/-kJ/kg
Solid AFR injection velocity (if used at main burner) m/s NA
OEE net %
MTBF hours
Storage capacity t
Solid AFR injection velocity (if used at main burner) m/s NA
OEE net %
MTBF hours
Storage capacity t NA
Solid AFR injection velocity (if used at main burner) m/s
OEE net %

MTBF hours
OEE net %
MTBF hours
OEE net %
MTBF hours
Table 6.2 During Trial Typical Alternative Fuel Composition
AdityaCement
Plant
Works
Type: AF Carbon Black
From Unloading From Unloading

Sampling location Sampling location
Point Point
Fine
Type of samples Type of samples Fine Powder
Powder
SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2
NCV 6086 kJ/kg NCV 5839 kJ/kg

Moisture (as fired) 0.18 %H2O Moisture (as fired) 0.18 %H2O
Sulphur 4.07 %S Sulphur 3.7 %S
Volatile 15.6 % Volatile 16.32 %
Ash 17.12 % Ash 18.93 %
Chlorine % Chlorine %
P2O5 % P2O5 %
Typical Typical
mm Mm
Granulometry Granulometry
From Unloading
Sampling location
Point
Fine
Type of samples
Powder
SAMPLE 3 AVERAGE
NCV 5992 kJ/kg 5972
Moisture (as fired) 0.18 %H2O 0.18
Sulphur 3.83 %S 3.87
Volatile 16.02 % 15.98
Ash 17.88 % 17.98
Chlorine %
P2O5 %
Typical
mm
Granulometry
Type: ETP Sludge

Point Point

Fine
Powder
SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2
Moisture (as fired) 2.6 %H2O Moisture (as fired) 2.4 2.5
Ash 45.71 % Ash 44.52 %
P2O5 % P2O5 %
Typical Typical
mm Mm
SAMPLE 3 AVERAGE
NCV 1161 kJ/kg 1205
Volatile 22.65 % 22.81
Ash 46.26 % 45.50
Chlorine %
P2O5 %
Typical
mm
Granulometry
Type: Agriwaste

Point Point

Fine
Powder
SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2
Moisture (as fired) 4.15 %H2O Moisture (as fired) 4.08 2.5
Ash 25.12 % Ash 23.65 %
P2O5 % P2O5 %
Typical Typical
mm Mm
From Unloading
Sampling location
Point
Fine
Type of samples
Powder
SAMPLE 3 AVERAGE
NCV 2820 kJ/kg 2820
Volatile 22.65 % 22.81
Ash 24.48 % 24.42
Chlorine %
P2O5 %
Typical Granulomety mm
Table 6.3: Process Operation Quality/Lab Data taken during trail run

Raw meal (after mill)
S
LO K2 R90
LSF LSF Na2 O3 Cl R90 R200
S A I O variat
Hour actu setpo O ( (% m m
M M (% (% ion
al int (%) % ) (%) (%)
) ) [%]
)
35.
Average 95.1 94.5 1.9 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 21.4 2.3 3.7%
3
SUMMARY
nbr of
49 49 49 49 49 49 49 54 49 49 49
value
Short-
term
1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2
fluc.-
Sdv
1.8 1.0 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
Min 92.4 94.5 0.08 20.0 2.0
1 6 82 7 3 03
2.1 1.3 36. 0.2 0.1 0.0
Max 98.3 94.5 0.08 23.8 2.8
2 0 43 7 5 04
2/10/2017 6
S
LO K2
LS LS Na2 O3 Cl R90 R200
S A I O
M M (% (%
al int (%) % ) (%) (%)
) )
)
1.8 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
0:00 h 93.1 94.5 0.08 20.6 2.0
8 7 49 7 3 03
1.9 1.1 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 93.1 94.5 0.08 20.8 2.2
1 2 93 7 5 04

1.8 1.1 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 93.5 94.5 0.08 20.0 2.2
9 4 84 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 95.8 94.5 0.08 20.4 2.2
9 3 35 7 5 03
2.1 1.2 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 96.2 94.5 0.08 20.4 2.2
2 7 98 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 95.3 94.5 0.08 20.6 2.2
8 5 75 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 95.3 94.5 0.08 20.8 2.2
5 3 22 7 5 03
2.0 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 96.2 94.5 0.08 22.0 2.4
9 7 83 7 5 03
1.9 1.2 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 92.4 94.5 0.08 22.8 2.6
0 0 21 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 97.0 94.5 0.08 23.8 2.8
5 8 36 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 96.4 94.5 0.08 22.4 2.4
4 6 35 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 93.7 94.5 0.08 20.0 2.0
1 4 14 7 5 03
Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
term
1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2
fluc.-
Sdv
Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 97 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 24 3
2/11/2017 7

S
LO K2
S A I O
M M (% (%
al int (%) % ) (%) (%)
) )
)
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
0:00 h 93.4 94.5 0.08 20.6 2.0
0 0 07 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 96.0 94.5 0.08 21.4 2.2
8 8 99 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 36. 0.2 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 93.7 94.5 0.08 22.0 2.4
3 0 43 7 5 03
1.8 1.2 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 94.8 94.5 0.08 21.8 2.6
7 1 29 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 92.4 94.5 0.08 22.8 2.8
7 8 92 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 94.7 94.5 0.08 21.6 2.2
0 7 05 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 95.8 94.5 0.08 20.6 2.2
0 7 18 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 93.6 94.5 0.08 20.2 2.4
2 6 04 7 5 03
1.8 1.3 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 93.7 94.5 0.08 22.4 2.4
9 0 28 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 94.6 94.5 0.08 22.0 2.2
1 4 28 7 5 03
1.9 1.0 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 96.6 94.5 0.08 23.2 2.2
2 6 06 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 98.3 94.5 0.08 22.6 2.2
5 8 32 7 5 03
Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2

nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
term
1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2
fluc.-
Sdv
Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 98 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 23 3
2/12/2017 1
S
LO K2
S A I O
M M (% (%
al int (%) % ) (%) (%)
) )
)
1.9 1.0 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
0:00 h 93.3 94.5 0.08 22.0 2.0
1 9 95 7 5 03
2.0 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 96.3 94.5 0.08 21.8 2.0
1 3 54 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 95.3 94.5 0.08 21.6 2.4
4 8 16 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 93.9 94.5 0.08 20.8 2.4
5 1 18 7 5 03
8:00 h
10:00 h
12:00 h
14:00 h
16:00 h
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 96.1 94.5 0.08 21.6 2.2
7 1 09 7 5 03

1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 92.4 94.5 0.08 20.0 2.2
1 9 15 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 96.5 94.5 0.08 20.8 2.2
8 9 56 7 5 03
Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
nbr of
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
value
Short-
term
1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2
fluc.-
Sdv
Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 22 2
2/13/2017 2
S
LO K2
S A I O
M M (% (%
al int (%) % ) (%) (%)
) )
)
1.9 1.2 36. 0.2 0.1 0.0
0:00 h 96.7 94.5 0.08 21.8 2.2
7 1 04 7 5 03
1.9 1.2 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 95.6 94.5 0.08 21.8 2.0
5 0 58 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 96.1 94.5 0.08 21.6 2.2
3 2 25 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 95.0 94.5 0.08 22.2 2.2
7 7 96 7 5 03
1.8 1.2 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 95.2 94.5 0.08 21.8 2.2
9 7 35 7 5 03

1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 97.9 94.5 0.08 21.8 2.2
7 2 27 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 97.0 94.5 0.08 20.8 2.2
7 1 16 7 5 03
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 96.3 94.5 0.08 21.2 2.2
2 4 04 7 5 03
1.8 1.2 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 92.9 94.5 0.08 21.0 2.0
8 6 28 7 5 03
1.9 1.0 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 97.2 94.5 0.08 22.2 2.2
2 9 16 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 94.3 94.5 0.08 22.6 2.6
5 2 21 7 5 03
1.8 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 92.5 94.5 0.08 22.8 2.8
3 1 28 7 5 03
Average 96 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
term
1.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2
fluc.-
Sdv
Min 93 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
Max 98 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 23 3
2/14/2017 3
S
LO K2
S A I O
M M (% (%
al int (%) % ) (%) (%)
) )
)

1.9 1.2 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
0:00 h 95.6 94.5 0.08 21.0 2.4
9 8 76 7 5 03
1.9 1.0 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 95.0 94.5 0.08 21.4 2.4
3 8 47 7 5 04
1.8 1.1 34. 0.2 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 96.2 94.5 0.08 20.4 2.2
8 0 82 7 5 03
0.1
6:00 h
5
0.1
8:00 h
5
0.1
10:00 h
5
0.1
12:00 h
5
0.1
14:00 h
5
1.9 1.1 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 96.2 94.5 0.08 20.8 2.0
0 7 32 7 5 03
1.8 1.0 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 92.5 94.5 0.08 20.0 2.0
1 7 48 7 5 03
1.9 1.0 35. 0.2 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 95.7 94.5 0.08 20.6 2.2
6 9 37 7 5 03
22:00 h
Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
nbr of
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 6 6 6
value
Short-
term
1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2
fluc.-
Sdv

Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 21 2
Kiln feed (after dust addition)
S
LS LO K2 O R90
LSF Na2 Cl R90 R200
F S A I O 3 variat
Hour setpo O (% m m
act M M (% (% ( ion
int (%) ) (%) (%)
ual ) ) % [%]
)
Averag 1. 1. 35.
95.2 94.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 21.4 2.3 3.2%
e 9 2 4
SUMMARY
nbr of 60 60 60. 60. 60. 60. 60.

60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
value .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
Short-
term 0. 0.
0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1
fluc.- 0 0
Sdv
1. 1. 34. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
Min 93.4 94.5 19.8 2.0
84 12 74 6 1 5 02
1. 1. 43. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
Max 96.9 94.5 23.2 2.6
97 27 08 9 7 5 04
R90
LSF LSF LOI K2O Na2O SO3 Cl R90 m R200 m
Hour SM AM variation
actual setpoint (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
[%]

1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
0:00 h 93.4 94.5 22.6 2.4 3.2%
84 14 12 9 1 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 94.0 94.5 22.0 2.2
91 21 11 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 93.9 94.5 21.4 2.2
89 17 01 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 93.8 94.5 21.6 2.2
88 16 05 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 95.1 94.5 21.8 2.2
91 16 32 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 95.5 94.5 20.8 2.2
92 19 48 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 95.2 94.5 20.6 2.2
97 16 43 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 93.9 94.5 21.8 2.4
90 17 48 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 95.0 94.5 21.4 2.4
93 18 40 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 94.9 94.5 22.4 2.4
95 16 45 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 94.9 94.5 22.8 2.6
92 18 05 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 95.3 94.5 21.0 2.2
90 17 35 6 7 5 04
2.
0
Averag
95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2
e
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value

Short-
term 0. 0.
0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1
fluc.- 0 0
Sdv
Min 93 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
Max 96 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 23 3
R90
actual setpoint (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
[%]
1. 1. 34. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0

0:00 h 95.0 94.5 20.2 2.2 4.2%
92 16 74 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 96.7 94.5 20.8 2.2
96 16 31 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 34. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 94.9 94.5 21.4 2.4
97 17 89 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 93.9 94.5 21.8 2.4
88 19 59 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 94.1 94.5 22.6 2.6
89 22 04 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 95.1 94.5 22.0 2.4
90 19 64 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 95.0 94.5 21.8 2.4
89 19 24 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 94.9 94.5 21.0 2.4
89 21 33 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 94.4 94.5 21.8 2.4
91 23 41 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 94.8 94.5 22.6 2.2
90 24 30 6 7 5 03
20:00 h 94.9 94.5 1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 23.0 2.2

90 17 37 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 34. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 94.6 94.5 23.2 2.2
92 19 99 6 7 5 03
2.
0
Averag
95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2
e
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
term 0. 0.
0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1
fluc.- 0 0
Sdv
Min 94 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 97 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 23 3
R90
actual setpoint (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
[%]
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0

0:00 h 93.7 94.5 20.6 2.2 2.8%
88 17 50 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 95.5 94.5 21.2 2.2
91 21 28 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 95.0 94.5 21.8 2.2
93 18 38 6 7 5 02
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 94.6 94.5 21.6 2.4
92 19 22 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 95.0 94.5 21.0 2.2
95 15 42 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 94.9 94.5 21.4 2.4
93 17 38 6 7 5 03

1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 95.1 94.5 20.6 2.2
90 18 14 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 34. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 95.3 94.5 19.8 2.2
88 20 98 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 94.3 94.5 20.4 2.2
89 18 11 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 95.9 94.5 21.0 2.2
91 22 06 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 95.6 94.5 20.8 2.2
92 21 32 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 95.8 94.5 20.2 2.0
94 19 53 6 7 5 03
2.
0
Averag
95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
e
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
term 0. 0.
0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1
fluc.- 0 0
Sdv
Min 94 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 22 2
R90
actual setpoint (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
[%]
0:00 h 95.0 94.5 1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 21.4 2.2 3.1%

92 19 41 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 95.5 94.5 22.0 2.2
93 20 44 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 96.1 94.5 21.2 2.0
91 22 22 6 7 5 02
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 96.3 94.5 22.4 2.4
89 22 28 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 95.4 94.5 22.0 2.2
90 19 23 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 96.9 94.5 21.4 2.2
92 24 31 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 96.0 94.5 20.6 2.0
91 21 38 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 43. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 95.9 94.5 20.4 2.0
89 20 08 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 94.4 94.5 21.6 2.2
86 20 33 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 96.6 94.5 20.4 2.2
91 27 37 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 95.4 94.5 21.0 2.4
91 25 24 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
22:00 h 95.6 94.5 22.0 2.6
92 20 56 6 7 5 03
Averag
96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 21 2
e
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
0. 0.
term 0.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2
0 0
fluc.-

Sdv
Min 94 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 97 95 2 1 43 0 0 0 0 22 3
R90
actual setpoint (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
[%]
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0

0:00 h 94.1 94.5 22.0 2.4 2.6%
90 17 65 6 7 5 02
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
2:00 h 95.7 94.5 21.6 2.4
95 13 61 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
4:00 h 96.1 94.5 20.8 2.2
94 12 14 6 7 5 04
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
6:00 h 96.2 94.5 21.0 2.2
95 20 31 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
8:00 h 95.9 94.5 21.8 2.2
94 17 63 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
10:00 h 95.5 94.5 21.2 2.2
91 20 51 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
12:00 h 96.6 94.5 21.4 2.2
92 20 54 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
14:00 h 96.1 94.5 21.6 2.2
92 20 39 6 7 5 02
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
16:00 h 95.8 94.5 20.8 2.2
92 21 64 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
18:00 h 96.7 94.5 20.2 2.0
91 23 48 6 7 5 03
1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
20:00 h 95.5 94.5 21.2 2.2
92 17 40 6 7 5 03
22:00 h 95.3 94.5 1. 1. 35. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 20.4 2.2

92 16 32 6 7 5 03
2.
0
Averag
96 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2
e
nbr of
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
value
Short-
term 0. 0.
0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1
fluc.- 0 0
Sdv
Min 94 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2
Max 97 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 22 2
Clinker
Liquid
LSF LOI SO3 Na2O K2O CaO free
Hour SM AM Phase
actual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
Average 93.7 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 27.3
SUMMARY
nbr of value 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.0 60.0
Short-term
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.5
fluc.-Sdv
Min 92.5 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.8 26.4
Max 94.4 2.0 1.2 0.2 1.41 0.10 0.61 1.2 29.0
2/10/2017
LSF LOI SO3 Na2O K2O CaOfree Liquid

Hour SM AM
actual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Phase

(%)
0:00 h 94.1 1.9 1.25 0.13 1.15 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.720
2:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.21 0.10 0.98 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.750
4:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.21 0.09 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.630
6:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.22 0.08 1.05 0.10 0.36 0.96 28.990
8:00 h 94.2 2.0 1.17 0.11 1.05 0.08 0.39 1.02 26.374
10:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.19 0.12 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.06 26.785
12:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.19 0.10 1.03 0.10 0.36 1.00 26.950
14:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.20 0.12 1.08 0.08 0.39 0.96 26.980
16:00 h 93.2 1.9 1.16 0.10 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.02 27.040
18:00 h 93.5 1.9 1.20 0.07 1.08 0.08 0.39 1.06 27.370
20:00 h 92.9 1.9 1.15 0.09 1.07 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.850
22:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.24 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.61 1.00 27.400
Average 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7
fluc.-Sdv
Min 93 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 26
Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 29
2/11/2017
Liquid
LSF LOI SO3 Na2O K2O CaOfree
Hour SM AM Phase
actual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
0:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.24 0.13 1.15 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.410
2:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.18 0.12 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.240
4:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.21 0.10 1.11 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.310
6:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.19 0.15 1.08 0.10 0.36 0.96 27.110
8:00 h 94.1 1.9 1.21 0.09 1.15 0.08 0.39 1.02 27.120
10:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.19 0.10 1.12 0.09 0.40 1.06 27.000

12:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.21 0.09 1.04 0.10 0.36 1.00 27.310
14:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.24 0.08 1.00 0.08 0.39 0.96 26.450
16:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.18 0.11 0.96 0.09 0.40 1.02 27.070
18:00 h 93.4 1.9 1.16 0.12 1.10 0.08 0.39 1.06 27.170
20:00 h 93.1 1.9 1.21 0.15 1.12 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.520
22:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.18 0.11 1.14 0.08 0.39 1.00 26.693
Average 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
fluc.-Sdv
Min 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 26
Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 28
2/12/2017
Liquid
Hour SM AM Phase
actual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
0:00 h 94.4 1.9 1.18 0.03 1.03 0.09 0.40 0.77 26.670
2:00 h 93.6 2.0 1.21 0.19 1.09 0.09 0.40 0.76 26.580
4:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.19 0.12 1.06 0.09 0.40 0.84 26.790
6:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.22 0.24 1.08 0.10 0.36 1.15 27.070
8:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.22 0.12 1.01 0.08 0.39 1.13 26.990
10:00 h 93.2 1.9 1.24 0.16 1.16 0.09 0.40 1.08 27.510
12:00 h 93.6 1.9 1.23 0.11 0.95 0.10 0.36 1.02 27.480
14:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.19 0.12 1.08 0.08 0.39 1.12 27.100
16:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.19 0.17 1.04 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.190
18:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.22 0.14 1.10 0.08 0.39 0.84 27.430
20:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.16 0.13 1.11 0.09 0.40 1.07 27.150
22:00 h 94.1 1.9 1.17 0.17 1.09 0.08 0.39 0.84 27.617
Average 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27

nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term
0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
fluc.-Sdv
Min 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 28
2/13/2017
Liquid
Hour SM AM Phase
actual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
0:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.10 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.6
2:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.05 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.5
4:00 h 93.5 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.18 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.1
6:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.07 0.10 0.36 1.0 27.0
8:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.11 0.08 0.39 1.0 27.0
10:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.14 0.09 0.40 1.1 26.9
12:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.20 0.10 0.36 1.0 27.1
14:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.14 0.01 0.39 1.0 27.5
16:00 h 93.0 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.13 0.09 0.38 1.0 27.7
18:00 h 93.0 1.8 1.2 0.1 1.13 0.08 0.39 1.1 28.7
20:00 h 92.8 1.8 1.2 0.1 1.13 0.09 0.40 1.0 28.5
22:00 h 92.5 1.8 1.2 0.2 1.05 0.08 0.39 1.0 28.6
Average 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 28
nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term
0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
fluc.-Sdv
Min 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 29
2/14/2017

Liquid
Hour SM AM Phase
actual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
0:00 h 92.7 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.07 0.09 0.40 1.0 28.3
2:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.78 0.09 0.40 1.0 28.0
4:00 h 93.4 1.9 1.2 0.1 0.93 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.5
6:00 h 92.8 1.8 1.2 0.2 1.05 0.10 0.36 1.0 28.4
8:00 h 93.6 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.10 0.08 0.39 1.0 26.9
10:00 h 93.2 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.08 0.09 0.40 1.1 27.9
12:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.10 0.10 0.36 1.0 27.6
14:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.18 0.08 0.39 1.0 26.8
16:00 h 93.5 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.08 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.3
18:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.41 0.08 0.39 1.1 27.1
20:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.20 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.0
22:00 h 94.2 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.19 0.08 0.39 1.0 27.1
Average 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
fluc.-Sdv
Min 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 28
Coal
R90 variation
Hour Moisture % R90 m (%) R200 m (%)
[%]
Average 0.8 2.3 0.1 15.3%
nbr of value 13.0 48.0 48.0
Short-term fluc.- 0.0 0.4 0.0

Sdv
Min 0.7 2.0 0.0

Max 0.9 3.2 0.1
2/10/2017
R90 variation
Hour R90 m (%) R200 m (%)
[%]
0:00 h 2.2 0.10 6.2%
2:00 h 2.1 0.05
4:00 h 2.2 0.03
6:00 h 2.4 0.04
8:00 h 0.9 2.2 0.08
10:00 h 2.2 0.05
Composite
12:00 h 2.0 0.05
14:00 h 2.2 0.10
16:00 h 0.9 2.4 0.08
18:00 h 2.2 0.03
20:00 h 2.0 0.04
22:00 h 0.9 2.0 0.10
Average 2 0
nbr of value 12 12
Short-term fluc.-
0.1 0.0
Sdv
Min 2 0
Max 2 0
2/11/2017
R90 variation
Hour R90 m (%) R200 m (%)
[%]

0:00 h 3.2 0.06 17.6%
2:00 h 3.1 0.04
4:00 h 2.8 0.10
6:00 h 2.6 0.05
8:00 h 0.7 2.2 0.06
10:00 h 2.1 0.03
12:00 h 2.2 0.02
14:00 h 2.1 0.05
16:00 h 0.7 2.1 0.04
18:00 h 2.2 0.07
20:00 h 2.2 0.08
22:00 h 0.8 2.0 0.06
Average 2 0
nbr of value 12 12
Short-term fluc.-
0.4 0.0
Sdv
Min 2 0
Max 3 0
2/12/2017
R90 variation
Hour R90 m (%) R200 m (%)
[%]
0:00 h 2.2 0.10 16.3%
2:00 h 2.2 0.02
4:00 h 2.0 0.02
6:00 h
8:00 h
Composite
10:00 h
12:00 h
14:00 h 0.7

16:00 h 3.1 0.08
18:00 h 2.8 0.08
20:00 h 2.4 0.06
22:00 h 0.7 2.2 0.1
Average 2 0
nbr of value 7 7
Short-term fluc.-
0.4 0.0
Sdv
Min 2 0
Max 3 0
2/13/2017
R90 variation
Hour R90 m (%) R200 m (%)
[%]
0:00 h 17.9%
2:00 h
4:00 h
6:00 h 2.0 0.04
8:00 h 0.8 2.2 0.06
10:00 h 2.4 0.06
12:00 h 2.2 0.02
14:00 h 3.2 0.04
16:00 h 0.8 3.0 0.02
18:00 h 2.2 0.03
20:00 h 2.2 0.08
22:00 h
Average 2 0
nbr of value 8 8
Short-term fluc.- 0.4 0.0

Sdv
Min 2 0
Max 3 0
2/14/2017
Hour R90 m (%) R200 m (%) R90 variation [%]
0:00 h 17.1%
2:00 h
4:00 h
6:00 h 2.0 0.08
8:00 h 0.9 2.0 0.06
10:00 h 2.2 0.02
Composite
12:00 h 2.6 0.04
14:00 h 3.2 0.06
16:00 h 0.7 2.8 0.09
18:00 h 2.2 0.05
20:00 h 2.2 0.06
22:00 h 0.7 2.2 0.02
Average 2 0
nbr of value 9 9
Short-term fluc.-
0.4 0.0
Sdv
Min 2 0
Max 3 0
Coal+Alternative Fuel

Average of Volatiles
NCV [%] Ash [%] Sulfur [%] Cl [%]
composite [%]
samples 7486 11 7 4
R90 m R200 m
(%) (%)
Guideline Guideline
Actual Value Actual Value
Value Value
Average (%) 234.4% < 0% 5.6% < 0.0%
Sdv 0.36 <1 0.03
Kiln Dust (where aplicable) - Direct operation (raw mill down)
LS A LOI SO3 K2O Cl

Date/hour SM Na2O (%)
actual M (%) (%) (%) (%)
Comp. Samp.
98.6 2.0 1.3 35.1 0.22 0.30 0.01 0.01
1
Comp. Samp.
98 1.9 1.3 35.0 0.25 0.35 0.09 0.01
2
Comp. Samp.
98 1.9 1.3 35.2 0.27 0.37 0.14 0.01
3
Average 98 2.0 1.3 35.1 0.25 0.34 0.08 0.01
nbr of value 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Sdv
Kiln dust sample during direct operation (raw mill down)->see comment

FORMULA
Lime 100*CaO / (2.85*SiO2 + 1.18*Al2O3 +
LS
Saturation 0.65*Fe2O3)
SM Silica Module SiO2 / (Al2O3 + Fe2O3)
Alumina Al2O3 /
AM
Module Fe2O3
at
LF Liquid Phase 3*Al2O3 + 2.25*F2O3 + MgO + K2O+Na2O
1'450°C
(MgO max:
2%)
Table 6.3: Process Parameter Average Day 1 to Day 5 at Aditya Cement works
Avg: Day Avg: Day Avg: Day Avg: Day

Avg:Day 4
1 2 3 5
Kiln
Chain (hot
O2 (%) 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5
side)
CO (%) 319.8 251.7 467.5 294.8 299.0
NO (ppm) 692.3 739.2 786.4 724.1 720.8
gas-T
1092.2 1065.6 1000.1 949.2 949.0
(deg C)
- -35.9 -24.6 -28.9 -31.1 -31.2
Kiln inlet O2 (%) 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.5
CO (%) 388.2 460.4 475.8 485.5 489.4
NO (ppm)
gas -T
- 897.8 894.2 880.0 895.4 895.4
(deg C)
Pressure
Preheater 82.8 96.0 69.5 65.2 65.1
(mbar)
Cyclone 6A1
- 611.0 637.4 625.6 618.2 617.4
exit

- 269.2 272.3 280.7 280.6 280.4
mat-T
296.8 281.2 281.8 284.4 284.7
(deg C)
Cyclone 6A2
- 581.2 585.7 600.9 580.8 581.0
exit
- 266.9 274.9 277.0 268.8 268.6
mat-T
307.6 301.1 293.1 310.0 310.4
(deg C)
Cyclone 6B1
- 614.9 607.7 617.7 614.5 614.1
exit
- 250.4 265.6 256.0 267.2 266.9
mat-T
300.4 295.4 289.8 299.0 298.7
(deg C)
Cyclone 6B2
- 600.6 606.9 611.7 593.6 593.7
exit
- 258.6 268.0 263.0 266.9 266.4
mat-T
296.7 296.5 291.5 288.6 288.4
(deg C)
Cyclone 5b
- 456.1 470.3 467.0 480.1 480.5
exit
- 463.4 467.9 459.7 470.4 470.0
- 477.5 476.7 473.6 476.1 476.0
Cyclone 5A
- 437.2 431.4 481.3 441.7 441.7
exit
- 471.9 466.5 468.1 469.0 468.8
- 472.0 467.0 464.7 473.8 474.0
- - 387.1 388.3 396.5 393.0 393.2
- 591.6 584.4 606.5 595.5 595.9
- - 407.9 406.2 421.5 416.4 416.4
- 617.2 613.0 849.3 612.3 612.2

- - 318.3 324.3 287.6 334.1 334.7
- - 694.5 696.3 697.8 701.0 700.7
- - 321.3 266.4 334.4 318.6 318.8
- 709.0 732.1 734.6 711.0 710.7
- - 245.6 223.0 363.6 245.4 245.6
- 812.6 809.8 820.3 816.2 816.4
- - 169.8 168.7 170.4 171.3 171.4
- 816.7 812.8 814.2 817.6 817.6
- - 173.6 166.1 131.8 146.0 146.1
- 870.8 868.1 839.7 873.8 873.6
- - 132.5 149.2 119.5 117.2 117.1
- 899.0 899.2 880.0 895.5 895.6
BZ Pyro.
(degC) 1116.3 1162.8 1656.0 1141.1 1139.7
reading
(A,
Kiln torque kW/rpm, 610.8 549.2 516.6 559.8 558.7
Nm)
Kiln
(A, kW) 397.4 364.8 363.8 350.5 349.2
power/current
Clinker
1192.5 1220.0 1150.0 1237.1 1239.5
Litrweight
Actual
Dust return
value (t/h)
water
Kiln feed content #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
(%)
- - 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Actual
Kiln feed Value 331.3 335.1 342.8 340.0 340.0
(t/h)

Setpoint
331.9
(t/h)
Kiln speed rpm 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5
Kiln ID Fan kW 1590.9 1601.3 1608.5 1592.3 1592.5
rpm, %
100.0 100.0 100.0
Damper
- -
-
Main Burner:
fuel feed rate
for each fuel
type
Actual
Fuel name: Value 6.4 5.4 6.5 5.6 5.6
(t/h)
Setpoint
Petcoke 6.4 5.4 6.5 5.6 5.6
(t/h)
Actual
Fuel name: Value
(t/h)
Setpoint
(t/h)
Mid kiln
firing: fuel
feed rate for
each fuel
Actual
Fuel name: Value 9.4 7.3 8.6 7.5 7.5
(t/h)
Petcoke Setpoint 9.5 7.3 8.6 7.5 7.5

(t/h)
Actual
Fuel name: Value 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
(t/h)
Setpoint
Coal Imp 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
(t/h)
-
Actual
Fuel name: Value 2.1 6.5 3.4 5.4 5.5
(t/h)
Setpoint
Alt Fuel 2.1 6.5 3.4 5.3 5.4
(t/h)
Actual
Fuel name: Value
(t/h)
Setpoint
(t/h)
Actual
Fuel name: Value
(t/h)
Setpoint
(t/h)
Cooler
1st pressure
1178.1 1157.8 1176.8 1202.0 1203.2
compartment (mbar)
2nd pressure
686.8 681.6 686.3 699.0 699.4
compartment (mbar)
3rd pressure
669.2 668.0 685.8 691.1 690.8
compartment (mbar)
4th pressure 635.2 626.4 640.7 639.4 639.4

compartment (mbar)
5th pressure
469.8 472.6 502.0 478.7 477.9
compartment (mbar)
6th pressure
435.8 468.8 523.5 488.9 488.0
compartment (mbar)
7th pressure
331.5 352.9 381.8 376.5 375.8
compartment (mbar)
8th pressure
274.8 281.8 306.3 283.2 282.5
compartment (mbar)
9th pressure
193.5 201.1 203.9 205.5 205.4
compartment (mbar)
Kiln hood pressure
2.6 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.5
pressure (mbar)
Cooler Waste gas-T
271.3 252.3 224.4 239.0 238.0
Air (deg C)
gas-T
Sec. Temp 1146.5 1177.6 1196.8 1151.7 1150.5
(deg C)
gas-T
- 920.8 908.4 937.0 941.1 941.7
(deg C)
Clinker material-
137.9 126.8 110.0 142.4 141.7
Temperature T (deg C)
Cooler 1st
spm 9.7 9.7 9.7 10.1 10.1
grate
Cooler exh.
kW 295.3 273.4 271.4 295.0 295.0
gas fan
rpm 497.6 467.3 468.3 500.1 501.5
U. grate fan 1 m3/h 680.8 684.6 685.9 677.4 677.1
U. grate fan 2 m3/h 950.3 951.0 949.9 948.1 947.9
U. grate fan 3 m3/h 1206.2 1201.8 1216.4 1228.8 1231.1

U. grate fan 4 m3/h 841.7 810.4 804.8 807.9 808.1
U. grate fan 5 m3/h 927.7 950.1 949.9 950.8 951.1
U. grate fan 6 m3/h 822.3 807.7 804.7 808.6 809.7
U. grate fan 7 m3/h 481.7 480.7 472.0 487.2 488.2
U. grate fan 8 m3/h 501.6 500.3 500.7 502.2 502.6
U. grate fan 9 m3/h 500.6 500.1 500.4 502.1 502.2
Trend of parameters Day wise: -
Graph 6.1 Burning Zone Temperature

BZT Sec Air Nox KI Kiln Torque
1400.0
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
3h
7h
11 h
15 h
19 h
23 h
Avg: Day 2
Graph 6.2: O2/ CO trend
O2 KI O2 PH Exit
O2 / CO
CO KI CO PH Exit
4.5 600.0
4.0
500.0
3.5
3.0 400.0
2.5
CO (%)
O2 (%)
300.0
2.0
1.5 200.0
1.0
100.0
0.5
1…
A…
3…
7…
1…
1…
2…
0.0 0.0

Graph 6.4: Cooler
Cooler
Grate Speed U Grate Pressure 1st U grate Pressure 2nd Sec. Air T TA Temperature
1400.0
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
11 h
15 h
19 h
23 h
3h
7h
Avg: Day 2

COMBINED TSR%
TDT SP
Consumption(MT) %TSR
HT
KILN AFAGRIWASTE 634 0.476 0.0692 5.09
COAL
AFCARBONBLACK 21,310.72 31.983 4.649631
MILL
COAL
AFETPSLUDGE 6,714.85 2.074 0.301514
MILL
KILN AFGROUNDNUTHUSK 171 0.146 0.021225
KILN AFLIQUIDWASTE 49 0.014 0.002035
KILN AFPAINTSLUDE 165 0.18 0.026168
COAL
AFPHARMAWASTECT281 40.362 0.036 0.005234
MILL
KILN AFSAWDUST 43 0.029 0.004216
KILN AFSOLIDWASTE 60 0.047 0.006833
COAL
COALIMPORTED 30,068.74 46.459 6.754126
MILL
COAL
PETCOKENCGRADEA 298,538.31 606.417 88.15982
MILL
357,794.98 687.861 100
Table 6.4: Combined TSR Achieved

Graph 6.5: Precalciner
Precalciner
TA Temperature Fuel feed PC TA Damper position PC Exit T
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
11 h
15 h
19 h
23 h
3h
7h
Avg: Day 2

SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VALUES OF EMISSION DURING TRIAL RUN OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
Stack Height: 100.3 m Stack Diameter:4.15 m
Parameter UOM Trial with Hazardous

Pre Trial waste Post Trial
Sr.
No. Average Range Average Range Average Range
1 Particulate Matter mg/Nm3 34.75 32.1 - 37.9 30.3 27.4 - 35.6 31.7 27.1-32.6
2 Sulphur dioxide mg/Nm3 10.275 9.3 - 11.3 7.0 6.4 - 7.5 7.5 7.2-7.9
3 Oxide of Nitrogen mg/Nm3 756.25 740 -770 728.2 713-746 746.25 730-760
4 Carbon Monoxide mg/Nm3 224 208 - 236 212.2 194-223 229.25 212-241
5 Hydrogen chloride as HCL mg/Nm3 22.675 20.3 - 24.6 16.5 12.6-20.3 17.175 15.4-19.2
6 Hydrogen fluoride as HF mg/Nm3 1.55 1.4 - 1.7 1.3 1.0-1.6 2.05 1.9-2.2
7 Total Hydrocarbon mg/Nm3 178 172 - 184 161.7 152-176 162 158-166
8 Total volatile organic compounds µg/Nm3 1.0 0.94 - 1.06 0.8 0.68-0.91 0.82 0.69-0.84
9 Total organic carbon mg/Nm3 5.9 5.9 5.4 5.3-5.6 6.2 6.20
10 Poly nuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon µg/Nm3 0.405 0.39 - 0.42 0.3 0.22-0.32 0.38 0.37-0.39
11 Mercury mg/Nm3 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.007-0.010 0.017 0.02
12 Cd+TI (particulate phase) mg/Nm3 0.01 0.007 0.0055 0.005-0.006 0.006 0.01
13 Cd+TI (Vapour phase) mg/Nm3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
14 Total metals particulate phase mg/Nm3

(Cu+Co+Cr+Mn+Ni+Pb+As+Sb+V) 0.236 0.236 0.22 0.224-0.232 0.242 0.242
15 Total Metals Vapour phase mg/Nm3

(Cu+Co+Cr+Mn+Ni+Pb+As+Sb+V) 0.017 0.017 0.014 0.013-.016 0.029 0.029
16 Total Dioxins and Furans ng/Nm3 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.011-0.012 0.015 0.015
17 Cyanide as CN mg/Nm3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Table 6.5: Average Value of All Emission Data
BDL: Below Detection Limit
Minimum Detection Limit for Total dioxins & Furans-0.01 pg/Nmᵌ
Minimum Detection Limit for Metals-0.0001 mg/Nmᵌ
Minimum Detection Limit for SO₂-3.2 mg/Nmᵌ
Minimum Detection Limit for VOCs & PAH-0.01µg/Nmᵌ
6.3 COMPARASION OF EMISSION RESULT
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
PM HCL HF
Pre Trial Trial with Hazardous waste Post Trial
Graph 6.7: Particulate Matter, HCL and HF

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Mercury Cd+TI Total Metals
Graph 6.8: Mercury, Cd+TI and Total Metals
Dioxins & furans

0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Dioxins & furans
Graph 6.9: Dioxins & Furans

TOC
6.4
6.2
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
TOC
Graph 6.10: TOC
Material Testing
Chemical composition of the raw meal, fuels and hazardous waste will greatly influence the
Quality of the flue gas emission from kiln/raw mill stack. Sample of coal, hazardous waste,
Clinker and raw meal collect during the trial run as per CPCB guidelines.
MATERIAL ANALYSIS
Sr. No. Parameters UOM Hazardous waste
Proximate Analysis
1 Moisture content % 19.29
2 Ash content % 2.53
3 Volatile matter % 54.07
4 Fixed carbon % 24.11

Ultimate Analysis On Dry Basis
1 Carbon % 67.07
2 Hydrogen % 514
3 Nitrogen % 0.47
4 Sulphur % 0.59
5 Oxygen % 23.6
6 Gross Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 5589
7 Net Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 5317
8 Chlorine as Cl % 0.005
9 Fluorine as F mg/kg 53.2
Table 6.6: Hazardous Waste-Proximate and Ultimate Analysis
Sr. No. Parameters UOM PET COKE
Proximate Analysis
1 Moisture content % 0.87
2 Ash content % 1.49
3 Volatile matter % 10.83
4 Fixed carbon % 87.07
Ultimate Analysis On Dry Basis

1 Mineral Matter % 1.84
2 Carbon % 87.92
3 Hydrogen % 3.75
4 Nitrogen % 0.85
5 Sulphur % 4.06
6 Oxygen % 1.58
7 Gross Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 8056
8 Net Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 7818
Table 6.7: Coal (Pet-Coke) – Proximate and Ultimate Analysis
RAW MEAL RAW MEAL RAW MEAL

CHEMICAL CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
Sr.No. Parameters UOM COMPOSION COMPOSION COMPOSION
During Trial -
Pre Trial Post Trial
Hazardous waste
1 Fluoride as F mg/kg 10.3 10.5 11.2
2 Chlorine as Cl mg/kg 140 148 142
3 Sulphates as SO₄ % 0.14 0.158 0.16
4 Aluminium as Al₂O₃ % 1.13 1.30 1.38
5 Silica as SiO₂ % 10.2 11.12 12.4
6 Cadmium as Cd mg/kg 1.83 1.75 1.766

7 Chromium as Cr mg/kg 28.4 25.58 28.4
8 copper as Cu mg/kg 19.4 18.68 19.4
9 Cobalt as Co mg/kg 0.4 0.28 0.3
10 Manganese as Mn mg/kg 145 153.78 160.8
11 Nickel as Ni mg/kg 12.8 11.15 9.1
12 Lead as Pb mg/kg 16.4 17.64 18.4
13 Zinc as Zn mg/kg 66.84 68.96 74.2
14 Arsenic as As mg/kg 0.34 0.31 0.2
15 Mercury as Hg mg/kg 0.42 0.62 0.73
16 Antimony as Sb mg/kg 4.7 4.84 5.2
17 Vanadium as V mg/kg 51.5 53.34 54.3
18 Tin as Sn mg/kg 2.8 2.78 2.9
19 Thallium as TI mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
20 Selenium as Se mg/kg 1.1 0.86 0.9
21 Total organic carbon % 0.02 0.02 0.02
22 Iron as Fe % 2.93 2.79 2.79
23 Iron as Fe₂O₃ % 4.18 3.98 3.92
Table 6.8: Raw Meal – Chemical Composition
Ambient air quality has been studied at three locations continuously throughout trial run period
by installing Respirable dust samplers at three locations. The meteorology data during the study
period is given below.

Sr.No. Location PM 2.5 RSPM TSPM SO₂ Noᵪ
Near STP Colony area 19.1 53.6 161.7 12.4 14.9
1 Near Boundary plant 20.5 52.1 156.2 13.8 15.4
Near Railway Yard 21.7 46.4 158.1 11.3 15.8
145.8- 11.3- 13.2-

Range 18.1-23.5 43.2-53.6
164.5 13.8 15.8
Table 6.9: Ambient Air Quality Level
All Values are expressed in µg/m³ and 24 hours’ basis.

Clinker
Clinker
Clinker Sample-2 Sample-
Sample-1
Sr. No. Parameters UOM 3
Trial with Hazardous

Pre Trial Post Trial
waste
1 Cadmium as Cd mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2 Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.01 0.02 0.02
3 copper as Cu mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
4 Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
5 Cobalt as Co mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
6 Manganese as Mn mg/L 0.01 0.03 0.01
7 Nickel as Ni mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
8 Lead as Pb mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
9 Zinc as Zn mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
10 Arsenic as As mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
11 Mercury as Hg mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
12 Selenium as Se mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
13 Antimony as Sb mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
14 Vanadium as V mg/L 0.01 0.01 <0.01
15 Thorium as Th mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
16 Tin as Sn mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

17 Fluoride mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
18 Cyanide mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Table 6.10: Clinker – TCLP Test
The quantity of alternate fuel that are necessary to replace one ton of coal(pet-coke) depends on
The material’s energy value and water content based on the average values reported in below
Table and assumed coal net calorific value(NCV) 7818 kcal/kg.
Energy
Fuels Water content
value(kcal/kg)
PET COKE 7818 1-2%
CARBON BLACK 5890 2-3%
AFPLASTICWASTE 5092 3-5%
AFPAINTSLUDE 4265 8-10%
AFAGRIWASTE 2965 8-12%
AFETPSLUDGE 1150 30-45%
Table 6.11: Tons/1 ton Coal Replacement
ALTERNATIVE FUEL
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
CARBON BLACK AFPLASTICWASTE AFPAINTSLUDE AFAGRIWASTE AFETPSLUDGE

Month wise usages of Alternate fuel consumption at ACW on TSR basis for CFY.
1. In the month of July and August AF consumption are low due to Non availability of high CV
AFR.
2. In the month of Dec. we have take annual plant shutdown for Refractory maintenance works.
12
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10
7.55 7.8
8 7.1
6.82 6.8
6.3
6 5.2 5.5 Actual
Budget
4 3.5
0
Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
Graph 6.11: Budget vs Actual Consumption
FUEL COST POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
Material NCV Cost
kcal/kg Rs./MT
PET COKE 7818 5300
SAW DUST 3050 2800
GROUNDNUT SHELL 3120 2800
WOODEN DUST 3019 2800
MIX AGRO WASTE 2965 2800

PLASTIC WASTE 5092 1800
ETP SLUDGE 1150 -450
CARBON BLACK 5890 4250
PAINT SLUDGE 4265 -2330
Table 6.12: Fuel/AFR Cost Positive & Negative
(-) INDICATE NEGATIVE COST
6.5 Emission Standards for hazardous Waste incinerators
(Now applied to co-processing cement kilns)
Emission
Parameter UOM Procedures
standards
mg/Nm³kg/ton 50
Particulate matter Standard refers to half hourly average value
of clinker 0.125
HCL mg/Nm³ 50 Standard refers to half hourly average value
SO2 mg/Nm³ 200 Standard refers to half hourly average value
Total organic
mg/Nm³ 20 Standard refers to half hourly average value
carbon
HF mg/Nm³ 4 Standard refers to half hourly average value
NOx (NO & NO2
mg/Nm³ 600 Standard refers to half hourly average value
expressed as NO2)
0.1 ng
Total dioxins and
ng/Nm³ I- Standard refers to 6-8 hours sampling.
furans
TEQ/Nm³
Cd + Tl + their Standard refers to sampling time anywhere

mg/Nm³ 0.05
compounds between 30 minutes and 8 hours.

Hg and its Standard refers to sampling time anywhere
mg/Nm³ 0.05
compounds between 30 minutes and 8 hours.
Sb + As + Pb + Cr
+ Co
Standard refers to sampling time anywhere
+ Cu + Mn + Ni + mg/Nm³ 0.05
between 30 minutes and 8 hours.
V+
their compounds
Table 6.13: Emission Norms
Alternate fuel feeding system in ACW
Dump Hopper Weigh feeder

Belt Conveyor
Photographs 6.1 :AFR system
Paint sludge processing
BC Discharge
Final feeding in PC Bucket Elevator

Paint sludge Shredder (Cutting m/c)
Final size of paint sludge Labor engaged for cutting

(10-25 mm ) of paint sludge with all safety precaution
SAFETY DISPLAY IN STORAGE YARD

Covered Storage with Concreted flooring and
Side walls to avoid any spillage
Safe Operation
Guidelines for
Paint Sludge cutting
m/c
Use of PPE’s
During Entry
in
Storage yard

CHAPTER – 7
CONCLUSION

7
CONCLUSION:
The emphasis of this report is to maximize alternate fuel in kiln and pre-calciner; the purpose
being to decrease reliance on fossil fuels, reduce carbon foot print and global warming impact of
cement industry. Variation in operational parameters is a barrier for maximization of alternate
fuel in many kilns. Therefore, reduction in variation of operational parameter (like Kiln feed
LSF, kiln feed rate, dosing valve fluctuation, quality parameters etc) to an acceptable level is
paramount objectives for substitution of maximum alternate fuel. Kiln technology is also
influences the alternate fuel substitution rate. In addition to variation of operational parameter,
availability, size and quality of alternate fuel influences the AF substitution rate. Therefore,
variation reduction in all operational parameter will help in maximize the alternate fuel
substitution. Similarly, pre-processing of industrial waste is highly required before fed into pre-
calciner. The unit has been using the approved wastes as fuel substitution without any impact on
environment and product quality. ACW is also use agricultural waste, MSW plastic waste,
Carbon black and other industrial waste. The competitiveness of the cement industry in the near
future will be decided by the extent of Substitution of primary fossil fuels with alternate fuels.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
1.A. Rahman et.al (2013), “Impact of alternatives fuels on the cement manufacturing plant
performance”.5th BSME International Conference on Thermal Engineering Elsevier Ltd.CC BY-
NC-ND license.
2.W. Schakel et al. (2018). “Impact of fuel selection on the environmental performance of post –
combustion calcium looping applied to a cement plant”. Science Direct Applied Energy
210(2018) 75-87.
3.R. Maddalena et.al (2018). “A study on the thermal properties and carbon emissions of
innovative cement”. Journal of Cleaner production 186 (2018) 933-942.
4.F. Zhao et.al (2018). “Co-controlling Co2 and NOx emission in China’s cement industry
“Journal of Keaipublising research 9(2018) 34-42.
5.W. Matar & A.Elshurafa (2017). “Striking a balance between profit and carbon dioxide
emissions in the Saudi cement industry “. International journal of Greenhouse Gas control
61(2017)111-123.
6.M. Naranjo et.al (2011). “Co2 capture and sequestration in the cement Industry”. Science
Direct Energy Procedia 4 ,2716-2723.
7.A. Rahman et.al (2014). “Aspen plus based simulation for energy recovery from waste to
utilize in cement plant preheater tower”.6th international conference on applied energy 61,922-
927.
8.J. Zhang et.al (2014). “Analysis of Co2 emission for the cement manufacturing with alternative
raw materials”. 6th international conference on applied energy 61,2541-2545.
9.W. Schakel et.al (2017). “Impact of fuel selection on techno-environmental performance of

post-combustion calcium looping process applied to a cement plant”.13th GHGT- 13,14- 18,
Energy procedia 114,6215-6221.
10.K.T. Kaddatz et.al (2013). “Alternative fuels for use in cement kilns: process impact
modeling”.5th BSME International Conference on Thermal Engineering, Procedia Engineering
56,413-420.
11.J. Potgieter (2012). “An overview of cement production: How “green “and sustainable is the
industry?”. Environmental management and sustainable development, ISSN 2164-7682, VOL.1,
No.2.
12.A. Rahman et.al (2015). “Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement
manufacturing process”. Research gate publication fuel 145,84-99.

APPENDIX – A
[1] Davinder Pal Singh1, Rajesh Kaushal2 “Use of Alternative Fuels in Indian Cement
Industry: A Review” Journal of Production Research & Management Volume 10 Issue 1,
ISSN: 2249-4766 (Online), ISSN: 2347-9930 (Print).

Journal of Production Research & Management
ISSN: 2249-4766 (Online), ISSN: 2347-9930 (Print)
Volume 10, Issue 1
www.stmjournals.com
Use of Alternative Fuels in Indian Cement

Industry: A Review
Davinder Pal Singh1,*, Rajesh Kaushal2
1
Chemical Engineering Department, IPS Academy Indore, India
2
Chemical Engineering Department, IPS Academy Indore, India
Abstract
The making of portland cement is an energy concentrated process. It produces significant
pollution and uses huge amounts of non-renewable energy. With growing pressures to cut
greenhouse gas emmisions due to cement manufacture, reasearch and expansion of fuel
alternatives and their effect on the manufacturing process have become an industry focal
point.The intrinsic properties of sintering cement in a rotary kiln allows for a large number of
fuels to be cooked which are normally forbidden for use as fuel in other processes. As world
population increases, daily trash generated by human beings too goes up. Cement industry has
a main role in solving garbage issues. It offers to keep fossil fuels and helps to shield
environment by using different wastes as optional fuels. Hence, eliminating high energy wastes
by using them as alternative fuels has been a extensive method in cement industries in nearly
all developed countries. The most important energy used in cement industry is coal. Cement
manufacturing releases a bunch of emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx). It is projected that 5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions creates from cement
production. Make use of of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing, therefore do not only give
considerable energy cost reduction, but they also have major ecological profit of conserving
non-renewable resources. The study report consist of usage of alternative fuel and its impact on
environment , cement ,clinker and process.
Keywords: Alternative fuel, waste, cement kiln, pollution reduction
*Author for Correspondence E-mail: sodhitrm1985@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION Hence, the distinct focus on reduction of fuel

The major cost drivers for cement cost, either by improving the operational
manufacturing are raw material, fuel and efficiency or by adopting other innovative
power. Fuel constitutes approx. 25% of the total measures like utilizing waste fuels through
cost of production and is highest. It is installation of a tailor-made handling & feeding
worthwhile to mention here that the anthracite system which helps the existing cement
coal was the primary fuel for cement manufacturing technology to accept waste fuels
manufacturing till the year 2001. But because without any major change in operation
of continuous increase of price of coal, fuel procedures, is definitely going to help the
price was increasing at very fast pace. To cut cement industry in a big way for a long time to
down the cost, a petroleum refinery by-product come. The concept of utilization of waste fuels
known as petroleum coke, which was available
is conceived because of huge availability of
in plenty at much cheaper price, was used as
fuel in Aditya Cement Works. In spite of its alternate fuels throughout the country which
very high ignition temperature which makes it otherwise is being dumped as land-filling,
difficult to burn and presence of high burning in unauthorized & unorganized way
percentage of sulphur which gives rise to thereby creating high level of pollution in
jamming and clogging problem at kiln inlet and atmosphere &water. Hazardous wastes while
riser duct, plant people had modified their dumped for land filling also pollute soil. Boards
equipment and changed operating conditions to sanction the use of alternate fuels on
thereby gradually switching over to 100% pet environmental grounds.
coke usage in the year 2008.

Use of Alternative Fuels in Indian Cement Industry: A Review Singh and Kaushal
Main Objective to use Alternative fuels in calcium oxide and other essentials to form
Cement Industry:- calcium silicates and aluminates at a
• Convert fuel costs into earnings/Profit. temperature up to 1450 oC. Primary fuel is used
• Greenhouse gas like CO2 emissions can to keep the temperature adequatly high in the
be reduced. burning zone for the chemical reactions to take
• Save natural resources and fossil fuels for place. The reaction yielddepartfrom kiln as a
future. nodular material called clinker. The clinker will
• Place waste to good use by turning it into be inter-ground with gypsum, limestone and/or
energy. ashes to a superior product called cement.
• Achieve Zero fuel cost, if feasible negative Figure 1 [13] shows a cement manufacturing
also. process beginning from raw material quarrying
• Contribute in creating clean and green to the bagging of the cement. The waste tyre
environment for sustainability. particles are feed into the lower part of the kilns
pre-heating system, after this referred to as the
riser duct.
The Cement Manufacturing Process Cement
making process consists of raw meal grinding,
blending, pre-calcining, clinker burning and SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVE
cement grinding. In small, limestone and other FUELS AND THEIR PROPERTIES
supplies containing calcium, silicon, Petcoke: Petcoke is broadly used as a
aluminium and iron oxides are compressed and supplementary fuel in the Cement Industries in
powdered into a raw meal. This raw feast is many countries, including India. Petcoke (full
blended (in for instance blending silos) and is name Petroleum Coke) is a left over product of
then heated in the pre-heating system to begin the crude oil refining process. It has a high
the dissociation of carbonate to calcium oxide calorific value, but low volatile substance, thus
and carbon dioxide. A secondary fuel is feed leading to poor ignition characteristics. It is a
into the preheating system to keep the black solid obtained as an finish product from
temperature sufficiently high. The feast then the distillation of heavier petroleum crudes.
proceeds to the kiln for heating and reaction Petcoke have high levels of Sulphur and
among nitrogen as compare to coal.
Fig. 1: Cement manufacturing process.
JoPRM (2020) 1-9 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 2

Volume 10, Issue 1
Tyre Chips: Tyre chips or Tyre Derived Fuel supervision of the CPCB. The outcome of these
(TDF) was first used in cement kilns, in trials were then submitted to the MoEF, and the
Germany, in the 1970s. Few years later, kilns in latter has now granted permission for the use of
the USA began using TDF, which proved quite paint sludge as a additional fuel in cement kilns.
a popular step. Presently, USA produces over This authorization has come along with certain
300 million second-hand tyres annually, out of conditions, together with compulsory plant
which approximately 150 million are trials in each and every case.
transformed into TDF, their cement industry
with approximately 60 million tyres worth in its Biomass: This includes agricultural waste,
kilns.Other countries shortly started using TDF foodstuff industry waste and bio-diesel waste.
also, including the UK, which uses several Frequently used materials include rice husk,
million tyres worth annually. TDF has several sawdust, animal waste and tapioca.
advantages. Firstly, it utilizes on a large scale,
waste material which would otherwise require Rice Husk: Rice is the necessary foodgrain
huge landfill sites for its disposal. Secondly, it consumed by billions of public around the
has high calorific value, generating around 25% globe. Rice husk is the uneatable covering on
additional energy than good quality coal. grains of rice. It is detached during the
Thirdly, when used in place of high surlphur dehusking or milling of rice. Approximately
coal (which type a good percentage of Indian 600 million tonnes of paddy is produced
coal is), it reduces Nitrous Oxide (NOx ) worldwide every year. Paddy on an average,
emissions. Fourthly, it can be used in the variety consists of 70-72% of rice, 5–8 percent of bran
of chips (5 cm x 5 cm being the most common) and 20-22% of husk. Hence roughly around 120
or also as whole tyres. If fed precisely into the million tonnes of rice husk are formed every
kiln, TDF produces a additional even rate of year. The majority of this is just shattered by
burning, thus increasing the life of the burning or is dumped somewhere. A
refractory bricks used to line the kilns. As every littlequantity is used as fuel for making of
kilo of TDF used reduces the use of coal by 1.25 electricity, or as a bulking agent for composting
kg. The deterioration on coal roller mills is of animal manure. The cement industry can
proportionately reduced. The steel in the tyres effortlessly use bulk rice husk from mills as kiln
gets joint with the clinker material, giving a fuel, however transportation and storage may
more dependable end product. Considering the cause troubles. Rice husk has one more benefit
advantages of TDF, the Indian Cement for the cement industry. Rice husk, after
Industry requested the Ministry of Environment flaming, produces about 20% ash. Rice husk
and Forests (MoEF) to permit its use in cement residue has high pozzolanic action, and so can
kilns. After a little delay, MOEF has lastly without problems be used to produce good
permitted the use of shredded tyres as a quality blended cement. It is an excellent
supplementary fuel in cement kilns. This substitute for fly ash, slag or silica fume.
conclusion has been conveyed to the Central
and State Pollution Control Boards. (CPCB and Animal Wastes: These consist of both dung
SPCBs). and fat. Dung, specifically cowdung, has been
used as a domestic fuel for centuries. On the
Sludge: Several types of sludge be capable of other hand, it is not easy to acquire in bulk
used as alternative fuels in cement kilns. These quantities. Animal fat wastes however, are
include paint sludge, refinery (petroleum) relatively easier to procure. These can be got in
sludge, Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) sludge bulk quantity from the factories that do dealing
and Tar Waste. In the last few years, numerous in the meat industry. In fact, numerous
Indian Cement companies have undertaken European cement factories have been saving
flourishing plant trials using various types of roughly 20% of their kiln fuel, for many years,
sludges as alternative fuels, within their kilns. by using animal fat waste for burning. These
These trials were carried away in collaboration factories are situated mainly in France and
with the respective SPCBs and in the Germany.

Table 1: Properties of Some of the Alternative laws. Numerous countries do not allow
Fuels. incineration of yield containing more than 0.5
S.N. Name of A.F. Bulk Moisture Ash% Gcv parts per million (ppm) of mercury and
Density (% ) cadmium. Arsenic and lead are likewise not
1 Mustard 0.08 - 8-15 5-8 3500-
Bhoosi 0.15 4000
allowed to exceed 10 ppm for harmless
2 Ground Nuts 0.14 - 8-10 5-10 3600- combustion. Hence, alternative fuels have to be
Husk 0.18 4000 analysed, prior to being used, in array to avoid
3 Saw/Wooden 0.22 - 8-25 8-12 3000- illegal emissions. A further obstacle arising
Dust 0.28 4000 from the use of waste fuels is the extensive
4 Soya Husk 0.14 - 8-15 4-6 3500-
0.2 3800
deviation that can take place in the composition
5 Paint Sludge 0.60 - 10-15 25-30 4000- of fuel batches. This makes it complicated to
0.70 4500 define a method for monitoring dissimilar
6 EtpBhilwara 0.55 - 20-30 45-50 1400- samples by means of only one type of reference
0.60 1800 material. Furthermore, Certified Reference
7 EtpMaruti 0.50 - 20-35 45-50 1000-
Materials (CRMs) are commonly not available
0.60 2000
8 Phosphate 0.7-0.8 15-20 for a greater part of the materials contained in
Sludge alternative fuels. While make use of of
9 Bed Ash 1.3 standardless methods possibly will give good
results in these situations, for extremely low
PROBLEMS FACED WHILE USING detection limits (as required for Mercury and
ALTERNATIVE FUELS Cadmium) a quantitative analysis technique
Analysis using certified calibration standards is required.
Alternative fuels often have harmful elements The method as a rule used for such analysis is
such as mercury cadmium, arsenic, lead and energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
nickel. Burning of material containing these spectrometry.
contaminated elements is matter to strict
Graph 1 : Paticle Size Distribution of Some of The Alternative Fuels.

Volume 10, Issue 1
Mass Balance measured. These will mainly depend on the

This is the process by which result of different category of alternative fuel and design of the
materials in the composition of the alterative kiln delivery system. Generally speaking,
fuel being used, on the lastly produced clinker, weighing is done electronically, using load
is projected. Corrective steps be able to then be cells, which are suitably located.
taken to cut or eradicate unwanted characteris-
tics. A couple of genuine problems faced by Kiln Feed Systems
cement companies, who were going to use From the storage silos, the alternative fuels are
alternative fuels, will clarify what balancing sent via conveyor belt, into the kiln. The
mass can involve. A cement company just the feeding system must be such that it can operate
once wanted to evaluate the implications of successfully at kiln temperature. It should also
burning spent pot liners, from the aluminium ensure that there is no leakage of flue gasses
industry, in its kilns. The liners were composed from the kiln. And, of course, it should be able
of carbon and were firstly used to line the to feed fuel in the right quantities and at the
electrolytic cells used in the production of required intervals. Normally, these systems
aluminium. The electrolyte used in these cells consist of a number of flap valves operated by
was cryolite and various of this was absorbed pneumatic cylinders. They can also contain
into the liners, which meant that they have high anti-blockage air guns.
sodium and fluoride content. The carbon liners
themselves had a better calorific value and the Requirement of Extra Oxygen
projected price to burn the liners was eye- Oxygen is required for any combustion process.
catching; but what would be the impact of the Although air is the most common source of
sodium and the fluoride on the clinker? And oxygen, it is not the most effective, since it also
would a bypass necessitate to be installed. If so, contains about 79% nitrogen. Nitrogen in air
how big would that bypass need to be? takes up level, absorbs heat, and lowers flame
Answering such questions requires the temperature. Adding pure oxygen (oxygen
development of mass and energy balance. The enrichment) improves the overall combustion
mass and energy balance is essential because process by increasing the flame temperature
the overall energy input to the kiln has to be and the amount of available heat. Inside the
reserved constant, as the fuel mixture is kiln, oxygen enhances burning zone control and
assorted. Would replacement of coal with improves kiln stability.The use of oxygen to
exhausted pot liners or other alternative fuels develop the combustion of alternative fuels has
grant a direct one-for-one substitution in terms been shown to reduce or eliminate emission
of the energy input to the kiln? most likely not, excursions and increase flame temperature. The
as differences in the particle size and volatile resulting enhanced burning zone control
content affect the heat release characteristics in enables operators to maintain feed and burn at
the kiln. A different company, a European one, a more steady rate. Over time, improved kiln
was being compensated to burn animal bones steadiness translates into more production,
on a large scale, in its kiln. Burning of the bones increased fuel substitution rates, and lesser
produced significant quantities of phosphorous operating costs. Depending on the value of the
pentoxide. Impact of this gas happeningon alternative fuels, increased substitution can
clinker mineralogy was entirely unknown at lead to the net negative fuel cost (including the
that time. So it took numerous trials and cost of oxygen).The extra oxygen must be
subsequent kiln amendment, before genuine suitably injected, depending on required
large scale usage of bones could commence. quantity, timing and kiln design.
Weighing RulesAnd Regulations

Once an alternative fuel has been chosen, the Mention has already been made, of various
speed of which it is to be fed into the kiln will laws that may create problems for potential
have to be worked out. Apparently, once this users of alternative fuels. In India, these
rate is firm, weighing options will have to be

include clearances required from local water in the fuel, hydrogen burns to water vapor
authorities, Central and State Pollution Control and water vapor has a higher heat capacity (and
Boards, and the Ministry of Environment and volume)compared to burning of carbon to
Forests. Cement manufacturers in other carbon dioxide. Methods have to be
countries also face similar problems, especially implemented to offset there duction of the
as pollution control norms and laws vary from amount of presented heat at high temperature
country to country and sometimes, from state to from fuels with higher hydrogen and water
state. This often adversely affects the plans of contents. When evaluating the replacement of
cement companies that are trying to extend their fuels, one can use an” Available Heating
operations overseas. Value” to compare fuels. The ”Available
Heating Value” is comparable in concept to the
Table 2: A Typical AFR Composition Wise
difference between lower heating value and
Requirement
higher heating value but it is the heat available
Property Value Comment
CV net 4000 Should aim for > 3000 above 700 C. A temperature of 700 C for the
kcals/kg estimation since this is just above the
H2O % 12 < 20% temperature where calcination begins. The
Ash% 15 < 20% concepts of high-grade heat and low-grade heat
Cl % 0.5 As low as possible to help high
TSR are well discussed by Weber. Weber states,
N% 0.2 Generally lower than coal helps “The boundary between the main and the
NOx subsidiary thermal system is assumed always to
Volatiles % 50 These if higher than coal helps correspond to a material temperature of 550 C,
low NOx
S% 0.2 Generally lower than coal can
since decarbonation in the rotary kiln in general
help build up already begins at this temperature. A certain
Size % < Needs to be < 30 mms for amount of heat whose temperature is below the
50mms burner gas temperature at the commencement of
decarbonation will always be left over from the
CHALLENGES WHILE USING OF calcining zone. This heat is “lower-grade” in
ALTERNATE FUELS TO the sense that, because of the low temperature,
MEETOUT TARGETS it cannot be further used for decarbonation or
Many cement plants are burning alternate fuels sintering, but only for preheating and drying.”
like whole tires, tire chips, pumpable and non- He indicates that with heat exchangers for dry
pumpable hazardous waste, waste oils, raw meal, the temperature difference among the
consumer byproduct waste (paper diaper gas and raw meal can be reduced to about 150
scraps), municipal refuse, wood byproducts and C.
the list goes on. Each alternate fuel have its own
challenge to effectively substitute for fossil fuel
Difficult to Meter
without loss of quality, production or an
enhance in emissions. Many of the alternate fuels are complex to
meter. Whole tires, tire chips, municipal refuse
• The challenges of these fuels can be
and other alternate fuels are enormously
generalized into these categories:
Lower Flame difficult to meter uniformly in the time frame
Temperatures Difficult to required for combustion. One could visualize
Meter Variable Heating dropping a SUV tire then one from a sub-
Value Difficult to Ignite compact car. Even with erratic spacing of the
Process Issues tires to keep a constant tons per hour flow on a
2 or three minute average, the feed is non-
Lower Flame Temperatures uniform in the time casing of the combustion
Several alternate fuels have considerably higher process eventually requiring increased excess
hydrogen content than the traditional fuel. oxygen to maintain CO levels. Excess oxygen
Whether this is due to the hydrocarbon content badly affects the available heat from a given
of the fuel or the company of free fuel.

Volume 10, Issue 1
Table 3: Alternative Fuel Calorific Values.

HHV LHV Available Heat AT 700°C
(1292°F)
Kcal/kg Btu/lb Kcal/kg Btu/lb Kcal/kg Btu/lb
Coal 6920 12456 6638 11948 5359 9647
Coal Fines 5133 9240 4866 8758 3936 7085
Petroleum Coke 7833 14100 7082 12747 4889 8801
Liquid Hazardous Waste Derived 6167 11100 5396 9712 3250 5851
Fuel
Waste Tires 7889 14200 7525 13545 6017 10830
Wood 4944 8900 4586 8254 3520 6337
Hog Fuel Sawdust 5072 9130 4712 8481 3693 6647
Municipal Waste 3611 6500 3174 5713 2020 3640
Variable Heating Value CONCLUSION

Most fuels have variable heating values, The paper emphasis to maximize alternate fuel
including the traditional fuel coal. Even a fuel in kiln and pre-calciner; the purpose being to
like coal can pick up variability in heating value decrease dependencey on fossil fuels, reduce
in the plant handling. When filling a bin with carbon foot print and global warming impact of
coal there is a usualsegregation, the fine cement industry. Variation in operational
particles split from the coarse particles, with the parameters is a barrier for maximization of
higher moisture fines feeding first and the alternate fuel in many kilns. Therefore
coarse coal feeding later. Many plants can reduction in variation of operational parameter
eyewitnessannoticeable variability in the coal (like Kiln feed LSF, kiln feed rate, dosing valve
heating value even when the feed rate is fluctuation, quality parameters etc) to an
consistent. Many plants experience difficulty in acceptable level is paramount objectives for
getting uniform feed from coal and as a result substitution of maximum alternate fuel. Kiln
have complexity in maintaining uniform technology is also influences the alternate fuel
combustion conditions. Add to this fossil fuel substitution rate. In addition to variation of
variability, the variability of an alternate fuel operational parameter, availability, size and
that also has non-uniform feeding quality of alternate fuel influence the AF
characteristics, combustion control becomes substitution rate. Therefore variation reduction
relatively challenging. in all operational parameter will help in
maximize the alternate fuel substitution.
Difficult to Ignite
Similarly pre-processing of industrial waste is
Many alternate fuels contain different ignition
highly required before fed into pre-calciner.
characteristics than conventional fuels. Often
The competitiveness of the cement industry in
alternate fuels have delayed ignition
the near future will be decided by the extent of
characteristics either owing to their volatile
Substitution of primary fossil fuels with
substance or particle size. Petroleum coke or
tire chips may have delayed ignition and alternate fuels.
combustion rates to the point that unburned
material falls onto the clinker bed and creates REFERENCES
localized reducing conditions that effects the 1. Rahman A, Rasul MG, Khan MM, Sharma
quality of the clinker and potentially the sulfur S. Impact of alternative fuels on the cement
dioxide emissions. manufacturing plant performance: an
overview. Procedia Engineering. 2013 Jan
Process Issues 1;56:393-400.
Process considerations are essential in order to 2. Schakel W, Hung CR, Tokheim LA,
maintain clinker quality, kiln system Strømman AH, Worrell E, Ramírez A.
availability, low emissions etc. A very vital Impact of fuel selection on the
aspect is also handling of alternative fuel prior environmental performance of post-
to being admitted to the process. This habitually combustion calcium looping applied to a
poses overlooked challenges, which should be cement plant. Applied energy. 2018 Jan
dealt with at the design stage. 15;210:75-87.

3. Maddalena R, Roberts JJ, Hamilton A. Can 9. Schakel W, Orregioni G, Strømman A,

Portland cement be replaced by low-carbon Ramirez A. Impact of fuel selection on
alternative materials? A study on the techno-environmental performance of
thermal properties and carbon emissions of post-combustion calcium looping process
innovative cements.Journal of Cleaner applied to a cement plant. Energy Procedia.
Production. 2018 Jun 10; 186:933-42. 2017 Jul 1; 114:6215-21.
4. Feng XZ, Lugovoy O, Qin H. Co- 10. Kaddatz KT, Rasul MG, Rahman A.
controlling CO2 and NOx emission in Alternative fuels for use in cement kilns:
China's cement industry: An optimal process impact modelling. Procedia
development pathway study. Advances in Engineering. 2013 Jan 1; 56:413-20.
Climate Change Research. 2018 Mar 1; 11. Potgieter JH. An Overview of Cement
9(1):34-42. production: How" green" and sustainable
5. Matar W, Elshurafa AM. Striking a balance is the industry?.Environmental
between profit and carbon dioxide management and sustainable development.
emissionsintheSaudicement 2012 Jul 1; 1(2):14.
industry.International Journal of 12. Rahman A, Rasul MG, Khan MM, Sharma S.
Greenhouse Gas Control. 2017 Jun 1; Recent development on the uses of
61:111-23. alternative fuels in cement manufacturing
6. Naranjo M, Brownlow DT, Garza A. CO2 process.Fuel. 2015 Apr 1; 145:84-99.
capture and sequestration in the cement 13. Kaantee U, Zevenhoven R, Backman R,
industry. Energy Procedia. 2011 Jan 1; Mikko H. Modelling a cement
4:2716-23. manufacturing process to study possible
7. Rahman A, Rasul MG, Khan MM, Sharma impacts of alternative fuels. CIMENTS
S. Aspen Plus based simulation for energy BETONS PLATRES CHAUX. 2003:46-
recovery from waste to utilize in cement 52.
plant preheater tower. Energy Procedia.
2014 Jan 1; 61:922-7.
8. Zhang J, Liu G, Chen B, Song D, Qi J, Liu Cite this Article
X. Analysis of CO2 emission for the Davinder Pal Singh, Rajesh Kaushal. Use of
cement manufacturing with alternative raw Alternative Fuels in Indian Cement
materials: a LCA-based framework. Energy Industry: A Review. Journal of Production
Procedia. 2014 Jan 1; 61:2541-5. Research & Management. 2020; 10(1): 1–
9p.

Plagiarism Checker X Originality Report
Similarity Found: 7%
Date: Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Statistics: 220 words Plagiarized / 3339 Total words
Remarks: Low Plagiarism Detected - Your Document needs Optional Improvement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESULT AND DISCUSSION 6.1 MATERIAL TESTING RESULT AND DISCUSSION: Aditya
cement have online monitoring system at Bag house and ESP stack for CO2, SO2, NOx
and dust emission reading continuous showing in ccr but during use of hazardous waste
some of heavy metal, organic carbon and mercury emission reading not showing in ccr
as per CPCB guideline sampling done during co-processing of hazardous waste and
result are discuss as follow.
The general observation of emission during the trial of co-processing are :- · The
particulate matter emission were always less than 50 mg/Nm3, maximum observed was
37.9 mg/Nm3; · Sulphur dioxide emission during trial co-processing with hazardous
waste were observed ranging between 6.4-7.5 mg/Nm3; · Oxide of nitrogen emission,
which are much dependent on the temperature, were ranging between 713 to 746
mg/Nm3 during co-processing; · HCL and HF emission value were found between 12.6 -
20.3 mg/Nm3 and 1.0 - 1.6
mg/Nm3 respectively during co-processing; · Volatile organics were generated in 0.68 -

0.91 µg/Nm3 level only; · Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon(PAH) emissions were
observed in the range of 0.22 - 0.32 µg/Nm3during trial co-processing; · Dioxins and
Furans were found between 0.013 ng/Nm3 during pre trial period, 0.011 - 0.012
ng/Nm3 during trial co-processing with hazardous waste and 0.015 ng/Nm3 during post
trial period; · The total heavy metals and mercury emissions values are 0.224 - 0.232
mg/Nm3 and 0.007 - 0.010 mg/Nm3 during co-processing; · Total organic carbon was
5.3 - 5.6
mg/Nm3during co-processing; and · Ambient air quality was found to be normal

representing the industrial activities and within permission limits Study work based on

(5)five days trial run of AFR in Pyro system as per methodology: Table 6.1 Kiln and
Preheater Parameter AdityaCement 1 Data of Pyro system 1.1 Kiln feed LSF fluctuations
sdv 94.85 Dosing fluctuations % 2 Coefficient of variation R90?m % 2.8 1.2 Coal /
petcoke (at main burner) Fineness at R90 ?m % 20.99 Fineness R90 ?m fluctuations sdv
0.3 Fineness at R200 ?m % 2.38 Dosing fluctuations % 0.25 Pressure fluctuation at the
burner within +/-5mbar % 0.5 P fluctuation at the burner within +/- 5 and 7.5mbar %
0.5 2 KILN OPERATION 2.1
Combustion (based on 5-days campaign) O2 at kiln inlet %O2 3 CO at kiln inlet %CO
0.05 Temperature at kiln inlet °C 1080 Temperature at exit lowest cyclone °C 880 2.2 Hot
meal (based on 5 days-campaign) % calcinations % 91.85 SO3 %SO3 1.76 Cl %Cl 0.121
K2O %K2O 1.27 Sulfur Volatility gm/100kgclk 735 2.3 Main Firing Heat distribution to
main firing % total fuel 40 Ash input at burning zone % in cli 0 Length of fixed coating x
Ækiln Fine AFR powder in main flame (diam.<0.5mm) % total fuel 0 Solid AFR diam.<1.5
mm in main flame % total fuel 0 Solid AFR diam<5 mm or foils < 50 mm % total fuel 0
#REF! % total fuel Comment: all substitution refers to total sub. of the fuel and cannot
be accumulated 2.4
Precalcination, secondary firing or MKF Heat distribution to precalcination % total fuel

60 Whole tires % total fuel 0 Lump fuel >50mm % total fuel 40 Solid AFR < 50 mm %
total fuel 10 Gas residence time in calciner seconds 1.9 3 MAIN BURNER % Primary Air(
radial/axial) % 11 Axial Momentum N/MW 1475 Coal injection velocity m/s 29 4
CHEMISTRY 4.1 Clinker Current Liquid phase 1450°C of main clinker % in cli 27.7
CaOfree % in cli 1.15 % off-spec clinker % in cli 0.5 P2O5 in Clinker % in cli 0.17 4.2 Alkali
& Sulfur (based on A/S balance) "Calculated" Alk/S - ratio in clinker - 2.4 "Calculated"
SO3 in clinker % in cli 1.09 Alkali input (process point of view) % in cli 0.42 4.3
Chlorine & Dust Relevant Cl input from raw materials & fuels g/t cli 0.03 Chlorine output
through all cement g/t cem 0.03 Filler in cement % in cem 5 5 KILN PERFORMANCE
Current OEE net % 99.83 Rate % 206.92 Availability % 99.83 MTBF hours 1338.93
Number of kiln stops stop/a 6 Stops due to cyclones plug-ups stop/a 0 Refractory
consumption (4 years rolling av.) g/tcli 433 Emissions (below legal limits: "Yes" or "No") -
Yes 6 AFR: for each AFR installation individually Current 6.1 AFR Installation 1: describe
installation (e.g. "solvent installation for main burner) Storage capacity t Feeding
capacity t/h NCV Fluctuation of AFR 1 +/-kJ/kg Solid AFR injection velocity (if used at
main burner) m/s NA OEE net % MTBF hours 6.2
AFR Installation 2: describe installation (e.g. "solvent installation for main burner)
Storage capacity t Feeding capacity t/h NCV Fluctuation of AFR 2 +/-kJ/kg Solid AFR
injection velocity (if used at main burner) m/s NA OEE net % MTBF hours 6.3 AFR

Installation 3: describe installation (e.g. "solvent installation for main burner) Storage
capacity t NA Feeding capacity t/h Solid AFR injection velocity (if used at main burner)
m/s NCV Fluctuation of AFR 3 +/-kJ/kg OEE net % MTBF hours 6.4 AFR Installation 4:
describe installation (e.g. "solvent installation for main burner) Storage capacity t NA
Feeding capacity t/h NCV Fluctuation of AFR 4 +/-kJ/kg Solid AFR injection velocity (if
used at main burner) m/s OEE net % MTBF hours 6.5
AFR Installation 5: describe installation (e.g. "solvent installation for main burner)
Storage capacity t NA Feeding capacity t/h NCV Fluctuation of AFR 5 +/-kJ/kg Solid AFR
injection velocity (if used at main burner) m/s OEE net % MTBF hours Table 6.2 During
Trial typical Alternative fuel composition Plant AdityaCement Works Type: AF Carbon
Black Sampling location From Unloading Point Sampling location From Unloading Point
Type of samples Fine Powder Type of samples Fine Powder SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 NCV
6086 kJ/kg NCV 5839 kJ/kg Moisture (as fired) 0.18 %H2O Moisture (as fired) 0.18
%H2O Sulphur 4.07 %S Sulphur 3.7 %S Volatile 15.6 % Volatile 16.32 % Ash 17.12 % Ash
18.93 % Chlorine % Chlorine % P2O5 % P2O5 % Typical Granulometry mm Typical
Granulometry Mm Sampling location From Unloading Point Type of samples Fine
Powder SAMPLE 3 AVERAGE NCV 5992 kJ/kg 5972 Moisture (as fired) 0.18 %H2O 0.18
Sulphur 3.83 %S 3.87 Volatile 16.02 % 15.98 Ash 17.88 % 17.98 Chlorine % P2O5 %
Typical Granulometry mm Type: ETP Sludge Sampling location From Unloading Point
Sampling location From Unloading Point Type of samples Fine Powder Type of samples
Fine Powder SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 NCV 1265 kJ/kg NCV 1190 kJ/kg Moisture (as fired)
2.6 %H2O Moisture (as fired) 2.4 2.5 Sulphur 0.22 %S Sulphur 0.27 %S Volatile 23.01 %
Volatile 22.76 % Ash 45.71 % Ash 44.52 % Chlorine % Chlorine % P2O5 % P2O5 %
Typical Granulometry mm Typical Granulometry Mm SAMPLE 3 AVERAGE NCV 1161
kJ/kg 1205 Moisture (as fired) 2.8 %H2O 2.60 Sulphur 0.42 %S 0.30 Volatile 22.65 %
22.81 Ash 46.26 % 45.50 Chlorine % P2O5 % Typical Granulometry mm Type: Agriwaste
Sampling location From Unloading Point Sampling location From Unloading Point Type
of samples Fine Powder Type of samples Fine Powder SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 NCV 2785
kJ/kg NCV 2855 kJ/kg Moisture (as fired) 4.15 %H2O Moisture (as fired) 4.08 2.5 Sulphur
0.18 %S Sulphur 0.17 %S Volatile 23.01 % Volatile 22.76 % Ash 25.12 % Ash 23.65 %
Chlorine % Chlorine % P2O5 % P2O5 % Typical Granulometry mm Typical Granulometry
Mm Sampling location From Unloading Point Type of samples Fine Powder SAMPLE 3
AVERAGE NCV 2820 kJ/kg 2820 Moisture (as fired) 3.92 %H2O 4.05 Sulphur 0.22 %S
0.19 Volatile 22.65 % 22.81 Ash 24.48 % 24.42 Chlorine % P2O5 % Typical Granulomety
mm Table 6.3: Process Operation Quality/Lab Data taken during trail run Raw meal (after
mill) SUMMARY Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%)
Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] Average 95.1 94.5 1.9 1.2 35.3 0.3 0.1 0.1
0.0 21.4

2.3 3.7% nbr of value 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 54 49 49 49 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 1.6 0.0 0.1
0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 Min 92.4 94.5 1.81 1.06 34.82 0.27 0.08 0.13 0.003 20.0 2.0
Max 98.3 94.5 2.12 1.30 36.43 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.004 23.8 2.8 2/10/2017 6 Hour LS actual
LS setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%)
0:00 h 93.1 94.5 1.88 1.17 35.49 0.27 0.08 0.13 0.003 20.6 2.0 2:00 h 93.1 94.5 1.91 1.12
34.93 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.004 20.8 2.2 4:00 h 93.5 94.5 1.89 1.14 34.84 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003
20.0 2.2 6:00 h 95.8 94.5 1.99 1.13 35.35 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.2 8:00 h 96.2 94.5
2.12 1.27 34.98 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.2 10:00 h 95.3 94.5 1.98 1.15 35.75 0.27 0.08
0.15 0.003 20.6 2.2 12:00 h 95.3 94.5 1.95 1.13 35.22 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.8 2.2 14:00 h
96.2 94.5 2.09 1.17 35.83 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.4 16:00 h 92.4 94.5 1.90 1.20 35.21
0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.8 2.6 18:00 h 97.0 94.5 1.95 1.18 35.36 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 23.8
2.8 20:00 h 96.4 94.5
1.94 1.16 35.35 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.4 2.4 22:00 h 93.7 94.5 1.91 1.14 35.14 0.27 0.08
0.15 0.003 20.0 2.0 Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
12 12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 Min 92 95 2 1
35 0 0 0 0 20 2 Max 97 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 24 3 2/11/2017 7 Hour LS actual LS setpoint SM
AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) 0:00 h 93.4 94.5
1.90 1.10 35.07 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.6 2.0 2:00 h 96.0 94.5 1.98 1.18 34.99 0.27 0.08
0.15 0.003 21.4 2.2 4:00 h 93.7 94.5 1.83 1.10 36.43 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.4 6:00 h
94.8 94.5 1.87 1.21 35.29 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.6 8:00 h 92.4 94.5 1.87 1.18 34.92
0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.8 2.8 10:00 h 94.7 94.5 1.90 1.17 35.05 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.6
2.2 12:00 h 95.8 94.5 1.90 1.17 35.18 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.6 2.2 14:00 h 93.6 94.5 1.92
1.16 35.04 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.2 2.4 16:00 h 93.7 94.5 1.89 1.30 35.28 0.27 0.08 0.15
0.003 22.4 2.4 18:00 h 94.6 94.5
1.91 1.14 35.28 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.2 20:00 h 96.6 94.5 1.92 1.06 35.06 0.27 0.08
0.15 0.003 23.2 2.2 22:00 h 98.3 94.5 1.95 1.18 35.32 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.6 2.2
Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Short-
term fluc.-Sdv 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2 Max
98 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 23 3 2/12/2017 1 Hour LS actual LS setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O
(%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) 0:00 h 93.3 94.5 1.91 1.09 34.95
0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.0 2:00 h 96.3 94.5 2.01 1.13 35.54 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.8
2.0 4:00 h 95.3 94.5 1.94 1.18 35.16 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.6 2.4 6:00 h 93.9 94.5 1.85
1.11 35.18 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.8 2.4 8:00 h 10:00 h 12:00 h 14:00 h 16:00 h 18:00 h
96.1 94.5 1.97 1.11 35.09 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.6 2.2 20:00 h 92.4 94.5 1.91 1.19 35.15
0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.0 2.2 22:00 h 96.5 94.5 1.98 1.19 35.56 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.8
2.2 Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2 nbr of value 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Short-term fluc.-
Sdv 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2 Max 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 22 2
2/13/2017 2 Hour LS actual LS setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl
(%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) 0:00 h 96.7 94.5 1.97 1.21 36.04 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.2
2:00 h 95.6 94.5 1.95 1.20 35.58 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.0 4:00 h 96.1 94.5 1.83 1.12
35.25 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.6 2.2 6:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.87 1.17 34.96 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003
22.2 2.2 8:00 h 95.2 94.5 1.89 1.27 35.35 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.2 10:00 h 97.9 94.5
1.97 1.12 35.27 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.2 12:00 h 97.0 94.5 1.97 1.11 35.16 0.27 0.08
0.15 0.003 20.8 2.2 14:00 h 96.3 94.5 1.92 1.14 35.04 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.2 2.2 16:00 h
92.9 94.5 1.88 1.26 35.28 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.0
2.0 18:00 h 97.2 94.5 1.92 1.09 35.16 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.2 2.2 20:00 h 94.3 94.5 1.85
1.12 35.21 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 22.6 2.6 22:00 h 92.5 94.5 1.83 1.11 35.28 0.27 0.08 0.15
0.003 22.8 2.8 Average 96 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 Min 93 95 2 1 35 0 0 0
0 21 2 Max 98 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 23 3 2/14/2017 3 Hour LS actual LS setpoint SM AM LOI
(%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) 0:00 h 95.6 94.5 1.99 1.28
35.76 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 21.0 2.4 2:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.93 1.08 35.47 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.004
21.4 2.4 4:00 h 96.2 94.5 1.88 1.10 34.82 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.2 6:00 h 0.15 8:00 h
0.15 10:00 h 0.15 12:00 h 0.15 14:00 h 0.15 16:00 h 96.2 94.5 1.90 1.17 35.32 0.27 0.08
0.15 0.003 20.8 2.0 18:00 h 92.5 94.5 1.81 1.07 35.48 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.0 2.0 20:00 h
95.7 94.5 1.96 1.09 35.37 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.003 20.6 2.2 22:00 h Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0
0 21 2 nbr of value 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 6 6 6 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2
Min 92 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2 Max 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 21 2 Kiln feed (after dust

addition) SUMMARY Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%)
SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] Average 95.2 94.5 1.9 1.2 35.4
0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 21.4 2.3 3.2% nbr of value 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
60.0 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 Min 93.4 94.5 1.84 1.12
34.74 0.26 0.01 0.15 0.002 19.8 2.0 Max 96.9 94.5 1.97 1.27 43.08 0.29 0.07 0.15 0.004
23.2 2.6 Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%)
R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 93.4 94.5 1.84 1.14 35.12 0.29 0.01 0.15
0.004 22.6 2.4 3.2% 2:00 h 94.0 94.5 1.91 1.21 35.11 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 22.0 2.2 4:00 h
93.9 94.5 1.89 1.17 35.01 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 21.4 2.2 6:00 h 93.8 94.5 1.88 1.16 35.05
0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 21.6 2.2 8:00 h 95.1 94.5 1.91 1.16 35.32 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 21.8
2.2 10:00 h 95.5 94.5 1.92 1.19 35.48 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.8 2.2 12:00 h 95.2 94.5 1.97
1.16 35.43 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 20.6 2.2 14:00 h 93.9 94.5 1.90 1.17 35.48 0.26 0.07 0.15
0.004 21.8 2.4 16:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.93 1.18 35.40 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 21.4 2.4 18:00 h 94.9
94.5 1.95 1.16 35.45 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 22.4 2.4 20:00 h 94.9 94.5 1.92 1.18 35.05 0.26
0.07 0.15 0.004 22.8 2.6 22:00 h 95.3 94.5 1.90 1.17 35.35 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.004 21.0 2.2

2.0 Average 95 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 22 2 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.7 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 Min 93 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2 Max 96 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 23 3
Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m
(%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.92 1.16 34.74 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003
20.2 2.2 4.2% 2:00 h 96.7 94.5 1.96 1.16 35.31 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.8 2.2 4:00 h 94.9
94.5 1.97 1.17 34.89 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.4 2.4 6:00 h 93.9 94.5 1.88 1.19 35.59 0.26
0.07 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.4 8:00 h 94.1 94.5 1.89 1.22 35.04 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 22.6 2.6
10:00 h 95.1 94.5 1.90 1.19 35.64 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.4 12:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.89 1.19
35.24 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.4 14:00 h 94.9 94.5 1.89 1.21 35.33 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003
21.0 2.4 16:00 h 94.4 94.5 1.91 1.23 35.41 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.4 18:00 h 94.8 94.5
1.90 1.24 35.30 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 22.6 2.2 20:00 h 94.9 94.5 1.90 1.17 35.37 0.26 0.07
0.15 0.003 23.0 2.2 22:00 h 94.6 94.5 1.92 1.19 34.99 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 23.2 2.2 2.0

97 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 23 3 Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%)
SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 93.7 94.5 1.88 1.17 35.50
0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.6 2.2 2.8% 2:00 h 95.5 94.5 1.91 1.21 35.28 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003
21.2 2.2 4:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.93 1.18 35.38 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.002 21.8 2.2 6:00 h 94.6 94.5
1.92 1.19 35.22 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.6 2.4 8:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.95 1.15 35.42 0.26 0.07
0.15 0.003 21.0 2.2 10:00 h 94.9
94.5 1.93 1.17 35.38 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.4 2.4 12:00 h 95.1 94.5 1.90 1.18 35.14 0.26
0.07 0.15 0.003 20.6 2.2 14:00 h 95.3 94.5 1.88 1.20 34.98 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 19.8 2.2
16:00 h 94.3 94.5 1.89 1.18 35.11 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.2 18:00 h 95.9 94.5 1.91 1.22
35.06 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.0 2.2 20:00 h 95.6 94.5 1.92 1.21 35.32 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003
20.8 2.2 22:00 h 95.8 94.5 1.94 1.19 35.53 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.2 2.0 2.0 Average 95 95
2 1 35 0 0 0 0 21 2 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv
0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1
Min 94 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20 2 Max 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 22 2 Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint

SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation
[%] 0:00 h 95.0 94.5 1.92 1.19 35.41 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.4 2.2 3.1% 2:00 h 95.5 94.5
1.93 1.20 35.44 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.2 4:00 h 96.1 94.5 1.91 1.22 35.22 0.26 0.07
0.15 0.002 21.2 2.0 6:00 h 96.3 94.5 1.89 1.22 35.28 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 22.4 2.4 8:00 h
95.4 94.5 1.90 1.19 35.23 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 22.0 2.2 10:00 h 96.9 94.5 1.92 1.24 35.31
0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.4 2.2 12:00 h 96.0 94.5 1.91 1.21 35.38 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.6
2.0 14:00 h 95.9 94.5 1.89 1.20 43.08 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.0 16:00 h 94.4 94.5 1.86

1.20 35.33 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.6 2.2
18:00 h 96.6 94.5 1.91 1.27 35.37 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.2 20:00 h 95.4 94.5 1.91 1.25
35.24 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.0 2.4 22:00 h 95.6 94.5 1.92 1.20 35.56 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003
22.0 2.6 Average 96 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 21 2 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 Min 94 95 2 1 35 0 0 0 0 20
2 Max 97 95 2 1 43 0 0 0 0 22 3 Hour LSF actual LSF setpoint SM AM LOI (%) K2O (%)
Na2O (%) SO3 (%) Cl (%) R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 94.1 94.5 1.90
1.17 35.65 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.002 22.0 2.4 2.6% 2:00 h 95.7
94.5 1.95 1.13 35.61 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.6 2.4 4:00 h 96.1 94.5 1.94 1.12 35.14 0.26
0.07 0.15 0.004 20.8 2.2 6:00 h 96.2 94.5 1.95 1.20 35.31 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.0 2.2
8:00 h 95.9 94.5 1.94 1.17 35.63 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.8 2.2 10:00 h 95.5 94.5 1.91 1.20
35.51 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.2 2.2 12:00 h 96.6 94.5 1.92 1.20 35.54 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003
21.4 2.2 14:00 h 96.1 94.5 1.92 1.20 35.39 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.002 21.6 2.2 16:00 h 95.8 94.5
1.92 1.21 35.64 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.8 2.2 18:00 h 96.7 94.5 1.91 1.23 35.48 0.26 0.07
0.15 0.003 20.2 2.0 20:00 h 95.5 94.5 1.92 1.17 35.40 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 21.2 2.2 22:00 h
95.3 94.5 1.92 1.16 35.32 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.003 20.4 2.2 2.0

97 95 2 1 36 0 0 0 0 22 2 Clinker SUMMARY Hour LSF actual SM AM LOI (%) SO3 (%)
Na2O (%) K2O (%) CaO free (%) Liquid Phase (%) Average 93.7 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.4 1.0
27.3 nbr of value 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.0 60.0 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.5 Min 92.5 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.8 26.4 Max 94.4 2.0
1.2 0.2 1.41 0.10 0.61 1.2 29.0
2/10/2017 Hour LSF actual SM AM LOI (%) SO3 (%) Na2O (%) K2O (%) CaOfree (%)
Liquid Phase (%) 0:00 h 94.1 1.9 1.25 0.13 1.15 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.720 2:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.21
0.10 0.98 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.750 4:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.21 0.09 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.630 6:00 h
93.8 1.9 1.22 0.08 1.05 0.10 0.36 0.96 28.990 8:00 h 94.2 2.0 1.17 0.11 1.05 0.08 0.39 1.02
26.374 10:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.19 0.12 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.06 26.785 12:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.19 0.10
1.03 0.10 0.36 1.00 26.950 14:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.20 0.12 1.08 0.08 0.39 0.96 26.980 16:00 h
93.2 1.9 1.16 0.10 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.02 27.040 18:00 h 93.5 1.9 1.20 0.07 1.08 0.08 0.39
1.06 27.370 20:00 h 92.9 1.9 1.15 0.09 1.07 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.850 22:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.24
0.09 0.01 0.08 0.61 1.00 27.400 Average 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12
12 12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7
Min 93 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 26 Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 29 2/11/2017 Hour LSF actual SM AM LOI

(%) SO3 (%) Na2O (%) K2O (%) CaOfree (%) Liquid Phase (%) 0:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.24 0.13

1.15 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.410 2:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.18 0.12 1.03 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.240 4:00 h 93.9
1.9 1.21 0.10 1.11 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.310 6:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.19 0.15 1.08 0.10 0.36 0.96
27.110 8:00 h 94.1 1.9 1.21 0.09 1.15 0.08 0.39 1.02 27.120 10:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.19 0.10 1.12
0.09 0.40 1.06 27.000 12:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.21 0.09 1.04 0.10 0.36 1.00 27.310 14:00 h 93.9
1.9 1.24 0.08 1.00 0.08 0.39 0.96 26.450 16:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.18 0.11 0.96 0.09 0.40 1.02
27.070 18:00 h 93.4 1.9 1.16 0.12 1.10 0.08 0.39 1.06 27.170 20:00 h 93.1 1.9 1.21 0.15
1.12 0.09 0.40 1.00 27.520 22:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.18 0.11 1.14 0.08 0.39 1.00 26.693 Average
94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

(%) SO3 (%) Na2O (%) K2O (%) CaOfree (%) Liquid Phase (%) 0:00 h 94.4 1.9 1.18 0.03
1.03 0.09 0.40 0.77 26.670 2:00 h 93.6 2.0 1.21 0.19 1.09 0.09 0.40 0.76 26.580 4:00 h 93.9
1.9 1.19 0.12 1.06 0.09 0.40 0.84 26.790 6:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.22 0.24 1.08 0.10 0.36 1.15
27.070 8:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.22 0.12 1.01 0.08 0.39 1.13 26.990 10:00 h 93.2 1.9 1.24 0.16 1.16
0.09 0.40 1.08 27.510 12:00 h 93.6 1.9 1.23 0.11 0.95 0.10 0.36 1.02 27.480 14:00 h 93.7
1.9 1.19 0.12 1.08 0.08 0.39 1.12 27.100 16:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.19 0.17 1.04 0.09 0.40 1.00
27.190 18:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.22 0.14 1.10 0.08 0.39 0.84 27.430 20:00 h 94.0 1.9 1.16 0.13
1.11 0.09 0.40 1.07 27.150 22:00 h 94.1 1.9 1.17 0.17 1.09 0.08 0.39 0.84 27.617 Average
94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.3 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3

(%) SO3 (%) Na2O (%) K2O (%) CaOfree (%) Liquid Phase (%) 0:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.10
0.09 0.40 1.0 27.6 2:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.05 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.5 4:00 h 93.5 1.9 1.2 0.1
1.18 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.1 6:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.07 0.10 0.36 1.0 27.0 8:00 h 93.9 1.9 1.2
0.1 1.11 0.08 0.39 1.0 27.0 10:00 h 94.3 1.9 1.2 0.2 1.14 0.09 0.40 1.1 26.9 12:00 h 94.0 1.9
1.2 0.1 1.20 0.10 0.36 1.0 27.1 14:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.14 0.01 0.39 1.0 27.5 16:00 h 93.0
1.9 1.2 0.2 1.13 0.09 0.38 1.0 27.7 18:00 h 93.0 1.8 1.2 0.1 1.13 0.08 0.39 1.1 28.7 20:00 h
92.8 1.8 1.2 0.1 1.13 0.09 0.40 1.0 28.5 22:00 h 92.5 1.8 1.2 0.2 1.05 0.08 0.39 1.0 28.6
Average 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 28 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv

0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Min 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27 Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 29
2/14/2017 Hour LSF actual SM AM LOI (%) SO3 (%) Na2O (%) K2O (%) CaOfree (%)
Liquid Phase (%) 0:00 h 92.7 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.07 0.09 0.40 1.0 28.3 2:00 h 93.8 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.78
0.09 0.40 1.0 28.0 4:00 h 93.4 1.9 1.2 0.1 0.93 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.5 6:00 h 92.8 1.8 1.2 0.2
1.05 0.10 0.36 1.0 28.4 8:00 h 93.6 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.10 0.08 0.39 1.0 26.9 10:00 h 93.2 1.9 1.2
0.2 1.08 0.09 0.40 1.1 27.9 12:00 h 93.7 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.10 0.10 0.36 1.0 27.6 14:00 h 93.9 1.9
1.2 0.1

1.18 0.08 0.39 1.0 26.8 16:00 h 93.5 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.08 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.3 18:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2
0.1 1.41 0.08 0.39 1.1 27.1 20:00 h 93.3 1.9 1.2 0.1 1.20 0.09 0.40 1.0 27.0 22:00 h 94.2 1.9
1.2 0.2 1.19 0.08 0.39 1.0 27.1 Average 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27 nbr of value 12 12 12 12 12 12
12 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Min 93 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 27
Max 94 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 28 Coal Hour Moisture % R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%]
Average 0.8 2.3 0.1 15.3% nbr of value 13.0 48.0 48.0 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.0 0.4 0.0 Min
0.7 2.0 0.0 Max 0.9 3.2 0.1 2/10/2017 Hour R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00
h 2.2 0.10 6.2% 2:00 h 2.1 0.05 4:00 h 2.2 0.03 6:00 h 2.4 0.04 8:00 h 0.9 2.2 0.08
Composite 10:00 h 2.2 0.05 12:00 h 2.0 0.05 14:00 h 2.2 0.10 16:00 h 0.9 2.4 0.08 18:00 h
2.2 0.03 20:00 h 2.0 0.04 22:00 h 0.9 2.0 0.10 Average 2 0 nbr of value 12 12 Short-term
fluc.-Sdv 0.1 0.0
Min 2 0 Max 2 0 2/11/2017 Hour R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 3.2
0.06 17.6% 2:00 h 3.1 0.04 4:00 h 2.8 0.10 6:00 h 2.6 0.05 8:00 h 0.7 2.2 0.06 10:00 h 2.1
0.03 12:00 h 2.2 0.02 14:00 h 2.1 0.05 16:00 h 0.7 2.1 0.04 18:00 h 2.2 0.07 20:00 h 2.2
0.08 22:00 h 0.8 2.0 0.06 Average 2 0 nbr of value 12 12 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0 Min
2 0 Max 3 0 2/12/2017 Hour R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 2.2 0.10
16.3% 2:00 h 2.2 0.02 4:00 h 2.0 0.02 6:00 h 8:00 h Composite 10:00 h 12:00 h 14:00 h 0.7
16:00 h 3.1 0.08 18:00 h 2.8 0.08 20:00 h 2.4 0.06 22:00 h 0.7 2.2 0.1 Average 2 0 nbr of
value 7 7 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0
Min 2 0 Max 3 0 2/13/2017 Hour R90?m (%) R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 17.9%
2:00 h 4:00 h 6:00 h 2.0 0.04 8:00 h 0.8 2.2 0.06 10:00 h 2.4 0.06 12:00 h 2.2 0.02 14:00 h
3.2 0.04 16:00 h 0.8 3.0 0.02 18:00 h 2.2 0.03 20:00 h 2.2 0.08 22:00 h Average 2 0 nbr of
value 8 8 Short-term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0 Min 2 0 Max 3 0 2/14/2017 Hour R90?m (%)
R200?m (%) R90 variation [%] 0:00 h 17.1% 2:00 h 4:00 h 6:00 h 2.0 0.08 8:00 h 0.9 2.0
0.06 Composite 10:00 h 2.2 0.02 12:00 h 2.6 0.04 14:00 h 3.2 0.06 16:00 h 0.7 2.8 0.09
18:00 h 2.2 0.05 20:00 h 2.2 0.06 22:00 h 0.7 2.2 0.02 Average 2 0 nbr of value 9 9 Short-
term fluc.-Sdv 0.4 0.0
Min 2 0 Max 3 0 Coal+Alternative Fuel Average of composite samples NCV [%] Volatiles
[%] Ash [%] Sulfur [%] Cl [%] 7486 11 7 4 R90??m (%) R200??m (%) Actual Value
Guideline Value Actual Value Guideline Value Average (%) 234.4% ? < 0% 5.6% ? < 0.0%
Sdv 0.36 ? < 1 0.03 ? Kiln Dust (where aplicable) - Direct operation (raw mill down)
Date/hour LS actual SM AM LOI (%) SO3 (%) K2O (%) Na2O (%) Cl (%) Comp. Samp. 1
98.6 2.0 1.3 35.1 0.22 0.30 0.01 0.01 Comp. Samp. 2 98 1.9 1.3 35.0 0.25 0.35 0.09 0.01
Comp. Samp. 3 98 1.9 1.3 35.2 0.27 0.37 0.14 0.01 Average 98 2.0 1.3 35.1 0.25 0.34 0.08
0.01 nbr of value 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sdv Kiln dust sample during direct operation (raw mill
down)->see comment FORMULA LS Lime Saturation 100*CaO / (2.85*SiO2 +
1.18*Al2O3 + 0.65*Fe2O3) SM Silica Module SiO2 / (Al2O3 + Fe2O3) AM Alumina

Module Al2O3 / Fe2O3 LF Liquid Phase 3*Al2O3 + 2.25*F2O3 + MgO + K2O+Na2O at
1'450°C (MgO max: 2%) Table 6.4
:Process Parameter Average Day 1 to Day 5 at Aditya Cement works Avg: Day 1 Avg: Day
2 Avg: Day 3 Avg:Day 4 Avg: Day 5 Kiln Chain (hot side) O2 (%) 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 CO (%)
319.8 251.7 467.5 294.8 299.0 NO (ppm) 692.3 739.2 786.4 724.1 720.8 gas-T (deg C)
1092.2 1065.6 1000.1 949.2 949.0 - -35.9 -24.6 -28.9 -31.1 -31.2 Kiln inlet O2 (%) 3.7 3.6
3.4 3.5 3.5 CO (%) 388.2 460.4 475.8 485.5 489.4 NO (ppm) - gas -T (deg C) 897.8 894.2
880.0 895.4 895.4 Preheater Pressure (mbar) 82.8 96.0 69.5 65.2 65.1 Cyclone 6A1 exit -
611.0 637.4 625.6 618.2 617.4 - 269.2 272.3 280.7 280.6 280.4 mat-T (deg C) 296.8 281.2
281.8 284.4 284.7 Cyclone 6A2 exit - 581.2 585.7 600.9 580.8 581.0 - 266.9 274.9 277.0
268.8 268.6 mat-T (deg C) 307.6 301.1 293.1 310.0
310.4 Cyclone 6B1 exit - 614.9 607.7 617.7 614.5 614.1 - 250.4 265.6 256.0 267.2 266.9
mat-T (deg C) 300.4 295.4 289.8 299.0 298.7 Cyclone 6B2 exit - 600.6 606.9 611.7 593.6
593.7 - 258.6 268.0 263.0 266.9 266.4 mat-T (deg C) 296.7 296.5 291.5 288.6 288.4
Cyclone 5b exit - 456.1 470.3 467.0 480.1 480.5 - 463.4 467.9 459.7 470.4 470.0 - 477.5
476.7 473.6 476.1 476.0 Cyclone 5A exit - 437.2 431.4 481.3 441.7 441.7 - 471.9 466.5
468.1 469.0 468.8 - 472.0 467.0 464.7 473.8 474.0 - - 387.1 388.3 396.5 393.0 393.2 -
591.6 584.4 606.5 595.5 595.9 - - 407.9 406.2 421.5 416.4 416.4 - 617.2 613.0 849.3 612.3
612.2 - - 318.3 324.3 287.6 334.1 334.7 - - 694.5 696.3 697.8 701.0 700.7 - - 321.3 266.4
334.4 318.6 318.8 - 709.0 732.1 734.6 711.0 710.7 - - 245.6 223.0
363.6 245.4 245.6 - 812.6 809.8 820.3 816.2 816.4 - - 169.8 168.7 170.4 171.3 171.4 -
816.7 812.8 814.2 817.6 817.6 - - 173.6 166.1 131.8 146.0 146.1 - 870.8 868.1 839.7 873.8
873.6 - - 132.5 149.2 119.5 117.2 117.1 - 899.0 899.2 880.0 895.5 895.6 BZ Pyro. reading
(degC) 1116.3 1162.8 1656.0 1141.1 1139.7 Kiln torque (A, kW/rpm, Nm) 610.8 549.2
516.6 559.8 558.7 Kiln power/current (A, kW) 397.4 364.8 363.8 350.5 349.2 Clinker
Litrweight 1192.5 1220.0 1150.0 1237.1 1239.5 Dust return Actual value (t/h) Kiln feed
water content (%) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! - - 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Kiln feed Actual Value
(t/h) 331.3 335.1 342.8 340.0 340.0 Setpoint (t/h) 331.9 Kiln speed rpm 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5
Kiln ID Fan kW 1590.9 1601.3 1608.5
1592.3 1592.5 rpm, % Damper 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - - Main Burner: fuel feed rate for
each fuel type Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) 6.4 5.4 6.5 5.6 5.6 Petcoke Setpoint (t/h) 6.4
5.4 6.5 5.6 5.6 Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) Setpoint (t/h) Mid kiln firing: fuel feed rate
for each fuel Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) 9.4 7.3 8.6 7.5 7.5 Petcoke Setpoint (t/h) 9.5
7.3 8.6 7.5 7.5 Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Coal Imp Setpoint (t/h) 1.6
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 - Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) 2.1 6.5 3.4 5.4 5.5 Alt Fuel Setpoint (t/h) 2.1
6.5 3.4 5.3 5.4

Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) Setpoint (t/h) Fuel name: Actual Value (t/h) Setpoint (t/h)
Cooler 1st compartment pressure (mbar) 1178.1 1157.8 1176.8 1202.0 1203.2 2nd
compartment pressure (mbar) 686.8 681.6 686.3 699.0 699.4 3rd compartment pressure
(mbar) 669.2 668.0 685.8 691.1 690.8 4th compartment pressure (mbar) 635.2 626.4
640.7 639.4 639.4 5th compartment pressure (mbar) 469.8 472.6 502.0 478.7 477.9 6th
compartment pressure (mbar) 435.8 468.8 523.5 488.9 488.0 7th compartment pressure
(mbar) 331.5 352.9 381.8 376.5 375.8 8th compartment pressure (mbar) 274.8 281.8
306.3 283.2 282.5 9th compartment pressure (mbar) 193.5 201.1 203.9 205.5 205.4 Kiln
hood pressure pressure (mbar) 2.6 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.5
Cooler Waste Air gas-T (deg C) 271.3 252.3 224.4 239.0 238.0 Sec. Temp gas-T (deg C)
1146.5 1177.6 1196.8 1151.7 1150.5 - gas-T (deg C) 920.8 908.4 937.0 941.1 941.7
Clinker Temperature material- T (deg C) 137.9 126.8 110.0 142.4 141.7 Cooler 1st grate
spm 9.7 9.7 9.7 10.1 10.1 Cooler exh. gas fan kW 295.3 273.4 271.4 295.0 295.0 rpm
497.6 467.3 468.3 500.1 501.5 U. grate fan 1 m3/h 680.8 684.6 685.9 677.4 677.1 U. grate
fan 2 m3/h 950.3 951.0 949.9 948.1 947.9 U. grate fan 3 m3/h 1206.2 1201.8 1216.4
1228.8 1231.1 U. grate fan 4 m3/h 841.7 810.4 804.8 807.9 808.1 U. grate fan 5 m3/h
927.7 950.1 949.9 950.8 951.1 U. grate fan 6 m3/h 822.3 807.7 804.7 808.6 809.7 U. grate
fan 7 m3/h 481.7 480.7 472.0 487.2 488.2 U. grate fan 8 m3/h 501.6
500.3 500.7 502.2 502.6 U. grate fan 9 m3/h 500.6 500.1 500.4 502.1 502.2 Trend of
parameters Day wise:- Graph 6.1 Burning Zone Temperature Graph 6.2: O2/ CO trend
Graph 6.4: Cooler COMBINED TSR% Consumption(MT) TDT SP HT %TSR KILN
AFAGRIWASTE 634 0.476 0.0692 5.09 COAL MILL AFCARBONBLACK 21,310.72 31.983
4.649631 COAL MILL AFETPSLUDGE 6,714.85 2.074 0.301514 KILN AFGROUNDNUTHUSK
171 0.146 0.021225 KILN AFLIQUIDWASTE 49 0.014 0.002035 KILN AFPAINTSLUDE 165
0.18 0.026168 COAL MILL AFPHARMAWASTECT281 40.362 0.036 0.005234 KILN
AFSAWDUST 43 0.029 0.004216 KILN AFSOLIDWASTE 60 0.047 0.006833 COAL MILL
COALIMPORTED 30,068.74 46.459 6.754126 COAL MILL PETCOKENCGRADEA 298,538.31
606.417 88.15982 357,794.98 687.861 100 Table 6.6: Combined TSR Achieved Graph 6.5:
Precalciner SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VALUES OF EMISSION DURING TRIAL RUN OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE Stack Height: 100.3 m Stack Diameter:4.15 m Parameter UOM Pre
Trial Trial with Hazardous waste Post Trial Sr.No.
Average Range Average Range Average Range 1 Particulate Matter mg/Nm3 34.75 32.1
- 37.9 30.3 27.4 - 35.6 31.7 27.1-32.6 2 Sulphur dioxide mg/Nm3 10.275 9.3 - 11.3 7.0 6.4
- 7.5 7.5 7.2-7.9 3 Oxide of Nitrogen mg/Nm3 756.25 740 -770 728.2 713-746 746.25
730-760 4 Carbon Monoxide mg/Nm3 224 208 - 236 212.2 194-223 229.25 212-241 5
Hydrogen chloride as HCL mg/Nm3 22.675 20.3 - 24.6 16.5 12.6-20.3 17.175 15.4-19.2 6

Hydrogen fluoride as HF mg/Nm3 1.55 1.4 - 1.7 1.3 1.0-1.6 2.05 1.9-2.2 7 Total
Hydrocarbon mg/Nm3 178 172 - 184 161.7 152-176 162 158-166 8 Total volatile
organic compounds µg/Nm3 1.0 0.94 - 1.06 0.8 0.68-0.91 0.82 0.69-0.84 9 Total organic
carbon mg/Nm3 5.9 5.9 5.4 5.3-5.6 6.2 6.20 10 Poly nuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
µg/Nm3 0.405 0.39 - 0.42 0.3 0.22-0.32 0.38 0.37-0.39 11 Mercury mg/Nm3 0.01 0.01
0.008 0.007-0.010 0.017 0.02 12 Cd+TI (particulate phase) mg/Nm3 0.01 0.007 0.0055
0.005-0.006 0.006 0.01 13 Cd+TI (Vapour phase) mg/Nm3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 14 Total metals particulate phase (Cu+Co+Cr+Mn+Ni+Pb+As+Sb+V)
mg/Nm3 0.236 0.236 0.22 0.224-0.232 0.242 0.242 15 Total Metals Vapour phase
(Cu+Co+Cr+Mn+Ni+Pb+As+Sb+V) mg/Nm3 0.017 0.017 0.014 0.013-.016 0.029 0.029
16 Total Dioxins and Furans ng/Nm3 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.011-0.012 0.015 0.015 17
Cyanide as CN mg/Nm3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Table 6.5 :Average value
of all emission data.
BDL: Below Detection Limit Minimum Detection Limit for Total dioxins & Furans-0.01
pg/Nm? Minimum Detection Limit for Metals-0.0001 mg/Nm? Minimum Detection Limit
for SO?-3.2 mg/Nm? Minimum Detection Limit for VOCs & PAH-0.01µg/Nm? 6.3
COMPARASION OF EMISSION RESULT Graph 6.7: Particulate matter , HCL and HF Graph
6.8: Mercury ,Cd+TI and Total metals Graph 6.9: Dioxins & furans Graph 6.10: TOC
Material Testing Chemical composition of the raw meal, fuels and hazardous waste will
greatly influence the Quality of the flue gas emission from kiln/raw mill stack.
Sample of coal, hazardous waste, Clinker and raw meal collect during the trial run as per
CPCB guidelines. 6.4 MATERIAL ANALYSIS Table 6.6: HAZARDOUS WASTE- PROXIMATE
AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS Sr. No. Parameters UOM Hazardous waste Proximate Analysis
1 Moisture content % 19.29 2 Ash content % 2.53 3 Volatile matter % 54.07 4 Fixed
carbon % 24.11 Ultimate Analysis On Dry Basis 1 Carbon % 67.07 2 Hydrogen % 514 3
Nitrogen % 0.47 4 Sulphur % 0.59 5 Oxygen % 23.6 6 Gross Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 5589
7 Net Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 5317 8 Chlorine as Cl % 0.005 9 Fluorine as F mg/kg 53.2
Table 6.7: COAL (PET-COKE) - PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS Sr. No.
Parameters UOM PET COKE Proximate Analysis 1 Moisture content % 0.87 2 Ash content
% 1.49 3 Volatile matter % 10.83 4 Fixed carbon % 87.07 Ultimate Analysis On Dry Basis
1 Mineral Matter % 1.84 2 Carbon % 87.92 3 Hydrogen % 3.75 4 Nitrogen % 0.85 5
Sulphur % 4.06 6 Oxygen % 1.58 7 Gross Calorific Value Kcal/Kg 8056 8 Net Calorific
Value Kcal/Kg 7818 Table 6.8: RAW MEAL - CHEMICAL COMPOSITION Sr.No. Parameters
UOM RAW MEAL CHEMICAL COMPOSION RAW MEAL CHEMICAL COMPOSION RAW
MEAL CHEMICAL COMPOSION Pre Trial During Trial -Hazardous waste Post Trial 1
Fluoride as F mg/kg 10.3 10.5 11.2 2 Chlorine as Cl mg/kg 140 148 142 3 Sulphates as
SO? % 0.14 0.158 0.16 4 Aluminium as Al?O? % 1.13 1.30 1.38 5 Silica as SiO? % 10.2

11.12 12.4 6 Cadmium as Cd mg/kg 1.83 1.75 1.766 7 Chromium as Cr mg/kg 28.4 25.58
28.4 8 copper as Cu mg/kg 19.4 18.68 19.4 9 Cobalt as Co mg/kg 0.4 0.28 0.3
10 Manganese as Mn mg/kg 145 153.78 160.8 11 Nickel as Ni mg/kg 12.8 11.15 9.1 12
Lead as Pb mg/kg 16.4 17.64 18.4 13 Zinc as Zn mg/kg 66.84 68.96 74.2 14 Arsenic as As
mg/kg 0.34 0.31 0.2 15 Mercury as Hg mg/kg 0.42 0.62 0.73 16 Antimony as Sb mg/kg
4.7 4.84 5.2 17 Vanadium as V mg/kg 51.5 53.34 54.3 18 Tin as Sn mg/kg 2.8 2.78 2.9 19
Thallium as TI mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20 Selenium as Se mg/kg 1.1 0.86 0.9 21 Total
organic carbon % 0.02 0.02 0.02 22 Iron as Fe % 2.93 2.79 2.79 23 Iron as Fe?O? % 4.18
3.98 3.92 Table 6.9: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY LEVEL Ambient air quality has been studied
at three locations continuously throughout trial run period by installing Respirable dust
samplers at three locations.
The meteorology data during the study period is given below. Sr.No. Location PM 2.5
RSPM TSPM SO? No? 1 Near STP Colony area 19.1 53.6 161.7 12.4 14.9 Near Boundary
plant 20.5 52.1 156.2 13.8 15.4 Near Railway Yard 21.7 46.4 158.1 11.3 15.8 2 Near STP
Colony area 18.1 43.6 156.9 12.4 13.6 Near Boundary plant 22.6 47.2 145.8 12.9 14.5
Near Railway Yard 18.4 45.1 147.3 11.7 15.2 3 Near STP Colony area 23.5 44.3 159.0 12.2
14.8 Near Boundary plant 20.6 46.7 157.6 11.5 13.4 Near Railway Yard 21.7 43.2 159.6
11.6 15.5 4 Near STP Colony area 22.5 46.1 164.5 12.3 14.7 Near Boundary plant 21.2
45.3 158.1 11.9 13.3 Near Railway Yard 18.3 51.2 149.1 11.3 13.2 Range 18.1-23.5 43.2-
53.6 145.8-164.5 11.3-13.8 13.2-15.8
All Values are expressed in µg/m³ and 24 hours basis. Table 6.10: CLINKER - TCLP TEST
Sr. No. Parameters UOM Clinker Sample-1 Clinker Sample-2 Clinker Sample-3 Pre Trial
Trial with Hazardous waste Post Trial 1 Cadmium as Cd mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.01 0.02 0.02 3 copper as Cu mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 4 Iron as
Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 5 Cobalt as Co mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6 Manganese as Mn
mg/L 0.01 0.03 0.01 7 Nickel as Ni mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 8 Lead as Pb mg/L <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 9 Zinc as Zn mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 10 Arsenic as As mg/L <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 11 Mercury as Hg mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 12 Selenium as Se mg/L <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 13 Antimony as Sb mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 14 Vanadium as V mg/L 0.01 0.01
<0.01 15 Thorium as Th mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16 Tin as Sn mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
17 Fluoride mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 18 Cyanide mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 The quantity of
alternate fuel that are necessary to replace one ton of coal(pet-coke) depends on The
material's energy value and water content based on the average values reported in
below Table and assumed coal net calorific value(NCV) 7818 kcal/kg.
Fuels Energy value(kcal/kg) Water content PET COKE 7818 1-2% CARBON BLACK 5890
2-3% AFPLASTICWASTE 5092 3-5% AFPAINTSLUDE 4265 8-10% AFAGRIWASTE 2965 8-

12% AFETPSLUDGE 1150 30-45% Table 6.11: Tons/1ton coal replacement Month wise
usages of Alternate fuel consumption at ACW on TSR basis for CFY. 1. In the month of
July and August AF consumption are low due to Non availability of high CV AFR. 2. In
the month of Dec. we have take annual plant shutdown for Refractory maintenance
works. Graph 6.11: Budget vs actual consumption FUEL COST POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
Material NCV Cost kcal/kg Rs./MT PET COKE 7818 5300 SAW DUST 3050 2800
GROUNDNUT SHELL 3120 2800 WOODEN DUST 3019 2800 MIX AGRO WASTE 2965
2800 PLASTIC WASTE 5092 1800 ETP SLUDGE 1150 -450 CARBON BLACK 5890 4250
PAINT SLUDGE 4265 -2330 Table 6.11: Fuel/AFR cost positive & negative.
(-) INDICATE NEGATIVE COST 6.5 Emission Standards for hazardous Waste incinerators
(Now applied to co-processing cement kilns) Parameter UOM Emission standards
Procedures Particulate matter mg/Nm³kg/ton of clinker 50 0.125 Standard refers to half
hourly average value HCL mg/Nm³ 50 Standard refers to half hourly average value SO2
mg/Nm³ 200 Standard refers to half hourly average value Total organic carbon mg/Nm³
20 Standard refers to half hourly average value HF mg/Nm³ 4 Standard refers to half
hourly average value NOx (NO & NO2 expressed as NO2) mg/Nm³ 600 Standard refers
to half hourly average value Total dioxins and furans ng/Nm³ 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm³
Standard refers to 6-8 hours sampling.
Cd + Tl + their compounds mg/Nm³ 0.05 Standard refers to sampling time anywhere

between 30 minutes and 8 hours. Hg and its compounds mg/Nm³ 0.05 Standard refers
to sampling time anywhere between 30 minutes and 8 hours. Sb + As + Pb + Cr + Co +
Cu + Mn + Ni + V + their compounds mg/Nm³ 0.05 Standard refers to sampling time
anywhere between 30 minutes and 8 hours. Table 6.12: Emission norms. Alternate fuel
feeding system in ACW Photographs 6.1 :AFR system Paint sludge processing
INTERNET SOURCES:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1% - http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/25164/8/chapter%206.pdf
<1% -
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236333617_Reduction_of_gaseous_and_partic
ulate_emissions_from_small-scale_wood_combustion_with_a_catalytic_combustor
<1% - https://www.shareddocs.com/hvac/docs/1011/Public/0B/51351360802.pdf
<1% - https://www.lifewire.com/four-zero-ip-address-818384
<1% - https://epdf.pub/hvac-equations-data-and-rules-of-thumb-2nd-ed.html
<1% - https://es.scribd.com/document/193784865/i-Bd-20130711
1% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Barnet_F.C._season
<1% - https://www.benzlers.com/~radicon/_docs/Radicon-Series-AJ-Inch.pdf
<1% -

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/am/contracts/reports/ei/D
IAL.pdf
<1% -
https://www.thh.nhs.uk/documents/_Publications/BoardDocs/2019/HHFT_Board_27_11_
19_Part_1.pdf
<1% - https://www.marketscreener.com/X-FAB-SILICON-FOUNDRIES-S-
34491290/news/X-FAB-First-Quarter-2020-Results-30500548/
<1% - https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00068531/00018
<1% - https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9101XE14.TXT
<1% - https://www.marketscreener.com/ALTICE-EUROPE-N-V-23292458/news/Altice-
Europe-N-Q1-2020-Consolidated-Financial-Statements-30645097/
<1% - https://www.slideshare.net/LuisMoreno230/tabla-de-composicion-de-los-
alimetos-quimicos-del-incap
<1% - https://mafiadoc.com/vol-45-4-october-december-2011-issn-0047-8539-
_59ebfa7a1723dd3e0e1779bc.html
<1% - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221440/
<1% -
http://www.environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Online/TOR/19_Apr_2019_16161
5733AL0QDRPWAnnexure-VII-AdditionalInformation.pdf
<1% - http://megspcb.gov.in/Form/Schedule%20II%20(SWM).pdf
<1% - https://pl.glosbe.com/en/pl/half-hourly
<1% - https://www.scribd.com/presentation/159912485/Hazardous-Waste-
management


Draft Final Thesis

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

Draft Final Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alternative Fuel and Its Utilization for Cement

RAJIV GANDHI PRODHYOGIKI VISHWAVIDHYALAY

DAVINDER PAL SINGH

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

IPS ACADEMY INDORE

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 1

IPS ACADEMY INDORE

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 2

IPS ACADEMY INDORE

Mr. RAJESH KAUSHAL Mr. RAJESH KAUSHAL

Dr. Archana Keerti Chowdhary

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 3

In the name of God, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful.

Davinder Pal Singh

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 4

II. List of Tables 8

1.2 The Reasons Behind Using Alternative Fuels 11

1.3 The Cement Manufacturing Process 12

2. Objective of The Study 14

2.1 Main Objective to Use Alternative Fuels in Cement Industry 15

3. Literature Review & Survey 16

3.1 Literature Review Based On Alternative Fuels 17

3.2 Literature Survey 20

3.2.1 Some of The Alternative Fuels and Their Properties 22

3.3 Problems Faced While Using Alternative Fuels 29

3.4 Challenges While Using of Alternate Fuels to Meet out Targets 32

3.5 Impact of Alternative Fuels 37

4.1 Existing Co-Processing System at ACW 46

4.2 Major Initiative Taken 47

4.3 Key Technical Challenges and Action Taken 52

4.4 Criteria of Alternative Fuels 55

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 5

5.1 (A) Hazardous Waste/Alternative Fuel Used and Tested in

5.1 (B) Carbon Black as Alternative Fuel Firing Source in Cement

6. Results and Discussion 86

6.1 Material Testing Result and Discussion 87

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 6

S. No. Figure No. Description Page No.

1 1.1 Injection of AFR in Pyro System 12

2 1.2 Cement Manufacturing Process 13

3 3.1 Pyro System AFR Injection in PH and Kiln 24

6 3.4 Optimization of Kiln Operation With Emission 38

7 3.5 Coating Formation Due to Alkali Formation 38

8 4.1 AFR Development Process 45

9 4.2 AFR Introduction Workshop 45

10 4.3 Shredder Machine 48

11 5.1 Fuel Cost Contributes 57.16% of the Total Clinker Cost 64

12 5.2 Outline of Equipment & Process 65

13 5.4 Feasibility Study 74

15 5.6 Problem Identified 81

IES IPS ACADEMY INDORE 7

S. No. Table No. Description Page No.

1 3.2.1 Composition Wise Petcoke and Coal Comparison 22

2 3.2.2 Properties of Some of the Alternative Fuels 26

3 3.3 Ultimate and Proximate Analysis of Some of the Samples 28

4 3.4 Alternative Fuels Used as Per Their Quantities 29

5 3.5 A Typical AFR Composition Wise Requirement 32

6 3.6 Alternative Fuel Calorific Values 34

7 3.7 Emission Norms Trends 43

9 5.1 Project Matrix 69

10 5.2 Cost Economics 76

11 6.1 Kiln and Preheater Parameters 88