Process, quality, and energy optimizationPQ-002

Roller-press raw grinding replaced two ball-mill circuits

Siam City Cement Public Company · Factory 1, Saraburi, Thailand · 2020

Use this record when

The decision this case can inform

Use this record when evaluating a raw-grinding circuit replacement and constructing an acceptance test that holds throughput and product quality constant.

Evidence scope

KHD supplier report based on a 72-hour performance test. It supports the reported test result, not long-term availability, maintenance cost, or tariff-based annual savings.

Source-supported facts

What the public record actually establishes

4 sourced points
  1. F1

    One roller-press COMFLEX circuit replaced two older raw-meal ball-mill circuits.

  2. F2

    The circuit included an RP M 18–200/180 roller press, VS620 separator, LS8600 static separator, fan, and four cyclones.

  3. F3

    The 72-hour test achieved 350 tonnes per hour at 13.36 kWh per tonne.

  4. F4

    KHD reported a reduction greater than 8 kWh/t—nearly 40%—and an annual energy-cost claim of about €1.5 million.

Structured interpretation

Facts and reported results are kept separate from the lesson a plant may choose to test.

01

Operating context

Two aging raw-meal ball-mill circuits had high electrical demand.

02

Intervention or finding

A roller-press Comflex circuit replaced both circuits and completed a 72-hour performance test.

03

Documented result

Supplier reports 350 t/h at 13.36 kWh/t, more than 8 kWh/t lower, nearly 40% energy saving, and about EUR1.5 million lower annual energy cost.

04

Plant interpretation

Compare grinding systems at equal throughput and quality and preserve formal acceptance-test data.

05

Transfer boundary

Supplier-reported; no long-term series or tariff assumptions behind annual savings.

Before applying the lesson

Questions to verify at your plant

These are decision checks, not operating instructions. Resolve them through local risk assessment, technical review, and authorization.

  1. 01

    Are baseline and proposed circuits compared at the same feed, moisture, fineness, chemistry, recirculating load, and throughput?

  2. 02

    Does the acceptance test cover enough time and operating states to expose wear, vibration, plugging, and control constraints?

  3. 03

    Which auxiliary loads are inside the specific-energy boundary?

  4. 04

    Do the annual savings model use verified operating hours, production, demand charges, and local tariff assumptions?