Process, quality, and energy optimizationPQ-004

Model-predictive control on two cement mills

CCB · Cement operation, Belgium · reported 2024

Use this record when

The decision this case can inform

Use this record when evaluating model-predictive control on different cement-mill circuits and defining a credible, product-normalized benefit test.

Evidence scope

Rockwell Automation supplier case over a two-month reporting period. The source acknowledges that process and product changes complicated attribution.

Source-supported facts

What the public record actually establishes

4 sourced points
  1. F1

    The deployment covered a conventional ball mill and a roller-press pre-grind/ball-mill circuit.

  2. F2

    The stated targets were 3% lower specific energy and 3% higher production.

  3. F3

    The supplier reports more than 6% lower specific energy and nearly 8.5% higher production rate.

  4. F4

    Reported application availability was 97% during the evaluation period.

Structured interpretation

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

01

Operating context

Two cement mills needed lower variability, lower energy, and higher production.

02

Intervention or finding

Closed-loop model-predictive control was applied to a ball mill and a roller-press pre-grind/ball-mill circuit.

03

Documented result

Supplier reports more than 6% lower specific energy, nearly 8.5% higher production rate, and 97% availability over a two-month period.

04

Plant interpretation

Define baseline, product mix, constraints, service factor, availability, and quality guardrails before accepting an MPC claim.

05

Transfer boundary

Supplier-reported; changing processes and products complicated attribution.

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 comparisons normalized for cement type, additive rate, fineness, strength, feed grindability, and operating constraints?

  2. 02

    Is application availability separated from time when operators choose not to use closed-loop control?

  3. 03

    What quality and equipment-protection constraints can override the optimizer?

  4. 04

    Will a holdout, matched baseline, or other method distinguish controller benefit from product and process changes?