TARGETS ACHIEVED – BLENDED CEMENTS WITH CHEMICAL ADDITIVES JORG M. SCHRABBACK MARKET FIELD MANAGER CEMENT ADDITIVES CEMENT MARKET IN ASIA PACIFIC DEMANDS VARY 1.  different economical situa2ons §  Regions §  Countries §  Companies §  Plants 2.  local challenges Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CEMENT MARKET IN ASIA PACIFIC POTENTIAL TARGETS More cement capacity & less energy consump2on §  with exisKng infrastructure §  meet fast economic growth Lower material cost & save resources §  be more compeKKve in a market §  Especially at overcapacity 1
2
Increase profitability & climate protec2on §  meet environmental regulaKons §  Shareholder value Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 3
CEMENT MARKET IN ASIA PACIFIC SOLUTION BLENDED CEMENT More cement capacity & less energy consump2on §  Higher plant output §  with exisKng kiln capacity Lower material cost & save resources §  Use of Limestone and Fly Ash §  Less quarying & processing Increase profitability & climate protec2on §  Less carbon dioxide emission §  Shareholder value Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 Blended Cement adds Value to Your Business N
I
W
:
N
WI
Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CEMENT MARKET IN ASIA PACIFIC CHALLENGES BLENDED CEMENTS General for all Blended Cement §  ProducKon rate §  Strength Development Special Challenge Fly Ash Cement §  Varying Rheology §  Carbon Bleeding Special Challenge Limestone Cement §  SKcky Cement Powder/Flowability §  High Water Demand Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CEMENT MARKET IN ASIA PACIFIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS FOR BLENDED CEMENT §  Enhance Strength Development §  Improve Grinding Process §  Adjust Powder Flowability §  Improve Workability §  Balance Rheology §  Suppress Carbon Bleeding Source: www.vicat.fr è compensate weaknesses Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 1
CASE STUDY: GRINDABILITY SituaKon: •  Sold out market (KA China) •  Clinker Factor 0.90 Target: •  Sell more cement (same quality) •  Reduce energy cost CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC GRINDABILITY = ENERGY COST = VOLUME Source: Sika 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 CompeKtor 300g/ton SikaGrind 300g/
ton ProducKon rate [t/h] 105 115 Spec. Energy [kWh/t] 41.1 37.3 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 Advantage Energy Cost Saving §  Energy Cost 0,085 USD/kWh §  Energy Cost for cement grinding CompeKtor = 3.51 USD/t SikaGrind-­‐700 XP= 3.19 USD/t §  Net Saving = 0.32 -­‐ 0.09 = 0.23 USD/t CompeKtor 0.8 US/t SikaGrind 1.1 USD/t Annual saving 690‘000 USD Advantage Addi2onal Volume §  Produc2on increase 9.5% vs CompeKtor §  Current Produc2on 3.0 mio tons/year §  New Produc2on 3.285 mio tons/year §  New Sales 285‘000 t/year Profit 10 USD/t Annually 2.85 mio USD Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC GRINDABILITY = ENERGY COST = VOLUME Situa2on §  Sold out market Target 3.0 Mta Plant §  Sell more cement (same quality) 1
Source: Sika Technical Solu2on §  9.5% ProducKon increase §  3.8 kWh/ton reduced energy consumpKon §  285‘000 t more producKon (higher sales volume) Economical Value §  Net Saving due to less Energy ConsumpKon 0.69 mio USD/year §  ContribuKon from addiKonal Sales 2.85 mio USD/year §  Total 3.54 mio USD higher profit è Target achieved! Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 2
CASE STUDY: STRENGTH SituaKon: •  Strong CompeKKon (KA China) •  Maintain cement sales Target: •  Reduced raw material cost •  Bemer compeKKveness CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC STRENGTH = RAW MATERIAL COST = SAVE RESOURCES Source: Sika 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 +4,0 MPa +2,4 MPa -­‐4% Clinker Reference CF 0.825 SikaGrind CF 0.825 SikaGrind CF 0.785 1d 12.2 14.6 12.4 28d 53.1 57.1 55.3 Advantage Raw Material Cost Saving §  Raw Material Cost, Clinker 35 USD/t, Limestone 5 USD/t, SikaGrind-­‐700 VP 2.0 USD/kg §  Saving with Clinker Replacement 4% Limestone = -­‐1.20 USD/t 0.3kg/t SikaGrind = +0.60 US/t §  Benefit 0.60 USD/t Annually 0.90 mio USD Advantage sell excessive Clinker §  Annual Produc2on 1.50 mio tons §  Clinker demand Currently 1.24 mio tons New situaKon 1.18 mio tons §  New Sales 60‘000 t saved clinker Profit 5 USD/t Annually 0.30 mio USD Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC STRENGTH = RAW MATERIAL COST = SAVE RESOURCES Situa2on §  Strong CompeKKon Target 1.5 Mta Plant §  Lower Raw material cost (same quality) Economical Value §  Net Raw Material Cost Saving 0.9 mio USD/year §  ContribuKon from Clinker Export 0.3 mio USD/year §  Total 1.2 mio USD higher profit 2
Source: Sika Technical Solu2on §  >2 MPa early Strength increase §  >4 MPa final Strength increase §  4% Clinker replacement by Limestone è Target achieved! Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 3
CASE STUDY: CLIMATE PROTECTION SituaKon: •  Strong CompeKKon (KA China) •  Environmental friendly company policy Target: •  Maximized profitability (same quality) •  Climate protecKon (reduced carbon footprint) CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC MODERN CEMENT ADDITIVE CONCEPT Physically
improved
Grinding and
separating
Efficiency
Production
increase
Chemically
accelerated
cement
hydration
Finer grinding @
Same production
Coarser grinding @
Same strength
Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 Strength
increase
CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC MODERN CEMENT ADDITIVE CONCEPT Physically
improved
Grinding and
separating
Efficiency
maximized
Production
increase
Chemically
accelerated
cement
hydration
Finer grinding @
Same production
Coarser grinding @
Same strength
Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 maximized
Strength
increase
CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC CLIMATE PROTECTION 3% 100 cm²/g Produc2on ≈ Blaine rate ≈ ≈ 2% 1 MPa Clinker ≈ Strength Factor +4,0 MPa +2,4 MPa 50 100 45 90 40 80 35 70 30 60 Source: Sika 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 110 +400cm²/g -­‐4% Clinker -­‐12% Clinker Reference CF0.825 SikaGrind CF0.825 SikaGrind CF0.785 SikaGrind CF0.705 1d 12.2 14.6 12.4 12.4 28d 53.1 57.1 55.3 55.3 Reference 3500 cm²/g SikaGrind 3430 cm²/g SikaGrind 3830 cm²/g ProducKon [t/h] 95 106 95 Energy [kWh/t] 41.1 37.3 41.1 Minimized Clinker & constant Produc2on §  Produc2on increase 12% ≈ Fineness increase 400 cm²/g ≈ Strength increase 4 MPa ≈ Clinker reduc2on 8% §  Addi2onal Saving 2.40 USD/t §  CO2 saving 0.83 x 0.12 = 0.10 tCO2/t CEM Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 25 CASE STUDY ASIA PACIFIC CLIMATE PROTECTION Situa2on §  Strong CompeKKon Target 1.5 Mta Plant §  bemer profitability (same quality) and/or maximized climate protecKon 3
Source: Sika Technical Solu2on §  Strength increase > 2 MPa Chemical acKvaKon ≈ 4 MPa Physical acKvaKon @ min. prod. §  12% Clinker replacement with Limestone §  150‘000 t less carbon dioxide emission Economical Value §  Net Saving Raw Material Cost 4.5 mio USD/year §  ContribuKon from Clinker Export 0.9 mio USD/year §  Total 5.4 mio USD higher profit è Target achieved! Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 F
CASE STUDY: FLY ASH SituaKon: •  Sold out market (KA InternaKonal) •  Several Fly Ash supplier with different qualiKes, costs and availabiliKes Target: •  Maximized use of Fly Ash to increase profitability (same quality) •  Avoid claims from concrete Industry CASE STUDY INTERNATIONAL FLY ASH CEMENT Source: Sika Advantage Reduce Claim Costs §  Poten2al Claims 3% of Annual ProducKon (1 mio t Cement => 30‘000 t) §  Value 1.8 mio USD (Sales Price 60 USD/t) 1.8 mio USD/1.0 mio t = 1.8 USD/t §  Saving = 1.8 -­‐ 1.5 = 0.3 USD/t SikaGrind 0.50 USD/t x 3 kg/t Annually 0.3 mio USD Advantage Cheaper FA Quality §  Fly Ash Cost (30% of Raw Material) Source 1 = 16 USD/t -­‐ Source 2 = 12 USD/t §  Value 4 USD/t x 0.30 = 1.20 USD/t §  Cement Addi2ve Cost – 0.82 USD/t 0.04% Enhancer 1.7 USD/kg = 0.68 USD/t 0.10% SikaGrind 1.5 USD/kg = 1.50 USD/t §  Saving 1.20 – 0.82 = 0.38 USD/t Annually 0.38 mio USD Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CASE STUDY INTERNATIONAL FLY ASH CEMENT Situa2on §  Challenging Opportuniy to save clinker cost Target 1.0 Mta Plant §  Avoid claims from concrete industry F Source: Sika Technical Solu2on §  Suppress Carbon bleeding with SikaGrind-­‐304 §  Balance variaKons in Workability with different Fly Ash Sources with SikaGrind FA-­‐58 Economical Value §  Save anually 0.30 mio USD Claim costs (suppressed carbon bleeding) §  Reduce Raw Material Cost by 0.38 mio USD/year with purchasing cheaper FA §  Total 0.68 mio USD higher profit è Target achieved! Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 L
CASE STUDY: LIMESTONE SituaKon: •  Market Demand for Limestone Cement (KA InternaKonal) Target: •  Maximized use of Limestone to increase profitability / reduce carbon footprint •  Ensure technical compeKKveness of cement regarding Powder Flowability and concrete workability CASE STUDY INTERNATIONAL LIMESTONE CEMENT 30 Pack set [-­‐] Average of different 25 compacKon frequencies 20 15 10 5 0 Blank 0,010% 0,025% 0,040% 200 Flow Table Spread [mm] 180 160 CEM II/A-­‐LL Customer 18% LS 0.03% Enhancer CEM II/B-­‐LL Customer 34% LS 0.20% SikaGrind LS-­‐43 CEM II/B-­‐LL Benchmark 29% LS 140 120 0 30 60 Advantage Easy Transporta2on/Storage §  Poten2al Claims 1% of Annual ProducKon (1 mio t Cement => 10‘000 t) §  Value 0.6 mio USD (Sales Price 60 USD/t) 0.6 mio USD/1.0 mio t = 0.6 USD/t §  Saving = 0.6 -­‐ 0.3 = 0.3 USD/t SikaGrind-­‐200 1.20 USD/t x 0.25 kg/t Annually 0.3 mio USD Advantage Good Workability of concrete §  Cost Limestone 5 USD/t –Clinker 35 USD/t Value 30 x (0.34-­‐0.18) = 4.80 USD/t §  Cement Addi2ve Cost – 3.06 USD/t 0.03% Enhancer 1.8 USD/kg = 0.54 USD/t 0.20% SikaGrind 1.8 USD/kg = 3.60 USD/t §  Saving 4.80 – 3.06 = 1.74 USD/t Annually 1.74 mio USD §  CO2 saving 0.83 x 0.16 = 0.13 tCO2/t CEM Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 CASE STUDY INTERNATIONAL LIMESTONE CEMENT Situa2on §  Opportuniy save clinker cost Target 1.0 Mta Plant §  Ensure technical compeKKveness esp. Powder handling / concrete workability Economical Value §  Save anually 0.3 mio USD Claim costs (reduced blockage in silo and vessels) §  Reduce Raw Material Cost by 1.74 mio USD/year with using high LS contents §  Total 2.04 mio USD higher profit L Source: Sika Technical Solu2on §  Reduced Pack-­‐Set / easy unloading of Silos and TransportaKon Vessels with SikaGrind-­‐200 §  Improved Workability with high Limestone content and SikaGrind LS-­‐43 §  130‘000 t less carbon dioxide emission è Target achieved! Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 TARGETS ACHIEVED – SUMMARY BLENDED CEMENT WITH CHEMICAL ADDITIVES Economy Sustainability §  Energy Cost §  Energy efficient §  Raw material Cost §  Resources efficient §  CO2 emission Cost §  Climate protecKon §  Increase sales volume §  Supply new cement types §  Reduce claim costs è Chemical Addi2ves allow to achieve the targets Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 Sika Adds Value to Your Cement N
I
W
:
N
WI
Targets Achieved – Blended Cements with chemical addiKves – Jorg M. Schrabback – Cemtech Asia 2014 

to download the pricelist in PDF-format

Download Presentation

Aldo Morselli INFN Roma Tor Vergata Dark Matter