Fuel 145 (2015) 8499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Review article

Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement

manufacturing process
Azad Rahman , M.G. Rasul, M.M.K. Khan, S. Sharma
School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cement manufacturing is one of the leading energy consuming and heavy pollutant processes which is
Received 31 October 2013 accountable for CO2, NOX, SO2 emissions and some heavy metal discharge from the pre-calciner kiln sys-
Received in revised form 5 December 2014 tem. In past few decades there has been an enormous amount of researches to reduce the energy and
Accepted 10 December 2014
environmental cost by using alternative fuel and raw material. In recent years utilisation of alternative
Available online 22 December 2014
fuels in cement manufacturing has gained a wide attention due to its effectiveness in substituting the
thermal energy requirement from fossil fuels and reducing the pollutant emission. Alkaline environment,
Keywords:
high temperature and long residence time allow rotary kiln to burn a wide range of waste and hazardous
Cement
Alternative fuel
material. Recent development on the usage of alternative fuels in cement industry is presented in this
Kiln paper and many of the research articles relevant to this study is reviewed and discussed. Studies on
Emission the impact of alternative fuels on environmental emission have also been included in this review. This
paper provides a thorough understanding and status of alternative fuels and their usage in cement indus-
try 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%.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2. Cement manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.1. Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.2. Raw material preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.3. Preheating and precalcining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.4. Kiln. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.5. Clinker cooling and final grinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.6. Storage and transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3. Alternative fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.1. Advantages and disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2. Criteria of alternative fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3. Usage of alternative fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4. Classification of alternative fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.1. Used tyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.2. MSW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3. Spent pot liner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.4. MBM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.5. Plastic waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.rahman2@cqu.edu.au (A. Rahman), m.rasul@cqu.edu.au (M.G. Rasul), m.khan@cqu.edu.au (M.M.K. Khan), s.sharma2@cqu.edu.au (S. Sharma).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.029
0016-2361/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 85

4.6. Sewage sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4.7. Solvent and spent oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.8. Agricultural biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.9. Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5. Discussion and recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.1. Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.2. Substitution rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3. Emission factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.4. Storage handling and installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.5. Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.6. Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

1. Introductions US and Europe. Over the years, the burning of non-hazardous

The production of cement consumes large quantities of raw mate-
rials and energy (thermal and electricity). The manufacturing process
is very complex, involving a large number of raw materials (with
varying material properties), pyroprocessing techniques, and a vari-
ety of fuel sources. This process requires approximately 3.26.3 GJ
of energy and 1.7 tons of raw materials (mainly limestone) per ton
(t) of clinker produced [1,2]. Being an energy intensive industry, ther-
mal energy accounts for about 2025% of the cement production cost
[3]. The typical electrical energy consumption of a modern cement
plant is about 110120 kW h per tonne of cement. In the process ther-
mal energy is used mainly during the burning, while maximum share
of electrical energy is used for cement grinding [3].
Generally fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum coke (petcoke) and
natural gas provide the thermal energy required for cement indus-
try. Due to environmental concerns, many researchers tried differ-
ent alternative operating option for coal red plant. To reduce the
emission from coal red plant different CO2 capture technology
can be adopted. Among them oxy-fuel combustion could be a via-
ble option for cement industry. In oxy-fuel combustion technique
primary fuel coal is burnt in oxygen rather than air with recycled
ue gas [4,5]. Oxy-fuel combustion could potentially reduce the
NOX emission [4,6,7]. But it could also present some problem
regarding the quality of the clinker since the carbon content of
the y-ash may increase in this process. An increase of SO2 in the
ue gas is also reported [4]. ECO-Scrub technology is another
option which is a combination of partial oxy-fuel combustion
and post combustion capture [7]. ECO-Scrub technology has been
studied for large scale boiler and similar results of reduced NOX
emission was reported [8]. These CO2 capture technology are only
good to reduce the emission of CO2 and NOX but cannot ensure the
quality of clinker and reduction of some heavy metal emission.
Utilisation of alternative fuel offers cement manufacturer a better
option to reduce the emission as well as to reduce the usage of fos-
sil fuel. Increasing fossil fuel price is another reason for the cement
producers to lean towards the alternative fuel to achieve the most
economic and environment friendly fuel mix. In this perspective,
the term alternative fuels stands for all non-fossil fuels and
waste from other industries including tyre-derived fuels, biomass
residues, sewage sludge and different commercial and industrial
wastes [9].
At the beginning of the 1950s scrap tyres were used in Germany
for the rst time as a secondary energy source in the cement indus-
try [10]. The two worldwide economic recessions during 1980
1982 and 19901991, directed many cement manufacturer to
reduce their operational cost. As fuel cost covered a major part of
production cost, the use of alternative fuel became attractive for
achieving economic benets. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a
number of hazardous waste fuels were burnt in cement plants at
waste fuels such as tyres also became well established and
accepted as an alternate fuel in the industry [11].
A wide range of alternative fuel sources can be used in cement
industries. Cement rotary kiln is able to burn a wide range of mate-
rials due to the long residence times at high temperatures, intrinsic
ability of clinker to absorb and lock contaminants such as heavy
metals into the clinker and the alkaline environment of the kiln.
Materials like waste oils, plastics, waste tyres and sewage sludge
(SS) are often offered as alternative fuels for the cement industry.
Meat and bone meal (MBM) is another potential alternative fuel
for cement industry which is produced from the slaughterhouse
residues [12]. Apart from this, agricultural biomass, industrial
waste and spent pot linings [13], are recently identied alternative
fuels for cement industry.
Beside the economical benet environmental advantage can be
archived by substituting alternative fuels in the cement industry
through the reduction of waste disposal sites. Main concern of
using alternative fuel in cement industry is the pollutant emission.
Cement industry is accountable for 56% releases of all carbon
dioxide generated by human activities, which causes about 4% of
global warming [14]. Emission of CO, NOX and SO2 from the cement
industry contributes severe greenhouse and acid rain effects [15].
Heavy metal emission from the cement industry is another envi-
ronmental concern and need to be controlled by appropriate mea-
sures. It is necessary to consider the environmental impact prior to
adaptation and implementation of any alternative fuel.
The objective of this study was to review the available literature
on different types of alternative fuel used in cement industry and
their possible impact on the environment. Generally alternative
fuels are selected for cement manufacturing on the basis of their
availability in a particular region hence most of the studies were
based on the type of waste and fuel available locally. Major alter-
native fuels in cement industry have been included in this review
along with their level of application internationally, efciency, bar-
rier and the environmental impacts. A brief comparison of these
fuels has been summarized which could be useful for experts in
alternative fuels, cement producers and other researcher. On the
basis of the comparison, meat and bone meal (MBM) is suggested
to be best alternative fuel option for Australia while municipal
solid waste (MSW) could be the second best option due to their
availability.
2. Cement manufacturing process
The main process routes for the manufacture of cement vary
with respect to equipment design, method of operation and fuel
consumption [16]. The four basic processes can be classied as
follows:
86 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499
Limestone Homogenizaon
quarrying silo
Classicaon Separaon
Prehomo-
genizaon
Crushing
Raw mill
Preheang of
raw meal in
cyclones
Fig. 1. Cement manufacturing process [12].
 Dry process: Dry raw meal is fed to a cyclone preheater or pre-
calciner kiln.
 Semi-dry process: Dry raw meal is pelletised with water and fed
to a traveling grate preheater prior to the rotary kiln.
 Semi-wet process: Raw slurry is rst dewatered in lter pro-
cesses. The resulting lter cake is either extruded into pellets
and fed to a traveling grate preheater or fed directly to a lter
cake drier for (dry) raw meal production prior to a preheater/
precalciner kiln.
 Wet process: The raw slurry is fed directly to a long rotary kiln
equipped with an internal drying/preheating system [17].
Cement companies have tended to phase out older, less efcient
wet and long dry kilns and replaced them with new kilns that use
more efcient processes and technologies such as pre-heating, pre-
calcining. New installations have come on stream in emerging
markets, with high efciency and high clinkerblending factors
[18]. In 201213, pre-calciner kilns accounted for over 90% of total
clinker production in the Australian cement industry. Vertical shaft
kilns are still used in some parts of the world, predominately in
China, to produce cement. A shaft kiln essentially consists of a large
drum set vertically with a packed mixture of raw material and fuel
traveling down through it under gravity [19].
The basic chemistry of the cement manufacturing process
begins with calcination, the decomposition of calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) at about 900 C to leave calcium oxide (CaO, lime) and lib-
erate gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2). This is followed by the clinker-
ing process in which the calcium oxide reacts at high temperature
(typically 14001500 C) with silica, alumina and ferrous oxide to
form the silicates, aluminates and ferrites of calcium which com-
prise the clinker. The clinker is subsequently ground together with
gypsum and other additives to produce cement. A schematic dia-
gram of cement manufacturing is given in Fig. 1 [12] which con-
tains the processes from initial quarrying through to the
shipment of the nal product. Cement manufacturing in a pre-
heaterprecalciner kiln system basically includes the following
steps.
2.1. Quarry
Natural raw materials such as limestone/chalk, marl, and clay/
shale are extracted from quarries which, in most cases, are located
close to the cement plant. After extraction, these raw materials are
crushed at the quarry site and transported to the cement plant for
intermediate storage, homogenisation and further preparation
[17].
Clinker
Dust store
Cement
mills
Rotary Kiln
Cement in bulk
Bagged
cement
2.2. Raw material preparation
After intermediate storage and pre-homogenisation, the raw
materials are dried and ground together in dened and well-con-
trolled proportions in a raw mill to produce a raw meal for the
dry process. Raw meal is stored and further homogenized in raw
meal silos to achieve and maintain the required uniform chemical
composition before entering the kiln system [17].
2.3. Preheating and precalcining
Preheating is adopted only in dry production process. Here the
blended raw meal is passed through the pre-heater tower which
consists of a series of vertical cyclone, through which the raw
material is passed from the top to bottom. Hot air is driven from
the bottom by a precalciner to pre heat the meal about 1000
1200 C [20]. To pump more heat into the pre treatment phase,
additional fuel is burnt in precalciner with air from the clinker
cooling stage.
2.4. Kiln
In next stage raw materials enter in the huge rotating furnace
called a kiln. The rotary kiln is an inclined steel tube with a length
to diameter ratio between 10 and 40. The slight inclination (2.5
4.5%) together with the slow counter-current rotation (0.54.5 rev-
olutions per minute) allow for a material transport sufciently long
to achieve the thermal conversion processes required [17]. Gases
and solids ow in opposite directions through the kiln, providing
more efcient heat transfer. The raw meal is fed at the upper or
cold end of the rotary kiln, and the slope and rotation cause the
meal to move toward the lower or hot end. The kiln is red at
the hot end, usually with coal or petroleum coke as the primary
fuel. As the meal moves through the kiln and is heated, it under-
goes drying and pyro-processing reactions which causes chemical
and physical changes to form the clinker, consisting of lumps of
fused, incombustible material.
2.5. Clinker cooling and nal grinding
The clinker leaves the hot end of the kiln at a temperature of
about 1400 C. It falls into a clinker cooler, typically a moving grate
through which cooling air is blown. The clinker is ground with gyp-
sum and other additives, usually in a ball mill, to produce the nal
product cement. The different cement types have to be stored
separately in cement silos prior to bagging and dispatch.
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 87

2.6. Storage and transportation tional fuels by alternative fuels inherently requires investment
costs associated with adjustment or replacement of a burner,
The cement is conveyed from the nish cement mill to large, implementation of alternative fuel delivery systems, new fuel stor-
vertical storage silos in the pack house or shipping department. age facilities, and fuel distribution systems [26].
Usually processed cement is transported in bulk through a heavy
trucks, rails and barge. Only a small amount of cement is bagged
and sent for retail sale using transport methods that are sometimes 3.2. Criteria of alternative fuels
same as bulk transport [20].
By far there are no selection criteria for the alternative fuels in
cement industry. The specic criteria that a material must meet in
3. Alternative fuels order to be considered as a fuel are typically set by the cement pro-
ducers according to their own standards. The following criteria are
Most natural and articial materials have some energy value example of few standards [27,3]:
which could be utilised by the cement industry to meet the
requirement of the thermal energy. The use of alternative fuels  Physical state of the fuel (solid, liquid, gaseous).
for cement clinker production is certainly of high importance for  Content of circulating elements (Na, K, Cl, S).
the cement manufacturer as well as for the environment. Alterna-  Toxicity (organic compounds, heavy metals).
tive fuel utilisation in cement industry takes places on a commer-  Composition and content of ash and content of volatiles.
cial basis during the mid of 1980s. Over these years usage has  Caloric value over 14.0 MJ/kg.
increased and almost 100% alternative fuel ring at the precalciner  Chlorine content less than 0.2% and sulphur content less
stage was very quickly achieved [21]. Utilisation of alternative than 2.5%.
fuels in cement kilns is still progressing. In some kilns up to  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) content less than 50 ppm,
100% substitution rates have been reported, while the others are heavy-metals content less than 2500 ppm [out of which: mer-
facing some barriers such as environmental, social and quality cury (Hg) less than 10 ppm, and total cadmium (Cd), thallium
issues. In any case, alternative fuel utilisation requires the adapta- (Tl) and mercury (Hg) less than 100 ppm].
tion of the combustion process. Modern multi-channel burners and  Physical properties (scrap size, density, homogeneity).
thermograph systems allow to control alternative fuel feed rate  Grinding properties.
and the ame shape to optimize the burning behaviour of the fuels  Moisture content.
[21].  Proportioning technology.
In order to choose the most suitable alternative fuel several  The emissions released.
facts other than the energy value must be considered. Generally  The cement quality and its compatibility with the environment
the cement producers choose the alternative fuel on basis of price must not decrease.
and availability. But it is also necessary to know the composition of  Alternative fuels must be economically viable.
the fuel including the xed carbon, moisture and volatiles con-  Availability.
tents. All kinds of varieties from liquid to solids, powdered or as
big lumps need to be considered when dealing with alternative The production of clinker requires an even combustion of fuels
fuels. It requires a exible fuel feeding whether they are fed to maintain consistent heating of the raw materials. Considering
directly into the burning zone in the kiln itself or into the pre-heat- these requirements, the fuels must be processed and conditioned
ing system [12]. Thus the fuel material should be cost effective to have the following characteristics [28]:
easy to handle, easy to store, longer storage life; else modifying
the design of the manufacturing plant may discourage the usage  Even particle size distribution.
of such fuel because it may not be cost effective.  High and uniform caloric value.
 Free of detrimental contents like some metals, glass, and
3.1. Advantages and disadvantages minerals.
 Low moisture content.
Alternative fuels are cheaper than the fossil fuels which lead the
cement industries to use them in optimal proportion. The maxi-
mum benet can be achieved when the alternative fuel is used 3.3. Usage of alternative fuel
with minimal preparation [22]. The signicant advantage of alter-
native fuel substitution is the utilisation and preservation of non- The cement manufacturing industry is under increasing pres-
renewable energy sources, conservation of environment and sure from the environmental protection agencies to reduce the
reduction of waste disposal sites [23]. Alternative fuels can also emissions. The usage of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing
supplement the raw material requirement in cement production.
For instance, the steel belts in tyres may be used to replace a por-
tion of the iron required in the raw materials [12].
Switching from conventional fuels to alternatives fuels presents Table 1
several challenges as they have different characteristics compared Usage of alternative fuels in different countries.
to the conventional fuels. Poor heat distribution, unstable precal- Country or region % Country or %
ciner operation, blockages in the preheater cyclones, build-ups in Substitution region Substitution
the kiln riser ducts, higher SO2, NOX, and CO emissions, and dusty Australia (2013) 7.8 Germany (2010) 53.6
kilns are some of the major challenges which need to be addressed Japan (2012) 15.5 EU (2012) 18
[24]. One potential constraint on the implementation of alternative Sweden (2011) 45 Poland (2010) 45
fuels is the nal clinker composition since the combustion Switzerland (2012) (only 41 Spain (2011) 22.4
Holciem)
by-products are incorporated into clinker. If even one of these Netherlands (2011) 85 Belgium (2011) 60
compounds/elements affects the quality of the cement, the very Canada (2008) 11.3 USA (2004) 8
benets derived may disappear [25]. The replacement of tradi-
88 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499

Table 2
Percentage of different type of waste used as alternative fuel [38].

Waste type used as alternative fuel (%) Holcim group Cemex group Heidelberg group Italcementi group Lafarge group
(2011) (2011) (2011) (2011) (2011)
Waste oil 5 3.7 8.5 22.1
Solvent and liquid waste 11 4.7 21.9
Tyres 10 16 11.6 14.9 19.7
Impregnated sawdust 6
Plastic 9 26.4 4.7 33.1
Industrial and household waste (solid) 65 13.8
Industrial waste and other fossil based fuel 30
MBM 2 4 6.1 15.7
Agricultural waste 9 10 4.2 11.1
Wood chip and other biomass 15 5 24.5 25.1
Sewage sludge 2 4.2 1.7
RDF 7.8
Other alternative fuel 14.6

not only helps to reduce the emission but also has signicant 4.1. Used tyre
ecological benets of conserving non-renewable resources [23].
The substitution rate of fossil fuel by alternative fuels varies from End life tyre is a waste from automobile industry and generally
country to country. Most of the European countries are way ahead disposed off in landlls or stockpiles. Landlling or stockpiling
in the usage percentage of alternative fuels than the rest of the tyres have potential environmental, safety and health hazards like
world. The substitution rate of different countries collected from rodent and insect infestation. In mid 80s tyre became very popular
different source is given in Table 1 [2937]. to the cement manufacturer as alternative fuel to cope with the
Worlds leading cement producers are currently using alterna- increasing fossil fuel costs. High carbon content, high heating value
tive fuels in a large extent and pursuing to increase it even more of 35.6 MJ/kg [39] and low moisture content make tyre derived fuel
by 2020. Conventional fossil fuel substitution rate and the percent- (TDF) one of the most used alternative fuels in cement industry
age of different alternative fuels usage by different cement produc- around the world. Tyre derived fuel (TDF) costs are signicantly
tion group are available in their sustainable development reports. lower than natural gas costs and the overall unit cost of tyre
Table 2 summarizes the percentage of different wastes which are derived fuel is even less than the coal. Using whole tyres as fuel
currently being used as alternative fuels in ve selected leading one will receive a tipping fee for collecting the whole scrap tyres
cement producer groups [38]. Cemex group are currently using which will help offset the transportation costs [40]. Reinforced
industrial and household waste as the primary source of their wires of tyres can be consumed as a replacement of raw material
alternative fuels. Heidelberg, Holcim and Italcementi group are containing iron [39] when the whole tyre is used as alternative
using range of alternative fuels but Lafarge group is utilising only fuel. Puertas and Blanco-Varela [41] reported that there exist no
four types of alternative fuels, namely waste tyre, industrial liquid signicant differences in the chemical composition of the clinker
waste, industrial and household solid waste and Agricultural Bio- manufactured by using TDF as opposed to fossil fuel. Different form
mass. It is also found from Table 2 that most common alternative of tyre, from whole to ne grained, can be used in cement kiln as
fuel used is tyres which are utilised by most of the manufacturing alternative fuel. The ne grained tyre (crumb) can be fed along
groups [38]. with powdered coal directly but removal of the steel from tyre to
produce crumb is costly. Tyre chip can be fed mechanically and
the feed rate can be controlled. Down side of tyre chip is the cost
4. Classication of alternative fuel and the steel wires which cause trouble during handling. Whole
tyres do not require any processing cost in addition to the acquisi-
A wide range of materials can be considered as viable alterna-
tive fuels in cement industry. Mokrzycki and Uliasz-Bochenczyk Table 4
[27] have categorized alternative fuels based on their physical Ultimate analysis of tyres and coal by percentage of weight [43].
and chemical properties. Table 3 shows a number of alternative Fuel type Passenger tyres Truck tyres TDF Bituminous coal
fuels that have been successfully burned in cement kilns according
Heating value (kJ/kg) 36,774 34,743 36,414 31,475
to their physical state [12]. The major alternative fuels according to
their uses in cement industry have been discussed along with their Weight percentage (wt.%)
Carbon 89.48 89.65 89.51 75.8
application rate, efciency, barrier and the environmental impacts.
Hydrogen 7.61 7.50 7.59 5.1
The chemical composition of the alternative fuels is an important Oxygen <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 8.2
factor which needs to be considered before engaging any of those Nitrogen 0.27 0.25 0.27 1.5
alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process. The available Sulphur 1.88 2.09 1.92 1.6
Chlorine 0.07 0.06 0.07 Not listed
data from literature are presented as comprehensive form to
Ash 3.9 5.5 4.2 7.8
enable researchers to have a better understanding and to compare.

Table 3
Alternative fuel options for the cement industry [12].

Liquid waste Industrial chemical wastes, waste solvents, used oils, paint waste, oil sludge, distillation residues, wax suspensions, tar, petrochemical waste, asphalt
fuels slurry
Solid waste Used tyre, paper waste, plastic residues, spent cell liner (SPL), meat and bone meal (MBM), sewage sludge, municipal solid waste (MSW), agricultural
fuels biomass (green waste, wood waste, nut shells, rice husk, etc.), refuse derived fuel (RDF), rubber residues, pulp sludge, battery cases, oil-bearing soils
Gaseous waste Landll gas, pyrolysis gas
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 89

Air emissions:
1 kg dust
1 ton of scrap Co-incineration in
100 kg CO
tyre s cement kiln 7 kg NOx
140 kg SO2

Fig. 2. Air emission data for burning tyre [48].

tion costs. Transportation, storage and management of whole tyres 4.2. MSW
require more logistical care and more manual labour and difcult
to automate [42]. The compositions of tyres vary depending upon Municipal solid waste (MSW) constitutes a complex and very
the source and levels of bracing material within the tyre or tyre variable fuel due to their heterogeneous composition [53]. Its
chips. Ultimate analysis on weight percentage of passenger car tyre physical or chemical properties cannot be determined reliably
and Truck tyres in comparison with bituminous coal are given in [54]. Still the availability of the MSW makes it one of the most
Table 4 [43]. It is found that heating values of tyre are higher than desirable alternative fuels in cement manufacturing. Table 5 sum-
bituminous coal. marizes the MSW generation rate from different countries [55].
Though the use of scrap tyres in cement kilns reduces fossil fuel Refuse derived fuel (RDF) is the homogenous portion of MSW
consumption, it was intensively studied for its environmental and preferred as alternative fuel due to their high caloric value
impact. Contradictory results exist for SO2 and NOX emissions low moisture content. In late 80s Dorn [56] presented a research
while using TDF in cement manufacturing. Prisciandaro et al. work indicating the pros and cons of using municipal waste as
[44] reported that SO2 and NOX emissions increase in an Italian alternative fuel in cement industry. At that point it was really dif-
cement plant while replacing TDF up to 20% of fossil fuel. In con- cult to predict the future trend of energy utilisation in cement
trast Carrasco et al. [45] found a decrease in NOX emissions but industry and it was predicted that RDF may not be a feasible option
an increase in SO2 while studying Canadian cement factory that as alternative fuel due to uncertain supply of waste. Over the time
used coal and scrap tyres. Schrama et al. [46] and Lemarchand as the world population grows the excess amount of MSW become
[47] reported that the emission of NOX decreased when whole an environmental concern and cement industry seize that opportu-
tyres are used as alternative fuel. A schematic data of air emission nity to replace coal by the alternative fuel MSW. In 1990 Haley [57]
while burning 1 ton of scrap tyre is shown in Fig. 2 [48]. The gure presented a cost benet analysis of burning RDF in a cement kiln
states the amount of pollutant emission that will be increased if 1 which encouraged the cement producer even more to choose
ton of scrap tyres are co-incinerated with the traditional fossil fuel. RDF as alternative fuel.
Fig. 3 represents a schematic diagram of process involving in Cement kilns is potentially the best option over incineration of
cement industry while using tyre as alternative fuel [49]. The dia- MSW in thermal power plant and co-combustion in a biomass
gram indicates the saving of coal and iron minerals as input combustor [58]. During incineration of MSW toxins and heavy
materials. metals are produced which can leach into the water supply and
Contrasting results are also available in terms of metal and
dioxin & furan emissions. In real plant scenario, Conesa et al. [50]
showed that dioxin and furan emissions increased while using Table 5
scrape tyre as alternative fuel. By contrast, Carrasco et al. [45] Waste generation in selected countries in 2005 [55].
found that using scrap tyres in cement kilns reduced the amount Countries Total amount of MSW generation MSW generation rate (kg/
of dioxins and furans emitted. However, Prisciandaro et al. [44] (1000 tonnes) capita/day)
reported that the emissions of dioxins & furans remained USA 222,863 2.05
unchanged (and well below the limit). CO emissions in most cases France 33,963 1.48
are found higher (average 35% higher) [51] when TDF is used. HCl Germany 49,563 1.64
emission was also found to be higher than normal [45]. It is found Denmark 3900 2.03
Switzerland 4855 1.78
the emission of Zinc, which is added to tyres during rubber com-
Poland 9354 0.68
pounding to control the rate of vulcanization, has the potential to Portugal 5009 1.29
increase [52]. Hungary 4632 1.26
Mexico 36,088 0.93
Japan 51,607 1.10
Korea 18,252 1.04
China 212,100 0.98

Table 6
Typical composition of MSW by material [61].

Material Percentage by weight Percentage by volume

Pulp and paperboard 37.5 37.0
Glass 6.7 2.3
Ferrous metals 6.3 8.8
Aluminium 1.4 3.1
Plastics 8.3 18.3
Rubber and leather 2.4 5.8
Textiles 2.8 5.4
Wood 6.3 5.9
Food wastes 6.7 2.7
Yard wastes 17.9 9.2
Other 3.7 1.5
Fig. 3. Tyre as alternative fuel in cement manufacturing [49].
90 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499
soil. With energy recovery in cement manufacturing, these sub-
stances are partially transferred to the clinker [59]. Diversion from
landll is another aspect of using MSW in cement industry. A
major concern of using MSW in cement kiln is the varying heating
value and moisture content due to the heterogeneous composition
of MSW. Depending on these MSW can be substituted up to 30% of
the fuel mix in cement manufacturing [53,60]. Generally MSW
contains various component including plastic, paper rubber, wood
and textile. Table 6 [61] shows a typical composition of MSW
regarding different material by weight percentage and volume
percentage.
Refuse derived fuel (RDF) can be produced from MSW through a
number of processes consisting [62]:
 Separation at source.
 Sorting or mechanical separation.
 Size reduction (shredding, chipping and milling).
 Separation and screening.
 Blending.
 Drying and palletising.
 Packaging.
 Storage.
The municipal solid waste is initially screened to remove the
recyclable fraction such as metals, the inert fractions such as glass
and separate the ne wet decomposable fraction (e.g. food and gar-
den waste). Then MSW can be dried and pelletised to form dense
RDF. A ow diagram of RDF manufacturing is given in Fig. 4 [53].
MSW typically has a caloric value of 811 MJ/kg, while the calo-
ric value of RDF ranges from 15 to 20 MJ/kg [42]. Typical chemical
composition of MSW and RDF is presented in Table 7 [58]. Gener-
ally belt conveyer and pneumatic channel is used to feed MSW or
Fig. 4. RDF manufacturing ow diagram [53].
Table 7
Chemical composition of MSW and RDF [58].
Component MSW dry solids % RDF dry solids %
Carbon 34.88 47.1
Hydrogen 4.65 7.1
Nitrogen 1.02 0.7
Sulphur 0.15 0.24
Chlorine 1.02 0.6
Oxygen 23.11 29.4
Moisture 31.2 15
VM 64.83 82.06
Ash 35.17 10.9
Heating value 15.4 MJ/kg 21.2 MJ/kg
RDF directly to the burning zone. A schematic diagram of RDF feed-
ing system is illustrated in Fig. 5 [63].
From environmental point of view, SOX emissions increase
when MSW is utilised in cement kiln in contrast with the other dis-
posal option of MSW [58]. Still the emission of SOX is way below
the environmental regulation limit. On contrary, Genon and Brizio
[64] reported that the nitrogen and sulphur contents are lower in
MSW than the fossil fuels, meaning less emission of NOX and
SO2. The use of MSW implies a reduction of the use of fossil fuels
which leads to a net reduction in CO2 and CO emissions in compar-
ison to fossil fuel combustion [27,6466]. Poor incineration and
MSW components containing chlorine may lead to highly toxic
dioxin and furan emissions [67]. Actually chlorine content in
MSW is higher than fossil fuel which might be the reason for
higher dioxin and furan emissions [64]. The study by Mokrzyckia
et al. [27] shows that the quality of the MSW can affect the HCl
emission. Among the heavy metal, an increase in mercury emis-
sions has been reported in MSW [64]. Overall the substitution of
MSW as alternative fuel has a positive effect on greenhouse gas
formation over traditional schemes. The formation of conventional
gaseous pollutants, such as sulphur and chlorine are well retained
by the alkaline environment of cement kiln [64]. The generation of
nitrogen oxides can be reduced by lowering ame temperatures
and decreasing excess air.
4.3. Spent pot liner
Spent pot lining (SPL) is a solid waste produce from aluminium
industry during the manufacture of aluminium metal in electro-
lytic cells. In the process of aluminium production, alumina is dis-
solved in Cryolite in electrolytic cells which consist of steel shells
lined with carbon. A schematic gure of a single electrolysis cell
is given in Fig. 6 [68]. A number of pots, usually more than 100,
are arranged in series to form a potline. The lining of the cell is
composed of carbon, which is backed by insulation and contained
within a steel container called a potshell. The carbon portion of the
lining serves as the cathode for the electrolysis process. After a cer-
tain period the cell lining become impregnated with uoride-con-
taining salts. Then the cell is taken off-line and the cathode lining
material is removed from the potshell by mechanized digging
equipment. This spent cathodic material is referred to as spent
pot lining (SPL). The life cycle of a cathode typically varies from
about 310 years [69].
Prior to 1988 two cement kilns utilised SPL as a fuel and their
stack emissions testing indicated that the cyanides were destroyed
and very little of the uoride was emitted [70]. But some problem
was identied with the feed system as SPL is a very hard material
compared to coal. In 1988 SPL was classied as a hazardous mate-
rial which ended the usage of SPL as alternative fuel [71]. Several
research work have been carried out to identify a proper detoxify-
ing method for SPL, but currently only one is in full commercial
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 91

Fig. 5. RDF feeding system into kiln [63].

average), safe handling and transportation could be an issue [69].

SPL is highly water reactive and it can generate ammonia, meth-
ane, hydrogen and heat on contact with humid air [77]. The ner
the material is ground for injecting it into a cement kiln, the
greater the potential for hazardous gas release. So, extra precau-
tions are required when handling SPL.

4.4. MBM

In 1994 European Union banned both the use of meat and bone
meal (MBM) as cattle feed and the land lling due to the BSE
pathogens (publicly known as mad cow disease). This ban
increased the interest in using MBM as fuel in cement industry
to ensure that any living organism is thermally destroyed and its
energy potential is utilised [24]. Now a days most cement produc-
ers started using MBM in a large extent (Table 2). In France about
Fig. 6. Schematic sketch of electrolysis cell [68].
45% of the annual productions of MBM were burnt in cement
plants [78]. The availability of MBM is higher than most of the
other alternative fuel commonly used in cement kiln [79]. The
feeding rates of MBM in cement kilns vary from country to country.
operation [72]. That opened up the opportunity to use SPL in
For example, in Spain the limit is 15% of the energy needed in the
cement kiln and the cement producer seized that.
kilns, but there is no limit in Switzerland [80].
In 2010, U.S.-generated SPL was recycled up to 79% in cement
MBM has caloric value (lower heating value, LHV) of 14.47 MJ/
kilns [73]. 7449 tonnes of spent pot lining (SPL) were recycled in
kg [81] which is almost half of the coal. The high content of calcium
Australia in the year 2009 and most of them were used in cement
in MBM offers the advantage of reducing SO2 emission as it could
manufacturing as alternative fuel [74]. Canada generated a com-
act to retain most of SO2 formed during MBM combustion [24].
bined 17,400 metric tons of SPL in three smelters in 2010, of which
Presence of excess amount of calcium can produce free lime while
90% was recycled mainly as valuable raw material and an alterna-
burning in cement kiln which may affect the clinker quality [82].
tive fuel source in the manufacture of cement, steel, and other
Another potential barrier of using MBM in cement industry as fuel
products [75]. The heating value of SPL ranges from 8 MJ/kg to
is the moisture content which is about 70%. Pre-treatment is
25.2 MJ/kg [13,68] which is ideal for precalciner as well as cement
required to reduce that, increasing the processing cost.
kiln. SPL can be fed into the kiln as ne grounded powder. SPL con-
MBM is generally fed in the kiln burner and an additional
tains small amount of cyanide and a few heavy metals, primarily
amount of air may be required if it is used in precalciner riser
lead and chromium. Sodium and uoride are also found in the
[42]. Approximately 510% more air is needed for combustion if
composition of SPL in small amount. Scant literatures were found
MBM is fed to the burning zone [39]. Compared with coal, MBM
regarding the environmental impact of SPL while using it as fuel
has lower xed carbon and higher chlorine. Due to higher chlorine
in cement kiln. A test study showed that almost 99.9% of the cya-
content there is a potential of build-up and blockages in preheater
nide contained in the SPL is destroyed when it is used as a supple-
units [24]. This will reduce the efciency of the plant. As the nitro-
mental fuel in a cement kiln [76]. Reduction of NOX and CO2
gen content in the MBM is about 78 times higher than that in coal
emission was reported while using SPL in cement plant compared
one would expect that NOX emissions would increase. But it was
to fossil fuel, coal [13]. SPL would also supply raw materials such as
observed that NOX decreases with increasing MBM content in
silica, alumina and ferrous components during cement production
coal-MBM blend [83]. In contrast Denafas et al. [84] mentioned
[13]. Due to high uorine content and high pH value (11.18 on
that the emission of nitrogen oxides increases during incineration
92 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499

of MBM using heavy fuel oil. Abad et al. [85] reported that, co- Table 8
incineration of meat and bone meal has no impact on dioxin and Proximate and ultimate analysis of two types of sludge [93].

furan emissions. Sludge A Sludge B

Proximate analysis (dry, wt.%)
Moisture 0.2 0.6
4.5. Plastic waste
VM 47.3 70.8
Ash 20.2 23.0
Plastic waste is considered as one of the most readily available FC 32.3 5.6
potential candidates for alternative fuel in cement industry due to Ultimate analysis (wt.%)
their worldwide production and high caloric value 2940 MJ/kg C 52.5 54.8
[51]. Plastic wastes are available as municipal waste as well as H 6.4 7.8
industrial waste. The only concern of using it is the chlorine con- N 9.2 8.7
S 0.8 0.1
tent which is mainly found in PVC. According to Al-Salem et al. Oa 31.1 28.6
[86,87] the accepted particle size for the incineration process is
a
10  10  10 cm and a shredder is needed when larger parts are By difference.

offered in the kiln. Isolation of materials from plastic waste and

retrotting require additional capital and labour costs. The mate-
Table 9
rial preparation can be done in on-site or off-site. Plastic can be
Typical heating values for several types of sewage sludge [94].
conveyed either to the kiln or to the precalciner through a belt-
conveyer. Type of sludge Heating value of dried sludge
(MJ/kg of DS)
Mathematical modelling showed that usage of polyethylene
and polystyrene plastics as alternative fuel reduced the emission Range Typical
of the CO2, which is approximately 1.0 ton of CO2 per ton of coal Raw sludge 2329 25.5
replacement [42,19]. If the chlorine content of plastic waste Activated sludge 1623 21
exceeds 0.7% then it may impact on the quality of the clinker Anaerobically digested primary sludge 913 11
Raw chemically precipitated primary sludge 1418 16
[88]. Emission of HCl, dioxins and furans can be increased by the Biological lter sludge 1623 19.5
presence of chlorine under specic conditions [89]. NOX emission,
while burning plastic waste, may depend on the nitrogen content
of the plastic and some other facts such as the ame temperature
and air quantity [87]. Emission of volatile metals like mercury and While the heating value of different type of dried sludge are given
thallium have the potential to increase and however by using ESPs in Table 9 [94].
in the dust stream that could be removed [42]. Strazza et al. [90] A study by U.S. Environmental Agency in 2008 [88] showed that
investigated the co-incineration of plastic waste in an Italian NOX emissions are reduced while using sewage sludge compared
cement plant by using life cycle assessment tool. They have consid- with the fossil fuels while Cartmell et al. [95] reported an incre-
ered ve parameter to assess environmental impact which are ment of SO2 emissions. The level of mercury (Hg) is high in sewage
global warming potential (GWP) in 100 years (for CO2), ozone- sludge which comes from the cleaning process at the sewage plant
depleting potential (ODP) in 20 years (for CFC), acidifying potential and from the source [42]. To use sewage sludge in cement industry,
(for SO2), ozone-creating potential (POCP) and oxygen consump- the suggested maximum mercury content is 0.5 mg/kg [96]. Con-
tion potential (EP). Strazza et al. [90] afrmed the positive effect esa et al. [50] afrmed that there was no correlation between sew-
of the using plastic waste by reporting relative reduction in every age sludge using rate and heavy metal emissions. But Cartmell
impact category. Shortage of research article on the complete envi- et al. [95] reported earlier that sewage sludge causes an increase
ronmental impact assessment of using plastic waste as alternative in heavy metal emissions compared to fossil fuels. More studies
fuel indicates that this eld has not been well studied. are needed to establish the reliability of these ndings.

4.6. Sewage sludge 4.7. Solvent and spent oil

A large amount of sewage sludge is produced worldwide during
wastewater treatment. Landll, agricultural use as organic fertil-
iser and soil conditioner are the main conventional methods of dis-
posal, which are not environmental friendly [24]. Alternative
disposal option for sewage sludge is to incinerate it in cement kiln
and conne the ash in the clinker. In 2006, the Swiss cement indus-
try used 54,964 tons of dried sewage sludge, which is 22% of the
total used tonnage of alternative fuels. In Germany around
200,000 tons of dewatered municipal sewage sludge and around
40,000 tons of dried municipal sewage was used as alternative fuel
in 2006 [91]. Werther and Ogada [92] suggested that the maxi-
mum sewage sludge feed rate should not be more than 5% of the
clinker production capacity of the cement plant. The wet sewage
sludge is better for blending into wet process slurries and use in
wet process kilns. In the dry cement process the sludge must be
dried to reduce the moisture content below 1% before ring. The
range of different elements on the sewage sludge and its caloric
value depends on the characteristics of the source and the treat-
ment process of the sludge. Proximate and ultimate analyses of
two different types of sewage sludge are listed in Table 8 [93].
Waste oil is a hazardous waste that originates from automotive,
railway, marine, farm and industrial sources. In European Union
countries approximately 1.07 million tons of waste oil is used by
cement kilns as alternative fuel [19]. Solvent and spent oil from dif-
ferent industries generally have high caloric value and those can
be used in cement kiln as alternative fuel with minimal processing
cost [97]. The range of caloric values of solvent and spent oil is
between 29 MJ/kg and 36 MJ/kg and the variation occur due to
the ratio of different chemical in it [97]. Generally pre-treatment
is not required for spent solvent and used oil. Both types of fuel
can be fed through the main burner or the calciner using a fuel
oil ring system. Un-blended waste oil can also be used to start-
up the process of the main burner. Cement plants established in
the vicinity of industrial area can make the solvent and spent oil
a readily available fuel with minimum transportation cost.
Australian industries purchase in excess of 500 million liters of
oil annually [98]. Some of this oil can be recycled into new prod-
ucts through ltration and treatment; however there is a portion
which cannot be reused. Used oil becomes unusable if it is exposed
to other substances such as water, dirt or chemicals used in con-
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 93

Table 10 et al. [101] found a reduction in heavy metal emissions when

Elementary composition and heating value of waste solvent and heavy fuel oil waste solvents were mixed with fossil fuel.
[100,101].

Composition Waste solvent [100] Heavy fuel oil [101] 4.8. Agricultural biomass
H2O 16.5 (wt.%)
C 47.7 (wt.%) 84 (wt.%) The use of agricultural biomass as an alternative fuel in cement
H 8.2 (wt.%)
manufacturing is not a common practice seen around the world.
O and rest 23.1 (wt.%) 14.73 (wt.%)
N 1.0 (wt.%) 0.44 (wt.%)
Mainly the rural developing countries like India, Thailand, Malay-
S 0.7 (wt.%) 0.83 (wt.%) sia are known to use biomass for thermal energy generation [24].
P 0.06 (wt.%) Traces Rice husk, corn stover, hazelnut shells, coconut husks, coffee pods,
Cl 2.4 (wt.%) 20 (g/t) and palm nut shells are among the many varieties of biomass cur-
Br 2500 (ppm)
rently being burnt in cement kilns [19]. The heating value of the
I 130 (ppm)
Fe 85 (ppm) biomass is variable and lies between 14 and 21 MJ/kg [103]. Simi-
Co 4.1 (ppm) larly the moisture content ranges from 6% to 12% [104]. As agricul-
Ni 4.6 (ppm) 15 (g/t) tural biomass have lower heating values than heavy fuel oil,
Cu 6.2 (ppm) 3 (g/t)
adjustment to the excess air and burner design may be required.
Zn 57 (ppm) 0.9 (g/t)
As 0.8 (g/t)
Sometime to make high dense fuel from low-density biomass, high
Cd 2 (g/t) pressure and temperature need to be applied. Fig. 7, presents the
Cr 1 (g/t) activities to produce high dense fuel from agricultural and process
Hg 0.006 (g/t) residues [105]. A 20% substitution rate of agricultural biomass res-
Pb 3.5 (g/t)
idues for fossil fuel is suggested for cement kilns which would not
Net caloric value (MJ/kg) 21.7 40.4 require a major capital investment [106]. Numerous literatures
regarding the chemical composition and combustion characteris-
junction with the oil to improve performance. The unusable tics indicates extensive study on different agricultural biomasses.
portion often contains trace amounts of lead, cadmium, arsenic, Table 11 [104,106111] represents the proximate and ultimate
dioxins, benzenes and polycyclic aromatics [98] all of which are analysis of different agricultural biomasses which are currently
highly toxic materials to humans, animals and plants. Burning of used in cement industry as alternative fuels.
the non recyclable used oil is an effective means of disposal as Biomass is a CO2 neutral fuel as it consumes CO2 from the atmo-
the temperatures of the kiln is high enough to burn all organic sphere during its growth which is almost same with the amount of
materials and any remaining non organic compounds are chemi- CO2 released during its combustion [110]. Co-ring biomass fuels
cally trapped in the clinker [99]. Compositions of waste solvent with coal has the capability of reducing both NOX and SOX levels
and heavy oil are available in the literature and a typical composi- [19,110]. Experiments shows, using biomass implies low SO2 emis-
tion is shown in Table 10 [100,101]. Heavy fuel oils are more con- sions, low dioxin and furan emissions, and very low heavy metal
taminated with heavy metals, sulphur, phosphorus and total emissions [112]. Availability of biomass is one of the major con-
halogens depending on the source of origin. Storing used oil for a cerns of using it as fuel since most of the agricultural residues
long period may present some problem due to the potential envi- are not available all year round. High uctuation of caloric value
ronmental hazards. Storage of oil particularly light and volatile oils is another obstacle in substantial usage of agricultural biomass as
increases the risk of res or explosions although these can be con- fuel [24]. Co-ring biomass with coal prevents the formation of
trolled through a suitable storage option. Another problem which alkaline and chlorine compounds on the furnaces [106]. Hence
arises from storage is emission of volatile organic compound chlorine content in some biomass (such as wheat straw and rice
(VOC) [97]. husks) is not a major problem.
Solvent and waste oil contain less minerals compared to petco-
kes and coal hence an additional raw meal is needed to maintain 4.9. Others
the quality of the cement [97]. One study shows a reduction of
nitrogen oxides while using spent solvents compared to fossil fuels Apart from the above-mentioned wastes there are varieties of
[101]. Reduction of CO2 emission was also reported while using other alternative fuels which can be found in the literature. Amongst
solvents and paint sludge as alternative fuel [97]. The literature them, carpet waste [113,114], automobile shredder residue
is inconclusive with respect to the changes in SO2 emission. Mlakar [115,116], waste wood [117], poultry litter [118], liqueed natural
et al. [102] reported a reduction in mercury emissions while Seyler gas [119], uff, textile waste, paper residue, packing boxes, livestock

Fig. 7. Schematic ow diagram for processing agro-industrial residue [105].

94 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499

Table 11
Proximate and ultimate analysis of the agricultural biomass.

Rice husk Switch Coffee Corn stover Coconut Wheat Olive husk Soya husk Sugarcane Almond
[106] grass [107] husk [108] [104,106] shell [109] straw [104] [104] [109] baggasse [110] shell [111]
Proximate analysis (wt.%)
Moisture 9.96 15 10 35 4.4 8.5 9.2 6.3 9.7
Ash 20.6 7.63 2.4 3.25 3.1 13.5 3.6 5.1 11.27 3.36
Volatile matter 54.7 65.19 78.5 54.6 70.5 63 70.3 70 66.9
Fixed carbon 15 12.19 19.1 7.15 22 23.5 26.1 19 14.95 20
Ultimate analysis on dry basis (wt.%)
C 34.9 39.68 47.5 42.5 51.2 45.5 50 45.4 44.8 51.6
H 5.46 4.95 6.4 5.04 5.6 5.1 6.2 6.7 5.35 8.5
N 0.11 0.65 0.75 0 1.8 1.6 0.9 0.38 1.08
S 0.16 0.18 0.1 0.1 0.01
O 38.9 31.77 43.7 42.6 43.1 34.1 42.2 46.9 39.55 38.82
Caloric value MJ/kg 13.5 10.39 18.39 10.7 14 17 19 17.3 29.86

manure, oil soaked rags, are few to name. Unfortunately not much
information regarding their usages and impacts are available and
there is a need for more research to justify their candidature.
5. Discussion and recommendation
The use of wastes in cement kiln is a useful alternative to land-
ll. For few alternative fuels like waste oil and plastic, burning in
kiln is less desirable option over recycling or reusing. This paper
has reviewed and discussed different alternative fuels which are
currently being used in cement industry. Researchers have studied
the impact of using alternative fuels on the cement quality as well
as on the environment from emission standpoint. This paper sum-
marizes most of the research efforts made towards the uses of
alternative fuels in recent years. Chemical composition of the alter-
native fuel is one of the factors which inuence the cement manu-
facturer to choose a particular alternative fuel for their plant.
Table 12 summarizes the information regarding the proximate,
ultimate and ash analysis of different alternative fuels along with
the reference case coal. Those analyses are an early indicator for

Table 12
Proximate, ultimate and ash analysis of different alternative fuels.

Description Coal Used tyre MBM Sewage sludge SPL MSW Plastic waste Waste oil Biomass (rice husk)
[12] [43] [83] [93] [123] [58,124] [125] (ECOFLUIDa) [44] [106,126]
Proximate analysis
Moisture (ar) 3.0 0.62 6.8 0.2 0.6 31.2 0.01 9.1 9.96
Ash 11.1 4.78 34.4 20.2 71.0 35.17 0.45 2.37 20.61
Volatile matter 35.9 66.64 32.7 47.3 4.1 64.83 98.80 54.68
Fixed carbon 53.0 27.96 26.1 32.3 24.3 0.74 15.02
Ultimate analysis
Moisture 3.0 0.62 6.8 0.2 0.6 31.2 0.01 9.1 9.96
Ash 11.1 4.78 34.4 20.2 71.0 35.17 0.45 2.37 20.61
Carbon 70.6 83.87 35.3 52.5 26.2 34.88 84.65 68.3 34.94
Hydrogen 4.3 7.09 4.9 6.4 0.3 4.65 13.71 10.5 5.46
Nitrogen 1.2 0.24 8.4 9.2 0.6 1.02 0.65 4.4 0.11
Sulphur 1.3 1.23 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.15 0.01 0.04
Oxygen (by 11.8 2.17 31.1 1.2 23.11 0.95 4.69 38.86
difference)
Chlorine 0.07 0.149 0.26 1.02 0.03 0.6
Elemental mineral analysis (oxide form)
Calcium (CaO in 0.18 0.378 10.6 15.5 2.6 36.6 0.55
ash)
Iron (Fe2O3 in ash) 0.31 0.321 0.03 8.7 2.8 4.7 0.16
P (P2O5 in ash) 0.016 6.4 24.3 <0.1 1.5 0.50
Na (Na2O in ash) 0.05 0.55 0.4 26.6 1.8 1.12
Al (Al2O3 in ash) 1.07 0.02 12.7 39.9 15.6 0.15
K (K2O in ash) 0.12 0.26 9.7 0.8 1.3 3.68
Si (SiO2 in ash) 2.0 0.15 26.3 13.6 15.1 87.2
Mg (MgO in ash) 0.08 0.25 1.9 0.4 2.0 0.35
Lead (PbO in ash) 0.0065
Zinc (ZnO in Ash) 1.52
Mn (MnO) <0.1
V (V2O5) <0.1
As (mg/kg) 8.0
Chromium 0.0097 <0.1
(Cr2O3)
Fluorine 0.0010
Cadmium (mg/kg) 0.0006
Heating value
LHV (MJ/kg) 27.4 13.06 9.29 15.4 2940 [62] 25.9 13.5
HHV (MJ/kg) 28.4 37.8 14.19 25.5 [94] 9.36
a
ECOFLUID: mixture of different organic waste oils.
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 95

the performance of the alternative fuels regarding emission. For
instance an alternative fuel containing more sulphur is likely to
emit more SOX during the combustion. As the combustion residue
of alternative fuels stays with the clinker, ash analyses of alterna-
tive fuels are important to identify any adverse effect on the clin-
ker. Table 12 also summarizes the energy content of different
alternative fuel which will be helpful to calculate the replacement
ratio over coal in terms of heating value.
due to their chlorine content. Scant literatures are available to
study a blend of different alternative fuel in the kiln system and
none identify the optimal blending ratio. It is difcult to determine
a correct proportion due to variable composition of alternative
fuels depending on the source. Extensive research is needed to
draw conclusion about the perfect blend of alternative fuels.
5.3. Emission factor

5.1. Availability
Generally the availability of the alternative fuels is high and
cement manufacturer prefers locally available alternative fuel to
reduce the cost of accruing. The availability of some alternative fuels
is low not because for their low production but for other suitable dis-
posal option available for them such as recycle and reuse. In terms of
availability used tyre and MSW are the best option for cement indus-
try as their number of production increases day by day. SPL and plas-
tic waste also have very high production rate but not that much
utilised in cement industry as alternative fuel. Among the studied
alternative fuel only the agricultural biomasses do not have a contin-
uous supply due to the fact that a particular crop is not cultivated all
around the year. MBM is one of the emerging alternative fuels in
cement industry and their availability increases due to the restric-
tion of their usage in other sector such as cattle feed.
5.2. Substitution rate
Numerous researches suggest that none of the alternative fuel
solely could full the entire thermal requirement of cement man-
ufacturing. But a blend of different alternative fuel can achieve the
goal. In fact most of the cement manufacturer are using different
ratio of alternative fuels to minimize their production cost
(Table 2). Cemex UKs South Ferriby cement plant in Lincolnshire
has replaced 100% of the fuel by alternative fuel which is a blend
of industrial liquid waste (paint, solvent, etc.) and Climafuel, which
is made from household residue and commercial waste [120]. It is
revealed form the review that MBM can replace 40% of fossil fuel in
the kiln [82] while waste tyre and MSW can do the same up to 30%
[121,53]. By the rule of thumb, researchers suggested for a 20%
substitution by any alternative fuel. In real scenario the
substitution rate is lower than that for SPL and sewage sludge
The great concern of using alternative fuel is the environmental
impact and a large amount of research work is directed toward
this. It is found that four major categories of emission were tar-
geted by the researchers which are NOX, CO2, SO2 and heavy metal
emission. The information regarding emission collected in this
review has been summarized in Table 13 with some other selection
criteria of alternative fuels. The emission data presented in Table 13
are with respect to the reference case of only coal burning facility.
It is found from the review that with very few exceptions all alter-
native fuels are capable to reduce the emission compare to coal.
CO2 emission from cement industry is one of the major environ-
mental concerns and Table 13 indicates that all prime alternative
fuels can reduce it up to some extent. It is found from literature
that used oil and spent solvent could reduce 2.02 ton of CO2 by
replacing 1 ton of coal in the burning zone [97]. Literature sug-
gested that CO2 release may decrease about 1.16 kg per kg of
RDF used [64]. A decrease of 15%, 12% and 10% of CO2 are also
reported in the literature for plastic waste, MBM and used tyre
respectively [65,83,127]. NOX emission is found to have the similar
results like CO2 for all alternative fuel. There is a potential chance
of increasing SO2 emission for the case of used tyre, MSW and sew-
age sludge. There are some research gaps regarding the pollutant
emission from cement manufacturing system while using alterna-
tive fuel. Environmental impact for a blend of alternative fuels are
also absent in literature and need to be done to maximize the
usage of alternative fuel simultaneously.
5.4. Storage handling and installation
Form review it is found that apart from MSW and sewage
sludge the installation and operating cost of the alternative fuels
are relatively low. Heterogeneous nature of MSW and high mois-
ture content of sewage sludge incur more cost for shorting and

Table 13
Comparison of different alternative fuels.

Alternative fuels
Criteria Used tyre Spent pot MSW MBM Dried sewage sludge Biomass (rice husk, Plastic Used oils and spent
linear wheat residue) waste solvent
Caloric value (MJ/kg) 35.6 [32] 9.29 [123] 15.4 [58] 14.47 [81] 15.28 [132] 1421 [103] 2940 [62] 4345 [135]
Moisture content % 0.62 [43] 0.6 [123] 31.2 [58] 6 [81] Variable 612 [104] Variable <3 [135]
Availability High [88] High [76] High [58] Moderate High [91] Moderate [24] High [133] Moderate [19]
[130]
NOX emission Unchanged Reduced Reduced [64] Reduced Reduced [88] Reduced [19,110] Unchanged Reduced [101]
[46,47] [13] [83] [87]
CO2 emission Reduced Reduced Reduced [64,65] Reduced Reduced [63] 0.88 Reduced [110] Reduced Reduced [97] 2.02
10% [127] [13] 1.61 kg/kg RDF 12% [83] ton/ton coal replaced 15% [65] ton/ton coal replaced
SO2 emission Increase ND* Increased [58] Reduced Increased [95] Reduced [19,110] Reduced ND*
[44,45] [83] [90]
*
Heavy metal emission Reduced ND Increased [64] ND* Unchanged [50] Reduced [112] Increased Reduced [101]
[50] [42]
Maximum substitution 30% [121] 8% [68] 30% [53] 40% [82] 5% [63] 20% [106] ND* ND*
rate (of total fuel)
Storage requirement Moderate High [77] Moderate [63] Moderate High [63] Low [106] Moderate Moderate [97]
[128] [131] [134]
Effects on clinker quality Unchanged Unchanged Low [67] Low [82] Low [92] ND* Moderate Low [97]
[41] [70,76] [88]
Installation cost Low [40] Low [77] High [63,129] Moderate High [63] Low [106] Moderate Low [97]
[131] [134]

ND: not detected.

96 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499
drying respectively. Storage requirement are high for SPL, MSW
and sewage sludge compare to the other alternative fuels. Extra
caution need to be taken for those as there might be explosion haz-
ard (SPL) and odour problem. Used oil and spent solvent also have
the potential of re and explosion, hence additional measure need
to be taken for safe storage.
5.5. Comparison
From the review, it is revealed that used tyre and biomass could
be the most attractive alternative fuel to the cement producer due
to their low operational cost and high substitution rate. Solvent
and used oil have the highest caloric value among the alternative
fuels and they can be introduced in the burning zone without pro-
cessing. On the other hand MSW, MBM and sewage sludge need to
be processed to meet the requirement of the cement kiln. TDF has
been widely used in cement industry for a long period of time. Lit-
erature reports, TDF usage more than 30% of the kiln fuel may alter
the chemistry of the cements and affect hardening process
adversely. From the emission standpoint, agricultural biomass
could be the best option but due to the unavailability of a particu-
lar agricultural biomass all around the year restrict their usage. The
usage of SPL is restricted due to high orin content. SPL is relatively
new in cement industry as alternative fuel and its impact on envi-
ronment has not been studied extensively yet. Availability of MSW
and MBM are high and their environmental impacts are compara-
tively low. Still the processing costs are very high in the case of
MBM and MSW. High moisture content is also an issue for using
MBM and MSW in large scale. Among the discussed alternative fuel
sewage sludge has the lowest caloric value but the ash derived
from the sludge substitute raw material which is an additional
advantage.
In spite of numerous researches to identify the potential bene-
ts and barrier of using different alternative fuel, none of those
studies indicate which fuel is better than the others. This is only
because there are lots of criteria which need to be considered from
different perspective. Table 13 shows different criteria of the alter-
native fuels that have been discussed in this review. On the ground
of environmental, economical and social impact many other crite-
ria can be added to this table. Table 13 indicates there are few
regions which are not yet revealed by the researchers.
5.6. Recommendation
It is really difcult to claim a particular alternative fuel to be the
best amongst the discussed candidates. The reason being these are
neither tailor made nor factory produced where constituents types
and their quantities could be controlled. In regards to caloric val-
ues plastic waste is the best option but presence of dioxins and fur-
ans emissions pose some restrictions on their usage. Solvent and
spent oil also has high caloric value and it reduces the green
house gas emission. Still recycling and reusing of solvent and spent
oil is preferred over the incineration in cement kiln.
Authors suggest that multi-criteria analysis for decision making
using AHP Fuzzy logic can be applied in accordance with the crite-
ria given in Table 13 in order to identify the best alternative fuel.
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) converts a complex problem
into a hierarchy with goal (objective) at the top of the hierarchy
and decision alternatives at the bottom of the hierarchy. This
method uses the outranking principle to rank the alternatives. It
performs a pair-wise comparison of alternatives in order to rank
them by using the scale of 19 to assess the intensity of preference
between two elements. The method computes and aggregates their
eigenvectors until the composite nal vector of weight coefcients
for alternatives is obtained. The entries of nal weight coefcients
vector reect the relative importance (value) of each alternative
with respect to the goal stated at the top of hierarchy which can
be used for particular needs and interests [122].
The guide line to give preference a particular alternative fuel
over the others may vary depending on the region, time frame
and local environmental regulations. In Australia the selection of
alternative fuels may vary from state to state due to the versatility
of nature and local government rules. Unfortunately Australia does
not have national air emission standards. Environment protection
authorities in different state set such standards. From the emission
point of view most of the alternative fuels discussed in this paper
are suitable to use in Australia. Currently the share of alternative
fuel for energy production in Australian cement industry is only
7.8%. Used tyre is dominantly used in Australia as alternative fuel
along with SPL, used oils, dewatered sludge, solvent based fuel,
and some other agricultural biomass like wood cheap and rice hull.
Based on this review MBM could be a potential candidate of alter-
native fuel in Australia. Australian meat industry is well establish
and the slaughterhouse residue are converted to MBM and cur-
rently is being used as cattle and poultry feed. MBM could replace
40% of fossil fuel and the calcium content of MBM may reduce the
amount of raw feed. Along with that the emission factor associated
with MBM combustion are comparatively low. MBM can be fed in
the kiln with the existing alternative fuel insertion facility which
implies low installation cost. Apart from MBM, municipal solid
waste could be another potential alternative fuel in Australia as
they are currently being landll. But the processing cost for MSW
could be little bit higher than MBM.
6. Conclusion
In this review several alternative fuels that are being currently
used in cement manufacturing, have been discussed. These fuels
have been critically analysed on the ground of their caloric values,
advantages, disadvantages, greenhouse gas emissions and environ-
mental impact. As the most used alternative fuel, used tyre has
been studied by numerous researchers. On the other hand, scant
literature was found regarding the usage and impact of SPL in
cement manufacturing as alternative fuel. Solvent based fuel and
plastic waste has higher energy content than classical fossil fuel
but research on maximum substitution rate by these alternative
fuels are not adequate. MBM is suggested as the most suitable
alternative fuel option for Australia beside the current practice.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) was also found as the most easily
achievable alternative fuel option in Australia. Further analyses
are recommended using multi-criteria decision making approach.
References
[1] van Oss HG, Padovani AC. Cement manufacture and the environment, Part I:
chemistry and technology. J Ind Ecol 2002;6(1):89105.
[2] van Oss HG, Padovani AC. Cement manufacture and the environment, Part II:
environmental challenges and opportunities. J Ind Ecol 2003;7(1):93126.
[3] Madlool NA, Saidur R, Hossain MS, Rahim NA. A critical review on energy use
and savings in the cement industries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15(4):204260.
[4] Wall T, Liu Y, Spero C, Elliott L, Khare S, Rathnam R, et al. An overview on
oxyfuel coal combustionstate of the art research and technology
development. Chem Eng Res Des 2009;87:100316.
[5] Buhre BJP, Elliott LK, Sheng CD, Gupta RP, Wall TF. Oxy-fuel combustion
technology for coal-red power generation. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2005;3:283307.
[6] Al-Abbas AH, Naser J, Dodds D. CFD modelling of air-red and oxy-fuel
combustion in a large-scale furnace at Loy Yang A brown coal power station.
Fuel 2012;102:64665.
[7] Bhuiyan AA, Naser J. Numerical modelling of oxy fuel combustion, the effect
of radiative and convective heat transfer and burnout. Fuel 2015;139:26884.
[8] Nikolopoulos N, Nikolopoulos A, Karampinis E, Grammelis P, Kakaras E.
Numerical investigation of the oxy-fuel combustion in large scale boilers
adopting the ECO-Scrub technology. Fuel 2011;90(1):198214.
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499
[9] Nielsen AR, Aniol RW, Larsen MB, Glarborg P, Dam-Johansen K. Mixing large
and small particles in a pilot scale rotary kiln. Powder Technol
2011;210(3):27380.
[10] Lechtenberg D. Alternative fuels history and outlook. Global Fuels Mag
2008:2830.
[11] Gossman D. Alternative fuel and economic downturns. World Cem 2009; 75
78 <http://gcisolutions.com/WCT_mar09_75-80.pdf>.
[12] Kaantee U, Zevenhoven R, Backman R, Hupa M. Cement manufacturing using
alternative fuels and the advantages of process modelling. Fuel Process
Technol 2004;85(4):293301.
[13] Lechtenberg D. Spent cell linings from the aluminium smelting process as an
alternative fuel and raw material for cement production. Global Cem Mag
2009:367.
[14] Rodrigues FA, Joekes I. Cement industry: sustainability, challenges and
perspectives. Environ Chem Lett 2011;9:15166.
[15] Zhang Y, Cao S, Shao S, Chen Y, Liu S, Zhang S. Aspen plus-based simulation of
a cement calciner and optimization analysis of air pollutants emission. Clean
Techn Environ Policy 2011;13(3):45968.
[16] European Commission. Reference document on the best available techniques
in the cement and lime manufacturing industries. BAT Reference Document
(BREF). European IPPC Bureau, Seville, Spain; 2001.
[17] CEMBUREAU, Best available techniques for the cement industry, CEMBUREAU
the European Cement Association; 1999. p. 1543 [chapter 3].
[18] Klee H, Hunziker R, Meer RV, Westaway R. Getting the numbers right: a
database of energy performance and carbon dioxide emissions for the cement
industry. Greenhouse Gas Meas Manage 2011;1(2):10918.
[19] Murray A, Price L. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacture: analysis of
fuel characteristics and feasibility for use in the chinese cement sector. Ernest
Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-525E, June;
2008.
[20] Lakshmikanth R. Impacts of cement manufacturing; 2011 <http://
www.eco.neterect.co.in>.
[21] Schneider M, Romer M, Tschudin M, Bolio H. Sustainable cement
productionpresent and future. Cem Concr Res 2011;41(7):64250.
[22] Wellington M, Dhanjal S. Optimising alternative fuel ring. In: 21st AFCM
technical symposium and exhibition in Bangkok, March 47, 2008 <http://
www.fct-actech.com/documents/20081219%20AFCM%202008-FCT%20Confe
rence%20paper.pdf>.
[23] Trezza MA, Scian AN. Burning wastes as an industrial resource: their effect on
Portland cement clinker. Cem Concr Res 2000;30(1):13744.
[24] Chinyama MPM. Alternative fuels in cement manufacturing. In: Manzanera
M, editor. Alternative fuel. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011.
[25] Akkapeddi S. Alternative solid fuels for the production of Portland cement,
MSc. Thesis, Auburn University, Alabama, December, 2008 <http://
etd.auburn.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/10415/1432/
Akkapeddi_Srikanth_27.pdf?sequence=1>.
[26] Greco C, Picciotti G, Greco RB, Ferreira GM. Fuel selection and use. Chap. 2.5 in
innovations in Portland cement manufacturing. Skokie, Illinois: Portland
Cement Association; 2004.
[27] Mokrzyckia E, Uliasz-Bochenczyk A, Sarna M. Use of alternative fuels in the
polish cement industry. Appl Energy 2003;74(12):10111.
[28] Willitsch DF, Sturm G, Wurst F, Prey T. Alternative fuels in the cement-
industry. Report of PMT-Zyklontechnik GmbH, Krems, Austria, 2002
(currently known as a TEC advanced process technologies GmbH) <http://
www.coprocem.com/documents/alternative-fuels-in-cement-industry.pdf>.
[29] WBCSD Report. Guidelines for the selection and use of fuels and raw
materials in the cement manufacturing process, fuels and raw materials.
December 2005 <www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/tf2_guidelines.pdf>.
[30] VDZ Activity Report 20092012 <http://www.vdz-online.de/leadmin/
gruppen/vdz/3LiteraturRecherche/TaeB09-12/EN/VDZ_Activity_Report_09-
12.pdf>.
[31] CIF industry report 2013 <http://www.cement.org.au/Portals/0/Documents/
CIF%20Publications/2013%20CIF%20Industry%20Report%20(Med%20Res).pdf>.
[32] Japan cement association report 2013. Use of waste and by-product <http://
www.jcassoc.or.jp/cement/2eng/e_01d.html>.
[33] European recovered fuel organisation, fuels from waste SRF development. In:
6th CEWEP congress 67 September 2012 Wrzburg <http://www.cewep.eu/
m_1000>.
[34] Global cement report 2011, Sweden, pp 340.
[35] European commission report. Energy efciency and CO2 reduction in the
cement industry.
[36] Ocemen report 2012. The cement industry recovers fuel <https://
www.ocemen.com/reportajePag.asp?id_rep=1115>.
[37] Peter Edwards. Cement in Belgium and the Netherlands. Global Cement
Magazine; 2012 [07.03.12].
[38] Rahman A, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Sharma S. Impact of alternative fuels on the
cement manufacturing plant performance: an overview. Procedia Eng
2013;56:393400.
[39] Kaantee U, Zevonhoven R, Backman R, Hupa M. Cement manufacturing using
alternative fuels and the advantages of process modelling. In: Proc. of R2002
recovery recycling re-integration, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1215,
2002.
[40] Smith CB, Martin L. Lesser known energy sources: a study of biogas and tire
based fuel. Cogeneration Distributed Generation J 2008;23(2):3572.
97
[41] Puertas F, Blanco-Varela MT. Use of alternative fuels in cement manufacture.
Effect on clinker and cement characteristics and properties. Materiales de
Construccion 2004;54(274):5164.
[42] Ariyaratne WKH. Alternative fuels in cement kilns characterization and
experiments, MSc. Thesis, Telemark University College, Norway; 2009.
[43] Karell MA, Blumenthal MH. Air regulatory impacts of the use of tire-derived
fuel. Environ Prog 2001;20(2):806.
[44] Prisciandaro M, Mazziotti G, Veglio F. Effect of burning supplementary waste
fuels on the pollutant emissions by cement plants: a statistical analysis of
process data. Resour Conserv Recycl 2003;39(2):16184.
[45] Carrasco F, Bredin N, Heitz M. Gaseous contaminant emissions as affected by
burning scrap tires in cement manufacturing. J Environ Qual
2002;31(5):148490.
[46] Schrama H, Blumenthal M, Weatherhead EC. A survey of tire burning
technology for the cement industry. In: IEEE cement industry technical
conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 49, 1995.
[47] Lemarchand D. Burning issues. Int Cem Rev 2000:657.
 te I, Karaliu
[48] Silvestraviciu  naite I. Comparison of end-of-life tyre treatment
technologies: life cycle inventory analysis. Environ Res, Eng Manage
2006;35(1):5260.
[49] Corti A, Lombardi L. End life tyres: alternative nal disposal processes
compared by LCA. Energy 2004;29:2089108.
[50] Conesa JA, Glvez A, Mateos F, Martn-Gulln I, Font R. Organic and inorganic
pollutants from cement kiln stack feeding alternative fuels. J Hazard Mater
2008;158(23):58592.
[51] Pegg MJ, Amyotte PR, Fels M, Cumming CRR, Poushay JC. An assessment of the
use of tires as an alternative fuel, minister of environment and labour, Nova
Scotia environment and labour, environmental monitoring and compliance
report, April 2007.
[52] Clark C, Meardon K, Russell D. Burning tires for fuel and tire pyrolysis: air
implications EPA-450/3-91-024; 1991 <http://www.p2pays.org/ref/18/
17171.pdf>.
[53] Kara M, Gnay E, Tabak Y, Durgut U, Yildiz S, En V. Development of refuse
derived fuel for cement factories in turkey. Combust Sci Technol
2010;183(3):20319.
[54] Carrasco F, Llaur X, Poch M. A methodological approach to knowledge-based
control and its application to a municipal solid waste incineration plant.
Combust Sci Technol 2006;178(4):685705.
[55] Zhang DQ, Tan SK, Gersberg RM. Municipal solid waste management in
China: status, problems and challenges. J Environ Manage
2010;91(8):162333.
[56] Dorn JD. Use of waste and recycled material in the cement industry. IEEE
Trans Ind Appl 1977;IA-13(6):57680.
[57] Haley CAC. Energy recovery from burning municipal solid wastes: a review.
Resour Conserv Recycl 1990;4(1990):77103.
[58] Garg A, Smith R, Hill D, Longhurst PJ, Pollard SJT, Simms NJ. An integrated
appraisal of energy recovery options in the United Kingdom using solid
recovered fuel derived from municipal solid waste. Waste Manage
2009;29(8):228997.
[59] Genon G, Brizio E. Scenarios for RDF utilisation: reuse in technological plants
or energy production. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 2007;102:96171.
[60] Lockwood FC, Ou JJ. Review: burning refuse-derived fuel in a rotary cement
kiln. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part A: J Power Energy 1993;207:6570.
[61] Ruth LA. Energy from municipal solid waste: a comparison with coal
combustion technology. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24(6):54564.
[62] European commission (EC) directorate general environment. Refuse derived
fuel, current practice and perspectives. Final Report, WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and
Eunomia; 2003 <http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/
rdf.pdf>.
[63] Hasanbeigi A, Lu H, Williams C, Price L. International best practices for pre-
processing and co-processing municipal solid waste and sewage sludge in the
cement industry, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
LBNL-5581E, July 2012.
[64] Genon G, Brizio E. Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination for
RDF. Waste Manage 2008;28(11):237585.
[65] Hashimoto S, Fujita T, Geng Y, Nagasawa E. Realizing CO2 emission reduction
through industrial symbiosis: a cement production case study for Kawasaki.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54(10):70410.
[66] Cheung WH, Choy KKH, Hui DCW, Porter JF, McKay G. Use of municipal solid
waste for integrated cement production. Dev Chem Eng Mineral Process
2006;14(12):193202.
[67] Choy KKH, Ko DCK, Cheung WH, Fung JSC, Hui DCW, Porter JF, et al. Municipal
solid waste utilization for integrated cement processing with waste
minimization a pilot scale proposal. Trans IChemE, Part B, Process Saf
Environ Prot 2004;82(B3):2007.
[68] Mika D, Homak M, Samec N. Spent potlining utilisation possibilities. Waste
Manage Res 2003;21:46773.
[69] Silveira BI, Dantas AE, Blasquez JE, Santos RKP. Characterization of inorganic
fraction of spent pot liners: evaluation of the cyanides and uorides content. J
Hazard Mater 2002;89(23):17783.
[70] Massad EG. Energy resource vs. buried waste: spent potliner in a cement kiln.
In: Proceedings of international conference on pollution prevention: clean
technology and clean products, Washington DC June 1013, 1990.
P. 4057.
98 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499
[71] Constans DL. Primary aluminum production wastes spent aluminum potliner,
K088, GCI Tech Notes, vol. 4, No. 09; 1998 <http://gcisolutions.com/
GCINotes998.html>.
[72] Pong TK, Adrien RJ, Besida J, Odonnell TA, Wood DG. Spent potlining a
hazardous waste made safe. Trans IChemE 2000;78(Part B):2048.
[73] Alcoa: worldwide: sustainability: sustainability of operations: environmental:
emissions & waste; 2012 <http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/
operations_env_emissions.asp>.
[74] Alcoa in Australia: environment: environmental management: waste; 2012
<http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/info_page/environ_waste.asp>.
[75] Alcoa: worldwide: sustainability: sustainability approach: case studies; 2011
<http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/case_studies/2011_Canadian_Smelters.
asp>.
[76] Kohnen RL. Disposal options for spent potliner, ERAtech Publications; 2012
<http://www.eratech.com/papers/DisposalSPL.html>.
[77] Gossman D. New developments in treatment options for spent aluminum
potliner. GCI tech notes, vol. 11. Gossman Consulting, Inc. Publication; 2006.
10A.
[78] Deydier E, Guilet R, Sarda S, Sharrock P. Physical and chemical characteristics
of crude meat and bone meal combustion residue: waste or raw material?. J
Hazard Mater 2005;121(13):1418.
_
[79] Kowalski Z, Krupa-Zuczek K. A model of the meat waste management. Pol J
Chem Technol 2007;9(4):917.
[80] Conesa JA, Fullana A, Font R. Dioxin production during the thermal treatment
of meat and bone meal residues. Chemosphere 2005;59(1):8590.
[81] Senneca O. Characterisation of meat and bone mill for coal co-ring. Fuel
2008;87(1516):326270.
[82] Ariyaratne WKH, Melaaen MC, Eine K, Tokheim LA. Meat and bone meal as a
renewable energy source in cement kilns: investigation of optimum feeding
rate. In: International conference on renewable energies and power quality
(ICREPQ11), Spain, April 2010.
[83] Gulyurtlu I, Boavida D, Abelha P, Lopes MH, Cabrita I. Co-combustion of coal
and meat and bone meal. Fuel 2005;84(17):213748.
[84] Denafas G, Buinevicius K, Urniezaite I, Pukorius R, Rekaius J. Meat and bone
meal incineration in terms of industrial and energetic infrastructure in
Lithuania: energetic and environmental aspects. Environ Res, Eng Manage
2004;30(4):3648.
[85] Abad E, Martnez K, Caixach J, Rivera J. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin/
polychlorinated dibenzofuran releases into the atmosphere from the use of
secondary fuels in cement kilns during clinker formation. Environ Sci Technol
2004;38(18):47348.
[86] Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P, Baeyens J. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic
solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Manage 2009;29(10):262543.
[87] Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P, Baeyens J. The valorization of plastic solid waste
(PSW) by primary to quaternary routes: from re-use to energy and chemicals.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010;36(1):10329.
[88] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Trends in benecial use of alternative
fuels and raw materials cement sector; 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/sectors/
pdf/cement-sector-report.pdf>.
[89] Karstensen KH. Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns.
Chemosphere 2008;70(4):54360.
[90] Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M. Resource productivity
enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co-
incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Cleaner Prod
2011;19(14):161521.
[91] Lechtenberg D. Dried sewage sludge as an alternative fuel. Global Cem Mag
2011:369.
[92] Werther J, Ogada T. Sewage sludge combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci
1999;25(1):55116.
[93] Ninomiya Y, Zhang L, Sakano T, Kanaoka C, Masui M. Transformation of
mineral and emission of particulate matters during co-combustion of coal
with sewage sludge. Fuel 2004;83(6):75164.
[94] Fytili D, Zabaniotou A. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old
and new methodsa review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12(1):
11640.
[95] Cartmell E, Gostelow P, Riddell-Black D, Simms N, Oakey J, Morris J, et al.
Biosolids-a fuel or a waste? an integrated appraisal of ve co-combustion
scenarios with policy analysis. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40(3):64958.
[96] Zabaniotou A, Theolou C. Green energy at cement kiln in cyprususe of
sewage sludge as a conventional fuel substitute. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2008;12:53141.
[97] de Vos S, Grtzen J, Mulder E, Ligthart T, Hesseling W. LCA of thermal
treatment of waste streams in cement kilns in Belgium, TNO report I&T-A R
2007/036, Netherland Organisation for Applied Scientic Research; 2007.
[98] Australian government department of sustainability, environment, water,
population and communities; 2011 <http://www.environment.gov.au/
settlements/waste/tyres/index.html>.
[99] Bhatty JI. Effect of minor elements onclinker and cement performance: a
laboratory analysis. Concr Thinking 2006;130(15):314.
[100] Seyler C, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbhler K. Life cycle inventory for thermal
treatment of waste solvent from chemical industry: a multi-input allocation
model. J Cleaner Prod 2005;13(1314):121124.
[101] Seyler C, Hellweg S, Monteil M, Hungerbhler K. Life cycle inventory for use
of waste solvent as fuel substitute in the cement industry a multi-input
allocation model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2005;10(2):12030.
[102] Mlakar TL, Horvat M, Vuk T, Stergarek A, Kotnik J, Tratnik J, et al. Mercury
species, mass ows and processes in a cement plant. Fuel
2010;89(8):193645.
[103] Chuah TG, Wan Azlina AGK, Robiah Y, Omar R. Biomass as the renewable
energy sources in Malaysia: an overview. Int J Green Energy
2006;3(3):32346.
[104] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel
1997;76(5):4314.
[105] Seboka Y, Getahun MA, Haile-Meskel Y. Biomass energy for cement
production: opportunities in Ethiopia, CDM capacity development in
eastern and southern Africa, United Nations Development Programme; 2009.
[106] Demirbas A. Sustainable coring of biomass with coal. Energy Convers
Manage 2003;44(9):146579.
[107] Tillman DA. Biomass coring: the technology, the experience, the combustion
consequences. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;19(6):36584.
[108] Suarez JA, Luengo CA. Coffee husk briquettes: a new renewable energy
source. Energy Sources 2003;25(10):9617.
[109] Werther J, Saenger M. Combustion of agricultural residues. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2000;26(1):127.
[110] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-ring of coal and biomass fuel
blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2001;27(2):171214.
[111] Skodras G, Grammelis P, Basinas P, Kakaras E, Sakellaropoulos G. Pyrolysis
and combustion characteristics of biomass and waste-derived feedstock. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2006;45(11):37919.
[112] Royo J, Canalis P, Sebastian F, Gomez F. Environmental feasibility of biomass
coring in the cement industry-results of the tests carried out at the Cemex
company plant located in Morata de Jaln (Spain). In: 15th European biomass
Conference and Exhibition, Berlin, May 2007.
[113] Realff, Matthew J. Carpet as an alternative fuel in cement kilns. Technical
report, DOE/CH/11239-Final, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta,
GA; 2007.
[114] Stephanie Konopa L, James Mulholland A, Matthew Realff J, Paul Lemieux M.
Emissions from carpet combustion in a pilot-scale rotary kiln: comparison
with coal and particle-board combustion. J Air Waste Manage Assoc
2008;58:10706.
[115] Cossua R, Fioreb S, Laia T, Mancinic G, Rufnob B, Viottid P, Zanetti MC. Italian
experience on automotive shredder residue: characterization and
management, CRETE 2012. In: 3rd International conference on industrial
and hazardous waste material; 2012.
[116] Boughton B. Evaluation of shredder residue as cement manufacturing
feedstock. Report of the California department of toxic substances control,
March 2006.
[117] Kurt Mackes H, Charles Lightburn R. Evaluating the use of green wood chips
processed from small-diameter trees as an alternate fuel for making cement.
Forest Prod J 2003;53(4):427.
[118] Hains, Bryant T. Experimental study of renewable energy implementation in
cement kilns through industrial-scale downdraft gasication of poultry litter,
MSc Thesis, Auburn University; 2011.
[119] Bernatik A, Senovsky P, Pitt M. LNG as a potential alternative fuel safety and
security of storage facilities. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2011;24:1924.
[120] Cemex News, UK cement plant set 100% AF record, global cement magazine,
April 2011. pp. 57.
[121] Pipilikaki P, Katsioti M, Papageorgiou D, Fragoulis D, Chaniotakis E. Use of tire
derived fuel in clinker burning. Cement Concr Compos 2005;27:8437.
[122] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making
to sustainable energy planning: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2004;8(4):36581.
[123] Vick SC, von Steiger H. Benecial recycling of metal rening waste via
gasication. In: Conference on gasication technologies 2001, San Francisco,
California, October 710, 2001.
[124] Kikuchi R. Recycling of municipal solid waste for cement production: pilot-
scale test for transforming incineration ash of solid waste into cement
clinker. Resour Conserv Recycl 2001;31(2):13747.
[125] Feng Z, Zhao J, Rockwell J, Bailey D, Huffman G. Direct liquefaction of waste
plastics and coliquefaction of coal-plastic mixtures. Fuel Process Technol
1996;49:1730.
[126] Zhang MH, Lastra R, Malhotra VM. Rice-husk ash paste and concrete: some
aspects of hydration and the microstructure of the interfacial zone between
the aggregate and paste. Cem Concr Res 1996;26(6):96377.
[127] Courtemanche B, Levendis YA. A laboratory study on the NO, NO2, SO2, CO
and CO2 emissions from the combustion of pulverized coal, municipal waste
plastics and tires. Fuel 1998;77(3):18396.
[128] Amari T, Themelis NJ, Wernick IK. Resource recovery from used rubber tires.
Resour Policy 1999;25(3):17988.
[129] Schneider DR, Bogdan Z. Analysis of a sustainable system for energy recovery
from municipal waste in Croatia. Manage Environ Qual: Int J
2011;22(1):10520.
[130] Arvanitoyannis IS, Ladas D. Meat waste treatment methods and potential
uses. Int J Food Sci Technol 2008;43:54359.
[131] Lagan Cement News, April 2005 www.lagancement.com.
[132] Aranda Usn A, Ferreira G, Lpez-Sabirn AM, Sastresa EL, De Guinoa AS.
Characterisation and environmental analysis of sewage sludge as secondary
fuel for cement manufacturing. Chem Eng Trans 2012;29:45762.
 A. Rahman et al. / Fuel 145 (2015) 8499 99

[133] U.S. environmental protection agency, wastes resource conservation [135] Technology guide ALF-Cemind, waste (used) oil co-processed as alternative
common wastes & materials: plastic; 2014 <http://www.epa.gov/osw/ fuel in cement production process, <http://www.alf-cemind.com/cd/
conserve/materials/plastics.htm>. AF_and_ARM_used_oils.htm>.
[134] Central pollution control board report, website material on plastic waste
management, June 2013 <http://www.cpcb.nic.in/divisionsofheadofce/pcp/
management_plasticwaste.pdf>.