Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Strength. Performance. Passion.

EARN (Energy Activation across our Regional Network)


05 to 08 Nov12 (ACC Thane)

Presentations with title image

2012 Legal entity

Content
Objective of EARN Tools development for EARN Performance Heat Map best practices Heat Map Design principle to creation of performance heat Map EARN Target for Clinker factor HEAT map insight Input from the plants

Beat The Best

EARN objective
Achieve and sustain 10% annual reduction (~ USD 200 mn reduction) in Total Energy cost for the region by 2015 and create a sustainable platform to continue to achieve substantial energy improvements beyond 2015

EARN journey will complement, accelerate and systemize, NOT replace current improvement efforts

Tool Development for EARN


Performance Heat Map. Best practices Heat Map.

Design principles for creation of performance heat map

The heat map for each pillar will consist of a cascaded drill down of metrics from L1 level to L2/ L3 level L1: one metric which is indicative of that pillars performance e.g. Specific thermal energy consumption for the TE pillar L2: multiple metrics which constitute L1 performance or impact L1 performance e.g. MTBF is a metric that impacts specific electrical energy consumption L3: next level metrics which impact/constitute performance of certain L2 metrics L1 data will be normalised for external factors/market factors which impact performance e.g. overall clinker factor is used to normalise specific electrical energy consumption Different categories will be made for plants running different processes, e.g., for EE Dry, semi-wet and wet plants will be separated Metrics are of 3 types: Output metrics which must be compared in the heat map Normalising metrics which are used to normalise/ adjust the output metric Input metrics which are used to calculate certain output metrics

Holcim Group Support Ltd 2012

Clinker factor performance HEAT map structure 1/2

Clinker factor performance HEAT map structure 2/2

Take away from HEAT MAP for clinker factor (ACC) 1/3
L1 L2 L2 % PPC in PPC product rank mix % L2 L2 L2 PPC Overall Overall Clinker plant CF rank Factor Units Plant name Bargarh Bellary Kudithini Damodhar Gagal 1 Gagal 2 Chanda Jamul Chaibasa Kolar Thondebhavi Kymore Lakheri Madukkarai Sindri Tikaria Wadi 1 Wadi 2 51.71 47.57 45.33 70.55 66.83 74.83 43.63 55.21 73.80 64.13 68.10 77.18 44.36 62.78 91.96 69.83 5 4 3 24 17 30 1 6 28 11 20 34 2 7 41 22 72.54 17 25 41.60 47.57 45.33 69 100 100 2 7 5 54.40 6 1 95.09 1 17 % % PSC % PSC in PSC Clinker product Rank Factor mix % % L2 L2 L2 % Blended Blended % OPC in Blended OPC Clinker cement in cement product OPC rank cement CF Factor product rank mix mix % % % %

66.90 66.83 64.65 71.38 66.60 61.96 66.22 76.68 62.78 74.11 65.35

86 100 63 30 76 93 92 91 100 15 85

21 20 9 24 19 2 16 28 3 26 14 43.30 47.32 100 62 4 6

92.20 72.75 4 7 95.07

14 32

6 16

52.77 42.79

2 87

8 3

90.97 89.50 91.68

7 8 7

4 2 5

95.37 95.49

85 15

18 19

L1 On the basis of overall clinker factor data we decided the plant ranking ( xy /45), which is easy to identification the high potential plant at initial stage. L2 Color coding decided on the basis of data range, Data range decided on the basis of 70 % plant fall in this range.
8

Take away from HEAT MAP for clinker factor (ACC) 2/3
L1 L2 L2 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L4 L4 L4 L4

L4

L4

L4

L4
Cement Fineness (45 micron residue)

% PPC Overall PPC Overal in PPC plant Clinker l rank product rank CF Factor mix

Fly ash % PPC Clinker Fly ash CR or performance Cement % clinker in % gypsum in % fly ash in 1 day Clinker Clinker Clinke Residue pozzala Fly ash enhancers/ 1 day PPC cement PPC cement PPC cement strengt LSF CaO r C3S % (45 nincity LOI additives in strength h micron) of fly PPC cement ash

Units Plant name Bargarh Gagal 1

MPa

MPa

Absolu te % numb er

51.71 70.55

5 72.54 24 66.90

17 86

25 21

15.10 14.60

72.54 66.90

5.00 5.53

22.30 27.57

0.16 29.10 93.28 65.30 53.39 32.13 85.00 21.50 93.24 64.23 49.55 38.70

1.38 3.40

15.51 11.60

Gagal 2
Chanda Chaibasa

66.83
74.83 55.21

17 66.83
30 64.65 6 71.38

100
63 30

20
9 24

14.60
17.60 14.90

66.83
64.65 71.38

5.48
4.14 4.34

27.68
31.20 24.28

21.30 93.19 64.15 47.27 38.70


0.11 29.05 92.57 64.39 49.29 38.00 0.01 27.80 93.40 64.10 48.20 46.50

3.40
1.80 6.25

11.80
23.53 18.00

Opportunity:L3 metrics help to set the aspirational target among the region Like, Ex:Chanda have PPC CF 64.65 % with 17.6 Mpa one day strength but Bargarh have 72.54% CF with 15.10 Mpa one day strength. So Bargarh have a potential to reduce more. L4 metrics give insight to identify the technical as well as chemical difference to identify the way forward or set the action plan to reduce clinker factor further.

EARN

target for clinker factor


2015 Aspirations Focus Area Market Product portfolio Regulatory constraint . MIC availability and quality. Technology and process People and mindset

2015 aspiration setting (EARN kickoff, Bangkok)

Reduction across region

-6%

10

HEAT map insight


Objectives 1 Establish a version 1.0 tool to benchmark indicators of energy performance for all plants in the region 2 Establish a version 1.0 tool to initiate a dialog and help spot opportunity on energy improvement Where are we against it

Ready reference L1 L4 metrics for all pillars for all plants


Best in class indicators to initiate aspiration dialog L3, L4 metrics to provide clues on L1 performance

3 Create a language of best practices that can be measured and used to improve performance

Over 150 best practices collected Survey of 700 plant people

4 Develop a mechanism to share best practices across the region, and help a plant assess their operations against best practices

PEER methodology created and piloted in three plants

11

Do and Donts
How to use HEAT maps Benchmark to define aspirations (moons) by looking at best in class and comparable plants performance Use as a tool to identify opportunity areas through L3, L4 metrics and practices Initiate a dialog between plants across the region on sharing best practices Treat Red as potential opportunity and not a performance score card For areas which are Green push for achieving best in class performance Use equipment and process difference to generate capex proposals How not to use HEAT maps HEAT maps are not a replacement for a diagnostic / deep dive to determine opportunity and initiatives. Provides direction and not the answer Do not expect HEAT maps to determine the exact $ improvement potential Do not use performance and practices HEAT maps separately, use them in conjunction HEAT maps are a dynamic tool that needs to be constantly updated and fine tuned as it is used. Do not consider best practices list to be static

Do no attempt to account for all contextual differences for a plant in the HEAT map

12

Plant best practices score vs clinker factor

Practices

13

More insight in to Best Practices approach in the Clinker factor pillar which compares plants on best practices applied
Practice (L2) Quality of RM Sample L3 practices (not exhasutive) Score


Grinding

Periodic assessment to improve availability of micro fine fly ash (dedicated grinding mills for available fly ash, assessing new sources) Minimize usage of aged raw material by using FIFO, traceability No open storage of clinker, gypsum and other raw material with clear demarcation for different types to avoid mixing Maintain fly ash and cement homogeneity with blending arrangements Monthly optimization of grinding aid dosing rate Increase degree of automation for fly ash / slag / additive feeding system using DCS to control dosing Optimizing mill efficiency using periodical regrading or top ups of the grinding media, longtitudinal sieving and circuit sampling every 15 days Optimizing SO3 in cement using frequent sulphation tests Ensure exhaustive SLAs between GU and mother plants to ensure quality of clinker supply Benchmarking of CF across products every quarter Plants spend time and resources to explore / study impact of technology changes in mineral component drying, separate grinding of mineral components, blending and mixing, flyash separation Dedicated cross functional team with a champion on clinker factor Separate team in the plant that is focused determine and developing alternate sources of mineral components Review of clinker factor such as in daily operations review, weekly by Head Plant Operations, monthly by Plant Director Training calendar and rewards and recognition mechanism

Storage and handling of RM

Feeding

Plant can improve clinker factor with little capex by improving availability and storage of raw materials Technology can be an important lever to increase clinker factor, but will need capex

Others

Technology

Oranization

Performance management

Lunch Talk, Southeast and South Asia, CHBU, 2012-09-12

Plant practices score Vs Clinker factor(LS)

# We have to look into to increase our plant best practice score. Which help to reduce clinker factor. Like Barghar plant ( practice scor e 2.9 vs clinker factor 72.5%

15

Point to improve the practices score (Five from each plant)


1. Point

16

Thank You

Вам также может понравиться