Ted Krapkat
537 posts
TimePosted 14/04/2011 04:23:34


fluence sysbacip:
It is fresh Raw meal not mixed with recirculation dust.

Hello Sheikh,

In that case, the influence of the recirculation dust is irrelevant because ultimately the input is fresh raw meal (LSF~91) and the output is clinker (LSF~93).

As Ovancantfort has already mentioned the observed difference in LSF is most likely due to sampling and/or analysis errors in either the raw meal or the clinker, or both.

You don't need to have very large analysis errors to result in a difference in LSF of only 2, if  the biases happen to be in the right directions.

For example;-

If a sample of  raw meal has an actual LSF of  92 and the following analytical biases;-

SiO2       +0.10

Al2O3     +0.05

Fe2O3    +0.05

CaO        -0.10

the measured LSF will be 91.

And if a sample of  clinker has an actual LSF of  92 and the following analytical biases;-

SiO2        -0.10

Al2O3      -0.05

Fe2O3     -0.05

CaO        +0.10

the measured LSF will be 93.


So you can see that even relatively small analysis errors can explain the observed difference of roughly 2 LSF units between the measured raw meal and clinker.  And this is just considering the analytical errors. Analytical errors are usually small compared to sampling errors, so a combination of both errors would easily explain the observed difference in LSF.






Know the answer to this question? Join the community and register for a free guest account to post a reply.