Determination of the Product Size Distribution of Crushed Charcoal and Screen Effectiveness of a Make-shift Screen

Roselle Andrea C. Apayla, Anna Marie B. Dolor and Ramuel John Tamargo
Received (in Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines-Diliman) 5th March 2013, Accepted 5th March 2013

The particle size distribution and effectiveness of the make-shift screen is investigated in the experiment. A 229.95g pre-weighed mass of charcoal is used and crushed in the jaw crusher. Most of the particles were retained either in the oversize and the undersize as what could be seen in the particle size distribution plots. Large percentage of the particles has an average diameter of 12.7 mm for the oversize and 0.70 for the particles in the oversize. The calculated effectiveness of the make-shift screen equal to 0.11 is small which means that the screen is inefficient for separating particles of crushed charcoal according to particle size. Calculated values maybe affected by the losses of particles in the experimentproper.

Results and Discussion

Size reduction, or comminution, and screening are two important steps in the processing of many solid materials. Particle size reduction is used to create particles of a certain size and shape while screening is for the separation of materials according to size. For the experiment, the product size distribution of crushed charcoal and screen effectiveness of a make-shift screen are to be determined. The grinding time, temperature, pressure, humidity, and all the other factors are assumed to be constant and have no effect on the results of the experiment. In screening, the undersize is defined as the materials that pass through the screen while oversize are those that remained. Intermediate materials are those that pass through one screening surface but are retained on subsequent screens. In the experiment, after the charcoal has been crushed in the jaw crusher and placed in the sieve shaker using Tyler Standard screens of 4 6 8 12 mesh. As the sieves are shaken, the particle falls through them until a screen is reached in which the opening are too small for the particle to pass. The following data were gathered

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 Average Particle Diameter, mm

Figure 1.2 Mass Fraction vs. Average Particle Diameter after 1st screening using the sieve tray

Mass Fraction Cumulative Mass Fraction

1.2 1

0.8
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 Average Particle Diameter, mm

Cumulative, Larger
Cumulative, Smaller

0.7

0.6
Mass Fraction 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12
Figure 1.1 Distribution of Charcoal after 1st screening using the sieve tray

Figure 1.3 Cumulative Mass Fraction vs. Average Particle Diameter after 1st screening using the sieve tray As the size of the mesh increases, the size of the holes on the screen decreases. Figure 1.1 gives the graphical representation of the variation in the amount of particle for a specific screen size. Large amount of the crushed charcoal remained as the oversize followed by the undersize and a decreasing trend for the remaining screen size. The next figure gives us the mass fraction vs. the average diameter of the particle. It could be observed that a large percentage of the particle is about 12.7 mm in diameter. Figure 1.3 on the other hand, shows the cumulative mass fraction vs. the average particle diameter. The cumulative mass fraction is the sum of the entire mass fraction retained by the screen.

Apayla, Dolor, Tamargo

Size Reduction| 1

For the next part of the experiment, the screened crushed charcoal were combined and placed in the make-shift screen for manual sieving. The undersize and oversize were then placed on different sets of Tyler Standard screens same as used for the first part and screened using the sieve shaker.

retained on the oversize. Next Figure 2.2 shows that at mass fraction of approximately 0.77, a large portion of the particles have a diameter equal to 12.7 mm. Lastly, Figure 2.3 gives the cumulative plot versus the average particle diameter which gives us an idea of the amount of particles retained by the screen.

1
0.8 0.6 0.4

1
0.8

Mass Fraction
+1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12

Mass Fraction

0.6 0.4

0.2
0
Figure 2.1 Particle Size Distribution of Oversize Charcoal after manual screening

0.2
0 +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12
Figure 3.1 Particle Size Distribution of Undersize Charcoal after manual screening

1 Mass Fraction 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 Average Particle Diameter, mm

Figure 2.2 Mass Fraction vs. Average Particle Diameter of Oversize after manual screening

1 0.8

Mass Fraction

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 0 5 10 Average Particle Diameter, mm 15

Series1

Figure 3.2 Mass Fraction vs. Average Particle Diameter of Undersize after manual screening

1.5 1

1.5

Mass Fraction
0 5 10 15

Mass Fraction

0.5
0 Average Particle Diamter, mm

0.5
0 0 5 10 15 Average Particle Diameter, mm

Cumulative, Larger

Cumulative, Smaller

Cumulative, Larger

Cumulaive, Smaller

Figure 2.3 Cumulative Mass Fraction vs. Average Particle Diameter of Oversize after manual screening The Particle Size Distribution plot of the oversize charcoal from manual screening shows a relatively small amount of undersize. A large portion of the oversize particles from manual sieving are
Apayla, Dolor, Tamargo

Figure 3.3 Cumulative Mass Fraction vs. Average Particle Diameter of Undersize after manual screening Comparing the two sets of graphs, we could observe opposite results for the oversize and oversize, one increases as the other decreases. This is consistent with what should be expected theoretically. In Figure 3.1, we could see that there was no oversize
Size Reduction| 2

since all of the oversize charcoal were removes after manual screening. After all the data have been gathered, the make-shift screen effectiveness is determined. It is dependent on the recovery of the desired product and the rejection of the undesired product from screening. The set desired product is screen mesh -6 +8 of the oversize.

compared to the oversize and undersize. Largest particle diameter are either in the undersize or oversize. Lastly, the calculated screen effectiveness is small making the make-shift screen inefficient for screening. Some of the particles were also lost during the process. When placed on the Sieve tray, the Tyler Standard screens were not fitted tightly so some of the particles were lost during the process of shaking and during the manual shaking. There should also be additional trials to verify the calculated effectiveness.

Notes and references

1. The three equations above are used for the effectiveness determination. The variables in the equations correspond to: Xp and XF are the mass fractions of the desired material or the product and the feed respectively while P and F are the masses of the product in the feed. The complete set of values for the computation of the screen effectiveness could be found in the Appendix.
Table 1 Values for Screen Effectiveness of the Make-shift Screen

McCabe WL, Smith JC, Harriot P. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGrawHill; 2001. Rhodes, R. Introduction to Particle Technology. 2nd ed. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2008 Foust, A.S. et al. Principles of unit operations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1980

2.

3.

Recovery Rejection Screen Effectiveness

0.476828012 0.227624207 0.108537598

The calculated efficiency is small. Thus, the make-shift screen is not efficient in screening the crushed charcoal. This efficiency is found to be dependent on two parameters: the material and its size. As the blinding of the screens increases, the efficiency decreases and as the sample size increases, the particle size decreases. Blinding of screens resulted through a large concentration of particles with the same opening size of one screen. Some of the particles that should have been part of the oversize might have been screened down to the undersize. Also during the process, the set-up is assumed to be complete after 30 seconds and some of the particles may not be completely separated since a usual fixed time of 10 to 20 minutes are required for shaking as stated in Foust. Prior to screening, the feed is added on the top of the Tyler Standard screens thus preventing incomplete separation due to rapid feeding. Some of the small particles may have also been stuck to larger particle. Screens of the Tyler Standard screen and make-shift screen may have also worn out over time thus some of the oversize particles may be found in the undersize. Clogging of screen openings with sample particles may have also affected the calculated efficiency of the set of data. It is important to weigh each screened charcoal from every screen size interval to account for the amount of particles lost during the entire experiment and to observe the particle size distribution after the material is crushed.

Conclusions and Recommendation

Small and large particles were obtained from the jaw crusher as shown by the particle size distribution diagrams for the three sets o data. Intermediate materials or those that pass through one screening surface but are retained on subsequent screens are relatively small as
Apayla, Dolor, Tamargo Size Reduction| 3

Appendix
A. Mass Fraction

Interval +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12

Weight of Crushed Charcoal, g 137.48 20.76 10.99 9.84 6.59 43.17 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 Oversize

Mass Fraction 0.60079535 0.09072237 0.04802692 0.043001355 0.028798672 0.188655334 1.10E-04 6.33E-05 6.22E-05 6.21E-05 6.20E-05 6.81E-05

Interval +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12

Weight of Crushed Charcoal, g 132.28 20.75 10.76 4.63 0.6 2.42 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 Undersize

Mass Fraction 0.771581895 0.121033598 0.062762483 0.027006533 0.003499767 0.014115726 1.76E-04 8.60E-05 8.35E-05 8.27E-05 8.25E-05 8.25E-05

Interval +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12

Weight of Crushed Charcoal, g 0 0.14 0.41 5.08 6.56 42.05 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136 0.014142136

Mass Fraction 0 0.002581121 0.007558997 0.093657817 0.120943953 0.775258112 0.00E+00 2.61E-04 2.61E-04 2.68E-04 2.72E-04 5.60E-04

B.

Cumulative Mass Fraction (Larger)

Apayla, Dolor, Tamargo

Size Reduction| 4

C.

Cumulative Mass Fraction (Smaller)

Interval +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12

Cumulative, Larger 1 0.399205 0.308482 0.260455 0.217454 0.188655 1.80E-04 1.42E-04 1.27E-04 1.11E-04 9.21E-05 6.81E-05 Oversize

Cumulative, Smaller 0.600795 0.691518 0.739545 0.782546 0.811345 1 1.80E-04 2.49E-04 2.04E-04 1.60E-04 1.14E-04 2.66E-04

Interval +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12

Cumulative, Larger 1 0.228418 0.107385 0.044622 0.017615 0.014116 2.57E-04 1.87E-04 1.66E-04 1.43E-04 1.17E-04 8.25E-05

Cumulative, Smaller 0.771582 0.892615 0.955378 0.982385 0.985884 1 2.57E-04 3.21E-04 2.61E-04 2.02E-04 1.43E-04 7.76E-04

Undersize Interval +1/4 -1/4 + 4 -4 + 6 -6 + 8 -8 + 12 -12 D. Screen Effectiveness Cumulative, Larger 1 1 0.997419 0.98986 0.896202 0.775258 7.71E-04 7.71E-04 7.26E-04 6.77E-04 6.22E-04 5.60E-04 Cumulative, Smaller 0 0.002581 0.01014 0.103798 0.224742 1 7.71E-04 1.51E-03 1.30E-03 1.08E-03 8.37E-04 5.60E-04

Apayla, Dolor, Tamargo

Size Reduction| 5