Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam   Printed in The Netherlands
Modelling of Screening Operations
G. FERRARA, U. PRETI and G.D. SCHENA
University o[ Trieste, Trieste (Italy)
(Received January 22, 1986; accepted after revision October 7, 1986)
ABSTRACT
Ferrara, G., Preti, U. and Schena, G.D., 1988. Modelling of screening operations. Int. J. Miner.
Process., 22: 193222.
This paper reviews the FerraraPreti screening model and shows that recent laboratory and
pilot plant data validate this approach. The model successfully predicts the partition curve (se
lectivity function) and therefore the product size distributions, given the feed size distribution.
Some improvement in the application of the model, concerning numerical solution of the equa
tions and parameter estimation, are indicated.
Information is then given on the influence of some operating conditions on the screen perform
ance studied through the modification of the model parameters, a way that could be useful for a
more complete approach to modelling of screening operations.
Some applications of the model to improvement of screening operations, sizing of screens, sim
ulation of screening and of integrated plant operations are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The screening model considered in this paper has been proposed by Ferrara
and Preti (1975) and subsequently reviewed by t h e m and by other workers
(De Pretis et al., 1977; Schena, 1982; Kelly and Spottiswood, 1982; Herbst and
Oblad, 1984 ). Hess (1983) demonstrated that this model is very accurate.
Results of validation tests are reported by some of the above mentioned au
thors (Ferrara and Preti, 1975; Schena, 1982; Hess, 1983). Later, some of the
main assumptions on which the model is based were checked by the authors
and the results are reported below.
The model is chiefly aimed at giving a relationship between: (A) variables
which define the mineral fed to the screen ( size distribution); (B) parameters
which characterize the process; (C) dimensions of the screen; and (D) results
of the screening operations. These results can be either in the form of a parti
tion curve (selectivity function)   here expressed as screen oversize efficiency
 or in the form of size distribution curves for the products. From these results

it is also possible to obtain synthetic parameters defining the screen perform
03017516/88/$03.50 © 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
194
ance such as the efficiency formulae reported by Nichols (1982) (efficiency of
undersize removal or of undersize recovery).
Only steadystate continuous screening is considered. However, the model
can also be applied to batch sieving by substituting time for the length (from
the feed point of the screen) and modifying the meaning and dimensions of
the variables and the parameters accordingly. As regards dynamic continuous
screening, a study has recently been published by Herbst and Oblad (1984).
The equations of the model and the calculation programs can be used in one
of the following ways:
 given (A), ( B ) and ( C ), (D) is calculated (Simulation)
 given (C) and (D), (B) is calculated (Parameter estimation)
 given (A), (B) and (D), (C) is calculated (Design)
In the present paper, the model is reformulated in more general terms using
continuous functions which give the possibility to obtain more accurate solu
tions when the grain size distribution can be expressed through equations in
stead of matrices. From the equations with continuous functions the equations
in discretized form as reported by Ferrara and Preti (1975) and De Pretis et
al. (1977) can be reobtained.
In the solution of model equations and estimation of parameters some prob
lems have arisen. These were solved by proper mathematical methods and it
is considered useful to mention t h e m here.
Of basic importance for a correct application of the model is the choice of
the parameters characterizing the process if they have not yet been determined
experimentally for the problem under study. These parameters depend on sev
eral machine variables, including the screening surface, in ways that are known
only partially and qualitatively. Some data can be found in the paper by De
Pretis et al. (1977), others have been collected later and are reported herein.
It must be said, however, that much has yet to be done in this respect, and that
a cooperation between research institutions and manufacturers of screens and
screening surfaces would be desirable.
Finally, indications and suggestions are given about possible applications of
the model   also other than those most commonly used that have been men
tioned above   which might lead to a deeper understanding of the screening
process also from a physical point of view and hence to new ideas and improved
machines.
The model is applied to dry screening only; problems associated with wet
screening, screening of moist and sticky materials and the effect of blinding on
the screening surfaces have not been tackled.
MATHEMATICALMODEL OF SCREENING
Two different screening conditions, crowded and separate (or disperse ),
lead to two different rate processes ( Brereton and Dymott, 1973; Ferrara and
195
Preti, 1975 ). For the sake of clarity, for both of the conditions the model can
be considered composed of two parts: ( a ) one expressing the kinetics of the
process, through the space (or time ) dependent mass balance applied to
populations of particles with different size; (b) another expressing the ratio
between the passage probabilities for particles of different size depending on
the relative size of particle and aperture.
CROWDED SCREENING
Crowded screening occurs when the flow rate is above a critical level Wc
such that the material forms a bed so thick that only particles immediately in
contact with the screen are capable of passage. As long as the upper layers are
able to replenish the contact layer, the mass flow rate of passage remains
constant.
Kinetics of the process
If w (X,1) d X is the mass flow rate per unit width for particles of size from X
to X + dX entering the element d/, the mass balance relative to this element
for the same size class is as represented in Fig. 1. (The definition of the symbols
is given in Appendix I. )
Since it has been shown experimentally that in crowded conditions the mass
of passing particles of size X is proportional to a constant which depends on X
and to the concentration of particles with size X, we have:
aw(X,l)
   k( X) .f( X,l) (1)
0!
where f(X,l) is the concentration of particles of size X, which is given by the
F eed ,,,(~l,~x~__~  ,,,ix,rl dx ~~Vr~'' ,~x
~'w (X,~) dX
Fig. 1. Basic model for screening in crowded conditions.
f(x.l)dx 0 Integrating between 0 and L and introducing the screen oversize efficiency (or partition number) for the size X: E( X. For using the model. for x.. Herbst and Oblad (1984) have derived general equations which take into account the dispersion but cannot be solved analytically: neglecting the dispersion an equa tion is found having a form similar to the one that we derived.l) f(X. in which some important and known parameters are explicit. however.l). If we consider a second generic value x of the variable other than X.l) k(x) X(x) .L)=exp[k(X)fwd~l(l)l (4) 0 For this approach to be valid. If D is the screen aperture then the conditions for x will be: .X: w(X.I n E(X.k ( X ) (5) Substituting eq. the ratio of the logarithms of the screen oversize effi ciency (eq.dx=k(X) (6) 0 Ol a differential equation which is equivalent to eq. 4 can be used to calculate the efficiency curve once the function fd//W(l) is known or to fit experimental data. The first assumption has been discussed by Ferrara and Preti (1975).I) =w( X.196 density function of the size distribution of the material at the point l. 1 but contains explicitly the variable X representing the size of the grains whose kinetics is being studied and the variable x representing the generic grain size of the particle population over the screen.l) w(X. it is pref erable to write the equation in a different form. some assumptions are necessary: perfect mix ing on the screen along the vertical.l)X(x)lOE(X'l).O ) (3) yields: L E(X.O) E(X. whose distribution influences the kinetics of the grains of size X.l) /w( X.l) ~o . 4) for the two variables will define a new variable: In E(x. 2 into eq.I) . plug flow of the material along the screen. Eq. (2) w(1) f w(x. 1 and using the expressions 3 and 5 yields: Iw(x.
1973. then the function X(x) can be expressed as follows: Z(x) =k(x)/k(X)=p(x)/p(X)= [(Dx)/(DX) ]~ (10) According to Gaudin's model.l ]dx D Eq. 7 between 0 and L and introducing the feed flow rate per unit width Wo and the density function of the grain size distri bution in the feed f(x.0) yields: D Wo{ !f(x. Ferrara and Preti.L)=I Probabilityofpassage Two functions appear in eq.O) E(X. Tests have shown that eq. which must be determined experimentally. both of them constant under given operating conditions.O)x~x) [E(X. X (x) and k(X) which can be expressed by a model derived from the simplest of those proposed by Gaudin (1939) : p(x) = (Dx)2/(D+B) 2 where D is the mesh aperture (square) and B the wire diameter.o)OlnEo(iX'l)dx=k(X) (7) o D Integrating the differential eq.L)X(~) . 6 dividing the integral into two parts: D o0 fw(x. 8. Since (Brer eton and Dymot. it is convenient to rewrite eq. . a = 2 for square meshes and a = 1 for wedge wire screens. 1975) : k(X) =Wcn'p(X) (9) where Wc is the critical flow rate and n the number of particle presentations per unit length. 8 is valid for grains of size X between 0 and D. 197 f o r 0 < x < D k(x)¢O Z(x)¢O for x>~D k ( x ) = 0 Z ( x ) = 0 Therefore. 10 fits very well the experimental data for a values depending on the vibration conditions of the screen and on the type of screening surface.l)X'~)lOE(oX'l)dx+fw(x. it will be: k(X) = 0 E(X. for X>~ D.
l) (14) al where s (X) is the kinetic constant for the size X.L)=I for X>~D (13) The second term of the lefthand side of eq.L)dx} ( Jo X[x) D =kso2~'(1X)~L forX<D (12) E(X.0.5 in eq.X / D ) ~ (11) where ks0 is the kinetic constant for x/D = 0. s(X) "w(X. 14 can be derived theoretically by applying the prob ability theory as a function of the passage probability p ( X ) and of the number n of attempts made by a particle per unit length of the screen. 10. one obtains: k(X) =kso 2 ~ (1 .O)lnE(X.198 Letting x/D .L)] ~]'(x. The differential equation for screening is: Ow(X.O) dx=ln[E(X. 12 can be written as follows: OO ln[E(X.L)] "Yos D where Yos is the proportion of oversize > D in the feed.O) .p ( X ) ] (15) . This parameter is essentially a function of D and of the type of screening surface and also depends to a certain extent on some operating conditions. Combining eqs. which therefore depends also on this parameter. since the terms of Gaudin's equation containing the wire diameter are eliminated through the definition of X(x). according to the expression: s(X) =nln [1.I~[E(X.l) . 1]dx+ ~f(x. the effect of the open area is not explicit but included in the ks0 value. 8 and 11 yields the complete equations describing the screen ing process in the crowded state: D oo Wo ~ Ff(x. SEPARATE SCREENING Separate screening occurs when the particles on the screen do not interact with one another.5. It should be pointed out that with this model. The term s (X) in eq.L) x(x).
8984 0. [o. This is the field which is practically of interest.8479 0.L ) =exp [ .9230 0. vice versa. 16 in this case becomes: E( X.9345 0.L ] (16) for X between 0 and D.0000 1. replacingp (X) with the Gaudin's expres sion corrected by the introduction of a as had already been done for crowded conditions: P(X)\D+B]\ D ] \ D + B ] :[~°/2(1D) (17) where ]Cois the fraction open area of the screening surface for square mesh.9491 0.f ~/2(1X/D ) ~'] "L} (18) Eq. Eq. given E (X.4 fo = 0.9839 0.2 0.L).p (X)) differs from unity by TABLE I Ratio R = p ( X ) / I n [ 1 . which though not exact.4 0.9920 0.0.L). given n.9512 0. 18 is applicable only when separate conditions are known to occur and. is sufficiently approximated for X/D > 0.7136 0. ~ and L.8 0.1 0.L ) = e x p { . 14 between 0 and L and introducing the screen oversize ef ficiency E (X.0 1.9728 0.L) yields the screening equation for the separate state: E( X.8876 0.8657 0.5. 18.5 reach the transition zone from crowded to separate conditions.9960 1. it allows the calculation of E(X.6206 0.0000 1. while for X >~D one always has s (X) = 0 and E ( X. the equation permits the calculation of the two parameters n and ft.7 0.8445 0.n ' l n [ 1 . 16. Considering that the function R p ( X ) / I n (1 .3 0. One possibility is to utilize eq.0000 .9 0. it is possible to use a different form of eq.9819 0.7926 0.9880 0.9970 0.9980 0.7302 0. [o and L.L ) = 1.6 0.p ( X ) ] for different values of the fraction open area )Co X/D [o.5 0. 15.9636 0.9676 0.8275 0.9261 0.6 [o = 0. as all the grains with small X/D pass in the first part of the screen and only grains with X/D> 0. and particularly for the study of mixed (crowded and sepa rate) conditions.7878 0.8963 0. Alternatively. 199 Integrating eq. At this point it is necessary to find an expression for the s(X) that has to be introduced into eq.8 0.s ( X) .
11. Lc).200 less than 10% for X / D > 0. The derivation had already been made by Hess (1983) and is shown again in the present paper. however. Substituting eq. Substituting the expressions derived from eqs. separate or mixed con ditions and therefore very useful for characterizing the screening process with few parameters. Sso and a are functions of the screening surface and of the vibration conditions of the screen. 21 it is.5 (see Table I. (1977).L ~ ) ] (22) where E [X. ( L . L ) exp [ Sso 2 ~" ( 1 . 16 leads to the following approximate equation governing the separate state: E ( X . 20 into eq. 22 yields: E ( X. eq. 18 or 21. 11 found for crowded conditions and allows the influence of the open area to be included in Sso. 20 has already been reported by De Pretis et al. In the next por tion of the screen.X / D ) ° .L c ) .X / D ) ~ (19) Through the ratio of s (X) to s (x) for x = D/2 ( named Sso) we obtain: s( X ) =Sso 2~ . E [ X . ( L .L ) __exp~_kso. By using eq.p (X)) thereby obtaining: s( X ) =nfg/2" ( 1 . 15 we can substitute p (X) for In (1 . separate conditions will occur and the global screen oversize efficiency will be: E ( X . ( L .Lc) .L c ) ] can be calculated by the use of eqs.L] (21) MIXED CONDITIONS If we designate with Lc the critical distance from the feed point for the tran sition from crowded to separate conditions and with Wc the corresponding flow rate.Eq. unlike eq.X / D ) ~ (20) which is identical with eq. this is an approximate expression. 12 with L=L¢ will p r o v i d e t h e results for screening in the crowded state. but its derivation has been omitted as well as the specification that. calculated for a . possible to obtain a single equation for the screen oversize efficiency which is valid for crowded. ( 1 . in eq.2 ).2~ ( I _ X ~ dl o[ ( \ uja 0 Assuming: kso = SsoC (24) . the corresponding screen oversize efficiency is E (X. L ) =E(X. 4 and 21 into eq.
were .5 D in size. demonstrating that an intermediate transition zone does not exist. 2b). separate or mixed). Eq. the possibility of designing screens operating in mixed conditions does not seem of any interest. This may be a cause of errors in the evaluation of the kinetic parameters. 23 gives: E ( X . The basic hypotheses underlying the model for crowded conditions and that for separate conditions were first checked by screening tests carried out at decreasing flow rates of particles close to 0. the value obtained for this parameter will be wrong (below the true value) as a conse quence of eq. The plot permits the calcula tion of ki and si (this latter for W . It is worth noting that the screening conditions change sharply at We. It cannot be employed for design purposes because nd varies with operating conditions in a way which is unknown. Other checking tests. A plot of In (AW/AL) versus In W (Fig. L ) =exp [ kso "nd'2 °" ( 1 . V A L I D A T I O N OF T H E M O D E L The basic equations expressing the screening kinetics and the model as a whole were submitted to checking. substituting into eq. 25 can be used to define experimental curves of screen oversize efficiency by fitting two parameters (nd" kso and a) regardless of the screening conditions occurring on the screen (crowded. The screens are normally designed for crowded conditions and mixed conditions will possibly occur as a result of conservative sizing or if the feed rate is low. d l / W ( 1 ) + ( L . It is. A rough estimate of C is We. if we want to determine kso and do not take into account the fact that the screen operates in mixed condition. also because it is not easy in practice to detect the transition point from crowded to separate conditions unless the tests are carried out in the laboratory or in a well equipped pilot plant. already reported by Ferrara and Preti (1975). 2a) shows the occurrence of crowded conditions in the region with constant AW/AL up to the value We.l ) . 24. in which zIW/AL decreases proportionally with W. The tests were repeated with a feed consisting of the same grains with oversize particles in different ranges of per centage ( Fig. 201 where C is a constant with dimensions g/sec cm.X / D ) ~ ] (25) where the term Lc nd =. separate conditions start to occur. mass flow rate on the screen at Lc.L c ) / C (26) o is unknown but constant under certain operating conditions. at low flow rates. On the other hand. to be noted that.. however.
cm2 10~ ~.2 . performed by plotting ..56.2 10 1 1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 W glsec cm Fig.cm~ 1041 . lnE(X.202 10 ~. OVERSIZE 102 25% +25%. ( a ) Feed=particles having xi=2 m m ( size class ..70 ).2 10 ? 1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4 105 W glsec.70% *70% 90% 10 4 1010_3 I I /.cm 10 A_~w AL (b) 1 glsec. 16) for separate con ditions. Screening tests showing the transition from crowded to separate conditions.50% lO3 +50%.9 % ~ Amplitude 4 mm 10: ~ ' Frequency 1200 r p m 7 wc IOL 10 ¸ I i I I I i I 103 10 . 4) an versus L(eq.for different X and L values . 1 g/sec. The alignment of the experimental points along straight lines has al . I I I I 10 .L) versus L ~dl/W(l) o for crowded conditions (eq. 2. ( b ) Feed consisting of the same particles as ( a ) + oversize in different ranges of percentages.~ S i Screen aperture E] 4 mm I0. 3 8 to 1.w Z~L {a) /. ~ Porficles size xi ~ 2 mm ~ Open area .
5 0 ) . The straight lines obtained had slope values. and SVEDALA A R B R A A. Plot of In [k (X)/kso ] vs.5 1 1.X / D ) .5 in (1XIO) Fig.5 2 2.X / D ) = 0. 4 shows the experimen tal points for one of the tests. U2. In these pilot plants the screen underfiow is collected separately for a number (8 or less combining the un derflows ) of screen sections as illustrated in the scheme of Fig.B. 3 ). Deviations from the crowded condition model were observed when the bed was too high on the screening surface. WL ___ Wz __ W3 ___ W4 Io. as example. particularly as regards the fine classes. a range of practical interest. probably because the assumed perfect mixing along the vertical had not occurred. U4 and . 3. 3.X/D ). 11) was verified by plotting In [ k (X)/kso ] versus In ( 1 . This figure shows a subdivision into 4 sections. Fig. varying around 2 (Gaudin's law) and passing through the point of coordinates k (X)/kso = 1 and (1 . and the straight lines corresponding to ~r values from 1 to 3. The model as a whole was verified on the basis of the results of screening tests performed on the screen of our laboratory and on the industrialsize screens of the pilot plants of S K E G A A. when the weights and size distributions of U1.2 mm (aperture of the screen 4 m m ) and collecting the underflow separately (Fig. 4. ( size of the screens: 1. 4 and 16 for the two screening conditions.60 and 1 . a. 0 0 × 3 . In (1 . it can be seen that. Fig.//3. The tests were carried out through a laboratory screen divided into 4 sections.B. 203 Wo _. Iu. lowed the verification of eqs. by screening crushed limestone containing all the classes in the range 5 to 0. Scheme of laboratory screen divided in four sections. as is the case for our laboratory screen. 3 Z 1 o 0 1 I in klX~ k~o 2 i 3 4 Sl 6 _ _ 1 i i i 0.13×3. The relationship defining k ( X ) as a function of X / D (eq.5.
9 33.4 33.87 25.4 48.4 26. open area 55%.31 40. wire cloth. screen slope 15 °.0218 2 1.98 0. amplitude 18 ram.99 1. type of vibration and of screening sur face.0126 5 3.83 0.89 24. For different operating conditions.0 25. feed rate 98. wire cloth.5 t/h m N Screen Rough values Final values Standard length error (m) k~o a kso a 1 1.74 0.82 1.66 1.52 30.46 37.0281 2 1.0231 4 3.88 24.0339 3 2. feed rate 59.0257 5 3.0270 5 3.04 0.72 2.9 45.97 1.0143 3 2.01 2.0395 4 3.99 0.0153 2 1.5 36. W3 and.17 0. feed rate 65.4 35. wire cloth.31 1.99 23.70 1.18 1.80 1.31 2.49 29.22 1.38 2.39 41.88 24.17 2. the screen oversize efficiency curves for each section.0335 TABLE IV Pilot plant screening test: free swinging linear motion. kso and a were calculated for successive sections and/or for increased TABLE II Pilot plant screening test: free swinging circular motion.53 0.47 1.29 1.21 1. 4 mm opening.28 0.0183 3 2. screen slope 15°.0570 4 3.0247 TABLE III Pilot plant screening test: free swinging circular motion.0 34.0149 .6 t / h m N Screen Rough values Final values Standard length error (m) k~o a kso a 1 1.71 1.48 32.82 1.42 1. amplitude 7 ram. amplitude 7 mm.46 0. hence.40 42. screen horizontal.51 30.4 24. 8 mm opening.04 0. frequency 1100 rpm.204 W4 are known.5 27. open area 55%.43 37.59 1.59 0.74 2.84 1.32 0.06 0. W1.7 t / h m N Screen Rough values Final values Standard length error (m) kso a k~o a 1 1.9 23.02 2.74 2.27 1.5 52.44 28. frequency 700 rpm. W2.82 1.47 2.0 50. it is possible to know Wo. 4 mm opening.64 0.33 1. frequency 1100 rpm.77 0.4 50. open area 67%.18 1.
J u. . They show the order of magnitude of the observed deviations from a constant value. and the second for a better separation of nearsubmesh particles. SCREEN LENGTH SQUARE OPENING 59.5 Ilh m > u. the values obtained are constant with a good ap proximation. Tables II and III refer to screening in the same vibration conditions with circular motion. but different screen apertures (4 m m and 8 m m ) . the rough and final values (calculated with the method explained in the next section) of kso and for increased lengths of the screen. sometimes. Looking through a number of data the following observations were made..Simulated efficiencycurves and experimental points for three screen lengths. to vibrating condition of the screen that are not completely constant on the whole surface. Tables II and IV refer to the same screen aperture ( 4 m m ) . 5 shows. In the last column the mean standardized fitting errors are reported. III and IV give. mm Fig. that are chiefly due to experimental errors and probably. Pilot plant screening tests. but with different vibrating conditions (circular and rectilinear vibration). the simulated efficiency curves and the experimental points considering three screen lengths. Therefore the first condition is more appropriate for a better sepa ration of the fines. 5. Tables II. The results show that the cir cular motion gives higher a values and lower kso values than the rectilinear vibration. for the test of Table II. Z lc D I 0! 0 1 2 3 PARTICLE SIZE. 205 length values of the screen. Fig. for three pilot plant tests. provided that the operation is carried out in crowded conditions but without overloading the screen..
8.206 TABLE V Pilot plant screening test: free swinging linear motion.09 22.06 0.22 1.39 2. The comparison of experimental and simulated data has shown the lowest mean standardized fitting error of all the models he considered. 0 .82 2. . it can be observed that the model is very sensitive to the value of D and therefore using in simulation a value De. In particular.80 20.35 19. using eq.7 m m for Table II).3 . for the test of Table V (Fig. including the large sieve intervals.02 21..0477 3 1.5 . rubber deck.23 1. rectangular opening 6 × 20 ram.91 2. where the above reported suggestion becomes an imperative need. The subject will also be discussed in a later section for rectangular openings.79 0. III and IV (e. the experimental points for class 01 mm in Fig. simply due to adhesion of very fine particles to the coarser ones.48 2.67 0.0261 (a) Sometimes for the finer size classes is observed a screen undersize effi ciency [1E(x.0284 7 3.05 21.90 20.89 0. the fitting accuracy will suffer.25 21. 5). screen slope 5 °.07 21. 5 for the nearsubmesh class 34 mm. For example.60 25.70 23.99 1. 5 are slightly lower than predicted by the model. curve for 71.02 22. higher values of the standardized fitting errors were observed.g. considering also the source of inaccuracy connected to the large sieve intervals used for the tests of Tables II.2 t / h m) where the anomaly occurs.66 2. the model proves to be reliable and can easily be made to simulate actual screening performance by proper selection of the parameters.29 1. slightly different from the nom inal one (lower in case of Fig.94 2.88 2.2 .15 26. moisture) or the results are not corrected. This fact.0446 5 2. This may be due to different reasons. frequency 746 rpm.L)] lower than that for the size class immediately coarser.g. open area 26%.67 2.32 1.07 0.20 23. For the same reason.0325 6 3. The model was also verified by Hess (1983). (b) Some deviation of simulated from experimental results can be observed in Fig.71 0. 25 and fitting the two parameters ndk~oand a.0493 4 2.75 0.06 22.1 . amplitude 16 ram. probably.0453 2 1. has nothing to do with the true screening and the model. On the whole. the fitting errors could be reduced.52 2.4 . feed rate 71. If the cause of anomaly is not eliminated (e.2 t/h m N Screen Rough values Final values Standard length error (m) kso a kso a 1 0.
L ) Z J i . The numerical solution is easier by the following variable transformation: E(xi. and j refers to the other size classes present in the feed which affect the behaviour of size class i.xi) / (D . already reported in previous papers by the authors: Wo~ ~ y j o l [ E ( x i . 30 can be easily derived and solved using the methods of numerical analysis . but requires the knowledge of continuous functions defining the size composition of the feed. L ) (j=l Zji ~ Yjo} i=n+l = k5o2 ~ 1 . while the classes from n + 1 to m are larger. However. the size composition of the feed is generally known for discrete values of particle size. 12 for the crowded condition and eq.~ xi )o L ~oo=0 (30) j = 1Xji j = n + 1 Eq. eq.x J D ) ° ' L ] for l<~i<. "L (27) for l <<. 207 NUMERICAL SOLUTIONOF THE EQUATIONS The use of continuous functions for the definition of the model.xi ) ] ~. attention is focused on the method for the solution of eq.s ~ o 2 ° ( 1 . For separate conditions: E(xi.i<m (28) Not taking into account the separate conditions for which the solution is simple and independent of the grain size composition of the feed.L) = e x p [ .n E(xi. such as were employed in the present study. This transformation leads to the following equations.L) =1 for n+ l <. The classes from i to n are smaller than the mesh aperture of the screen. This equation.i <~n E(xi. 21 for the separate condition must be written in discretized form.1 ] + l n E ( x i . in principle. has to be solved for the n classes having xi<D. in order to obtain E (xi. 27.L) for a given value of L. 27 we obtain the following equation in the variable 7: n V(ri)=zYi°[exp(~iZji)l]+ ~ yjoyi+k~o2 o (\ 1 . in this case. improves the model accuracy. is more general and.L)=l forn+l<~i<m where the index i refers to the size class whose behaviour during screening is being studied.L) = e x p ( ? i ) (29) Substituting into eq. Xji = [(D .
regardless of the conditions present on the screen (eq. The values for the screen oversize efficiency are obtained from eq. rewritten in the following form for the generic class i and for the screen length from Lk to Lk+ 1: Lk+l l n E i = . 27 for each class i and calculating the function: (I)= ~ (EiEi*)2zi (33) i~1 where Ei and Ei* are the experimental and simulated values of the screen over size efficiency. 31 can be obtained by considering W(l) constant and equal to ( Wh+ Wk+l)/2. CALCULATION OF M O D E L P A R A M E T E R S If only the fitting of the parameters defining the curve of the screen oversize efficiency is of interest. 26). is: Inki = lnkso + a In [2 (1 . 31 for each class i and kso and a can be obtained from a set of equations for which the generic one. (1) Calculating a rough estimate of kso and a by means of eq. for more screen sections. better still. A procedure is proposed which can be applied when the screening results are known for one screen section or. these values are used as guess values for a more accurate calculation method. This consists in simulating the process by using eq.208 ( Newton's method). 30. In this case the above procedure cannot be followed because nd is unknown (eq. .k i  dl/W(l) (31) Lk When test results are available for screening sections (Fig. 29 by substituting into it the roots of eq. Conversely. 11. then Wk and Wh+ 1 are known and hence a rough estimate of the integral of eq. This procedure consists of the follow ing two steps. respectively. provided that on the whole screen crowded conditions occur. 27 is to be used for design and simulation purposes then kso and a must be determined pro vided that the screening occurs in crowded conditions.xi/D) ] ( 32 ) which we prefer to solve using the method that minimizes the absolute deviation. The procedure is also applicable when the screening results for the whole screen are known. Lh+ 1. so as to permit a more accurate estimation of the parameters. In this way. 3 ) at Lk. obtained from eq. if eq. ki can be calculated from eq. it is sufficient to determine ndkso and a. and zi are appropriate weighting coefficients. 25). 4. (2) Once a rough estimate of kso and a has been obtained. so that the value for the integral is 2L/( Wk+ Wh+l).
l). The general transform of continuous to discrete screen oversize efficiency function is the following: Xi+l f f(X.[(X. 36 can be approximated by the following expression: Xi + 1 1 E'(xi. only eq. using a sequential searching tech nique proposed by Box (1965). the sieve intervals and the size distribution of the feed. 35: E (X. (1980) (using analytical integration) and in the screen model of King (1977) (using numerical integration). 36 cannot be integrated analytically. l ) ~.  E(X. INFLUENCE OF THE SIEVE INTERVALS ON THE MODEL PARAMETERS ESTIMATION The screen oversize efficiency is defined as a continuous function by eq. d X E( xi.[(X.xi xi+l (36) f f(X. either because the form of E (X.dX (37) Xi+ 1 ~X i 3 xi Methods of averaging of screen efficiency over sieve intervals according to eq. 34 defines the true screen oversize efficiency. eq. as reported by Hess (1983). 34.I). 35 gives an "averaged" value of the efficiency over a sieve interval. 209 Seeking the m i n i m u m of the • function. There fore.W(l) . or because f(X. 34).l)/Wo . while eq.0) (34) E ( x i .O) .l) . E ( X . As a consequence of the above and with reference to the application of the model proposed in this paper. eq. 3 (which can also be written as eq. I ) .dX xi Frequently. 34 and 35 differ for wide sieve intervals: the first is the limit of the second for sieve intervals approaching zero. the final solutions are obtained. the following points have to be considered. W (1) "yi/W o "Yio (35) The efficiencies as defined from eqs. and as a discrete function for the class i (particle size from xi to xi+l) by eq./) .l).O). 37 have been incorporated in the screen models of Whiten (1972) and Batterham et al. which depends on func tion eq.0 ) is unknown in the form of a continuous function and only the values of its integral corresponding to the limits of the sieve in tervals are known. . Assuming the density function of size distribution to be constant within the sieve intervals.
To this end. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARAMETERSksoAND a The kinetic parameter kso is the mass flow rate per unit area for particles of size X. Nichols. the model parameters values can be considered a good approximation of the true ones. (2) Using the true values of the model parameters.210 (1) A correct procedure would require the estimation of the true values of the model parameters. amplitude. (3) Conversely. allows k(X) to be calculated for the generic size X by means of eq. for high a values the k(X) values for the fine classes are high.g. the experimen tal values of the screen oversize efficiency (related to wide sieve intervals) have to be compared with the simulated ones. only screening results within the same discrete system can be correctly simulated. It also depends on parameters characterizing the screening surface (fraction open area. calculated using narrow intervals ( or preferably the continuous function) and then averaged on the wide inter vals corresponding to the experimental data by eq. To illustrate further the meaning of a. l/v/2.5 D. 1982). for low a values the nearsubmesh particles remarkably increase their k(X) value. 6 gives a plot of k(X) versus X/D.2 = 3 6 t h 1 m . on the vibration characteristics of the screen (frequency. 11. Conversely. to a particular testing sieve series). 33.0. However. type of screening surface ). being Ei* av eraged screen oversize efficiency values as explained before. Therefore.2 ) . This parameter can be measured in g s 1 cm 2 or i n t h 1 m 2 (1 g s 1 c m . in fact.5 ). while those for the nearsubmesh particles are low (X/D > 0. as does the capacity mentioned above. Fig. form of the os cillation) and on the inclination of the screen. 1/2. aperture shape. As can be seen from the plot. assuming kso= 1. The parameter a affects the ratio of passage probabilities for particles of different size (eq. These values only. i. kso and a.e. 36.5 ). the same procedure explained in the preceding section on calculation of model parame ters can be applied. including the minimizing method of eq. the values corresponding to the true screen oversize efficiency. if the available values of model parameters correspond to a discrete system (e. once kso is known. 1/~/2 or an irregular series) can be simulated.g. if this system is based on sieve intervals narrow enough. The significance of kso is similar to that of the socalled empirical or basic capacity in the well known formulae for screen sizing ( Colman. ( X/D < 0. 1978. . assuming the feed made up of grains all of the same size and the screening occurring in crowded condition. The parameter kso depends chiefly on the mesh aperture. in data processing. the screening results corresponding to different sieve series (e. 10) and. are independent of sieve inter vals and feed size distribution.
. 6.. \ \ ". O" = 3 7c \ >. X/D for different a values.. i t i o 1 2 . 0 O. ~ PARTICLE $1Z£..( \ N \ Z 3o \ .. \ Z \ \ u_ sc \ LLI \ \ \ w z..... k~o= 1. . 211 . Plot of k ( X ) vs. 10( Kso 9C \ 2 . ..S × D Fig. \ \ '. . mm Fig... Influence of k~o and a on the shape of the efficiency curves.. 0" = I '\ o'=2 ... . 7..
INFLUENCE OF OPERATINGCONDITIONS ON THE PARAMETERSksoAND a Through the model eqs. but depends on the type of screening surface. In passing from square to elongated rectangular apertures. the curves modify their shape with the consequences on th. Varying 0. 6. Variations of screen length L and of L/Wo act in the same way.e separation de scribed above when explaining Fig. 12 and 27. The following effects still to be investigated are then: (1) parameters char acterizing the screen surface (aperture shape. k~odecreases as if the round aperture corresponded to a smaller square aperture.. In . Increasing kso the curves move towards conditions of better separation. amplitude. the influence of the operating conditions on the screen performance can be investigated much more easily through the study of their influence on kso and a. the parameter defining the position of the efficiency curves is Z = kso'L/Wo. type of screening surface material). Fig. In passing from square to round apertures. since these quantities are taken into account .212 The parameter a which is dimensionless. 7 shows the influence of kso and a on the efficiency curves. and assuming D as the shorter side. a on the other hand. The influence of the above listed parameters on kso and ~ was investigated only partially. the vibration characteristics and the slope of the screen. (2) vibration characteristics of the screen (fre quency. inclination of vibration. in the test sieving. For higher values of Z a better separation is obtained. k~o should increase and a decrease.either explicitly or implicitly m in the equations of the model.5D. is independent of the mesh aper ture. the flow rate and the screen dimensions (length and width). In effect. form of the oscillation. fraction open area. whether rectilinear or elliptic) . APERTURESHAPE The shape of the aperture affects both kso and a. and ( 3 ) inclination of the screening surface. indicating that in a relative sense the fine particles pass much more readily than the coarse ones and that the conditions occurring are most unfavorable for the passage of nearsubmesh particles. a dimensionless quantity which means ratio of specific capacity of screening expressed in terms of kso and feed rate per unit area of screen Wo/L. also in connection with the vibration characteristics. but they always pass through a point at the abscissa X=0. The main results obtained are reported in the following sections. the parameters kso and a completely define the screening process in crowded condition. these particles are classified as oversized with respect to the mesh aperture D. Thus. increases. It then becomes need less to investigate the effects of the feed size. Nearsubmesh and also elongated particles pass into the underflow readily.
.
8. Simulated efficiencycurves and experimental points for two feed rates and different screen lengths. mm Fig. the trajectory of the particles.depend on the frequency. It can be observed that. Rectangular openings. the equation of the model fits the experimental points very well and t h a t the stan dard errors are of the same order of magnitude found in the previous applica tion for square meshes. For the higher feed rate 4 screen lengths have been considered.2 t/h. in spite of the rectangular shape of the aperture. Fig. VIBRATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCREEN The conveying speed of the material on the screen. amplitude and shape of the oscillations. The optimization of the screen performance can be attained by maximizing kso thereby ensuring the highest capacity of the screen.. The ratio of passage probabilities for particles of different size and hence the value of a. Pilot plant screening tests. 2oo° > 71. are also dependent on the above parameters.214 SCREEN LENGTH RECTANGULAR OPENING 1 I. high values will .2 tlhm 132. for a. S 6 7 B PARTICLE SIZE. 8 shows the simulated efficiency curves and the experimental points for two tests carried out under the same conditions except for the feed rate ( Ta bles V and VI ). Tests of Tables V and VI..m Z \ 0 1 2 3 $. the n u m b e r of attempts per unit length made by a particle to pass through the mesh and the passage probability m and hence also the value of the p a r a m e t e r kso . on the inclination of rectilinear vibration or of the major axis of elliptical vibration and also on the inclination of the screening surface.
the positions of the masses have been varied for obtaining different amplitudes and hence Kv values. on the contrary. and low values ( say 1. The results for a series of repeated tests for 1000 rpm and 01 = 30 ° are re ported in Fig. Eq. 1951. by fixing some conditions and taking as a variable Kv. respectively. to each value of Kv there is associated a welldefined situation as concerns the instants of the ejection of the particle and of the return to the screening surface at the end of its trajec tory. For instance for Kv between 1. A partial study was attempted in the present work. where for each value of Kv the mean values of kso and a and the range of values for repeated tests are indicated: the continuous line shows the trend. For fixed values of 01 and frequency. 1400 rpm. are also reported. considering only a horizontal screen and rectilinear vibration. Moreover. which includes frequency. 50°. These conditions are considered to be most favorable by several authors ( Kluge. 1982). the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration is called char acteristic machine number. 215 have to be preferred (say. amplitude and inclination of the vibration (rectilinear) and incli nation of the screening surface according to a relationship given by Kluge (1951): Kv = K sin ( 01 + 02 )/cos02 = ro) 2 / g " sin ( 01 "~ 0 2 )/COS0 2 (38) where K. Kelly and Spottiswood. 40 °. frequency 1000. 01 and 02 are. the dependence is unclear as all the points are in a horizontal band between a values of about i and 2. For circular vibration Kv is defined by Stoff (1963) as follows: Kv =K/cos 02 (39) Tests were performed in order to investigate the influence of K~ on kso and a. It can be clearly seen that Kso is strongly dependent on Kv and that its max imum value is found for K~ about 1. 1954. the problem is difficult to solve because the variables are many and some of them interdependent. when this latter is in the lower position. As far as a is concerned.5 and 2 the particle returns after 1 + 1/2 semiperiods to the screening surface. the angle between the direction of vibration and the horizontal and the angle between the screening surface and the horizontal. for different frequency and 01 conditions. . The results of other tests. Schranz and Bergholz.5. 9. Whether the particle remains in contact with the screening surface (Kv < 1 ) or is ejected from the screen to follow its own trajectory (Kv > 1) depends on the characteristic screen number Kv. 38 is valid for rectilinear vibration. 1200. and o) is the angular velocity. The following operating conditions were explored: angle 01 30 °. or below) if the feed contains a high proportion of nearsubmesh particles and a sharp separation is required for them. higher than 2 ) if the material to be screened contains a large proportion of fines and the nearsubmesh particles are of little or no interest. In general.
. Horizontal screen. square mesh (4 mm aperture). 5 Kv Fig. rectilinear vibration. Influence of Kv on kso and a. 9.216 + rpm e~ 1000 50° • 1000 40 ° 1000 50 ° 1200 50 ° 1200 4 0a 1200 ~0 ° Jr 1400 30 ° 1400 40 e 1400 50 ° REPEATEO TESTS I'(5o I 1000 50 ° • v • 0 X 4 i i s i i i i 1 2 3 4 Kv l D x 0 o .7 • Q x • 0 I I I I  r I i 1 2 3 L.
correspond to different angles (Ferrara and Preti. there will be the advantage of . is reported below.g. 1975). Fig. or confirm the validity of.5) as compared to the opposite rotating con ditions. 1977).to be nearly doubled. 217 In any case.which is connected with the value of the parameter a. By systematic studies on screens and screening surfaces the optimum range of k~o and a values can be found for the solution of various screening problems. even if the screen capacity is reduced.. An increase in the inclination 01 of the rectilinear vibration results in an increase.5 to 1. in both k~0 and a. This type of screen motion is therefore particularly favorable for the passage of nearsubmesh particles (De Pretis et al. frequency and angle 01. However. with a certain aperture and a short screen it will be possible to obtain a separation at smaller size. In fact. With increasing amplitude. therefore.. It is also possible that for values of the variables beyond the range investi gated by the authors the screening conditions could be unsatisfactory despite the Kv value. if very high a values are attained (Fig. 1977 ). Such investigations may open the way to. new ideas for screening techniques based on modifying the kinetics of the process and the ratio of passage probabilities for particles of different size ... APPLICATIONS OF THE SCREENING MODEL Improvement in screens and screening operations This type of application is of interest especially to screen and screening sur face manufacturers. A similar effect is obtained by increasing the frequency. their maxima. the vibration conditions of the screen and the type of screening surface (aperture shape and materials) can be chosen more accurately with a view to the desired results. kso decreases. while a decreases considerably (e. a further search for optimum conditions is possible on the basis of these variables. which can then be simulated by using the model. 6). kso decreases slightly. from 2.and hence the capacity of the screen . it is believed that the results obtained are interesting in that they show that a more accurate choice of the vibration conditions of the screen allows wider possibilities for the optimization of the screen performance. whereas a increases markedly (De Pretis et al. 9 suggests that operating with Kv at about its optimum permits the ks0 value . followed by a decrease. At the expense of separation sharpness that might not be of particular interest in specific cases. K ( X ) will approach zero very closely at an X/D near 1.. For example. since the same value of Kv can be obtained with different values of amplitude. A study in this regard would be necessary. however. In this way. Some information on the effect of the individual variables taken from stud ies made previously or still under way. For counterrotating circular motion.
6 ! 2 3 ~ 5 6 ? 8 PARTICLE SIZE. Other applications of the screening model can be of interest to the operators when the performances of an existing plant are not as required because of insufficiency or inefficiency of the screens.g.. cost and wear of the screen surface. Fig. which do not yield a sufficient pro . The cut point can be further shifted by repeating the operation with multideck screens. hence. using smaller screens and screening surfaces with wider apertures and. less subject to blinding and more resistant to wear. In the center are reported the undersize efficiency curves for different a values.218 100 I 1. showing a quite re markable difference in cut points and product specifications. 10. screening of moist materials. on the sides the size distributions of the products for maximum and minimum a.. rnm Fig.c. The evolution of the screen undersize efficiency curves for a values from 1 to 2.75 mm simulated for different conditions of vibration which affect the a value.6 / 80 1. secondary crushers). Simulated screen results for different conditions of vibration. Some types of screens having the above mentioned advantages have recently found widespread ap plication in the removal of fines from raw coal without the need of wet screening. These screens may become over loaded either because they are undersized or because of insufficiency of the other machines (e. 0 = 2. poor screening performance with small apertures. The fine screening achieved with wide apertures is now of considerable in terest in that it allows the solution of problems associated with blinding of screening surfaces. 10 illustrates an example of screening at 4.8 /+/// UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW / • • % RETAINED 2 % PASSING // 60 ~0 if/i/Ill~'~ o 6= 1 \ 20 .6 and the size distribution of the products for the two e x t r e m e values are reported.
The use of the model for simulating the results may be very helpful in the checking of the dimensions adopted for the machines whatever calculation method is applied in designing the screen. variations in the feed ore characteris tics. To this end. By operating in this way the sizing can be more accurate than when using classical design methods. however. that is. the plant results obtainable with the same types of screens and vibration conditions can be sim ulated with accuracy except for those cases where the grain shape in the two materials differs markedly. only a limited amount of data is available to enable us to assign values to kso and a. energy saving and for obtaining products with closer specifications. Sizing of screens and simulation of results The model was initially intended as a new approach to the sizing of screens (De Pretis et al. or also because the characteristics of the materials have changed and the size distribution curve is different than expected. Similar problems may also arise when the capacity of an existing plant is to be increased. A joint effort with screen and screening surface manufac turers would be needed in order to produce tables or diagrams from which the values of kso and a can be derived for a number of selected cases. however. At present. If.g. or in the behavior of other machines included in the circuits) can be in vestigated accurately by sensitivity and risk analysis as already reported for other problems in a previous paper by Ferrara et al. The effect of the various external factors on the screen performance (e. the prediction of the results by simulation may facilitate the choice among various possible solutions. . (1984). it is necessary to know a series of k~o reference data for different apertures of the screening surface. 1977). vibration characteristics and the inclination of the screen. from tests performed on screens installed in other plants or on pilot plants of the manufacturers the values of k~o and a can be known regard less of the materials screened and of their size composition. In this connection it is to be noted that the calculation methods for screens. In these cases. In these cases a procedure enabling a more accurate prediction of the results is to be preferred. a diagram of the type giving the empirical or basic capacity for the sizing meth ods proposed by the manufacturers. This design and checking procedure is particularly proposed for application to the study of plants in which screening is of remarkable importance for the efficiency of the process. As mentioned earlier in this paper. Moreover it is necessary to know the vari ation of kso around the reference value and of a as a function of all the parameters on which they are dependent. neither the grain size composition nor the flow rate of the feed appear among these parameters but only characteristics of the screening surface. 219 portion of undersize..
..). not always allow one to avoid possible failures. A P P E N D I X I . The development of computer simulation programs requires the knowledge of the models for each of the process units included in the circuits. cm L Considered length of the screen. In addition. this package will provide complete mass and water balance as well as scaleup and capital cost information of specified equipment relevant to design.P. The screening model considered in the present paper is perfectly suitable for this use and has already been included into several simulation programs of processes developed by us. (1986) in the modular computer simulation package UTAHMODSIM. m m [o F r a c t i o n open area. selection of alternative processes and as an aid in designing. Especially when such conditions are to be expected.220 even if conservative. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was carried out with the financial assistance of the Ministry of Education (M.thanks are due to the graduate mining engineers F. Pinat for their collaboration in performing tests and data processing. prediction of results.B.I. dimensionless l Distance from feed point.X Particle size.B.D E F I N I T I O N S OF S Y M B O L S x. The authors wish to thank the companies SVEDALA ARBRA A. cm W(x. g/sec cm W(l) Mass flow rate per u n i t width of all particles over the screen at distance l. Difficult screening conditions exist (e. for their cooperation with regard to pilot plant screening data. cm L~ Critical length. Once the com plete flowsheet to be simulated has been defined on a graphical terminal and the informations requested are given. m m D Screen aperture.l) Mass flow rate per u n i t width of particles of size from 0 to x at distance l. g/sec cm . g/sec cm Wo Value of W(l) a t feed p o i n t (feed r a t e ) . the use of simulation procedures to verify the plant efficiency is necessary. It has also been included by Herbst et al.g. Simulation of integrated plant operations The simulation of integrated plant operations is becoming increasingly widespread in mineral processing for feasibility studies. with circulating load containing a high pro portion of nearsubmesh particles) for which calculation methods may not obtain adequate results. the more accurate these models the more reliable the results of the complete computer simulation package. and SKEGA A. Nassivera and S.
. Comp.. G. Brereton. dimensionless (7 See eq. New York. AIME.. T.Y.B. C. dimensionless REFERENCES Batterham. Some factors which influence screen performance. l ) =OW(x. Ph..l) = W ( l ) . 1984. Herbst. and Dymott. cm 1 p(x) Single event probability of passage.. dimensionless g~ Characteristic screen number. N. g/sec cm 2 s(x). Colman. K. Cagliari..E. 1977.. Modelling and simulation of integrated plant operations of mineral processing.. Thesis. Chicago. pp.. K. Principles of Mineral Dressing.l)/Ox. A population balance model for screening. Proc. Box.. M. Guarascio. N. 1983. 1939. dimensionless Zj~ = kj/ki. J. New York. In: J. dimensionless z(x) See eq.J. A.l) Density function of size distribution at point l. 1973. 1986.. dimensionless f(x. Proc. 5 and 10. 10 and 11.R. 153165. g/sec cm 2 k5o k (x) for x=D/2.. London. dimensionless E(X.. Bhappu ( Editors ). AIME. dimensionless Yi Weight fraction of the particles of class i in the bed of material at distance I from the feed point.. Amsterdam. 1975. Proc.R. A. G. hi Kinetic constants in the crowded region. 1 l t h IMPC.L) Screen oversize efficiency referred to particles of size X and to a length L of the screen. dimensionless K Characteristic machine number.. Ferrara. T.L. and Birkett..D. Ferrara. Gaudin.O) Density function of size distribution at feed point. Hess. In: A. c m  850 s(x) forx=D/2. cm 1 n Number of attempts at passage of a particle per unit length of screen. dimensionless w(x. N.. Schena. pp.G. 9th Powder in Bulk Solids Conf. SME/TSM.M. M. New Orleans. New York. Particle Technol. G. and Schena. and Preti. 12th IMPC.Y.S. and Preti. A new approach to screening design. . G. Herbst (Editor).A. Mineral Processing Plant Design. Guarascio. Weller. F. A new method of constrained optimization and a comparison with other methods. and Fu. A.. U. De Pretis. Computer aided design of comminution circuits. D.J. G. A contribution to screening kinetics.. L. Mc GrawHill. Control '84. g/sec cm h(x). 1978.. Ferrara. J. U. Norgate. dimensionless Yio Weight fraction of the particles of class i in the feed. 1984. Europ. M. Selection guidelines for size and type of vibrating screens in ore crushing plants. f ( x . Screen performance and modelling with special reference to iron ore crushing plants. 8: 4252. 221 w~ Value of W(l) at critical point (transition from crowded to separate conditions). J. Mathematical Modelling of Screen and Related Units for Plant Simulation. Australia. SMEAIME Meeting. Brasil. Mular and R. g/sec cm f(x. Proc. K.Y. Symp. R. and Oblad. S~o Paulo.A.si Kinetic constants in the separate region.E. University of Queensland. Italy. Herbst.A.. 341361. 10th IMPC.J. 1980. La. 1965.
Aft. N.G. D. 1954. 509522. The simulation of crushing plants with models developed using multiple spline regression. Nichols. 1977. Application of Computer Methods in the Mineral Industry. 1963. Syrup. N. Bergbauwissen schaften. J. pp.. Neuzeitliche Siebmaschinen fuer die Aufbereitung.W. Johannesburg).. G. Ist. 10th Int. AIME. Metall. E. New York. Schena. Stoff. Erdoel Kohle. Universita' di Trieste... 1982. Internal Report.222 Kelly.J. In: A... Kluge.. The Processing of Industrial Screening Data. W. Betrachtungen fiber den Einfluss der Schwingungsdaten auf den Siebvorgang.Y. AufbereitungsTechn. and Spottiswood. 1951. Die Bewegungsvorgaenge bei Wurfsieben. King. 11: 705711. pp. Progr.. . Selection and sizing of screens. W. H. E.Y.. Schranz..P. 8: 223234. Eng. 1982.J. Inst. Jergensen (Editors). Chem... How to Determine Plant Screening Requirements.D. pp. New York. und Bergholz. 257264. Miniere e Geofisica Appl. Whiten. S. (J.H.. 11: 426466.Mular and G. Introduction to Mineral Processing. A Modelling Approach.. Design and Installation of Comminution Circuits. John Wiley and Sons. 73 {5): 7479.L. 1972. Min. 185189. W. F. 1982.