Adamson University
College of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department
Experiment no. 1
Size Reduction and Screening
ChE Lab 2 | 51095
Submitted By:
Group 1
Aquino, Pamela V. 201810406
Austero, Sheila Marie E. 201810257
Belmonte, Deserie Joy Y. 201811284
Dacion, Algin R. 201810931
Montiel, Jahziel L. 201810516
Uy, Kianne Denise P. 201810022
Submitted To:
Engr. Pinky Joy Janaban
Date of Experiment:
April 06, 2022
Date of Submission:
April 27, 2022
Abstract
In making reduction of large solid unit masses to smaller unit masses, rough or fine
particles are known to be called size reduction. The purpose of this research is to determine how
to screen crusher products, how to create a fractional and cumulative distribution plot, as well as
the screen analysis of the given samples, and required data for the crusher products. The results
revealed that the efficacy of each screen can be determined by obtaining the required mass
fractions of P (product), F (feed), and R (rejection). The target product of a crusher is 4 grams
out of 1280 grams, indicating that the crusher can achieve the desired particle size reduction.
When a screen becomes clogged with solid particles, it is said to be blinded, and increasing the
capacity of the screen will reduce the screen's effectiveness. As particle size decreases, screening
becomes more challenging.
Objectives
● to even further effectively mix solid particles
● to enhance the handling qualities
● to conveniently manage solid waste
● to separate the desirable from the two components, there should be a reduction of
material into very small particles.
● to determine the Rittinger’s number
● to determine the theoretical power requirement using a size reduction equipment
Theory
Size reduction is a process involving the use of external forces to reduce the size of fine
particulates into small particles of the required size and shape. It is also known as pulverization.
Standard screens that are used all throughout in the US industry are called the Tyler series and
these screen series all utilize identical 200-mesh screens, although the sizes vary a bit. Screens
are stacked one over the other in a screen analysis, among each screen having a larger opening
than the one below. The efficiency of the screen set is determined by the shaking action, so a
repetitive shaking motion is required.
The sieves are withdrawn, and the material retained on each sieve is collected and
weighed after a predefined time frame of shaking, usually 10 to 20 minutes. It has been observed
that the efficiency of sieves is dependent on the composition and its [Link] the sample size
increases in size and the particle size drops, screen blinding increases and efficiency decreases.
For light, sticky solids or ones with a high concentration of particles almost same to the opening
size of one screen, blinding is more serious. Fractional distribution curves could also be used to
present the results. The material between two screens is generally accepted to have a particle
diameter equal to the mathematical combination of the two screen openings to generate these
curves.
Procedure
The product's screen analysis was evaluated using a crusher. The procedure entails
developing a method for reducing the size of small rocks using a crusher.. After that, the screen
analysis of the crusher products is finished. The following stages are to accomplish the
fundamental Ro Tap Sieve Shaker operation, hammer drop adjustment, shaker start, and sieve
analysis.
Results and Discussion
A1 A2 W
Stone 1 0.08087 0.03605 202
Stone 2 0.06084 0.05393 254
Stone 3 0.06054 0.05926 184
Stone 4 0.04770 0.04174 120
TOTAL 0.06249 0.04775 752
Table 1. Stone
Sieves W W with Stones W of Sand
3/4 552 566 14
1 542 542 0
1/2 556 560 4
10 700 1280 580
20 366 420 74
30 392 420 28
40 580 610 30
60 334 350 16
100 322 324 2
200 312 314 2
Pan 386 386 0
Total weight of sand 750
Table 2. Screen Analysis
From Mesh 10 shown in table 2 with a weight of 700 g and 580 g with sand, the
crusher's desired product is 4 g with a weight of 1280 g with stones, it shows that the crusher is
capable of executing the desired particle size reduction. Mesh 10 served as the basis because it
has the highest weight of sand. Increasing the capacity of the screen will decrease the screen
effectiveness and when a screen gets clogged with solid particles, which is said to be blinded.
Screening becomes increasingly difficult as particle size is reduced. For the crusher, mean mass
diameter, mean volume diameter, and arithmetic average is computed by the following formula.
For the crusher:
Mean Mass Diameter (Dw)
Dw = 0.8489(0) + 0.0036(1.85) + 0.0126(1.35) + 0.0036(0.925) + 0.0755(0.535) +
0.0018(0.214) + 0.0018(0.163) + 0.0036(0.112)
Dw = 0.0349 mm
Mean Volume Diameter:
1
Dv = 3
0.0036 0.0126 0.0036 0.0755 0.0018 0.0018 0.0036
3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3
1.85 1.35 0.925 0.535 0.214 0.163 0.112
Dv = 0.6486
Arithmetic Average
2.00+1.70+1.00+0.250+0.177+0.149+0.074
Da = 8
Da = 0.6689 mm
Conclusion
The total mass of samples is evaluated and compared in this experiment. To recapitulate,
the objectives of performing a basic screen analysis using crusher in order to crush and grind the
stone to reduce its size. Several factors may influence the amount of energy needed by the
crushers that includes: size of product, size of feed, stone’s properties, capacity of the equipment,
and the time when the crusher is not being used. From the table of data it shows that the crusher
is capable of executing the desired particle size reduction. Increasing the capacity of the screen
will decrease the screen effectiveness and when a screen gets clogged with solid particles, which
is said to be blinded. Screening becomes increasingly difficult as particle size is reduced.
References
Sushant Sud, A. K. (2013). METHODS OF SIZE REDUCTION AND FACTORS
AFFECTING SIZE REDUCTION IN PHARMACEUTICS. International
Research Journal of Pharmacy, 64.
APPENDICES
A. Experimental Data
A1 A2 W
Stone 1 0.08087 0.03605 202
Stone 2 0.06084 0.05393 254
Stone 3 0.06054 0.05926 184
Stone 4 0.04770 0.04174 120
TOTAL 0.06249 0.04775 760
Table 1. Stone
Sieves W W with Stones W of Sand
3/4 552 566 14
1 542 542 0
1/2 556 560 4
10 700 1280 580
20 366 420 74
30 392 420 28
40 580 610 30
60 334 350 16
100 322 324 2
200 312 314 2
Pan 386 386 0
Total weight of sand 750
Table 2. Screen Analysis
Total mass of feed (original sample) = 760 grams
Average size of feed = 0.1102
Total mass of product (before screening) = 752 grams
A1. Simulation
A2. Sample Computation
For the crusher:
Mean Mass Diameter (Dw)
Dw = 0.8489(0) + 0.0036(1.85) + 0.0126(1.35) + 0.0036(0.925) + 0.0755(0.535) +
0.0018(0.214) + 0.0018(0.163) + 0.0036(0.112)
Dw = 0.0349 mm
Mean Volume Diameter:
1
Dv = 3
0.0036 0.0126 0.0036 0.0755 0.0018 0.0018 0.0036
3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3
1.85 1.35 0.925 0.535 0.214 0.163 0.112
Dv = 0.6486
Arithmetic Average
2.00+1.70+1.00+0.250+0.177+0.149+0.074
Da = 8
Da = 0.6689 mm
0.08087 + 0.06084 + 0.06054 + 0.04770 = 0.06249
0.03605 + 0.05393 + 0.05926 + 0.04171 = 0.04775
Ave. size of feed = 0.1102
Total mass of feed = 202 + 254 + 184 + 120 = 760
A3. Originality Report
What is the ratio between the oversize material and the feed rate?
What is the ratio between the undersize material and the feed rate?
Assuming no losses, what is the efficiency of the screening operation?
5. Trap rock is crushed in a gyratory crusher. The feed is nearly uniform 2 inches spheres.
The differential screen analysis of the product is given in column 1 in the following
table. The power required to crush this material is 400kW/ton. Of this 10 kW is needed
to operate the empty mill. By reducing the clearance between the crushing head and the
cone, the differential screen analysis of the product becomes that given in column 2 in
the table. From (a) Rittinger’s Law and (b) Kick’s Law, calculate the power required
for the second operation. The feed rate is _________ (to be filled out by the laboratory
instructor).
