ChE.

203L- Particle Technology

Report Number 7
Category: Sizing
Type: Screens

Presented to: Dr Muhammad Shahzad

Presented by: 2020-CH-40 (Rameen Masrur)

Date Submitted: 29/11/2021

Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 3
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Related Theory ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 Introduction to Screens ................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Types of Screens .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.2.2.1 Vibrating Screens ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2.2 Grizzly Screens .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2.3 Banana Screens ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2.4 Trommels .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.2.5 Bradford Breaker....................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.2.6 Sieve Bends ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.2.7. Roller Screens........................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.2.8 Circular Screens....................................................................................................................... 10
1.2.3 Construction and Working Principle .............................................................................................. 10
1.2.4 Performance Indicator ................................................................................................................... 11
Particle Size ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Screen Angle ....................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.5 Parameters Affecting Performance ............................................................................................... 12
Open Area ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Feed Rate ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Vibration ............................................................................................................................................. 12
1.2.6 Applications and Limitations .......................................................................................................... 12
Applications......................................................................................................................................... 12
Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 13
1.2.7 Specifications of Common Industrial Models ................................................................................ 13
1.3 Procedure .............................................................................................................................................. 13
1.4 Observations and Calculations.............................................................................................................. 14
Observations ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Calculations ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Screen Efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 15
Percentage Error ................................................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Discussions ............................................................................................................................................ 16
1.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 17

List of Figures
Figure 7. 1: Vibratory Screen ........................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 7. 2: Grizzly Screens ........................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 7. 3: Banana Screens.......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 7. 4: Trommel Screen ........................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 7. 5: Bradford Breaker Screen ............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 7. 6: Sieve Bends ................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 7. 7: Roller Screen .............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 7. 8: Circular Screen ......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7. 9: Stratification of particles ......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 7. 10: Screen Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 15

List of Tables
Table 7. 1: Specifications of common Industrial Models ........................................................................... 13
Table 7. 2: Sieve Analysis of Feed ............................................................................................................... 14
Table 7. 3: Screening Test results ............................................................................................................... 14
Table 7. 4: Sieve Analysis of Products ......................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Abstract

After crushing and grinding of materials, certain industries require uniformity in their product
sizes. Thus, screening is utilized. This method allows the industries to isolate the desired particle
sizes to fill their industrial requirements. In this report, two types of screens are studied and their
efficiencies are compared. Ground material was fed to the Junior Hummer Screen with a 10-mesh
number which is 2mm and to Denver Vibrating Screen with two screens, one of 10mesh number
and 20 mesh number (0.841mm).

1.2 Related Theory

1.2.1 Introduction to Screens

Sizing is an important step in industries as it allows them to control the size of particles produced
by comminution. By classifying through the particles produced by crushers and grinders, industries
can ensure that their ideal particle size is achieved.

Screens are the oldest method of sizing used in industries. They offer a wide variety of types
befitting every industry’s requirement. (M. C. Fuerstenau, K. N. Han, 2003) They are used for
both wet and dry processes, the sizing capacity ranging from 300mm to 40µm.

They can be utilized for finer particles however classification is more preferred as screening is the
more expensive alternative. This is because the finer classification requires longer exposure to the
screens which is time consuming. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

However, screening has more objectives than just sizing. These objectives are listed below and
briefly explained. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

• Sizing or classifying: separation of particles based on their sizes

• Scalping: removal of coarse product particles
• Grading: production of particles within certain size ranges
• Media recovery: retention of grinding media within grinding machines
• Dewatering: drain free water from wet feed or slurries
• Desliming/ dedusting: removal of fine material from wet feed
• Trash removal: remove coarser particles or wood fibres.
1.2.2 Types of Screens
1.2.2.1 Vibrating Screens

Vibrating screens consist of a screening deck inclined to at an angle. The deck vibrates due to the
mechanical motion of the removable unbalanced weights attached to a flywheel. The flywheel is
connected to the deck with the use of a single shaft. The amplitude of the vibration can be altered
by varying the weights attached to the wheel.

The vibration of the deck is what allows the deck to classify the feed particles accurately. While
the incline further aids the screening process as it lowers the chances of particles plugging the
screens while increasing the chances of near mesh size particles to pass through. (B. A. Wills,
2015)

Figure 7. 1: Vibratory Screen

1.2.2.2 Grizzly Screens

Grizzly screens are used to classify coarser product particles. With parallel steel bars that are set
apart from greater than 50mm to 300mm, grizzly screens filter out the larger product particles.
These bars are made of wear resistant manganese steel that become narrower as the near the
discharge end of the deck. This is done to prevent the rocks from getting stuck between the bars.
(B. A. Wills, 2015)
These screens are commonly used to screen through the feed particles of either primary or
secondary crushers. These screens filter out the feed particles greater than the top size of the
crushers and decrease the load on the machines. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

Figure 7. 2: Grizzly Screens

1.2.2.3 Banana Screens

Banana Screens are utilized in industries that require both efficiency and capacity. The screening
deck is designed with around 30°-40° incline at feed input that decreases down to 0°-15° near the
discharge end.

The sloping of banana screens is done to increase capacity and efficiency. The sloping of the
screening deck at the feed end ensures a rapidly moving feed while also maintaining a thin layer
of feed. This results in efficient screening of finer particles. The slope is decreased at the discharge
end, resulting in a slower material flow. This decrease is to ensure near mesh size particles are also
properly screened through. (B. A. Wills, 2015)
The capacity of banana screens is up to three to four times that of conventional vibrating screens.

Figure 7. 3: Banana Screens

1.2.2.4 Trommels

While the previous types of screens all consisted of a screening deck, Trommels consist of a
cylindrical screen which rotates at about 35%-45% critical speed. They are further inclined at an
angle to assist the flow of particles. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

Trommels have the capacity to handle materials from 55mm down to 6mm for dry screening while
even smaller particles can be handled during wet screening. They can also be used to deliver a
range of particles by installing a trommel with varying screens.

However, despite their cheaper, vibration free working principle, trommels offer lower capacities
which makes them less favorable. The lowered capacity is due to only part of the screen being in
contact with the material during screening which causes blinding. (B. A. Wills, 2015)
 Figure 7. 4: Trommel Screen

1.2.2.5 Bradford Breaker

These are a type of trommel screens most commonly employed in coal industries. It a multipurpose
screen which also serves to break up coal to 75- 100mm. Moreover, it is also used to separate the
stray rock, tramp metal and wood particles into the oversize flow. These machines are operated at

Figure 7. 5: Bradford Breaker Screen

a faster speed from trommels, at about 70% to 60% of the critical speed. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

1.2.2.6 Sieve Bends

Sieve bends are curved screens made up of horizontal wedge bars. The feed slurry is fed
tangentially and flows in a perpendicular manner to the horizontal bars in the screen. These
machines are able to handle separations up to 50µm. They are mostly used for wet sieving
processes. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

Figure 7. 6: Sieve Bends

1.2.2.7. Roller Screens

Roller screens consist of a series of parallel driven rolls. These rolls or discs transport oversize
materials while the undersize is allowed to pass through the gaps between them. This is how the
screening is undertaken. They can be used in applications from 3 to 300mm.

Rollers offer higher capacity with low noise levels. Moreover, they require less space and subject
the material to very little impact. Their ability to screen very sticky materials also make them
highly recommended screens. (B. A. Wills, 2015)

Figure 7. 7: Roller Screen

1.2.2.8 Circular Screens

Circular screens are most commonly used for fine screening applications, wet or dry. They can
screen particles down to 40µm.

The basic build of roller screens consists of a nest of sieves up to around 2.7 m in diameter. Vertical
motion is imparted by weights at the bottom of the double shaft attached to the table upon which
the nest rests. Ball trays and ultrasonic devices are sometimes fitted below the screen surfaces to
prevent blinding.

Circular screen is low-capacity screens which produce multiple size fractions. They are most
commonly used in dewatering carbon in gold plants.

Figure 7. 8: Circular Screen

1.2.3 Construction and Working Principle

The vibrating screens consist of a screening deck, vibrating frame, motor or drive assembly and
the feed box. The screening deck is induced to vibrate either by mechanical influence or by
electromagnetic induction.

The feed material is fed through the feed box and moves down the screen deck under the influence
of gravity. The vibrational movement of the screening deck helps separate finer particles from the
coarser ones. The finer pass through the sieve and is discharged as undersize while the coarser
particles pass over the deck and is discharged as oversize.
Separation can take place as both wet and dry feeds. Coarser feeds are better suited for dry
separation while finer are done through wet process. The dry process uses both vibrational and
gravitational forces to assist in separation. On the other hand, wet processes use drag and
gravitational forces. (S. Komar Kawatra and Courtney Young)

Figure 7. 9: Stratification of particles

1.2.4 Performance Indicator

Particle Size

Screening efficiency is impacted by the particle size entering the screening deck. As the particle
size nears that of the aperture, the probability being screened lessens. This is because the near mesh
particles can often ‘plug’ the apertures, reducing the screens sizing capabilities.

Screen Angle

The particles approach the screen at a certain angle which impacts their screening capacity. At a
shallow angle, the particle is not aligned enough for it to pass through the screen. Thus, the angle
of the screening deck indicates if a certain particle size will be able to pass through or not.
1.2.5 Parameters Affecting Performance
Open Area

Open area is the aperture size available for the sizing of particles. The classifying capabilities of a
screen is greatly impacted by the open area available. If the area is more, the chances of sizing
occurring are increased, however, if the open area is plugged, the screening capability is lessened.

Feed Rate

The principle of screening is to pass a low feed rate which establishes a thin feed layer on the
screening deck. This ensures that all the particles have an equal chance to come into contact with
the screen, making sure the finer particles are able to size through. If the feed rate is increased, the
particles will form a thicker layer on the deck which will inhibit many particles from being
efficiently filtered through.

Vibration

The vibration intensity of the screening deck also affects the performance. If the deck is vibrated
at a low intensity, the particles will not move efficiently, leaving many near size particles in the
overflow. If the intensity is too high, then the particles will be thrown off the screening deck,
resulting in great losses. Thus, the vibrating intensity if matched with the screen size of the deck
to ensure maximum screening.

1.2.6 Applications and Limitations

Applications

Vibrating screens are used in multiple industries to screen particle sizes. From food industry to
paper industry, each one has a specific use for screens. They are used in the food industry to get a
uniform range of salt particles. On the other hand, they are used in the paper industry for a number
of reasons from fiber recovery to uniform addition of chemicals.

Screen are also used in the coal industry to not only crush coal but also classify the particles after
crushing.
Limitations

Despite being the most commonly used sizing method, screens have limitations that hinder its
working. The first limitation is the particle size with which the screens can work. The finer the
particle, the lesser is its chance of it being classified through screening. Hydro-classifiers are the
alternatives used for screening below 40µm.

Furthermore, the screens are prone to getting plugged by near size particles which impacts their
efficiency. This in turn makes their working capacity limited, leading to the screen being replaced
to return the machine to its original capacity.

1.2.7 Specifications of Common Industrial Models

Table 7. 1: Specifications of common Industrial Models

Vibrations per Recommended Screen

Model
Minute Opening
SF Type Electromagnetic Screem 3000/3600 150 mesh (~50mm)
RVS Type Rotatory Vibrating
1450/1710 150 (~30mm)
Screen
SMVCB Type Balanced Screen 450~650 150 mesh (~50mm)
SBM Type Perfect Balanced
450~650 151 mesh (~50mm)
Screen
Rubber Spring Screen aprox 1100 150 mesh (~10mm)
KRS Type Wave Screen aprox 900 2mm~ 40mm
LDS Type Linear Drive Screen 980 5mm~ 50mm
SFS Type Self flow Screen 1000~ 1500 5mm~ 50mm
GYS type Gyratory Screen 200~250 150 mesh ~1mm
GF Type Grizzly Feeder 3000/3600 >15mm

1.3 Procedure

A feed of 400g was taken that fell between the range of 4.76mm to 0.300mm. Before the feed was
entered into the vibratory screens, the feed was sieved by the Ro-Tap with a sieve of size 2.0mm.
This was done to gain an exact amount of oversize and undersize particles in the feed for the
calculation of efficiency.

After the Ro-Tap sieving, the feed was mixed again before being introduced to the Electromagnetic
vibrating screen. This machine consisted of one screen of 2.0mm size and inclined at an angle. The
feed was entered and allowed to screen. After it was done, the oversize and undersize particles
were collected and once again sieved using the Ro-Tap. This was done to analyse the number of
oversize particles in underflow and vice versa.

This initial experiment was followed by remixing the product particles. This time, the feed was
introduced to a mechanically vibrating screen with two different screens. The overflow was the
retaining of 2.0mm while the underflow was the passing of 0.841mm. Here, three flows were
generated, overflow, middle flow and underflow.

Individually these product sizes were taken and weighed. These weights were then further used in
efficiency calculations.

1.4 Observations and Calculations

Observations
Table 7. 2: Sieve Analysis of Feed

Sieve Size Measured weight (g) Percentage

10 184 46%
Pan 216 54%
Total 400 100%

Table 7. 3: Screening Test results

Product Type Measured weight (g) percentage

Overflow 212 53%
Underflow 188 47%
Table 7. 4: Sieve Analysis of Products

Product Name Sieve Size Measured Weight (g) Percentage

10 197 95%
Overflow
pan 11 5%
10 68 36%
Underflow
Pan 120 64%

Calculations
Screen Efficiency

𝑐(𝑓−𝑢)(1−𝑢)(𝑐−𝑓)
𝐸= Equation 7. 1
𝑓(𝑐−𝑢)2 (1−𝑓)

Where c is overflow, f is fraction of oversize in flow and u is underflow.

Figure 7. 10: Screen Efficiency

Percentage Error

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤

% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠
× 100 Equation 7. 2
1.5 Discussions

Percentage error calculations signify the efficiency of the screen in sizing feed particles. Using the
equation 7.2:

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠

% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠

The percentage error in overflow is 5% while in the under flow it is 36%.

By calculating the percentage error, we can not only understand the screen health but also
determine if the screen needs to be changed. If the percentage error is high, that point to a low
screen health which ultimately means that the screen apertures have been damaged and need
repairing.

If the percentage error of overflow is high, it means that the screening is not being carried out
efficiently. The feed rate needs to be adjusted or the angle of incline needs to be altered.

The second is screen efficiency. After calculation, screen efficiency is discovered to be 37%.

Screen efficiency encompasses a variety of indicators from the slope of the screening deck to the
aperture of the screens. If a single component is not up to standard, the efficiency can fall. An
efficiency of 100% is impossible thus, the higher the efficiency, the better the working of the
screen.

An efficiency of 37% indicates that the screen is not working up to standard. This could be due to
a number of reasons from the type of material being used to the screening media and the open area
of screens.

The first step taken is to ensure there is no plugging of the screen apertures. This is done by using
materials designed to unplug the apertures. If the efficiency does not increase then changes should
be made to the vibration or the feed rate of the particles. The last step is the change of screening
material to make the screens more efficient as it is costly.

If efficiency does not increase then a change in sizing machine is needed.

1.6 Conclusion

Screens are an important aspect in grinding mills as they ensure uniformity in industries where
needed. They have the sizing capacity ranging from 300mm to 40µm. The ability of the screen to
classify particles is dependant on different aspects such as open area to the incline. If aspect is not
catered to, the sizing capabilities are impacted.

Screens are most commonly used sizing machines. This is due to their ability to work on a wide
range of particle sizes from coarse to fine. They have various types that are designed to cater to
different industries and their demands. Screens like the Bradford breaker are even able to work as
both crusher and screen simultaneously. Apart from that, the change in aperture size alone can
greatly impact the screen capabilities.

In conclusion, screens the oldest and most important classifying machines that can cover a wide
range due to their versatility and abilities

Bibliography

[1] . S. Komar Kawatra and . Courtney Young, “SME MINERAL PROCESSING & EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY
HANDBOOK”.

[2] B. A. (. A. Wills, J. A. Finch and B. A. (. A. Wills, Wills' mineral processing technology : an introduction
to the practical aspects of ore treatment and mineral recovery.

[3] M. C. Fuerstenau and K. N. Han, Principles of mineral processing, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, 2003, p. 573.

[4] A. (. Gupta and D. S. (. S. Yan, Mineral processing design and operations : an introduction.

[5] . Sunggyu Lee and . Kimberly H. Henthorn, “Particle Technology and Applications”.