University of San Carlos

Department of Chemical Engineering

CHE 3214L Chemical Engineering Laboratory Investigations 1

Data Processing & Analysis Report

(Form CHE 3214L-3)

Prepared and submitted by:

JOHN FRITZ V. FESTEJO RIKA B. GUNJI JUN PAUL R. MAYORMITA

Experiment : Crushing of Gravel and Limestone using a Jaw Crusher and a Hammer Mill
Objectives of the Experiment

1. Investigate how the net energy requirement of a jaw crusher varies with the mean particle size of
the product.
2. Compare the actual relative energy consumption with theoretical relative energy consumption
estimated using Kick’s Law and Rittinger’s Law.
3. Determine how product size distribution varies with respect to the size of the outlet screen of the
hammer mill and with respect to the throat opening of the jaw crusher.

Results & Discussion

Objective 1: Investigation on How the Net Energy Requirement of a Jaw Crusher Varies with the Mean
Particle Size

Size reduction is a process that involves reducing the size of particles or materials, either by
breaking them into smaller pieces or by changing their shape. This process is important in many industries,
including mining, pharmaceuticals, food processing, and chemical engineering (Swetha, 2001).

There are several methods that can be used for size reduction, including crushing, grinding,
cutting, and milling. Each of these methods involves a different type of mechanical force applied to the
material to break it down into smaller particles. The choice of method will depend on factors such as the
type of material being processed, the desired particle size, and the properties of the equipment available.
They all operate at a cost of large energy consumption. When a substance undergoes deformation, the
energy transferred to it is stored as internal stress within each particle (Berk 2009). This energy is then
released upon particle breakage, with most of it being converted to heat. However, some of the energy also

1
contributes to the increase in surface energy caused by the greater surface area resulting from the
breakage.

Through the experiment, the jaw crusher was fed with two samples separately with varying jaw
openings of 8mm and 4mm. With a smaller throat opening, it is expected that sample 2 would have finer
particles as opposed to sample 1. During the process of crushing, the voltage and current readings were
recorded for every 4 seconds with the total time for the process to be finished. With the two readings,
power can be determined since it is needed to determine the energy requirement to crush the gravel
samples.

Figure 1. Plot of Current against Time of the Jaw Crusher at varying Throat Openings (8mm and 4mm)

The amount of energy needed to reduce the size of a particle is dependent on two factors, its
internal structure, and the process which includes: (1) the opening up of the pre-existing fissures on the
particle, and (2) forming the new surface. When compared to a coarse particle, a fine particle has a higher
surface area after reduction. Thus, fine grinding demands significantly more power (Richardson et al.,
2002).

Figure 2. Net Energy Requirement of Mean Particle Diameter at varying Throat Openings (8mm and 4mm)

2
 The net energy requirement of a jaw crusher does vary with the mean particle size of the material
being crushed. This is because the energy required for crushing a particle is proportional to its surface
area, which in turn is related to its size. The net energy requirement of a jaw crusher increases as the mean
particle size of the material being crushed increases.

Objective 2: Comparison of the Actual and Theoretical Relative Energy Consumption Estimation Using
Kick’s Law and Rittinger’s Law

Size reduction consumes energy that should be optimized, specified and analyzed to the final
product particle size and energy requirements (Mioc, 2018). This process has an inefficient and inaccurate
process of how much energy will be needed to reduce the size of a particular material. And so, a number of
empirical laws have been put forth. Kick's Law and Rittinger's Law are two widely used models in the field
of comminution, which describe the relationship between the energy consumption and the size reduction of
a material.

Figure 3. Experimental and Theoretical Relative Energy Consumption of the Jaw Crusher

The actual relative energy consumption is obtained as the ratio of the net energy consumption of
samples 1 and 2. As shown in the figure above, the calculated data of the relative energy consumption
using Kick’s Law and Rittinger’s Law has a closer value from the actual relative energy consumption. To
further compare the obtained data, the percentage difference of the theoretical values from the actual value
were obtained as shown below.

3
Table 1. Percentage Difference of the Relative Energy Consumption of the Jaw Crusher
Actual Relative Energy Consumption Theoretical %Difference

RKL 0.437 13.38%

0.382
RRL 0.244 44.26%

As observed from the table, the percent difference for the energy consumption of the Kicks and
Rittinger’s Law has a minor error when compared to the experimental values. Table 1 indicates that Kick's
Law provides a better estimate of the theoretical relative energy consumption of the jaw crusher compared
to Rittinger's Law, as suggested by the percent difference values relative to the actual energy consumption
ratio, which were 13.38% and 44.26%, respectively. The minimal percent difference in Kick’s law has
proven that the feed rate of the gravels was consistently uniform. The actual relative energy consumption is
closer to the theoretical value since discrepancies in the process were minimized.

According to Geankoplis (2018), experimental data indicates that Rittinger's law is only partially
applicable to the grinding of fine powders, whereas Kick's law is more suited for coarse grinding. In the
case of the jaw crusher, Kick’s law is more accurate than Rittinger’s law for coarse crushing where the
amount of surface produced is considerably less. Rittinger’s law is more applicable to the hammer mill,
which operates by impact and creates a large amount of surface area during the size reduction process.
Rittinger’s law is more applicable to fine grinding operations where the increase in surface per unit of
materials is large.

Objective 3: Determination of Product Size Distribution Variation with Outlet Screen Size and Throat
Opening Size

The size distribution of the gravel and limestone after being subjected to size reduction via the jaw
crusher and hammer mill, respectively, are depicted in the subsequent figures.

The cumulative mass fraction versus average particle diameter graph from the product analysis of
the jaw crusher offers information on the product size distribution for various throat opening diameters. The
graph demonstrates that when the throat opening size decreases the size distribution of the product gets
smaller. This is so that the product's particles are of a finer size due to the smaller throat opening size.

Additionally, it can be seen that the average particle diameter of the product grows along with the
throat opening size. This shows that when the throat opening size was bigger, the jaw crusher was able to
produce larger particles. This result corresponds with Kick's Law, which stipulates that coarse grinding is
best suited to throat openings with a greater diameter.

4
 Figure 4. Cumulative Mass Fraction of vs. the Average Particle Diameter of Jaw Crusher Products

The form of the frequency curve indicates that the particle size distribution is not symmetric. Since
the use of the jaw crusher involved coarse grinding, the curve is skewed to the left as was expected. This
shows that larger particle sizes are anticipated for the majority of the product.

Figure 5. Size Frequency Curve of the Jaw Crusher Samples at varying Throat Openings (8mm and 4mm)

Based on Figure 5, the most frequently occurring size of the particles in the product for the
crushing with the 8-mm throat opening is 11.0 mm, whereas the product for the crushing with the 4-mm
throat opening is mostly composed of particles with a size of approximately 4.7 mm. The largest sieve
opening for the screen analysis is 6.30 mm. The data in the particle size distribution for both the 8-mm and
4-mm openings indicate that a large portion of the products, mostly particles with sizes greater than 4.7 mm
to 11 mm, are retained in the 6.30-mm opening screen with mass fraction of 0.95 and 0.49, respectively.
The frequency curve for the 4-mm opening showed that a lot of crushed particles were also retained in the

5
3.15-mm opening screen, these particles are sizes greater than 3.15 mm to lesser than 6.30 mm, with
mass fraction of 0.34.

These results could be attributed to a number of variables, including mass loss, quartering
technique, feed sample selection, and feeding rate. The type of rock, particle orientation, and size may
have contributed to the uneven crushing rate of the gravel pieces by affecting the jaw crusher's ability to
effectively and efficiently reduce the size. The ammeter reading increased and it took longer to crush the
feed when it contained large gravel pieces that were horizontal as they reached the feed hopper.
Additionally, continuously feeding the jaw crusher even when it had not yet crushed the majority of the
previously fed sample could cause some of the gravel pieces to remain in the crusher for too long, resulting
in over-crushing. Alternatively, some of the gravel pieces could pass through the crusher without being
crushed correctly, resulting in under-crushing.

Following the size reduction of limestone (- 1/2" + 1/4" in.) using a hammer mill with three screen
openings of 10 mm, 6 mm, and 0.75 mm, the cumulative frequency curves show that the majority of the
product samples passed through the screen with a 6.3 mm opening in the screen analysis. When particles
were reduced in size using screen openings of 10 mm and 6 mm, respectively, 90% and 99-100% of the
final products were smaller than 6.3 mm. Additionally, the product obtained by size reduction utilizing a
6-mm sieve opening was smaller than 3.15 mm in nearly 90% of the cases. Size reduction using the 0.75
mm opening resulted in a sample that was 99–100% smaller than 850 μm and nearly 70% smaller than 180
μm.

Figure 6. Cumulative Mass Fraction of vs. the Average Particle Diameter of Hammer Mill Products at
Varying Outlet Screens (10mm, 6mm, and 0.75mm)

The particle size distribution varies significantly depending on the size of the outlet screen, as
shown by the size frequency curves produced from the hammer mill samples with different outlet screens
(10mm, 6mm, and 0.75mm). The product size distribution was coarser when the outlet screen's size was
larger. A smaller outlet screen, on the other hand, resulted in a finer product size distribution. The particle
size distribution moves towards finer sizes as the output screen gets smaller. This is demonstrated by the

6
fact that more particles pass through sieves with bigger mesh sizes, which suggests a more homogeneous
distribution of particle sizes.

Milling using the 10-mm and 6-mm openings gave products which mostly consisted of particles
with sizes of around 0.65 to 4.75 mm, whereas 0.75-mm opening consisted of particles with approximately
0.10 mm in size. As observed from the data collected, most of the sample from 10-mm and 6-mm were
retained at the sieve with 850-μm opening, which corresponds to a particle diameter size of 2.00 mm. It can
also be observed from the curve that most of the particles obtained for the experiment possess an average
diameter of about 2.0 mm. However, the sample from a 0.75-mm opening mostly has particle size that is
finer than 180 µm.

Figure 7. Size Frequency Curve of Hammer MIll Samples of varying Outlet Screens (10mm, 6mm and
0.75mm)

The graph illustrates a decreasing trend which suggests that as the particle size increases, a
greater number of particles are able to pass through the sieve. This is evident by the higher mass fraction
of particles that pass through the sieves with larger mesh sizes.

The skewing of the size frequency curve implies that the samples were not ground intensively and
uniformly. Errors such as mass losses or even mass gains, where the product of one sample gets mixed or
added into the product of another sample, might have occured during the experiment due to improper
cleaning of the equipment and screens between samples.

Conclusions

Size reduction is a process that involves breaking down large particles into smaller ones. The
energy required for this process is dependent on the desired final particle size. The smaller the desired
particle size, the more energy is required to achieve it. The energy consumption required for size reduction

7
increases as the target mean particle size after crushing decreases. More energy is required to achieve a
mean particle diameter of 4 mm compared to a mean particle diameter of 8 mm.

Rittinger's law is applicable to the grinding of fine powders, whereas Kick's law is more suited for
coarse grinding. Kick's Law provides a better estimate of the theoretical relative energy consumption of the
jaw crusher compared to Rittinger's Law, as suggested by the percent difference values relative to the
actual energy consumption ratio, which were 13.38% and 44.26%, respectively.

For the jaw crusher, the particle size distribution varied significantly depending on the size of the
throat opening used. The results show that when the throat opening size decreases, the product size
distribution gets smaller and particles become finer, in accordance with Kick's Law. The form of the
frequency curve indicates that larger particle sizes, between 4.7 to 11.0 mm, are expected for the majority
of the product. Whereas for the hammer mill, the particle size distribution of the product was found to vary
significantly depending on the size of the outlet screen. When the outlet screen was smaller, the product
size distribution was finer, and more particles passed through sieves with larger mesh sizes. The frequency
curve's form suggests that the majority of the product should have smaller particle sizes, ranging from 0.10
to 4.7 mm.

References

Berk, Z. (2009). Size reduction. Food Process Engineering and Technology, 153–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-373660-4.00006-5

Geankoplis, C. J. (2018). Transport Processes and Unit Operations (5th ed.). United States of America:
Prentice-Hall Inc.

McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., & Harriott, P. (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering (7th ed.). Singapore:
McGraw-Hill .

Mioč, U., & Kegl, B. (2018). Comparative analysis of the energy consumption of comminution processes. Mining
Engineering, 70(5), 53-59.

Richardson J. F., Harker J. H., Backhurst J. R., & Coulson J. M. (2002). Coulson and richardson's chemical
engineering. vol. 2 particle technology and separation processes (5th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Retrieved May 7 2023 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx
?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=92141.

Swetha, M. (2001, March 1). size reduction,laws involved in size reduction ,application & mills. Size Reduction,Laws
Involved in Size Reduction ,Application & Mills. https://www.slideshare.net/medishettis
wetha/bpharmacy-ii-yr-chapter-11-size-reduction

8
 ANNEX 1: Raw Data
I. Jaw Crusher Operation
Table A1-1. Preparation of Feed
Feed Sample (Gravel) Sample 1 Sample 2

Jaw Opening (mm) 8mm 4mm

Initial Sample Size ¾, ½ ¾, ½

Mass of Sample (g) 2,500 2,500

Table A1-2. Current and Voltage Reading of the Jaw Crusher for Samples 1 and 2
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2
Time Time
(s) Current Voltage Current Voltage (s) Current Voltage Current Voltage
(A) (V) (A) (V) (A) (A) (A) (A)

0 1.03 230 1.05 230 88 1.05 230 1.24 230

4 1.30 228 2.40 230 92 1.20 229 1.25 230

8 1.50 229 1.90 230 96 1.30 229 1.20 230

12 1.19 230 2.08 230 100 1.05 230 1.70 230

16 1.20 230 1.45 230 104 1.05 229 1.35 228

20 1.20 230 1.60 230 108 1.09 230 1.50 230

24 1.02 230 1.40 230 112 1.25 228 1.45 230

28 1.21 230 1.48 230 116 1.05 230 1.25 230

32 1.95 229 2.20 230 120 1.33 230 1.43 230

36 1.10 229 1.95 230 124 1.29 228 1.40 230

40 1.20 230 1.40 233 128 1.05 228 1.55 228

44 1.19 230 1.35 230 132 1.08 228 1.45 230

48 1.40 230 2.00 230 136 1.10 230 1.80 228

52 1.09 230 2.40 230 140 1.09 230 1.35 228

56 1.10 229 1.80 230 144 1.22 230 1.10 229

60 1.08 230 1.30 230 148 1.10 228 1.20 229

9
 64 1.60 230 1.20 230 152 1.18 230 1.60 229

68 1.15 230 1.62 230 156 1.10 230 1.45 230

72 1.10 230 1.78 230 160 1.20 230 1.70 230

76 1.07 230 1.80 229 164 1.20 230 1.70 230

80 1.05 230 1.13 230 168 1.62 230 1.63 228

84 1.06 230 1.55 230 172 1.10 230 1.45 230

Table A1-3. Continuation of Table A2-2

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2
Time Time
(s) Current Voltage Current Voltage (s) Current Voltage Current Voltage
(A) (V) (A) (V) (A) (A) (A) (A)

176 1.10 229 1.25 225 212 1.12 230 - -

180 1.30 230 1.20 225 216 1.20 230 - -

184 1.18 228 1.65 228 220 1.10 230 - -

188 1.45 230 1.25 230 224 1.09 229 - -

192 1.10 230 1.83 230 228 1.10 230 - -

196 1.20 229 1.40 228 232 1.35 228 - -

200 1.13 230 1.55 215 236 1.08 230 - -

204 1.15 230 - - 240 1.10 230 - -

208 1.18 229 - - - - - - -

Table A1-4. Screen Analysis for Jaw Crusher Samples using Sieve Shaker
Mass of Sample of Screen Analysis (g):

Sieve Mass of Sieve + Sample Mass of Sample

Opening Mass of Sieve
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2

Receiver 262.82 264.11 268.19 1.29 5.37

180 µm 319.75 319.97 320.57 0.22 0.82

10
 250 µm 317.24 317.64 320.92 0.40 3.68

450 µm 236.10 326.87 334.40 0.77 8.30

850 µm 379.51 385.19 442.41 5.68 62.90

3.15 mm 447.24 463.75 620.76 16.51 173.52

6.30 mm 455.86 929.60 701.30 473.34 245.44

Total 498.61 500.03

Table A1-5. Observations for Jaw Crusher Operations

Observations:

● the smaller the throat opening of the jaw crusher, the smaller the particles produced
● there were more particles in the sieve with an an opening of 6.30 mm
● the particles produced are coarser than the particles produced in the hammer mill

II. Hammer Mill Operations

Table A1-6. Preparation of Feed for Hammer Mill Operations
Feed Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
(Limestone)

Outlet Screens 10mm 6mm 0.75 m

Initial Sample Size 1/2 1/2 1/2

Mass of Sample (g) 400.09 400.02 400.05

Table A1-7. Time of Completion for 3 samples of 400 g Limestone in a Hammer Mill
Feed Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Time (s) 62.95 67.46 76.84

Table A1-8. Screen Analysis for Hammer Mill Samples using a Sieve Shaker
Mass of Sample of Screen Analysis (g):

Sieve Mass of Sieve + Sample Mass of Sample

Opening Mass of
Sieve Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Receiver 262.82 329.94 344.23 472.66 67.12 81.41 209.84

11
 180 µm 319.75 332.34 335.07 352.82 12.56 15.32 33.07

250 µm 317.24 346.88 351.83 388.27 29.44 34.59 71.03

450 µm 326.10 365.28 373.23 376.99 39.15 47.13 50.84

850 µm 379.51 519.05 539.93 394.22 139.54 160.42 14.71

3.15 mm 447.24 528.79 486.78 447.76 81.55 39.54 0.52

6.30 mm 455.86 460.51 455.86 455.86 4.65 0.00 0.00

Total 374.01 378.41 380.01

Table A1-9. Observations for Hammer Mill Operations

Observations:

● the smaller the value of the outlet screen, the finer the particles produced.
● there were more particles in the sieve with an opening of 850 µm.
● The particles produced are finer than the particles produced in the jaw crusher

12
 ANNEX 2: Processing of Data

Objective 1:
Table A2-1. Current and VoltageReadings of the Jaw Crusher at varying Throat Openings (8mm and 4mm)
Sample 1 (8mm) Sample 2 (4mm)
n Tim
e. s Current, A Voltage, V Current, A Voltage, V

0 0 1.03 230 1.05 230

1 4 1.3 228 2.4 230

2 8 1.5 229 1.9 230

3 12 1.19 230 2.08 230

4 16 1.2 230 1.45 230

5 20 1.2 230 1.6 230

6 24 1.02 230 1.4 230

7 28 1.21 230 1.48 230

8 32 1.95 229 2.2 230

9 36 1.1 229 1.95 230

10 40 1.2 230 1.4 233

11 44 1.19 230 1.35 230

12 48 1.4 230 2 230

13 52 1.09 230 2.4 230

14 56 1.1 229 1.8 230

15 60 1.08 230 1.3 230

16 64 1.6 230 1.2 230

17 68 1.15 230 1.62 230

18 72 1.1 230 1.78 230

19 76 1.07 230 1.8 229

20 80 1.05 230 1.13 230

13
21 84 1.06 230 1.55 230

22 88 1.05 230 1.24 230

23 92 1.2 229 1.25 230

24 96 1.3 229 1.2 230

25 100 1.05 230 1.7 230

26 104 1.05 229 1.35 228

27 108 1.09 230 1.5 230

28 112 1.25 228 1.45 230

29 116 1.05 230 1.25 230

30 120 1.33 230 1.43 230

31 124 1.29 228 1.4 230

32 128 1.05 228 1.55 228

33 132 1.08 228 1.45 230

34 136 1.1 230 1.8 228

35 140 1.09 230 1.35 228

36 144 1.22 230 1.1 229

37 148 1.1 228 1.2 229

38 152 1.18 230 1.6 229

39 156 1.1 230 1.45 230

40 160 1.2 230 1.7 230

41 164 1.2 230 1.7 230

42 168 1.62 230 1.63 228

43 172 1.1 230 1.45 230

44 176 1.1 229 1.25 225

45 180 1.3 230 1.2 225

14
 46 184 1.18 228 1.65 228

47 188 1.45 230 1.25 230

48 192 1.1 230 1.83 230

49 196 1.2 229 1.4 228

50 200 1.13 230 1.55 215

51 204 1.15 230 - -

52 208 1.18 229 - -

53 212 1.12 230 - -

54 216 1.2 230 - -

55 220 1.1 230 - -

56 224 1.09 229 - -

57 228 1.1 230 - -

58 232 1.35 228 - -

59 236 1.08 230 - -

60 240 1.1 230 - -

*calculations were done on sample 1

A graph was plotted between the current readings and time of the samples from the jaw crusher of
different throat openings (8mm and 4mm) as seen in Figure 1.

Subsequently, the area under the curve of the current vs time graph was obtained using Simpson’s
⅓ Rule. The equation below was derived as such,
𝑛−1
ℎ
𝑄= 2
[𝐼(𝑡𝑂) + 2 ∑ 𝐼(𝑡) + 𝐼(𝑡𝑛) (A2-1)
1
where,
𝑏−𝑎
ℎ= 𝑛
(A2-2)
240−0
ℎ= 60
= 4
thus,
4
𝑄= 2
[1. 03 + 2(1. 30 +... + 1. 08) + 1. 1]
𝑄 = 285. 42 𝐶

15
 The energy consumption was then determined, by multiplying the charge to the average voltage
reading of the jaw crusher.
𝐸 = 𝑄𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 (A2-3)
where,
𝑛
∑𝑉
𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 0
𝑛
(A2-4)
230+...+230
𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 60
= 229. 56 𝑉
thus,
𝐸 = 285. 42 * 229. 56 = 65520. 27 𝐽

The initial energy requirement was also of interest and was determined by getting the product of
the initial current and voltage reading, as well as the total time it takes to complete the operation.
𝐸0 = 𝐼0𝑉0𝑡𝑇 (A2-5)
𝐸0 = 1. 03 * 230 * 240 = 56856. 00 𝐽

Therefore, the net energy requirement is acquired by taking the difference of the initial and total
energy consumption.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐸 − 𝐸0 (A2-6)
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 655520. 27 − 56856. 00 = 8664. 27 𝐽 = 8. 66 𝑘𝐽

Table A2-2. Determination of the Mean Particle Diameter of Samples 1 and 2

Mass of Particle Diameter, mm Fictitious Area (A’f), g/mm
Mass of Mass of
Sieve Sieve,
Sample 1 Sample 2 D1 D2 Dave Sample 1 Sample 2
g

Receiver 262.82 1.29 5.37 0.18 0 0.09 14.33 59.67

180 µm 319.75 0.22 0.82 0.25 0.18 0.22 1.02 3.81

250 µm 317.24 0.4 3.68 0.45 0.25 0.35 1.14 10.51

450 µm 236.1 0.77 8.3 0.85 0.45 0.65 1.18 12.77

850 µm 379.51 5.68 62.9 3.15 0.85 2.00 2.84 31.45

3.15 mm 447.24 16.51 173.52 6.30 3.15 4.73 3.49 36.72

6.30 mm 455.86 473.34 245.44 15.88 6.3 11.09 42.69 22.14

Total Fictitious Area, A’ 66.71 177.07

Total 2418.52 498.21 500.03

16
 Mean Particle Diameter 7.47 2.82

First, the average particle diameter was determined by taking the mean of the particle diameter of
the sample, as well as the particle size between 2 sieves.
𝐷1+𝐷2
𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 2
(A2-7)
15.88+6.3
𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 2
= 11. 09 𝑚𝑚
The fictitious area the particle of a particular sieve size was obtained by,
𝑤
𝐴'𝑓 = 𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑒
(A2-8)
473.34
𝐴'𝑓 = 11.09
= 42. 69 𝑔/𝑚𝑚
and the total fictitious area is given by the summation of the fictitious area

𝐴' = ∑ 𝐴'𝑓 (A2-9)

𝐴' = 14. 33 +... + 42. 69 = 66. 71 𝑔/𝑚𝑚

Therefore, the mean particle diameter is taken by dividing the total mass of the sample total
fictitious area by the total mass of the sample.
Σ𝑤
𝐷𝑚 = 𝐴'
(A2-10)
498.21
𝐷𝑚 = 66.71
= 7. 47 𝑚𝑚
As shown in Figure 2, the net energy requirement, kJ, was plotted against the mean particle
diameter of the sample using a clustered column graph.

Objective 2:
Table A2-3. Determination of the Experimental and Theoretical Relative Energy Consumption
Kick’s Law Rittinger Law
Sample Enet, kJ RA D0, mm Dm mm
RKL %Difference RRL %Difference

1 8.66 7.47
0.382 15.88 0.437 13.38% 0.244 44.26%
2 22.68 2.82

The Actual Relative Energy Consumption was taken,

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑡1
𝑅𝐴 = 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑡2
(A2-11)
8.66
𝑅𝐴 = 22.68
= 0. 382
The Relative Energy consumption according to Kick’s Law was determined as such,

17
 𝐷
(𝑙𝑛 𝐷 0 )1
𝑅𝐾𝐿 = 𝑚
𝐷0 (A2-12)
(𝑙𝑛 𝐷 )2
𝑚

15.88
𝑙𝑛 7.47
𝑅𝐾𝐿 = 15.88 = 0. 437
𝑙𝑛 2.82

The Relative Energy consumption according to Rittinger Law was determined as such,
1 1
( 𝐷 − 𝐷 )1
𝑅𝑅𝐿 = 1
𝑚 0
1 (A2-13)
( 𝐷 − 𝐷 )2
𝑚 0

1 1
7.47
− 15.88
𝑅𝑅𝐿 = 1 1 = 0. 244
2.82
− 15.88

where, the percent difference is

|𝑅𝐴−𝑅𝐾𝐿|
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = (𝑅𝐴+𝑅𝐾𝐿)/2
* 100% (A2-14)
|0.382−0.437|
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = (0.382+0.437)/2
* 100% = 13. 38%
A clustered column graph was plotted for the relative energy consumption of the method of
processing used as shown in Figure 3.

Objective 3:
Table A2-4. Determination of the Cumulative Mass Fraction and its Slope of Sample 1 of the Jaw Crusher
Sample 1 (8mm)
D ave,
Sieve Mass of Cumulative Slope of Cumulative
mm Mass Fraction
Sample, g Mass Fraction Mass Fraction

Receiver 0.1 1.29 0.0025 0.003 0.0000

180 µm 0.2 0.22 0.0004 0.003 0.0035

250 µm 0.4 0.40 0.0008 0.004 0.0059

450 µm 0.7 0.77 0.0015 0.005 0.0052

850 µm 2.0 5.68 0.0114 0.017 0.0084

3.15 mm 4.7 16.51 0.0331 0.050 0.0122

6.30 mm 11.1 473.34 0.9501 1.000 0.1493

Total 498.21

18
Table A2-5. Determination of the Cumulative Mass Fraction and its Slope of Sample 2 of the Jaw Crusher
Sample 2 (4mm)
D ave,
Sieve Mass of Cumulative Slope of Cumulative
mm Mass Fraction
Sample, g Mass Fraction Mass Fraction

Receiver 0.1 5.37 0.0107 0.011 0.0000

180 µm 0.2 0.82 0.0016 0.012 0.0131

250 µm 0.4 3.68 0.0074 0.020 0.0545

450 µm 0.7 8.30 0.0166 0.036 0.0553

850 µm 2.0 62.90 0.1258 0.162 0.0932

3.15 mm 4.7 173.52 0.3470 0.509 0.1273

6.30 mm 11.1 245.44 0.4909 1.000 0.0771

Total 500.03

Table A2-6. Determination of the Cumulative Mass Fraction and its Slope of Sample 1 of the Hammer Mill
Sample 1 (10mm)
D ave,
Sieve Mass of Cumulative Slope of Cumulative
mm Mass Fraction
Sample, g Mass Fraction Mass Fraction

Receiver 0.09 67.12 0.1795 0.18 0.0000

180 µm 0.22 12.56 0.0336 0.21 0.2687

250 µm 0.35 29.44 0.0787 0.29 0.5831

450 µm 0.65 39.15 0.1047 0.40 0.3489

850 µm 2.00 139.54 0.3731 0.77 0.2764

3.15 mm 4.73 81.55 0.2180 0.99 0.0800

6.30 mm 9.50 4.65 0.0124 1.00 0.0026

Total 374.01

19
Table A2-7. Determination of the Cumulative Mass Fraction and its Slope of Sample 2 of the Hammer Mill
Sample 2 (6mm)
D ave,
Sieve Mass of Cumulative Slope of Cumulative
mm Mass Fraction
Sample, g Mass Fraction Mass Fraction

Receiver 0.09 81.41 0.2151 0.22 0.0000

180 µm 0.22 15.32 0.0405 0.26 0.3239

250 µm 0.35 34.59 0.0914 0.35 0.6771

450 µm 0.65 47.13 0.1245 0.47 0.4152

850 µm 2.00 160.42 0.4239 0.90 0.3140

3.15 mm 4.73 39.54 0.1045 1.00 0.0383

6.30 mm 9.50 0.00 0.0000 1.00 0.0000

Total 378.41

Table A2-7. Determination of the Cumulative Mass Fraction and its Slope of Sample 3 of the Hammer Mill
Sample 3 (0.75mm)
D ave,
Sieve Mass of Cumulative Slope of Cumulative
mm Mass Fraction
Sample, g Mass Fraction Mass Fraction

Receiver 0.09 209.84 0.5522 0.55 0.0000

180 µm 0.22 33.07 0.0870 0.64 0.6962

250 µm 0.35 71.03 0.1869 0.83 1.3846

450 µm 0.65 50.84 0.1338 0.96 0.4460

850 µm 2.00 14.71 0.0387 1.00 0.0287

3.15 mm 4.73 0.52 0.0014 1.00 0.0005

6.30 mm 9.50 0.00 0.0000 1.00 0.0000

Total 380.01

*Calculation were done with sample 3 of the Hammer Mill

20
Mass fraction of a particular sieve,
𝑤𝑖
𝑥𝑖 = 𝑊
(A2-15)
209.84
𝑥𝑖 = 380.01
= 0. 5522
Cumulative Mass Fraction,
𝐶𝑟𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 + 𝐶𝑟𝑖−1 (A2-16)
𝐶𝑟𝑖 = 0. 0387 + 0. 96 = 1. 00
Slope of Cumulative Mass Fraction
∆𝐶𝑟𝑖
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = ∆𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑒
(A2-17)
∆𝐶𝑟𝑖 1.00−0.96
∆𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑒
= 2.00−0.65
= 0. 0287
A Scatterplot graph was plotted between the cumulative mass fraction and its slope against the
average diameter of the sample from the sieve analysis.

21