Problem Set on Screening

and Size Reduction

Group 5 Problems Assigned:
5ChE – A • No. 5
Bigso, Jhullie Ann • Challenge Problem
Magalong, Marinela Kris • No. 13
Micaller, Ian Kenneth • No. 18
Miranda, Kenneth Paulo • Problem from Lecture 2A Slide No. 45
Tamayo, Benedict
Problem No. 5
Benedict Tamayo
Problem No. 5

 Table salt is being fed to a vibrating screen at the rate of

3000 kg/hr. The desired product is the 28/100 mesh
fraction. A -28 + 100-mesh screens are therefore used,
the feed being introduced on the 28 mesh screen, the
product being discharged from the 100-mesh screen.
Calculate the effectiveness of the screens. What
conclusions can you draw from the values computed
versus the given proportion?

Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwgRPZMGrjE

 F R P Q
Screen
Feed Oversize Product Undersize
Mesh
-10+14 0.0003 0.0008
-14+20 0.0037 0.0082 0.0005
-20+28 0.089 0.0189 0.0155 0.00003
-28+35 0.186 0.389 0.039 0.00012
-35+48 0.258 0.377 0.322 0.0009
-48+65 0.285 0.176 0.526 0.0136
-65+100 0.091 0.025 0.075 0.34935
-100+150 0.062 0.004 0.02 0.299
-150+200 0.025 0.0011 0.002 0.337
1 1 1 1
 +28 -28+100 -100 TOTAL
Streams Comput
x Kg x Kg x Kg
ed, Kg
0.0000 0.3639
Q 0.636
3 7
P 0.016 0.962 0.022

R 0.0279 0.967 0.0051

F 0.093 0.82 0.087

 Given: +28 -28+100 -100 TOTAL

F= 3000 kg
Streams Computed
x Kg x Kg x Kg
, Kg
Q 0.00003 0.36397 0.636

P 0.016 0.962 0.022

F= Q + P + R R 0.0279 0.967 0.0051

3000= Q + P + R - eqn 1 F 0.093 0.82 0.087

3000(0.093)= Q(0.00003) + P(0.016) + R(0.0279) -eqn 2

3000(0.82)= Q(0.36397) + P(0.962) + R(0.967) -eqn 3
3000(0.087)= Q(0.636) + P(0.022) + R(0.0051) -eqn 4

Solving simultaneously:
Q(undersize) = 884.56149 kg
P(product) = -18,483.42257 kg
R(oversize) = 20,598.86109 kg
 F1= 279 +28 -28+100 -100 TOTAL
Streams
F2= 2460 x Kg x Kg x Kg Computed, Kg
F3= 261 Q (undersize) 0.00003 0.026537 0.36397 321.9538 0.636 562.5811 884.5614859
P (product) 0.016 -295.735 0.962 -17781.1 0.022 -406.635 -18483.42257
R (oversize) 0.0279 574.7082 0.967 19919.1 0.0051 105.0542 20598.86109
F (feed) 0.093 279 0.82 2460 0.087 261 3000
R1= 574.7082 3000.000006
R2= 19919.1
R3= 105.0541
S1= 574.735
S2= 20241.1 +28
S3= 667.635

Q1=0.026537
Q2= 321.9538
Q3= 562.5811

100
P1= -295.735
P2= -17781.1
P3= -406.635
For +28:
𝑄 0.093−0.0279
= = 2.335844995
𝐹 0.0279−0.00003

𝑅 0.093 − 0.00003
= = 3.368478261
𝐹 0.0279 − 0.00003

𝑄 𝑥𝑝 𝑅 1 − 𝑥𝑅 0.00003 1 − 0.0279
𝐸= = 2.3358 3.3685 = 0.0027203
𝐹 𝑥𝐹 𝐹 1 − 𝑥𝐹 0.093 1 − 0.093

For +100:
𝑄 0.087 − 0.0051
= = 0.1298145506
𝐹 0.636 − 0.0051
𝑅 0.636 − 0.087
= = 0.8701854494
𝐹 0.636 − 0.0051
𝑃 𝑥𝑅 𝑅 1 − 𝑥𝑃 0.0051 1 − 0.636
𝐸= = 0.1298 0.8702 = 0.0026398
𝐹 𝑥𝐹 𝐹 1 − 𝑥𝐹 0.087 1 − 0.087
Conclusion:

With a computed value of efficiencies (very small) and obtained

value of the product, Q (negative), the given proportions do not
satisfy the type of sample screened.
There is wrong with the stoichiometry of the given values.
Challenge Problem
Marinela Kris Magalong
Challenge Problem

 It is desired to separate a mixture of crushed stone

clinker in a rotary trommel to obtain 3 products D,
C, and B passing through 150, 35, and 10 mesh
screens respectively. Find he effectiveness of each
screen using the screen analysis below.

Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzPWEL6Oj8s

 MESH FEED A B C D
-3+4 2.5 0.087
-4+6 7.5 0.208 0.039
-6+8 12.4 0.417 0.01
-8+10 7.4 0.243 0.01
-10+14 21.3 0.045 0.521
-14+20 8.2 0.156 0.075
-20+28 7.5 0.182 0.017
-28+35 3.8 0.052 0.061
-35+48 8.1 0.029 0.238
-48+65 11.6 0.395
-65+100 5.3 0.17 0.088
-100+150 1.4 0.041 0.059
-150+170 2.1 0.003 0.588
-170+200 0.7 0.206
-200+270 0.2 0.059
Basis: 100g of entering Feed
OMB: 100 = A + B + C + D eq. 1
MB: +10: 29.8 = 0.955A + 0.059B eq. 2
-10+35: 40.8 = 0.045A + 0.911B + 0.153C eq. 3
-35+150: 26.4 = 0.029B + 0.844C + 0.147D eq. 4

-150: 3 = 0.003C + 0.853D; eq. 5

D = 3000/853 – 3/853C eq. 6
eq. 6 in eq. 1
100 = A + B + C + (3000/853 – 3/853C) eq. 7
82300/853 = A + B + 850/853C
Solving eq. 2, eq.3, and eq. 7 simultaneously,
A = 28.8295g
C = 29.3187g
B = 38.4379g
D : 3000/853 – 3/853(29.3187) = 3.4139
F1 = 29.8
F2 = 4038 A1 = 0.955(28.8295) = 27.5332
F3 = 26.4 A2 = 0.045(28.8295) = 1.2973
F4 =3 A3 = 0
A4 = 0
E1 = 2.2678
E2 = 39.5027 10
E3 = 26.4 B1 = 0.059(38.4379) = 2.2678
E4 =3 B2 = 0.911(38.4379) = 35.0169
B3 = 0.029(38.4379) = 1.1147
G1 = 0 B4 = 0
G2 = 4.4858 35
G3 = 25.2853 C1 = 0
G4 =3 C2 = 0.153(29.3187) = 4.4858
C3 = 0.844(29.3187) = 24.745
C4 = 0.003(29.3187) = 0.08796)
D1 =0 150
D2 = 0
D3 = 0.147(3.4139) = 0.5018
D4 = 0.853(3.4139) = 2.912
Efficiency:

Mesh 10: = 45.03%

Mesh 35: = 79.76%

Mesh 150: = 95.31%

Problem No. 13
Ian Kenneth Micaller
 Problem No. 13
Mesh Cum Analysis
-3+4 0
-4+6 0.12
 Calculate the surface per unit -6+8 0.21
volume in square centimeters per -8+10 0.22
cubic centimeters (cm2/cm3) of -10+14 0.28
shale having the screen analysis -14+20 0.42
shown in the table. What is the -20+28 0.58
volume surface mean diameter of -28+35 0.65
the particles smaller than 65 -35+48 0.87
mesh? Assume the shale to be of -48+65 0.88
the same shape as mica flakes. -65+100 0.94
-100+150 0.96
-150+200 0.99
-200 1
Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wf1q5FHdk0
 Problem No. 13
Cum Dpi xi/Dpi
Mesh xi Sample Calculation for -65+100 Mesh
Analysis mean mean
-3+4 0 0 5.6895 0.0000
-4+6 0.12 0.12 4.013 0.0299 x i  CSA n 1  CSA n
-6+8 0.21 0.09 2.8445 0.0316
-8+10 0.22 0.01 2.0065 0.0050 x i  0.94  0.88  0.06 Mesh Dpi
-10+14 0.28 0.06 1.4095 0.0426 3 6.68
-14+20 0.42 0.14 1.0005 0.1399 4 4.699
-20+28 0.58 0.16 0.711 0.2250 Dp i of mesh a  Dp i of mesh b 6 3.327
Dp i 
-28+35 0.65 0.07 0.503 0.1392 2 8 2.362
10 1.651
-35+48 0.87 0.22 0.356 0.6180 0.208  0.147
-48+65 0.88 0.01 0.0398
Dp i   0.1775mm 14 1.168
0.2515 2 20 0.833
-65+100 0.94 0.06 0.1775 0.3380 28 0.589
-100+150 0.96 0.02 0.1255 0.1594 35 0.417
48 0.295
65 0.208
-150+200 0.99 0.03 0.089 0.3371 Excluding
mesh -200 100 0.147
-200 1 0.01 0.074 0.1351 150 0.104
Total 19.177 2.2406 Source: Tyler Standard Sieve Scale 200 0.074
 Problem No. 13
Cum Dpi xi/Dpi
Mesh xi
From Table 28.2 of MSH book, 7th ed: Analysis mean mean
-65+100 0.94 0.06 0.1775 0.3380
Mica flakes: ɸs = 0.28
-100+150 0.96 0.02 0.1255 0.1594

6V p -150+200 0.99 0.03 0.089 0.3371

s 
D pS p -200 1 0.01 0.074 0.1351
Total 0.9696
Sp 6 6 103
  x 2
V p  s D p (0.28)(19.177) 10
Sp 2 1 1
 11.1741 cm Ds  
Vp cm 3 n
xi

0.9696
i 1 D pi

D s  1.0313mm (for smaller th an 65 mesh)

Problem No. 18
Kenneth Paulo Miranda
 Problem No. 18
Mesh %
-3+4 100
 Find the power requirement -4+6 97.3
to dry grind 200 MT/day of -6+8 94.4
phosphate rock from 10 mm -8+10 88.5
particles to a crushed -10+14 62.4
product with analysis as -14+20 56.1
given in Problem 14. Use -20+28 44.2
Bond’s Law. -28+35 38.8
-35+48 21.1
-48+65 11.7
-65+100 5.8
-100+150 3.2
-150+200 0
Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHygXfdsPqU
Relevant Data for Computing Power:

Mesh Dpi Cum Analysis

3 6.68 1
4 4.699 1
6 3.327 0.973
8 2.362 0.944
10 1.651 0.885
14 1.168 0.624
20 0.833 0.561
28 0.589 0.442
35 0.417 0.388
48 0.295 0.211
65 0.208 0.117
100 0.147 0.058
150 0.104 0.032
200 0.074 0
 Plotting

Cum Analysis vs Dp
1.2

0.8
Cum Analysis

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Approximately = 1.49 Dp
Solving:

Dsa = 10 mm
Dsb = 1.49 mm (from plot)
Wi = 9.92 (from table 28.2)
m = 200 MT/hr = 8.33333 MT/hr

KB = 0.3162 * 9.92 = 3.136704

P = 13.1481 kW
 Problem from
Lecture 2A Slide No. 45
Jhullie Ann Bigso
Problem from Lecture 2A
Slide No. 45 Mesh
-3+4
Cum Analysis
0
-4+6 0.121
Fine Dp where 80% of -6+8 0.214
the particles of given -8+10 0.221
-10+14 0.280
size analysis in the table, -14+20 0.422
passes through. -20+28 0.585
-28+35 0.652
-35+48 0.871
-48+65 0.881
-65+100 0.924
-100+150 0.951
-150+200 0.982
-200 0.987
pan 1.000
Mesh Dp Cum Analysis Cum Analysis
3 6.680
4 4.699 0 1
6 3.327 0.121 0.879
8 2.362 0.214 0.786
10 1.651 0.221 0.779
14 1.168 0.280 0.720
20 0.833 0.422 0.578
28 0.589 0.585 0.415
35 0.417 0.652 0.348
48 0.295 0.871 0.129
65 0.208 0.881 0.119
100 0.147 0.924 0.076
150 0.104 0.951 0.049
200 0.074 0.982 0.018
pan -- 0.987 0.013
1 0
Dp = 2.5mm
Team Honor Code:

We certify that each of us whose name appears

below has contributed to the solution of this
Problem Set and that no part of the solution was
copied from other teams or other sources nor did
we allow other teams to copy from us.

Jhullie Ann Bigso

Marinela Kris Magalong
Ian Kenneth Micaller
Kenneth Paulo Miranda
Benedict Tamayo
Thank You! 