Saint Louis University

School of Engineering & Architecture

Department of Chemical Engineering

Code: 2476 Reporter: Dalilis, Ana Lorraine M.

Course No.: CHE 512 Members: Salarzon, Jiggy A.
Schedule: 7:30-10:30 TTh CheLab1 Legaspi, Angelique M.
Group No.: 8 Panisan, Rowena
Rabarra, Joan A.

Date Performed: August 14, 2017

Date Submitted: August 16, 2017

Experiment No.: 1
Experiment Title: Screening

CRITERIA POINTS SCORE

1. Report Format and Neatness
2. Objectives
3. Theoretical Background
4. Equipment and Apparatus
a. List of Equipment and apparatus and its uses
b. Experimental Set-up
5. Procedure
6. Data and Results
7. Interpretation of Results
8. Recommendations and Conclusions
9. Sample Computations
10. Answers to Study Questions
11. Appendices
a. Graphs Accompanying Data and Results
b. References
TOTAL

Instructor: Engr. Jonalyn A. Kimpay

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the experiment were to be able to obtain a uniform particle using the method

of screening when separating a mixture of a particular substance. Secondly, the researchers/ group

should be able to obtain the differential and cumulative analysis given a specific sample. Third, after the

experiment, the researchers/group should be to be able to show graphically the particle diameter with

the mass fraction and the particle size with cumulative mass fraction relationship. And lastly, with the

given sample mixture, the researchers/ group should be able to characterize the sample properly when

determine the specific surface, particle population, and the average particle size.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Screening or also known as mechanical screening is the mechanical process which accomplishes

a division of particles on the basis of size and their acceptance or rejection by a screening surface. Screen

is a machine with surfaces used to classify materials by size. The purpose of screening is to separate

from a granular substance particles that are smaller than the screen opening from those that are larger.

A single screen provides two products. These products are known to be the oversize and the undersize.

The top is the oversize or plus product while the one which passes through the screen is the undersize or

minus product.

One of the most common application of a vibrating screen is to separate a loosen mixture of

materials into different size fractions. Other popular uses of screens are scalping, washing, dewatering

and dedusting. Other application is the sieve analysis. The sieve analysis is commonly known as the

gradation test. It is a basic essential test for determination of the gradation of a polydisperse aggregate.

Gradation is the term used for the distribution of aggregate particles, by size, within a given sample.

1
 2

The use of screens increases with the education and civilization of a people and with the

improving and perfecting of an art. In our advanced civilization practically everything that we eat, wear

and use has been in contact with, or dependent upon screens in some phase of its growth, development

or processing.

Material factors affecting the screen performance are size and shape, density, moisture and size

distribution. Each condition must be taken into account when attempting to predict screen performance.

The size and shape of an individual may be angular, spherical, slabby, oval or in short it has many

different shape and size. . Separation cutpoint sizes in most screening applications range downward from

4” to 325 mesh(.0018”).thecutpoint is the minimum particle size left on the screen, and the maximum

undersize particle that passes the screen. Density of any material is directly proportional to its specific

gravity. Surface moisture causes particles to stick together, resisting stratification. Moisture in granular

particles may be absorbed, adsorbed, or both. Either condition can impair screenability, but tolerance is

much greater for internally absorbed than for external surface moisture. Lastly, the size distribution of

particles in a granular bulk material is the primary characteristic that governs the rate of undersize

passage through a screen opening that is larger than the smallest particle and smaller than the largest

particle in a representative sample of the material. Size distribution is commonly measured by sieve

analysis. It uses a series of standardized wire mesh sieves with square openings that progress, in the

commonly used Tyler standard scale7, at the fixed rate of from 1.05” to .0029” or called 200 mesh.

Sieve analysis is used to assess the distribution particle size of a granular material, this size

distribution is always critical in importance. This can be performed on any type of organic or inorganic

granular materials including a wide range of manufactured powders, chalk and many more, up to any

minimum size which depends on the exact method.

4
5
6
7
PROCEDURE

In this study, the experimental method of research was used. The Sieve shaker was used in this

experiment. The brush was used to clean the individual screens compromising the entire series and made

sure that there were no adhering particles on the screen. After that, the weights of the individual screens

were noted.

For the next step, the individual screens with the coarser at the top and the finest at the bottom

were nested together. To complete the set, the bottom pan and the top cover were put in place to

complete the set. The weighed amount of the crushed chalk was places on the top screen and replaced

the cover. Then, the screen set-up on the sieve shaker were arranged and the start button of the shaker

was pressed to start the screening.

Fifteen minutes was allotted per trial. After the waited time, the bottom pan was removed and

weighed. It was replaced back to the series and run it again for fifteen minutes and noted the weight of

the bottom pan. The shaking was repeated until the weight of the bottom pan became constant. That

indicates that the separation was complete. The sieves were disassembled and the individual fractions by

difference were weighed. The weight of the crushed chalk retained in each screen and the total time of

screening were recorded. For the computations, the values required for the experiments were calculated.

The cumulative plot of screen analysis showing the mass fraction passing through the screens as a

function of particles size was prepared.

Moreover, the plot screen analysis showing the cumulative mass fraction smaller than the Dpi as

a function of particle size was also prepared. To end the experiment, the specific surface, volume surface

mean diameter and the number of particles in a specific fraction were determined.

8
DATA AND RESULTS

Masstotal of chalk before crushing: 250.00 g Total time of screening: 95 minutes

Masstotal of chalk before screening: 249.42 g Total time of screeing including

Masstotal of chalk after screening: 249.17 g weighing : 125 minutes

Table VII.1: The data for the experiment and the calculated aperture

Cumulative mass
Aperture
fraction
Screen
Screen Ave Dpi, Mass Sample Sample
opening,
Mesh mm fraction larger smaller
Dpi, mm cm Micrometer
than size than size
noted noted
8 2.360 2.36 0.3475 0.3475 0.6525 0.0929 0.0321
14 1.400 1.88 0.3172 0.6646 0.3354 0.0551 0.0163
25 0.710 1.055 0.2669 0.9316 0.0684 0.028 0.012
35 0.500 0.605 0.0114 0.9429 0.0571 0.0197 0.0089
Pan --- 0.25 0.0571 1.0000 0.0000

The table above shows that the higher the screen mesh, the lower value of screen opening and

the aperture, meaning in this case, Mesh 35 has the lowest value of screen opening and aperture which

is 0.500 mm and 0.0197 mm, respectively. Also, Mesh 8 has the widest screen opening which is 2.360

mm.

Table VII.2: The data for the weight of pan and chalk corresponding to its time and trial

Trial Weight of pan + chalk, g Time, minutes

1 504.99 15

2 506.01 5

3 506.88 5

4 507.16 5
 5 507.36 5

6 507.48 5

7 507.63 5

8 507.73 5

9 507.85 5

10 507.94 5

11 508.04 5

12 508.12 5

13 508.18 5

14 508.22 5

15 508.25 5

16 508.33 5

17 508.34 5

The data above shows the constant weighing of the pan and the chalk, which gave 17 trials, that

lasted at 95 minutes.

Table VII.3: The data for the determination of weight of chalk for every mesh and for the pan

and the total mass of chalk after screening

Weight of screen +
Weight of screen, g Weight of chalk, g
chalk, g

Mesh 8 464.09 550.67 86.58

Mesh 14 429.84 508.87 79.03

Mesh 25 400.06 466.57 66.51

Mesh 35 402.81 405.64 2.83

Pan 494.12 508.34 14.22

 Mass of chalk after screening: 249.17

The data above shows that the Mesh 8 has the heaviest weight of chalk, which is 86.58 grams

and the Mesh 35 has the lowest weight, which is just 2.83 grams and the mass of chalk after screening

was 249.17 grams, losing some chalk during the screening.

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

In the experiment, the method of Screening was used. This is for the powdered chalk to be

separated and classified to its particular particle size. The particle size can be known from the given

screen opening in millimetres this is because the particles that can pass through a given opening shall

suggest its size.

The mass fraction retained on each screen mesh including the pan, varies. Thus, if this will be

graphed by plotting the mass fraction against the particle size gives different curves for different screen

intervals. The coarsest mesh (8 mesh) have the largest amount of mass fraction this may have been

because of overloading of the screen since 250 g of crushed chalk was used in the experiment, and some

particles become whole. Particle fill up in the openings might have technically occurred. Theoretically, the

particles which remain in the coarsest mesh have the largest particle size and the ones that remained in

the pan which fell through the finest mesh have the smallest particle size.

Moreover, the cumulative mass fractions only indicate the successions of fraction passing

through the screen , for undersize, and the additions of fraction being retained in the mesh for oversize.

It only decreases or increases when the graphically represented exhibits a curve that shows the particle

size that lie above or below a particular value of a cumulative mass fraction.

12
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Consequently, the mesh that have the largest particle size were remained in the coarsest mesh,

for example, Mesh 8 and the part of the Sieve Shaker that have the smallest particle size are retained in

the pan, it is able to pass through the finest mesh.

However, the amount of chalk weighed per pan after screening varies independently to its

particle size. This does not mean that the smaller particle size indicates few particulates and large particle

size indicates more particulates. If overloading occurs in the screens or if electrostatic forces hinder to

cause the union of particles to one another.

It is recommended to lessen the amount of chalk to be used in the experiment. This is to avoid

overloading or to use larger sieves to accommodate an ample amount of chalk. In addition, chalk storage

must be kept in a closed area so that it will not be exposed in air or so that there will be no chalk lost

during storage.

13
SAMPLE COMPUTATIONS

Average Dpi, mm

#8 :2.36
2.36+1.4
#14 : = 1.88
2
1.4+0.710
#25: 2
= 1.055
0.710+0.5
#35: 2
= 0.605
0.5
Pan : 2 = 0.25

Weight of the chalk , g ( Weight of screen and chalk – weight of screen)

#8:550.67 − 464. 09 = 86.58

#14:508.87 − 429.84 = 79.03

#25:466.57 − 400.06 = 66.51

#35:405.64 − 402.81 = 2.83

Pan:508.34 − 494.12 = 14.22

Total Mass after screening: 86.58 + 79.03 + 66.51 + 2.83 + 14.22 = 249.17

Mass Fraction (𝐖𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐤 ÷ 𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠)

86.58
#8:249.17 = 0.3475
79.03
#14:249.17 = 0.3172
66,51
#25:249.17 = 0.2669
2.83
#35: = 0.0114
249.17
14.22
Pan:249.17 = 0.0571

Sample larger than size noted

#8: 0.3475

#14: 0.3475 + 0.3172 = 0.6646

14
#25: 0.6646 + 0.2669 = 0.9316

#35: 0.9316 + 0.0114 = 0.9429

Pan:0.9429 + 0.0571 = 1

Sample smaller than size noted

#8: 1- 0.3475 = 0.6525

#14: 1- 0.6646 = 0.3354

#25: 1- 0.9316 = 0.0684

#35: 1- 0.9429 = 0.0571

Pan:1-1 = 0

𝟏𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒄𝒎 𝟏 𝒊𝒏
Screen opening, cm to in 𝒙, 𝒎𝒎 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
× 𝟏𝒎 × 𝟐.𝟓𝟒 𝒄𝒎
𝟏𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒄𝒎 𝟏 𝒊𝒏
#8: 2.36 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
× 𝟏𝒎 × 𝟐.𝟓𝟒 𝒄𝒎 =0.0929
𝟏𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒄𝒎 𝟏 𝒊𝒏
#14: 1.4 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
× 𝟏𝒎 × 𝟐.𝟓𝟒 𝒄𝒎 =0.0551
𝟏𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒄𝒎 𝟏 𝒊𝒏
#25: 0.71 × × × =0.028
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎 𝟏𝒎 𝟐.𝟓𝟒 𝒄𝒎

𝟏𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒄𝒎 𝟏 𝒊𝒏
#35: 0.5 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
× 𝟏𝒎 × 𝟐.𝟓𝟒 𝒄𝒎 =0.0197

Aperture(x), in 1= (mesh no.)(aperture + screen opening)

#8: 1= (8) (X + 0.0929) X= 0.0321

#14: 1= (14) (X + 0.0551) X= 0.0163

#25: 1= (25) (X + 0.028) X= 0.012

#35: 1= (35) (X + 0.0197) X=0.0089

𝟐.𝟓𝟒 𝒄𝒎
Aperture in to cm 𝒙, 𝒊𝒏 ×
𝟏 𝒊𝒏
2.54 𝑐𝑚
#8: 0.0321 × 1 𝑖𝑛
= 0.0815
2.54 𝑐𝑚
#14: 0.0163 × 1 𝑖𝑛
= 0.0414
2.54 𝑐𝑚
#25: 0.0012 × 1 𝑖𝑛
= 0.0305

15
 2.54 𝑐𝑚
#35: 0.0089 × 1 𝑖𝑛
= 0.0226

𝟏𝒎 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒎𝒎
Aperture cm to mm 𝒙, 𝒄𝒎 × ×
𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒄𝒎 𝟏𝒎
1𝑚 1000𝑚𝑚
#8: 0.0815 × 100 𝑐𝑚 × 1𝑚
= 815.34
1𝑚 1000𝑚𝑚
#14: 0.0414 × 100 𝑐𝑚 × 1𝑚
= 414.02
1𝑚 1000𝑚𝑚
#25: 0.0305 × 100 𝑐𝑚 × 1𝑚
= 304.8
1𝑚 1000𝑚𝑚
#35:0.0226 × 100 𝑐𝑚 × 1𝑚
= 225.7146

6 𝑋𝑖
𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚 = 𝐀𝐰 = ( )×∑
𝑆𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 × 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐷𝑝𝑖

𝑿𝒊 0.3475 0.3172 0.2669 0.0114 0.5878

∗∑ =( + + + )=
𝑫𝒑𝒊 2.36 1.88 1.055 0.605 𝑚𝑚

6 0.5878 𝒎𝒎𝟐
𝐀𝐰 = ( 𝑔 100 𝑐𝑚 )× = 𝟏𝟑𝟎𝟎. 𝟗𝟏𝟕𝟔
1 × 2.711 𝑐𝑚3 × ( 1000 𝑚𝑚)3 𝑚𝑚 𝒈

1
𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 = 𝐃𝐬 = 𝑋𝑖
∑
𝐷𝑝𝑖

1
𝐃𝐬 = 0.5878 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟎𝟏𝟑 𝒎𝒎
𝑚𝑚

𝑚
𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 = 𝐍 =
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 × 𝑉𝑝

𝟒 𝟒
#8 *𝑽𝒑 = 𝟑
× π × 𝐷𝑝𝑖 3 = 𝟑
× π × 2.363 = 55.0585 𝑚𝑚3

16
 𝟒 𝟒
#14 *𝑽𝒑 = × π × 𝐷𝑝𝑖 3 = × π × 1.883 = 27.8331 𝑚𝑚3
𝟑 𝟑

𝟒 𝟒
#25 *𝑽𝒑 = 𝟑
× π × 𝐷𝑝𝑖 3 = 𝟑
× π × 1.0553 = 4.9187 𝑚𝑚3

𝟒 𝟒
#35 *𝑽𝒑 = 𝟑
× π × 𝐷𝑝𝑖 3 = 𝟑
× π × 0.6053 = 0.9276 𝑚𝑚3

86.58 𝑔
#𝟖 𝐍 = = 580.0477
𝑔 100 𝑐𝑚 3
2.711 ×( ) × 55.0585 𝑚𝑚3
𝑐𝑚3 1000 𝑚𝑚

79.03 𝑔
#𝟖 𝐍 = = 1047.3718
𝑔 100 𝑐𝑚 3
2.711 𝑐𝑚3
× (1000 𝑚𝑚) × 27.8331𝑚𝑚3

66.51 𝑔
#𝟖 𝐍 = = 4987.7778
𝑔 100 𝑐𝑚 3
2.711 𝑐𝑚3
× (1000 𝑚𝑚) × 4.9187𝑚𝑚3

2.83𝑔
#𝟖 𝐍 = = 1125.3722
𝑔 100 𝑐𝑚 3
2.711 𝑐𝑚3
× (1000 𝑚𝑚) × 0.9276𝑚𝑚3

17
ANSWERS TO STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What is the significance of screening?

Mechanical screening often called as screening is a process that uses media, such as a mesh or a

perforated plate to separate a material based on particle size. This operation fall under two categories

namely dry screening and wet screening. From these categories, screening separates a flow of material

into grades, these grades are then either further processed to an intermediary product or a finished

product. Additionally, screening is an important process in a variety of industries like food, plastics,

mining and mineral processing because it helps in the separation of undersized and oversized particles.

This is due to the fact that some machines in a processing plant require a certain particle size for raw

materials to be fed on it, and screening aids in the size reduction of these materials. With these, greater

or lesser value than the needed particle size may cause the machine to malfunction and the plant may

induce large costs in troubleshooting and subsequent loss of profit, an event that any plant certainly does

not want to experience.

2. Give examples of industries in which screening is very useful.

Screening is used commonly across multiple industries and each application calls for a different

type of screening machine. Some of the industries that use the process of screening are mining,

aggregate and mineral processing, recycling, farming and agriculture. In line with this, recycling plants

use screening in order to separate trash and compost from recyclable materials like glass and plastic. On

the other hand, the mining, aggregate and mineral processing industries often used screening in quarries

and mines. After raw material is harvested from the ground or crushed, it’s fed through screening

equipment to prepare it for selling. The equipment can help prepare rocks for paving, salt for winterizing

the roads, lime for a variety of industries, and so much more.

18
 19

3. Differentiate aperture, mesh number and screen interval.

Mesh number is the number of holes per linear inch of a screening surface. On the other hand,

aperture is defined as the space between the individual wires of a wire mesh screen, and is usually in

units of inches or millimeter. Screen aperture and the mesh number are not the same because of the

thickness of the wires. Furthermore, screen interval is the relationship between successively decreasing

openings in a standard screen series.

APPENDICES

A. GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING DATA AND RESULTS

a. cumulative plot of screen analysis showing the mass fraction passing through the screens as a function

of the particle size

Cumulative Mass Fraction Through

Screens vs. Particle Size
Cumulative Mass Fraction Through

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Screens, g

0.25
0.2
y = 0.4688x4 - 2.5513x3 + 4.5218x2 - 2.6875x + 0.4844
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Particle Size,mm

20
 21

b. a plot screen analysis showing the cumulative mass fraction smaller than D pi as a function of particle

size

Cumulative Mass Fraction Smaller than Dpi

vs. Particle Size
Cumulative Mass Fraction Smaller than

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
y = -0.1159x4 + 0.6865x3 - 1.179x2 + 0.8133x - 0.1399
Dpi

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.1
Particle Size,mm

B. REFERENCES

Texas Department of Transportation (January 2016). "Test Procedure for Sieve Analysis of Fine and
Coarse Aggregates" (PDF). Texas DOT.Retrieved 2016-12-24.

M.S. Mamlouk and J.P. Zaniewski, Materials for Civil and Construction Engineers, Addison-Wesley, Menlo
Park CA, 1999