CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY ChE 5105 Chemical

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Engineering Laboratory 2
Jaro, Iloilo City, Philippines
BEREZO, CARLA JOY EMBER C.
Group FAILON, MARC LOUISE M.
Expt. No. 1 Screening
Members NUGAS, DEMMY ROSE S.
REY, CHARLES ARTHEL R.

OBJECTIVE: 1. To perform the differential and cumulative screen analysis of a

given sample
2. To determine the particle size distribution, particle population and
average particle size of a sample mixture by the use of a screen
analysis

APPARATUS: a) Tyler testing sieves; standard with cover and pan

b) Weighing scale
c) Sand sample
d) Spatula
e) Shovel
f) Pail

THEORY:

Screening, also known as sieving, is a separation of materials on the basis of

size as a means of preparing a product for subsequent operation. The screen
size or mesh needed for the computation of particle size must be confirmed,
the lowest being the top while the highest at the bottom. It is also a means of
analysis, either to control the gage, the effectiveness of another operation or to
determine the value of a product for some specific application.

Screening is performed using screens equipped with one or two screen

surfaces. A single screen provides two products. The product from the top is
called the oversize or plus product while the one which passes through the
screen is the undersize or minus product. Material passing one screen surface
but remaining on the next one in a double deck screen is an intermediate
product. During ideal screening, the plus product contains only particles greater
than the size of openings of the screen surface while minus product consists of
particles smaller than the opening. In real operations the oversized particles are
present in the minus product and some undersized particles are in the plus
product. It results from adhesion of small particles to large ones and that some
particles never get into contact with the screen surface. The presence of large

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 1 of 9
particles in the undersize product may be caused by greater than nominal
openings or rupture of the screen surface.

Sieving is one of the oldest methods of classifying powders and granules by

particle-size distribution. When using a woven sieve cloth, the sieving will
essentially sort the particles by their intermediate size dimension (i.e., breadth or
width). Mechanical sieving is most suitable where the majority of the particles
are larger than about 75m. For smaller particles, their light weight provides
insufficient force during sieving to overcome the surface forces of cohesion and
adhesion that cause the particles to stick to each other and to the sieve, and
thus cause particles that would be expected to pass through the sieve to be
retained. For such materials other means of agitation such as air-jet sieving or
sonic sifting may be more appropriate. Nevertheless, sieving can sometimes be
used for some powders or granules having median particle sizes smaller than
75m where the method can be validated.

In pharmaceutical terms, sieving is usually the method of choice for Sieving is

carried out under conditions that do not cause the test sample to gain or lose
moisture. The relative humidity of the environment in which the sieving is carried
out must be controlled to prevent moisture uptake or loss by the sample. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, analytical test sieving is normally carried
out at ambient humidity. Any special conditions that apply to a particular
material must be detailed in the individual monograph.

The purpose of screening is to separate from a granular substance particles

that are smaller than the screen opening from those that are larger. The most
commonly used measure of screen efficiency is the cumulative weight of
material that has passed the screen in any time interval, compared to the total
weight of undersize in the feed, expressed in a percentage. This can be
reversed, when the oversize is the product to be recovered; then efficiency is
the weight percent of material in the screened oversize fraction compared to
the total weight of oversize in the feed.

Particles in dry bulk materials are found in a variety of shapes, sizes, surfaces,
densities, and moisture content. Each condition must be taken into account
when attempting to predict screen performance, through its effect on capacity
in terms of weight passing a given screen opening per unit area. The combined
effects on screen performance, or screenability, of particle shape, surface
texture, and surface or internal moisture, are beyond the reach of empirical

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 2 of 9
solutions based only on size and density, independent of these variables. More
exact information on their influence has to be gained from actual laboratory
testing.

Screening requires relative motion between the sieve and the particle mass.
In a few specialized cases the sieve is stationary, but in most commercial
screening applications, the particle mass flows over a sieve to which some kind
of motion is mechanically applied. Its velocity determines the volumetric flow
rate of the particle mass over the sieve, whose motion is intended to enhance
both the flow and the passage of undersize through the sieve. This motion takes
several different forms, depending on the design of the screening machine. It
may be circular in the horizontal plane; gyratory, with a vertical rocking
oscillation superimposed on the circular motion; oscillating in a straight-line,
simple harmonic motion; vibrating with a circular motion in the vertical plane;
vibrating with a linear pitching motion on a horizontal sieve having both vertical
and horizontal components; or vibrating only in the vertical direction. In each
case, the surface is sloped as required to obtain the desired mass flow, usually
at velocities between 40 and 100 fpm.

PROCEDURE:

To start the experiment, we gathered the sand sample using a shovel and
placed it in a pail. We also prepared four Tyler testing sieves with different
aperture sizes, specifically 4.75mm, 2.36 mm, 0.85 mm and 0.2 mm. The testing
sieves were properly arranged according to decreasing aperture and then
rested on top of the table.

We weighed 2000 grams of sand sample and placed it on the topmost sieve
and covered it with a pan. We manually shook the testing sieves until the
sample separated into different fractions. We weighed each of the separated
fractions as well as the testing sieves to obtain the necessary data for the
experiment. The data obtained in the experiment were recorded.

Lastly, we mixed the separated fractions of the sample and placed it again
on the topmost sieve. The experiment was done in triplicate. After we have
obtained all the necessary data, we cleaned up and return all the apparatus
used in the laboratory.

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 8 of 9
DIAGRAM:

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 4 of 9
DATA AND RESULTS:
TRIAL
ITEM
1 2 3
FEED
Material sand sand sand
Quantity, g 2000 2000 2000
Weight Distribution, g
Aperture size
4.75 mm 691 700 710
2.36 mm 460 485 490
0.85 mm 790 760 755
0.2 mm 54 35 30
Total 1995 1980 1985

Aperture size Size distribution, %

4.75 mm 34.55% 35.00% 35.50%
2.36 mm 23.00% 24.25% 24.50%
0.85 mm 39.50% 38.00% 37.75%
0.2 mm 2.70% 1.75% 1.50%
Total 99.75% 99.00% 99.25%

COMPUTATIONS:
Formula for particle size distribution:

Weight of Oversize
%PSD = x 100
Initial Weight of Sample

For Trial 1:

Aperture size: 4.75 mm Aperture size: 0.85 mm

691 g 790 g
%PSD = x 100 %PSD = x 100
2000 g 2000 g
%PSD = 34.55% %PSD = 39.5%

Aperture size: 2.36 mm Aperture size: 0.2mm

460 g 54 g
%PSD = x 100 %PSD = x 100
2000 g 2000 g
%PSD = 23% %PSD = 2.70%

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 5 of 9
For Trial 2:

Aperture size: 4.75 mm Aperture size: 0.85 mm

700 g 760 g
%PSD = x 100 %PSD = x 100
2000 g 2000 g
%PSD = 35% %PSD = 38%

Aperture size: 2.36 mm Aperture size: 0.2mm

485 g 35 g
%PSD = x 100 %PSD = x 100
2000 g 2000 g
%PSD = 24.25% %PSD = 1.75%

For Trial 3:

Aperture size: 4.75 mm Aperture size: 0.85 mm

710 g 755 g
%PSD = x 100 %PSD = x 100
2000 g 2000 g
%PSD = 35.5% %PSD = 37.75%

Aperture size: 2.36 mm Aperture size: 0.2mm

490 g 30 g
%PSD = x 100 %PSD = x 100
2000 g 2000 g
%PSD = 24.5% %PSD = 1.5%

OBSERVATIONS:

This experiment was focused on physical separation by sizes. Range of

applications include civil construction projects and production of particulate
materials. Also, this experiment provides us a basic understanding of sieving or
screening as a unit operation and the factors that may affect the process, as
well as the accuracy of the results drawn from the experiment.

The following are our collective observations in the experiment.

First, the procedure of this experiment was quite simple as it only involves
weighing and removing the sand and pebbles from the sieve. However, the
Date submitted: Submitted to:
21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 6 of 9
experiment was not very secure because particles are prone to be thrown
away from the sieve as they were being removed. Moreover, when these
particles move out of the sieve, its very unsafe to return them for it may cause
error in the total weight of the sieve.

Second, the experiment was best if the sample used was dry. Because the
sand and pebbles were wet, we need to give extra effort to ensure that the
particles fall downward. It is disadvantageous to the students conducting the
experiment, especially if accuracy has to be highly accounted. At some
instance, small particles cant pass through because they tend to stick on the
sides of the sieve, and we cannot remove all of them.

Third, the equipment that has to be shaken uniformly and in a fixed length
of time in order for results to be comparable with each other. In industries which
involve sieving, they commonly use a shaker that can handle their sand sieving
to ensure uniform shaking and accurate results.

Moreover, particle size distribution values based on the results are precisely
close to each other, however, total mass of the sand after sieving has a small
deviation which can be accounted to the san spilled while shaking the screens.
Nevertheless, per cent difference between values of trials are relatively small.

Lastly, the students performing the experiment should be aware that the
arrangement of the sieves are very important. Large mesh numbers mean
smaller aperture, and vice versa. So, the person who is using the sieve must be
knowledgeable about the principles of sieving or screening such that the
sample should be contained in the lowest mesh number first.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Sieving is a conventional separation process used not only in the industry,

but in also in other simple applications. There are several methods of
mechanically separating particles, but sieving is one of the most efficient. Also,
sieving is a process used in particular applications and the range of mesh
numbers to be used is relative to the specific product specifications.

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 7 of 9
 The experiment was conducted well since we were able to generate
particle size distribution values which are close to each other. Also, we were
able to carry out the experiment with minimal sample losses or spillage.\

However, it is highly recommended to use dry sand samples in this

experiment to minimize the amount of sand sticking to the Tyler sieve set and
maximize accuracy of the derived results. Other samples with smaller particle
size such as powdered clay can also be used.

Moreover, it can be suggested to use more number or Tyler sieves with

smaller increments in aperture sizes so as to generate more accurate data and
more complete screen analysis for the sample.

If available, it is recommended to use a mechanical shaker to ensure

uniform and consistent shaking of sample. Also, the amount of sample placed
in the sieves must be not too much since spillage and overflowing are most likely
to occur.

REFERENCES:

https://www.slideshare.net/jeufier/screening-sieve-shaker?from_m_app=ios
http://www.sssdynamics.com/wpcontent/themes/va/pdf/screeningtheory.pd
fhttp://www.uspbpep.com/bp2008/data/838.asp

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 8 of 9
PICTURES:

Sieves with different Sand and Gravel Weighing of the

mesh number (Sample) sample

Manual Shaking of Left Samples in each Weighing of the left

the Sieves Sieve sample in the 1st
sieve

Weighing of the Weighing of the left Weighing of the left

sample left in the 2nd sample in the 3rd sample in the 4th
sieve sieve sieve

Date submitted: Submitted to:

21 July 2016 ENGR. SHARON ROSE DUMAM-AG Page 9 of 9