TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT 2

CHAPTER 1 3
1.1 Background of the Study 3
1.2 Objective of the Experiment 4
1.3 Scope of the Study 4

CHAPTER 2 5
2.1 Principles of Sieving 5

CHAPTER 3 8
3.1 Set-Up Procedures 8
3.2 Shut-Down Procedures 9

CHAPTER 4 10
4.1 Result 10
4.2 Discussion 11

CHAPTER 5 17
5.1 Conclusion 17
5.2 Recommendation 18

REFERENCES 19
APPENDICES 20
 ABSTRACT

Sieving is a separation of a mixture of particles that have different in sizes by using

sieves each with a uniform sized opening. This experiment was carried out to
determine the particle distribution by using sieving method. The experiment was
conducted using 300g of sample that separate using sieves that have different opening
size and put on the electric shaker. 3 experimental runs were run with different period
which are 5, 10 and 15 minutes. The experimental results then are compared with the
theoretical and it does not deviate from theory. The particle size distribution of
samples obtained was plotted against the cumulative percentage of particle size. As a
result, the particle size distribution was 0.358 mm
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

A sieve or sifter could separates wanted element from unwanted material

using a woven screen such as mesh or net. Sieving is a simple and convenient
technique of separating particles of different sizes. A small sieve such as that used
from sifting flour has very small holes which allow only very fine flour particles to
pass through. The coarse particles are retained in the sieve or are broken up by
grinding against the screen windows. Depending upon the types of particles to be
separated, sieves with different types of holes are used.

The number of particles of different sizes is responsible for the determination

of important physical and chemical properties such as mechanical bulk behavior,
surface reaction, taste, miscibility, filtration properties and also conductivity. The
examples clearly show how important it is to have knowledge of the particle
distribution, particularly within the context of quality assurance in the production of
bulk goods. If the particle distribution changes during the manufacturing process than
the quality of finished product will also change. Only a continuous monitoring of the
particle size distribution can guarantee a constant product quality.
1.2 Objective of the Experiment

The objective of this experiment is to determine the particle distribution by

using sieving method.

1.3 Scope of the Study

This sieving experiment is conducted by using sieve shaker with designated

dimension (with mesh openings that reveal particle distribution at critical sizes) where
the sample used is particulate solid. As the sample is finely ground, a smaller sample
of 25 to 100 grams is preferred.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Principles of Sieving

In most solid system, solid particles are made up of various sizes and in a
certain size range. Shapes of the particles also are varied and not uniform. The size
distribution is often of critical importance to te way the material performs in use. A
sieve analysis can be performed on any type of non-organic or organic granular
materials including sands, crushed rock, clays, granite, feldspars, coal and soil, a wide
range of manufactured powders, grain and seeds, down to a minimum size depending
on the exact method. Being such a simple technique of particle sizing, it is probably
the most common. The non-homogeneous solid particles are studied by sieving in a
certain size range based on the size of the sieve used. Generally, there are two kinds
of basic methods of particle size analysis and it is commonly used for sieving data
procurement are:

i. Cumulative Curve Analysis

This method produces a breakdown of the particles that are larger or

smaller than a certain size. It involves summation weight percent
gradually to increase the particle size. Graphs obtained are a
continuous curve as shown in Figure 2.1 below:
 Figure 2.1: The cumulative curve (Geankoplis,2003)

ii. Plot Frequency through Differentiation Analysis

Fractional particle curvature is plotted against the particle size. This

graph shows the increase or reduction of particle-particle fractions in
the range of a particular size by the increasing the sieving size. Usually,
this graph is shown as a histogram form shown in Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.2: The differential curve (Geankoplis, 2003)

 In the sieving method, the principle involved is based on particles of fine
particles through the screen wire fabric / wie electro with a uniform pore size. Coarse
particles will remain on the sieve. These particles can be passed in the dry or wet
depending on the nature of the material or the sample. Mixture of particles with
different sizes and densities were initially separated into fractions in sieving (sieving
or screening), respectively. Each fraction can be weighed to obtain the weight. This
information can then be used to give additional weight fraction in each size class.
Two methods described above differ only in the context of data analyze.

Specifically for this experiment, the cumulative curve approach was used to
calculate the average particle size, specific surface area or particle populations (Mc
Cabe.,et al, 2005). Cumulative method is more accurate when compared with the
method of differential analysis. This is due to the cumulative method does not require
the assumption of a certain fraction of the particles in the same size, with an average
class size.

In the process of sieving, sieve series are shaken in a period of time sufficient
to last fraction left as the largest percentage. Next, the sample size distribution can be
determined by determining the weight of particles trapped on each sieve. Thus, the
cumulative percentage can be calculated and cumulative percentage graphs can be
plotted against particle size. Based on the cumulative graph, the size of particles on
the cumulative percentage 84%, 50% and 16% can be determined. Next, the size of
the standard deviation, the mean or average size distribution of the sample can be
obtained from the following relationship (Mc Cabe.,et al, 2005):

The size of the standard deviation, = Dp (84%) / Dp (50%)

2
Mean or average, ln Dp = ln Dp (50%) + 0.5ln

The size distribution = [ Dp (84%) + Dp (50%) ] / 2

Where, Dp = Screen opening (mm)

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The particle size distribution analysis after collecting, preparing and size the
sample is done. The test sieves with mesh openings that reveal particle distribution is
selected at critical sizes. The analysis is done by doing the following:

3.1 Set-Up Procedures

1. The sieves were stacked on top of each other with the coarsest largest opening
on the top of the stack.
2. The bottom pan was put under the finest smallest opening sieve.
3. A laboratory scale was used to weigh an empty
4. 300g of the sample material was weighed
5. The sample was emptied into the top of the stack. The surface was made sure
not to overload to prevent blocking of the openings.
6. The stack was put into the sieve shaker.
7. A cover was placed on the top of the stack.
8. 5 minutes was set as the length of time to agitate the material.
9. The shaker was turned on.
10. The experiment was repeated with different period of time which are 10 and
15 minutes.
3.2 Shut-Down Procedures

1. After the shaker stops, the material was emptied from the coarsest sieve into
an empty container.
2. A soft bristle was used to gently brush the underside of the sieve to remove all
of the particles.
3. The side of the frame was cleaned thoroughly.
4. The content was weighed in the part to the nearest 1/10 gram and the data was
recorded
5. Steps 1 through 4 were repeated for each sieve including the fine material in
the bottom pan.
6. The weights obtained were sum up for confirmation that the retained material
and the material in the bottom pan is as close as possible to the original weight.
7. The percentage for each sieve were recorded
8. The cumulative percentages were calculated and recorded as required.

Figure 3.1: Sieve shaker

 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Result

Table 4.1 below shows the experimental result from the sieving analysis which
used eight different size of the mesh opening. The size of the mesh opening used are 1
mm, 0.8 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.125 mm, 0.063 mm and also the pan.
Then, 300 g of flying ash is used in the process by placing it in the larger mesh
opening pan which is arranged in decreasing order of the size. Then, the result is
obtained from 3 run with 3 different period of running which are 5,10 and 15 minutes
of sieving are tabulated as follows:

Table 4.1: Experimental result of sieving

Run Mesh Mean Sieving Mass Cumulative

openings Particle Loss (g) fraction, p3 fractions for
(mm) Size, Dpi (%) particle size
(mm) less than Dpi
(%)
1 1.000 24.76 8.25 91.75
0.800 0.9000 15.23 5.08 86.67
0.500 0.6500 29.07 9.69 76.98
0.300 0.4000 23.28 7.76 69.22
0.250 0.2750 10.69 3.56 65.66
0.125 0.1875 84.06 28.02 37.64
0.063 0.0940 52.61 17.54 20.10
 Pan 0.0630 60.29 20.10 0.00
2 1.000 27.21 9.08 90.93
0.800 0.9000 14.29 4.77 86.16
0.500 0.6500 30.46 10.16 76.00
0.300 0.4000 21.75 7.26 68.74
0.250 0.2750 10.02 3.34 65.40
0.125 0.1875 86.62 28.90 36.50
0.063 0.0940 51.54 17.19 19.31
Pan 0.0630 57.88 19.31 0.00
3 1.000 29.19 9.64 90.36
0.800 0.9000 15.60 5.15 85.21
0.500 0.6500 31.31 10.34 74.87
0.300 0.4000 24.08 7.95 66.92
0.25 0.2750 11.26 3.72 63.20
0.125 0.1875 93.22 30.78 32.42
0.063 0.0940 63.36 20.92 11.50
Pan 0.0630 34.83 11.50 0.00

4.2 Discussion

The fractions of the sample in each class of particle size for run 1, 2 and 3 are shown
in Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.

Mass fraction vs. mesh opening

(Run 1)
30 28.02

25
Mass fraction.p3p,%

20.1
20 17.54

15
9.69 Mass fraction,p3,%
10 8.25 7.76
5.08
5 3.56

0
1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.25 0.125 0.063 Pan
Mesh opening,mm

Figure 4.1 Mass fraction vs. mesh opening for Run 1

 Mass fraction vs. mesh opening
(Run 2)
35
28.9
30
Mass fraction,p3,%

25
19.31
20 17.19
15
9.08 10.16
10 7.26 Mass fraction,p3,%
4.77
5 3.34

0
1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.25 0.125 0.063 Pan
Mesh Opening,mm

Figure 4.2 Mass fraction vs. mesh opening for Run 2

Mass fraction vs. mesh opening

(Run 3)
35
30.78
30
Mass fraction.p3,%

25
20.92
20

15 11.5
10.34 Mass fraction,p3,%
9.64
10 7.95
5.15
5 3.72

0
1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.25 0.125 0.063 Pan
Mesh opening,mm

Figure 4.3 Mass fraction vs. mesh opening for Run 3

Figure 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 show the graph of cumulative percentage of particle size that
less than the mean particle (Dpi) for each mesh opening of the sieve for the three runs.
 Cumulative particle size less than Dpi vs mesh opening (Run 1)

100
Cumulative particle size that less than,Dpi %

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mesh Opening,mm

Figure 4.4: Cumulative particle size that less than Dpi vs. mesh opening for run 1

Cumulative particle size less than Dpi vs mesh opening (Run 2)

100
Cumulative particle size that less than,Dpi %

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mesh opening,mm

Figure 4.5: Cumulative particle size that less than Dpi vs. mesh opening for run 2
 Cumulative particle size that less than Dpi vs mesh opening (Run
Cumulative particle size that less than Dpi, % 100 3)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mesh Opening,mm

Figure 4.6 Cumulative particle size that less than Dpi vs. mesh opening for run 3

From the Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.6 obtained above, the particle size at the cumulative
percentage of 16%, 50% and 84% are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: The particle size (mm) at different cumulative percentage

Cumulative
Percentage 16 % 50% 84%
Run

Run 1 0.04 0.18 0.81

Run 2 0.04 0.18 0.85
Run 3 0.06 0.20 0.86

From the table above, it can be seen that 16% of the particles have size smaller than
0.06 mm, half of the particles have size smaller than 0.20 and almost 84% of the
particles have size smaller than 0.86 mm. After obtaining the cumulative percentage
of particle size smaller that less than the mean diameter, the particle size distribution
can be calculated using the following formula:

Particle distribution =

The particle size distribution of all run is tabulated in Table 4.3 below. The
particle size obtained is between 0.39 to 0.41 mm.

Table 4.3: Particle size distribution for three different runs

Particle Size
Analysis
Distribution (mm)
Run 1 0.39
Run 2 0.41
Run 3 0.40

In order to sort the particle size, various statistical methods can be used. The
simplest central tendency measurements that are commonly used are the median,
mode and mean. Mode is the most frequent size category which particles falls into
meanwhile median is the size category in which 50% particles are above and below of
it. Mean is simply the average particle size. Mean can be calculated by using the
following formula:

+ +
M=

The values of mean, mode and median for all analysis run is calculated and
tabulated in Table 4.4.
 Table 4.4: Mode, mean and median for three different runs

Cumulative
Percentage Mode Mean Median
Analysis

Run 1 0.125 0.343 0.18

Run 2 0.125 0.357 0.18
Run 3 0.125 0.373 0.20

Since the mode of run 1, 2 and 3 is 0.125 mm, it can be seen that most
of the flying ash particles used are larger than 0.125 mm. Meanwhile, 50% of
particles lie below and above 0.18 mm. Last but not least, the mean value
shows the average size of the particles is 0.358 mm.
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

From the experiment, the objective to determine the particle distribution by

using sieving method was achieved. From the results, graph of cumulative percentage
(%) against particles size, Dpi (mm) were plotted. As a result, the particle size
distribution was 0.358 mm. Therefore, in order to improve the accuracy and precision
of the experimental results, several precautions have also been suggested. Finally, it
can be concluded that sieving method is an important technique in the analysis of
particle size.

From the experimental data of first and second run, there was a little loss on
the mass of samples. Although the mass loss is not significant, the errors should be
identified to prevent the inaccurate result in different runs. There are six errors that
were identified during this experiment:

1. Cap sieve may not be tightly closed during the sieving process. Thus,
samples particles may come out.
2. The sieve used may have a little damage or leakage on the screen sieve
pore. This will affect the accuracy of the analysis of particle size.
 3. Human error during transfer and weighing of sample particles can cause
the particles out from the beaker or container.
4. There is also a small number of very small particles (fine dust) which is
attached to the sieve screen surface, where it is difficult to taken out from
the sieve screen. It also contributes to mass loss of samples.
5. Shake at a very short time may cause a small particle size could not fall
despite sieve size is bigger than it.
6. Windy environment also influence the transfer and weighing of the
samples. Delicate and light particles may be blown.

5.2 Recommendation

In order to minimize the errors listed above, we must:

1. Make sure the sieve is in good condition, not torn and uneven in size.
2. Arrange each sieve and place tightly and neatly so that the particles do
not come out during sieving and shaking.
3. Make sure the lid is always displaced sieve and become loose during
sieving and shaking process.
4. Make sure the samples are shaking at least 30 minutes so that sieving is
complete.
5. Avoid strong wind flow during transfer and weighing of samples.
6. Extra precaution is needed during the transfer and weighing of samples.
REFERENCES

1) Geankoplis, Christi J. (2003). Transport Processes and Separation Process

Principles. (4th edition). Prentice Hall International, New Jersey,.
2) Mc Cabe, W.L., Smith, J.C. & Harriot , P. (2005). Unit Operation of Chemical
Engineering. 7th Edition. Mc Graw-Hill.
 APPENDICES

SAMPLE OF CALCULATION

Particle distribution =

+ +
Mean =

**P84 and P16 are obtained from the cumulative percentage of particles smaller than
the mean diameter.

Run 1

0.810.04
Particle distribution (run 1) = = . mm
2

Mode (refer to the size with highest percentage of mass fraction in Figure 4.1) =
0.125 mm

Median (refer to the size that connected to 50% point on the curve in Figure 4.4) =
0.180 mm
0.04+0.18+0.98
Mean = = .
3