CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019

________________________________________________________________________________________

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1. Size of particles in increasing mesh number
Screen analysis or also known as “Sieve Analysis”
is a test procedure in which particles will move
vertically or horizontally through sieve mesh. Sieve
analysis is usually the first choice when it comes in
particle size analysis for it is simple, efficient and
low cost. Within the industry it is used in the
quality control of powder processes.

During the experimentation, a set of standard

screens is arranged serially in a stack, with the
smallest mesh at the bottom and the largest at the
top. Coarse particles are separated by grinding
against one-another and thru screen openings.
Sieves with different types of holes are used and
they are called mesh.
Mesh number 5, 10, 18, 30, 35, and 60 were used.
The number of mesh indicates the number of wires
per inch (e.g. mesh 10 has 10 square opening per
inch). Since mesh number were only given, their
sieve openings were obtained from Geankoplis’
Principles of Transport Processes and Separation
Process Table A.1 in Appendix.
In figure 1, it can be observed that as the mesh
number increases the finer the particles are. It is
due to the fact as the mesh number increases the
size of the openings in each screen reduces. The
same goes to the mass retained, in increasing
mesh, the capture of particles in each mesh
decreases which is supported by the computed data
(Table A.1, Appendix section) which is graphically
shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. Mass of Chalk retained vs Mesh Number
80
70
MASS OF CHALK

60
50
Within the experimentation, the mass of the chalk 40
30
was measured within different mesh. And in each
20
mesh the size of the chalk was different as observed 10
in figure 1. 0
5 10 18 30 35 60 PAN
MESH NUMBER

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
1
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1
Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________

As seen in figure 2, the pan has the greatest mass,
this means that the sample particles that was
distributed within the mesh has a finer size (since
it was milled). And can be supported by figure 3,
which shows the graph of percent passing of the
particle thru each mesh. Upon the computed data
(see Table A.1, Appendix section), mesh 5 to mesh
60 garnered an average of 76.42% passing. This
means an estimated 76.42% of the sample has gone
through successfully within those screens and has
Both analyses involved mass fraction as one of their
parameters but they have different graphical
representation. Differential method is in histogram
form while cumulative method is by plotting as
shown in figure 4 and figure 5. Tabulated form can
be seen in Table A.3 and A.4, Appendix section.
Figure 4. Cumulative Analysis
1.2
1

MASS FRACTION
0.8
settled within the bottom. While the percent of the
0.6
sample retained within those sieves has an overall
total of 23.58%. Lastly, the pan has no percent 0.4

passing since it has no opening. 0.2

0
Figure 3. Plot of Percent Passing in each Mesh 0 1 2 3 4 5

90
SIEVE OPENING(mm)

80
70
60 Figure 5. Differential Analysis
% Passing

50 0.8
40 0.7
30 0.6
MASS FRACTION

20 0.5
10 0.4
0 0.3

20 40 60 PAN 0.2
Mesh Number 0.1
0
2.437 0.6645 0.2085 0
Though upon these mesh (mesh #5 – mesh #60), AVERAGE SIEVE OPENING
mesh number 5 has the greatest retained mass of
them all. Thus, there is also a great amount of As seen in both analyses, 73% of the sample
particles that has an equal or greater size of the retained in the pan. This means only about 27% of
mesh number 5 opening which is 3.962 mm. the sample has larger diameter that retained within
those 6 meshes. More finer particles are involved
There are two types of analyses used in sieve in this experiment.
analysis. These are cumulative and differential.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
2
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1
Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Average Particle Size 4. CONCLUSION

Calculations Particle Size (mm)
In this experiment, screen analysis was performed.
Length Mean Diameter 0.35541953 It was observed that as the number of mesh
Volume Mean Diameter 1.12486579
increases, the particle size and the mass retained in
Surface Mean Diameter 0.47614038
each mesh reduces. Due to the fact that mesh
Sauter Mean Diameter 6.27815595
number is defined as the number of opening per
inch which means it has a lesser opening as the
In table 1, it shows the calculations of average
mesh number increases.
particle size during the experimentation. The
following were calculated using these equations:
As observed in cumulative and differential analysis,
the pan contained the highest mass of the sample
Length Mean Diameter:
which is around 73%. It means that the sample
contains more finer particles than coarser ones.
∑(𝑥𝑖⁄ 2 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖 This is the reason why the percent passing in each
̅𝑝 =
𝐷 [1]
𝑥
∑( 𝑖⁄ 3 ) mesh is high.
𝐷𝑝𝑖
Volume Mean Diameter:
Lastly, it is obvious that there are errors occurred
within the experiment as seen within the data in
1 1⁄
̅𝑝𝑉 = [
𝐷 ] 3 [2] appendix. The overall mass of chalk was 102 grams
𝑥
∑ ( 𝑖⁄ 3 ) which produced a 2.4% error into the initial weight
𝐷𝑝𝑖
of chalk used.

Surface Mean Diameter: 5. REFERENCES

𝑥𝑖
∑(
𝐷𝑝𝑖 ) 1/2 [1] Geankoplis, C.(2003). Principles of Transport
̅𝑝𝐴
𝐷 =[ 𝑥 ] [3] Processes and Separation Process. Pearson Education
∑( 3𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖 Inc.
[2] Principles and Procedures of Sieving Analysis.
Sauter Mean Diameter: Retrieved from https://www.agg-
net.com/resources/articles/ancillary-
̅𝑝𝑉𝐴 = 1
𝐷 [4] equipment/principles-and-procedures-of-sieving-
⁄∑(𝑥𝑖⁄ )
𝐷 𝑝𝑖 analysis
[3] Sieve Analysis – Particle size analysis procedure.
(2017, July 08). Retrieved from
http://www.basiccivilengineering.com/2017/06/sieve-
analysis-test.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
3
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1
Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________

6. APPENDICES

A. Tabulated Raw and Computed Data

Table A.1. Raw Data for Calculations

MESH # SIEVE AVERAGE MASS OF MASS MASS OF MASS % Passing
OPENING S.O. MESH CHALK + CHALK FRACTION
(mm) (g) MESH (g) (X)
5 3.962 2.8065 416.8 435.3 18.5 0.18066406 81.9335938

10 1.651 1.2815 387.6 391.2 3.6 0.03515625 78.4179688

18 0.912 0.727 338.3 340.9 2.6 0.02539062 75.8789063

30 0.542 0.4795 326.3 327.6 1.3 0.01269531 74.609375

35 0.417 0.3315 312.5 312.9 0.4 0.00390625 74.21875

60 0.246 0.123 282.8 283.6 0.8 0.0078125 73.4375

PAN 250.4 325.6 75.2 0.734375 0

SUM SUM AVERAGE

102.4 1 76.4160156

Table A.2. Average Particle Size Calculations

MESH NO x/D x/D2 x/D3
5 0.04559921 0.01150914 0.00290488
10 0.02129391 0.01289758 0.00781198
18 0.0278406 0.03052697 0.03347256
30 0.02342309 0.04321603 0.07973436
35 0.00936751 0.02246404 0.05387061
60 0.03175813 0.12909809 0.52478898
SUM 0.15928244 0.24971185 0.70258337

LENGTH MEAN DIAMETER 0.35541953

VOLUME MEAN DIAMETER 1.12486579
SURFACE MEAN DIAMETER 0.47614038
SAUTER MEAN DIAMETER 6.27815595

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
4
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1
Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________

Table A.3. Tabulated Data Differential Method Analysis

MESH # SIEVE OPENING AVERAGE SUM OF WEIGHT MASS FRACTION
DIAMETER (CHALK)
5 3.962 2.437 22.1 0.21582031
10 1.651 0.6645 3.9 0.03808594
18 0.912 0.2085 1.2 0.01171875
30 0.542 0 75.2 0.734375
35 0.417 102.4 1
60 0.246
PAN 0

Table A.4. Tabulated Data Cumulative Method Analysis

MESH # SIEVE MASS OF SIEVE MASS CHALK MASS
OPENING CHALK OPENING FRACTION
5 3.962 18.5 0 75.2 0.734375
10 1.651 3.6 0.246 76 0.7421875
18 0.912 2.6 0.417 76.4 0.74609375
30 0.542 1.3 0.542 77.7 0.75878906
35 0.417 0.4 0.912 80.3 0.78417969
60 0.246 0.8 1.651 83.9 0.81933594
PAN 0 75.2 3.962 102.4 1
102.4

B. SAMPLE COMPUTATIONS

At Tyler Mesh # 5

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑘 = (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑘 + 𝑀𝑒𝑠ℎ) − (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑒𝑠ℎ)

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑘 = 435.3 − 416.8 = 𝟏𝟖. 𝟓 𝒈

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑘 18.5 𝑔

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟔𝟔𝟒𝟎𝟔
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑘 102.4 𝑔

𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑒𝑠ℎ 10 𝑡𝑜 𝑃𝑎𝑛 3.6 + 2.6 + 1.3 + 0.4 + 0.8 + 75.2
% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝑥 100 = 𝑥 100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑘 102.4
= 𝟖𝟏. 𝟗𝟒 %

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
5
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1
Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________

Length Mean Diameter:

∑(𝑥𝑖⁄ 2 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖 0.24971185 m𝑚−2
̅𝑝 =
𝐷 = = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟓𝟒𝟏𝟗𝟓𝟑 𝐦𝐦
∑(𝑥𝑖⁄ 3 ) 0.70258337 𝑚𝑚−3
𝐷𝑝𝑖

Volume Mean Diameter:

1 1⁄ 1 1/3
̅𝑝𝑉 = [
𝐷 ] 3 = (0.70258337 𝑚𝑚−3 ) = 1.12486579 mm
𝑥
∑( 𝑖⁄ 3 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖

Surface Mean Diameter:

𝑥𝑖 1
∑(
𝐷𝑝𝑖 ) 1/2 0.15928244 𝑚𝑚−1 2
̅𝑝𝐴
𝐷 =[ 𝑥 ] = ( ) = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕𝟔𝟏𝟒𝟎𝟑𝟖 𝐦𝐦
∑( 3𝑖 ) 0.70258337 𝑚𝑚−3
𝐷𝑝𝑖

Sauter Mean Diameter:

1
̅𝑝𝑉𝐴 = 1
𝐷 𝑥 = = 𝟔. 𝟐𝟕𝟖𝟏𝟓𝟓𝟗𝟓 𝐦𝐦
⁄∑( 𝑖⁄ ) 0.15928244 𝑚𝑚−1
𝐷 𝑝𝑖

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
6
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1
Third Quarter SY 2018 – 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Experiment 4 | Lontok, Sophia Anne T.
7