Sieving: Jamaica Christelle P. Peñalosa

Sieving
JAMAICA CHRISTELLE P. PEÑALOSA
BS Chemical Engineering
College of Engineering and Architecture
Department of Chemical Engineering
Cebu Institute of Technology – University, N. Bacalso Ave. Cebu City, 6000 Philippines
Sieving is a partition of materials based on estimate as a methods for setting up an item for
consequent operation. The screen size of mesh required for the calculation of particle size must be
affirmed, the most minimal being the top while the highest at the base. It is additionally a methods
for examination, either to control the gage, the adequacy of another operation or to determine value
of a product for some particular application. Sieving is performed utilizing screens equipped with
one or two screen surfaces. A single screen gives two products. The product from the top is known
as the oversize or plus product while the one which passes through the screen is the undersize or
minus product. Material passing one screen surface however staying on the following one in a
double deck screen is an intermediate product. During ideal screening, the oversize product
contains just particles greater than the openings of the screen surface while the minus product
comprise of particles smaller than the opening. In genuine operation, 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 substantial ones and that a few particles never get into contact with
the screen surface. The presence of large particles in the undersize might be caused by greater than
nominal openings or rupture of the screen surface.
1. Introduction
The fractionation of relatively coarse powders and granules is done through dry sieving.
Sieves are stacked with the largest apertures at the top and the smallest at the bottom. A sample is
then placed on the top sieve and shaken for a fixed period of time. The weight of powder on each
sieve can then be calculated and the particle size distribution is obtained.
The screen size of 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 value of a product for some specific
application. Sieving 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.
The results in the sieve test can be tabulated in several ways. First, the mass fractions
retained on each of the sieves used in the test can be listed as percentages of the original test sample
weight. This is likely the most broadly utilized strategy recording sieving test data. This method
promptly indicates which sieve held the largest fraction and the bulk of the material was limited at
what range.
The cumulative percentages of oversize and undersize materials are listed in the second
and third methods. Either of these methods can be used to provide information not readily gathered
from the fractional table. The percentages of material larger or smaller than a certain mesh size
can be generally assessed from cumulative tables.
As a function of the sieve aperture (D), the weight fraction of the powder F(D) which passes
through it and larger sieves. That is the cumulative fraction sums all particles smaller than the
particular sieve of interest.
Thus F = F(D)
dF
= F′(D)
dD
Integrating between D1 and D2 gives the cumulative fraction between two sizes D2 (larger)
and D1 which is also that fraction passing through sieve of aperture D2 and caught on that of
aperture D1. The P(D) graph gives a particle size distribution analysis.
D2
∫ dF = ∫ F ′ (D)dD
D1
F = F(D2 − D1 ) − F(D = D1 )
During ideal screening, the plus product contains only particles greater than the openings
of the screen surface while minus product consist of particles smaller than the opening. In real
operation, 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 particles in the
undersize may be caused by greater than nominal openings or rupture of the screen surface.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Apparatus and Materials
 Tyler testing sieves; standard with cover and pan

 Sieve shaker
 Brush
 Electronic balance
 Powder of Calcium Carbonate, (CaCO3 )
2.2 Methods
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The testing sieves were properly arranged according to decreasing aperture and then rested
on sieve shaker. The sieves are made sure to be clean. A weighed amount of 200g calcium
carbonate was then placed on the topmost sieve and covered. The sieve stack is placed in the
mechanical sieve shaker. The sieve shaker motor was turned on with a preferred time interval and
the separation of different fractions was allowed to proceed to completion. After the desired time
is achieved, the stack is carefully removed from the shaker. The retained mass of the sample in
each sieve is weighed. The weights and mesh size range of the separated fractions were recorded.
3. Results
The data at each different time interval specifically 2, 4 and 6 minutes is found in Table
3.1. Table 3.1 consists of the weight of CaCO3 at different mesh size range after sieving. Each data
were computed for percentage size distribution found in Table 3.2.
3.1 Tables
Test Number
Items Test 1 (2 mins.) Test 2 (4 mins.) Test 3 (6 mins.)
Feed
Material CaCO3 CaCO3 CaCO3
Quantity (g) 200.43 199.7 199.16
*through retained
** +20 mesh 0.42 g 0.45 g 0.09 g 0.13 g 0.03 g 0.16 g
-20 mesh +40 mesh 0.02g 0.12 g 0.99 g 0.23 g 3.77 g 3.62 g
-40 mesh +60 mesh 10.72g 10.60 g 7.85 g 7.74 g 42.32 g 42.30 g
-60 mesh +80 mesh 59.46 g 57.7 g 41.19 g 38.89 g 63.69 g 61.72g
-80 mesh +100 mesh 51.79g 47.4 g 49.12 g 47.3g 48.69 g 46.68 g
-100 mesh +200 mesh 58.06g 56.06 g 61.54 g 60.8 g 31.64 g 30.52 g
-200 mesh Pan 17.6g 25.34 g 35.90 g 41.59 g 8.4g 12.28g
TOTAL 198.07 198.07g 196.68 g 196.68g 198.52g 197.28g

Table 3.1 Raw data for weight of calcium carbonate at different time intervals
Test Number
Items Test 1 (2 mins.) Test 2 (4 mins.) Test 3 (6 mins.)
Feed
Material CaCO3 CaCO3 CaCO3
Quantity (g) 200.43 199.7 199.16
Quantity after sieving (g) 198.07 196.68 198.52
*through retained
Size Distribution, % , or mass fraction
** +20 mesh 0.0021 0.0027 0.00045 0.0006 0.00015 0.0008
-20 mesh +40 mesh 0.0001 0.00060 0.0050 0.0011 0.190 0.0183
-40 mesh +60 mesh 0.054 0.0535 0.040 0.0393 0.213 0.214
-60 mesh +80 mesh 0.300 0.291 0.210 0.197 0.321 0.313
-80 mesh +100 mesh 0.261 0.239 0.250 0.240 0.245 0.236
-100 mesh +200 mesh 0.293 0.283 0.313 0.309 0.159 0.154
-200 mesh pan 0.089 0.127 0.183 0.211 0.042 0.0622

Table 3.2 Percentage size distribution of CaCO3 at different time intervals
3.2 Calculations
Solving for mass fraction or size distribution of each mesh at different time intervals:
Calculations for Size Distribution
For Test 1 (Trial 1) For Test 1 (Trial 2)

0.42 0.45
Size Distribution % = 198.07 x 100 = 0.0021 % Size Distribution % = 198.07 x 100 = 0.0027 %
0.02 0.12
10.72 10.60
Size Distribution % = 198.07 x 100 = 0.054% Size Distribution % = 198.07 x 100 = 0.0535 %
59.46 57.7
Size Distribution % = x 100 = 0.300% Size Distribution % = x 100 = 0.291 %
198.07 198.07
51.79 47.4
58.06 56.06
17.06 25.34

0.09 0.13
0.99 0.23
7.85 7.74
41.19 38.89
49.12 47.3
61.54 60.8
196.68 196.68
35.90 41.59
196.68 196.68

0.03 0.16
3.77 3.62
42.32 42.30
63.69 61.72
198.52 197.28
48.69 46.68
31.64 30.52
8.4 12.28
3.3 Sketch
4. Discussion
The information demonstrates that the size of diameter across a particle influences the
mean diameter as far as length, surface, and volume. Plotting the data between the sizes of the
particle versus the mass fraction of the material retained in the screen, a bell-like shape curves was
produced. Theoretically, it should have a bell shaped curve but due to errors such as the efficiency
of the equipment that affects the data, it did not produce a bell shaped curve. It implies that this
variable isn't directly proportional to each other on the grounds that there's no linear relationship
between them. Despite the fact that the information gathered demonstrated the relationship of some
factor; still it demonstrates some inaccurate data. One of the error may be due to the insufficient
cleanliness of the sieve.
5. Conclusions
In performing the differential analysis of a given sample, the size aperture of the mesh
should be taken note. During the experiment, the size aperture was not noted. Thus, performing a
differential analysis of a given sample cannot be made. The size aperture should be taken note
since it is needed to calculate for the average particle size. Figure 1.1 shows the differential analysis
of a given sample.
Figure 1.1 Differential analysis of a given sample
It can be stated that the largest mass fraction that retained can be found in the middle mesh
of the sieves. Figure 1.2 shows the cumulative analysis of a given sample. Both figures are not the
graphs of the actual experiment performed. These figures are graphs of an experiment conducted
by a similar equipment, Standard Tyler testing sieves.
Figure 1.2 Cumulative analysis of a given sample
It can be stated that two curves which are mirror images of each other cross at a median
size where 50% weight is larger in size and 50% weight is smaller.
6. Recommendations
In the test, there are a few safety measure we should take to maintain a strategic distance
from and keep blunders from happen. The screen on the sieves ought to be perfect deliberately
keeping in mind the end goal to evacuate all calcium carbonate. The heap of sieves on the sieve
shaker must be bolted firmly to maintain a strategic distance from them from moving without end
amid the shaking procedure. Student should ensure that all the left finished calcium carbonate in
each sieve is exchanged to the container utilized as a part of measuring process. We likewise
should clean the zone around the computerized scale adjust to get exact readings and maintain a
strategic distance from the natural impacts. Students can utilize a delicate swarm brush to tenderly
wipe the screen. It would help the students analyze if there more one kind of feed material in the
sieve experiment.
REFERENCES
[1] Geankoplis, C.J. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit Operations. 3rd Edition. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
[2] Coulson, J.M. & Richardson, J.F. (2002). Particle Technology and Separation Processes.
5th Edition. Wildwood Avenue, Woburn, MA. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[3] J. March, Advanced Organic Chemistry, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1992.
[4] B. M. Trost and I. Fleming, eds., Comprehensive Organic Synthesis: Selectivity, Strategy
and Efficiency in Modern Organic Chemistry, Vol. 1−9,
[5] Zumdahl, S., Zumdahl, S. (2012). Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach, 2nd edition.
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning Inc.

Sieving: Jamaica Christelle P. Peñalosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sieving: Jamaica Christelle P. Peñalosa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sieving: Jamaica Christelle P. Peñalosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sieving

JAMAICA CHRISTELLE P. PEÑALOSA

College of Engineering and Architecture

Department of Chemical Engineering

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Apparatus and Materials

 Tyler testing sieves; standard with cover and pan

-200 mesh Pan 17.6g 25.34 g 35.90 g 41.59 g 8.4g 12.28g

TOTAL 198.07 198.07g 196.68 g 196.68g 198.52g 197.28g

-200 mesh pan 0.089 0.127 0.183 0.211 0.042 0.0622

Calculations for Size Distribution

For Test 1 (Trial 1) For Test 1 (Trial 2)

For Test 2 (Trial 1) For Test 2 (Trial 2)

For Test 3 (Trial 1) For Test 3 (Trial 2)

Figure 1.1 Differential analysis of a given sample

You might also like