University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering

Experiment F1:
Size Reduction and Screening
1. OBJECTIVES

1.1 To determine the power requirement in reducing the sizes of the particles in a sample.
1.2 To determine the efficiency of the Wiley Mill using the various laws for predicting power
requirement.
1.3 To determine the average size of the milled solid sample.

2. THEORY

Screening is the separation of particulate matter into fractions of different sizes using standard
screens. In making a screen analysis, a set of standard screens are stacked in series from the largest
mesh opening at the top to the smallest mesh opening at the bottom. Several equations to obtain the
screen efficiency and effectiveness are presented in Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook.

Size reduction is a term applied to any operation that reduces the particle size of a particulate matter.
It can be classified into any of the following:

1. Compression or crushing: used for the coarse reduction of hard solids to give relatively few
fines.
2. Impact: gives coarse, medium, or fine product.
3. Attrition or rubbing: yields fine products from soft and nonabrasive materials.
4. Cutting: gives a definite shape with a few or no fines.

In the size reduction machine, the particles of feed are first distorted and strained. Here, the work
done on the particles is first stored temporarily in the solid as strain energy. As additional force is
added to stressed particles, the strain energy exceeds a certain level and the material fractures, new
surface is created. Each new unit are of surface requires a certain amount of energy. Some of the
energy added is used to create a new surface, but large portion of it appears as heat. The energy required
for fracturing is a complicated function of the mechanical force applied, the duration the type of force
and the factors affect the extent and efficiency of the size reduction process.

The various theories or laws proposed for predicting power requirements for the size reduction of
solids do not apply well in practice. Part of the problem in the theories is that of estimating the
theoretical amount of energy required to create fractures and, thus, a new surface area.

The theories assume that the energy, E, required to produce a change, dX, in a particle of size X is
a power function of X.
dE C
=− n
dX X

where: X = size or diameter, in mm or ft

C, n = constant whose values depend on the type and size of the material the type
of the size reduction machine
E = the energy required per unit feed, kW-h/ton (hp-min/ton)

The integrated form of the differential equation is

C  1 1 
E=  n −1 − n −1 
n − 1  X 2 X 1 

Rittinger in 1867 proposed a law which states that the work in crushing is proportional to the new
surface created. It has been found experimentally that this law has some validity in grinding fine
powders. This leads to n = 2 which would give the equation

ChE 514L: Chemical Engineering Laboratory II |Experiment Guide 1|Page

 Experiment F1: Size Reduction and Screening

 1 1 
E = KR  − 
 X 2 X1 

where: X1 = mean diameter of the feed

X2 = mean diameter of the product

Kick in 1885 proposed a law, which is based on stress analysis of plastic deformation within elastic
limit. It states that the work required for crushing a given mass of material is constant for the same
reduction ratio, i.e. the ratio of the initial particle size to the final particle size. This implies n = 1,
giving
𝑋1
𝐸 = 𝐾𝐾 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
𝑋2

Later in 1952, F.C. Bond correlated extensive experimental data suggesting that the work required
using a large size feed is proportional to the square root of the surface per volume ratio of the product.
This corresponds to n = 1.5, yielding

𝐾𝐵
𝐸= 1⁄
(𝑋2 ) 2

Bond proposed a work index Wi as the work in kW-h/ton to reduce a unit weight from a very large
size to 80% passing a 100 m screen. The gross work required to reduce a unit weight of the feed with
80% passing a diameter XF in m to a product with 80% passing XP in m. The resulting equation in
SI units is

1 1
𝐸 = 0.3162𝑊𝑖 [ − ]
√𝑋𝑃 √𝑋𝐹

The data for work index does not vary greatly among different machines of the same general type
and apply to dry crushing or to wet grinding, the power calculated is multiplied by 4/3 or 1.34.

3. EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS

Sieve shaker Pan balance

Set of sieves with cover and pan Cleaning brush
Solid sample Wiley Mill (1 hp)

Each work group will perform a specified material. The assignment is as shown below:

Group No. Solid sample

1 & 5, 2 & 6 200 g of mongo beans
3 & 7, 4 & 8 200 g of rice beans

4. SAFETY

Make sure that the sieve trays are properly mounted before operating the sieve shaker. When the
sieve trays are not fastened properly, the sieve trays can be dislodged and ejected by the motion of the
machine. This could damage the screens, and worse, it could cause harm and injury on the people
around the equipment.

The inlet of the Wiley Mill should be cleared of any object that might jam the equipment. Never
reach inside the catch bin while the mill is operating. Better yet, keep your hands off the interior of
the mill while it is running.

ChE 2127: Chemical Engineering Laboratory II |Experiment Guide 2|Page

 Experiment F1: Size Reduction and Screening

5. PRELIMINARY

The screens must be cleaned before use. Cleaning is done by using a soft to medium-bristle brush.
When the sieve trays are being cleaned, care should be taken so that too much force is applied to
prevent deformation and damage on the sieves.

The Wiley mill should also be cleaned to remove particles that might contaminate the sample
being used for the experiment. Let the lab technician assist you in doing so. Take extra care in cleaning
the blades of the mill. It is suggested that these preliminary steps are performed before the laboratory
period because this may take a long time.

Assume that the fractional distribution is an exponential function of the particle diameter. With
this assumption, Equation B–2 (of Appendix B) in the book “Principles of Unit operations, 2nd ed.”
by Foust, et. al. can be used to estimate the particle distribution for particle sizes smaller than mesh
200.

6. OPERATING PROCEDURE AND CONDITIONS

6.1 Start-Up

6.1.1 Clean the screens to be used in the experiment.

6.1.2 Clean the Wiley Mill, removing dirt and other matter that had adhered on the blades of
the equipment
6.1.3 Weigh and prepare the sample.

6.2 Experimental Procedure

6.2.1. Weigh each screen and the pan.

6.2.2. Arrange the screens according to decreasing mesh number, starting from the bottom.
Place the pan at the bottom of the stack. Mount the stack of screens on the sieve shaker.
6.2.3. Pour the sample in the topmost mesh. Place the sieve cover on the topmost sieve.
6.2.4. Fasten the stack of screens to the shaker’s steel holder by adjusting and securing the locks
located at each side.
6.2.5. Set the timer of the shaker to five (5) minutes. Switch on the power to the shaker.
6.2.6. Remove the screens and weigh them one by one. Get the weight of the materials retained
on each screen. (Note: Unplug the sieve shaker when not in use.)
6.2.7. Without removing the materials on each screen, stack the sieves on the shaker again,
place the cover, and then repeat steps 6.2.4 to 6.2.6 two (2) times.
6.2.8. Remove the sample from the screens making sure that nothing remains in any of them.
Combine the fractions in a single container. Weigh the sample.
6.2.9. Grind the combined fractions for 15 minutes (refer to Procedure 6.3).
6.2.10. Repeat steps 6.2.1 to 6.2.9 twice for the 1st & 2nd grinding data.

6.3 Using the Wiley Mill

6.3.1. Ensure that the main switch is off.

6.3.2. Ensure that the entire machine is clean and free from residual.
6.3.3. Close and secure the chamber door.
6.3.4. Install the delivery chute at the bottom.
6.3.5. Feed the sample into the hopper.
6.3.6. Cover the hopper with its lid.
6.3.7. Plug the power cord into the correct electrical outlet.
6.3.8. Flip the red power switch (located on the right side of the mill).
6.3.9. Adjust the sliding shutter at the bottom of the hopper to control the feed rate. Continually
adjust the feed rate according to the grinding output.
6.3.10. When milling is complete, flip the red power switch to the OFF position.
6.3.11. Carefully unplug the power cord.
6.3.12. Let the rotating blades inside the grinding chamber come to a complete stop before
opening the chamber door.
6.3.13. Remove the delivery chute.
6.3.14. Recover all remaining materials in the grinding chamber with a brush.
ChE 2127: Chemical Engineering Laboratory II |Experiment Guide 3|Page
 Experiment F1: Size Reduction and Screening

6.4 Shutdown

Clean all the screens, sieve shaker, and Wiley Mill. Put the cleaned sieves back where you got
them.

DID YOU LEAVE EVERYTHING SAFE AND TIDY?

7. TREATMENT OF RESULTS

7.1 Plot the mass fraction vs. the particle diameter of each data table on a single graph.
7.2 Plot the cumulative fraction of sample smaller than DP vs. the particle diameter.
7.3 Plot the screen effectiveness vs. the screen aperture.

8. ANALYSIS/INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

8.1 Determine the constants in Rittinger’s, Kick’s and Bond’s Law based on the data of the first
grind. Compare the results of these calculations.
8.2 Estimate the power requirement of the second grind based on Rittinger’s, Kick’s and Bond’s
Laws and compare the actual power consumed by the equipment. Explain the discrepancy
between the actual and the predicted power requirement if any. Which among the laws mentions
above gave the closest estimate?
8.4 Determine the efficiency of the equipment based on the calculations above.

9. QUESTIONS

9.1 What is the effect of the time of operation on particle size distribution?
9.2 Why does dry grinding require more power than wet grinding? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of dry and wet grinding? Give examples where each type of grinding is more
applicable. Are there some kind of limiting conditions to the application of dry and wet grinding?
Discuss your answer briefly.

10. REFERENCES

Badger, Walter L. and Julius T. Bachero, Introduction to Chemical Engineering. New York: McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1984.

Foust, Alan S. et. al., Principles of Unit Operations, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1980.

Geankoplis, Christie J., Transport Processes and Unit Operations, 3rd Ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1993.

McCabe, Warren L., Julian C. Smith, and Peter Harriott, Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering,
5th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

Perry, Robert H. and Don Green (ed.), Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th Ed. New York:
McGraw- Hill, Inc., 1984.

ChE 2127: Chemical Engineering Laboratory II |Experiment Guide 4|Page

 Experiment F1: Size Reduction and Screening

Name and signature of members: Section: _______________________

1. ____________________________ _______________ Group No.: _____________________
2. ____________________________ _______________ Date Performed: _________________
3. ____________________________ _______________ Date Submitted: _________________
4. ____________________________ _______________
5. ____________________________ _______________ Instructor’s signature: _____________
6. ____________________________ _______________

EXPERIMENT F1: SIZE REDUCTION & SCREENING

DATA SHEET

Material assigned: __________________________

Table 1. Feed Analysis

Screen size Initial weight Weight (g) after
Mesh No.
(mm) (g) 1st shaking 2nd shaking 3rd shaking

Sample weight (g)

Table 2. First Grinding Analysis

Screen size Initial weight Weight (g) after
Mesh No.
(mm) (g) 1st shaking 2nd shaking 3rd shaking

Sample weight (g)

Table 3. Second Grinding Analysis

Screen size Initial weight Weight (g) after
Mesh No.
(mm) (g) 1st shaking 2nd shaking 3rd shaking

Sample weight (g)

ChE 2127: Chemical Engineering Laboratory II |Experiment Guide 5|Page