Mapua Institute of Technology

School of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Biological

Engineering and Material Science and Engineering

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

EXPERIMENT 9: SCREEN ANALYSIS
Bismonte, Ma. Elizabetha, Gara, John Patrick N.a, Surnit, Rebecca T.a,
Tabaquero, Renz James T.a
Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology, School of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering
a

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Tyler Standard Screen
Size reduction
Wiley Mill
Sieve Shaker
Date Performed
December 2, 2014
Date Submitted
December 9, 2014

The objectives of this

experiment were to
teach the students on
how to operate the
Wiley Mill and Sieve
Shaker, make a screen
analysis of particles
using
the
Tyler
standard screens and
to evaluate the screen
analysis of particles by
computing the length
mean
diameter,
volume mean diameter, surface mean diameter and
the Sauter mean diameter. The length mean, volume
mean, surface mean and Sauter mean diameters
were computed to be ________in, ______in, ____in, and
____in
respectively.
The data shows that
the
size diameter of a particle affects the length mean
diameter, the volume mean diameter, the surface
mean diameter and the volume mean diameter.
Plotting the data between the sizes of the particle
versus the mass fraction of the material retained in
the screen, a bell shape curves was generated. It
means that this variable is not directly proportional
to
each
other
because
theres
no
linear

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 1

relationship between them. Eventhough the data

gathered show the relationship of some variable; still
it showed some inaccurate data. The inaccuracy is
due to the insufficient cleanliness of the sieve
1. INTRODUCTION
Size Reduction, also known as
comminution, is the process of
disintegration of solid substances or
mixtures into smaller pieces by
means of mechanical force without
modifying its state. It is performed
under set conditions or a specific
time in order to achieve its desired
size. After the process, particle size
analysis will be done to examine the
products. (Austin et al., 1984) The
purposes of this process are the
following: to increase the surface
area of the material, to make mixing
easier, reduces rate of sedimentation,
and for pharmaceutical use. It also
affects the absorptive power of some
materials because of the increase in
its surface area and the rate of
dissolution also increases. In size
reduction, there are four commonly
used processes namely: compression,
impact, attrition and cutting. There is
a criteria for choosing what process
and equipment shall be used in size
reduction process. These are the
sample material to be processed,
feed size, abrasion, grinding fineness,
grinding duration, and grinding aids.
The machines to be used also
depends on the size of the particle
size. Crushers are used to process
materials with particle diameter of 40
mm and above while mills are used
for materials with particle diameter of
less than 40 mm. (Backhurst et al.,
2013)
After the process of size
reduction, evaluation of the process

will follow. The process of analyzing

the performance of the process and
of the product is called screen
analysis. Screen analysis or gradation
test is an essential part or process in
aggregation. It helps to determine
the gradation of a particle by size in
order to determine the efficiency of
performance of a size reduction
machine. (Rosenblatt et al., 2009)The
data obtained can be used to
calculate for the relationships and
predict the trends of a process
graphically. The process is done using
a shaker composed of different sizes
arranged by their screen sizes. The
ones with the largest size is put on
the top most layer and continuously
arranged with decreasing screen size.
The crushed material is placed at the
top layer and put in to the shaking
process for a specific period of time.
After the shaking, the materials that
were accumulated on each sieves
and on the pan will be measured.
(Duncan et al., 1998) It can be
graphically shown by the comparison
of the mass fraction on each screen
versus the average diameter of the
particle. (Gutierrez et al., 2005)
In this experiment, it will show
us how to operate a Wiley mill (Fig.
1.1) and a shieve shaker (Fig. 1.2).
Screen analysis will also be done
using the Tyler standard screens (Fig.
1.3). And to evaluate the screen
analysis
of
the
particles
by
calculating
the
length
mean
diameter, volume mean diameter,
surface mean diameter, and the
Sauter mean diameter.

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 2

Figure 1.1: Wiley Mill

Here are the following equations to be

used in the experiment. For the length
mean diameter Dp, it is governed by
the formula:
(
D p=
Figure 1.2: Sieve Shaker

xi
2

D pi
xi
D3pi

)
(1)

The volume mean diameter DpV has

the formula:

1
xi

)
3
D pi

D pV =

(2)

The surface mean diameter DpA has

the form of the equation:
Figure 1.3: Tyler Standard Screen

xi
)
D pi
x
( 3i )
D pi

D pA=
(

(3)

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 3

And for the volume surface mean

diameter or Sauter mean diameter
DpVA, is given with the formula:
D pVA =

1
xi
(
)
D pi

(4)

2. METHODOLOGY
The experiment had three
objectives. The first one is to know
how to operate the Wiley mill and the
sieve shaker. The second is to make a
screen analysis of particles by using
the Tyler standard screens. Lastly, to
evaluate the screen analysis of
particles by computing the length
mean
diameter,
volume
mean
diameter, surface mean diameter and
the Sauter mean diameter.
The equipment and materials
used in this experiment was the Wiley
mill, Tyler standard screens, sieve
shaker, digital balance, stop watch,
brush and pieces of chalk. Protective
masks were also worn as safety
precaution against allergies from the
chalk dust.

Figure 2.2: Detailed Parts of the Wiley

Mill (Gutierrez, C. L. and Ngo, R. L.,
2005)

Figure 2.3: Detailed Parts of the Ro-Tap

(Sieve Shaker) (Gutierrez, C. L. and
Ngo,
R.
L.,
2005)

Figure 2.1: The Wiley Mill

For the procedures, first, 10

pieces of chalk were broken into
pieces and grinded using the Wiley
Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 4

mill. Then, 50 grams of the powdered

chalk was measured. The Tyler
standard screens and bottom pan
were prepared and brushed from any
adhering particles. The clean screen
and bottom pan were weighed,
respectively. Then, the screens were
nested together, with the lowest mesh
number at the top and the highest
number at the bottom, while the
bottom pan was placed. Afterwards,
the previously measured powdered
chalk was placed on top of the screen
and covered. The screens on the sieve
shaker were mounted and the
assembly was shaken for 15 minutes.
Then, the weight of the pan was
measured
and
recorded.
The
assembly was again shaken for 5
minutes. Afterwards, the pan was
again weighed.
The shaking of assembly was
continued until the weight of the
bottom pan became equal with the
weight of the deadpan from the
previous reading. Next, the weight of
each screen with the retained
powdered chalk (after shaking) was
determined. The weight of the
powdered chalk retained on each
screen was determined by subtracting
the weight of the screen from the
weight of the screen after shaking.
The mass fraction of the chalk on each
screen was computed followed by the
average diameter of the particles for
each
fraction.
A
graph
was
constructed for the mass fraction
versus average diameter.
Lastly,
the
length
mean
diameter, volume mean diameter,
surface mean diameter and Sauter
mean diameter were calculated. The
powdered chalk was put in a plastic
bag before disposing to trash can.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

DATA 1: CALIBRATION CURVE OF THE ORIFICE

Rotamet
er
Reading

Manomet
er
Reading,
cmHg

Mass
of
Water,
kg

Time,
sec

Mass
Flow
Rate,
kg/sec

0.3

3.7

30
30

0.1233

0.5

5.0

0.1667
30

0.6

6.7

0.2233
30

0.7

8.4

0.28
30

1.5

9.8

0.327
30

11

2.3

11.2

0.3733

TABLE 2

DATA 2: DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT OF ORIFICE

Specific
Gravities

Diameters,
inch

Are
as,
m2

Tempe
rature

26 0C

Wat
er

1.0

Orific
e

0.60

S0 =
1.82
E-4

Water
Densit
y

996.8
kg/m3

Mer
cur
y

13.534

Pipe

1.049

S1 =
1.82
E-4

=
d0/d1

0.572

Rot
am
eter
Rea
din
g

Mass
Flow
Rate,
kg/sec

U1,
m/s

U0,
m/s

Man
ome
ter
Rea
ding
,
cm
Hg

-P/,
Nm/kg

C0

0.1233

0.222
1

0.678
8

0.3

0.368
5

0.747
2

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 5

0.1667

0.300
2

0.917
5

0.5

0.614
2

0.782
3

0.2233

0.402
2

1.229
3

0.6

0.737
0

0.956
8

0.28

0.504
3

1.541
3

0.7

0.859
8

1.110
7

0.327

0.588
9

1.799
9

1.5

1.842
5

0.886
0

0.672
3

2.054
8

2.3

2.825
2

0.816
9

Mass Flow Rate (kg/sec) VS Rotameter Reading

12
10
8
6

11

0.3733

4
2
0
0.1

FIGURE 1: CALIBRATION CURVE FOR THE

ORIFICE METER
Mass Flow Rate (kg/sec) VS Manometer Reading (cmHg)

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

TABLE 3

EQUATIONS USED IN THE CALCULATIONS

2.5
Cross-sectional area of
the pipe, S1

S 1=

(d 1 )
4

1.5
1

Cross-sectional area of
the pipe, S0

(d 02)
S 0=
4

Velocity of the fluid

through the pipe, U1

U 1=

Velocity of the fluid

through the orifice, U0

U0

0.5
0
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

FIGURE 2: CALIBRATION CURVE FOR THE

ROTAMETER

Pressure drop, -P/

m1
S1

1 2
U 1( )

P
Hg
g
=Rm
1 ( )

gc

Discharge coefficient, Co

U 0=C o

P
)

1 4

2 gc(

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 6

Where:
= ratio of orifice diameter to pipe diameter, d0/d1
m1 = mass flow rate of fluid
Rm = manometer reading
Hg = density of mercury
= density of water

The experiment was performed for

several trials in order to see clearly the
relationship of the different parameters
involved in the orifice meter. Each trial
was done in 30 seconds as basis for the
data.

From the Table 1, an apparent

relationship was observed between the
manometer reading, the mass of water
and the mass flow rate from all the trials.
The said three parameters were seen as
directly proportional from each other.

In Table 2, more factors were

considered in the data, such as the
velocity in the orifice and pipe,
respectively, the pressure drop and the
coefficient of discharge. The time,
densities of water and mercury, and
diameters of the orifice and pipe were
constant for the whole computations. The
velocity of the fluid through the pipe was
increased as the mass flow rate of water
increased. At the same time, the velocity
of the fluid through the orifice was found
to be increased simultaneously. This
pattern was very evident because the
velocity of the fluid through the pipe was
directly proportional to the velocity
through the orifice as shown by the
equations. Since the increasing mass flow

of water was accompanied by the

increasing
manometer
reading,
an
increasing pressure drop was also seen in
the table. The values were brought by the
equation for the pressure drop indicating
its
direct
proportionality
with
the
manometer reading since the densities
remained constant for all the trials. On
the other hand, the coefficient of
discharge, Co, did not show a pattern of
increasing value with the rest of the
parameters in the table. This showed its
dependence on the pressure loss, velocity
of the fluid through the orifice and mass
flow rate of water. From Table 1, the trials
1 to 4 showed that as the mass flow rate
of
water
was
increased,
the
corresponding computed coefficient of
discharge (Co) also increased.

The calibration curve of the orifice

meter in Figure 1 showed a direct
proportionality between the mass of flow
rate and the manometer reading. The
graph for the rotameter in Figure 2
displayed a direct proportionality of the
mass flow rate of water with the
rotameter reading. The graph for orifice
meter was curve in nature in contrast to
the one for rotameter that showed
linearity.

4. CONCLUSION
The experiment was able to attain
its objectives. A calibration for the orifice
meter was generated and compared with
the graph of the rotameter. Using the
gathered
data
and
calculations
performed, the effect of increasing the
mass flow rate of water to the coefficient
of discharge was also determined.
Based from the tables and graphs
presented, several conclusions were
made. As the mass flow rate increases,
the velocities of the fluid through the pipe

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 7

and orifice, respectively, also increase.

Also, the increasing mass flow rate is
accompanied
by
an
increasing
manometer reading, resulting to an
increasing pressure drop. From the data,
majority of the trials showed that when
the mass flow rate increases, the
corresponding coefficient of discharge, C o,
also increases.
The graph plotted for the orifice
meter did not show a perfect curve. This
may be accounted from the data
tabulated. Thus, an -improvement in data
gathering is considered a factor in order
to produce a more accurate calibration
curve.

5. REFERENCES
Austin, L. G., Klimpel, R. R., Luckie, P.
T. 1984. Process engineering of size
reduction. Volume 1. 2-4.
Duncan, T. M., Reimer, J. A. 1998.
Chemical Engineering Design and
Analysis: An Introduction. 123.

Gutierrez, C. L., Ngo, R. L. 2005.

Chemical Engineering Laboratory
Manual Part 1. 74-75.
Harker, J. H., Backhurst, J. R.,
Richardson, J. F. 2013. Chemical
Engineering. Volume 2. 95-97.
Shelly, G., Rosenblatt, H. J. 2009.
System Analysis and Design. 352353.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The group would like to thank God
for the talents and resources He
bestowed. The group would like to
thank Dr. Allan Soriano and the
laboratory
assistant
for
their
knowledge and guidance in the
experiments theory and procedures.

Expt.9 | SCREEN ANALYSIS (WILEY MILL & SIEVE SHAKER) 8