EXPERIMENT 9

SCREEN ANALYSIS
(Wiley Mill and Sieve Shaker)

Submitted by:

Castro, Ethan Zachary G.

Group 4
INTRODUCTION
Raw materials often occur in sizes that are too large to be used and, therefore, they must be reduced in
size. This size-reduction operation can be divided into two major categories depending on whether the material
is a solid or a liquid. If it is solid, the operations are called grinding and cutting, if it is liquid, emulsification or
atomization. All depend on the reaction to shearing forces within solids and liquids.
Grinding and cutting reduce the size of solid materials by mechanical action, dividing them into smaller
particles. Perhaps the most extensive application of grinding in the food industry is in the milling of grains to
make flour, but it is used in many other processes, such as in the grinding of corn for manufacture of corn
starch, the grinding of sugar and the milling of dried foods, such as vegetables. Cutting is used to break down
large pieces of food into smaller pieces suitable for further processing, such as in the preparation of meat for
retail sales and in the preparation of processed meats and processed vegetables.
In the grinding process, materials are reduced in size by fracturing them. The mechanism of fracture is
not fully understood, but in the process, the material is stressed by the action of mechanical moving parts in the
grinding machine and initially the stress is absorbed internally by the material as strain energy. When the local
strain energy exceeds a critical level, which is a function of the material, fracture occurs along lines of weakness
and the stored energy is released. Some of the energy is taken up in the creation of new surface, but the greater
part of it is dissipated as heat. Time also plays a part in the fracturing process and it appears that material will
fracture at lower stress concentrations if these can be maintained for longer periods. Grinding is, therefore,
achieved by mechanical stress followed by rupture and the energy required depends upon the hardness of the
material and also upon the tendency of the material to crack - its friability.
The force applied may be compression, impact, or shear, and both the magnitude of the force and the
time of application affect the extent of grinding achieved. For efficient grinding, the energy applied to the
material should exceed, by as small a margin as possible, the minimum energy needed to rupture the material.
Excess energy is lost as heat and this loss should be kept as low as practicable.
Screen analysis can be represented by a graph of mass fraction of the material retained on each screen
versus the average diameter of the particle. The mass fraction of the material retained on the screen (xi) is equal
to the mass of the material retained on the screen divided by the mass of the sample. The average diameter of
the particle (Dpi) is the arithmetic mean of the apertures of two successive screens.
The solid particles in this experiment are observed by its average particle size. There are many ways an
average particle size can be defined. For this experiment, the length mean diameter, volume mean diameter,
surface mean diameter and volume surface mean diameter are used to quantify the average particle size of the
particles.
The equation for length mean diameter 𝐷 ̅̅̅̅
𝑝 is shown in equation 1. In the equation, x i represents the
mass fraction of the material retained on the screen while Dpi is the average diameter of the particle. It used in
the study of comparison of droplet
𝑥
∑( 2𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖
̅𝐷̅̅̅
𝑝 = Equation (1)
𝑥
∑( 3𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖

The volume mean diameter ̅̅̅̅̅

𝐷𝑝𝑉 is used in distribution of mass in a spray. The equation for volume
mean diameter is shown in equation 2.
1
3

1
̅̅̅̅̅
𝐷𝑝𝑉 = [ ] Equation (2)
𝑥
∑( 3𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖
 ̅̅̅̅̅
The third is the surface mean diameter 𝐷 𝑝𝐴 . It is used in the study of adsorption, crushing and light diffusion.
The equation for the surface mean diameter is shown in equation 3.
𝑥
∑( 𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖
̅̅̅̅̅
𝐷𝑝𝐴 = [ ] Equation (3)
𝑥
∑( 3𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖

The last one is the volume surface mean diameter which is also called as Sauter mean diameter. Sauter mean
̅̅̅̅̅̅
diameter is represented by𝐷 𝑝𝑉𝐴 . This equation is used in the study of efficiency, mass transfer and catalytic
reactions. Equation 4 shows the equation for Sauter mean diameter.
1
̅𝐷̅̅̅
𝑝 = Equation (4)
𝑥
∑( 𝑖 )
𝐷𝑝𝑖

The purpose of this experiment is to know how to operate the wiley mill and the sieve shaker, to 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.
METHODOLOGY
The experiment makes use of the Wiley mill, sieve shaker, and the Tyler standard screens. The
experiment also calls for the use of a digital balance, stopwatch, beaker, spatula, brush, and the test sample,
which for in this experiment, is in the form of chalk.
The experiment proceeds with the weighing of the individual pans. These are then stacked on top of
each other and set aside. Ten pieces of writing chalk is then broken down to smaller pieces and fed to the Wiley
mill which would pulverize the sample. 50 grams of the sample is then measured through the digital balance
which is then poured on the topmost layer of the Tyler screens. The setup is then placed on the sieve shaker and
allowed to run for fifteen minutes. After this, the screens are measured one by one in order to determine any
change in weight. The mass fraction, average diameter, and other parameters can then be calculated.

Figure 1: Sieve Shaker Figure 2: Wiley Mill

 Figure 3: Tyler Standard Screens
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
First of all, it is important to clarify what is meant by the Mesh entries seen in the data sheet. For the
first row, the entry for the Mesh is written as -10 + 18, which simply means that the mass corresponding to that
entry is the mass of the particles that were able to pass through Mesh 10 but unable to pass through Mesh 18,
after the screening procedure. The corresponding average diameter is then taken as the average of the aperture
of Mesh 10 and Mesh 18 screens. This is done because it is virtually impossible to determine the exact diameter
of the particles. For reference, the different Mesh Numbers together with their aperture are shown in Figure 5.
Size reduction was taken under consideration after using the Wiley Mill, where pieces of chalk were
ground into fine powders. To determine the efficiency of the size reduction process, screen analysis was
performed, and by measuring the mass of particles passing through each of the screens, one may determine the
particle size distribution of the size reduction products. This is important because after knowing the size
distribution, the extent of the performance of the size reduction equipment may be evaluated by looking at
which particle size corresponds to the highest mass fraction. In the case of this experiment, as seen in the data
sheet, the particle diameter corresponding to the highest mass fraction is 0.0148 inches, with 32.63% of the fine
particles passing through Mesh 35 and retaining at Mesh 60. Figure 4 shows a summary of the particle size
distribution of the size reduction products obtained from the experiment.

0.0661 Inches
0.0315 Inches
0.0217 Inches
0.0148 Inches
0.0085 Inches
0.0048 Inches

Figure 4: Particle Size Distribution

 Figure 5: Aperture of Tyler Screens
With the concept of Tyler Screens known, one may conclude that the finest of all the particles are those
that passed through Mesh 80 and retained on Mesh 230. By observing the graph describing the particle size
distribution, 26.32% of the mass of the particles were actually in that range of particle size. This implies an
effective size reduction procedure, since a high percentage of the particles were actually refined into particles of
average diameter 0.0048 inches. Recall that the objective of size reduction is to produce the finest and smallest
particles possible from large particles of the same material: this means that the higher the mass percentage of
the lower average diameters in the particle size distribution, the more effective the size reduction process
performed is. If, for example, majority of the mass of the particle product were in the first range (-10 + 18), then
the process would not be deemed effective, since it failed to produce more of the fine particles. However, other
factors may have affected the accuracy of screen analysis in analyzing the effectiveness of size reduction
processes. First, the time for screening may be crucial. In this experiment, fifteen minutes of screening using the
Sieve Shaker was done. More particles may have passed through the screens if the tower of screens were shaken
for a long period of time. If the shaking was stopped prematurely, some of the particles supposed to pass
through a certain screen will cease to pass, giving erroneous results. These situations demonstrate the
importance of considering the time for screening of the particles. In this experiment, it was taken into
consideration that only 50 grams of the ground product is to be subjected to shaking and screen analysis,
meaning fifteen minutes would suffice to give accurate results. However, if one wishes to analyze a larger mass
of particles, common sense would dictate that the shaking should be performed for a longer period of time. The
mass of the particles being analyzed may be one factor to consider in determining the time to be allotted for the
shaking procedure for virtually complete screening of the particles to occur.
Another factor that affects the efficiency of the screen is blinding, or the phenomenon where a particle
plugs into the open slots of the screen and inhibits overflowing material from falling through. This will give
inaccurate results, since some of the particles that were supposed to pass through the blinded screen will not be
able to pass, and the recorded mass of the pan containing the particles shall account for those particles that do
not actually have particle diameters corresponding to the Mesh Number of the pan. In order to prevent this, one
must be sure that the particles subjected to screening are already fine, with no huge chunks remaining. In the
case where the Wiley Mill gives some huge chunks as product, one may want to crush the chunks further with a
mortar and pestle, as to prevent blinding of screens.
Moreover, the orientation of the particle during screening also affects the efficiency of the screen. If the
angle of approach to the screen is perpendicular, the particle has a high probability of screening. This is because
when the particle is perpendicular to the screen, there is minimum contact area, and thus, it is more likely to be
screened that way. However, if the particle approaches the screen sidewise, maximum contact area is achieved,
and thus there is low probability of screening. Other factors include the size and shape of the particle being
screened, the presence of moisture, which induces size enlargement of the molecules due to absorption of water,
and the induced motion for screening. If the screening is done at high vibrations and frequencies, it may lower
the efficiency of screening due to the bouncing back of the particles as they hit the screen, thereby preventing
some to pass through.
Another noteworthy discussion would be the computation of the various mean diameters to represent the
size of the particles. To explain the significance of each value, one may use analogies to imagine the physical
meaning of the diameters obtained. The first one, seen in Equation 1, is the length mean diameter, which is
simply the arithmetic average of the diameters of the particles subjected to the screening procedure. This acts as
the central value for the diameter of the particles, and may be used to represent the entire set of particles in
some analyses, such as in droplet evaporation. From the data obtained in the experiment, a length mean
diameter of 0.00558 inches was realized, meaning the diameters of the particles screened diverge from 0.00558
inches from both sides. Moreover, Equation 2 shows the volume mean diameter. If all the particles retained on
the screens were to have a diameter equal to the volume mean diameter, then the total volume of these particles
would equal to the volume of one gram of the same material. Incorporating the results of the experiment to the
aforementioned statement, if the particles retained on the screens were to have a diameter of 0.00717 inches,
then the total volume of these particles will be equal to the volume of one gram of chalk. Furthermore, Equation
3 depicts the surface mean diameter. The physical interpretation is almost the same as that of the volume mean
diameter: if the particles retained on the screens were to have a value equal to the surface mean diameter
(0.00614 inches), and one gram of chalk is spherical, then the total surface area of the particles would be equal
to the surface area of the spherical chalk. Finally, if the particles retained on the screens had a diameter equal to
the Sauter Mean Diameter (0.00977 inches), then their cumulative surface area would be equal to the specific
surface area of the original large particle.
CONCLUSIONS
The experiment efficiently made use of the Wiley Mill, as dictated by the results of the size reduction
procedure, where majority of the chalk were ground into fine particles of average diameter around 0.015 inches.
The efficiency of the size reduction procedure performed was evaluated by performing a screen analysis on the
product particles from the Wiley Mill by utilizing the Sieve Shaker and Tyler Standard Screens. A particle size
distribution was then prepared to readily evaluate the effectiveness of the process. Size reduction is important
due to the fact that it has various applications in Chemical Process Industries, particularly in Particle
Technology, while knowledge of screen analysis is essential since it is one of the basic and most convenient
methods of evaluating the efficiency of size reduction procedures.
Moreover, for further analysis, the various particle size representations were computed from data
obtained from the screen analysis. Using Equation 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, a length mean diameter of
0.00558 inches was obtained, while a volume mean diameter of 0.00717 inches was realized, and a surface
mean diameter of 0.00614 inches was computed, and finally, 0.00977 inches for the Sauter mean diameter was
evaluated. Solving for these values are important since these are considered parameters in common operations
in the field of Chemical Engineering, such as in droplet evaporation, adsorption, mass transfer, and catalytic
reactions.