Adamson University
College Of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department
Unit Operations Lab 2
Experiment No. 6
Hydrodynamics of a Packed Column
Submitted by:
Group 7
Arnuco, Arjay M.
Baligod, Jeffrey L.
Bernales, Candice Gareth P.
Lorenzo, Jan Zedric F.
Mata, Arrianne Jaye N.
Mercado, Roger Jayson A.
Olano, Alvin John L.
Submitted to:
Engr. Rugi Vicente Rubi
February 26, 2016
Adamson University
College Of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department
Unit Operations Lab 2
Experiment No. 7
Size Reduction
Submitted by:
Group 7
Arnuco, Arjay M.
Baligod, Jeffrey L.
Bernales, Candice Gareth P.
Lorenzo, Jan Zedric F.
Mata, Arrianne Jaye N.
Mercado, Roger Jayson A.
Olano, Alvin John L.
Submitted to:
Engr. Rugi Vicente Rubi
February 26, 2016
Size Reduction
Abstract
Raw Materials that are used in manufacturing industries are usually coarse and must be
reduced in size. Crushing and grinding followed by screen analysis are done to separate the
desired products. Using the Rittingers Law, energy requirement for size reduction is
determined. It states that the energy required to reduce a certain material is directly
proportional to the surface area created. The experiment was done using crusher and
pulverizer. The products of crusher were fed to the pulverizer followed by screen analysis to
determine the size ranges of the products. Differential and Cumulative methods were used to
report the theoretical energy requirement and crushing efficiency. Low new surface area
created was obtained which yield a low crushing efficiency.
I. Introduction
Size reduction or combination of bulk solids
is a very common and important unit
operation
found
across
the
process
internal classification are required. Knowing
what your particle size demands are is the
first step in selecting the right size reduction
equipment for your needs.
industries. Liberation of a key species (ores),
improved
chemical
activity
or
bioavailability (catalysts, pharmaceuticals,
and energy storage materials), better product
handling characteristics (pulverized coal),
etc. are just a few of the reasons for using
size reduction technology. Despite the
availability of other particle production
processes, size reduction remains today one
of the workhorses for production of bulk
solids with tailored particle properties.
Coarser specifications require less energy
and simpler grinding equipment. Finer
materials require more energy and often
more complex size reduction systems with
II. Theoretical Background
There are three types of forces considered in
size
reduction
namely,
Compression,
Impact, and Shearing or Attrition forces
Stress. Harder materials absorb more energy
and require a greater energy input to create
fractures. Extent of size reduction, the
energy expanded and the amount of heat
generated in the material depend on both the
size of the forces that are applied and the
time that material is subjected to the forces.
Compression forces are used to fracture
friable or crystalline materials. Combined
impact and shearing forces are necessary for
fibrous substances. Shearing forces are used
Preparation of screen analysis of products
for fine grinding of softer substances.
obtained from crusher and grinder. Basic
Equations
for
energy
requirement
determination
Kicks law Energy required to reduce the
size of particles is directly proportional to
the ratio of the initial size of a typical
dimension to the final size of that dimension
E=Kk ln ( D 1/ D 2)
where
E Energy required per mass of feed
Kr Kicks constant
D1 Average initial size of feed
D2 Average size of product
D2 / D1 Size reduction ratio
Coarse grinding has RRs below 8:1
Fine grinding can exceed 100:1
Grinding of coarse particles in which the
operation to Ro Tap Siever Shaker
1. Assemble a stack sieves, beginning with a
top cover and then the coarsest sieve
opening on top and a pan on the bottom.
Place them into the shaker. When placing
the sieves into the Ro-Taps, the hammer
should be tilted up and out of the way.
2. Place the sieve cover, with the cork
installed, on top of the stack.
3. Adjust the sieve support clamp bar with
the two wing nuts, bringing the top of the
sieve cover flush with upper carrying plate.
Hammer Drop Adjustment
Prior to hammer adjustment, make
increase in surface area per unit mass is
sure cork in sieve cover is seated firmly.
relatively small, Kick's Law is a reasonable
Make sure top edge flush upper carrying
approximation
Rittingers law States that the energy
plate.
required for size reduction is proportional to
the change in surface area of the pieces of
food
1. Removal pedestal cover
2. Jog Machine until hammer rises to a
maximum height, check height with scales.
3. Set height to 15/16 +/- 1/16. By loosening
screw on coupling and adjusting lift rod.
4. Tighten screw on coupling.
5. Replace pedestal cover.
III. Procedure
Starting the Shaker
1. Make sure a sieve track is in place at this
time. Set the test run time, by simply turning
the thumb wheel (+) or (-) to the desired
procedure must be done on other sieves in
time in the digital window.
2. Push the start bar to start test and note
the stack.
countdown time. An audible tone will be
heard in the end of the test. You can
interrupt the step at any time, by simply
IV. Results
Differential Analysis
Crusher
pushing the stop bar.
Mesh no.
Xi
Dave
+20
0.9417
0.328
20/40
0.016321
0.0233
at critical sizes. Critical sizes are usually
40/60
0.024957
0.01175
stated in a product specification.
2. Assemble a test of sieves with coarsest
60/80
0.004059
0.0083
opening on top of the stack.
80/100
0.001641
0.00635
3. Place the test sieve stack into the sieve
100/200
0.006649
0.00435
shaker, and place the cover on top of the
-200
0.004663
Performing a Sieve Analysis
1. Select a set of test sieves with mesh
openings that will reveal particle distribution
stack. The sieve must be secured into place.
The shaker should be operated at proper
length of time.
4. After completion of the agitation, weigh
the material retained on each sieve in order
to record the date.
5. Using the extra bottom pan, empty the
materials retained on the coarsest sieve into
the pan.
If t several extra pans are available, it is best
not to discard this portion of the sample until
the entire process is completed. Same
Pulverizer
Mesh no.
Xi
Dave
+20
0.929943
0.328
20/40
0.02574
0.0233
40/60
0.012358
0.01775
60/80
0.00677
0.00833
80/100
0.02755
0.00635
100/200
0.012201
0.00435
-200
0.010233
Crusher
Mesh no.
20
40
60
80
100
200
Xi
1
0.05829
0.041969
0.017012
0.012953
0.011313
Crusher
True Arithmetic
mean diameter
Mean Surface
Dave
0.039
0.0328
0.0138
0.0097
0.0069
0.0058
Mesh
Xi
Dave
no.
20
40
60
80
100
200
1
0.070057
0.044317
0.031958
0.025189
0.022434
0.039
0.0328
0.0138
0.0097
0.0069
0.0058
0.094036
2.42x10-6
0.007561
Pulverizer
diameter
Mean Volume
diameter
Specific Surface
0.008764
0.0077562
1.61x10-6
0.007657
Energy Requirement
Pulverizer
Kr=75.9 cm2/kgcm
E=P /m=Kr(
Pulverizer
0.11167
diameter
Mean Volume
diameter
Specific Surface
True Arithmetic
mean diameter
Mean Surface
Cumulative Analysis
Characteristic of the Solid
1
1
)
D2 D1
where:
D2=mean surface diameter at
product
D1=mean surface diameter at
pulverizer feed
E=67.372
V. Discussion of Results
Based on the proceeding results, the rock fed
feed and product are obtained. There was no
to the crusher and pulverizer was reduced to
computed energy requirement for since no
varying smaller sizes. The size distribution
feed size analysis was done.
range was determined by the screen analysis
and the results were tabulated and plotted. It
clearly shows that most of the products of
crushers are still very large which is verified
by the high mass fraction retained of
94.171% on the mesh 20. Though similar in
plot diagram, the pulverizer produced
greater number of smaller particles which is
reflected by the mass fractions of 0.012201
The energy analysis of the pulverizer gives a
very low value compared to theoretical
which yields a very low crushing efficiency
too. This problem must have arisen from the
unknown
feed
undetermined
screen
pulverizer
analysis
and
and
crusher
capacity.
VI. Conclusion and Recommendation
& 0.01023 for the retained in mesh 200 and
through,
The crusher equipment is best suited for
respectively. In addition, the cumulative
coarse materials while pulverizer is for
plots, Figures 5 & 6, and the histograms
producing more fine particles. Pulverizers
further shows that there are more rock
need more energy than crushers since
particles that pass through the sieves of
pulverizers has products with larger specific
specific size (mesh 60 of pulverizer)
surface and thus more created area which is
indicating the efficiency of the pulverizer to
directly
create more smaller particles than the
equipment . This was also supported by the
crusher.
smaller mean surface diameter of the
that
of
which
that
passed
product
The solid characteristics were also obtained
and it was found to be comparable with each
other. Obviously, the physical characteristics
proportional
materials
of
to
the
the
energy
pulverizer
(0.077562 inch in the experiment) compared
to that of the crushers (0,0940 inch in the
experiment.)
are not the same but the internal specific
surface is quite close, i.e. 7561.21 for
It is recommended however, to run screen
crusher and 7657.42 mm2/g for pulverizer.
analysis on the feed to the crusher to obtain
This further affirms that the efficiency of the
a new surface area created and thus obtain
pulverizer computed should be low since
an energy requirement. More uniform feed
only small difference in the surface area of
materials are also encourage and should fit
the crusher capacity to obtain a more
detailed results.
VII. References
McCabe, Smith, Harriott. (2006). Unit
Operations of Chemical Engineering
[Link]
com/Featured-Articles/112359-ParticleSize-Reduction-Studies-on-the-Lab-andCommercial-Scale-using-High-and-LowEnergy-Mills/
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
VII. References
McCabe, Smith, Harriett. (2006). Unit
Operations of Chemical Engineering
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
[Link]
Featured-Articles/112359-Particle-SizeReduction-Studies-on-the-Lab-and-CommercialScale-using-High-and-Low-Energy-Mills/
[Link]
[Link], Smith, Harriett. (2006). Unit
Operations of Chemical Engineering
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
[Link]
Featured-Articles/112359-Particle-SizeReduction-Studies-on-the-Lab-and-CommercialScale-using-High-and-Low-EnergyMillsMcCabe, Smith, Harriett. (2006). Unit
Operations of Chemical Engineering
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
[Link]
Featured-Articles/112359-Particle-Size-Reducti