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
http://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.
com/Featured-Articles/112359-ParticleSize-Reduction-Studies-on-the-Lab-andCommercial-Scale-using-High-and-LowEnergy-Mills/
http://www.nzifst.org.nz/unitoperations/sizer
eduction.htm
http://www.stedman-machine.com/particlesize-reduction.html
VII. References
McCabe, Smith, Harriett. (2006). Unit
Operations of Chemical Engineering
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
http://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/
Featured-Articles/112359-Particle-SizeReduction-Studies-on-the-Lab-and-CommercialScale-using-High-and-Low-Energy-Mills/

http://www.nzifst.org.nz/unitoperations/sizeredu
ction.htmMcCabe, Smith, Harriett. (2006). Unit
Operations of Chemical Engineering
Perry, Green: Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook
http://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/
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

http://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/
Featured-Articles/112359-Particle-Size-Reducti