CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Screen Analysis is an examination of sample by passing the particles of the sample
through screens whose opening gradually decrease in size and by measuring the amount
retained on each screen.
In mineral processing, screen analysis is the simplest yet most widely used quality
control procedure for reasons such as efficiency and low cost. Also in this context screening
involves separating particles of a sample according to size through screens, there are different
kind of screens but the sieve used here is the wire-mesh screen.
Screening analysis can also be used to is to determine the percentage of certain
particles present in the samples and, as common practice, in the oversize. From these, the
efficiency of the screens may be determined. Through screening, there is an observable
particle size distribution (PSD) that is used in mineral industry to select appropriate
subsequent processes that the material may undergo. For instance, the finer particles may be
sent for fines dense medium separation (DMS) and the larger particle may be sent for coarse
DMS. Likewise, the finer particles may continue to a leaching process and the larger particles
be sent back for re-crushing.

The efficiency of the screening process is determined by a set of factors: the type of
screen used (static or vibrating), type of panels used (steel or rubber), panel size and
geometry (square panel or rectangular), feed rate (particle speed and throw), and the
phenomena of probability and stratification. The factors are not limited to the above-
mentioned. Another, is whether the screening process is dry or wet. Both have their merits,
but the latter is preferred because it does not generate dust. In this experiment, 250g of sand
is used. Thereafter, 250g sample of the sand (wet and dry) is sieved in the lab using Tyler
mesh sieves.

1.1 AIMS & OBJECTIVES

 Determination of mass fraction as a function of particle diameter and screen
effectiveness.

1.2 SIGNIFICANCE/IMPORTANCE OF SCREENING ANALYSIS

 For research of samples.
 Determination of particle size of various samples.

1.3 LIMITATIONS OF SCREEN ANALYSIS

 Wet samples tend to hardly sieve through all the screens

Page | 1
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 BACKGROUND THEORY
Screening analysis is very important for analysing samples because particle size
distribution can affect a wide range of properties, such as strength of concrete, the solubility
of a mixture, surface area properties and even their taste. For this experiment it is important
to know about the mesh number or mesh size. The number of openings across one linear inch
of the screen is defined as the mesh number or mesh size. For example a 10-mesh screen will
have 10 openings per linear inch. As mesh size increases, the size of particles decreases.
Higher numbers indicate finer particles therefore there is any inverse relationship between
mesh size and size of particles.

Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

This is an index indicating what particle sizes of particles are present in a certain
proportion (relative particle amount as a percentage where the total amount of the particle is
100%) in the sample particle group to be measured.
Particle Size Distribution is used to analyse specific size of mineral. When minerals
are broken by one of mineral processing methods, a continuous size distribution will be
produced by particles. This distribution will show from the finest size of particles to the
coarsest particles.
Screening methods were developed to quantify the size distribution of particle, and one of the
most popular equation is Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann equation. In this equation y-axis shows
the fraction of the mineral which is smaller than size (cumulative %), and x-axis normally
shows particle size of mineral

Fig 2.1 Particle Size Distribution

Page | 2
 CHAPTER THREE
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS

Figure 3.1
Set of Sieve: This is where samples to be screen is poured into (mesh 10) for shaking in the
experiment, there were five sieves used.

Figure 3.2

Mechanical Sieve Shaker: This is an electric sieve shaker, that shakes the samples for
screening for the allocated time.

Figure 3.3

Wet Sand Sample: This is one of the two samples to be used.

Page | 3
 Figure 3.4

Dry Sand Sample: This is one of the two samples to be used.

Figure 3.5

Brush: This is used to clean the residue sand from sieve after shaking to avoid accumulation.

Figure 3.6

Weighing Balance: This is used to weigh the mass of the two samples used.

Figure 3.7

Bowl: This is where the samples were stored after weighing and before being poured to the
set of sieve.

Page | 4
3.1 PROCEDURE
 250g of both the dry and wet sample was weighed as first,
 The set of standard screens was arranged serially in stock with smallest mesh
at the bottom and the largest mesh at the top,
 The sample of dry sand was placed on the top of the biggest mesh/screen and
shaking of the stock began for 7 minutes, the same was done for the wet sand,
 The particles on each screen was removed and weighed, the masses weighed
was converted to mass fraction of the total sample.

Page | 5
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULT/CALCULATION
This are the data generated in a tabular form, calculation of result and discussion of result.
Dry sand of mass = 250g Wet sand of mass = 250g

TABLE 4.1
Mesh Screen Mass Mass Feed Mass Cumulative
Size opening(mm) overflow(g)
underflow (g) fraction fraction
(g) retained
10 2.000 12.26 237.74 250 0.05 0.05
20 0.841 30.00 207.74 237.74 0.126 0.176
40 0.400 78.47 129.27 207.74 0.378 0.554
60 0.250 62.50 66.70 129.27 0.48 1.03
80 0.1777 40.76 26.01 66.7 0.61 1.64
DATA AND CALCULATED VALUES FOR DRY SAND SAMPLE

CALCULATIONS FOR MASS FRACTION OF SAND RETAINED

mass of sand retained(g)
Mass fraction of overflow sand on the mesh =
mass of feed( g)
12,26(g) 30( g)
Mass fraction of mesh size 10 = = 0.05 Mass fraction of mesh size 20 = =
250(g) 237.74(g)
0.126

78.47( g) 62.50( g)
Mass fraction of mesh size 40 = = 0.378 Mass fraction of mesh size 60 =
207.74(g) 129.27(g)
=0.484

40.76( g)
Mass fraction of mesh size 80 = = 0.61
66.7(g)

Mass fraction of underflow sand on the mesh X B = 1−mass fraction of overflow(1−X D)

Mass fraction of mesh size 10 = 1-0.05 = 0.95 Mass fraction of mesh size 20 = 1-0.126 = 0.874

Mass fraction of mesh size 40 = 1-0.378 = 0.622 Mass fraction of mesh size 60 = 1-0.48 = 0.52
Mass fraction of mesh size 80 = 1-0.61 = 0.39

Overall Effectiveness
E = E A × EB

Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 10 = 0.05 × 0.95 = 0.0475

Page | 6
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 20 = 0.126 × 0.874 = 0.11
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 40 = 0.378 × 0.662 = 0.25
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 60 = 0.48 × 0.52 = 0.2496
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 80 = 0.61 × 0.39 = 0.2379

Graph of 𝑋𝐷 against particle size

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
𝑋𝐷

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
screen opening (mm))

Graph of cummulative fraction against particle size

1.8
1.6
cummulative fraction

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
screen opening (mm)

Page | 7
 TABLE 4.2
Mesh Screen Mass
Mass Feed Mass Cumulative
Size opening(mm) overflow(g)
underflow (g) fraction fraction
(g) retained
10 2.000 104.61 145.39 250 0.418 0.418
20 0.841 130.54 14.85 145.39 0.898 1.316
40 0.400 8.32 6.53 14.85 0.560 1.876
60 0.250 0 0 0 0 1.876
80 0.1777 0 0 0 0 1.876
DATA AND CALCULATED VALUES FOR WET SAND SAMPLE

CALCULATIONS FOR MASS FRACTION OF SAND RETAINED

mass of sand retained(g)
Mass fraction of overflow sand on the mesh =
mass of feed( g)
104,61( g) 130.54(g)
Mass fraction of mesh size 10 = = 0.418 Mass fraction of mesh size 20 = =
250 (g) 145.39(g)
0.898

8.32(g) 0(g)
Mass fraction of mesh size 40 = = 0.56 Mass fraction of mesh size 60 = =0
14.85(g) 0(g)
0(g)
Mass fraction mesh size 80 = =0
0(g)

Mass fraction of underflow sand on the mesh X B = 1−mass fraction of overflow(1−X D)

Mass fraction of mesh size 10 = 1-0.418 = 0.582 Mass fraction of mesh size 20 = 1-0.898 = 0.102

Mass fraction of mesh size 40 = 1-0.56 = 0.44 Mass fraction of mesh size 60 = 1-0 = 1
Mass fraction mesh size 80 = 1-0 = 1

Overall Effectiveness
E = E A × EB

Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 10 = 0.418 × 0.582 = 0.243

Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 20 = 0.126 × 0.874 = 0.11
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 40 = 0.378 × 0.662 = 0.246

Page | 8
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 60 = 0 × 1 = 0
Overall effectiveness of the mesh size 80 = 0 × 1 = 0

Graph of 𝑋𝐷 against particle size

1
0.8
0.6
𝑋𝐷

0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
screen opening (mm)

Graph of Cummulative Fraction against Particle Size

2
1.8
1.6
cummulative fraction

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
screen opening (mm)

4.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULT

The table above shows the data used for plotting, the PSD curves. From the tables and
result calculated, It can be seen that the mass fraction increases as the mesh size increases
having a linear relationship between them. Something to be noted is that the total mass
recorded on the sieves is not equal to the mass that was fed into the stock of screens but we
assume accumulation is equal to zero. The initial mass was 250g, whereas the sum of the total
mass recovered from each screen is less than 250g. The system experienced losses, In this
regard, some of the material was lost. Theory states that there exists certain characteristics of
particles that may influence their behaviour during sieving. These include shape, moisture
content, and size distribution of the feed. It may be said that the material was lost by human
error i.e. inappropriate handling of the sieves. Some material was lost when the sieves were

Page | 9
separated and some when the sieves were lifted and material fell through to the lab floor.
Further material was lost when the material was being transferred from the sieves to the
weighing container or also accumulation in the holes of the screen.

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION
Upon analysis of the experimental results it can be concluded that some material were
lost between the feed and product although accumulation was assumed to be zero. This can
be accounted for by blinding due to near-size particles being pegged in the apertures. The
efficiency of the screen for different mesh sizes were was found to be below 25%, which is
very much lower than the typical industry standard of 95%. The screen was over-fed and that
explains the fines reporting to the over-size launder. Hence, a low screen efficiency. Also it
can be concluded that wet samples tend to screen less due to the water molecules that
increase the size of the particle.
Also to note that there is an inverse relationship between the screen opening and the
mass fraction i.e. decrease in the screen opening will give an increase in the mass fraction.

5.1 RECOMMENDATION
 The stock of screens should be replaced to minimise material losses and to
improve screen efficiency.
 A longer sieving time may have been appropriate. This is because when the
sieves were handled, some particles still fell through the mesh.
 Provision of a mechanical sieve shaker to shake the sieve appropriately.

5.2 REFERENCES
 JVI, 2016, Classifying Vibrating Screen.
https://www:jvivibratoryequipment:com/products/vibrating–
screens/classifying-screens
 911 Metallurgist, 2016. Sieve Analysis Explained.
https://www:911metallurgist.com/blog/sieve-analysis-explained
 MarcTech, 2010. Tyler Sieve Shakers.
http://www:marctech:com/au/laboratory products-solutions=particle-sizing-
systems/haver-boecker–sieve-shakers-and-sieves-2/

Page | 10