Interdisciplinary Journal of Engineering Sciences Vol.IV, No.

1 (2016)
http://ijes.pwr.wroc.pl

Particle size distribution determination methods comparison

based on sieve analysis and laser method

KATARZYNA ŻEGLEŃ, DOMINIKA GRYGIER,

ANDRZEJ AMBROZIAK, MARIUSZ TULEJ*

Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials
Science, Strength and Welding Technology, ul. Smoluchowskiego 25 50-372 Wrocław, Poland
*
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27 50-370 Wrocław, Poland

Abstract: The article presents the methods of size analysis implementation. It contents a sieving method and
laser diffraction method (also known as a laser method). The content includes the characteristics of the selected
methods which were presented. Comparison is supported by results of sieve analysis and the laser method. The
subject of the researches was iron powder applied in the production of metal cored electrodes used for welding
of steel. This powder is characterized by a particle size of about 250 μm.

Keywords: sieve analysis, laser method, particle size distribution

Streszczenie: Artykuł prezentuje metody wykonania analizy granulometrycznej. Wśród nich należy wymienić
metodę sitową oraz metodę dyfrakcji laserowej (zwanej również metodą laserową). W treści zawarto
charakterystykę po szczególnych metod oraz zwrócono uwagę na istotne różnice między nimi. Analizę
porównawczą poparto wynikami otrzymanymi z metody sitowej oraz metody laserowej. Przedmiotem badań był
proszek żelaza mający zastosowanie przy produkcji rdzeni drutów proszkowych stosowanych do spawania stali.
Proszek ten charakteryzuje się wielkością ziaren rzędu 250 mikrometrów.

Słowa kluczowe: analiza sitowa, analiza laserowa, rozkład wielkości cząstek

1. Introduction analysis of the grain size, one of the following

methods can be used:
The article presents the results of analysis by the - aerometric - belonging to the group of
method of sieving and laser diffraction method. The sedimentation methods,
tests were performed for the iron powder which - pipette - belonging to the group of
found an application in the production of metal sedimentation methods,
cored electrode used for welding of steel. It is used - sieve - belonging to the group of mechanical
as a filler. Preliminary microscopic studies of iron methods,
powder allowed to define the maximum particle size - electronic - which included the laser diffraction
observed. That size was about 300 μm. method.
The term of fraction is often repeated in the Depending on the size of the examined particles
article and is worth explaining. In the context of the different methods of researches are used. For
researches, the fraction should be understood as particles with size more than 0.07 mm preferable is
a part of a whole, which is obtained from the sieve method. Whereas for particles with size below
separation of the material. Obtaining fractions is this value it is recommended to use one of
possible due to various physical properties of the aerometric methods. When the particles are in the
material. Referring to tests to determine the particle two above-mentioned ranges, the combined method
size distribution, the feature is the particle size. is used. It is based on a combination of sieving and
Grain size analysis is a type of research materials sedimentation method (eg. Pipetting).
in order to determine the participation of particles Even though there is a size limit of particles that
with specific sizes. For materials that can be suggest the use one of the method, the choice of
examined by this method are, for example, clay, research should be borne in mind according to the
metal powders, excavated material. To perform the possibility of measuring devices.

19
Interdisciplinary Journal of Engineering Sciences Vol.IV, No.1 (2016)
http://ijes.pwr.wroc.pl

Each of these specified methods has different material. The difference in a sieve weight before and
physical value which is measured and which is the after analysis allowed to determine the mass of each
basis for determining particle size distribution. fraction. Referring to the mass of summarized
Differentiation also comes from the phenomena on deposits collected on sieves, percentages of each
which these methods are basing, and for example the fraction was calculated.
amount of material which is needed to carry out the
measurement. 2.2. Laser diffraction method
Accordingly, the results obtained by different
methods can not be compared directly [1]. There is The laser analysis was performed using
a chance that the results will be similar, but they can Mastersizer S (Malvern Instruments Ltd).
not be treated synonymously. Parameters of laser which was used in the analysis
The article presents the results of sieve analysis were: 2 mW He-Ne laser with 633 nm wavelength
and the analysis included laser diffraction method. and 18 mm beam diameter, collimated and spatially
In the case of performing the analysis manually filtered to a single transverse mode [3].
(the mechanical group) a set of sieves should be The construction of the device can be divided
prepared. Received result of shaking is the material into three parts. The first includes the optical
divided into fractions. The ranges in which fraction elements. There are: laser, spatial filter, collimating
will be occurring depends on the nominal size of the lenses, focusing lens. Next part which include
holes in the sieve mesh. Their sizes are standardized recording elements that are directly connected with
and included in the norm [2]. Number of optical elements. These include the detector (which
compartments (and fractions) will depend on the is the common element between the two parts),
amounts of the sieves. Today more common method electrical coupling, serial communication connection
is the sieve analysis performed on special equipment and a computer. The last part of this system is the
designed for this purpose. dispersing starter with a flow cell. In the starter, the
The position to carry out the sieve analysis consists powder is poured into a liquid for example water.
of various elements like vibration shaker, Then, the mixture moves through the pipes to the
a set of sieves, laboratory weight and ultrasonic flow cell where is the laser light scattering.
washer.
2.3. Difference between sieve and laser method
2. Materials and methods
Significant difference between the described
2.1. Sieve analysis methods is the amount of test material for example
powder. For the laser method only approximately
This method of analysis belongs to the group of 1 g of material is enough. This is a small amount that
mechanical methods. In order to conduct researches allows to obtain the results showing the size
an adequate apparatus and equipment is needed. distribution of the particle size without the need to
During the sieving, the most important parameters dedicate a main part of the test material. For
are the amplitude and time of shaking. Before comparison, in a sieve analysis about 100 cm3 of
starting the sieving, the right amount of sample of material is required. Weight of the sample depends
the material should be kept. The guidelines can be on the powder density. This can relate to a sample
found in the standard [2]. Sieve analysis was mass of a few hundred grams.
performed by using: Another difference is the time of the analysis.
- vibratory shaker FRITCH model Analysette The sieve analysis of a single shaking time is
3 PRO, 5 minutes. This is only fraction of the time needed
- set of sieves FRITCH of the nominal mesh size for the investigation of the powder. It should be
of: 20, 40, 50, 56, 63, 71, 80, 100, 125, 160, 180, noticed that during the shaking, on the vibratory
200 i 250 μm, shaker only six sieves can be placed. For example,
- laboratory weight RADWAG model: WPS when a sample needs 14 of sieves, the same time of
1200/C/2 with an accuracy of 0.01g, the analysis is extended to 15 minutes. More time
- ultrasonic cleaner ULTRON U-24 model; should be added for weighing the sieves before and
washing parameters: wash time was 10 minutes after analysis. In addition, it is required to clean and
with vibration frequency of 21.5 kHz and wash dry the surface of the sieves, which takes
temperature 28°C. additionally about 40 minutes. Depending on the
arrangement of the used devices and the number of
The study used a sample of the iron powder with sieves, the total range of time for a single powder
a mass of 362 g. Before starting shaking, used sieves investigation may take from 1.25 hours to 2 hours.
were weighted. The analysis was carried out on a dry Whereas execution of the analysis using laser
sieves at an amplitude of 1.5 mm for 5 minutes on diffraction takes about one minute. Time for the
a vibratory shaker. After the end of sieving, each of calibration and cleaning equipment after the analysis
the sieve was weighted together with the set

20
Interdisciplinary Journal of Engineering Sciences Vol.IV, No.1 (2016)
http://ijes.pwr.wroc.pl

should be added. It can be assumed that the total 200≥d>180 180

analysis time is approximately 20 minutes.
180≥d>160 160
Next difference between these methods is the
influence of particle shape on the results of analyzes. 160≥d>125 125
In the laser analysis, the effect of the shape of 125≥d>100 100
particles is significant. This is due to the way the of
100≥d>80 80
registration the size of the particle. In this method,
each particle, regardless of the shape is 80≥d>71 71
approximated by a circle. In addition during the 71≥d>63 63
registration the particles of larger size can cover
63≥d>56 56
particles of the smaller size [1]. Then the received
spectrum do not consist the results from the all of 56≥d>50 50
parts. The effect of the particle shape in a sieve 50≥d>40 40
analysis is not so significant.
40≥d>20 20
The final undersize
3. Results d≤20
grain

3.1. Results of sieve analysis Sum

Output mass:
The results of the analysis and the used Sum of the
parameters with the exact characteristics of the fractions mass:
equipment taking into account the shape and size of Losses:
the sieves, a mesh shape or the way of shaking are
always presented in the table like table 1. In column 3.2. Results of laser diffraction method
number 1 there are limit values of the size of each
fractions. In the second column the difference in The results of analysis which uses laser
weight of the sieve before and after sieve analysis diffraction method carried out for iron powder with a
was placed. Third column shows the percentage of particle size less than 250 microns are presented in
each fractions. Column 4 contains the nominal mesh this subsection. Table 2 contains the results of only a
size of sieve. In the last column the percentage of fraction with participation greater than 0%. Particles
grain collecting is placed. The results could be which size was in the range below 3.21 micrometers
presents as a diagram of collective grain [%] and and above 265.4 μm had a zero percentage of
nominal mesh size [μm] or sieve fractions [%] and participation.
nominal mesh size [μm]. The second way is more On the basis of this values, the relation was
clearly and it is needed to compare sieve and laser plotted (fig. 1). It shows that the major grain size is
analysis. in section from 24 up to 200μm. Their participation
is bigger than 1%. There is only one section from 93
Tab. 1. Table for results from sieve analysis to 108 μm which is definitely lower then adjacent
Material: sections. The partitions out of this range were
detected, but their participation is minimal. They
Method of sieving: Dry / Wet
have too small size or they can be a measurements
The size [mm] and shape of error.
200
the sieve:
Round / Squared Tab. 2. Results of the analysis of the laser iron
Woven wire / Perforated sheet / powder
Sieving element:
Electrochemically perforated sheet
No. Size [μm] Volume [%]
Signage sieve: Manually / mechanically 1 3.46 0.01
2 3.73 0.02
Type: xyz
3 4.02 0.03
The shape of the mesh: Round / squared
4 4.33 0.02
Time of sieving [min] 5 5 4.66 0.02
Amplitude [mm] 1.5 6 5.03 0.03
1 2 3 4 5 7 5.42 0.03
8 5.84 0.03
The sieve Nominal Collective
Grain size 9 6.29 0.04
fractions mesh size grain
μm g % μm % 10 6.78 0.04
11 7.31 0.04
315≥d>250 250
12 7.88 0.05
250≥d>200 200 13 8.49 0.05

21
Interdisciplinary Journal of Engineering Sciences Vol.IV, No.1 (2016)
http://ijes.pwr.wroc.pl

14 9.15 0.06 3.3. Comparison of sieve analysis and the laser

15 9.86 0.07 diffraction method
16 10.62 0.09
17 11.45 0.10 In order to observe the difference between the
18 12.34 0.13 results of sieve analysis and the results of the laser
19 13.30 0.16 analysis, they were compared with each other. Due
20 14.33 0.19 to the greater number of ranges of particle size in the
21 15.45 0.24 laser analysis, they were assigned to the ranges from
22 16.65 0.29 the sieve analysis (table 3). The ranges are the same
23 17.94 0.36 as nominal mesh size of sieves which were used in
24 19.33 0.45 sieve analysis. Percentages participation of every
25 20.84 0.55
part from laser analysis were summed for every
26 22.46 0.66
range which was determinate by used sieves.
The participation of each fractions from sieve
27 24.20 0.80
and laser analysis are presented in figure 2.
28 26.08 0.96
The comparison shows that the results of both
29 28.11 1.15
methods can be related to each other and the
30 30.29 1.35
differences are acceptable.
31 32.65 1.58
32 35.18 1.83
33 37.92 2.10 Tab. 3. The results of the analysis of the laser on the
34 40.86 2.38 iron powder, which are assigned and summarized
35 44.04 2.68 Number Nominal mesh Percentage
36 47.46 2.98 size [μm] share [%]
37 51.15 3.29 1 d≤20 2.1
38 55.12 3.60 2 40≥d>20 9.33
39 59.41 3.90 3 50≥d>40 7.16
40 64.02 4.19 4 56≥d>50 6.27
41 69.00 4.45 5 63≥d>56 3.6
42 74.36 4.67 6 71≥d>63 8.09
43 80.14 4.89 7 80≥d>71 4.45
44 86.36 5.12 8 100≥d>80 14.68
45 93.07 5.25 9 125≥d>100 15.45
46 100.3 2.19 10 160≥d>125 16.92
47 108.1 5.01 11 180≥d>160 3.13
48 116.5 4.77 12 200≥d>180 4.8
49 125.6 4.47 13 250≥d>200 3.82
50 135.3 4.07 14 315≥d>250 0.2
51 145.8 3.61
52 157.2 3.13
53 169.4 2.64
54 182.5 2.16
55 196.7 1.70
56 212.0 1.29
57 228.5 0.83
58 246.2 0.20

Fig. 2. Comparison of sieve and laser analyses

5. Conclusions

Today, the method of analysis of grain size have

a wide range of applications and possibilities.
Fig. 1. Graph is showing the results of analysis of Depending on the amount of testing material, the
laser carried out on iron powder. It presents the required accuracy or time of analysis, many
particle size distribution available analyzes can choose.

22
Interdisciplinary Journal of Engineering Sciences Vol.IV, No.1 (2016)
http://ijes.pwr.wroc.pl

Both presented methods can be successfully used References

to carried out the grain size partition. Sieve analysis
is more time-consuming, but one the advantage of [1] Płoskonka D., Differences in the results of grain
this method is small influence of shape of partitions. size analysis carried out by various methods,
Moreover, the price for all unnecessary equipment is Landform Analysis, vol. 12 (2010),
lower than device which uses laser diffraction.
s. 79-85
During comparison of both methods, every
differences between them must be well know. [2] PN-ISO 2591-1:2000 Sieve analysis – Methods
Moreover, the result should be bring to equal groups using fabric control sieves from wire and
in order to correct assigned. perforated sheet
The analysis of the results of the carried out [3] Basic instructions Mastersizer "Introductory
method (sieve and laser), allows to draw the instructions - software 2.1 and later”
conclusion that they can be successfully compared
with each other according to material with similar
construction to this presented in the article.
Analysis of the laser is the right choice in
a situation when short time of examination is
expected. The limitations connected with the used
technology and the method of measurement should
be noticed.

23