CHE 565

LAB 5: PARTICLE SIZING APPARATUS

ABSTRACT

In many industrial applications a single number will be required

to characterize the particle size of the powder. In many powder
handling and processing operations, particle size and size
distribution play a key role in determining the bulk properties of
the powder. Sieving is probably the easy and certainly the most
popular method of size analysis. Dry sieving using woven wire
sieves is a sample, cheap method of size analysis suitable for
particle sizes greater than 45 m. Sieving gives a mass
distribution and size known as the sieve diameter. Since the
length of the particle does not hinder its passage through the
sieve apertures, the sieve diameter is dependent on the maximum
width and maximum thickness of the particle. This experiment
done to determined the distribution of particles by using sieving
method. The sieve must be clean and dry before starting the
experiment. Weight 200g of sand and put its onto the sieve.
After 15 minutes, the shaker stopped the sand particles left on
each screen are weighted. The average sand sieve can be
calculated through sieve apertures, dpi of the sand on each tray.

CHE 565
LAB 5: PARTICLE SIZING APPARATUS

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Particle size measurement is an extremely important parameter across most branches of

industry.
The stability, chemical reactivity, opacity, flow ability and material strength of many
materials are affected by the size and characteristics of the particles within them. Getting
things right at every stage of production, from R & D through to manufacture and quality
control of the finished product is vital. Malvern has a range of sizing solutions from subnanometer to millimeters in size.
Malvern Instruments is the worlds leading supplier of particle size measurement
instrumentation. However, in this experiment screening method is the one that would be
looked for. Screening is a method of separating particles according to the size.
In industrial screening, the solids are dropped on or thrown against a screening surface. A
single screen can make a single separation into two fractions. A material passed through a
series of screens of different sizes is separated into size fractions, example fractions in
which both the maximum and minimum particles sizes are known. Screening is
occasionally done wet but much more commonly dry. For very fine particles other
methods of separation are more economical. Many varieties and types of screen are
available for different purposes.
On the other hand, sieving is probably the easy and certainly the most popular method of
size analysis. Dry sieving using woven wire sieves is a sample, cheap method of size
analysis suitable for particle sizes greater than 45 m. Sieving gives a mass distribution
and size known as the sieve diameter.

Most laboratory tests use only a small sample and this has to be taken from a production
stream or from an existing, stored material. This sample has to be the representative of
whole material. By taking many small samples from all parts of total which, when

CHE 565
LAB 5: PARTICLE SIZING APPARATUS

combined, will represent the total with an acceptable degree of accuracy. This means that
all particles in the total must have the same probability of being included in the final
sample.

Even though we usually assume particles to be spherical in most our calculations, this is
not necessarily true and may contribute error in our experimentation and analyses. The
precise shape of the particles used (coal, catalyst, resin, paint pigment, drug powder etc.)
and their dispersion make most particle size analysis a difficult endeavor to achieve.
Since the only measurement we can easily use to describe a particle of any shape that has
increased or decreased during processing is the equivalent sphere concept, we easily
fall into the trap assuming that all particles are spherical in nature.

In most practical applications, the population of powders must be described by a single

number. In practice, the particle sizing is important to use the method of size
measurement, which directly gives the particle size, which is relevant to the situation, or
process of interest. Example methods of measurement are:
1. Laser diffraction (Malvern Master Sizer)
2. Electro zone sensing (Coulter Counter)
3. Sieves
4. Sedimentation _ paint and ceramic industry
5. Microscopy (SEM)

CHE 565
LAB 5: PARTICLE SIZING APPARATUS

2.0

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this experiment is to study the distribution of particles.

3.0

THEORY

If the powder mass M has a size range consisting of Np1 spherical particles of size d1, Np2
of size d2, and so on, the surface/volume size:
3

d sv =
d sv =

N p1d1 + N p 2 d 23 + .....
N p1d12 + N p 2 d 22 + .....

1
( x / d )

When sieving is used d1, d2,are replaced by averages of adjacent sieve apertures, d pi,
and the equation becomes:
d pi =

1
( xi / d pi )

There is no entirely satisfactory way of comparing the width of size distribution of two
powders having different mean sizes, nor of defining how wide a distribution is. One
useful way is to specify the relative spread, /dpm, and the spread is obtained from the
cumulative percentage undersize vs. the size plot.
The spread is define as:

d84% d16%
2

dpm = the spread when the distribution is 50% from the whole range.

4.0

PROCEDURES
1. The sieve trays are cleaned using a brush and air jet.
2. The trays are stacked together vertically with largest aperture on top and the
smallest aperture on the bottom. Sand is then weighted for 200 grams.
3. The sand is transferred onto the sieve.
4. The sieve shaker is ensured to be closed.
5. The timer of the sieve shaker is set for 15 minutes and it is switched on.
6. When the shaker stopped, the sand particles left on each screen including the
bottom are weighted.
7. The distributions of particles are noted down.
8. The sieve trays are cleaned when finished.

5.0

APPARATUS
1. Sieve trays
2. Sieve shaker machine
3. Brush
4. Air jet equipment
5. Sand

Sieve
treys

Sieve
shaker
machine

Figure 1: Sample of sieve shaker that using for this experiment

6.0

Sieve aperture,
m

RESULTS

Size dpi, m

Weight Sieve

Weight Sieve +

(g)

Sand (g)

Weight Sand (g)

Weight

Cumulative

Percentage in

Percentage Under

Range, Xi

Size

Xidpi

Xi/dpi

500 - 425

462.5

309.96

310.12

0.16

0.080

100.00

37.000

0.00017300

425 - 250

337.5

299.45

299.49

0.04

0.020

99.920

6.750

0.00005926

250 -200

225.0

275.20

335.66

60.46

30.230

99.900

6801.750

0.13440000

200 - 180

190.0

275.70

292.58

16.88

8.440

69.670

1603.600

0.04.442000

180 - 150

165.0

267.86

271.34

3.48

1.740

61.230

287.100

0.01055000

150 - 75

112.5

269.01

305.38

36.37

18.185

59.490

2045.813

0.16160000

75 - 0

37.5

260.60

343.52

82.92

41.460

41.305

1554.750

1.10600000

bottom pan

0.0

244.94

244.94

0.00

0.000

-0.155

0.000

Total

200.31

Table 6.1: Data for Particle Distribution

1.45700000

Cumulative % Undersize versus Size dpi

120.00
100.00

cumulative %

80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.0
50.0
-20.00
dp 16% = 18

100.0

150.0

dpm = 173 m

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

dp 84% = 202

dpi

Figure 6.1: Graph of Cumulative Percentage Undersize Versus dpi

400.0

450.0

500.0

Weight % of Sand (Xi) versus Size (dpi)

50.000

37.5

40.000

Xi

30.000

225.0
112.5

20.000

190.0

10.000
0.000
-10.000

165.0

0.0

0.0

337.5

100.0

462.5

200.0

300.0

dpi
Figure 6.2: Weight percentage in range versus dpi

400.0

500.0

Cumulative
Percentage
Under Size
100
99.96
99.925
59.075
48.35
46.51
29.755
-0.01

Harmonic
Mean (1/dpi)
0.0022
0.0030
0.0044
0.0053
0.0061
0.0089
0.0267
0.0000

Area
0.00010
0.00013
0.19828
0.06072
0.01375
0.29787
0.39687
0.00000
0.96772

Table 6.2: Data for Harmonic Mean

Harmonic Mean Graph

Cumulative % Undersize

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0000
-20

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

Harmonic Mean (1/dpi)

Figure 6.3: Cumulative Percentage Undersize versus Harmonic Mean

Cumulative
Percentage
Under Size
100
99.96
99.925
59.075
48.35
46.51
29.755
-0.01

Quadratic
Mean (dp)
2.14E+05
1.14E+05
5.06E+04
3.61E+04
2.72E+04
1.27E+04
1.41E+03
0.00E+00

Area
6.56E+03
2.88E+03
1.77E+06
3.40E+05
3.67E+04
1.18E+05
2.09E+04
0.00E+00
2.30E+06

Table 6.3: Data for Quadratic Mean

Quadratic Mean graph

Cumulative % Undersize

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00E+00
-20

5.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.50E+05

2.00E+05

2.50E+05

Quadratic Mean (dp2)

Figure 6.4: Cumulative Percentage Undersize versus Quadratic Mean

Cumulative

Geometric

Percentage

Mean (log dpi,

Under Size
100
99.96
99.925
59.075
48.35
46.51
29.755
-0.01

m)
2.6651
2.5283
2.3522
2.2788
2.2175
2.0512
1.5740
0.0000

Area
0.104
0.085
94.587
24.111
3.927
30.370
23.426
0.000
176.610

Table 6.4: Data for Geometric Mean

Geometric Mean Graph

Cumulative % Undersize

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0000
-20

0.5000

1.0000

1.5000

2.0000

2.5000

3.0000

Geometric Mean (log dpi)

Figure 6.5: Cumulative Percentage Undersize versus Geometric Mean

Cumulative
Percentage
Under Size
100
99.96
99.925
59.075
48.35
46.51
29.755
-0.01

Arithmetic
Mean dpi,m
462.5
337.5
225.0
190.0
165.0
112.5
37.5
0.0

Area
1.600E+01
9.844E+00
8.476E+03
1.904E+03
2.553E+02
1.257E+03
5.581E+02
0.000E+00
1.248E+04

Table 6.5: Data for Arithmetic Mean

Arithmetic Mean Graph

120.00

Cumulative %

100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
-20.00

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

dpi

Figure 6.6: Cumulative percentage undersize versus arithmetic mean

Cumulative
Percentage
Under Size
100
99.96
99.925
59.075
48.35
46.51
29.755
-0.01

Cubic Mean
(dp)
9.893E+07
3.844E+07
1.139E+07
6.859E+06
4.492E+06
1.424E+06
5.273E+04
0.000E+00

Area
2.75E+06
8.72E+05
3.73E+08
6.09E+07
5.44E+06
1.24E+07
7.85E+05
0.00E+00
4.56E+08

Table 6.6: Data for Cubic Mean

Cubic Mean Graph

120
Cumulative % Udersize

100
80
60
40
20

0
-2.000E+07 0.000E+00 2.000E+07 4.000E+07 6.000E+07 8.000E+07 1.000E+08 1.200E+08
-20
Cubic Mean (dp3)

Figure 6.7: Cumulative Percentage Undersize versus Cubic Mean

7.0

SAMPLE OF CALCULATIONS

From Table 1:

Size dpi, m =

500 + 425
= 462.5m
2

From Figure 6.1, the value of median, dpm the size corresponding to the 50% value is 173
m.

The relative spread, d

pm

d84% d16%
2

202 16
2

= 93 m
93 m
Hence, relative spread = 173m

= 0.536
From Table A in Appendix A, the type distribution of the particle is wide.
From Figure 4, cumulative percentage undersize Vs arithmetic mean ,dpi
d p,a

Total area
100

d p ,a

12475.925
100

d p ,a

= 124.75 m

From Figure 5, cumulative percentage undersize Vs harmonic mean, 1/dp

d p,h

Total area
100

d p ,h

0.96772
100

d p ,h

= 0.00968 m

From Figure 6, cumulative percentage undersize Vs geometric mean, Log dp

d p, g

Total area
100

d p,g

176.60986
100

d p, g

= 1.766 m

From Figure 7, cumulative percentage undersize Vs cubic mean, dp3

d p ,c

Total area
100

d p ,c

455835991.719
100

d p ,c

4558359.91 m

From Figure 8, cumulative percentage undersize Vs quadratic mean, dp2

d p ,q

Total area
100

d p ,q

2295801.844
100

d p,q

22958.01 m

8.0

DISCUSSION

There are many factors that determine the probability of a particle passing through the
sieve and these include the relationship of the size of the particle and the mesh opening,
the direction of movement and the orientation of the particle relative to the free sieving
surface. Therefore, the sieve movement and sieving time are critical elements to the exact
and clear separation of the individual size fractions.
Figure 6.1 in results section above, shows the Cumulative % undersize versus Size dpi
graph. This graph is plotted because a plot of cumulative % undersize can conceal
peculiarities of distributions or in other words the particle size distribution. Suppose the
results give a smooth orgif. Since this is an experiment, the curve that being obtained is
not smooth enough. Even this experiment is easy to hand on, there must be some error
occur during measuring these particles. From the graph, a value of median, dpm which
show the average size particle can be obtained. The value of median dpm corresponding to
the 50 % value on this graph is determined which is 173 m. From the same graph, the
value for d84% and d16% are both 202 and 16 respectively. Then, the value is used to
calculate the relative spread ( / dpm) of the sand particle which is 0.536. Based on Table
A in the Appendix A, the value of 0.536 lies between the seventh and eighth row, which
means the sand has wide type of distribution.
For Figure 6.2, the graph which is the weight % in range, xi, versus Size dpi, it is
discovered that the sand has an unusual distribution with bi-modal having two peaks.
This type of powder will not behave in a homogeneous way and cannot be characterized
by a single number.
The best way to determine the distribution of the original population of the particles is by
using graphical method because the distribution is more accurate. From Figure 6.6,
arithmetic mean graph show the value area under the graph is used to determine the value
of dp,a is 124.75 m. Arithmetic mean of surface distribution conserves the surface and
volume of original population which also known as surface-volume mean. A quadratic

mean of number distribution conserves the number and surface or original population and
is known as number surface mean. From Figure 6.7, the quadratic mean graph show
value of area under the curve is used to determine the value of dp,q is 22958.01 m.
The apertures of a sieve may be regarded as a series of gauges which reject or pass
particles as they are presented at the aperture. The probability that a particle will present
itself at an aperture depends on the following factors:
a) The particles size distribution of the powder
b) The number of particles on the sieve (load)
c) The physical properties of the particles (ex: surface)
d) The method of shaking the sieve
e) The dimension and shape of the particles
f) The geometry of the sieving surface (open area/total area)

9.0

CONCLUSIONS

Particle sizing analysis using sieves is a vital and often overlooked tool in the quality
evaluation of materials. However, this technique often treated as second class when
compared to other analytical procedures. The true end point of a sieving operation is
when every particle with a minimum square aperture smaller than the smallest sieve
opening in the mesh has passed through. It is known that the smaller the sieve aperture,
the greater the effect of overloading and the greater the discrepancies between the results
for different loadings.
From the experiment observations, the value of average sand sieve through sieve
aperture, dpi, of the sand on each tray is 462.5 m, 337.5 m, 225.0 m, 190.0 m, 165.0
m, 112.5 m, and 37.5 m.
Since this experiment is done in order to study the distribution of particle sizing, found
that from the graph that has been plotted, the value for d pm is 173 m. Therefore the
relative spread that has been calculated is given by 0.536 which falls into wide
distribution group. The weight % undersize versus size d pi graph show the unusual
distribution of bi-modal having two peaks is obtained.
From the calculated data, it can be concluded that the cubic mean has the highest value
of area under the curve which is 4.56 x 106m, the second is quadratic mean with the
value of area under the curve is 2.3 x 108 m, followed by arithmetic mean with 124.75
m, geometric mean with 1.766 m, and the lowest value of area under the curve is
harmonic mean with 0.00968 m.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to get an accurate result for this experiment, here are some recommendations that
can be used.
1. Before starting the experiment, make sure that the sieve tray is cleaned by using a
brush and air jets. So that, an accurate measurement of sand for each sieve tray
aperture can be obtained.
2. Fine mesh textile sieves are particularly sensitive to mechanical stress and
mechanical cleaning with a stiff brush will damage and distort the mesh and
weaken its structure.
3. Avoid parallax error during weight the 200g sand and during weight each tray.
4. Tighten the thumbnuts until the entire stack is solidly held to the shaker, and
centred within the holding brackets. Therefore the shaker machine must be closed
properly in order to get an accurate result and to avoid noisy noise.
5. Make sure that the sieve shaker stopped before take the sieves tray to avoid the
accident occurs.
6. It important to ensure that there are no sand particles left in the sieve pan as this
can affect the result of experiment.

REFERENCES
Introduction to Particle Technology, Martin Rhodes, John Wiley and Sons,
reference page 54 70.
Gas Fluidization Technology; Geldart. D. (ed); 1986; John Wiley, New York.

APPENDIX A
Table A: Width of size distributions based on relative spread
Number of sieves on
which the middle 70%

/dpm

Type of distribution

0
0.03
0.17
0.25
0.33
0.41
0.48
0.6
0.7
>0.8

Very narrow
Narrow
Fairly narrow
Fairly wide

(approx) of the powder is

found
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
>13

Wide
Very wide
Very wide
Extremely wide