International Journal of Mineral Processing, 22 (1988) 193-222 193

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Modelling of Screening Operations

G. FERRARA, U. PRETI and G.D. SCHENA

University o[ Trieste, Trieste (Italy)
(Received January 22, 1986; accepted after revision October 7, 1986)

ABSTRACT

Ferrara, G., Preti, U. and Schena, G.D., 1988. Modelling of screening operations. Int. J. Miner.
Process., 22: 193-222.

This paper reviews the Ferrara-Preti screening model and shows that recent laboratory and
pilot plant data validate this approach. The model successfully predicts the partition curve (se-
lectivity function) and therefore the product size distributions, given the feed size distribution.
Some improvement in the application of the model, concerning numerical solution of the equa-
tions and parameter estimation, are indicated.
Information is then given on the influence of some operating conditions on the screen perform-
ance studied through the modification of the model parameters, a way that could be useful for a
more complete approach to modelling of screening operations.
Some applications of the model to improvement of screening operations, sizing of screens, sim-
ulation of screening and of integrated plant operations are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The screening model considered in this paper has been proposed by Ferrara
and Preti (1975) and subsequently reviewed by t h e m and by other workers
(De Pretis et al., 1977; Schena, 1982; Kelly and Spottiswood, 1982; Herbst and
Oblad, 1984 ). Hess (1983) demonstrated that this model is very accurate.
Results of validation tests are reported by some of the above mentioned au-
thors (Ferrara and Preti, 1975; Schena, 1982; Hess, 1983). Later, some of the
main assumptions on which the model is based were checked by the authors
and the results are reported below.
The model is chiefly aimed at giving a relationship between: (A) variables
which define the mineral fed to the screen ( size distribution); (B) parameters
which characterize the process; (C) dimensions of the screen; and (D) results
of the screening operations. These results can be either in the form of a parti-
tion curve (selectivity function) - - here expressed as screen oversize efficiency
- or in the form of size distribution curves for the products. From these results
-

it is also possible to obtain synthetic parameters defining the screen perform-

0301-7516/88/$03.50 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

 194

ance such as the efficiency formulae reported by Nichols (1982) (efficiency of

undersize removal or of undersize recovery).
Only steady-state continuous screening is considered. However, the model
can also be applied to batch sieving by substituting time for the length (from
the feed point of the screen) and modifying the meaning and dimensions of
the variables and the parameters accordingly. As regards dynamic continuous
screening, a study has recently been published by Herbst and Oblad (1984).
The equations of the model and the calculation programs can be used in one
of the following ways:
- given (A), ( B ) and ( C ), (D) is calculated (Simulation)
- given (C) and (D), (B) is calculated (Parameter estimation)
- given (A), (B) and (D), (C) is calculated (Design)
In the present paper, the model is re-formulated in more general terms using
continuous functions which give the possibility to obtain more accurate solu-
tions when the grain size distribution can be expressed through equations in-
stead of matrices. From the equations with continuous functions the equations
in discretized form as reported by Ferrara and Preti (1975) and De Pretis et
al. (1977) can be re-obtained.
In the solution of model equations and estimation of parameters some prob-
lems have arisen. These were solved by proper mathematical methods and it
is considered useful to mention t h e m here.
Of basic importance for a correct application of the model is the choice of
the parameters characterizing the process if they have not yet been determined
experimentally for the problem under study. These parameters depend on sev-
eral machine variables, including the screening surface, in ways that are known
only partially and qualitatively. Some data can be found in the paper by De
Pretis et al. (1977), others have been collected later and are reported herein.
It must be said, however, that much has yet to be done in this respect, and that
a cooperation between research institutions and manufacturers of screens and
screening surfaces would be desirable.
Finally, indications and suggestions are given about possible applications of
the model - - also other than those most commonly used that have been men-
tioned above - - which might lead to a deeper understanding of the screening
process also from a physical point of view and hence to new ideas and improved
machines.
The model is applied to dry screening only; problems associated with wet
screening, screening of moist and sticky materials and the effect of blinding on
the screening surfaces have not been tackled.

MATHEMATICALMODEL OF SCREENING

Two different screening conditions, crowded and separate (or disperse ),

lead to two different rate processes ( Brereton and Dymott, 1973; Ferrara and
 195

Preti, 1975 ). For the sake of clarity, for both of the conditions the model can
be considered composed of two parts: ( a ) one expressing the kinetics of the
process, through the space- (or time- ) dependent mass balance applied to
populations of particles with different size; (b) another expressing the ratio
between the passage probabilities for particles of different size depending on
the relative size of particle and aperture.

CROWDED SCREENING

Crowded screening occurs when the flow rate is above a critical level Wc
such that the material forms a bed so thick that only particles immediately in
contact with the screen are capable of passage. As long as the upper layers are
able to replenish the contact layer, the mass flow rate of passage remains
constant.

Kinetics of the process

If w (X,1) d X is the mass flow rate per unit width for particles of size from X
to X + dX entering the element d/, the mass balance relative to this element
for the same size class is as represented in Fig. 1. (The definition of the symbols
is given in Appendix I. )
Since it has been shown experimentally that in crowded conditions the mass
of passing particles of size X is proportional to a constant which depends on X
and to the concentration of particles with size X, we have:
aw(X,l)
- - - -k( X) .f( X,l) (1)
0!
where f(X,l) is the concentration of particles of size X, which is given by the

F eed ,,,(~l,~x~__~ - ,,,ix,rl dx- ~~Vr~'' ,~x

~'w (X,~) dX

Fig. 1. Basic model for screening in crowded conditions.

196

density function of the size distribution of the material at the point l, f(x,l),
for x-- X:
w(X,l) w(X,l)
f(X,l) -~o - -- (2)
w(1)
f w(x,l)dx
0

Integrating between 0 and L and introducing the screen oversize efficiency

(or partition number) for the size X:
E( X,I) =w( X,l) /w( X,O ) (3)
yields:
L

E(X,L)=exp[-k(X)fwd~l(l)l (4)
0

For this approach to be valid, some assumptions are necessary: perfect mix-
ing on the screen along the vertical; plug flow of the material along the screen.
The first assumption has been discussed by Ferrara and Preti (1975). Herbst
and Oblad (1984) have derived general equations which take into account the
dispersion but cannot be solved analytically: neglecting the dispersion an equa-
tion is found having a form similar to the one that we derived.
Eq. 4 can be used to calculate the efficiency curve once the function fd//W(l)
is known or to fit experimental data. For using the model, however, it is pref-
erable to write the equation in a different form, in which some important and
known parameters are explicit. If we consider a second generic value x of the
variable other than X, the ratio of the logarithms of the screen oversize effi-
ciency (eq. 4) for the two variables will define a new variable:
In E(x,l) k(x)
X(x) - I n E(X,I) - k ( X ) (5)

Substituting eq. 2 into eq. 1 and using the expressions 3 and 5 yields:

Iw(x,O) E(X,l)X(x)-lOE(X'l).dx=-k(X) (6)

0
Ol
a differential equation which is equivalent to eq. 1 but contains explicitly the
variable X representing the size of the grains whose kinetics is being studied
and the variable x representing the generic grain size of the particle population
over the screen, whose distribution influences the kinetics of the grains of size
X.
If D is the screen aperture then the conditions for x will be:
 197

f o r 0 < x < D k(x)O Z(x)O

for x>~D k ( x ) = 0 Z ( x ) = 0
Therefore, it is convenient to re-write eq. 6 dividing the integral into two
parts:
D o0

fw(x,O) E(X,l)X'~)-lOE(oX'l)dx+fw(x,o)OlnEo(iX'l)dx=-k(X) (7)

o D

Integrating the differential eq. 7 between 0 and L and introducing the feed
flow rate per unit width Wo and the density function of the grain size distri-
bution in the feed f(x,0) yields:
D

Wo{ !f(x,O)x-~x) [E(X,L)X(~) - l ]dx

Eq. 8 is valid for grains of size X between 0 and D; for X>~ D, it will be:
k(X) = 0 E(X,L)=I

Probabilityofpassage
Two functions appear in eq. 8, X (x) and k(X) which can be expressed by a
model derived from the simplest of those proposed by Gaudin (1939) :
p(x) = (D-x)2/(D+B) 2

where D is the mesh aperture (square) and B the wire diameter. Since (Brer-
eton and Dymot, 1973; Ferrara and Preti, 1975) :
k(X) =Wcn'p(X) (9)
where Wc is the critical flow rate and n the number of particle presentations
per unit length, both of them constant under given operating conditions, then
the function X(x) can be expressed as follows:
Z(x) =k(x)/k(X)=p(x)/p(X)= [(D-x)/(D-X) ]~ (10)
According to Gaudin's model, a = 2 for square meshes and a = 1 for wedge
wire screens. Tests have shown that eq. 10 fits very well the experimental data
for a values depending on the vibration conditions of the screen and on the
type of screening surface, which must be determined experimentally.
198

Letting x/D -- 0.5 in eq. 10, one obtains:

k(X) =kso 2 ~ (1 - X / D ) ~ (11)
where ks0 is the kinetic constant for x/D = 0.5. This parameter is essentially a
function of D and of the type of screening surface and also depends to a certain
extent on some operating conditions.
It should be pointed out that with this model, since the terms of Gaudin's
equation containing the wire diameter are eliminated through the definition
of X(x), the effect of the open area is not explicit but included in the ks0 value,
which therefore depends also on this parameter.
Combining eqs. 8 and 11 yields the complete equations describing the screen-
ing process in the crowded state:
D oo

Wo ~ Ff(x,O) ,I-~[E(X,L) x(x)- 1]dx+ ~f(x,O)lnE(X,L)dx}

( Jo X[x) D

=-kso2~'(1-X)~L forX<D (12)

E(X,L)=I for X>~D (13)

The second term of the left-hand side of eq. 12 can be written as follows:
OO

ln[E(X,L)] ~]'(x,O) dx=ln[E(X,L)] "Yos

D

where Yos is the proportion of oversize > D in the feed.

SEPARATE SCREENING

Separate screening occurs when the particles on the screen do not interact
with one another. The differential equation for screening is:
Ow(X,l)
- -s(X) "w(X,l) (14)
al
where s (X) is the kinetic constant for the size X.
The term s (X) in eq. 14 can be derived theoretically by applying the prob-
ability theory as a function of the passage probability p ( X ) and of the number
n of attempts made by a particle per unit length of the screen, according to the
expression:
s(X) =n-ln [1- p ( X ) ] (15)
 199

Integrating eq. 14 between 0 and L and introducing the screen oversize ef-
ficiency E (X,L) yields the screening equation for the separate state:
E( X,L ) =exp [ - s ( X) .L ] (16)
for X between 0 and D, while for X >~D one always has s (X) = 0 and E ( X,L ) = 1.
At this point it is necessary to find an expression for the s(X) that has to
be introduced into eq. 16.
One possibility is to utilize eq. 15, replacingp (X) with the Gaudin's expres-
sion corrected by the introduction of a as had already been done for crowded
conditions:

P(X)-\D+B]-\ D ] \ D + B ] :[~/2(1--D) (17)

where ]Cois the fraction open area of the screening surface for square mesh. Eq.
16 in this case becomes:
E( X,L ) = e x p { - n ' l n [ 1 - f ~/2(1-X/D ) ~'] "L} (18)
Eq. 18 is applicable only when separate conditions are known to occur and,
given n, [o, ~ and L, it allows the calculation of E(X,L); vice versa, given
E (X,L), [o and L, the equation permits the calculation of the two parameters
n and ft.
Alternatively, and particularly for the study of mixed (crowded and sepa-
rate) conditions, it is possible to use a different form of eq. 18, which though
not exact, is sufficiently approximated for X/D > 0.5. This is the field which is
practically of interest, as all the grains with small X/D pass in the first part of
the screen and only grains with X/D> 0.5 reach the transition zone from
crowded to separate conditions.
Considering that the function R --p ( X ) / I n (1 - p (X)) differs from unity by

TABLE I

Ratio R = p ( X ) / I n [ 1 - p ( X ) ] for different values of the fraction open area )Co

X/D [o--- 0.4 fo = 0.6 [o = 0.8

0.1 0.8275 0.7302 0.6206

0.2 0.8657 0.7926 0.7136
0.3 0.8984 0.8445 0.7878
0.4 0.9261 0.8876 0.8479
0.5 0.9491 0.9230 0.8963
0.6 0.9676 0.9512 0.9345
0.7 0.9819 0.9728 0.9636
0.8 0.9920 0.9880 0.9839
0.9 0.9980 0.9970 0.9960
1.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
200

less than 10% for X / D > 0.5 (see Table I, calculated for a -- 2 ), in eq. 15 we can
substitute p (X) for In (1 - p (X)) thereby obtaining:
s( X ) =nfg/2" ( 1 - X / D ) ~ (19)
Through the ratio of s (X) to s (x) for x = D/2 ( named Sso) we obtain:
s( X ) =Sso 2~ . ( 1 - X / D ) ~ (20)
which is identical with eq. 11 found for crowded conditions and allows the
influence of the open area to be included in Sso.Eq. 20 has already been reported
by De Pretis et al. (1977), but its derivation has been omitted as well as the
specification that, unlike eq. 11, this is an approximate expression. Sso and a
are functions of the screening surface and of the vibration conditions of the
screen.
Substituting eq. 20 into eq. 16 leads to the following approximate equation
governing the separate state:

E ( X , L ) --exp [ -Sso 2 ~" ( 1 - X / D ) .L] (21)

MIXED CONDITIONS

If we designate with Lc the critical distance from the feed point for the tran-
sition from crowded to separate conditions and with Wc the corresponding flow
rate, eq. 12 with L=L will p r o v i d e t h e results for screening in the crowded
state; the corresponding screen oversize efficiency is E (X, Lc). In the next por-
tion of the screen, ( L - L c ) , separate conditions will occur and the global screen
oversize efficiency will be:
E ( X , L ) =E(X,Lc) . E [ X , ( L - L ~ ) ] (22)
where E [X, ( L - L c ) ] can be calculated by the use of eqs. 18 or 21.
By using eq. 21 it is, however, possible to obtain a single equation for the
screen oversize efficiency which is valid for crowded, separate or mixed con-
ditions and therefore very useful for characterizing the screening process with
few parameters.
The derivation had already been made by Hess (1983) and is shown again
in the present paper.
Substituting the expressions derived from eqs. 4 and 21 into eq. 22 yields:

E ( X,L ) __exp~_kso.2~ ( I _ X ~ dl o[
( \ uja
0

Assuming:
kso = SsoC (24)
 201

where C is a constant with dimensions g/sec cm, substituting into eq. 23 gives:
E ( X , L ) =exp [ -kso "nd'2 " ( 1 - X / D ) ~ ] (25)
where the term
Lc

nd =- | d l / W ( 1 ) + ( L - L c ) / C (26)
o

is unknown but constant under certain operating conditions. A rough estimate

of C is We, mass flow rate on the screen at Lc.
Eq. 25 can be used to define experimental curves of screen oversize efficiency
by fitting two parameters (nd" kso and a) regardless of the screening conditions
occurring on the screen (crowded, separate or mixed). It cannot be employed
for design purposes because nd varies with operating conditions in a way which
is unknown.
On the other hand, the possibility of designing screens operating in mixed
conditions does not seem of any interest. The screens are normally designed
for crowded conditions and mixed conditions will possibly occur as a result of
conservative sizing or if the feed rate is low.
It is, however, to be noted that, if we want to determine kso and do not take
into account the fact that the screen operates in mixed condition, the value
obtained for this parameter will be wrong (below the true value) as a conse-
quence of eq. 24. This may be a cause of errors in the evaluation of the kinetic
parameters, also because it is not easy in practice to detect the transition point
from crowded to separate conditions unless the tests are carried out in the
laboratory or in a well equipped pilot plant.

V A L I D A T I O N OF T H E M O D E L

The basic equations expressing the screening kinetics and the model as a
whole were submitted to checking.
The basic hypotheses underlying the model for crowded conditions and that
for separate conditions were first checked by screening tests carried out at
decreasing flow rates of particles close to 0.5 D in size. A plot of In (AW/AL)
versus In W (Fig. 2a) shows the occurrence of crowded conditions in the region
with constant AW/AL up to the value We; at low flow rates, separate conditions
start to occur, in which zIW/AL decreases proportionally with W. It is worth
noting that the screening conditions change sharply at We, demonstrating that
an intermediate transition zone does not exist. The plot permits the calcula-
tion of ki and si (this latter for W - - l ) . The tests were repeated with a feed
consisting of the same grains with oversize particles in different ranges of per-
centage ( Fig. 2b).
Other checking tests, already reported by Ferrara and Preti (1975), were
202
10
~,w
Z~L
{a)

/,
1

g/sec.cm~
1041 - ~ S i

Screen aperture E] 4 mm
I0-; ~ Porficles size xi ~ 2 mm
~ Open area .56,9 %
~ Amplitude 4 mm
10-: ~ ' Frequency 1200 r p m

7 wc
IO-L

10 I i I I I i I
10-3 10 - 2 10 -? 1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4 105
W glsec.cm

10
A_~w
AL (b)
1

glsec.cm2

10-~

~--- OVERSIZE
10-2
25%
+25%- 50%
lO-3 +50%- 70%
*70% 90%-

10 -4

10-10_3 I I /- I I I I
10 - 2 10 -1 1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5

W glsec cm

Fig. 2. Screening tests showing the transition from crowded to separate conditions. ( a )
Feed=particles having xi=2 m m ( size class - 2 . 3 8 to 1.70 ). ( b ) Feed consisting of the same
particles as ( a ) + oversize in different ranges of percentages.

performed by plotting - - for different X and L values - - lnE(X,L) versus

L
~dl/W(l)
o
for crowded conditions (eq. 4) an versus L(eq. 16) for separate con-

ditions. The alignment of the experimental points along straight lines has al-
 203

Wo _-- WL ___ Wz -__ W3 ___ W4

Io, Iu.
Fig. 3. Scheme of laboratory screen divided in four sections.
3

1
o

0
-1
I
in klX~
k~o -2
i

-3

-4

-Sl

-6 _ _ 1 i i i
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-in (1-XIO)

Fig. 4. Plot of In [k (X)/kso ] vs. In (1 - X/D ).

lowed the verification of eqs. 4 and 16 for the two screening conditions. The
tests were carried out through a laboratory screen divided into 4 sections, by
screening crushed limestone containing all the classes in the range 5 to 0.2 mm
(aperture of the screen 4 m m ) and collecting the underflow separately (Fig.
3 ). Deviations from the crowded condition model were observed when the bed
was too high on the screening surface, particularly as regards the fine classes,
probably because the assumed perfect mixing along the vertical had not
occurred.
The relationship defining k ( X ) as a function of X / D (eq. 11) was verified
by plotting In [ k (X)/kso ] versus In ( 1 - X / D ) . The straight lines obtained had
slope values, a, varying around 2 (Gaudin's law) and passing through the point
of coordinates k (X)/kso = 1 and (1 - X / D ) = 0.5. Fig. 4 shows the experimen-
tal points for one of the tests, as example, and the straight lines corresponding
to ~r values from 1 to 3, a range of practical interest.
The model as a whole was verified on the basis of the results of screening
tests performed on the screen of our laboratory and on the industrial-size
screens of the pilot plants of S K E G A A.B. and SVEDALA A R B R A A.B. ( size
of the screens: 1.133.60 and 1 . 0 0 3 . 5 0 ) . In these pilot plants the screen
underfiow is collected separately for a number (8 or less combining the un-
derflows ) of screen sections as illustrated in the scheme of Fig. 3. This figure
shows a subdivision into 4 sections, as is the case for our laboratory screen; it
can be seen that, when the weights and size distributions of U1, U2,/-/3, U4 and
204

W4 are known, it is possible to know Wo, W1, W2, W3 and, hence, the screen
oversize efficiency curves for each section.
For different operating conditions, type of vibration and of screening sur-
face, kso and a were calculated for successive sections and/or for increased

TABLE II

Pilot plant screening test: free swinging circular motion; frequency 1100 rpm; amplitude 7 mm;
screen slope 15; wire cloth; 4 mm opening; open area 55%; feed rate 59.5 t/h m

N Screen Rough values Final values Standard

length error
(m) k~o a kso a

1 1.4 24.18 1.88 24.66 1.59 0.0218

2 1.9 23.29 1.99 23.27 1.99 0.0339
3 2.4 26.18 1.88 24.82 1.74 0.0231
4 3.0 25.97 1.89 24.21 1.77 0.0257
5 3.5 27.71 1.87 25.82 1.83 0.0247

TABLE III

Pilot plant screening test: free swinging circular motion; frequency 1100 rpm; amplitude 7 ram;
screen slope 15 ; wire cloth; 8 mm opening; open area 67%; feed rate 98.6 t / h m

N Screen Rough values Final values Standard

length error
(m) k~o a kso a

1 1.4 48.47 2.39 41.74 2.04 0.0153

2 1.9 45.31 2.46 37.72 2.04 0.0183
3 2.4 50.01 2.43 37.22 1.98 0.0395
4 3.0 50.02 2.40 42.17 2.17 0.0270
5 3.5 52.38 2.31 40.74 2.06 0.0335

TABLE IV

Pilot plant screening test: free swinging linear motion; frequency 700 rpm; amplitude 18 ram;
screen horizontal; wire cloth; 4 mm opening; open area 55%; feed rate 65.7 t / h m

N Screen Rough values Final values Standard

length error
(m) kso a k~o a

1 1.4 33.99 1.48 32.33 1.64 0.0281

2 1.9 33.80 1.51 30.82 1.53 0.0143
3 2.4 35.70 1.52 30.31 1.28 0.0570
4 3.0 34.42 1.49 29.59 1.46 0.0126
5 3.5 36.84 1.44 28.47 1.32 0.0149
 205

length values of the screen; the values obtained are constant with a good ap-
proximation, provided that the operation is carried out in crowded conditions
but without overloading the screen.
Tables II, III and IV give, for three pilot plant tests, the rough and final
values (calculated with the method explained in the next section) of kso and
for increased lengths of the screen. They show the order of magnitude of the
observed deviations from a constant value, that are chiefly due to experimental
errors and probably, sometimes, to vibrating condition of the screen that are
not completely constant on the whole surface. In the last column the mean
standardized fitting errors are reported.
Tables II and III refer to screening in the same vibration conditions with
circular motion, but different screen apertures (4 m m and 8 m m ) . Tables II
and IV refer to the same screen aperture ( 4 m m ) , but with different vibrating
conditions (circular and rectilinear vibration). The results show that the cir-
cular motion gives higher a values and lower kso values than the rectilinear
vibration. Therefore the first condition is more appropriate for a better sepa-
ration of the fines, and the second for a better separation of near-submesh
particles.
Fig. 5 shows, for the test of Table II, the simulated efficiency curves and the
experimental points considering three screen lengths.
Looking through a number of data the following observations were made.

SCREEN LENGTH
SQUARE OPENING

59,5 Ilh m

>-

u.J

u,..

lc D
I

0!
0 1 2 3

PARTICLE SIZE. mm

Fig. 5. Pilot plant screening tests.Simulated efficiencycurves and experimental points for three
screen lengths.
206

TABLE V

Pilot plant screening test: free swinging linear motion; frequency 746 rpm; amplitude 16 ram;
screen slope 5 ; rubber deck; rectangular opening 6 20 ram; open area 26%; feed rate 71.2 t/h m

N Screen Rough values Final values Standard

length error
(m) kso a kso a
1 0.90 20.82 2.20 23.29 1.71 0.0453
2 1.35 19.66 2.02 21.32 1.67 0.0477
3 1.80 20.39 2.05 21.22 1.75 0.0493
4 2.25 21.91 2.06 22.23 1.79 0.0446
5 2.70 23.88 2.02 22.99 1.89 0.0325
6 3.15 26.94 2.09 22.52 2.07 0.0284
7 3.60 25.67 2.07 21.48 2.06 0.0261

(a) Sometimes for the finer size classes is observed a screen undersize effi-
ciency [1-E(x,L)] lower than that for the size class immediately coarser.
This fact, simply due to adhesion of very fine particles to the coarser ones, has
nothing to do with the true screening and the model.
If the cause of anomaly is not eliminated (e.g. moisture) or the results are
not corrected, the fitting accuracy will suffer.
For example, for the test of Table V (Fig. 8, curve for 71.2 t / h m) where the
anomaly occurs, higher values of the standardized fitting errors were observed.
For the same reason, probably, the experimental points for class 0-1 mm in
Fig. 5 are slightly lower than predicted by the model.
(b) Some deviation of simulated from experimental results can be observed
in Fig. 5 for the near-submesh class 3-4 mm.
This may be due to different reasons, including the large sieve intervals. In
particular, it can be observed that the model is very sensitive to the value of D
and therefore using in simulation a value De, slightly different from the nom-
inal one (lower in case of Fig. 5), the fitting errors could be reduced.
The subject will also be discussed in a later section for rectangular openings,
where the above reported suggestion becomes an imperative need.
On the whole, considering also the source of inaccuracy connected to the
large sieve intervals used for the tests of Tables II, III and IV (e.g.,
0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 7 m m for Table II), the model proves to be reliable and can easily
be made to simulate actual screening performance by proper selection of the
parameters.
The model was also verified by Hess (1983), using eq. 25 and fitting the two
parameters ndk~oand a. The comparison of experimental and simulated data
has shown the lowest mean standardized fitting error of all the models he
considered.
 207

NUMERICAL SOLUTIONOF THE EQUATIONS

The use of continuous functions for the definition of the model, such as were
employed in the present study, is more general and, in principle, improves the
model accuracy, but requires the knowledge of continuous functions defining
the size composition of the feed.
However, the size composition of the feed is generally known for discrete
values of particle size; in this case, eq. 12 for the crowded condition and eq. 21
for the separate condition must be written in discretized form.
This transformation leads to the following equations, already reported in
previous papers by the authors:

Wo~ ~ y j o l [ E ( x i , L ) Z J i - 1 ] + l n E ( x i , L )
(j=l Zji
~ Yjo}
i=n+l

= -k5o2 ~ 1 - "L (27)

for l <<.i <~n

E(xi,L)=l forn+l<~i<m
where the index i refers to the size class whose behaviour during screening is
being studied, and j refers to the other size classes present in the feed which
affect the behaviour of size class i; Xji = [(D - xi) / (D - xi ) ] ~. The classes from
i to n are smaller than the mesh aperture of the screen, while the classes from
n + 1 to m are larger.
For separate conditions:
E(xi,L) = e x p [ - s ~ o 2 ( 1 - x J D ) ' L ] for l<~i<.n
E(xi,L) =1 for n+ l <.i<m (28)
Not taking into account the separate conditions for which the solution is
simple and independent of the grain size composition of the feed, attention is
focused on the method for the solution of eq. 27. This equation, in order to
obtain E (xi,L) for a given value of L, has to be solved for the n classes having
xi<D.
The numerical solution is easier by the following variable transformation:
E(xi,L) = e x p ( ? i ) (29)
Substituting into eq. 27 we obtain the following equation in the variable 7:
n
V(ri)=zYi[exp(~iZji)-l]+ ~ yjoyi+k~o2
o (\ 1 - ~ xi )o L
~oo=0 (30)
j = 1Xji j = n + 1

Eq. 30 can be easily derived and solved using the methods of numerical analysis
208

( Newton's method). The values for the screen oversize efficiency are obtained
from eq. 29 by substituting into it the roots of eq. 30.

CALCULATION OF M O D E L P A R A M E T E R S

If only the fitting of the parameters defining the curve of the screen oversize
efficiency is of interest, regardless of the conditions present on the screen (eq.
25), it is sufficient to determine ndkso and a. Conversely, if eq. 27 is to be used
for design and simulation purposes then kso and a must be determined pro-
vided that the screening occurs in crowded conditions. In this case the above
procedure cannot be followed because nd is unknown (eq. 26). A procedure is
proposed which can be applied when the screening results are known for one
screen section or, better still, for more screen sections, so as to permit a more
accurate estimation of the parameters. The procedure is also applicable when
the screening results for the whole screen are known, provided that on the
whole screen crowded conditions occur. This procedure consists of the follow-
ing two steps.
(1) Calculating a rough estimate of kso and a by means of eq. 4, re-written
in the following form for the generic class i and for the screen length from Lk
to Lk+ 1:
Lk+l

l n E i = - k i | dl/W(l) (31)
Lk
When test results are available for screening sections (Fig. 3 ) at Lk, Lh+ 1, then
Wk and Wh+ 1 are known and hence a rough estimate of the integral of eq. 31
can be obtained by considering W(l) constant and equal to ( Wh+ Wk+l)/2,
so that the value for the integral is 2L/( Wk+ Wh+l). In this way, ki can be
calculated from eq. 31 for each class i and kso and a can be obtained from a set
of equations for which the generic one, obtained from eq. 11, is:
Inki = lnkso + a In [2 (1 - xi/D) ] ( 32 )
which we prefer to solve using the method that minimizes the absolute deviation.
(2) Once a rough estimate of kso and a has been obtained, these values are
used as guess values for a more accurate calculation method. This consists in
simulating the process by using eq. 27 for each class i and calculating the
function:

(I)= ~ (Ei--Ei*)2zi (33)

i~1

where Ei and Ei* are the experimental and simulated values of the screen over-
size efficiency, respectively, and zi are appropriate weighting coefficients.
 209

Seeking the m i n i m u m of the function, using a sequential searching tech-

nique proposed by Box (1965), the final solutions are obtained.

INFLUENCE OF THE SIEVE INTERVALS ON THE MODEL PARAMETERS

ESTIMATION

The screen oversize efficiency is defined as a continuous function by eq. 3

(which can also be written as eq. 34), and as a discrete function for the class i
(particle size from xi to xi+l) by eq. 35:
E (X,/) -- W(l) .[(X,l)/Wo .[(X,0) (34)
E ( x i , l ) ~- W (1) "yi/W o "Yio (35)
The efficiencies as defined from eqs. 34 and 35 differ for wide sieve intervals:
the first is the limit of the second for sieve intervals approaching zero. There-
fore, only eq. 34 defines the true screen oversize efficiency, while eq. 35 gives an
"averaged" value of the efficiency over a sieve interval, which depends on func-
tion eq. 34, the sieve intervals and the size distribution of the feed.
The general transform of continuous to discrete screen oversize efficiency
function is the following:
Xi+l

f f(X,O) . E ( X , I ) . d X
E( xi,l) - xi xi+l (36)
f f(X,O).dX
xi

Frequently, eq. 36 cannot be integrated analytically, either because the form

of E (X,l), or because f(X,0 ) is unknown in the form of a continuous function
and only the values of its integral corresponding to the limits of the sieve in-
tervals are known.
Assuming the density function of size distribution to be constant within the
sieve intervals, eq. 36 can be approximated by the following expression:
Xi + 1
1
E'(xi,l)- | E(X,I).dX (37)
Xi+ 1 ~X i 3
xi

Methods of averaging of screen efficiency over sieve intervals according to

eq. 37 have been incorporated in the screen models of Whiten (1972) and
Batterham et al. (1980) (using analytical integration) and in the screen model
of King (1977) (using numerical integration), as reported by Hess (1983).
As a consequence of the above and with reference to the application of the
model proposed in this paper, the following points have to be considered.
210

(1) A correct procedure would require the estimation of the true values of
the model parameters, kso and a, i.e. the values corresponding to the true screen
oversize efficiency. These values only, in fact, are independent of sieve inter-
vals and feed size distribution. To this end, in data processing, the experimen-
tal values of the screen oversize efficiency (related to wide sieve intervals)
have to be compared with the simulated ones, calculated using narrow intervals
( or preferably the continuous function) and then averaged on the wide inter-
vals corresponding to the experimental data by eq. 36. Therefore, the same
procedure explained in the preceding section on calculation of model parame-
ters can be applied, including the minimizing method of eq. 33, being Ei* av-
eraged screen oversize efficiency values as explained before.
(2) Using the true values of the model parameters, the screening results
corresponding to different sieve series (e.g. 1/2, l/v/2, 1/~/2 or an irregular
series) can be simulated.
(3) Conversely, if the available values of model parameters correspond to a
discrete system (e.g. to a particular testing sieve series), only screening results
within the same discrete system can be correctly simulated. However, if this
system is based on sieve intervals narrow enough, the model parameters values
can be considered a good approximation of the true ones.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARAMETERSksoAND a

The kinetic parameter kso is the mass flow rate per unit area for particles of
size X-- 0.5 D, assuming the feed made up of grains all of the same size and the
screening occurring in crowded condition. This parameter can be measured in
g s -1 cm -2 or i n t h -1 m -2 (1 g s -1 c m - 2 = 3 6 t h -1 m - 2 ) .
The significance of kso is similar to that of the so-called empirical or basic
capacity in the well known formulae for screen sizing ( Colman, 1978; Nichols,
1982).
The parameter kso depends chiefly on the mesh aperture, as does the capacity
mentioned above. It also depends on parameters characterizing the screening
surface (fraction open area, aperture shape, type of screening surface ), on the
vibration characteristics of the screen (frequency, amplitude, form of the os-
cillation) and on the inclination of the screen.
The parameter a affects the ratio of passage probabilities for particles of
different size (eq. 10) and, once kso is known, allows k(X) to be calculated for
the generic size X by means of eq. 11. To illustrate further the meaning of a,
Fig. 6 gives a plot of k(X) versus X/D, assuming kso= 1. As can be seen from
the plot, for high a values the k(X) values for the fine classes are high,
( X/D < 0.5 ), while those for the near-submesh particles are low (X/D > 0.5 ).
Conversely, for low a values the near-submesh particles remarkably increase
their k(X) value.
 211

0 O.S

D

Fig. 6. Plot of k ( X ) vs. X/D for different a values; k~o= 1.

10(
Kso

9C \ 2
. . . . 0" = I

'\\ o'=2
............. O" = 3

7c
\
>.- \
Z
\
\
u_ sc
\
LLI
\
\ \
w z,.( \
N

\
Z
3o \
, \ \

',, \ \\
",,
i t i

o 1 2 ; ~
PARTICLE $1Z, mm

Fig. 7. Influence of k~o and a on the shape of the efficiency curves.

212

The parameter a which is dimensionless, is independent of the mesh aper-

ture, but depends on the type of screening surface, the vibration characteristics
and the slope of the screen.
Fig. 7 shows the influence of kso and a on the efficiency curves. Varying 0,
the curves modify their shape with the consequences on th.e separation de-
scribed above when explaining Fig. 6, but they always pass through a point at
the abscissa X=-0.5D. Increasing kso the curves move towards conditions of
better separation. Variations of screen length L and of L/Wo act in the same
way. In effect, the parameter defining the position of the efficiency curves is
Z = kso'L/Wo, a dimensionless quantity which means ratio of specific capacity
of screening expressed in terms of kso and feed rate per unit area of screen
Wo/L. For higher values of Z a better separation is obtained.

INFLUENCE OF OPERATINGCONDITIONS ON THE PARAMETERSksoAND a

Through the model eqs. 12 and 27, the parameters kso and a completely
define the screening process in crowded condition. Thus, the influence of the
operating conditions on the screen performance can be investigated much more
easily through the study of their influence on kso and a. It then becomes need-
less to investigate the effects of the feed size, the flow rate and the screen
dimensions (length and width), since these quantities are taken into account
- - either explicitly or implicitly m in the equations of the model.
The following effects still to be investigated are then: (1) parameters char-
acterizing the screen surface (aperture shape, fraction open area, type of
screening surface material); (2) vibration characteristics of the screen (fre-
quency, amplitude, form of the oscillation, inclination of vibration, whether
rectilinear or elliptic) ; and ( 3 ) inclination of the screening surface, also in
connection with the vibration characteristics.
The influence of the above listed parameters on kso and ~ was investigated
only partially. The main results obtained are reported in the following sections.

APERTURESHAPE

The shape of the aperture affects both kso and a. In passing from square to
round apertures, k~odecreases as if the round aperture corresponded to a smaller
square aperture; a on the other hand, increases, indicating that in a relative
sense the fine particles pass much more readily than the coarse ones and that
the conditions occurring are most unfavorable for the passage of near-submesh
particles.
In passing from square to elongated rectangular apertures, and assuming D
as the shorter side, k~o should increase and a decrease. Near-submesh and also
elongated particles pass into the underflow readily; in the test sieving, these
particles are classified as oversized with respect to the mesh aperture D. In
214

SCREEN LENGTH
RECTANGULAR OPENING
1
I. 2oo-

>-
71,2 tlhm

132,2 t/h.m

\
0 1 2 3 $,. S 6 7 B

PARTICLE SIZE, mm

Fig. 8. Pilot plant screening tests. Simulated efficiencycurves and experimental points for two
feed rates and different screen lengths. Rectangular openings. Tests of Tables V and VI.

Fig. 8 shows the simulated efficiency curves and the experimental points for
two tests carried out under the same conditions except for the feed rate ( Ta-
bles V and VI ). For the higher feed rate 4 screen lengths have been considered.
It can be observed that, in spite of the rectangular shape of the aperture, the
equation of the model fits the experimental points very well and t h a t the stan-
dard errors are of the same order of magnitude found in the previous applica-
tion for square meshes.

VIBRATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCREEN

The conveying speed of the material on the screen, the trajectory of the
particles, the n u m b e r of attempts per unit length made by a particle to pass
through the mesh and the passage probability m and hence also the value of
the p a r a m e t e r kso - - depend on the frequency, amplitude and shape of the
oscillations, on the inclination of rectilinear vibration or of the major axis of
elliptical vibration and also on the inclination of the screening surface. The
ratio of passage probabilities for particles of different size and hence the value
of a, are also dependent on the above parameters.
The optimization of the screen performance can be attained by maximizing
kso thereby ensuring the highest capacity of the screen; for a, high values will
 215

have to be preferred (say, higher than 2 ) if the material to be screened contains

a large proportion of fines and the near-submesh particles are of little or no
interest, and low values ( say 1, or below) if the feed contains a high proportion
of near-submesh particles and a sharp separation is required for them.
In general, the problem is difficult to solve because the variables are many
and some of them interdependent. A partial study was attempted in the present
work, by fixing some conditions and taking as a variable Kv, which includes
frequency, amplitude and inclination of the vibration (rectilinear) and incli-
nation of the screening surface according to a relationship given by Kluge
(1951):
Kv = K sin ( 01 + 02 )/cos02 = ro) 2 / g " sin ( 01 "~ 0 2 )/COS0 2 (38)
where K, the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration is called char-
acteristic machine number, 01 and 02 are, respectively, the angle between the
direction of vibration and the horizontal and the angle between the screening
surface and the horizontal, and o) is the angular velocity.
Whether the particle remains in contact with the screening surface (Kv < 1 )
or is ejected from the screen to follow its own trajectory (Kv > 1) depends on
the characteristic screen number Kv. Moreover, to each value of Kv there is
associated a well-defined situation as concerns the instants of the ejection of
the particle and of the return to the screening surface at the end of its trajec-
tory. For instance for Kv between 1.5 and 2 the particle returns after 1 + 1/2
semiperiods to the screening surface, when this latter is in the lower position.
These conditions are considered to be most favorable by several authors ( Kluge,
1951; Schranz and Bergholz, 1954; Kelly and Spottiswood, 1982).
Eq. 38 is valid for rectilinear vibration. For circular vibration Kv is defined
by Stoff (1963) as follows:
Kv =K/cos 02 (39)
Tests were performed in order to investigate the influence of K~ on kso and
a, considering only a horizontal screen and rectilinear vibration. The following
operating conditions were explored: angle 01 30 , 40 , 50; frequency 1000,
1200, 1400 rpm. For fixed values of 01 and frequency, the positions of the masses
have been varied for obtaining different amplitudes and hence Kv values.
The results for a series of repeated tests for 1000 rpm and 01 = 30 are re-
ported in Fig. 9, where for each value of Kv the mean values of kso and a and
the range of values for repeated tests are indicated: the continuous line shows
the trend. The results of other tests, for different frequency and 01 conditions,
are also reported.
It can be clearly seen that Kso is strongly dependent on Kv and that its max-
imum value is found for K~ about 1.5.
As far as a is concerned, on the contrary, the dependence is unclear as all
the points are in a horizontal band between a values of about i and 2.
216

+
rpm e~

1000 50
1000 40
1000 50
1200 50
1200 4 0a
1200 ~0
Jr 1400 30
1400 40 e
1400 50

REPEATEO TESTS

I'(5o I 1000 50

0
X
4-

i i s i i i i

1 2 3 4
Kv

l D
x
0

o ,7

Q x

0 I I I I | r I i

1 2 3 L, 5

Kv

Fig. 9. Influence of Kv on kso and a. Horizontal screen, rectilinear vibration, square mesh (4 mm
aperture).
 217

In any case, it is believed that the results obtained are interesting in that
they show that a more accurate choice of the vibration conditions of the screen
allows wider possibilities for the optimization of the screen performance. In
fact, Fig. 9 suggests that operating with Kv at about its optimum permits the
ks0 value - - and hence the capacity of the screen - - to be nearly doubled.
However, since the same value of Kv can be obtained with different values
of amplitude, frequency and angle 01, a further search for optimum conditions
is possible on the basis of these variables.
It is also possible that for values of the variables beyond the range investi-
gated by the authors the screening conditions could be unsatisfactory despite
the Kv value. A study in this regard would be necessary.
Some information on the effect of the individual variables taken from stud-
ies made previously or still under way, is reported below.
With increasing amplitude, kso decreases, whereas a increases markedly (De
Pretis et al., 1977 ). A similar effect is obtained by increasing the frequency.
An increase in the inclination 01 of the rectilinear vibration results in an
increase, followed by a decrease, in both k~0 and a; their maxima, however,
correspond to different angles (Ferrara and Preti, 1975).
For counterrotating circular motion, kso decreases slightly, while a decreases
considerably (e.g. from 2.5 to 1.5) as compared to the opposite rotating con-
ditions. This type of screen motion is therefore particularly favorable for the
passage of near-submesh particles (De Pretis et al., 1977), even if the screen
capacity is reduced.

APPLICATIONS OF THE SCREENING MODEL

Improvement in screens and screening operations

This type of application is of interest especially to screen and screening sur-

face manufacturers. By systematic studies on screens and screening surfaces
the optimum range of k~o and a values can be found for the solution of various
screening problems. In this way, the vibration conditions of the screen and the
type of screening surface (aperture shape and materials) can be chosen more
accurately with a view to the desired results, which can then be simulated by
using the model.
Such investigations may open the way to, or confirm the validity of, new
ideas for screening techniques based on modifying the kinetics of the process
and the ratio of passage probabilities for particles of different size - - which is
connected with the value of the parameter a. For example, if very high a values
are attained (Fig. 6), K ( X ) will approach zero very closely at an X/D near 1;
therefore, with a certain aperture and a short screen it will be possible to obtain
a separation at smaller size. At the expense of separation sharpness that might
not be of particular interest in specific cases, there will be the advantage of
218
100

1.6 /
80 1.8 /+///
UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW /
% RETAINED 2 % PASSING //

60

~0
if/i/Ill~'~
o 6= 1

\
20
-----.,c.----- 0 = 2.6

! 2 3 ~ 5 6 ? 8
PARTICLE SIZE, rnm

Fig. 10. Simulated screen results for different conditions of vibration. In the center are reported
the undersize efficiency curves for different a values, on the sides the size distributions of the
products for maximum and minimum a.

using smaller screens and screening surfaces with wider apertures and, hence,
less subject to blinding and more resistant to wear.
Fig. 10 illustrates an example of screening at 4.75 mm simulated for different
conditions of vibration which affect the a value. The evolution of the screen
undersize efficiency curves for a values from 1 to 2.6 and the size distribution
of the products for the two e x t r e m e values are reported, showing a quite re-
markable difference in cut points and product specifications. The cut point
can be further shifted by repeating the operation with multideck screens.
The fine screening achieved with wide apertures is now of considerable in-
terest in that it allows the solution of problems associated with blinding of
screening surfaces, screening of moist materials, poor screening performance
with small apertures, cost and wear of the screen surface. Some types of screens
having the above mentioned advantages have recently found widespread ap-
plication in the removal of fines from raw coal without the need of wet screening.
Other applications of the screening model can be of interest to the operators
when the performances of an existing plant are not as required because of
insufficiency or inefficiency of the screens. These screens may become over-
loaded either because they are undersized or because of insufficiency of the
other machines (e.g. secondary crushers), which do not yield a sufficient pro-
 219

portion of undersize, or also because the characteristics of the materials have

changed and the size distribution curve is different than expected. Similar
problems may also arise when the capacity of an existing plant is to be increased.
In these cases, the prediction of the results by simulation may facilitate the
choice among various possible solutions.

Sizing of screens and simulation of results

The model was initially intended as a new approach to the sizing of screens
(De Pretis et al., 1977). To this end, however, it is necessary to know a series
of k~o reference data for different apertures of the screening surface, that is, a
diagram of the type giving the empirical or basic capacity for the sizing meth-
ods proposed by the manufacturers. Moreover it is necessary to know the vari-
ation of kso around the reference value and of a as a function of all the
parameters on which they are dependent. As mentioned earlier in this paper,
neither the grain size composition nor the flow rate of the feed appear among
these parameters but only characteristics of the screening surface, vibration
characteristics and the inclination of the screen.
At present, only a limited amount of data is available to enable us to assign
values to kso and a. A joint effort with screen and screening surface manufac-
turers would be needed in order to produce tables or diagrams from which the
values of kso and a can be derived for a number of selected cases.
If, however, from tests performed on screens installed in other plants or on
pilot plants of the manufacturers the values of k~o and a can be known regard-
less of the materials screened and of their size composition, the plant results
obtainable with the same types of screens and vibration conditions can be sim-
ulated with accuracy except for those cases where the grain shape in the two
materials differs markedly.
By operating in this way the sizing can be more accurate than when using
classical design methods.
The use of the model for simulating the results may be very helpful in the
checking of the dimensions adopted for the machines whatever calculation
method is applied in designing the screen. The effect of the various external
factors on the screen performance (e.g. variations in the feed ore characteris-
tics, or in the behavior of other machines included in the circuits) can be in-
vestigated accurately by sensitivity and risk analysis as already reported for
other problems in a previous paper by Ferrara et al. (1984).
This design and checking procedure is particularly proposed for application
to the study of plants in which screening is of remarkable importance for the
efficiency of the process, energy saving and for obtaining products with closer
specifications. In these cases a procedure enabling a more accurate prediction
of the results is to be preferred.
In this connection it is to be noted that the calculation methods for screens,
220

even if conservative, not always allow one to avoid possible failures. Difficult
screening conditions exist (e.g. with circulating load containing a high pro-
portion of near-submesh particles) for which calculation methods may not
obtain adequate results. Especially when such conditions are to be expected,
the use of simulation procedures to verify the plant efficiency is necessary.

Simulation of integrated plant operations

The simulation of integrated plant operations is becoming increasingly

widespread in mineral processing for feasibility studies, prediction of results,
selection of alternative processes and as an aid in designing.
The development of computer simulation programs requires the knowledge
of the models for each of the process units included in the circuits; the more
accurate these models the more reliable the results of the complete computer
simulation package.
The screening model considered in the present paper is perfectly suitable for
this use and has already been included into several simulation programs of
processes developed by us. It has also been included by Herbst et al. (1986) in
the modular computer simulation package UTAH-MODSIM. Once the com-
plete flowsheet to be simulated has been defined on a graphical terminal and
the informations requested are given, this package will provide complete mass
and water balance as well as scale-up and capital cost information of specified
equipment relevant to design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was carried out with the financial assistance of the Ministry of
Education (M.P.I.). The authors wish to thank the companies SVEDALA-
ARBRA A.B. and SKEGA A.B. for their cooperation with regard to pilot plant
screening data. In addition,,thanks are due to the graduate mining engineers
F. Nassivera and S. Pinat for their collaboration in performing tests and data
processing.

A P P E N D I X I - - D E F I N I T I O N S OF S Y M B O L S

x,X Particle size, m m

D Screen aperture, m m
[o F r a c t i o n open area, dimensionless
l Distance from feed point, cm
L Considered length of the screen, cm
L~ Critical length, cm
W(x,l) Mass flow rate per u n i t width of particles of size from 0 to x at distance l, g/sec cm
W(l) Mass flow rate per u n i t width of all particles over the screen at distance l, g/sec cm
Wo Value of W(l) a t feed p o i n t (feed r a t e ) , g/sec cm
 221

w~ Value of W(l) at critical point (transition from crowded to separate conditions),

g/sec cm
f(x,l) Density function of size distribution at point l, dimensionless
f(x,O) Density function of size distribution at feed point, dimensionless
w(x,l) = W ( l ) . f ( x , l ) =OW(x,l)/Ox, g/sec cm
h(x), hi Kinetic constants in the crowded region, g/sec cm 2
k5o k (x) for x=D/2, g/sec cm 2
s(x),si Kinetic constants in the separate region, c m -
850 s(x) forx=D/2, cm -1
n Number of attempts at passage of a particle per unit length of screen, cm 1
p(x) Single event probability of passage, dimensionless
Yi Weight fraction of the particles of class i in the bed of material at distance I from the
feed point, dimensionless
Yio Weight fraction of the particles of class i in the feed, dimensionless
E(X,L) Screen oversize efficiency referred to particles of size X and to a length L of the screen,
dimensionless
z(x) See eq. 5 and 10, dimensionless
Zj~ = kj/ki, dimensionless
(7 See eq. 10 and 11, dimensionless
g~ Characteristic screen number, dimensionless
K Characteristic machine number, dimensionless

REFERENCES

Batterham, R.J., Weller, K.R., Norgate, T.E. and Birkett, C.J., 1980. Screen performance and
modelling with special reference to iron ore crushing plants. Europ. Symp. Particle Technol.,
Amsterdam.
Box, M.J., 1965. A new method of constrained optimization and a comparison with other methods.
Comp. J., 8: 42-52.
Brereton, T. and Dymott, K.R., 1973. Some factors which influence screen performance. Proc.
10th IMPC, London.
Colman, K.G., 1978. Selection guidelines for size and type of vibrating screens in ore crushing
plants. In: A.L. Mular and R.B. Bhappu ( Editors ), Mineral Processing Plant Design. AIME,
New York, N.Y. pp. 341-361.
De Pretis, A., Ferrara, G., Guarascio, M. and Preti, U., 1977. A new approach to screening design.
Proc. 12th IMPC, S~o Paulo, Brasil.
Ferrara, G. and Preti, U., 1975. A contribution to screening kinetics. Proc. 1 l t h IMPC, Cagliari,
Italy.
Ferrara, G., Guarascio, M. and Schena, G., 1984. Modelling and simulation of integrated plant
operations of mineral processing. In: J.A. Herbst (Editor), Control '84. AIME, SME/TSM,
New York, N.Y., pp. 153-165.
Gaudin, A.M,, 1939. Principles of Mineral Dressing. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, N.Y.
Herbst, J.A. and Oblad, A.E., 1984. A population balance model for screening. Proc. 9th Powder
in Bulk Solids Conf., Chicago.
Herbst, J.A., Schena, G.D. and Fu, L.S., 1986. Computer aided design of comminution circuits.
SME-AIME Meeting, New Orleans, La.
Hess, F., 1983. Mathematical Modelling of Screen and Related Units for Plant Simulation. Ph.
D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
222

Kelly, E.G. and Spottiswood, D.J., 1982. Introduction to Mineral Processing. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, N.Y., pp. 185-189.
King, E.H., 1977. How to Determine Plant Screening Requirements. Chem. Eng. Progr., 73 {5):
74-79.
Kluge, W., 1951. Neuzeitliche Siebmaschinen fuer die Aufbereitung. Erdoel Kohle, 11: 705-711.
Nichols, J.P., 1982. Selection and sizing of screens. In: A.L.Mular and G.W. Jergensen (Editors),
Design and Installation of Comminution Circuits. AIME, New York, N.Y., pp. 509-522.
Schena, G.D., 1982. The Processing of Industrial Screening Data. A Modelling Approach. Internal
Report, Ist. Miniere e Geofisica Appl., Universita' di Trieste.
Schranz, H. und Bergholz, W., 1954, Die Bewegungsvorgaenge bei Wurfsieben. Bergbauwissen-
schaften, 8: 223-234.
Stoff, F., 1963. Betrachtungen fiber den Einfluss der Schwingungsdaten auf den Siebvorgang.
Aufbereitungs-Techn., 11: 426-466.
Whiten, W.J., 1972. The simulation of crushing plants with models developed using multiple
spline regression. 10th Int. Syrup. Application of Computer Methods in the Mineral Industry,
(J. S. Aft. Inst. Min. Metall., Johannesburg), pp. 257-264.