Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of

Engineering, University of The West Indies St. Augustine

CHNG2010- Chemical Engineering Lab III

PM1 Ball Mill

Submitted on 24/02/21

Kai Cateau – 816019508

Demonstrator- Rajiv Budhooram

0
Abstract
The aims of the experiment were to illustrate screen analysis methods to measure mean and
median particle diameters in the operation of a ball mill. The other aims were to find the value
of work index for sand as well as the effect of the ball size on the grinding rate.

A kg of sand was weighed out to be used in the sieve system. The system was set to run for 30
minutes for each ball size (5,10 and 15 mm). readings were taken for the mass of sand at each
level of the system.

The mean particle diameters before and after grinding for each sample (5,10 and 15 mm) were
254.187 and 230.705, 299.363 and 234.92, 297.753 and 246.920 µm respectively.

The work index of sand for each sample were 464.378, 285.615 and 333.801 kWh/Tonne,
respectively.

The grinding rate increased steadily with ball size until the “peak” value of 42.43 was reached.

The main source of error encountered was the clumping of sand particles higher up the sieve
system resulting in some particles not dropping to their correct sieve sizes.

The main precaution taken was that the sand was weighed before and after milling so that the
sand that remained in the walls of the mill were accounted for before the sieving process.

One recommendation to improve the experiment is to add 2 more ball sizes to effectively
express the relationship between ball size and grinding rate.

i
Table of Contents
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of The West
Indies St. Augustine ............................................................................................................ 0
CHNG2010- Chemical Engineering Lab III ...................................................................... 0
PM1 Ball Mill ...................................................................................................................... 0
Submitted on 24/02/21 ......................................................................................................... 0
Kai Cateau – 816019508...................................................................................................... 0
Demonstrator- Rajiv Budhooram........................................................................................... 0
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 0
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................... 0
Table of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 0
Introduction/Theory .............................................................................................................. 1
Equations at use ................................................................................................................ 1
Methods and Materials .......................................................................................................... 3
Apparatus .......................................................................................................................... 3
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 5
Results/Calculation ............................................................................................................... 6
Raw Results ...................................................................................................................... 6
Arithmetic mean Diameter Determination ......................................................................... 7
Mass Fraction of sand retained .......................................................................................... 8
Mean Particle diameter .................................................................................................... 10
Size Distribution curves .................................................................................................. 12
Energy Consumed ........................................................................................................... 15
Work Index ..................................................................................................................... 16
Cumulative mass fraction ................................................................................................ 17
Median Particle Diameter ................................................................................................ 22
Grinding Rate .................................................................................................................. 22
Discussion........................................................................................................................... 24
Discovery Section ........................................................................................................... 25
Cutting ........................................................................................................................ 26
Impact ......................................................................................................................... 26
Compression ............................................................................................................... 26
Attrition....................................................................................................................... 26

0
 Shearing ...................................................................................................................... 26
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 27
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 29
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 31

1
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Sieve system ........................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 ball mill apparatus ................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Particle size distribution for 5 mm ball sample before grinding.............................. 12
Figure 4 Particle size distribution for 5 mm ball sample after grinding ................................ 12
Figure 5 Particle size distribution for 10 mm ball sample before grinding ............................ 13
Figure 6 Particle size distribution for 10 mm ball sample after grinding .............................. 13
Figure 7 Particle size distribution for 15 mm ball sample before grinding ............................ 14
Figure 8 Particle size distribution for 15 mm ball sample after grinding .............................. 14
Figure 9 Cumulative distribution curve before grinding for 5 mm sample ........................... 17
Figure 10 Cumulative distribution curve after grinding for 5 mm sample ............................ 18
Figure 11 Cumulative distribution curve before grinding for 10 mm sample........................ 19
Figure 12 Cumulative distribution curve after grinding for 10 mm sample .......................... 19
Figure 13 Grinding rate vs ball size ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 14 Types of particle size reduction (Principle of Size Reduction 2013) ..................... 25
Figure 15 Shearing Process ................................................................................................. 27

0
Table of Tables
Table 1 Mass of sand retained on each sieve tray before and after grinding ........................... 6
Table 2 Initial mass of sand weighed and power consumption of mill without sand ............... 6
Table 3 Power consumption of ball mill operation taken at five minute intervals ................... 7
Table 4 Arithmetic mean diameter......................................................................................... 7
Table 5 Mass Fraction retained for 5mm ball......................................................................... 8
Table 6 Mass Fraction retained for 10 mm ball...................................................................... 9
Table 7 Mass Fraction retained for 15 mm ball ...................................................................... 9
Table 8 Mean particle diameter for 5mm ball ...................................................................... 10
Table 9 Mean particle diameter for 10 mm ball ................................................................... 11
Table 10 Mean Particle diameter 15 mm ball....................................................................... 11
Table 11 Energy consumed during grinding ........................................................................ 15
Table 12 Reduction Ratio .................................................................................................... 16
Table 13 Work Index .......................................................................................................... 16
Table 14 Cumulative mass fraction data for 5 mm sample ................................................... 17
Table 15 Cumulative mass fraction data for 10 mm sample ................................................. 18
Table 16 Cumulative mass fraction data for 15 mm sample ................................................. 20
Table 17 Cumulative distribution curve before grinding for 15 mm sample ......................... 20
Table 18 Cumulative distribution curve after grinding for 15 mm sample ............................ 21
Table 19 Median Particle diameter determination ................................................................ 22

0
Introduction/Theory
Particle size reduction analysis in particle technology is the study of how particles behave under
specific conditions as they get smaller. For the experiment, the type of size reduction examined
was sieving and milling. Sieving is the process by which the sand(or material) is placed into a
metallic container (cylindrical) with multiple trays with holes. These trays (sieves) are placed
one above each other, in the order from top to bottom of decreasing hole sizes. The feed/sand
is feed in at the top and via agitation of the system, smaller particles go through the holes while
the larger ones remain on the tray for each respective level. At the bottom of the system, there
is a pan to collect the particles that were able to pass through each level. (Maharaj 2021).
Normally, the ratios between in hole/opening sizes of successive levels are either 2, 20.5 or 20.25.
(R.B.B 2020).

Milling is the process by which particles are mechanically ground into smaller sizes. A ball
mill is a cylindrical device which utilizes steel balls to grind the particles of the solid feed put
in. The mill vibrates causing the balls to crush the particles into finer particles (Jankovic 2015).

The experiment utilizes both the ball mill to grind the sand with the sieves being used to analyse
the size distribution. It is expected that there will be more particles passing through the smaller
sieve sizes after milling in comparison to the pre-milling run.

Bonds Law states that the work required to grind a specific weight of crushed material is
inversely proportional to the diameter of the product particles raised to the power of ½. The
experiment utilizes this law to determine the energy used on grinding and the work index of
the sand used.

Equations at use
Equation 1 Mean Particle diameter

1
𝐷𝑠𝑚 = 𝑥
∑
𝐷

Where, Dsm is the mean particle diameter, x is the mass fraction and Dis the arithmetic mean
diameter.

1
Equation 2 Arithmetic Mean diameter

𝐷𝑛 + 𝐷𝑛−1
𝐷=
2

Where Dn is the diameter of the holes in the lower sieve and Dn-1 is the diameter of the sieve
above

Equation 3 Energy consumed during grinding

𝑝×𝑡
𝐸=
𝑚

Where E is the energy needed for grinding in kWhr/tonne, p is power in kW, t is time in hrs
and m is the mass in tonnes.

Equation 4 Work Index

100 1
𝐸 = 𝐸𝑖 √( )( 1 − )
𝐿2 √𝑞

Where Ei is the work index in kWhr/tonnes, q is the reduction ratio and L2 is the mean particle
diameter after grinding in µm.

Equation 5 Reduction Ratio

𝐿1
𝑞=
𝐿2

Where L1 is the mean particle diameter before grinding in µm.

Equation 6 Grinding Rate

𝐷𝑡 − 𝐷𝑙 0.5
( ) = 𝑒 𝐾𝑝𝑡
𝐷𝑜 − 𝐷𝑙

Where, Do is the initial median particle diameter, Dt is the median particle diameter after t (in
seconds) and Dl is the median particle diameter at the grinding limit.

2
Methods and Materials
Apparatus

Figure 1 Sieve system

3
Figure 2 ball mill apparatus

• Gunt CE-245 Kugelmuhie Ball Mill

• Endecotts Test Sieve Shaker
• 9 Tyler Mesh Sieve Trays (3350 µm, 1400 µm, 850 µm, 710 µm, 600 µm, 250 µm, 180
µm, 150 µm)
• Base Pan
• Sieve Cover
• Spatula/Pins
• Beaker and Containers
• Analytical Balance
• 5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm balls
• Allen Key
• Sand (approx. 1 kg)

4
Procedure
1. Approximately 1kg of sand was used via the use of the analytical balance.
2. The screens were assembled in decreasing order of mesh size from the top on the
Endecotts Test Sieve Shaker.
3. The sand was charged to the top screen and was shook for 15 minutes via the use of
the sieve shaker and by flipping the switch.
4. The 10 mm balls were added to the ball mill drum. The drum was then placed onto the
roller drive fitting it into the grooves.

5
Results/Calculation
The uncertainty in the analytical balance was ±0.005 g

Raw Results
Table 1 Mass of sand retained on each sieve tray before and after grinding

Sieve Tray Ball Sizes

Size/µm 5mm 10mm 15mm
Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass
Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained
Before After Before After Before After
Milling/g Milling/g Milling/g Milling/g Milling/g Milling/g
3350 0.44 0.39 2.93 1.43 3.34 2.00
1700 71.88 68.73 128.01 106.08 131.22 80.89
1400 41.70 39.50 39.32 30.73 39.42 26.19
850 101.33 96.91 101.62 81.86 98.25 73.63
710 40.60 38.01 45.79 35.66 43.81 37.54
600 42.11 41.47 48.89 38.97 47.75 41.22
250 307.20 296.30 322.40 285.45 323.40 336.96
180 210.70 189.09 160.75 172.06 170.20 187.83
150 66.54 77.71 64.27 103.40 51.52 90.33
- 117.44 153.08 85.73 143.62 89.52 119.58

Table 2 Initial mass of sand weighed and power consumption of mill without sand

Ball Size/mm Initial Mass/g Empty Mill Power

Consumption/W
5 1000.00 15
10 1000.57 16
15 1000.03 17

6
Table 3 Power consumption of ball mill operation taken at five minute intervals

Time/min Power Consumption for each Ball Size/W

s 5mm 10mm 15mm
0 20 21 21
5 21 21 21
10 22 20 21
15 21 20 20
20 22 20 20
25 21 20 20
30 21 20 21

Arithmetic mean Diameter Determination

Table 4 Arithmetic mean diameter

Dn Dn-1 D
3350 - >3350
1700 3350 2525
1400 1700 1550
850 1400 1125
710 850 780
600 710 655
250 600 425
180 250 215
150 180 165
0 150 75

Using the 1700 sieve tray as sample, using Equation 2

𝐷2 + 𝐷1 1700 + 3350
= = 2525µ𝑚
2 2

7
Mass Fraction of sand retained
Table 5 Mass Fraction retained for 5mm ball
Sieve Mass Retained Mass Fraction Mass Retained Mass Fraction
Size Before Milling/g After Milling/g
3350 0.44 0.00044 0.39 0.0004
1700 71.88 0.07188 68.73 0.0686
1400 41.70 0.04170 39.50 0.0395
850 101.33 0.10134 96.91 0.0968
710 40.60 0.04060 38.01 0.0380
600 42.11 0.04211 41.47 0.0414
250 307.20 0.30722 296.30 0.2959
180 210.70 0.21071 189.09 0.1889
150 66.54 0.06654 77.71 0.0776
Tray 117.44 0.11745 153.08 0.1529

Using 3350 µm sieve before milling as sample,

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 0.44

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = = 4.4 × 10−4
𝑠𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 999.94

8
Table 6 Mass Fraction retained for 10 mm ball

Sieve Mass Retained Mass Fraction Mass Retained Mass Fraction

Size Before Milling/g After Milling/g
3350 2.93 0.0029 1.43 0.0014
1700 128.01 0.1280 106.08 0.1062
1400 39.32 0.0393 30.73 0.0308
850 101.62 0.1016 81.86 0.0819
710 45.79 0.0458 35.66 0.0357
600 48.89 0.0489 38.97 0.0390
250 322.40 0.3225 285.45 0.2857
180 160.75 0.1608 172.06 0.1722
150 64.27 0.0643 103.40 0.1035
Tray 85.73 0.0858 143.62 0.1437

Table 7 Mass Fraction retained for 15 mm ball

Sieve Size Mass Retained Mass Fraction Mass Retained Mass Fraction
Before Milling/g After Milling/g
3350 3.34 0.0033 2.00 0.0020
1700 131.22 0.1314 80.89 0.0812
1400 39.42 0.0395 26.19 0.0263
850 98.25 0.0984 73.63 0.0739
710 43.81 0.0439 37.54 0.0377
600 47.75 0.0478 41.22 0.0414
250 323.40 0.3239 336.96 0.3383
180 170.20 0.1705 187.83 0.1886
150 51.52 0.0516 90.33 0.0907
Tray 89.52 0.0897 119.58 0.1200

9
Mean Particle diameter
Table 8 Mean particle diameter for 5mm ball

Sieve Size/µm Before Grinding Sieve Size/µm After Grinding/ x/d

x/d (x10-5) (x10-5)
3350 0.013 3350 0.012
1700 2.847 1700 2.719
1400 2.690 1400 2.545
850 9.008 850 8.604
710 5.205 710 4.867
600 6.429 600 6.324
250 72.2867 250 69.635
180 98.0059 180 87.844
150 40.3297 150 47.041
Tray 156.5961 Tray 203.864
Sum 393.4113 Sum 433.455
Dsm/ µm (x100) 254.187 Dsm/ µm (x100) 230.705

Using Equation 1 Mean particle diameter (Dsm)=

1 1
𝑥 393.411 × 10−5 = 254.187
=
∑
𝐷

10
Table 9 Mean particle diameter for 10 mm ball

Sieve Size/µm Before Grinding Sieve Size/µm After Grinding/

x/d (x10-5) (x10-5)
3350 0.0875 3350 0.0427
1700 5.071 1700 4.204
1400 2.538 1400 1.984
850 9.036 850 7.282
710 5.872 710 4.575
600 7.466 600 5.954
250 75.881 250 67.214
180 74.789 180 80.087
150 389.628 150 62.713
Tray 114.340 Tray 191.635
Sum 334.0428 Sum 425.692
Dsm/ µm (x100) 299.3628511 Dsm/ µm (x100) 234.9116605

Table 10 Mean Particle diameter 15 mm ball

Sieve Size/µm Before Grinding Sieve Size/µm After Grinding x/d

x/d (x10-5) (x10-5)
3350 0.099 3350 0.060
1700 5.205 1700 3.216
1400 2.547 1400 1.696
850 8.747 850 6.570
710 5.625 710 4.831
600 7.302 600 6.317
250 76.214 250 79.590
180 79.287 180 87.699
150 31.273 150 54.956
Tray 119.548 Tray 160.053
Sum 335.848 Sum 404.988
Dsm/ µm (x100) 297.754 Dsm/ µm (x100) 246.921

11
Size Distribution curves

Particle size distriution 5 mm before grinding

0.35

0.3

0.25
Mass Fraction

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve size/µm

Figure 3 Particle size distribution for 5 mm ball sample before grinding

Particle size distriution 5 mm after grinding

0.35

0.3

0.25
Mass Fraction

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve size/µm

Figure 4 Particle size distribution for 5 mm ball sample after grinding

12
 Particle size distriution 10 mm before grinding
0.35

0.3

0.25
Mass Fraction

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve size/µm

Figure 5 Particle size distribution for 10 mm ball sample before grinding

Particle size distriution 10 mm after grinding

0.3

0.25
Mass Fraction

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve size/µm

Figure 6 Particle size distribution for 10 mm ball sample after grinding

13
 Particle size distriution 10 mm before grinding
0.35

0.3

0.25
Mass Fraction

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve size/µm

Figure 7 Particle size distribution for 15 mm ball sample before grinding

Particle size distriution 10 mm after grinding

0.4
0.35
0.3
Mass Fraction

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve size/µm

Figure 8 Particle size distribution for 15 mm ball sample after grinding

14
Energy Consumed
Table 11 Energy consumed during grinding

Ball Mass/ Power time/hrs Energy/ kwH/Tonnes

size/m Tonnes used/kw
m
5 0.001 0.133 0.5 66.5
10 0.00100 0.126 0.5 62.96
1
15 0.001 0.127 0.5 63.50

Using 5 mm ball as sample calculation

Using equation 3

Energy in Kwh/Tonne:

𝑃×𝑡
𝐸=
𝑚

𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 = ∑ 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 5 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑠 − 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑚

20 + 21 + 22 + 21 + 22 + 21 + 21 − 15
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = = 0.163𝑘𝑊
1000

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑔 1000
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 = = = 0.001𝑇
1000000 1000000

𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 30 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠 = 0.5 ℎ𝑟𝑠

0.133 × 0.5
= 66.5 𝑘𝑤ℎ𝑟/𝑇𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠
0.001

15
Work Index
Table 12 Reduction Ratio

Ball size/ mm L1/µm L2/µm q

5 254.187 230.705 1.102
10 299.363 234.912 1.274
15 297.754 246.921 1.206

Table 13 Work Index

Ball size/mm E/ kwh/T 100/L2 1-(1/√q) Ei/kWh/T

5 66.5 0.433 0.047 464.378

10 62.96 0.426 0.114 285.615
15 63.50 0.405 0.089 333.801

Using 5 mm ball as sample:

Using equation 5

𝐿1 254.187
𝑞= = = 1.102
𝐿2 230.705

By manipulating equation 4

𝐸 66.5 𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝐸𝑖 = = = 464.378
√0.433 × 0.047 𝑇𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
100 1
√( 𝐿 ) (1 − )
2 √𝑞

16
Cumulative mass fraction
Table 14 Cumulative mass fraction data for 5 mm sample

Sieve Size/µm Before After

3350 1.000 1.000
1700 1.000 1.000
1400 0.927 0.931
850 0.886 0.891
710 0.784 0.794
600 0.744 0.756
250 0.701 0.715
180 0.394 0.419
150 0.184 0.230
0 0.117 0.153

5mm ball Cummulative size distribution Curve

before grinding
1.2
Cummilative mass fraction

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve Size/µm

Figure 9 Cumulative distribution curve before grinding for 5 mm sample

17
 5mm ball Cummulative size distribution Curve
after grinding
1.2
Cummilative mass fraction

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve Size/µm

Figure 10 Cumulative distribution curve after grinding for 5 mm sample

Table 15 Cumulative mass fraction data for 10 mm sample

Sieve Size/µm Before After

3350 0.997 0.999
1700 0.994 0.997
1400 0.866 0.891
850 0.827 0.860
710 0.725 0.778
600 0.679 0.743
250 0.630 0.704
180 0.308 0.418
150 0.147 0.246
0 0.083 0.142

18
 10mm ball Cummulative size distribution Curve
before grinding
1.2
Cummilative mass fraction

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve Size/µm

Figure 11 Cumulative distribution curve before grinding for 10 mm sample

10mm ball Cummulative size distribution Curve

after grinding
1.2
Cummilative mass fraction

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve Size/µm

Figure 12 Cumulative distribution curve after grinding for 10 mm sample

19
Table 16 Cumulative mass fraction data for 15 mm sample

Sieve Size/µm Before After

3350 0.997 0.998
1700 0.993 0.996
1400 0.861 0.915
850 0.822 0.888
710 0.724 0.815
600 0.680 0.777
250 0.632 0.736
180 0.308 0.397
150 0.1389 0.209
0 0.086 0.118

15mm ball Cummulative size distribution Curve

before grinding
1.2
Cummilative mass fraction

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve Size/µm

Table 17 Cumulative distribution curve before grinding for 15 mm sample

20
 15mm ball Cummulative size distribution Curve
after grinding
1.2
Cummilative mass fraction

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sieve Size/µm

Table 18 Cumulative distribution curve after grinding for 15 mm sample

21
Median Particle Diameter
Table 19 Median Particle diameter determination

Ball Xo Do/µm Xt Dt/um

size/m
m
5 0.763 655 0.775 780
10 0.702 655 0.760 655
15 0.702 655 0.796 655

The median cumulative mass fraction values were found then using those values, the
corresponding estimated particle diameter (from sieve tray) was then selected.

Grinding Rate
Ball Do/µm Dt/µm Dl/µm Dt- ln ((Dt- Kp
size/mm Dl/Do-Dl Dl)/(Do-
Dl)
5 655 780 75 1.22 0.20 34.90
10 655 655 75 1 0 42.43
15 655 655 75 1 0 42.43

Using 5 mm ball as sample,

Rearranging equation 6

𝐷𝑡 − 𝐷𝑙
ln ( ) = ln −𝑘𝑝 𝑡 0.5
𝐷𝑜 − 𝐷𝑙

𝐷𝑡 − 𝐷𝑙
ln ( ) = −ln 𝑘𝑝 + 0.5 ln(𝑡)
𝐷𝑜 − 𝐷𝑙

𝐷𝑡 − 𝐷𝑙
0.5 ln 𝑡 − ln ( ) = ln 𝑘𝑝
𝐷𝑜 − 𝐷𝑙

22
 780 − 75
0.5 ln(30 × 60) − ln ( ) = ln 𝑘𝑝
655 − 75

0.5 ln(1800) − 0.20 = ln 𝑘𝑝

𝑒 3.55 = 𝑘𝑝 = 34.90

Grinding rate vs ball size

45
40
35
Grinding rate

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Ball Size/ mm

Figure 13 Grinding rate vs ball size

23
Discussion
All the samples followed the same general trend in their distribution curves (figures 3,5 and 7).
There was no mathematical trend that could have been followed as the graphs showed a “zig
zag” type shape. Surprisingly enough, the particle size distribution after grinding followed this
“zig zag” trend in the same exact way (figures 4,6 and 8). The difference observed both before
and after milling was that the mass fractions retained on the sieves after milling were lower
than those retained before milling. This therefore resulted in a greater mass of sand being
collected on the bottom tray. This trend despite showing no mathematical relationship between
the two quantities, does still in fact align with the theory as more particles are able to make it
through each sieve tray level as the particles would have gotten smaller after grinding.

The experimental work index for the 5,10 and 15mm ball sizes are 464.378, 285.615 and
333.801 kWh/Tonne (table 13) while the theoretical value for the Bond work index of silica
sand is 16 kwh/Tonnes. The difference in the experimental values to the theoretical value is
large and can be attributed to a series of reasons. The main reason is that in the experiment, is
that energy will be required to do more than just the work required for grinding. The equipment
is not 100% energy efficient. The efficiency of a typical ball mill system is between 10 and
19% (Fuerstenau 2002). Due to this low efficiency, more work will need to be done on the
system to compensate for this deficit experimentally while the theoretical value is solely
focused on the material.

The work index decreased from the 5 to 10 mm ball samples but then increased again for the
15mm sample (table 13). It is expected that there will be a steady decrease in the work index
as the ball size increases due to the Bond’s law relationship. The mean particle diameter was
the largest for the 15 mm samples (table 10) in comparison to the 5 and 10 mm samples (tables
8 and 9). Bonds law stated an inversely proportional relationship to the square root of the mean
particle diameter, this trend was observed for the 5 and 10 mm samples but was deviated for
the 15 mm sample. The work index value for the 15 mm sample should have decreased in the
same pattern as the 5 and 10 mm samples.

It was seen that the grinding rate increased proportionally to the ball size initially then a plateau
was seen (figure 13). According to this graph it can be said that the rate will increase until a
peak value is met then grinding using a ball size above this “peak” will see no further increase
in the grinding rate.

24
Discovery Section
The five forces of particle size reduction are:

1. Cutting
2. Compression
3. Impact
4. Attrition
5. Shearing

Figure 14 Types of particle size reduction (Principle of Size Reduction 2013)

25
Cutting
In the cutting process, a sharp object is forced through the object to be reduced. During cutting,
the particle is deformed and broken into multiple “less damaged” sub particles. (Principle of
Size Reduction 2013).

Impact
Size reduction by impact entails the particle being broken up due to contact from a single rigid
force. This force is large enough to deform the internal structure of the particle causing for it
to break down into multiple (both fine or coarse) fragments. (Size Reduction n.d.)

Compression
In compression, the particle is crushed via large mechanical force(s) acting down on to it. The
force acting on the material breaks up the intramolecular bonds within the particle causing it to
break up into smaller fragments (Chemical Processing 101: Crushing n.d.).

Attrition
Attrition is the process by which the particle is scraped against a surface under frictional forces
resulting in fine particles from the initial particle being grinded off due to this scraping process.
Overtime, the particle is slowly ground into “dust” from continued scraping. (Principle of Size
Reduction 2013).

Shearing
When the impact and attrition processes are combined, they form another method known as
shearing. In this method, the particle is hit (impact) then the hitting apparatus scrapes the
surface of the particle. The condition of the shearing apparatus (dull or sharp) will determine
which of the component method the process is more like. (Principle of Size Reduction 2013)

26
Figure 15 Shearing Process

Limitations
The sources of error encountered were:

1. Fine particles can become stuck onto the sieve surfaces, resulting in mass values that
are not fully accurate.
2. Grinding being a random process, the path/how the balls move in the mill are not the
same for each size, resulting in ball size not being the only variable in the system.
3. Clumping of particles could have occurred which can cause smaller particles to remain
higher up the sieve system than it should be based on its particle diameter.

The precautions taken were:

1. The power values were taken in the empty mill before it was filled to reduce the
systematic error of additional power in all the readings.
2. Sand was weighed before and after milling to account for the mass lost via sand
remaining in the mill.
3. The mill was run for 30 minutes to give the system sufficient time to grind the particles
as fine as physically possible.

27
Recommendations
The recommendations to improve the experiment are:

1. Repeat the experiment using a different feed of similar physical properties to compare
how different sand types undergo milling.
2. Add 2 more ball sizes (20 and 25 mm) to get more data to accurately illustrate the effect
of the ball size on the grinding rate.
3. Sieve each sample in duplicate to increase precision of mass measurement and particle
size calculations.

28
Conclusion
The aims of the experiment were to demonstrate the sieve analysis technique and the operation
of a ball mill while calculating the Work index for sand and the effect of ball size on the
grinding rate. Upon final analysis, the work index for the 5-, 10- and 15-mm samples were
464.378, 285.615 and 333.801 kWh/Tonne, respectively. It was seen that the grinding rate
increased initially then plateaued off as it approached the peak rate of 42.43.

29
Bibliography
n.d. Chemical Processing 101: Crushing. Accessed February 22, 2021.
http://howardchem.com/chemical-processing-101-crushing/.

Fuerstenau, D.W. 2002. “The energy efficiency of ball milling in comminution.” In

International Journal of Mineral Processing, 161-185. Cairo.

Jankovic, A. 2015. “Developments in iron ore comminution and classification technologies.”

Science Direct. Accessed February 21, 2020.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/ball-
mill#:~:text=A%20ball%20mill%20is%20grinder,of%20active%20and%20excipient
%20materials.

Maharaj, Sharad. 2021. Particle Size Management. St Augustine.

2013. Principle of Size Reduction. 5 October. Accessed February 22, 2021.

http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=817#:~:text=Cutting%3A%2
0Size%20reduction%20is%20accomplished,knife%20to%20reduce%20the%20size.

R.B.B. 2020. PM1 Ball Mill Lab . St Augustine.

n.d. Size Reduction. Accessed February 22, 2021.

https://scholar.cu.edu.eg/?q=magdi/files/chapter_4_updated.pdf.

30
Appendix

31