THE COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MINES AND MINERAL SCIENCES

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
LAB REPORT

NAME: TEDDY SINYANGWE

SIN: 21163088
YEAR OF STUDY: 3RD
COURSE OF STUDY: ENGINEERING LABS AND INDUSTRIAL
SAFETY
TASK: LAB REPORT ( SCREEN ANALYSIS)
LECTURER: MR. KATUNDU
LAB INSTRUCTOR: MR CHIPIRI

GROUP 10 (MEMBERS)
TASHA LUCHEMBE
MAYBIN MUKWATO
BRIAN SAMENDE
MOSES BANDA
TITLE: SCREEN ANLYSIS
AIM: to separate the given samples after thoroughly mixing, by using a set of standard tyler
screens and weighing the retained fractions.

ABSTRACT
The experiment was centred on the investigation of screen analysis which turned out to be a
success. As by definition this is the separation of the given mixture of sample sizes to be
separated into fractions according to the sizes that are retained on the given mesh sizes
through using both the differential and the cumulative methods of screen analysis the
required question was answered.

INTRODUCTION
Solids may be separated from solids by methods such as screening, magnetic separation and
electrostatic separation. Methods of separating solid particles by size alone is known a
screening. This refers to separation of solid material on the basis of size using screens of
known openings. Screening is commonly adapted for dry particulate solids and occasionally
for wet sizes. The materials for screens are usually metal bars, woven wire cloth, silk bolting
cloth, perforated metal plates.
This operation is important as it serves functions such as removal of fines from feed before a
reduction equipment such as a jaw crusher, ball mill or rod mill. To include as the prevention
of an incompletely crushed material (oversize) from entering into other units. In addition the
operations insures the production of a commercial or process grade material to meet specific
particle size limits and the removal of the fine from a finished product prior to shipping.

THEORY
In screening, a mixture of solid particles of various sizes is dropped on a screening
surface/screen (a surface with suitable openings) which acts as multiple go and no gage. the
material that passes through the screening is called the undersize and while the material that
remains on the screen surface is called the oversize. A single screen can make a single
separation of a material charged into two fractions. Basically there two types of screening
analysis methods, which namely are the DIFFERENTIAL and CUMMULATIVE. In
differential screen analysis the average size of the particle retained on any particular screen is
calculated as the arithmetic mean of two screen openings used to obtain. The second method
of reporting screen analysis, cumulative analysis, is obtained from differential analysis by
adding cumulatively, the individual weight fractions of material retained on each screen,
starting with that retained on the largest mesh. In this experiment we conducted cumulative
screen analysis.

APPARATU
 Tyler screens
  Mesh
 Pan
 Cover
 Fine brush
 Weighing balance
 Sieve sharker

PROCEDURE
1. Arrange the screens in the following order
2. At the bottom the pan,106mesh, 202mesh, and so on until the largest mesh, 428mesh
on top
3. A sample of 200g was taken and accurately weighed after carrying out the procedure
thoroughly mixing to ensure a representation of sample, and accurately weighed
4. The sample was placed on top of the screen mesh and the set of screens was shaken
for about 10-15min
5. After which the fraction remaining at each screen was shaken off (carefully not
damage the screens) and weighed
6. The results where then tabulated as shown in the following analysis and the graphs
where constructed as prescribed

DATA COLLECTION
the table below shows the data collected from the experiment
MESH SIZE (µ) Wt RETAINED (g)
428 118.1
355 12.0
300 7.6
250 8.2
212 17.7
106 23.1
pan 13.3

DATA ANLYSIS
The table below shows the mass size, tyler mesh, Wt retained Wt retained percentage,
cumulative Wt retained percentage and the cumulative Wt percentage passing
Size micron Tyler mesh Wt retained %wt cuml, wt% Cuml, wt%
(g) retained retained passing
428 118.1 59.05 59.05 40.95
355 12.0 6 65.05 34.95
300 7.6 3.8 68.08 31.15
250 8.2 4.1 72.95 27.05
212 17.7 8.85 81.8 18.5
 106 23.1 11.55 93.35 6.65
pan 13.3 6.65 100 0.00

The graph below shows the cuml wt% passing against the screen size in microns

Chart Title
45
40
35
cumml wt% passing

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
screen size in microns

Series1 Series2

The estimated passing size of 80% from the analysed data would be 355-300 owing to the fact
that the 80% estimate lays between 34.95-31.15

DISCUSSION
For the sample that was given for subjection it was observed that after the sample was analysed
after the results collected from the shaker that the amount of mass collected from the first sieve
was quite large and as the masses dropped down through the sieves the amount gradually
reduced up-to until the mesh with a sieve size of 250 microns were again downwards it started
to increase, this finding could be attributed to the fact different mesh sizes traps particles of
different sizes despite the arrangement of the sieves. It was also observed from the answer that
80% of the mass retained between the mesh size of 355 and 300, which implied that the mass
particle size distribution within the mixture allowed for retention at the given sieve sizes. It is
well to note that the experiment was a success with no noticeable challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Given to nature of the process it would be wise before setting up the entire process to first give
analysis of the sample to be worked on and the amount of size of particle size that is to be
obtained. This is important as it helps to be chose the set of sieves with the proper mesh sizes to
better suit the exercise
CONCLUSSION
The graph plotted was to in relation to the one generally plotted when giving out the fractions
of the sizes contained within the material, which was between 355 and 300 microns as the 80%
of the mass passing size.

REFERENCES
1. A.N Mugala, P. Chipili & J. Musonda. Chemical engineering lab manual ce330
2. CM2200_2009 HW 3
3. Dr. Kurella Swamy. Solid separations
4. WWW. GOOGLE.COM