ChE 304 Chemical engineering laboratory - III

Experiment No. 8 Name of the experiment: Group No. 03 (A2)

STUDY OF CRUSHING AND GRINDING

Date of performance: 04/03/2014 Date of submission: 11/03/2014

Partners Student Id. 0902041 0902042 0902043 0902044

Department of Chemical Engineering. Bangladesh University of engineering and technology, Dhaka.

Summary
The objectives of this experiment were to calculate the power required for size reduction, to perform screen analysis of the product and to calculate the mean particle size. For this purpose both crushing and grinding were done for brick, whereas only crushing was done for concrete. KWh reading (in terms of rev) was recorded from the energy meter both at empty state of the crusher and during crushing of concrete form which experimental power requirement for size reduction was calculated. Theoretical power required was calculated by applying Bonds law for concrete. Sieves of different mesh size were used for screen analysis of both brick & concrete particles. A shaker was provided for that purpose, which ensures a better screen analysis within a short period of time. Two graphs (one for concrete and another for brick) had been plotted showing cumulative distribution plot for screen analysis. The experimental power consumption was 0.57886 kWh and theoretical power consumption was 0.028197 kWh. Linear mean diameter of concrete and brick were 0.12294 mm and 0.1883 mm respectively. The possible discrepancies in this experiment is discussed in discussion section.

Introduction
The objective of crushing and grinding operations is size reduction of particles. Size reduction is usually carried out in order to increase the surface area because, in most reactions involving solid particles, the rate is directly proportional to the area of contact with a second phase. Solids may be reduced in size by a number of methods. Compression or crushing is generally used for reduction of hard solids to coarse size. Impact gives coarse medium, or fine sizes. Attrition or rubbing yields fine products. Cutting is used to give definite sizes. In general, the terms crushing and grinding are used to signify the subdividing of large solid particles to smaller particles. In the food processing industry, a large number of food products are subjected to size reduction. Roller mills are used to grind wheat and rye to flour and corn. Soybeans are rolled, pressed and ground to produce oil and flour. Hammer mills are often used to produce potato flour, tapioca and other flours. Sugar is ground to a finer product. Since size reduction has important industrial, especially in chemical industries so the study of size reduction equipment is necessary. Grinding operations are found in many industries like cement industries. Limestone, marble, gypsum, and dolomite are ground to use as fillers in paper, paint and rubber. Raw materials for the cement industry, such as lime, alumina and silica are ground on a very large scale. Solids may be reduced in size by a number of methods. Compression or crushing is generally used for reduction of hard solids to coarse size. Impact gives coarse medium, or fine sizes. Attrition or rubbing yields fine products. Cutting is used to give definite sizes. In this experiment, both crushing and grinding were done for brick, whereas only crushing was done for concrete. The products were sieved and screen analyses were performed. Theoretical and experimental power requirements were calculated. It was found that they were not very close to each-other.

Experimental Setup

Feed Crushing chamber

Flywheel Electric motor

Plates

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of a jaw crusher.

Fixed handle Moving handle Tray Electric motor

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of a mechanical shaker.

Mill

Rotating bed

Support

Electric motor

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of a pebble mill.

Observed data
100 revolution = 1 KWh Time required for one revolution at empty state of the jaw crusher = 27.09 s Time required for two revolutions during the crushing of concrete= 18.87 s Mass of concrete collected during crushing = 1.75 kg Screen aperture used for feed concrete = 18.85 mm & 26.67 mm Mesh no used for feed brick = 4/6

Table 1: Observed data for screen analysis of concrete.

No. of Observation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Mesh No. A B C D 8 10 14 16 20 28 35 48 65 80 100 150 Residue

Screen Aperture, mm 18.850 13.330 9.423 3.000 2.362 1.651 1.168 0.991 0.833 0.589 0.417 0.295 0.208 0.175 0.147 0.104 --

Retained Mass of Concrete, kg 1.750 0.650 0.280 0.150 0.350 0.068 0.0349 0.0296 0.0362 0.0348 0.0176 0.0166 0.0124 0.0144 0.0092 0.0056 0.0183

Total concrete without mesh no. A screen = 1.706 kg

Table 2: Observed data for screen analysis of brick.

No. of Observation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Mesh No. 6 8 10 14 16 20 28 35 48 65 80 100 150 Residue

Screen Aperture, mm 3.327 2.362 1.651 1.168 0.991 0.833 0.589 0.417 0.295 0.208 0.175 0.147 0.104 --

Retained Mass of Brick, kg 1.000 0.600 0.534 0.0361 0.0192 0.0163 0.0094 0.0031 0.0030 0.0509 0.1182 0.0732 0.0099 0.0046

Total bricks without mesh no. 6 screen = 0.9973 kg

Calculated data

Table 3: Calculation of linear mean diameter for brick particle. Size Range Mass Fractio n, x C.M.F Avg. Dia. d mm CMF of sample d2 mm2 x/d mm-1 x/d2 mm-2 Smalle r than Size noted
1 0.39837 0.34483 0.30863 0.28938 0.27303 0.26361 0.26050 0.25749 0.20645 0.08793 0.01453 0.00461 0 --

Larger than Size noted

+6 -6+8 -8+10 -10+14 -14+16 -16+20 -20+28 -28+35 -35+48 -48+65 -65+80 -80+100 -100+150 -150 --

0.6016 0.0535 0.0361 0.0192 0.0163 0.0094 0.0031 0.0030 0.0510 0.1185 0.0733 0.0099 0.0046 x=1.0

0.60162 0.65516 0.69136 0.71061 0.72696 0.73638 0.73949 0.74250 0.79354 0.91206 0.98546 0.99538 1 --

2.8445 2.0065 1.4095 1.0795 0.912 0.711 0.503 0.356 0.2515 0.1915 0.161 0.1255 0.052 --

8.091180 4.026042 1.986690 1.165320 0.831744 0.505521 0.253009 0.126736 0.063252 0.036672 0.025921 0.015750 0.002704 --

0.211504 0.026685 0.025681 0.017834 0.017921 0.013256 0.006179 0.008449 0.202933 0.618903 0.455889 0.079098 0.088701 x/d=1.77

0.07435 0.01329 0.01822 0.01652 0.01965 0.01864 0.01228 0.02373 0.80689 3.23187 2.83161 0.63026 1.7057 x/d2=9.40

Table 4: Calculation of linear mean diameter of concrete particle.

Size Range

Mass Fraction, x

C.M.F.

Avg. Dia. d mm d2 mm2

CMF of sample Smaller than size noted

x/d mm-1
0.02367 0.01442 0.014155 0.076523 0.013671 0.014513 0.016072 0.023266 0.028690 0.02051 0.027332 0.028900 0.04407 0.033495 0.026155 0.206285 x/d=0.612

x/d2 mm-2
0.00147 0.001268 0.002278 0.028542 0.006813 0.010297 0.014889 0.025511 0.040351 0.040775 0.076776 0.114912 0.230168 0.208044 0.208411 3.967029 x/d2=4.978

Larger than size noted

+A -A+B -B+C -C+D -D+8 -8+10 -10+14 -14+16 -16+20 -20+28 -28+35 -35+48 -48+65 -65+80 -80+100

0.38100 0.16412 0.08792 0.20515 0.02743 0.02045 0.01735 0.02121 0.02039 0.01031 0.00973 0.00726 0.00844 0.00539

0.38100 0.54513 0.63305 0.83821 0.86565 0.88610 0.90345 0.92467 0.94507 0.95539 0.96512 0.97239 0.98083 0.98622 0.98950 1.00023 --

16.09 11.3765 6.2115 2.681 2.0065 1.4095 1.0795 0.912 0.711 0.503 0.356 0.2515 0.1915 0.161 0.1255 0.052 --

-100+150 0.00328 -150 -0.01072 x =1.0

Sample calculation

Experimental power calculation Mass of crushed concrete = 1.75 kg Time required for one revolutions at empty state of crusher =27.09 Time required for one revolutions for crushing of concrete = 18.87 sec 100 revolutions is associated with 1 KWh power Thus, 1 revolution is associated with 0.01 KWh power Experimental power required for crushing the concrete = (
0 .1 0 .1 ) 3600 18.87 27.09

= 0.57886 KWh

Theoretical Power Calculation Mass flow rate, m = (

1.75 ) 3600 tons/hr = 0.3680 tons/hr 18.87 907.14

Work index of concrete (dry crushing of cement clinker), Wi = 13.45 (Ref: McCabe, Smith, 6th ed, page: 967)

80% of feed passes a average aperture size, Dpa =

18.85 + 26.67 mm = 22.76 mm 2

80% of product passes a mesh size, Dpb = 19.3 mm (From Figure: 04) Theoretical power required for crushing 1.75 kg of concrete

P = 0.3680 0.3162 13.45 (

1 19.3

1 22.76

) kW = 0.028197 KWh

Ratio of experimental power required to theoretical power required = 0.57886: 0.028197 = 20.53: 1

Linear mean diameter calculation

Linear mean diameter for concrete

d d
xi
i 2 i

xi
i 2 i

xi

0.612 0.12294 mm 4.978

Linear mean diameter for brick

d d

xi

1.77 0.1883 mm 9.40

Graphical Representation
1.2

Cumulative mass fratction

0.8

0.6

Smaller than size noted Greater than size noted

0.4

0.2

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Average particle diameter, d mm

Figure 4: Cumulative mass fraction vs. average particle diameter graph for concrete.

1.2

Cumulative mass fraction

0.8

Smaller than size noted Larger than size noted

0.6

0.4

0.2

Average particle diameter, d mm

Figure 5: Cumulative mass fraction vs. average particle diameter graph for brick.

Results and Discussions

Experimental values Power required for crushing 1.75 kg concrete = 0.57886 kWh Linear mean particle diameter of concrete = 0.12294 mm Linear mean particle diameter of brick = 0.1883 mm

Theoretical values Power required for crushing 1.81 kg concrete = 0.028197 kWh

From the obtained result it was found that there was huge deviation between experimental and theoretical power required for crushing 1.75 kg concrete. This huge deviation might be occurred because extra energy was consumed in jaw crusher for producing huge noise, certain amount of heat, vibration and friction among the moving parts. These all things reduced the efficiency of the jaw crusher. Belts joining the motor armature and wheel might had some looseness generated from friction of long time using. Thus it caused the crusher to consume extra energy during the loaded condition than vacant condition. The motor used in the jaw crusher itself was not highly efficient. It had also consumed certain extra amount of energy during crushing for its low efficiency. Power required for crushing was recorded from energy meter for only one observation. Several observation should be taken to get more accurate value. The measurement of linear particle diameter was not fully accurate. There was loss of particle mass during shaking and fine particles were suspended in air which might cause error in results. A single standard series of screen was not used rather both the Tyler standard screens and the American standard screens were used. That led to a great erroneous result. The wire meshes were age-old and rusty. Erosion might change the screen apertures to a certain limit and this can affect our results. There was clogging of small particles in the wire mesh. Separating them was difficult. We had to count this error. The shaker was out of order and did not prove any good. Moreover, some particle was lost during the experiment on the floor and the atmosphere. All that have been seen after performing the experiment and calculations is that, the experiment could be done under much more carefulness if the discrepancies could be avoided.

Conclusion
Chemical engineers meet particulate solids in carrying out many industrial operations where crushing and grinding is a part of any process. Though crushing and grinding is very much inefficient process from the energy consideration, it has large industrial application. In this experiment concrete and brick were crushed and brick was grinded further. Concrete and brick both were dry. Power required for crush of concrete calculated which proved the in-efficiencies of the process. However, the experiment gives us practical knowledge about industrial crushing and grinding.