BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

Department of Chemical Engineering

CHE F312 Chemical Engineering Laboratory-2

Laboratory Report

Name of TA and Signature:

Submission Date: 09/04/2024

Group Number: 10

Name ID Signature

Ayyappan Pillai 2021A1PS2370P

Shubh Nema 2021A1PS2602P

Palash Gagrani 2021A1PS2580P

A Sai Puviiyarasu 2021A1PS2594P

Experiment No: 5
Experiment Name:Jaw Crusher , Roll Crusher and Ball Mill

1. Aim :To study the operations of crushing and grinding equipment, namely jaw crusher,
roll crusher and ball mill..

2. Objectives of the experiment:To calculate the specific surface( total surface per unit
mass particle) , volume surface mean diameter , mass mean diameter, volume mean
diameter and number of particles.
Calculate Kk and Kr only for the jaw crusher.

3. Laboratory Observations:

Sphericity of Particle 0.7

Specific Gravity 2.66

Volume Shape Factor (a) 2

Feed weight (m) 3 kg

Power Initial (P1) kW

Power Final (P2) kW

Time min

Page 1 of 14
 For Jaw Crusher:

S.No Sieve No. Size(mm) Weight obtained (g)

1 1 20 23.48

2 2 12.5 276.8

3 3 6.3 1101.56

For Roll Crusher:

Sieve BSS Size (mm)

S.No No. Weight obtained (kg)
1 6 2.80 884.8
2 7 2.36 108.8
3 10 1.70 64
4 16 1 45.1

For Ball Mill:

Sieve BSS
S.No No. Size (mm) Weight obtained (g)
1 100 0.15 36.2
2 170 0.090 2.81
3 240 0.063 3.54

4. Sample Calculations
Calculations for Jaw Crusher:

Page 2 of 14
 Mesh Size Dpi xi xi/Dpi (1/m) xiDpi (m) xi/(Dpi3) (1/m3)
0 3.15 0.53264 169.0920635 0.001677816 17041276.24
6.3 9.4 0.3671966667 39.06347518 0.003451648667 442094.5584
12.5 16.25 0.09233333333 5.682051282 0.001500416667 21517.82734
20 20 0.00783 0.3915 0.0001566 978.75

Calculation of Kick’s Law, Bond’s Law and Work Index for Jaw Crusher:

Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14
Calculations for Roll Crusher:
Calculation table for Roll Mill:

Mesh Size Dpi xi xi/Dpi xiDpi xi/(Dpi3)

2.8 2.58 0.002342069191 0.9077787562 0.000006042538513 136376.8337
2.36 2.03 0.001842790875 0.9077787562 0.000003740865476 220286.5287
1.7 1.35 0.001225501321 0.9077787562 0.000001654426783 498095.3395
1 0.5 0.0004538893781 0.9077787562 0.000000226944689 3631115.025

Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14
Calculations for Ball Mill

Mesh Size Dpi xi xi/Dpi xiDpi xi/(Dpi3)

0.00283419933 0.000000340103920
0.15 0.12 9 23.61832782 6 1640161654
0.00180680207
0.09 0.0765 8 23.61832782 0.000000138220359 4035768777
0.00074397732 0.000000023435285
0.063 0.0315 64 23.61832782 78 23802799519

Page 7 of 14
Page 8 of 14
5. Results

Jaw Crusher Product Characteristics

Ds (mm) 9.084326359
Dw (mm) 14.65783
Dv (mm) 5.389641662
Nw 1201
Aw (m^2/Kg) 0.3547144214

Different constants for Jaw Crusher:

Kicks Law Constant(kWh/kg) 0.03775588024

Rittingers Law Constant
(kWh.m/kg) 0.0002141028656
Work Index 0.009868483629

Page 9 of 14
Roll crusher product characteristics:

Ds (mm) 275.3975
Dw (mm) 0.01166477546
Dv (mm) 6.063419999
Nw 844
Aw (m^2/Kg) 0.01170069288

-0.0645621184
Kicks Law Constant 6
Rittingers Law -0.0020692083
Constant 33
-0.0811286476
Work Index 2

Ball mill cumulative and differential analysis:

Ds (mm) 14.11333333
0.00050175956
Dw (mm) 54
Dv (mm) 0.3237156858
Nw 5.54E+06
Aw (m^2/Kg) 0.2283189585

Kicks Law Constant 1.202057804

Rittingers Law
Constant 5.31E-02
Work Index 1.734467881

6. Discussion:-
Ayyappan Pillai -
The differential analysis shows that the maximum fraction of the product obtained from the
roll mill is retained on the mesh size of 2.58 mm.
In the cumulative analysis it can be seen that the cumulative analysis chart does not reach till
1. This is because of the set of mesh sizes selected for the analysis. The mesh with the largest
opening also retains the maximum fraction of the particles. If we had selected a mesh with a

Page 10 of 14
The value of Kick’s constant & Rittinger constant for jaw crusher is 0.03775588024 kWh/kg
and 0.0002141028656 kWh/kg respectively.

A Sai Puviiyarasu -
● In differential analysis, the highest proportion of product yielded by the jaw crusher,
smooth roll mill, and ball crusher is retained at mesh sizes of 6.3mm, 2.58mm, and
0.12mm respectively.
● Cumulative analysis indicates that the chart does not extend beyond a value of 1. This
is because of the set of mesh sizes selected for the analysis.
● The Kick’s constant and Rittinger constant for the jaw crusher are measured at
0.03775588024 kWh/kg and 0.0002141028656 kWh/kg, respectively. The high Nw
value(1201) suggests that the crusher requires a significant amount of energy input to
achieve the desired particle size reduction.
● Similarly, the Kick’s constant and Rittinger constant for the roll crusher are measured
at -0.06456211846 kWh/kg and -0.002069208333 kWh/kg, respectively. The negative
values indicate that the roll crusher is less efficient in terms of energy consumption
for particle size reduction.
● Finally, the Kick’s constant and Rittinger constant for the roll crusher are measured at
1.202057804 kWh/kg and 5.31E-02 kWh/kg, respectively. The values show that the
Ball Mill is highly efficient in terms of energy consumption for particle size
reduction, as would be expected for this type of mill.
SHUBH NEMA-
● In the differential analysis, the jaw crusher, smooth roll mill, and ball crusher exhibit
their highest product proportions at mesh sizes of 6.3mm, 2.58mm, and 0.12mm
respectively.

● Cumulative analysis indicates that the chart's range does not surpass a value of 1 due
to the specific mesh sizes selected for the analysis.

● The Kick’s constant and Rittinger constant for the jaw crusher are determined to be
0.03775588024 kWh/kg and 0.0002141028656 kWh/kg correspondingly. The
elevated Nw value (1201) implies significant energy input requirement for the crusher
to achieve the desired particle size reduction.

● Similarly, the roll crusher's Kick’s constant and Rittinger constant are recorded at
-0.06456211846 kWh/kg and -0.002069208333 kWh/kg respectively, suggesting less
efficiency in energy consumption for particle size reduction due to the negative
values.

Page 11 of 14
 ● Lastly, the ball crusher's Kick’s constant and Rittinger constant are measured at
1.202057804 kWh/kg and 5.31E-02 kWh/kg respectively, indicating highly efficient
energy consumption for particle size reduction, aligning with the expected efficiency
for this type of mill.
Palash Gagrani -
● With mesh sizes of 6.3 mm, 2.58 mm, and 0.12 mm, respectively, the jaw crusher,
smooth roll mill, and ball crusher maintain the most percentage of product produced
in differential analysis.
● The cumulative analysis shows that the chart ends with a value of 1. This is a result of
the mesh sizes that were chosen for the analysis.
● For the jaw crusher, the values of the Kick's constant and Rittinger constant are
0.03775588024 kWh/kg and 0.0002141028656 kWh/kg, respectively. Given the high
Nw value (1201), it is likely that the crusher will need to use a substantial amount of
energy to reduce the particle size to the acceptable level.
● Likewise, with the roll crusher, the values of the Kick's constant and Rittinger
constant are -0.06456211846 kWh/kg and -0.002069208333 kWh/kg, respectively.
● The roll crusher is less effective at reducing particle size when it comes to energy
consumption, as indicated by the negative figures.
● In conclusion, the roll crusher's Kick's constant and Rittinger constant are measured to
be 1.202057804 kWh/kg and 5.31E-02 kWh/kg, respectively.
● The impact crusher, due to its high rotational speed and impact force, exhibits
efficient particle size reduction.
● The hammer mill, known for its versatility in handling various materials,
demonstrates a moderate energy requirement for particle size reduction.

7. Conclusions:-
A Sai Puviiyarasu -
● As the mesh size decreases from 20 mm to 0 mm, the cumulative fraction of
the product increases steadily.
● The Jaw crusher tends to produce a wide range of particle sizes, with a higher
proportion of larger particles at larger mesh sizes. It is more effective for
coarse crushing or initial size reduction.
● The cumulative fraction of the Roll Crusher product increases steadily as the
mesh size decreases from 2.8 mm to 1 mm, indicating that smaller particle
sizes are produced at finer mesh sizes.
● The Roll crusher demonstrates a tendency towards producing a more uniform
particle size distribution, with a higher proportion of smaller particles at
smaller mesh sizes, and hence is more effective for fine crushing or refining.
● As the mesh size decreases from 0.15 mm to 0.063 mm, the cumulative
fraction of the Ball Mill product decreases steadily.
● Ball Mill produces a very fine and uniform particle size distribution, with the
smaller particles being more prevalent.

Page 12 of 14
Ayyappan Pillai -
● As the aperture size decreases from 20 mm to 0 mm, there's a consistent increase in
the proportion of product obtained. The Jaw crusher generates various particle sizes,
with a greater occurrence of larger particles at larger apertures. It's particularly
efficient for rough crushing or primary size reduction.
● The cumulative proportion of product from the Roll Crusher steadily rises as the
aperture size decreases from 2.8 mm to 1 mm, indicating finer particle sizes at smaller
apertures. The Roll Crusher tends to yield a more even particle size distribution, with
a higher ratio of smaller particles at reduced apertures, making it more suitable for
fine crushing or refining.
● With the reduction in aperture size from 0.15 mm to 0.063 mm, there's a consistent
decline in the cumulative fraction of the Ball Mill product. The Ball Mill produces an
exceedingly fine and uniform particle size distribution, with smaller particles being
more prominent.

SHUBH NEMA-
● With decreasing mesh size from 20mm to 0mm, the cumulative fraction of the
product steadily increases.
● Jaw crusher: Generates a wide range of particle sizes, with larger particles dominating
at larger mesh sizes. Primarily effective for coarse crushing or initial size reduction
tasks.
● Roll crusher: Shows a steady increase in cumulative fraction of product as mesh size
decreases from 2.8mm to 1mm, indicating production of smaller particle sizes at finer
mesh sizes. Demonstrates a tendency towards a more uniform particle size
distribution, making it effective for fine crushing or refining operations.
● Ball Mill: Exhibits a steady decrease in cumulative fraction of product as mesh size
decreases from 0.15mm to 0.063mm. Produces a highly fine and uniform particle size
distribution, with smaller particles being more prevalent.

Palash Gagrani -
● There is a steady increase in the cumulative proportion of the product as the mesh size
reduces from 20 mm to 0 mm.
● A greater percentage of bigger particles are produced at increased mesh sizes by the
jaw crusher, which typically produces a wide range of particle sizes. For initial size
reduction or coarse crushing, it works better.
● As the mesh size drops from 2.8 mm to 1 mm, the cumulative proportion of the Roll
Crusher output increases gradually, suggesting that smaller particle sizes are
generated at finer mesh sizes.
● The roll crusher works better for fine crushing or refining because it tends to produce
a more consistent particle size distribution with a larger proportion of smaller particles
at smaller mesh sizes.

Page 13 of 14
● There is a steady drop in the cumulative proportion of the Ball Mill product as the
mesh size goes from 0.15 mm to 0.063 mm.
● The smaller particles are more common in the extremely fine and homogeneous
particle size distribution that a ball mill generates.
● Attrition mills excel in producing a homogeneous particle size distribution,
particularly at finer mesh sizes. Their ability to generate a high proportion of fine
particles makes them suitable for applications where particle size consistency is
critical, such as in the preparation of ceramic materials.
● Rod mills are effective in producing a relatively narrow particle size distribution, with
a gradual decrease in particle size as mesh size decreases. This characteristic makes
them well-suited for applications requiring fine grinding, such as in the preparation of
ores for flotation.

7) References:
● Chemical Reaction Engineering by Octave Levenspeil. Chapter 2 to 5
● Fogler H. Scott (2008). Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering. 4th Ed. ND:
Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. pp 55-57

Page 14 of 14