Adamson University

College of Engineering
Chemical Engineering Department

Experiment no. 7
Size Reduction

Submitted by:
Anastacio, Van Calvin
Dacaya, Fatima Shiena
Fabros, Kaye
Manalansan, Franco
Mission, Ervin

February 26, 2016

I.

Abstract
Raw Materials that are used in manufacturing industries are usually coarse and
must be reduced in size. Crushing and grinding followed by screen analysis are done to
separate the desired products. Using the Rittingers Law, energy requirement for size
reduction is determined. It states that the energy required to reduce a certain material is
directly proportional to the surface area created.
The experiment was done using crusher and pulverizer. The products of crusher
were fed to the pulverizer followed by screen analysis to determine the size ranges of the
products. Differential and Cumulative methods were used to report the theoretical energy
requirement and crushing efficiency. Low new surface areas created were obtained which
yield a low crushing efficiency.

II.

Introduction
Reduction of particle size is an important operation in many chemical and other
industries. The important reasons for size reduction are for easy handling, increase in
surface area per unit volume, and for separation of entrapped components.
The operation is highly energy intensive; hence a variety of specialized equipment
is available for specific applications. The equipment may utilize one or more of the
following physical mechanisms for size reduction: (i) Compression, (ii) Impact, (iii)
Attrition, (iv) Cutting. Estimation of energy for the operation is important and is usually
done by empirical equations. Enormous quantities of energy are consumed in size

reduction operations. Size reduction is the most inefficient unit operations in terms of
energy, as 99% of the energy supplied goes to operating the equipment and producing
undesirable heat and noise, while less than 1% goes in creating new interfacial area.
Reduction to very fine sizes is much more costly in terms of energy as compared to
relatively coarse products.

III.

Theoretical Background
The minimum energy required for crushing is the energy required for creating
fresh surface. In addition, energy is absorbed by the particulate material due to
deformation, friction, etc., which results in an increase of the material temperature.
Defining the crushing efficiency as

(1)
Where es is the surface energy per unit area and W n is the energy absorbed. We
can experimentally find c.The range of c is between 0.06 1.00%. If
mechanical efficiency, the energy input is

(2)

is the

Finally, the grinding energy used per unit mass is

(3)
where m is mass of material being ground. In the above equation, is the
sphericity, Ds is the surface volume diameter and the subscripts a and b refer to the initial
and final states, respectively.
Experiments show that the first term in Eq. (3) is not independent of Ds, and as a
result the above equation is difficult to use for analysis. Instead a number of empirical
laws have been proposed for calculation the energy requirements for crushing. The laws
can be unified in a differential form as follows:

(4)
The different laws for the different values of the exponent are

(5)

(6)

(7)

Note that the definition of particle size in Bonds law is different: D80 = Particle
size such that 80% by weight of the sample is smaller than it. Bonds law is often written
in terms of the work index (Wi) as,

(8)
Where the work index is defined as the energy required per unit mass in kWh/ton
to reduce an infinitely large particles to D80 = 100 m. In the above equation, unit of
D80 is m, of W is kWh and of m is ton. Values of the work index: obtained from
experiments for different materials are given in the table below.

IV.

Procedure

A. Preparation of screen analysis of products obtained from crusher and grinder.

Basic operation to Ro Tap Siever Shaker
1. Assemble a stack sieves, beginning with a top cover and then the coarsest sieve
opening on top and a pan on the bottom. Place them into the shaker. When
placing the sieves into the Ro-Taps, the hammer should be tilted up and out of the way.

2. Place the sieve cover, with the cork installed, on top of the stack.
3. Adjust the sieve support clamp bar with the two wing nuts, bringing the top of
the sieve cover flush with upper carrying plate.
B. Hammer Drop Adjustment
Prior to hammer adjustment, make sure cork in sieve cover is seated firmly. Make sure
top edge flush upper carrying plate.
1. Removal pedestal cover.
2. Jog Machine until hammer rises to a maximum height, check height with
scales.
3. Set height to 15/16 +/- 1/16. By loosening screw on coupling and adjusting lift rod.
4. Tighten screw on coupling.
5. Replace pedestal cover.
C. Starting the Shaker
1. Make sure a sieve track is in place at this time. Set the test run time, by simply turning
the thumb wheel (+) or (-) to the desired time in the digital window.
2. Push the start bar to start test and note countdown time. An audible tone will be heard
in the end of the test. You can interrupt the step at any time, by simply pushing the stop
bar.
D. Performing a Sieve Analysis

1. Select a set of test sieves with mesh openings that will reveal particle distribution at
critical sizes. Critical sizes are usually stated in a product specification.
2. Assemble a test of sieves with coarsest opening on top of the stack.
3. Place the test sieve stack into the sieve shaker, and place the cover on top of the stack.
The sieve must be secured into place. The shaker should be operated at proper length of
time.
4. After completion of the agitation, weigh the material retained on each sieve in order to
record the date.
5. Using the extra bottom pan, empty the materials retained on the coarsest sieve into the
pan.
6. If several extra pans are available, it is best not to discard this portion of the sample
until the entire process is completed. Same procedure must be done on other sieves in the
stack.

V. Results
Differential Analysis
For Crusher:

Mesh no.
+20
20/40
40/60
60/80
80/100
100/200
-200

Xi
0.9417
0.016321
0.024957
0.004059
0.001641
0.006649
0.004663

Dave
0.328
0.0233
0.01175
0.0083
0.00635
0.00435
-

For Pulverizer:
Mesh no.
+20
20/40
40/60
60/80
80/100
100/200
-200

Xi
0.929943
0.02574
0.012358
0.00677
0.02755
0.012201
0.010233

Dave
0.328
0.0233
0.01775
0.00833
0.00635
0.00435
-

Xi
1
0.05829
0.041969
0.017012
0.012953
0.011313

Dave
0.039
0.0328
0.0138
0.0097
0.0069
0.0058

Cumulative Analysis
For Crusher:
Mesh no.
20
40
60
80
100
200

For Pulverizer:
Mesh no.
20
40
60
80
100
200

Xi
1
0.070057
0.044317
0.031958
0.025189
0.022434

Dave
0.039
0.0328
0.0138
0.0097
0.0069
0.0058

Characteristic of Solid
For Crusher:
True Arithmetic mean diameter
Mean Surface diameter
Mean Volume diameter
Specific Surface

0.11167
0.094036
2.42x10-6
0.007561

For Pulverizer:
True Arithmetic mean diameter
Mean Surface diameter

0.008764
0.0077562

Mean Volume diameter

Specific Surface

1.61x10-6
0.007657

Energy Requirement

For Pulverizer:
Kr = 75.9cm2/kg-cm
1
1

E = P/m = Kr ( D 2 D1

Where: D2 = mean surface diameter at pulverizer

D1 = mean surface diameter at product
E = 67.372

Discussion:
Size reduction can be illustrated as the process in which the particle size of a substance or
chemical is reduced. This process converts the substance or chemical to smaller pieces, powders,
coarse particles, or an advanced type of subdivision. The synonymous terms comminution and
grinding are used for the process of size reduction. In addition, most often, the raw or active
materials to be used in formulations do not exist in desired size. For that reason, most of the
materials are reduced to an optimum size at different stages during processing of a preparation
In this experiment, different materials were size reduced using a crusher and a pulverizer.
The reduced materials were analysed and from the results obtained in the experiment, both the
differential and cumulative analysis are the same for the crusher and pulverizer. The mass

fraction for each mesh number though has different results. For the differential analysis, at less
than Mesh 200, mass fraction for the crusher is 0.004663 and for the pulverizer it was 0.010233.
For the cumulative analysis at the same mesh number, mass fraction are 0.011313 and 0.022434
for crusher and pulverizer respectively. This result just shows that size reduction for pulverizer is
more efficient than crusher with respect to the less than Mesh 200. The difference of the two size
reduction equipment would be: compression crushers are used to break rocks and coarse particles
larger than 3 cm in diameter, while pulverizers, also known as fluid energy mills, are used for
fine grinding and close particle size control. They are primarily used when contamination-free
products are desired.

Conclusion:
Particle size reduction is technology choice to reduce the size of a particle in the
manufacturing process to improve an active ingredient. There are numerous industries that
depend on size reduction to improve performance or to meet specifications. The pharmaceutical,
chemical, and food industries all depend on particle size reduction. Based from the results of
differential and cumulative analysis obtained from the size reduction analysis, we can conclude
that size reduction using pulverizers is more efficient than crushers if the desired product from
size reduction is a very very small particle. Otherwise, crushers should be used instead of
pulverizers. In pharmaceutical industry where particles are required to have a smaller size,

pulverizer is most applicable to use than the crusher. There are also some industrial applications
that require bigger particle size and for these types, crushers is most likely to use.