Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Grinding and sieving

Lab Report- June 11th, 2019


Group 4 – Subgroup A

Stalin José Manjarrez Castro1 Daniela Alejandra Romero Garzón2 Edwin Ricardo Sánchez Vargas3 Leidy Katherine Serrato Triviño4
Alberto Tovar Cuellar5

General Objective1
• Ball Mill (Siemens). It works with spherical rocks,
Compare the results obtained from the grinding of coffee three-phase connection and one rotation speed (fig-
grains in two different equipment: rotary ball grinding mill ure 2).
and hammer mill, varying the operation conditions to eval-
uate the case in which the highest reduction is achieved.

Specific Objectives

● Elaborate the cumulative analysis of the grinding


products.
● Determine the work index of coffee.
● Elaborate the differential analysis of the products, re-
porting the sphere's equivalent average diameter and Figure 2. Ball mill. Source: adapted from [2]
the Sauter`s diameter.
• Planetary Ball Mill (Intercer). It works with spherical
Materials and Equipment rocks, 4 grinding containers and variable rotation
speed (figure 3).

The material to be ground and sieved is dry corn.

Mills

the laboratory has three mills with the following charac-


teristics:
• Hammer mill. It has rotating hammers, three-phase
Figure 3. Planetary Ball mill. Source: adapted from
connection and one rotation speed (figure 1).
[2]

The hammer mill and the ball mill do not share a power
source, but they do share a voltage and current meter.
Magnitudes that must be measured for each mill sepa-
rately.

Voltage and current meter


As previously mentioned, there is a voltage and current
measurement board, to which the hammer mill and the
ball mill can be connected (Figure 5).

Figure 1. Hammer mill. Source: adapted from [2]

Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Inge-


niería Química y Ambiental {1sjmanjarrezc, 2daaromerogar, 3ersanchezv, 4lkserra-
tot, 5altovarcu }@unal.edu.co

1
Grinding and sieving

In tables 2 and 3 are the measurements made for the ball


and hammer mills. Each test was carried out with a load
of 200 grams of dry corn.
Table 2. Data of the grinding of dry corn with the ball mill
Voltage Amperage Power
Time [s]
[V] [A] [W]
20 207,7 1,22 253,81
40 207,6 1,22 253,69
60 207,3 1,22 253,32
80 207,3 1,22 253,32
100 207,6 1,22 253,69
120 207,6 1,22 253,69
Figure 4. Measurement board of voltage and current
140 207,3 1,22 253,32
consumed, Chemical Engineering Laboratory of the Na- 160 207,5 1,22 253,57
tional University of Colombia. 180 207,3 1,22 253,32
200 207,5 1,22 253,57
Sieving Equipment 220 207,4 1,22 253,44
240 207,1 1,22 253,08
The screening equipment (Sieve Shaker) has 6 Tyler series 260 207,2 1,22 253,20
sieves number 8, 10, 14, 18, 20 and 50 (figure 5). 280 207,7 1,22 253,81
300 207,5 1,22 253,57
Average 207,4 1,22 253,08
Mill without Corn 206,4 1,2 247,68
Used Power 5,40

Table 3. Data of the grinding of dry corn with the hammer


mill.
Time [s] Voltage [V] Amperage [A] Power [W]
10 206,7 1,66 343,12
20 206,0 1,70 350,20
30 206,3 1,72 354,84
40 206,5 1,70 351,05
50 206,6 1,68 347,09
Figure 5. Sieving Equipment. 60 206,5 1,68 346,92
70 206,7 1,70 351,39
To perform the corn grinding process, the hammer mill 80 206,4 1,67 344,69
90 206,5 1,71 353,12
and the ball mill will be used. the procedures are shown 100 206,2 1,71 352,60
in the annexes, as well as the steps to follow in the sieving. 110 206,5 1,69 348,99
120 206,4 1,68 346,75
Average 206,4 1,69 349,2
Data Tables Mill without Corn 206,2 1,50 309,30
To determine the particle size of the corn used, a charac- Used Power 39,93
terization of 10 different corn seeds was carried out. This
was done by measuring the diameter from three different Finally, the sieving results are shown in Tables 4 and 5.
positions (table 1). This process was carried out for 8 minutes.
Table 1. Characterization of corn used for grinding. Table 4. Data of the sieving of dry corn with the ball mill.
Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Diameter 3 Average Diam-
Seed Mesh Mesh Diameter Particle Diameter
[cm] [cm] [cm] eter [cm] Mass [g]
1 1,540 1,000 0,720 1,087
Number [mm] [mm]
2 1,500 1,000 0,610 1,037 6 3,36 3,68 88,1
3 1,450 0,940 0,865 1,085 8 2,38 2,87 9
4 1,000 0,960 0,600 0,853 14 1,41 1,90 0,7
5 1,435 1,140 0,600 1,058 20 0,84 1,13 1
6 1,370 1,225 0,910 1,168 25 0,71 0,78 0,2
7 0,930 0,840 0,805 0,858 35 0,5 0,61 0,2
8 1,055 0,925 0,600 0,860 Bottoms <0,5 0,25 0,6
9 1,440 0,930 0,665 1,012
10 1,180 1,100 0,610 0,963

2
MANJARREZ, ROMERO, SÁNCHEZ, SERRATO, TOVAR

Table 5. Data of the sieving of dry corn with the Hammer Power
mill.
Mesh Mesh Particle In the time of 10 seconds for the mentioned hammer mill:
Mass [g]
Number Diameter [mm] Diameter [mm]
8 2,38 2,61 51,9 𝑃 =𝑉∗𝐴 (6)
14 1,41 1,90 11,4
25 0,71 1,06 18,6 P =1.66*206.7=343,12 W
35 0,5 0,61 3,9 Since it is a continuous system, the average power of the
60 0,25 0,38 6,7 equipment is determined by finding the area under the
100 0,149 0,20 2,6 curve (Potency vs. Time) and dividing it by the elapsed
Bottoms <0,149 0,07 3 time. Because the power did not vary almost nothing in
each measurement, the medium power is equal to the av-
erage power, 349,2 W for the hammer mill. The energy
consumption for grinding is calculated with the subtrac-
tion between the average power and the power of the no-
Sample of Calculations load mill:
𝑃𝐶 = 349,2 − 309,3 = 39,93𝑊
Differential and cumulative analysis
Bond Work Index
To perform the sample of calculations, the data obtained
during the milling of 200 g of corn, using a hammer mill, To calculate Bond's Work Index, equation 7 was used.
will be taken. The sieving tests were done with 100 g, alt-
hough this is not the total mass at the end since mass is 1 1
𝐸 = 10𝑊 [ − ] (7)
lost when weighing the material. √𝑋2 √𝑋1
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = ∑ 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖 (1) Where, E is the required energy [kWh/ton], 𝑋2 is the di-
ameter of 80% of the product [μm], 𝑋1 is the diameter of
= 51,9 + 11,4 + 18,6 + 3,9 + 6,7 + 2,6 + 3 = 98,1𝑔
80% of the food [μm] and W the Bond work index, de-
𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖 fined as the energy required to reduce a mass unit of a
∆ϕ𝑖 = (2) material from an infinite particle size to a size such that
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
80% passes through a 100 μm sieve.
51,9𝑔
∆𝜙𝑖(𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 8) = = 0.529
98,1𝑔
39,93𝑘𝑤/0,2𝑘𝑔
𝜙𝑖 = ∆𝜙𝑖 + 𝜙𝑖−1 (3) 𝑊= = 347,7𝐾𝑤ℎ/𝑡𝑜𝑛
1 1
10 (√ −√ )
0,22 × 103 10 × 103
∆𝛟𝒊 is used for the differential analysis and 𝝓𝒊 for the cu-
mulative.
Diameters Results and discussion
In this section the Sauter (𝐷𝑆𝑉 ) and the arithmetic medium Figure 6 shows the cumulative particle size profiles for the
diameters (𝐷𝐴𝑀 ) are calculated. The first thing to consider milled samples; in the ball mill and the hammer mill, while
is that the particle diameter (𝐷𝑝𝑖 ) was calculated as an av- the differential profiles are shown in figure 7. The hammer
erage, between the diameter the mesh that retains the mill offers finer particles than the mill balls. Being more
particle and the diameter of the previous mesh. accurate, the average particle size for the sample
grounded with the ball mill is 3.54 mm and for the hammer
∑(∆ϕ𝑖 ∗ 𝐷3𝑝𝑖 )
𝐷𝑆𝑉 = (4) mill is 1.86 mm. It is important to know that having small
∑(∆ϕ𝑖 ∗ 𝐷2𝑝𝑖 ) particles since certain size can be dangerous for healthy
because the smaller particles can remain forever in the
0,529 ∙ 2,613 + ⋯ + 0,027 ∙ 0,23 lungs.
𝐷𝑆𝑉 = = 2,45𝑚𝑚
0,529 ∙ 2,612 + ⋯ + 0,027 ∙ 0,22 As shown in figure 6 the hammer mill worked better than
the ball mill, this is due to the type of ground material. the
𝐷𝐴𝑀 = ∑(∆ϕ𝑖 ∗ 𝐷𝑝𝑖 ) (5) dried corn that was milled has a fibrous structure, which
is difficult to be affected by the blow of the ball mill. The
mills use different types of forces for their work, the ball
𝐷𝐴𝑀 = 0,529 ∙ 2,61 + ⋯ + 0,2 ∙ 0,027 = 1,85𝑚𝑚 mill uses impact force while the hammer mill applies rub-
bing or shearing force.

3
Grinding and sieving

the grinding process. It is important to consider this factor


because it represents which mill will increase more the
energy consumption if the sample load is increased.
Table 6. Energetic results for both mills.
ball mill hammer mill
F80 [um] 10000 10000
P80 [um] 3680 220,21
E [Kwh/ton] 26,98 199,645
Wi 416,1 347,9

The data in table 6 show that the energy consumption (E)


was greater for the hammer mill. This behavior was ex-
pected since such consumption is directly related to the
reduction in particle size, as indicated by Bond's law (equa-
tion 7).
The work coefficient (Wi) is directly related to the reduc-
Figure 6. Cumulative particle size profile for samples grounded tion in particle size, this is different for each system, in-
with both mills. cluding type of mill and material. With this in mind, and
observing the results obtained for the ball mill (w =) and
Impact mills are used to obtain solids of course, medium the hammer mill (w =), it can be concluded that it would
and fine sizes, while mills that apply shear are used in the be more economically to use a hammer mill, to reduce a
production of fine particles. The greatest use of ball mills group of particles up to a size of 100 microns (80% of the
is in minerals, since these types of particles are quite brit- initial content). The previous result is because although
tle, although this mill can also be used in paintings, pyro- the hammer mill used more energy (8 times more), it also
technics and ceramics. That is, materials such as carbon reduced the size of the particles of the material used (dry
and pigments. These mills have the advantage of having a corn) much more.
low cost of installation and operation. On the other hand,
the hammer mill is used to reduce the size of fibrous par- In order to appreciate how the energy consumption
ticles, such as vegetables, spices and corn. changed throughout the milling, the voltage and amperage
data were taken over time, as shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
but the results were not as expected, since the consump-
tion remained almost constant throughout the grinding. It
is believed that this behavior is since the used load of corn
(200 g) was very small, which did not represent a strong
work for the power consumption of the instrument. The
fact that the energy consumed will not change considera-
bly, may be a sign that the milling process carried out for
5 minutes in the ball mill and for 2 minutes in the hammer
mill was excessive. This means that with less time the
same results would be obtained.

The results obtained the Sauter diameter in each mill are


presented in table 7. Additionally, this table contains the
average diameters, in order to appreciate the differences
and similitudes more easily.

Table 7. Average and Sauter diameters calculated for each mill


Figure 7. Differential Particle size profile for samples grounded ball mill hammer mill
with both mills. Sauter Diameter [mm] 3,63 2,45
Average diameter [mm] 3,54 1,86

To find the energy consumption of the mill, Bond's law is Sauter diameter is defined as the diameter of a sphere that
used, the results can be seen in table 6. The table shows has the same proportion of volume / surface area as a par-
that the hammer mill consumes less energy that the ball ticle of interest. consequently, the values in Table 7 indi-
mill. However, this result shows the total consume, if we cate that the ball mill expelled particles that have a size
subtract the energy consumption of the empty mills, we very close to the sphericity, contrary to the results ob-
can see that the ball mill expends less energy exclusive to tained with the hammer mill.

4
MANJARREZ, ROMERO, SÁNCHEZ, SERRATO, TOVAR

To try to make the ball mill do a better job, it was decided


to add more balls of smaller diameter to the process. but
the result was not the desired one, since the milling car-
ried out particles of the same original size, so it was not
considered necessary to do the sieving process. This re-
sult allows us to infer that it is better to use balls of the
same diameter in a ball mill.

Recommendations
It is advisable to use a material that can be ground to a
greater extent by the two types of mills available in the
laboratory. In this way, better grinding results would be
obtained, which would better meet the objectives of the
practice.
In order to find the minimum time for which the product
is already ground, it is prudent to perform several tests
varying this parameter, verifying the size reduction of the
particles by sieving each one.

Conclusions
• For fibrous materials such as corn, the use of the
hammer mill is better than the ball mill.
• The hammer mill needs a smaller amount of energy
to reduce the size of the corn particles, compared to
the ball mill. This is seen looking at the Bond index is
higher for the ball mill (table 6).
• It is very important in grinding tests, to know what is
the optimum time for which the process has already
finished. This saves energy and therefore money in
the process.

References
[1] Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle. (n.d.).
Retrieved June 9, 2019, from https://nzifst.org.nz/re-
sources/unitoperations/mechseparation6.htm

[2] Rhodes, M. [2 ed.] (2008) Introduction to particle


technol-ogy. Australia: Wiley.
[3] Ortega,E. (2012) Unit operations of particulate solids.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
[4] J.S.Tumulurua, L.G.TabilbY. SongcK.L.IrobabV. Medab
Grinding energy and physical properties of chopped and
ham-mer-milled barley, wheat, oat, and canola straws.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.011

5
Grinding and sieving

Annexes
A. Hammer mill handling B. Ball mill handling

1
This measure is done to know the energy that the mill
uses to move its own weight.
2
The balls must be of the same weight since it is this that
generates the reduction in size when falling on the parti-
cle.

6
MANJARREZ, ROMERO, SÁNCHEZ, SERRATO, TOVAR

C. Sieving

Minat Terkait