Study Of Crushing And Grinding 1m58n
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 3i3n4
Overview 26281t
& View Study Of Crushing And Grinding as PDF for free.
More details 6y5l6z
- Words: 1,996
- Pages: 17
ChE 304 Chemical engineering laboratory - III Experiment No. 8
Group No. 03 (A2)
Name of the experiment:
STUDY OF CRUSHING AND GRINDING Submitted by: Md. Hasib Al Mahbub Student Id: 0902045 Level: 3; Term: 2 Section: A2
Date of performance: 04/03/2014
Partners’ Student Id. 0902041
Date of submission: 11/03/2014
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 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 Bond’s 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 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 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
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
Mesh No. A
Screen Aperture, mm 18.850
Retained Mass of Concrete, kg 1.750
1 2
B
13.330
0.650
3
C
9.423
0.280
4
D
3.000
0.150
5
8
2.362
0.350
6
10
1.651
0.068
7
14
1.168
0.0349
8
16
0.991
0.0296
9
20
0.833
0.0362
10
28
0.589
0.0348
11
35
0.417
0.0176
12
48
0.295
0.0166
13
65
0.208
0.0124
14
80
0.175
0.0144
15
100
0.147
0.0092
16
150
0.104
0.0056
17
Residue
--
0.0183
Total concrete without mesh no. A screen = 1.706 kg
Table 2: Observed data for screen analysis of brick.
No. of Observation
Mesh No. 6
Screen Aperture, mm 3.327
Retained Mass of Brick, kg 1.000
1 2
8
2.362
0.600
3
10
1.651
0.534
4
14
1.168
0.0361
5
16
0.991
0.0192
6
20
0.833
0.0163
7
28
0.589
0.0094
8
35
0.417
0.0031
9
48
0.295
0.0030
10
65
0.208
0.0509
11
80
0.175
0.1182
12
100
0.147
0.0732
13
150
0.104
0.0099
14
Residue
--
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
+6
-
-6+8
CMF of sample d2 mm2
x/d mm-1
x/d2 mm-2
Smalle r than Size noted
Larger than Size noted
-
-
-
-
-
1
0
0.6016
0.60162
2.8445
8.091180
0.211504
0.07435
0.39837
0.601624
-8+10
0.0535
0.65516
2.0065
4.026042
0.026685
0.01329
0.34483
0.655168
-10+14
0.0361
0.69136
1.4095
1.986690
0.025681
0.01822
0.30863
0.691366
-14+16
0.0192
0.71061
1.0795
1.165320
0.017834
0.01652
0.28938
0.710618
-16+20
0.0163
0.72696
0.912
0.831744
0.017921
0.01965
0.27303
0.726962
-20+28
0.0094
0.73638
0.711
0.505521
0.013256
0.01864
0.26361
0.736388
-28+35
0.0031
0.73949
0.503
0.253009
0.006179
0.01228
0.26050
0.739496
-35+48
0.0030
0.74250
0.356
0.126736
0.008449
0.02373
0.25749
0.742504
-48+65
0.0510
0.79354
0.2515
0.063252
0.202933
0.80689
0.20645
0.793542
-65+80
0.1185
0.91206
0.1915
0.036672
0.618903
3.23187
0.08793
0.912062
-80+100
0.0733
0.98546
0.161
0.025921
0.455889
2.83161
0.01453
0.985460
-100+150
0.0099
0.99538
0.1255
0.015750
0.079098
0.63026
0.00461
0.995387
-150
0.0046
1
0.052
0.002704
0.088701
1.7057
0
1
--
x=1.0
--
--
--
x/d=1.77
x/d2=9.40
--
--
Table 4: Calculation of linear mean diameter of concrete particle.
Size
Mass
Range
Fraction,
Dia.
x
d
d2
x/d
x/d2
mm
mm2
mm-1
-
-
-
+A
-
C.M.F.
-
Avg.
CMF of sample
mm-2
Smaller than size noted
Larger than size noted
-
1
0
-A+B
0.38100
0.38100
16.09
258.8881
0.02367
0.00147
0.61922
0.3810
-B+C
0.16412
0.54513
11.3765
129.4247
0.01442
0.001268
0.45509
0.5451
-C+D
0.08792
0.63305
6.2115
38.58273
0.014155
0.002278
0.36717
0.6330
-D+8
0.20515
0.83821
2.681
7.187761
0.076523
0.028542
0.16201
0.8382
-8+10
0.02743
0.86565
2.0065
4.026042
0.013671
0.006813
0.13458
0.8656
-10+14
0.02045
0.88610
1.4095
1.986690
0.014513
0.010297
0.11412
0.8861
-14+16
0.01735
0.90345
1.0795
1.165320
0.016072
0.014889
0.09677
0.90345
-16+20
0.02121
0.92467
0.912
0.831744
0.023266
0.025511
0.07555
0.92467
-20+28
0.02039
0.94507
0.711
0.505521
0.028690
0.040351
0.05515
0.94507
-28+35
0.01031
0.95539
0.503
0.253009
0.02051
0.040775
0.04484
0.95539
-35+48
0.00973
0.96512
0.356
0.126736
0.027332
0.076776
0.03511
0.96512
-48+65
0.00726
0.97239
0.2515
0.063252
0.028900
0.114912
0.02784
0.9723
-65+80
0.00844
0.98083
0.1915
0.036672
0.04407
0.230168
0.01940
0.9808
-80+100
0.00539
0.98622
0.161
0.025921
0.033495
0.208044
0.01400
0.98622
-100+150 0.00328
0.98950
0.1255
0.015750
0.026155
0.208411
0.01072
0.98950
1.00023
0.052
0.002704
0.206285
3.967029
0
1
--
--
x/d=0.612
x/d2=4.978
-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 es a average aperture size, Dpa =
18.85 + 26.67 mm = 22.76 mm 2
80% of product es 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
xi
Linear mean diameter for concrete
d
i
xi
d
2
0.612 0.12294 mm 4.978
i
xi
Linear mean diameter for brick
d
i
xi
d
2 i
1.77 0.1883 mm 9.40
Graphical Representation 1.2
Cumulative mass fratction
1
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
1
0.8
Smaller than size noted
0.6
Larger than size noted
0.4
0.2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
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 ing 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.
Group No. 03 (A2)
Name of the experiment:
STUDY OF CRUSHING AND GRINDING Submitted by: Md. Hasib Al Mahbub Student Id: 0902045 Level: 3; Term: 2 Section: A2
Date of performance: 04/03/2014
Partners’ Student Id. 0902041
Date of submission: 11/03/2014
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 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 Bond’s 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 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 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
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
Mesh No. A
Screen Aperture, mm 18.850
Retained Mass of Concrete, kg 1.750
1 2
B
13.330
0.650
3
C
9.423
0.280
4
D
3.000
0.150
5
8
2.362
0.350
6
10
1.651
0.068
7
14
1.168
0.0349
8
16
0.991
0.0296
9
20
0.833
0.0362
10
28
0.589
0.0348
11
35
0.417
0.0176
12
48
0.295
0.0166
13
65
0.208
0.0124
14
80
0.175
0.0144
15
100
0.147
0.0092
16
150
0.104
0.0056
17
Residue
--
0.0183
Total concrete without mesh no. A screen = 1.706 kg
Table 2: Observed data for screen analysis of brick.
No. of Observation
Mesh No. 6
Screen Aperture, mm 3.327
Retained Mass of Brick, kg 1.000
1 2
8
2.362
0.600
3
10
1.651
0.534
4
14
1.168
0.0361
5
16
0.991
0.0192
6
20
0.833
0.0163
7
28
0.589
0.0094
8
35
0.417
0.0031
9
48
0.295
0.0030
10
65
0.208
0.0509
11
80
0.175
0.1182
12
100
0.147
0.0732
13
150
0.104
0.0099
14
Residue
--
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
+6
-
-6+8
CMF of sample d2 mm2
x/d mm-1
x/d2 mm-2
Smalle r than Size noted
Larger than Size noted
-
-
-
-
-
1
0
0.6016
0.60162
2.8445
8.091180
0.211504
0.07435
0.39837
0.601624
-8+10
0.0535
0.65516
2.0065
4.026042
0.026685
0.01329
0.34483
0.655168
-10+14
0.0361
0.69136
1.4095
1.986690
0.025681
0.01822
0.30863
0.691366
-14+16
0.0192
0.71061
1.0795
1.165320
0.017834
0.01652
0.28938
0.710618
-16+20
0.0163
0.72696
0.912
0.831744
0.017921
0.01965
0.27303
0.726962
-20+28
0.0094
0.73638
0.711
0.505521
0.013256
0.01864
0.26361
0.736388
-28+35
0.0031
0.73949
0.503
0.253009
0.006179
0.01228
0.26050
0.739496
-35+48
0.0030
0.74250
0.356
0.126736
0.008449
0.02373
0.25749
0.742504
-48+65
0.0510
0.79354
0.2515
0.063252
0.202933
0.80689
0.20645
0.793542
-65+80
0.1185
0.91206
0.1915
0.036672
0.618903
3.23187
0.08793
0.912062
-80+100
0.0733
0.98546
0.161
0.025921
0.455889
2.83161
0.01453
0.985460
-100+150
0.0099
0.99538
0.1255
0.015750
0.079098
0.63026
0.00461
0.995387
-150
0.0046
1
0.052
0.002704
0.088701
1.7057
0
1
--
x=1.0
--
--
--
x/d=1.77
x/d2=9.40
--
--
Table 4: Calculation of linear mean diameter of concrete particle.
Size
Mass
Range
Fraction,
Dia.
x
d
d2
x/d
x/d2
mm
mm2
mm-1
-
-
-
+A
-
C.M.F.
-
Avg.
CMF of sample
mm-2
Smaller than size noted
Larger than size noted
-
1
0
-A+B
0.38100
0.38100
16.09
258.8881
0.02367
0.00147
0.61922
0.3810
-B+C
0.16412
0.54513
11.3765
129.4247
0.01442
0.001268
0.45509
0.5451
-C+D
0.08792
0.63305
6.2115
38.58273
0.014155
0.002278
0.36717
0.6330
-D+8
0.20515
0.83821
2.681
7.187761
0.076523
0.028542
0.16201
0.8382
-8+10
0.02743
0.86565
2.0065
4.026042
0.013671
0.006813
0.13458
0.8656
-10+14
0.02045
0.88610
1.4095
1.986690
0.014513
0.010297
0.11412
0.8861
-14+16
0.01735
0.90345
1.0795
1.165320
0.016072
0.014889
0.09677
0.90345
-16+20
0.02121
0.92467
0.912
0.831744
0.023266
0.025511
0.07555
0.92467
-20+28
0.02039
0.94507
0.711
0.505521
0.028690
0.040351
0.05515
0.94507
-28+35
0.01031
0.95539
0.503
0.253009
0.02051
0.040775
0.04484
0.95539
-35+48
0.00973
0.96512
0.356
0.126736
0.027332
0.076776
0.03511
0.96512
-48+65
0.00726
0.97239
0.2515
0.063252
0.028900
0.114912
0.02784
0.9723
-65+80
0.00844
0.98083
0.1915
0.036672
0.04407
0.230168
0.01940
0.9808
-80+100
0.00539
0.98622
0.161
0.025921
0.033495
0.208044
0.01400
0.98622
-100+150 0.00328
0.98950
0.1255
0.015750
0.026155
0.208411
0.01072
0.98950
1.00023
0.052
0.002704
0.206285
3.967029
0
1
--
--
x/d=0.612
x/d2=4.978
-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 es a average aperture size, Dpa =
18.85 + 26.67 mm = 22.76 mm 2
80% of product es 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
xi
Linear mean diameter for concrete
d
i
xi
d
2
0.612 0.12294 mm 4.978
i
xi
Linear mean diameter for brick
d
i
xi
d
2 i
1.77 0.1883 mm 9.40
Graphical Representation 1.2
Cumulative mass fratction
1
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
1
0.8
Smaller than size noted
0.6
Larger than size noted
0.4
0.2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
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 ing 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.
Related Documents 3h463d
Study Of Crushing And Grinding 1m58n
May 2020 15
Bond F.c., 1961. Crushing And Grinding Calculations 69313z
December 2019 12
Grinding And Sizing 3bm67
November 2020 0
Cement Of Grinding b1w49
August 2020 0
Crushing Laws o442i
December 2019 23
Coffee Roasting Grinding And Packing.pdf w5w2l
February 2022 0More Documents from "Md. Hasib Al Mahbub" d6ae
Study Of Heat Transfer Coefficient In A Double Pipe Heat Exchanger 1i6x4c
December 2019 44
Calibration Of Orifice Meter 3l5s4p
October 2019 71
Study Of Crushing And Grinding 1m58n
May 2020 15
Study Of A Single Effect Evaporator 6y5i5a
October 2019 27
Constant Pressure Filtration 4v4l2f
December 2020 0