The Size Separation of Particles by Screening
M. L. JANSEN Ah7, J. R. GLASTONBURY
Deparrmenr of Chemical Engineering, Unizxrsity of Sj-dne_v (Arcsrralia)
(Received July 10, 1967; in revised form December
SUMMARY
The factors affecting the performance of the various
tJ-pesof screens are reviewed. The random path model
of screening for the various screen types is shown to
explain several of the empirical screening relation-
ships. The mechanics of motion of a particle on a
screen surjiace are discussed.
IXI-RODUCTION
Sieves and screens are used industrially and in the
laboratory for the classification of particulate ma-
terial according to particle size_ It is common prac-
tice to use the term screening to mean a continuous
sizing operation as distinct from sier-ingwhich is a
batch operation. The principles of size separation
in screening and sieving are the same and in the
ensuing discussion, statements apply to both op-
erations unless qualified. The subject matter of this
paper has been confined to screening, with particular
reference. to industrial practice.
Particulate material is classified by presenting it
to a screen surface containing apertures of a known
size. To achieve efficient separation, individual par-
ticles require many opportunities to pass through
the screen apertures as each undersize particIe must
strike an unobstructed portion of the screen surface
and the particle must be correctly oriented to fit
through the aperture_ Almost all types of screens are
vibrated or shaken in some manner to achieve this
movement of the particles relative to the screen
surface-
Screens can be classified into three groups ac-
cording to the mode of particlemovement on them
as follows I
(1) casting screens in which the particulate ma-
terial moves relative to the screen in a vertical plane.
(2) flat screens in which the particulate material
moves relative to the screen in the plane of the screen.
Powder Technology - Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam
14, 1967)
(3) rotating screens in which the screen surface is
cylindrical and the particulate material cascades
over the inner surface as the screen is rotated.
FACTORS AFFECTlNG SCREEMNG
Much of the published information on sieve and
screen performance is empirical in nature but clearly
establishes the factors influencing performance.
Factors arising from screen morement
The effects of angle of screen inclination. amplitude
and frequency of vibration on particle motion can
be studied by applying the equations of motion to a
simplified screening system_ The modes of vibration
which have been studied for casting screens are
circular motion-, linear mo?ion3*6-s, and reso-
nant motion3-
The study of circular motion by Stop is of partic-
ular interest as he attempted to establish optimum
screening conditions for maximum efficiency and
capacity of casting screens. Maximum screening ef-
ficiency was said to be obtained when:
(a) the particle moved forward a minimum dis-
tance equal to half the aperture spacing on each
vibration of the screen ;
(b) the particle fell back to the screen surface in a
path perpendicular to the surface;
(c)the particle was ejected from the screen surface
as steeply as possible;
(d) the Frequency of vibration was not excessively
high ;
(e) the maximum height of the particle trajectory
in space corresponded to the maximum height
of the particle above the screen, ie. tbe horizontal
screen to be at the lowest point in the vibration cycle
when the particle reached the top of its trajector$
A condition similar to (a) was given by KIuge3,
who proposed a jump distance of one aperture
- Printed in the Netherlax&
336 M. L. JAKSEN,
classification of particles by a screen. The sizes of
square and round apertures which recover the same
size of particles depend on the shape of the particles
and the nature of the screen surface4-2g. Lim4 de-
veloped the following formula to calcuiate the
relative sizes of round and square apertures which
will just pass the same rectangular-shaped particle:
iz 2 0.414
Q(h2+ 1)
DC
-= h c 0.414
0, \ (htl)2
For a wide range of materials, DJD, has been ex-
perimentalIy determined30*3*3 as ranging from
1.15 to 1.42, which agrees with the range 1.08-1.41
predicted by eqn_ (2).
Although few investigationson theeffect ofrough-
ness of the screen surface on perfcrmance have been
carried out. it does appear that roughness affects the
rate of screening. Judson33 and MacCalmanzo
showed that a woven screen surface possessed a
directional character due to the manner in which
the wires of the weave passed over and under each
other alternately_ By sieving material back and
forth across the weave and along the weave they
obtained different results. RendelI* found that par-
ticles close to the aperture size behaved differently
on woven and perforated surfaces_ This could be due
to the non-planar character of woven apertures as
well as the rouz&ness of the woven surface providing
a better grip7 resulting in less slippage across the
surface and consequently better dynamics of the
particle. Cercke13 considered that woven surfaces
gave much better agitation to deep beds of material
than did perforated plates.
The percentage open area in the screen surface
has been shown by WhitbyZ3 and Baldwin3 to in-
fluence directly the rate of screening-As the number
of apertures is directly proportional to the percent-
age open area for a constant aperture size, the above
effect is equivalent to a direct dependence between
screening rate and number cf apertures_ Xpertures
of considerable depth are more prone to blinding
than thin apertures and particles take longer t&
pass throughs_ Both these effects lead to a reduced
rate of screening for screen surfaces of considerable
thickness.
Factors arising from the particulate materiai
The effect of varying particle load on the rate of
3. R. GLASTONBURY
screening is most easily examined when theaperture
size and particle size distribution are held corstant.
In this manner, Shergold showed experimentally
that the percentage szeving rate decreased with in-
creasing initial sieve load. Whitbyz3 obtained a
simiiar inverse relationship between initial load and
rate. Shergold also attempted to relate the sieving
rate to the number of near-mesh particles on the
sieve. Three different sieves were used and the initial
load of closely sized sand on each was such as to
give the same number of particles on each screen. It
was found that the percentage sieving rates after the
same sieving time were not constant but decreased
with increase in initial sieve load. Shergold at-
tributed this result to the fact that geometrical
similarity between amplitude of the sieve motion
and the aperture size did not exist. However. results
obtained by RendelI* indicated that the rate of
sieving was not proportional to the number but a
power of the number of undersize particles_ Rendell
claimed that the magnitude of the exponent depend-
ed on the load on the screen and :he particle-to-
aperture size ratio.
Fahrenwald and Stockdale found that the rate
of sieving was less in deep particle beds than in
shallow particle beds. Carpenter and Deitz sug-
gested that this was due to sieves becoming blinded
under heavy particle loads, causing reduction in the
number of effective apertures in the sieve. In con-
trast, RendeIlsxS results showed that consolidation
of the particle bed was just as effective as blinding
in reducing sieving rate.
Many have suggested that there is an optimum
particle depth for maximum screening rate. Ac-
cording to Carpenter and Deitz the ideal depth
is one to two particle diameters. Sinden suggested
a minimum depth of one particle layer, whilst
Wiard37 proposed that the initial load should be
such that at the end of screening there should be no
more than one particle thickness ofoversize material
on the screen. Allen pointed out that if the bed
depth is too small, particles jump excessively, while
Baldwin3 suggested that the particle depth should
not be too great, otherwise little segregation of parti-
cle sizes could occur and this would result in low
capacity and poor separation.
The question of whether a bed of particles should
exist on a screen surface was considered by Barlow4,
who listed the following undesirable features arising
from a particle bed:
(a) difficulty in segregation of undersize and over-
size particles ;
Pouter Technd. 1 (1967/68) 334-343
 SIZE SEPARATION OF PAR-I-KLES
(b) constraint during vibration of the particles to
comparatively flat and long trajectories. hence re-
stricting the number of attemptsparticles can make
to pass through apertures;
(c) restriction on the passage of tines through the
apertures ;
(d) jamming of near-size particles in screen aper-
tures_
In the absence of a particle bed the following
desirable factors ensue I
(a) segregation problems do not arise since all
particle sizes have equal access to the_~een surface ;
(b) short, steep, particle trajectories are possible
with more contacts per unit length of screen result-
ing ;
(c)littlechangeinefliciencyoccurswithdifferenccs
in loading;
(d) blinding of apertures is less probable_
An extensive investigation of the effect of particle
load on the rate of sieving through a single perfo-
rated plate aperture was performed by Rendell14_
With uniform undersize particles Rendell establish-
ed three distinct flow regions as particle load in-
creased. In Region I. where there were insuflicient
particles to form a monolayer over the aperture_ the
particles possessed a rapid random motion and
produced a low flow rate through the aperture. For
Region II the particle load was sufficient to form a
monolayer on the sieve surface and the flow rate
was larger than in Region I_ With deep particle beds
in which consolidation occurred the flow rate di-
minished and this constituted Region III. The flow
rate was expressed in terms of eqn. (1). with the
constants having the following values I
Region I ??a= 1.5-1.8 k = l-05--1.20
Region II nz = 20 k = 1_0&1_20
Region III m = 20 k = 1.65
Rendells experiments with mixtures of two parti-
cle sizes showed that in deep beds segregation of the
sizes occurred and the particle bed behaved as if it
were composed of the fine size only_ The sieving rate
of small particles in the segregated state was inde-
pendent of the initial bed composition. In shallow
particle beds sufficient mixing occurred to cause the
sieving rate of the fine particles to vary with a power
of their concentration_ In commercial screening the
segregated state is thought to exist in the particle
bed8-g*3g-41_ This is probably due to the fact that
the screen loads are much higher on commerciaI
screens than batch sieves and consequently there is
BY SCREESIXG 337
!ess particle movement in the vertical direction to
cause mixing.
Bodziony successfully allowed for the effect oi
particle load on the sieving rate by relating the siev-
ing rate of a narrow size fraction to the instantane-
ous concentration of that fraction_ This approach is
applicable to well mixed particle beds only_
Little has been reported on the influence of psrti-
cle load on the behaviour of vibrating screens Lima
and Porter43 indicated that the efliciency of screen-
ing passed througir a maximum with increasing feed
rate and that the effect of feed rate was less impcr-
tant at large aperture sizes. Miwa; found that the
effective number of contacts per unit length on a
vibrating screen varied inversely with the feed rate
to the screen. For deep beds of critical size particles
on ascreen Baldwin3 established a constant screen-
ing rate_ whilst for beds less than a complete lay-cr_
the rate decreased with decreasina load.
Theeffectofparticlesizedistribu%onofthemater-
ial being sic\-ed on the sieving rate has been investi-
gated for vibrating sieves- -23-3-55_ \-rating
sieves4*23. ribrating screensY-3-43-U, and a ro-
tating sieveJz. In most casts the size distributions
were formed from two to four closely sized fractions
in each of which particles were near to aperture size.
As discussed above. Rendells datarZ showed that
the rate of screening of an undersize fraction dt-
pended primarily on the amount of segregation and
mixing occurring in the particle bed on the screen
surface. The relationships proposed betwcen the
rate of sieving and concentration of a particular size
fraction follow the general form :
RW,.?)
~C~~+.~,-%,_J
provided that the total particle load is constant_
Ideally for perfect mising of the particle bed on the
screen nz = 1.0. Mizutani obtained this value for
the sieving of a very small quantities whilst Fager-
holt and RendelI reported values between 1-S
and 62 for the sieving of larger loads_
The de~ity4-1~-23 s]lapeZ3-30.38.J6.4T
ad of the
particles being screened affect performance but these
factors have not been systematically investigated
and the available evidence is confused_ in the litera-
ture in general. no rigorous statement of the mean-
ing of particle size is given and no attempt made to
differentiate between the possible interpretations of
the term particle diameter. Much of the literature
assumes spherical particles but frequently this is not
clearly stated_
POKderTechnol_ 1 (1967 6s) 3X-;j:
340 M. L. JAhsEh, J_ R. GLASTONBURY

TABLE ~:EQUATIUSS FORTHECR~ULASGLEOFRO~ATIOSAT\~?L~CWAPART~CLELU~~A\?BRATISG scRiEssuRFAcE

SOUR32 Screen motion screen angle Equation commenrs

Da\is2 circular horizontal sin 0 = gjrw Incorrect- see Lim

inclined sin t3 = g~kx?
K1l.lg.E circular inclined sin 0 cos(O-b) g Incorrect- see Lim
=-
cos /3 l-O=
Lim circular inclined sin(e-/3) g p = screen inclination
-=y
cosf3 m-
Kluge linear inclined inclined sin trsin(B+GG) g G = inclinztion of direction
=2 of vibration
EOSB z-C3
Tumquist linearinclined horizontal
sin (I sin 0 = 9
m=

intersects the opposite edge of the aperture, Onesti (a) Dpamics of casting screens
derived the following equation for critical velocity: A particle will leave the screen surface when the
net normal force between the particle and the screen
is zero and the velocity in the vertical direction is
positive. The position in the vibration cycle at
which this occurs is the critical angle of rotation
For a horizontal screen Wiard proposed:
for a casting screen. In Table 2, the equations pro-
posed for the critical at$e of rotation for circular
and linear vibration motton are iisted. The physical
interpretation of the forces acting is given in Figs. 2
and 3. The Davis equation of Table 2 is incorrect as
The equation appears to be based on the assump-
Davis assumed that screen inclination did not alter
tion that the particle trajectory commences only
the forces acting on the particle_ Similarly, the Kluge
when the particle is wholly over the aperture and
equation for circular motion is in error as it appears
terminates when the particle is wholly below the
to have been derived for inclined linear vibrations.
screen surface.
From the critical angle of rotation, the point in
Wolfa attempted to allow for the effect of wire
the vibration cycle at which a particle leaves the
thickness on critical velocity by proposing. for
surface and the velocity with w!xich it leaves are
horizontal screens, the equation :
known. The equations of motion of the free flight of
the particle can then be written which with the
w-3 equation of motion for the screen can be solved, to
determine the position on the surface to which the
particle returns. From the knowledge of the jump
Dynamics of screening length of a particle on each vibration, the number

The movement of particles on a screen surface is

affected by the mechanics of the screen motion, the
number of particles on the surface. and the nature
of the surface. To provide a rational basis for the
selection of screen parameters, it is necessary to
consider an ideal&d screen motion in which the
movement of an independent spherical particle is
0
determined solely by the movement of an idealised
flat, uniform, vibrating surface. Factors introducing
randomness in the particle motion are neglected as
they are considered too complex to be defined Fig. 7 Forcesactingon a particleon an inclinedcastingscreen-
mathematically. circularviibmtion.

POK&r Tecimol_. 1 (1%7/68) 334-343

 SIZE SEPAFtATlON OF PARTICLES BY SCREEKXG 341

The two values of 4 obtained in the solution of the

above represent the upper and lower circumferential
limits of particle movement
Richards considered the effect of centrifueal
force on the effective angle of friction in a rota&g
screen, deriving the following:
.2
sin i = 5 sin 5 (16)
Fig_ 3. Forces acting on a part~clcon an inclinal casting screen-
linear vibration. Richards also calculated the pitch angle p at which
a particle slid over the surface of a rotating screen I

of vibrations required to cxry the particle from the

(17)
feed to the discharge of the screen can be determined_
This idealised model gives a theoretical estimate of
The pitch angle thus character&s the path followed
the number of particle-screen ccntacts experienced
by the particle on the screen surface.
by a particle and is a theoretical estimate of PIin
eqn. (5) for estimation of the probability of collec-
tion_ APPLICATIOXS OF THE RASDOM PATH MODEL OF
SCRER . -KG

(b) Dynamics offlar screens

From eqn. (3) the fraction of undersize particles of
Relative motion bet\\een a particle and the screen
size d, remaining on a screen or sieve surface after
surface occurs when the component of forces acting
n contacts is given by:
on the particle in the plane of the screen exceeds the
static friction force. For vertical circular vibrations IV(d, n)
= s, = (I -P$ 08)
of a horizontal screen the conditions at the point of W(d,. 0)
slippage are* :
u-here W(d, n) is the weight of partic!es of size d, on
cosOt+psiIl~t =s (11) the screen after n contacts.
If the number of contacts per unit time (b) is
For a horizontal _qrating screen, the conditions at constant. the above equation becomes:
the point of slippage8*4-23 are:

ro=JlLJ
(1%
(12)
and for horizontal linear vibrations on a horizontal If (l-P,)h=e--L
screen : then eqn_ (19) becomes:
f ; cos cx-i-cos Of = s
?-a-
(13)

v;hich reduces to:

Differentiation yields I
(14)
$ [ W(d, t) J = -k W-(d, t)
when the radius of the crank is small in relation to
the length of the crank arm. For small probabilities of passage, Le. small PI, eqn.
(20) becomes I
(c) Dynamics of rotating screens k= -bln(l-PI)=zbPI
Neglecting centrifugal forces. which are small at
which on substitution in eqn. (22) gives:
thenormalspeedofrotatingscreensLouisSshowed
that a particle followed an oscillatory path inside a -$ [ W(d, t)] = - bP, W(d, t)
horizontal rotary screen given by:

POW-dmTk.hml_ 1 (1967168) 3-343

342 hr_L. JANSENT J_ R. GLASTONBURY

This is the first-order rate law for batch sieving which
has been proposed without proof by Fagerholt&,
Mizutani* and Whitbyz3_ It can be seen that this
relationship is based on the random path model and
only applies for conditions of low probability of
passage (particles near to aperture size or low per-
centage free area in screen surfaoe) and low particle
Ioading on the screen so that particIes can move
independently_ For test sieving. KayeS2 derived a
similar first-order Kate equation and confirmed ex-
perimentally that it applied for the terminal stages
ofsieving where the probability ofpassage wassmall.
Kaye also extended this equation to allow for a
distribution of aperture sizes in the sieve.
A similar relationship can be obtained in terms
of the distance travelled over the screen surface by
a particle assuming a constant number of contacts
per unit length.
WV,, I) e--MI
W(d,,O) =
u-here
M = - Tln(l-Pr) = -b ln(l-P,)
When P1 is small:
MzbP,
when eqn. (24) becomes:
JWp- I) = eb'P,Z
Wd, 0)
Cifferentiation of the logarithmic form of the above
yields :
f [In W(d,.Z)] = -bP,
Since Pr is proportional to the percentage open
area for constant particle and aperture size, eqn.
(27) may be expressed in the form:
This equation was obtained empirically by 3ald-
win3 for the screening of critical size (0.8-1.0 DA)
granules with a low load of particles initially on the
screen.
CO-NCLUSIONS
Most of the experimental work has been confmed
to sieving studies and l&s been empirical in nature.
The assumption used by most investigators ihat
sieving is a frost-order rate process can be confirmed
from theory for certain conditions.
The random path model of screening is the most
satisfactory theory available but is only applicable
whilst particles cau be assumed to behave inde-
pendently_ Much scr eening is performed with deep
particle beds on the screen surface and for such
conditions the random path method is not generally
applicable_ No serious study has been made of deep
bed screening.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
per-rage open area of a - surface
number of contacts of a particle with the screen surface
per unit time
number of contacts of a particle with the screen surface
per unit length of s-
constant
length of side of a square screen aperture
(24)
diameter of circular aperture
diameter of screen u-ire
particle diameter
_eravitational acceleration
(3 ratio of shorter side to longer side for a rectangular parti-
cle
increase in angIe of static friction on a rotary screen due
to centrifugal force
constant
kngtb of crank arm for gyrating screen
distance travelled by a particle on the semen surface
constants
number of contacts between a particle and the screen
(26)
surface
probability of passage of a particle through the semen
with one contact
pitch angle of particle path along a rotating screen
rate of flow of particles through an aperture or screen
radius of eccentric creating vibrating motion or radius
(27) of rotating screen
time
critical velocity of a particle in the screen plane.
-eight of particles on the szmen
ueight fraction of material remaining on the screen
a, ct,_ z2 critical contact angle of a particle with a screen wire
B screen inclination
7 arrgfe of incidence of particle path to the screen plane
s tan- p
0 critical angle for circular viiration of a screen
ty critical angle for linear vibration of a screen
P coefiicientof static friction
coeffkient of sliding friction
P
G inclination to horizontal of the direction of linear vibra-
tions of screen
9 limit of circumferential disphteement on a rotating screen
e fractional decrease in effective wire size due to panicle
reflection
[effective wire size = (I- +) D_]
cl angular velocity of rotation or vibration

Powder TebL, 1 (1%7/@3) 334-343

 SIZE SEPARATION OF PARTICLES BY SCREEN7NG 343

REFERENCES 26 R. L. BROWS ASD J. C_ Rrcwtnos, Kinematics of the flos;

of dry powders and bulk solids, Rheol. Acra, d (1965)
1 J. Wma. Siebmarhinen, Aufier_-Tech., 4 (1963) 449. 153.
2 R F- Dews, Ttie dynaniics oTscreenin& Trm. INI. Ghan. 27 M. WE~ER A%D R. F. Mow, A precise mcrhod for sieving
Engrs.. 1s (1940) 76. analyses, Zad_Eng. Chem. [Anal. Ed.). IO (1938) 180.
3 W. Ktuc+ Modern vibratory screens. Qum-r~ AfarrogersZ_, 28 J. B. Am. Methods of representingdistribution of particle
(March 1953) 506. s&e_ Znd_fig_ C&m. [AMI. Ed_). I1 (1939) 334.
4 S. C. Lthr, The physica! properties of finely divided solids: 29 A. H. D. MAR~X~CX. A study of sieves for coarse arere_~tes.
the separation of solids by vibrating screens, Ph.D. 27Iesis. .Z_sot c&m. Ilid_, 59 (1940) 8%
University of Sydney, 1959. 30 Anon., Facrors in vibrating screen choice and use, Cmzi Age.
5 F- S~orr, Betrachtungen iibcr den Einfluss der Schwingungs- 47 (December 1942) 13X
daten auf den Siebvorgang. Aufber_-Tech.. 4 (1963) %6L 31 H. HEYWOOD, Mcasuremcnt of tincness of po%dm Proc.
6 C. L. Kmr; Particle motion on direct-drive coal screens, Insr. Me& Erzgrs-. X40 (1938) X7_
corzier_vEng., 35 (1958) 127_ 32 H. A. RIIESLER.Sizes of products from square and round
7 P. K- TLXXQU~~T~Size classifying of granular panicles in a hole screens fig_ _&fin_J.. 99 (I915) 493_
vibratorysmening system, Ph.D. i%esk. State University of 33 L_V. Jtmsos, A studyofsievespecifications. A.S_T_J_Proc..
Oklahoma, 1965. 24 (part 2) (1924) !Os4.
6 E. R. Worn, Screening principles and application, Znd. Eng. 34 H. 0. H. Csncr;n, Screening and dcaarcring, Gas World
Chem.. 46 (1954) 1778. (Coking Sstion). 106 (1937) IS~_
9 J. E. Lrsrnrc,i7ze Scret-ningand Grading ofMarerids, Ernest 35 P_ L Bmwrs. The continuous separation of solid particles
Benn. London. 1924, p. 20. by flat deck szrccnsmTrcmx INI. Chcm. Engrs.. 41(1963) 255.
10 L. ?I. STURTEYA~~,Equipment for difftcult screening. Chum. 36 A. D. Stx~ss, Vibrarory screening topics. Auromariorr 9
firer. Eng., 29 (1923) 1063. (1962) 67.
I1 A-W-F wwm AhP S. W. ST-DALE. Effect of sieve 37 E S. WURD, Hrmdbook ojChmical Engincning. XlcGra~+-
motion on screening efficiency. US_ Bur_ hfirzes. Repi. 1mx.r~. Hill, New York. 1922, Chapter 6.
No. 2933, 1929. 38 G. F. Arrrs. Screen and pneumatic classification. Jrzf_fig.
I2 F. G. C,+npsxrna *h= V. R_ Dsnz, Methods of sieve analysis Cl;on. (Znrern. Edlzion). 54 (1962) 39.
with particular reference to bone char. J_ Res Nazi_ Bur. 39 C. J. S~~rrw~wx The screening and scgrcgation of fcrtiliscr
SIrmdmdr, 45 (1950) 328. materials. Proc_ Ferziliker Sot_ i4 (1962).
I3 D. A. GOI.!~LDEP. A>D F. G. Ssrrrir, Vibratory screening- 40 J_ P_ BARLOU=Conrribuzion m discus&m of abox c paper b>
principles and practice. Food .Wzzu~, 36 (1961) 192. C_ J. Stairmand. Proc. Fcrxiker Sot.. i4 (1962).
14 M. &DELI_ Separation of particles by sieving and screening, 41 A. F_TAGCART,Harxibookof Ore Dressirtg.Wilc\. hcu York.
Ph.D. l7xesis. University CoIlegg London. 1961. 1927. p_ 498.
15 P. G_ 0sss-r-r. The mechanism of collection of partides on a 42 J_ Bo~uo%v. On a certain hypothesis conccming the process
cylindrical rotatingscreen. B-E. l7zesi.r.University of Sydne. of screening of granular bodies. B&I_ AC& Poion. Sri.. Ser.
1965. Sri_ Tech.. 8 (1960) 99.
16 R H. R~ICHARM,Ore Dressing, The Mining 8i Engineering 43 J. B. Po~nu. Expaimeatzl study of sieving ~bii. Ztex.
Journal, New York, Vol. 1, 1903. p. 373. Council (Canadz) Repx. h-o. 22. 1928.
I7 R_H.Rtctt_uux AttDC. E_ Lw Text Book 01Ore Drerring. 44 S. Mnv& Proposal of a new index for cxprusing rhc per-
McGraw;-Hill. New York, 3rd edn, 1940, p_ 123_ formanl% of screens. Kugnxu .rcognku.4 (1960) l%O-
18 E. S. WIARD, The grading industries, firer. Chem. fig.. I4 45 G. FA~~~oLT, Pprricle Size Dinriburion of Prodrrcrr Ground
(1916) 191. in T&e ,lfilfs. G-EC_ Gads Forlas Copenhagen. 1943. p_ 33.
19 V. A_ B?.orrx, Experimental investigations with screens. 46 R. Esram Initial retention of elongated particies on
Qwrr~ z%fcmager*s J., (July 1951) 41. idcalii scr- Ind_ Eq. G&m. Process Daign DcreIop_
20 D. MkcCmms. The accuracy of sieving tests. Znd. Chem.. I (1962) S7.
I4 (1938) 363. 47 S. A. GOLDBERG AND W. WALTZ, Screen opening size_
21 S. Mrztrr~x, A theoretical and experimental consideration Chem_ Eirg.. 66 (1959) 107.
on the accuracy of sieving analysis, J. Emrh Sci., Nagqru 48 A. M. GALDIS. Prixi_pIeso~hfineraI Dre. McGrau-Hill.
Univ., 11 (1963) 1. New York, 1939, p_ 143.
22 F_ A. SHERGOLD,The effect of sieve loading on the results 49 F_ hl~,An~mr.hodofwrccning_ernularmarcri~
of sieve analysis of natural sands. J. Sot. Chem. ind. 65 Qw ~frmogerr Z_. (Ocr_ 1965) 409.
(1946) 245. 50 J_ Kmm-r AbD B. s--G. Theory of screenin_e Sra~?
23 K. T_ WHITBY. The mechanics of tine ieving, A_S_T_.%f_ Pappersrid_ 58 (1955) 3i9.
S-per. Tech. P&l_ No. 234. 1959, p_ 3. Dressing ofhfimmk
5 1 H_ Loins, i7z.e Edward Arnold, London.
24 Anon, Grading ore, Me.skcxical World. (11th April. 1924) 1909. p_ 57_
235. 52 B. H. KAI~ Investigation into the possiiihtics of developing
25 R L. BROWS AXD J. C. Rtcxram, Profile of flow of granules a rate method of sieve analysis, Potrder _%fer.. (1962) 199-
through apertures, Tans_ Insr. C&m. figrs_, 38 (1960) 243.

Powder TechnoZ., 1 (1967168) 334-343