CH3510

MECHANICAL OPERATIONS LAB

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

EXPERIMENT NO: 1

BALL MILLING

Subramanya T.A CH10B064

T.Manoj Kumar CH10B070
T.Venkat Rajesh CH10B069

Aim:
To determine the particle size distribution and specific surface area of the given
sample (calcite) and also study the effects of grinding rate using batch ball mill.
Apparatus :

Batch ball mill

Set of sieves
Sieve shaker
Stop watch
Weighing balance (Digital)

Theory :
A ball mill, a type of grinder, is a cylindrical device used in grinding (or mixing)
materials like ores, chemicals, ceramic raw materials and paints. Ball mills rotate
around a horizontal axis, partially filled with the material to be ground plus the
grinding medium. Different materials are used as media, including ceramic balls,
flint pebbles and stainless steel balls.
Principle of grinding:
The size reduction in a ball mill is purely done by the impact of balls in the
cylinder. When the mill is rotated, the balls are picked up by the mill wall and
carried nearly to the top, where they break contact with the wall and fall to the
bottom to be picked up again. Centrifugal force keeps the balls in contact with the
wall and with one another during the upward movement. Most of the grinding
occurs at the zone of impact, where the free falling balls strike the bottom of the
mill.

Experimental procedure:
1. The sieve shaker is filled with the given sample of calcite of known weight.

2. Sieve analysis should be performed for the given sample for 10 minutes
using the standard set of sieves.
3. Now, place the given calcite sample in the ball mill which is already filled
with steel balls (20mm) up to 50% of its volume.
4. The ball is should be rotated with the speed which is equal to 75% of the
critical speed which is calculate from the formula given below:

where,
Nc- critical speed (rps)
R- Radius of the ball mill(m)
r- Radius of the ball (m)
g- Gravitational constant (m/sec2 )
5. On substituting the values of g=9.8 m/sec2, R=75 mm, r = 6.872 mm in the
above equation, we will get Nc as 114.53 rpm. So, the ball mill will be operated
at a speed of 85.89 rpm.
6. After running the ball mill, operated at the power 0.08 kw/hr, for specific
time (first time run the ball mill for 2 min), place the sample on a paper and
perform sieving again for a specific time of 10 mins.
7. Now, again repeat the above procedure by placing the sample in the ball mill
for two more times (time intervals being 2 min (at t= 4 min) and 5 mins(at t= 9
min) respectively), and then perform sieve analysis.
8. The surface area of the given sample has to be calculated for each time
interval using the sieve analysis data.
9. A graph is plotted between specific surface areas with time of grinding.
Calculate the rate of grinding from the slopes of the curve.
10. Plot grinding rate with time of grinding.

11. Plot grinding rate vs. specific surface area

Calculations:
Initial amount of calcite taken

200 g

Density of calcite

1.9 g/cc

Sphericity of the sample

0.78

Diameter of the ball mill vessel :

150 mm

Diameter of the ball

6.872 mm

RPM of the ball mill

85.90

Specific surface area S =

Assuming that all particles are spherical,

p =0.78
Average diameter = Average diameter of two adjacent sieve
Initial Sieve Analysis data for the given sample:
At t =0 min
Sieve No

I
II
II
IV
V
Pan
Total

Sieve Size Weight

(mm)
retained(g)

Weight
fraction(xi)

Average
diameter
[Di] (mm)

3.15 mm
1.6 mm
630 m
315 m
90 m
<90 m

0.3681
0.5873
0.0378
5.4x10-3
8 x10-4
7 x 10-4
1

3.15
2.375
1.115
0.4725
0.2025
0.045

73.4
117.09
7.53
1.08
0.15
0.13
199.38

Xi/Di(mm-1)
0.11687
0.26394
0.03914
0.01146
0.00372
0.01449
0.4496

The total Specific surface area of the given sample calculated by using the above
data is

Scal = 1.8203 m2/kg

Error analysis:
The error in the specific surface area calculated is given by
S/S = W/W + xi / xi
xi = ( wi/ wtotal) = w
w= 200 g (assumed to be given hence has no error in its measurement)
w= (1/2)* Least count = 0.5*0.01 gm
= 5*10-6 Kg
S/S = w {(1/w) + (1/xi)} ------------- ( 1 )
(1/xi) = 30784
S/S =

5*10-6 (5+30784) = 0.154

S = 1.547 * 0.154
= 0.238 m2/kg
Actual S = Scal S = (1.8203 0.238) m2/kg
At t = 2 min
Sieve No

I
II
II
IV
V
Pan
Total

Sieve Size Weight

(mm)
retained(g)
3.15 mm
1.6 mm
630 m
315 m
90 m
<90 m

S = 10.404 m2/kg

54.04
77.6
28.72
9.11
14.25
15.3
199.02

Weight
fraction(xi)

Average
diameter
[Di] (mm)
3.15
2.375
1.115
0.4725
0.2025

0.27153
0.38991
0.14431
0.04577
0.07160
0.07688 0.045
1

Xi/Di(mm-1)
0.08620
0.17524
0.14954
0.09688
0.32358
1.70837
1.0021

S/S = w {(1/w) + (1/xi)}

(1/xi) = 37.73
S/S= 5*10-6 (5+37.73) = 2.1365x10-2
S = 10.404*2.1365x10-2= 0.2223 m2/kg
Actual S = Scal S = (10.404 0.2223) m2/kg

At t= 4 minutes
Sieve No

I
II
II
IV
V
Pan
Total

Sieve Size Weight

(mm)
retained(g)

Weight
fraction(xi)

3.15 mm
1.6 mm
630 m
315 m
90 m
<90 m

0.2263
0.30
0.13
0.0432
0.1193
0.1812
1

44.95
59.6
25.83
8.58
23.69
36
198.65

S = 20.441 m2/kg
S/S = w {(1/w) + (1/xi)}
(1/xi) = 46.6445
S/S= 5*10-6 (5+46.6445) = 2.58x10-4
S = 20.441*2.58x10-4 = 5.278x10-3 m2/kg
Actual S = Scal S = (20.4415.278X10-3) m2 /kg

Average
diameter
[Di] (mm)
0.22628
0.30003
0.13003
0.04319
0.11925
0.18122

Xi/Di(mm-1)
0.07183
0.13484
0.13474
0.09141
0.58851
4.02718

At t= 9 minutes
Sieve No

I
II
II
IV
V
Pan
Total

Sieve Size Weight

(mm)
retained(g)
3.15 mm
1.6 mm
630 m
315 m
90 m
<90 m

34.15
37.65
15.52
4.35
28.74
77.56
197.97

Weight
fraction(xi)
0.17250
0.19018
0.07840
0.02197
0.14517
0.39178

Average
diameter
[Di] (mm)
3.25
2.375
1.117
0.4725
0.2025
0.045

Xi/Di(mm-1)
0.05476
0.08547
0.08124
0.04650
0.71691
8.70615

Specific Surface area = 39.235 m2/kg

S/S = w {(1/w) + (1/xi)}
(1/xi) = 65.28
S/S= 5*10-6 (5+65.28) = 3.51x10-4
S = 39.235 * 3.51x10-4= 0.018m2
Actual S = Scal S = 39.235 0.018 m2
At time =

0 min

2 min

4 min

9 min

Specific Surface area

1.8203

10.4041

20.441

39.2349

4.2919

5.0184

3.7588

(m2/kg)
Grinding rate ds/dt
(m2/kg.min)

Graphs:
Specific surface area (S) vs. Time (t)

Specific surface area

Specific surface(m2/kg.min) area vs time(min)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Surface area

10

time (min)

Here Y axis represents specific surface area in units of m2/kg and X-axis
represents time in units of minutes. It clearly shows that amount of surface
area increases monotonically as the period of milling increases. It is because
during milling size of the particle is reduced which results in increased
surface area.

 Grinding rate

( ) vs. Time (t)

Here Y-axis is in m2 and X axis in minutes. Y-axis represents ds/dt and Xaxis time. The graph represents variation of ds/dt with time.
Grinding rate (m2/kg.min) vs time (min)
6
5.5
5
4.5
4

grinding rate
(m2/kg.min)

3.5
3
2.5
2
0

10

Grinding Rate (ds/dt) versus Surface Area

Grinding rate(m2/kg.min) vs specific surface area(kg/m2)
5.5
5.0184

5
4.5

4.2919

4
3.7588

grindind rate

3.5
3
2.5
2
0

Here y axis is surface area(in m2) while X-axis is Grinding rate (ds/dt)(in
units of m2/min).

Cumulative Distribution

SIEVE SIZE(mm)
0
0.09
0.315
0.63
1.3
3.15

Range (mm)
0 - 0.09
0.09-0.315
0.315 - 0.63
0.63 - 1.3
1.3 - 3.15
> 3.15

T=0

T=2min
0.07%
0.14%
0.68%
4.46%
63.19%
100.00%

T=4 min

7.69%
14.85%
19.43%
33.86%
72.85%
100.00%

18.12%
30.05%
34.37%
47.37%
77.37%
100.00%

T=9 min
39.18%
53.70%
55.89%
63.73%
82.75%
100.00%

Here mass fraction are given in terms of percentage for better visual representation.
Mass fraction data obtained from experiment
Sieve Size(mm)
Di(mm)
Xi at t =0
Xi at t = 2min
Xi at t = 4min
Xi at t = 9min
3.15
3.15
0.368141238
0.27153
0.22628
0.17250
1.3
2.225
0.587270539
0.38991
0.30003
0.19018
0.63
0.965
0.037767078
0.14431
0.13003
0.07840
0.315
0.4725
0.005416792
0.04577
0.04319
0.02197
0.09
0.2025
0.000752332
0.07160
0.11925
0.14517
0.045
0.000652021
0.07688
0.18122
0.39178
pan
0.7
0.6
0.5

3.15 mm
1.6 mm

0.4

630 m
0.3

315 m

0.2

90 m
< 90 m

0.1
0
0

10

Below is the visual representation of the above table. But here mass fractions
are given in percentage and sieves are named in reverse order i.e.
Sieve 1 is pan and sieve 6 is coarsest one (3.15mm).
Series 1 refers to initial sample before milling and others named in the
appropriate order i.e series 2 refers to time t= 2min, series 3 at time = 4min
and series 4 is at t= 9min

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Series1

40.00%

Series2
Series3

30.00%

Series4
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1

Variation with respect to sieves at a specific instance

1) t = 0 initially before milling
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1

It can be seen most of the material is in coarser sieves.

2) At t = 2 minutes
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Series1

20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1

3) At t = 4 minutes

35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
Series1

15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1

4) At t = 9 minutes
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Series1

20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1

SIMULATION OF BALL MILLING

AIM: To determine the breakage function rate for the batch ball mill using
a power law type breakage function (B) assumed in theory
DATA REQUIRED
The product size analysis data collected from batch grinding experiments at
three or four different time intervals and the starting feed size
THEORY
Size reduction can be simulated if input feed is completely specified;
depends on mass balance on a particular size class. Let N number of sieves
in a set n sieve numberu no.of screens coarser than n (i.e. above screen no.
n)
FUNCTIONS
1. Grinding rate function Snfraction of material broken in a given time
coarser than that on screen n If xn be mass fraction on screen n, then
dxn/dt = -Snxn
2. Breakage function Bn,ufraction of particles entering the nth size class
resulting from breakage of particles of uth size class
Bn,u=(Dn/Du)
where Dn = average particle diameter of particles retained on nth screen
= constant
Bn,u=Bn-1,uBn,u
Grinding function depends on Duk, where k is a constant (often k = 3)
Sn=Sn-1(Dn/Dn-1)k
Mass Balance gives the equation:
dxn/dt = -Snxn+ xuSuBn,u
3. Using Euler Newton method to solve
xn,t+1= xn,t(1-Snt) + t xu,tSuBn,u
PROCEDURE
Breakage rate function is assumed as a power function.

 Aim is to determine the value of the exponent which matches

experimental data. Done by non linear parameter estimation
procedure
Assume an initial grinding rate S1= 0.0001 and =1.3.
Assume exponent of 2.5 for variation of grinding rate function and
predict the batch grinding product at various time intervals tested
using the assumed values of B from simulation.
Compare it with observed product using graph. Repeat with
exponents of 2.75, 3, 3.25, and 3.5.
Determine which of the 4 experiments predicts closer results to
observed values by comparing the values of net error obtained in
each case and choosing the least

Grinding rate Sn has function of parameter K

SIEVE SIZE(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6

Average value of
Diameter(mm)

0
0.09
0.315
0.63
1.3
3.15

Dn/Dn-1
0.045
0.2025
0.4725
0.965
2.225
3.15

0.105
0.428571429
0.489637306
0.433707865
0.706349206
0.01

Now calcuating (Dn/Dn-1)k for various k values we get

SIEVE SIZE(mm)

K = 2.5

K=2.75

k = 3.0

k =3.25

k = 3.5

2.43924E-07

1.97849E-06

0.000514714

8.8153E-10

2.52676E-10

0.09

1.04782E-05

0.00097289

0.444629453

1.3377E-06

6.73598E-07

0.315

8.71421E-05

6.68269E-05

0.00003375

2.1004E-05

1.30713E-05

0.63

0.000519448

0.000476208

0.000287508

0.0002139

0.000159132

1.3

0.00419323

0.003844178

0.003524182

0.00323082

0.002961884

3.15

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

2) Breakage function Bn,u in a matrix B(m,n) = Bn,u

Column 1

0.636392862

0.2148235

0.337564282

0.08490214

0.133411521

0.395218121

0.028219468

0.044342841

0.131361176

0.3323764

0.003993673

0.006275484

0.018590487

0.047038548

0.141521927

MATLAB CODE:

1. Breakage function calculation

function [b,s] = breakage(~) % b is breakage function
d = [3.150000000000000;2.225;0.965;0.4725;0.2025;0.04500000000000
l = length(d);
b = -eye(l);
b(l,l) = 0;
s = grinding();
for m = 2:6
for
n = 1:6
if n < m
b(m,n) = -((d(m,1)./d(n,1)).^1.3)+((d(m-1,1)./d(n,1)).^1.
end
end
end
for m = 1:l
for n = 1:l;
b(m,n) = b(m,1)*s(1,n);
end

end
end
2. % function to calculate x at different intervals
[xt] = final(t)
q = length(t);
x0 = [0.3681;0.5873 ; 0.0378;0.0054 ; 8.0E-4;7.0E-4];
a = breakage()*x0;
p = length(a);
diff = zeros(p,q);
for m = 1:p;
for n = 1:q;
diff(m,n) = a(m,1)*t(1,n);
end
end
for n = 1:q
xin(:,n) = x0;
end
xt = xin + diff;

end
3. Grinding Rate function

function[s] = grinding(~)
d = [3.150000000000000;2.225;0.965;0.4725;0.2025;0.04500000000000
s(1) = 0.01;
% for 100 seconds
for m = 2:6
s(m) = s(m-1)*((d(m,1)/d(m-1,1)).^1);
end

Simulated data for K= 2.5

Sieve size

dXi/dt

Xi at t = 0 min

Xi at t =2 min

Xi at t =4 min

Xi at t = 9 min

3.15 mm

-0.003681412

36.81%

36.37%

35.49%

33.50%

1.6 mm

8.52519E-05

58.73%

58.74%

58.76%

58.77%

630 m

0.002296062

3.78%

4.05%

4.60%

5.02%

315 m

0.00094593

0.54%

0.66%

0.88%

1.05%

90

0.000413885

0.08%

0.12%

0.22%

0.30%

0.000175332

0.07%

0.09%

0.13%

0.16%

<90

m
m

SIMULATED DATA
DATA K = 2.75
Sieve size

dXi/dt

Xi at t = 0 min

Xi at t =2 min

Xi at t =4 min

Xi at t = 9 min

3.15 mm

-0.003681412

36.81%

36.37%

35.49%

33.50%

1.6 mm

8.52519E-05

58.73%

58.74%

58.76%

58.77%

630 m

0.002296062

3.78%

4.05%

4.60%

5.02%

315 m

0.00094593

0.54%

0.66%

0.88%

1.05%

90

0.000413885

0.08%

0.12%

0.22%

0.30%

0.000175332

0.07%

0.09%

0.13%

0.16%

<90

m
m

simulated data
k=3
Sieve size

dXi/dt

Xi at t = 0 min

Xi at t =2 min

Xi at t =4 min

Xi at t = 9 min

3.15 mm

-0.003681412

36.81%

36.37%

35.49%

34.83%

1.6 mm

0.000273176

58.73%

58.76%

58.83%

58.87%

630 m

0.002239752

3.78%

4.05%

4.58%

4.99%

315 m

0.000904927

0.54%

0.65%

0.87%

1.03%

90

6.14299E-05

0.08%

0.08%

0.10%

0.11%

0.000216536

0.07%

0.09%

0.14%

0.18%

<90

m
m

SIMULATED DATA
K= 3.25
Sieve size

dXi/dt

Xi at t = 0 min

Xi at t =2 min

Xi at t =4 min

Xi at t = 9 min

3.15 mm

-0.003681412

36.81%

36.37%

35.49%

34.83%

1.6 mm

0.000445457

58.73%

58.78%

58.87%

58.97%

630 m

0.002191661

3.78%

4.04%

4.57%

4.96%

315 m

0.000868726

0.54%

0.65%

0.86%

1.01%

90

0.000379837

0.08%

0.12%

0.17%

0.28%

0.000162324

0.07%

0.08%

0.13%

0.15%

<90

m
m

SIMULATED DATA K = 3.5

Sieve size

dXi/dt

Xi at t = 0 min

Xi at t =2 min

Xi at t =4 min

Xi at t = 9 min

3.15 mm

-0.003681412

36.81%

36.37%

35.49%

34.83%

1.6 mm

0.000603397

58.73%

0.587805087

58.90%

59.05%

630 m

0.002138646

3.78%

0.040397071

4.56%

4.93%

315 m

0.000835707

0.54%

0.006459263

0.85%

0.99%

90

0.000365755

0.08%

0.001208136

0.17%

0.27%

0.000156078

0.07%

0.00084681

0.13%

0.15%

<90

Graph of simulated data :

The data obtained from simulations is represented in graphical form below. Since the
values differ widely in magnitude between sieves two graphs are drawn to better represent
the data.
Here X-axis Represents amount of time balling milling is done in units of minutes
Y-axis represents mass fraction in different sieves in terms of percentage

1) K = 2.5 Sn = Sn-1* (Dn/Dn-1)2.5

a)

Sieves 3.15mm , 1.3mm , 0.63mm

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

3.15mm
1.3mm

30.00%

0.63mm
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0

b)

Sieves 315m, 90m and Pan (<90m)

1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.315mm
0.60%

90micrometer
Pan

0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
0

Sn = Sn-1* (Dn/Dn-1)2.75

2) K = 2.75
a)

Sieves 3.15mm , 1.3mm , 0.63mm

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

3.15mm
1.3mm

30.00%

0.63mm
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0

b) Sieves 315m, 90m and Pan (<90m)

1.20%
1.00%
0.80%

sieve size 0.63mm

0.60%

sieve size 90
micrometer

0.40%

Pan

0.20%
0.00%
0

10

Sn = Sn-1* (Dn/Dn-1)3

3) K= 3
a)

Sieves 3.15mm , 1.3mm , 0.63mm

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

3.15mm
1.3mm

30.00%

0.63mm
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0

b)

Sieves 315m, 90m and Pan (<90m)

1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.315mm
0.60%

90 micrometer
Pan

0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
0

Sn = Sn-1* (Dn/Dn-1)3.25

4) K = 3.25
a)

Sieves 3.15mm , 1.3mm , 0.63mm

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

3.15mm
1.3mm

30.00%

0.63
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0

b)

Sieves 315m, 90m and Pan (<90m)

1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.315mm
0.60%

90 micrometer
Pan

0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
0

Sn = Sn-1* (Dn/Dn-1)3.5

5) K = 3.5
a)

Sieves 3.15mm , 1.3mm , 0.63mm

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

3.15mm
1.3mm

30.00%

0.63mm
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0

b)

Sieves 315m, 90m and Pan (<90m)

1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.315mm
0.60%

90 micrometer
Pan

0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
0

Conclusions from Simulations:

1. The values we get from simulation and data from actual experiments are not close to
each other. It shows that that The grinding function is not well represented by the formula
Sn = Sn-1* (Dn/Dn-1)k which was used in the simulation.
2. In the values we get from simulations mass fraction is not varying much milling. Most
of the mass remains in the upper sieves. It shows that the actual grinding function is a much
larger value when compared with the value assumed in simulation.

Simulation Using Experimental value of grinding function

For the uppermost sieve(3.15mm) we know dx/dt = -s*x by using this formula
we can calculate the value of s
Time
t = 2 mins
t = 4mins
t = 9 mins
Avg

dx/dt
0.04828475
0.011313282
0.010755298
0.02345111

S1
0.131172916
0.041664866
0.047531477
0.073456419

Let us the average value of S1 = 0.07346 and use the same formula for calculating
other Sn values.. By substituting this value we get the following simulation results

Sieve size dx/dt

mm

TIME t= 0 2 min

4 min

9 min

3.15

-0.027039308

36.81%

33.57%

23.83%

9.23%

1.3

-0.000881463

58.73%

50.62%

44.41%

31.13%

0.63

0.017361066

3.78%

5.86%

10.03%

23.40%

0.315

0.007259407

0.54%

3.31%

5.16%

6.02%

0.09

0.003182949

0.08%

2.46%

6.02%

9.94%

0.001360901

0.07%

4.18%

10.56%

20.28%

Pan

For k = 2.5
70.00%
mass fraction

60.00%
50.00%

3.15mm

40.00%

1.3mm

30.00%

0.63 mm

20.00%

0.315 mm

10.00%

0.09 mm

0.00%
0

time (min)

10

pan

SIMULATED DATA
K = 2.75
Sieve size
mm

dx/dt

Time t = 0 2 min
min

4 min

9 min

3.15

-0.027039308

36.81%

33.57%

27.08%

17.47%

1.3

0.000624302

58.73%

50.20%

44.83%

40.37%

0.63

0.016864769

3.78%

5.80%

9.85%

12.88%

0.315

0.006948068

0.54%

2.38%

3.04%

4.79%

0.09

0.003045457

0.08%

3.44%

7.17%

11.72%

0.001303342

0.07%

4.61%

8.03%

12.77%

Pan

FOR K =2.75
70.00%
60.00%
3.15mm

50.00%

1.3mm

40.00%

0.63mm
30.00%

0.315mm

20.00%

0.09mm
pan

10.00%
0.00%
0

10

SIMULATED DATA
K=3
Sieve size dx/dt
mm

initial

t = 2min

t = 4min

t = 9min

3.15

36.81%
0.027039308

33.57%

27.08%

22.21%

1.3

0.002004726 58.73%

42.77%

35.39%

24.81%

0.63

0.016451137 3.78%

5.75%

9.70%

12.65%

0.315

0.006646877 0.54%

7.34%

9.33%

9.13%

0.09

0.002516892 0.08%

4.38%

5.97%

11.43%

0.001299153 0.07%

6.20%

12.53%

19.77%

Pan

For K= 3.0
70.00%

mass fraction

60.00%
50.00%

3.15mm

40.00%

1.3mm

30.00%

0.63 mm

20.00%

0.315 mm

10.00%

0.09 mm
pan

0.00%
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

time (min)

8.00

10.00

SIMULATED DATA
K= 3.25
Sieve
mm

size dx/dt

initial

t = 2min

t = 4min

t = 9min

3.15

36.81%
0.027039308

33.57%

27.08%

24.21%

1.3

0.00327024

52.76%

49.26%

32.26%

0.63

0.016097879 3.78%

7.73%

9.61%

11.45%

0.315

0.006380955 0.54%

1.31%

2.87%

3.99%

0.09

0.002789972 0.08%

2.46%

3.62%

6.44%

0.00119329

1.74%

7.50%

21.24%

58.73%

0.07%

Pan

For k = 3.25
70.00%
60.00%

Mass Fraction

50.00%

3.15mm

40.00%

1.3mm

30.00%

0.63 mm
0.315 mm

20.00%

0.09 mm

10.00%

pan

0.00%
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

time (min)

8.00

10.00

SIMULATED DATA K = 3.5

Sieve size mm

dx/dt

3.15

-0.027039308

36.81%

33.57%

27.08%

22.21%

1.3

0.004430411

58.73%

53.80%

48.03%

42.12%

0.63

0.015708448

3.78%

5.71%

9.56%

14.60%

0.315

0.006138414

0.54%

1.31%

3.81%

4.86%

0.09

0.002686536

0.08%

3.41%

5.02%

7.53%

0.001147412

0.07%

2.21%

6.50%

8.68%

Pan

For k= 3.5
70.00%
60.00%
3.15mm

50.00%

1.3mm

40.00%

0.63mm

30.00%

0.315mm

20.00%

0.09mm
pan

10.00%
0.00%
0

10

Conclusion
The values obtained from simulation is comparable to experimental
values atleast in terms of general trends.
By comparing values obtained for different values of k we can conclude
that for k=3 simulated and experimental values are highly comparable.
So we can conclude that K =3 is the best possible value among the given
set of values.

Sources of Error:
There might be loss in the amount of sample as we keep transferring sample
from and to ball mill for different intervals of time.
Even we use the digital weighing machine for measuring different samples
at different intervals of time and also Di is also assumed exact due to which
there is an inherent error.
As particles gets finer and finer, during sieve analysis particles get struck in
the pores, due to which proper screening is not possible.