The Department of Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering

Private Bag X680

Pretoria
0001
Tel. (012) 382 6364 / 6274 /3595
Fax. (012) 382 6275

Monthly Report: Work Integrated Learning

Month No.:

Date: From/To

22/06/14 to 18/07/14

Employer Name:

MINOPEX (AQUIRIUS PLATINUM MINE K1)

Student Initials and Surname:

TP SHILENGE

Student Number:

212046710

Student e-mail:

thembishilenge0@gmail.com

Student Cell No:

0785600060

Mentor e-mail:

Diderik.nel@minopex.co.za / 0723399834
Description of tasks completed by student

Table of Contents
Monthly Report: Work Integrated Learning..............................................................1
1.1DEFINITION PURPOSE OF SIEVING AND SCREENING..............................................3

1.2 BACKROUND.......................................................................................................3
1.2.1OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................3
1.3PICTURES OF EQUIPMENTS USED..................................................................3
2.THEORY................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.SIEVE ANALYSIS.................................................................................................4
3.1DEFINITION OF SCREENING AND SIEVING.....................................................4
4 PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY...........................................................................6

4.1 objective of this project.........................................................................................6

4.2 description of the practical....................................................................................6
5 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS.................................................................................... 7
6 RESULTS.................................................................................................................. 7
7 GRAPHS................................................................................................................... 9

Feed............................................................................................................................9
8 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS....................................................................................... 13

8.1 INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS.............................................................13

9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................14
10 LITERATURE CITED (REFERRENCES)....................................................................15

1.1DEFINITION PURPOSE OF SIEVING AND SCREENING

A sieve is a material which is used to separate fine aggregate of a mixture of
aggregates which vary in size which will separate big aggregates from smaller ones. It
mostly separates particles according to size , use-full products from useless ones like
when extracting some minerals from ores in mining industries and mineral processing
industries, here at MINOPEX K1 its used to classify the grinded product so only the
correct size of 106 microns by size are sent to the downstream process (secondary
rougher floatation).
1.2 BACKROUND
Screening and sieving are important mineral processing operations. They rely on
separation of particles according to their size. The difference between them is that
screening is a continuous operation while sieving is a batch action and is usually
performed as lab tests. Screening in performed using screens equipped with one or two
screen surfaces called also decks. A single screen provides two products. The product
from the top is called the oversize or plus product while the one which passes through
the screen is the undersize or minus product . Material passing one screen surface but
remaining on the next one in a double deck screen is an intermediate product.
1.2.1OBJECTIVES
The division of an ore stream into two or more size classes
To prevent feeding undersize to the mill or feeding oversize to the floatation section
increasing capacity & efficiency
To classify the grinded product so only the correct size is sent to the downstream
process
Size distribution is very important to the performance of a material. It may be applied in
crushed particle, sand etc, it is the most popular and cheap way of separating
technique. The function of a mechanical shaker is to make the process faster by
applying work to the sieve.
1.3PICTURES OF EQUIPMENTS USED

2.THEORY
2.1.SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve analysis is the process of dividing a sample of aggregate into fraction of the same
size. The purpose of doing this analysis is to determine the grading or size distribution
of the aggregate which is important to find out whether the aggregate pile we are
studying is good for the mix or not. The grading of the aggregate usually affects on the
workability of the fresh concrete.The aggregate of interest is thrown into a series of
sieves nested in order with the smallest at the bottom, and after shaking the mass of
retained aggregate in each sieve is calculated.The aggregate used in the project should
be representative to the pile we obtained it from, so we cant just take the mass we
need for the the project arbitrary because this arbitrary specimen might not contain a
certain size of the aggregate. For that reason the Quartering Method is used, this
method involves taking a big amount of aggregate from the pile of interest (more than
the amount we need) and then divide them into quarters or halves till we gain the
amount we need for the project.

3.1DEFINITION OF SCREENING AND SIEVING

Sieving refers to the separation of a mixture of particles of different sizes using sieves
each with a uniform sized opening. Standard sieves of specified opening sizes are
used. Sieves are stacked with the sieve with the largest opening on the top and the
material is separated into fractions by shaking. The material between two sieves is
smaller than the upper sieve opening but larger than the smaller sieve opening.[3]
The mass of products can be expressed in simple mass units (g, kg, Mg) or as stream
(flux) in mass per unit time (for instance mega grams per day, or shortly Mg/d). During
ideal screening, the plus product contains only particles greater than the size of
openings of the screen surface while minus product consists of particles smaller than
the opening. In real operations the oversized particles are present in the minus product
and some undersized particles are in the plus product. It results from adhesion of small
particles to large ones and that some particles never get into contact with the screen
surface. The presence of large particles in the undersize product may be caused by
greater than nominal openings or rupture of the screen surface.

4 PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 objective of this project
to test the operating efficiency of the Derrick screen and classifying the materials
according to size so that only the correct size of 106 microns is sent to the secondary
rougher cells and to improve the grindes in the secondary ball mill since the Derrick
screen gets its feed from the ball mill discharge.
4.2 description of the practical
A sample was collected from DERRICK SCREEN this was to test if the screen is
operating correctly and its fed with the correct feed, we cut the sample from the
screen feed, the undersize and the oversize. We labeled , dated and tagged each
sample then prepared by firstly filtrating until no water was licking then dried the
sample, drying is very important as it removes all the water so that the sample can
be split, crushed and pulverized more easily than if it is wet. It is very important that
the ovens be kept at the required temperature so that the sample is not changed by
the heat. The wet sample will also interfere with any weighing done because the
weight found would be the weight of the moisture and the sample and we only need
that of a sample. We left the sample to dry for approximately 1 hour in the middling
grade oven

Took them out of the oven the samples are on the metal pans and we only going to
analys 250 to 300g depending on the sample, so the splitter was used to reduce the
mass of a sample since we had more, The sample was divided into portions of equal
mass and each portion is exactly the same as the original sample, this meant that
each portion has the same characteristics We split a sample because we only
needed a certain mass but we needed composition to be the same as the original
sample. 10-way splitter; this type of splitter is known as a sectorial divider It consists
of a circular hopper through which the material falls into containers on a rotating
carousel

Weighed each sample, undersize , feed and oversize and recorded the mass, did
wet sieving and screening for each sample using the sieves having aperture sizes
+75 , +106 and +150 microns by firstly washing off the fines of -75 microns and
followed +106 in to a pan and +150 into a pan , we only washed off the -75 fines
since we can calculated it from the starting mass of the sample, after wet sieving we
dried the samples again in to the oven for 1 hour. After an hour we took them from
the oven and prepared them for dry sieving and screening by placing each into its
size aperture sieve and put on to the mechanical shaker for 10 minutes for further
distributions and recorded the mass each sieve pan contained according to its
aperture size for the three samples by weighing on to the mass balance and did the
particle size analysis calculations

5 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS

Set of sieves having aperture sizes +75 , +106 and +150 microns
3.samples (Derrick feed, undersize and oversize).
metal pans.
Electronic weighting machine (mass balance).
Mechanical shaker.
Brush
Dust mask
Sample splitter
Water for wet sieving
Oven and oven gloves
Filtration machine
Filter papers

6 RESULTS
6.1
FEED

Mass in (g)

Percentage (%)

10.2
26.3
39.4
269.40
TOTAL MASS 345.3g

2.95
7.62
11.41
78.02
TOTAL =100%

Screen aperture size

(microns)
+150
+106
+75
-75

6.2 DERRICK SCREEN OVERSIZE

Screen aperture size
(microns)
+150
+106
+75
-75

Mass (g)

Percentage (%)

77.4
66.3
23.4
74.9
TOTAL MASS 242g

31.98
27.40
9.67
30.95
TOTAL=100%

6.3 DERRICK SCREEN UNDERSIZE

Screen aperture size
(microns)
+150
+106
+75
-75

Mass (g)

Percentage (%)

4.9
26.0
48.6
299.8
TOTAL MASS 379.3

1.30
6.85
12.81
79.04
TOTAL=100%

6.4 DERRICK SCREEN FEED

Aperture size

Mass (g)

(um)

(345.3g)

FEED
+150
+106
+75
-75

10.2
26.3
39.4
269.4
TOTAL =345.3g

Mass (%)

2.95
7.62
11.41
78.02
100

Cumulative

Cumulative

undersize (%)

oversize (%)

97.05
89.43
78.02
0

2.95
10.57
21.98
100

Cumulative

Cumulative

Undersize(%)

Oversize(%)

6.5 DERRICK SCREEN UNDERSIZE

Aperture

Mass (g)

size(um)

(379.3g)

UNDERSIZE

Mass (%)

+150
+106
+75
-75

4.9
26
48.6
299.8
TOTAL=379.3g

1.30
6.85
12.81
79.04
100%

98.7
91.85
79.04
0

1.30
8.15
20.96
100

Mass (%)

Cumulative

Cumulative

Undersize(%)

Oversize(%)

68.07
40.67
31
0

31.93
59.33
69
100

6.6 DERRICK SCREEN OVERSIZE

Aperture

Mass (g)

size(um)

(242g)

UNDERSIZE
+150
+106
+75
-75

77.4
66.3
23.4
74.9
TOTAL=242g

7 GRAPHS
7.1 DERRICK SCREEN FEED

31.93
27.40
9.67
30.95
100%

cumulative undersize and oversize vs aparture size (um)

150
100
cumulative %

undersize
oversize

50
0
0

50 100 150 200

aparture size (um)

7.2 DERRICK SCREEN UNDERSIZE

Cumulative % undersize and oversize vs aparture size (um)

150
100
cumulative %

undersize
oversize

50
0
0 50 100 150 200
aparture size (um)

7.3 DERRICK SCREEN OVERSIZE

Cumulative % undersize & oversize vs aparture size

120
100
80
cumulative %

OVERSIZE

60

UNDERSIZE

40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200
aparture size (um)

7.3

oversize mass vs aparture size

100
oversize mass

50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160
aparture size (um)

7.5

feed mass vs aparture size

300
200
feed mass 100
0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Aparture size

7.6

undersize mass vs aparture size

400
undersize mass

200
0
0

50

100

150

Aparture size (um)

200

8 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
8.1 INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
On our results , the graph fig 7.3 illustrates the relationship between the oversize mass
of Derrick screen and the aperture size of the sieves in the lab, it was found that the
greater mass on the sieve is with the bigger aperture size and still more fines were also
trapped when wet screening it was calculated since it was washed off with water, more
than the mass trapped on the +106 and +75 microns, but according to theory the shape
of the graph is the cupped shape this makes our results to be correct corresponding
with the curve
Fig 7.4 which is the relationship between the feed mass of Derrick screen and aperture
size of the sieves used for the practical project, this is the mass that is fed on the screen
and it depends on the operability of the secondary ball mill, correct mass is to be fed on
the screen so as to obtain the correct and accurate results since the screen is only used
to classify the sizes of the particles accordingly. As the aperture size increases the mass
decreases this is because the screen is fed with the grinded material and it is our desire
that the results are this way, during the practical sieve analysis the sieve with small
aperture size managed to trap more fines and it increased as the mass decreased,
more fines were washed off (-75 microns) sized particles therefore the relationship is
inversely proportional
Fig 7.5 which is the relationship between the undersize mass of Derrick screen and the
aperture size of the sieves used in the lab for particle size analysis, the results are
accurate although errors are possible during sampling, since theoretically it was
expected to find more fines at the smallest aperture size because the undersize is the
finest material that was able to pass underneath the screen so this is also true as the
shape is illustrating the inverse proportionality, the objective is to send the correct
material to the secondary rougher cells floats depending on the grindabilityof the
secondary ball mill, if we having more undersize particles which are -106 microns on the
screen than oversize (+106) microns then the objective is met so that the oversize is
send to the secondary mill for re grind.

9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The bigger the aperture size there more particles will pass through and the opposite is
also true for smaller aperture sizes as many particles were trapped in the +150 microns
size seemed to be the ideal aperture size for the oversize sample, the Derrick screen
showed the correct results according to the shape of the curve obtained therefore the
screen is operating well and it classified the correct sizes of the samples proven by
particles size analysis using set of sieves in the K1 lab
More sieves with a small difference in aperture sizes should be implemented in the
project for results to be more accurate since the particles will be distributed on many
sieves, because some particles are smaller for a bigger aperture size and to find out
that same particles are trapped on the same size , the more the sieves there more
particles will be separated accurately according to their respective diameters
Theoretically the graphs of cumulative undersize and oversize vs aperture size should
intersect at 50% of the graph and this was true with the results drawn on my graphs this
is where most particles were trapped

10 LITERATURE CITED (REFERRENCES)

10.1Donald Mcglinchey, Characterization of Bulk Solids, p231, CRC Press, 2005 [1]
10.2M.S., Mamlouk, and J.P, Zaniewski, Materials for Civil and Construction Engineers,
Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park CA, 1999 (PAGE 117) [2]
10.3Perry, R.H., and D., Green, Perrys Chemical Engineering Handbook, 6th Edition, McGrawHill(PAGE 433) [3]
10.4T., Allen, and A.A., Khan, Critical Evaluation of Powder Sampling Procedures, The
Chemical Engineers, May 1970 (PAGE 87) [4]
10.5Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering by McCabe, Smith, and Harriott.
10.6 Direct Measurements of the Surface Energy of Quartz and Orthoclase , WF Brace
and JB Walsh , The American Mineralogist, Vol.47, September-October, 1962

Performance appraisal (scale 1-10)

Comments: Employer/Students
Quality of work
Quantity of work
Responsibility/Reliability
Theoretical knowledge
Practical skills acquired
Motivation
Communication skills
Human relations & work ethics
Initiative / Problem-solving
Report writing
Was the student absent from work during this period?
YES
NO
If Yes, number of days and dates absent:
If Yes, state reasons given:
If Yes, was a doctors certificate submitted (if/when required)? YES
NO
Comments: TUT

Signatures
Student
Employer:
Surname
Rank:
Telephone:
WIL Coordinator:

Date:
Date:
OFFICIAL COMPANY STAMP/BUSSINESS CARD

Date: