Scribd
Upload
26 views4 pages

Bagasse Part2

This document analyzes the results of a sieve analysis test performed on bagasse samples. The samples were crushed and sieved for 5, 10, and 15 minutes. The analysis found that longer crushing and sieving times resulted in more fine particles passing through the sieves. Finer particle sizes were retained less in each test. Overall, the tests showed the effect of crushing and sieving time on the particle size distribution of the bagasse samples. Mass losses during testing were small, below 0.2%.

Uploaded by

Ralph Castino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views4 pages

Bagasse Part2

This document analyzes the results of a sieve analysis test performed on bagasse samples. The samples were crushed and sieved for 5, 10, and 15 minutes. The analysis found that longer crushing and sieving times resulted in more fine particles passing through the sieves. Finer particle sizes were retained less in each test. Overall, the tests showed the effect of crushing and sieving time on the particle size distribution of the bagasse samples. Mass losses during testing were small, below 0.2%.

Uploaded by

Ralph Castino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Data Analysis

Sieve Analysis
I.

DATA
Date Tested: December 11, 2014
Sample: Bagasse
Weight of the container: 2.80 g
Wt. of the container+ Dry Sample: 32.80 g
Wt. of Dry Sample: 30.00 g
Table 1-1. Measured mass of Retained Bagasse for 5 minutes Crushing and Sieving Time
Sieve
Number

40
50
60
Pan

Diameter
mm

0.425
0.300
0.250
______________

Mass of
Retained
Bagasse, g
16.65
6.30
2.82
4.19

Percent
Retained

55.5
21
9.4
14.1
Total
Weight

Percent
Percent
Cumulative Passing
Retained
55.5
76.5
85.9
100
29.96 g

44.5
23.5
14.1
0

Table1-2Measured mass of Retained Bagasse for 10 minutes Crushing and Sieving Time
Sieve
Diameter
Mass of
Percent
Percent
Percent
Number
mm
Retained
Retained
Cumulative
Passing
Bagasse, g
Retained
40
50
60
Pan

0.425
0.300
0.250
______________

12.88
8.21
4.11
4.75

42.93
27.37
13.70
16.00
Total
Weight

42.93
70.3
84
100
29.95 g

57.07
29.70
16.0
0

Table 1-3Measured mass of Retained Bagasse for 15 minutes Crushing and Sieving Time
Sieve
Number

Diameter

Mass of
Retained
Bagasse

Percent
Retained

40
50
60
Pan

0.425
0.300
0.250

9.11
10.12
5.4
5.31

30.37
33.73
18
17.9
Total
Weight

______________

Percent
Percent
Cumulative Passing
Retained
30.37
64.1
82.1
100
29.94 g

69.63
35.9
17.9
0

100
90

5 mins
10 mins
15 mins

80

Percent Finer

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

Particle Diameter, mm

Figure 1.1 Particle Size Analysis

0.25

0.2

II.

Calculations
Total Mass= 25 g
Mass Retained on Mesh Number 40: 16.65 g
Mass Retained on Mesh Number 50: 6.30 g
Mass Retained on Mesh Number 60: 2.82 g
For the Mesh No. 40
Quantity passing= Total mass- Mass retained
=30-16.65=13.35 g
The percent retained is calculated as;
%retained=Mass Retained/ total Mass
=16.65/30 x100% =55.5 %
From this, %passing= 100-%retained= 100-55.5= 44.5 %

For the Mesh No.50


Quantity passing= Mass arriving - Mass retained
=13.35-6.30=7.05 g
%Retained= (6.30/30) x 100= 21%
%Passing= %passing before - % retained= 44.5-21= 23.5%
For the Mesh No.60
Quantity passing= Mass arriving - Mass retained
=7.05-2.82= 4.23 g
%Retained= (4.23/30) x 100= 14.1%
%Passing= %passing before - % retained= 23.5-14.1% = 9.4%

Mass loss during sieve analysis =

3029.96

30

100%

100% = 0.13%

For 10 minutes, 15 minutes, mass loss during sieve analysis are 0.16 % and 0.2 %,
respectively.

III.

Discussion
Basing from the results, the amount of bagasse retained after 5, 10, and 15 minutes
in the mesh-40 sieve decreases. This is because the greater the crushing time, the more
powdered is the bagasse sample. Thus, a 5-minute crushing time has the least amount of
powdered bagasse samples but with the most amount of bagasse retained. Comparing it to
the 15-minute crushing time of the same amount of samples, the amount of bagasse samples
that are retained decreased significantly because it has a greater time undergoing blending,
thus more bagasse samples would be powdered. Consequently, more powdered bagasse
samples means more particles would pass throughout the mesh-40 sieve, decreasing the
amount of bagasse retained.
However, not only the crushing time is the factor for the variation of amount of
bagasse samples at different sieve numbers, but also the sieving time. From the results, a
5-minute sieving time gives a greater amount of samples retained than that of a 15-minute
sieving time. After the blended samples are put in a sieve, the powdered bagasse samples
are randomly distributed throughout the dense clump of mixed bagasse powders, fibers and
other non-reduced forms overlapping one over another. The mechanism of sieving is
stressing the samples inside in order to distort the overlapping and to settle the lighter and
powdered bagasse samples in the bottom. Hence, longer sieving time increases the
probability of those powder samples at the top of the clump that would reach the bottom
of the sieve and pass through if it can or else retain. Therefore, a 15-minute sieving time
promotes more particles to pass through than a 5-minute sieving time, decreasing the
amount of retained samples but increasing the percent passing of samples.
As the number of mesh number increases, the particle size decreases. This means
that increasing mesh number promotes finer bagasse samples, because the mesh number
corresponds to the number of mesh squares per square inch area. As shown in the graph,
the percent of the samples that pass through decreases as the particle diameter decreases.
Also, as the time increases, the percent bagasse samples that passes through increases.
Also, mass loss during sieve analysis is also reported. As observed from the data,
the weight of before and after blending differs a little. Factors that could be the source of
this loss include those particles that readily fly during blending, particles that get left on
the blender upon transferring the blended samples and those that get stuck on the sieve.
More or less, even with these factors the total weight after is still acceptable with only a
small deviation.

You might also like