Search Documents

By John S. Johnson, Thomas Fraser

SIZING is the process of separating mixed particles into groups of particles all of the same size, or into groups in which all particles L range between certain definite maximum and minimum sizes. In coal preparation, sizing is generally accomplished by passing the coal over screens. Separation by differential settling in air or water currents has been adapted to the special field of separating very fine sizes, and these processes are in commercial use to a relatively small extent in the coal industry. Separation with screens is a very old industrial practice. Agricola 1 described the use of screens for ore treatment in the middle ages. In the literature of the British coal industry references were made to the screening of coal as early as 1589, but the practice of extensive sizing for the market did not become general until the last half of the nineteenth century. In America, the practice of sizing developed first in the Pennsylvania anthracite region, beginning with the use of rakes2 in the mine working places to recover coarse coal. This mining procedure left the fines in the mine. Preparation outside the mine started with the installation of stationary cast-iron plates with 4 to 6-in. square holes. The run-of-mine coal was dumped upon the platforms, the large pieces of rock were picked out by hand, and the large lumps of coal were broken with hammers. The term "breaker," which still applies to the anthracite-preparation plant, originated with this practice, but the term is no longer descriptive of the entire function of the plant. In 1884, the first power-operated anthracite coal breaker3 was erected by Gideon Bart at his colliery at Wolf Creek near Minersville, Pa. This plant utilized a system of rolls for breaking the coal and revolving screens for sizing. The plant was driven by a steam engine. It could handle

Jan 1, 1943

By W. E. Foreman, James A. Redding

INTRODUCTION Screening is a mechanical process that separates particles by size. Modern coal preparation is made possible by efficient sizing. Sizing of coal is defined in terms of the opening through which an individual particle will or will not pass, or as two openings, the larger of which passes the particle and the smaller of which retains the particle. Screening accomplishes sizing by passing coal of a wide range of sizes through a series of screens, each of a decreasing size. The individual screen discharges are then directed into different screen products for subsequent sale or processing. Screening in modern preparation plants is done for the following reasons: 1 ) Removal of fine coal before a size reduction step. 2) Size separation of the coal into a coarse and fine fraction for sized products or processing in coarse and fine coal circuits. 3) Recovery of heavy media from heavy media coal cleaning circuits. 4) Dewatering. 5) Rock and trash removal by handpicking on a screen. Fig. 8-1 is a generalized flowsheet of a plant showing the use of screens in the coal preparation process. Table 8-1 shows the vibrating screen equipment utilized in Fig. 8-1

Jan 1, 1979

By John S. Johnson, Thomas Fraser

SIZING is the process of separating mixed particles into groups of particles all of the same size, or into groups in which all particles range between certain definite maximum and minimum sizes. In coal preparation, sizing is generally accomplished by passing the coal over screens. Separation by differential settling in air or water currents has been adapted to the special field of separating very fine sizes, and these processes are in commercial use to a relatively small extent in the coal industry. Separation with screens is a very old industrial practice. Agricola described the use of screens for ore treatment in the middle ages. In the literature of the British coal industry references were made to the screening of coal as early as 1589, but the practice of extensive sizing for the market did not become general until the last half of the nineteenth century. In America, the practice of sizing developed first in the Pennsylvania anthracite region, beginning with the use of rakes in the mine working places to recover coarse coal. This mining procedure left the fines in the mine. Preparation outside the mine started with the installation of stationary cast-iron plates with 4 to 6-in. square holes. The run-of-mine coal was dumped upon the platforms, the large pieces of rock were picked out by hand, and the large lumps of coal were broken with hammers. The term "breaker," which still applies to the anthracite-preparation plant, originated with this practice, but the term is no longer descriptive of the entire function of the plant. In 1884, the first power-operated anthracite coal breaker was erected by Gideon Bart at his colliery at Wolf Creek near Minersville, Pa. This plant utilized a system of rolls for breaking the coal and revolving screens for sizing. The plant was driven by a steam engine. It could handle coal at the rate of 200 tons a day. By 1860, revolving screens were in wide use in the Pennsylvania anthracite field. Shaking screens were introduced in the Pennsylvania anthracite region in the 90's and they rapidly displaced the lower-capacity revolving screens.

Jan 1, 1950

By R. H. Landshof, Reynold Q. Shotts, James A. Redding

GENERAL INTRODUCTION by R. Q. Shotts The sizing of coal particles is one of the most important beneficiation operations performed from the time coal is broken at the face until it is delivered to the customer. Indeed, in many cases it may be virtually the only such operation performed in that interval, although it is most often accompanied by some comminution. Sizing, as the term implies, is a separation of the broken coal particles into arbitrary groups, each group containing particles within restricted mass, volume or size limits. Size itself is not a rigidly defined property, but is actually determined more by the operating principles of the sizing device than by unique properties of the particles themselves. Particle size cannot be uniquely defined independently of particle shape. Taggart l says, "In fact, it is not possible to state the size of a single irregular body by means of a single dimension; such possibility exists only for regular polyhedra and their limit, the sphere." In view of the scarcity of regular polyhedra among coal particles, even though most appear to approximate a cube, we actually define size in terms of a surface opening through which the particle barely will or will not pass, or of two openings, the smaller of which retains all particles of the group under study and the larger of which passes all of them. Alternatively, size is expressed in terms of rate of settling of particles in a fluid under closely controlled conditions. Historical Sketch2-Taken from Coal Preparation, 2nd Ed. "Sizing is the process of separating mixed particles into groups of particles all of the same size or into groups in which all particles range between certain definite maximum and minimum sizes. In coal preparation, sizing is generally accomplished by passing the coal over screens. Separation by differential settling in air or water currents has been adapted to the special field of separating very fine sizes, and these processes are in commercial use to a relatively small extent in the coal industry. Separation with screens is a very old industrial practice. Agricola described the use of screens for ore treatment in the middle ages. In the literature of the British coal industry references were made to the screening of coal as early as 1589, but the practice of extensive sizing for the market did not become general until the last half of the nineteenth century. "In America, the practice of sizing developed first in the Pennsylvania anthracite region, beginning with the use of rakes in the mine working places to recover coarse coal. The mining procedure left the fines in the mine.

Jan 1, 1968

Contents

Jan 1, 1985

By John S. Johnson, Thomas Fraser

SIZING is the process of separating mixed particles into groups of particles all of the same size, or into groups in which all particles range between certain definite maximum and minimum sizes. In coal preparation, sizing is generally accomplished by passing the coal over screens. Separation by differential settling in air or water currents has been adapted to the special field of separating very fine sizes, and these processes are in commercial use to a relatively small extent in the coal industry. Separation with screens is a very old industrial practice. Agricola described the use of screens for ore treatment in the middle ages. In the literature of the British coal industry references were made to the screening of coal as early as 1589, but the practice of extensive sizing for the market did not become general until the last half of the nineteenth century. In America, the practice of sizing developed first in the Pennsylvania anthracite region, beginning with the use of rakes' in the mine working places to recover coarse coal. This mining procedure left the fines in the mine. Preparation outside the mine started with the installation of station¬ary cast-iron plates with 4 to 6-in. square holes. The run-of-mine coal was dumped upon the platforms, the large pieces of rock were picked out by hand, and the large lumps of coal were broken with hammers. The term "breaker," which still applies to the anthracite-preparation plant, originated with this practice, but the term is no longer descriptive of the entire function of the plant. In 1884, the first power-operated anthracite coal breaker' was erected by Gideon Bart at his colliery at Wolf Creek near Minersville, Pa. This plant utilized a system of rolls for breaking the coal and revolving screens for sizing. The plant was driven by a steam engine. It 'could handle

Jan 1, 1943

By Benedict Shubart

The subject of this paper may seem threadbare to, many of you, but even if I repeat what you already know, just smile to yourself and think how much wiser you are than your neighbor, for it is startling what a number of tipples are erected that violate the elementary fundamentals not only of good design but of practical operation. Possibly a coal screening plant is a simple plant. If so, we treat it like we do a great many other simple things. We treat it entirely too lightly and fail to take into consideration, not only the changes that may occur later, the conditions we may be compelled to meet as competition changes, but even the elementary physical conditions that exist right at the tipple site. If I get too positive over some particular point, don't blame me, but remember some of the heart-breaking experiences we have had correcting these omissions, trying to make a tipple do merely what it was designed to do, when the builder tied everything up in such a constricted space, that no room was left to get the results he must have. Perhaps some of the things will look too expensive. Don't say that you can't afford them. Many of them you can't afford to do without, and when you figure that a tipple is put up for possibly twenty years of operation, you can't afford to omit any reasonable precaution not only in taking care of the present, but in foreseeing the future. We will consider a tripple screening plant, suitable for Western conditions, capable of handling approximately 2,500 tons per eight hours. The largest screen sizes must be loaded into either open cars or box cars, and arrangement provided for screening and loading not less than five sizes of coal: lump, egg, nut, slack, dust, or any reasonable combination of these. As we are considering only the preparation of the coal, we will omit all consideration of the method of haulage, pit cars, methods of dumping, and will take the coal after it is in the dump hopper. The track arrangement will frequently be determined by the ground layout. Our sizes and tonnage can be loaded on three tracks, but four tracks are better. The two outer tracks should be left for loading lump coal, No. 3 track should be left for egg coal, and No. 4 track for loading nut, slack and dust. Where a fifth track can be provided, No. 5 track should be held open only for run-of-mine coal, to act as a storage where emergency coal can, be run, should there be any delay in the screening equipment or in changing cars. Track No. I should be used for loading lump coal into box cars only. Track No. 2 should be used for loading lump coal into open cars only, and may or may not be provided with picking table, loading boom, or both. Where picking is necessary, a picking table can frequently be put between the two "lump tracks, heading down track, pivoted at one end, so it may be raised or lowered to feed either open or box cars; with

Jan 1, 1921

By J. D. Grace

[Screening by centrifugal force is an unique, subject, for with the exception of only one vibrating screen presently on the market, all vibrating screens depend upon, gravity to pass material through a sizing mesh or screen cloth. This one screen that sizes by centrifugal force and utilizes gravity only to convey materiel along the screen, is the SYMONS V-Screen. This screen was designed by Loren Symons, a member of the family that has contributed so much to the metallic and non-metallic mineral processing industries. Among Symons' other outstanding contribution to these industries are the original Cone Crusher which revolutionized reduction crushing practice, the first high-speed horizontal vibrating screen, the original Rod Deck Screen, and one of the earliest vibrating Bar Grizzlies.]

Jan 1, 1965

By Derek V. Ellis

A stepwise implementation of seven criteria for screening the physical, chemical and environmental suitability of submarine tailing disposal (STD) at coastal mines is presented. It is expected that similar criteria would be relevant to future deepwater mining. A reconnaissance level study of four preliminary criteria: mine location; coastal bathymetry; feasible outfall locations; and potential for chemical contamination can support or eliminate the prospects for STD. If supportive, detailed, and far more time-consuming hence costly surveys of: environmental background information including oceanography and waste discharge characteristics; projected impacts on other resource uses plus regulatory and community concerns will be essential for environmental protection and to secure the necessary approvals. This review of STD systems on which the proposed screening criteria were based was undertaken by a Cooperative Agreement of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center with the University of British Columbia.

Jan 1, 1994

By Ben Gumpertz

THE important factors in any study of the screening of sand with a gravel enve-lope, as applied to use in oil wells, are: (r) sand size and shape, (2) gravel size and shape, (3) ratio of gravel size to sand size, (4) flow velocity, (5) viscosity of the fluid. Perhaps the first extensive investigation of the function of gravel in screening sand was performed by Coberly and Wagner,1 from which the following conclusion was drawn: "The diameter of the largest grains in a single classified sand suitable for gravel packing is approximately 23 times the grain size at the ten-percentile analysis of the formation sample." This applies to sands classified by Tyler screens and is for gravel grains of the maximum size that could be used to form a stable bridge. Field practice has shown that the screening effect of a given gravel for a given sand apparently varies with the flow velocity.2 Also, it has been assumed by some opera-tors that the thickness of the walls of the gravel envelope surrounding the well has little effect upon the screening process. It is thought by others that a narrow envelope of gravel might form an ineffec-tive screen. Thus the purposes of this work are: I. To investigate the effect of gravel-sand size ratio upon screening action under the condition of varying flow velocities. 2. To investigate the effect upon screen-ing action of varying the thickness of the gravel screen.

Jan 1, 1940

As partition curves are widely employed to characterize screening efficiency which, by definition, should include a time parameter, it is shown, perhaps for the first time, that time is already included in the partition curves and how. Laboratory and plant results are used to show how screening efficiency depends on feed composition, near-mesh and oversize material and screen motion, and how these factors may combine to give an erroneous result that two identically efficient screens are different and two screens of different efficiency are identical. Reasons are given which show why a renewed interest in screening would benefit not only screen engineers and operators but also those concerned in formulating standard specifications of screen analysis methods.

Jan 1, 1984

The screening of iron ores, sinter and coke, and investigations undertaken to improve screening efficiency and cloth life are discussed. The major modifications to coke screening proposed with the construction of No. 7 coke ovens battery are briefly described. The major problem areas were identified as screen cloth blinding and pegging, feed presentation and screen overloading. Blinding and pegging have had a significant effect upon screening efficiency with the screening of sinter, coke breeze and wet iron ores in particular. Pegging can be reduced or eliminated by the correct selection of aperture size and shape, screen excitation and slope, and screening medium. Blinding encountered with wet coke breeze was a particular problem in which no significant progress was made.

Jan 1, 1984

By Rudolf Greuer, Gerald Jalkanen, Huann-Sheng Chen

A short cut is presented where the average grade above a primary grade cutoff and its associated byproduct grade(s) are estimated by screening the primary and byproduct grades. For the primary variable, choose samples whose grades are above a cutoff of interest. Compute variograms for the subset of the primary variable. Then using this variogram, krige the blocks of interest only using the samples whose grades are above the cutoff. The next step is to screen byproduct grades by choosing byproduct samples whose associated primary grades are above the cutoff of interest. Next compute variograms for this subset of byproduct samples. Then using this variogram, krige the blocks of interest using byproduct sample grades whose associated primary sample grades are above the cutoff of interest. The results are the average grade above a primary cutoff for both the primary and the associated byproduct variables. Using two simulated primary and reference data sets a case study resulted in the screening krigings performing better than the indicator kriging approach in the first case study. A second case study had mixed results with the primary indicator approach performing better than the primary screened approach. The byproduct screened approach performed better than the byproduct indicator approach.

Jan 1, 2002

By C. W. Matthews

Introduction Screening is defined as a mechanical process which separates particles on the basis of their size and their acceptance or rejection by a screening surface. The key element in this method of particle sizing is obviously the screening surface, the medium that contains the apertures for the passage of the undersize material. This surface must be strong enough to support the weight of the material being screened, flexible enough to yield to the vibrating force applied to it, yet light enough to provide a reasonable ratio of open area to attain a practical through- put. To balance all of these factors is difficult enough. The problem is compounded, however, because screening media are made in a great variety of types, shapes, sizes, and materials of

Jan 1, 1985

By M. W. Harmer, J. M. Quist

Laboratory test work, pilot plant testing and plant experience with wet, fine-mesh screens are discussed. High-frequency, low-amplitude, fine-mesh, wet screens were installed on the 6th cleaner concentrate stream. These screens produce a 60% oversize recovery split of the molybdenite concentrate that is of leached equivalent quality. The undersize stream is leached with hot ferric chloride to remove lead and copper contaminants before roasting or shipment to sulfide customers. This plant modification is a good example of using existing technology in an unconventional flow sheet to yield significant cost savings.

Jan 1, 1991

By M. W. Harmer

Laboratory test work, pilot plant testing and plant experience with wet, fine mesh screens is discussed. High frequency, low amplitude, fine mesh, wet screens were installed on the 6th cleaner concentrate stream. These screens produce a 60% oversize recovery split of the molybdenite concentrate that is of leached equivalent quality. The undersize stream is leached with 'hot ferric chloride to remove Pb and Cu contaminates before roasting or shipment to sulfide customers. This plant modification is a good example of using existing technology in an unconventional flow sheet to yield significant cost savings.

Jan 1, 1990

By A. Garnier, K. Tremblay-Bouliane, B. Gaillet, S. Moineau, D. Tremblay

"A heptapeptide library displayed on M13 bacteriophages (phages) was screened to identify peptide sequences able to selectively bind to gold, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, pyrite, and silica ores, and to evaluate phage potential as bioflotation reagents. Many peptide sequences were isolated through biopanning and differed from known sequences. Adsorption isotherms were determined and a receptor/ligand interaction model was identified and used to compare affinity of peptide sequences toward ores. Some phage sequences have slightly lower affinity to sphalerite than other sulphides. Adsorption was higher on sulphides than on silica. Induction time measurements suggested filamentous M13 phages lower hydrophobicity of the ore surface.RÉSUMÉ Une librairie d’heptapeptides présentés sur des bactériophages M13 (phages) a été criblée afin d’identifier les séquences peptidiques affinitaires à des minerais d’or, de chalcopyrite, de sphalérite, de pyrite et de silice et d’évaluer le potentiel de ces phages en tant que de bio-réactifs de flottation. De nombreuses séquences peptidiques ont été isolées par bio-criblage et différenciées d’autres séquences connues. Des isothermes d’adsorption ont été déterminées et un modèle d’interaction récepteur–ligand a été identifié et utilisé pour comparer l’affinité des séquences peptidiques par rapport aux minerais. Certaines séquences de phages possèdent une affinité légèrement inférieure pour la sphalérite comparativement aux autres sulfures. L’adsorption sur les sulfures était plus élevée que sur la silice. Des mesures de temps d’induction suggèrent que les phages filamenteux M13 diminuent l’hydrophobicité de la surface des minerais."

Jan 1, 2016

By Rubisov DH

This paper is related to the problems of the mathematical modelling of vibrating screening process and to predicting the screening operation results. The authors propose a model of screening based on the interpretation of granular material segregation on a screen surface as an instantaneous process. Results show an agreement with laboratory and pilot plant tests. Derived formulae can be used for screen sizing and screening result estimating.

Jan 1, 1993

By Hookings H. J

UNDER a contract relating to the sale of a Broken Hill concentrate, the differentiation between granular and slime concentrate is determined by the proportion of the material which will pass a 200-mesh (I.M.M. standard) screen, and this has led to considerable attention being devoted to the question of laboratory sizing tests with screens of this order.It was found that many of the screens turned out by the makers during the war, and also since its termination, did not conform with the I.M.M. specifications as closely as some supplied in pre-war days. A perfect screen is hardly to be expected, but when the above contract was framed the parties anticipated that, by special care being taken during manufacture, a screen at least as good as the best pre-war screens would be available. This, however, has not proved to be the case, and the large irregularities in screens recently supplied render them useless for sizing determinations under the contract. The makers were approached through the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, with the view of obtaining a few screens conforming as closely as possible to the 200-mesh I.M.M. standard, and in response to a request twelve pieces of screen were...

Jan 1, 1922

By Gerald Verbeek, David Tara

"When selecting an impact hammer to drive a particular pile, the decision is often based on local experience. In those cases, the contractor falls back on previous experience or draws on the experience of the hammer manufacturer to select the hammer that will be able to do the job. Obviously, a more scientific approach would be to perform a pile driving simulation using one of several commercially available software packages (e.g., GRLWEAP, AllWavePDP or PDPWave).However, this type of analysis requires quite a bit more effort. First, an accurate model of the pile driving process has to be developed, which includes a model of the soil profile at the job site and input into the analysis program. Then, the model must be analyzed to assess whether the combination of hammer, pile and soil model work.Over the years, numerous individuals and organizations have tried to develop something that would fit nicely in between these approaches: something more advanced than a gut feeling yet something that could be done on the back of an envelope; in other words, a “Goldilocks” approach — not too simple, not too complex, but just right.Screening Tool CriteriaThe goals of the approach are twofold: (1) select the appropriate impact hammer to drive an open toe steel pipe or H-pile, and (2) then use the model for the subsequent high strain dynamic testing (HSDT). The Goldilocks approach centers around five different criteria.1. Maximum Driving StressTo minimize the risk of damage, the maximum driving stresses are generally limited to 80 to 90% of the yield stress (fy) of the steel section. This approach does not consider issues such as hammer alignment, initial imperfections, denting and/or elastic buckling, and pile material fatigue history. However, even when these issues are not applicable, limiting average stresses to 0.9fy or even 0.8fy does not necessarily mitigate the risk of pile damage (Mostafa, 2011)."

Jan 1, 2017