MSU – Iligan Institute of Technology

College of Engineering and Technology

Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology

SIEVING THE CLASS: TEACHING PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND ANALYSIS

A Laboratory Report
Presented to
The Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course

ChE 159Introduction to Particle Technology

By

Gillian Wyn E. Amba Jonnah Faye D. Mojares

Al – Waraf P. Ammad
Louelyn B. Banaybanay
Eliza L. Cabus
Roger R. Dingcong, Jr.
Christher Jane M. Docdoc
Roselle C. Lasagas
Prince Sam R. Lazaga
Glydelle A. Lozano
Rizza Mae R. Manabar
Carlo Kurt F. Osorio
Kim Jasper F. Paller
Daryl B. Radjac
KarylXyrra L. Sabulbero
Erika D. Soriño
Reus B. Tabiliran
Keth Duane R. Tagactac
Rey Jeeve I. Tambole
Ann Pearl G. Triana
Formatted: Normal, Centered

Prof. Arniel Ching O. Dizon

Instructor
ABSTRACT

Particle size analysis is about the size distribution of particles in a given sample. It can
be applied to solid materials using sieving, a method for separating larger pieces from smaller
ones. In this exercise, a class of Chemical Engineering students was used to determine size
distribution using single-square apertures made from plumbing polyvinyl chloride piping which
served as sieving material. The hips of the students were initially measured and the students
were sieved accordingly. Results were graphed and written survey were given to selected
participants to assess their enhanced understanding towards size distribution.

INTRODUCTION

Engineering plays a big role in the development of the society today. Its application
helps people do things with ease on a daily basis. In the field of chemical and process
engineering, it provides lot of knowledge and opportunities for students (Brown, Davies, Brown,
& Paterson, 2018). However, the theories and concepts were not that easy to absorb and
oftentimes lead to confusion. Traditional learning in classroom-based education is being
challenged by the ever increasing complexity in our lives and societies. Thus, new methods of
educational practices were applied in engineering principles in order to have a better grasp on
the context of the subjects. This leads to a group experiment based on Project Based Learning
wherein the students were conducting an activity that requires active participation and
interaction (Shekar, 2014). Project-based learning is capable to meet the challenges of
preparing students to solve the real world problems rather than essay- and exam-based
traditional classroom learning.
The objective of this paper is to conduct an experiment on particle size analysis that is
based on the goals of a Project Based Learning as described by Hmelo-Silver (2004). It also
aims to introduce a different approach in the application of the concepts and theories in order to
understand better the contents of particle size analysis.
Predominantly, this experiment proposed a structure in making a practical and effective
use of simple sieving methods and analysis techniques to measure the distribution of people.
The likelihood of a ‘particle’, ideally the students, passing through the sieves using single square
apertures is determined by the ratio of the hip size to the sieve openings, the orientation of the
particle and the number of encounters between the particle and the openings. At the end of this
experiment, the students are expected to have a better understanding and deeper knowledge of
particle technology and its applications.

2
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Before making the sieve, assumptions were made that the characteristic dimensions of
the population was the hips and that the people’s hips were roughly circular. The experiment
starts with the collection of the hip lines of all the female chemical engineering students of MSU-
IIT with their consent. The data gathered can be found in Table B – 1 of Appendix B. These
served as the population of the sample. The sieves were made in agreement with the normal
distribution of the population.

Table 1 shows the statistical evaluation of the data collected. The population data had a
mean diameter of 25.58 cm which deviates by 2.96. The data was assumed to be normally
distributed exhibited in Figure 1.

Table 1. Population Data of hip line Diameter (Female)

Percentile (cm)
Standard Standard Number
Mean 0th 10th 30th 50th 70th 90th
Deviation Error Sample
8.58 2.96 0.36 68.00 15.92 26.01 27.41 28.33 29.28 31.93

Population Normal Distribution

Proportion of Peopler (number basis)

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 20 25 30 35 40
Diameter (cm)

Figure 1. Population Normal Distribution

3
 The distribution above determines the number and specifications of the sieves that
should be constructed. The materials used in this experiment were tape measure, one-half inch
diameter of PVC pipe, 90̊ elbows, PVC solvent, and PVC saw. In constructing the sieve, first,
the PVC pipes were cut into five different sizes and formed into five squares with different sizes
(cm): 26, 27.5, 28.5, 29.5, and 32.5.

After consenting to be a respondent of the activity, a total of 50 female chemical

engineering students of MSU-IIT were directed to step through each sieve starting from the
largest. The aperture of the prior sieve in which the student did not pass through were recorded.

4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The following table below shows the statistical analysis of the data collected from the
sieving activity.

Table 2. Size Analysis Table

Sieve Geometric Sieve Count (𝑭𝒊 × 𝑫𝒊 )𝟑
Cumulative ∑
Diameter, cm Mean, cm Count Fraction
Sum (𝑭𝒊 × 𝑫𝒊 )𝟐
(Xi) (Di) (Fi) 𝒊
26 20.40 33 0.66 0.66 13.46
27.5 26.74 10 0.20 0.86 5.35
28.5 28.00 4 0.08 0.94 2.24
29.5 29.00 1 0.02 0.96 0.58
32.5 30.96 2 0.04 1.00 1.24
Total 50 1 D[3,2] , cm 22.87

The data represents 50 randomly selected data points for a normal distribution of female
students with a mean of 26.83 cm and a standard deviation of 1.497 depicted in Figure 2.

Sample Normal Distribution

Proportion of Peopler (number basis)

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Diameter, cm

Figure 2. Diameter Distribution of 50 Randomly Selected Students

5
 The distribution shows that there is about 65% of the area under the curve that falls
within 25.32 and 28.32. Moreover, the range 23.90 to 29.77 shows about 95% of the area under
the curve and 22.387 to 31.273 for 99.7%.
Figure 3 shows the cumulative frequency from the data collected using the sieving
technique developed in the class. With the basis of the population data where a minimum value
of approximately 16 from the multiple percentiles exhibited, the figure shows that there are 66%
of the 50 students whose hip lines were not able to pass through the sieve size of 26 cm.
Meanwhile, there are 20% of the sample for the sieve size of 27.5 cm and only 14% for the rest
of the sieve sizes used.

Cumulative Frequency Plot

1
0.9
0.8
Cumulative Frequency

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
16 21 26 31
Diameter, Cm

Figure 3. Cumulative Frequency of 50 Randomly Selected Students

Comparing the distribution of the population and sample as assumed to be normally

distributed, they deviated and clearly shown in the Figure 4. Even though the mean of the
population and sample were numerically close (28.58 and 26.83 respectively), the density of the
distribution varied tremendously. In fact, the sample distribution was highly distributed in the left
side of the population distribution. This was possible, because of the sieving technique
developed in the activity. The majority of people being sieved were not circular in the hip line
and can squeeze through the sieve by aligning their widest point along the widest axis of the
sieve (diagonal from corner to corner). In other words, significant number of the samples were
able to pass through the sieve, even though their hip line diameter was greater than that of a

6
particular sieve size. Also some students, as observed, had taken time to look for the right fit,
squeezing in tightly through the sieves, and some did not bother to do so. If the sieving time limit
was applied, theoretically both of the distribution will exhibit identical density distribution whose
mean and standard deviation being closely similar.

Normal Distribution
0.3
Proportion of Peopler (number basis)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
15 20 25 30 35 40
Diameter, cm

population sample

Figure 4. Population vs Sample Distribution

Comparing how particles are sieved in a vibratory filter/screen and how people were
sieved through this activity, the particles are subjected to sieving at the same duration with other
particles; this technique must also have been portrayed in this activity. Also when sieving
particles, we could not control the orientation of a particle while it is being sieved. This is the
reason why there are still particles that pass through a mesh size, even if they’re not meant to
pass through. This event could be compared to this activity where there was a failure to sieve
some respondents at exactly the same points. Other respondent’s results were not exact
measurement of the hip line, thus the distribution of data did not depict an exact representation
of the people’s (particle) sizes.
One thing to point out in this activity was the limitation of the sieving technique. In
practice, particles being sieved don’t have the ability to move. In the activity, however, the
respondents moved through their sieves freely. Though there were other limitations and
problems in some parts of the activity, nevertheless, it was really a great way to help students

7
understand and visualize how particles are characterized through sieving. The activity was able
to discuss significantly the idea of characterization using sieving technique.

CONCLUSION

The Chemical Engineering students measured the female student’s hip line and then
were sieved. The data is gathered and graphed wherein it can define the characteristics of the
hips through hypothetical cumulative distribution with a wide range of sizes. This sieving method
simply taught the idea about the particle size analysis that describes the bulk properties of the
particle. Therefore, this activity represents the data which gives relevance to mean, mode,
variance and standard deviation. Through this technique, the geometric mean is easy to
determine and describe.

REFERENCES

A Guidebook to Particle Size Analysis. (2017). Retrieved from Horiba Instruments:

https://www.horiba.com/fileadmin/uploads/Scientific/eMag/PSA/Guidebook/pdf/PSA_Gui
debook.pdf.

Brown, C., Davies, C., Brown, N., & Paterson, T. (2018). Sieving the Class: Teaching Particle
Size Distributions and Analysis .Education for Chemical Engineers.

McCabe, W., Smith, J., &Harriott, P. (1993). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering 5th Ed.
Quezon City: M.W Publishing Inc. No.3.

Shekar, A. (2014). Project based Learning in Engineering Design Education: Sharing Best
Practices. 121st ASEE Annual Conference &Exposition.

8
APPENDIX A

Sample Calculations

Diameter Calculation from hip line Measurement:

𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝐻𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ÷ 𝜋

𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 91 𝑐𝑚 ÷ 𝜋

𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 28.97 𝑐𝑚

Geometric Mean Diameter:

𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 = √𝑥𝑖−1 × 𝑥𝑖

𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 = √16 𝑐𝑚 × 26 𝑐𝑚

𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 = 20.40 𝑐𝑚

Sauter Mean Diameter:

(𝐹𝑖 × 𝐷𝑖 )3
𝑫[𝟑, 𝟐] = ∑
(𝐹𝑖 × 𝐷𝑖 )2
𝑖
(0.66 × 20.40)3 (0.20 × 26.74)3 (0.08 × 28.00)3 (0.02 × 29.00)3 (0.04 × 30.96)3
𝑫[𝟑, 𝟐] = + + + +
(0.66 × 20.40)2 (0.20 × 26.74)2 (0.08 × 28.00)2 (0.02 × 29.00)2 (0.04 × 30.96)2

𝑫[𝟑, 𝟐] = 22.87 𝑐𝑚

9
 APPENDIX B

Tabulated Results

Table B – 1. Female hip line Measurement

Calc. Calc.
Measured Measured
Year Gender Age Diameter Year Gender Age Diameter
Xi, cm Xi, cm
Xi/π, cm Xi/π, cm
5 F 20 91 28.97 4 F 19 99 31.51
5 F 20 92 29.28 4 F 20 86 27.37
5 F 22 91.5 29.13 4 F 19 91 28.97
5 F 20 98 31.19 4 F 19 88 28.01
5 F 22 85 27.06 1 F 20 90 28.65
5 F 23 79 25.15 1 F 18 84 26.74
5 F 22 99 31.51 1 F 19 89 28.33
5 F 20 106 33.74 1 F 18 86 27.37
5 F 21 86 27.37 1 F 18 50 15.92
5 F 22 89 28.33 1 F 19 89 28.33
5 F 20 95 30.24 1 F 18 90 28.65
5 F 23 87 27.69 1 F 18 113 35.97
5 F 21 97 30.88 1 F 18 84 26.74
5 F 21 87 27.69 1 F 18 75 23.87
5 F 21 87 27.69 1 F 19 74 23.55
5 F 20 92.5 29.44 1 F 19 102 32.47
5 F 21 111 35.33 1 F 18 79 25.15
5 F 22 91 28.97 1 F 19 92 29.28
5 F 24 97 30.88 1 F 19 100 31.83
5 F 20 105 33.42 1 F 18 84 26.74
5 F 20 92 29.28 1 F 19 87 27.69
5 F 20 91 28.97 1 F 18 100 31.83
5 F 20 88 28.01 1 F 18 94 29.92
5 F 24 89 28.33 1 F 18 87 27.69
4 F 20 85 27.06 1 F 18 96 30.56
4 F 19 90 28.65 1 F 18 87 27.69
4 F 20 92 29.28 1 F 18 88 28.01
4 F 19 86 27.37 1 F 19 84 26.74
4 F 19 75 23.87 1 F 18 108 34.38
4 F 20 85 27.06 1 F 19 87 27.69
4 F 19 90 28.65 1 F 19 90 28.65
4 F 22 86 27.37 1 F 19 81 25.78
4 F 20 83 26.42 1 F 19 82 26.10
4 F 20 101 32.15 1 F 19 91 28.97

10
Table B – 2. Sieving Activity Data (50 Random Students)
No. Name Year Level Sieve Size, cm
1 Alota, Jesseth May M. 1 27.5
2 Alvarez, Johna Lou M. 1 26
3 Daguman, Karen Claire 1 27.5
4 Fernan, Harrah D. 1 27.5
5 Gresola, XyvennLyndee 1 26
6 Honcada, Empress 1 26
7 Lanzaders, Bridgette Ivy 1 27.5
8 Lisondra, Giselle A. 1 27.5
9 Maybanting, Myla L. 1 26
10 Mendija, Leanne 1 26
11 Meñuza, Joybelle M. 1 32.5
12 Miguel, Louise Beatrix 1 26
13 Ontoy, HarlCheezee B. 1 28.5
14 Patron, Claydel 1 32.5
15 Piedad, Kathleen Caryl 1 26
16 Pisueña, Jennylene R. 1 26
17 Rivayle, Leba E. 1 26
18 Sechico, Christiane 1 26
19 Silvoza, Maira Jean 1 26
20 Vilar, Jica Dej C. 1 27.5
21 Cacho, Imee Kassandra 4 29.5
22 Ducao, Princess Grace 4 27.5
23 Ebreo, Thea B. 4 27.5
24 Erjeno, Daisy Jane D. 4 28.5
25 Hipulan, Louell Nikki A. 4 27.5
26 Legaspi, Analiza I. 4 26
27 Lugo, Hazel Ann P. 4 26
28 Mutia, Micah T. 4 26
29 Solo, Marevin Jane D. 4 26
30 Tabunyag, Joan D. S. 4 26
31 Abesamis, Mariane 5 26
32 Aguinid, Blessy Joy M. 5 26
33 Amba, Gillian Wyn E. 5 26
34 Daguisonan, Reyna 5 26
35 Lasagas, Roselle C. 5 26
36 Lasquite, Elona S. 5 26
37 Lozano, Glydelle A. 5 26
38 Manabar, Rizza Mae R. 5 26
39 Mojares, Jonnah Faye D. 5 28.5
40 Nacario, Sarah May B. 5 26

11
41 Omisol, Christine Joy M. 5 26
42 Ornopia, Shaina Mae A. 5 27.5
43 Pino, Cleoffe Mae P. 5 26
44 Sabulbero, KarylXyrra L. 5 28.5
45 Sapanta, Lora Monique E. 5 26
46 Semense, Bianca Aina N. 5 26
47 Soriño, Erika D. 5 26
48 Tabiliran, Reus B. 5 26
49 Tomaquin, Nicole P. 5 26
50 Triana, Ann Pearl G. 5 26

12
APPENDIX C

Documentation

Figure A. Materials needed.

From left to right: PVC pipe saw, PVC 90° elbows, permanent marker, ½ inch PVC pipes

13
Figure B. Construction of the sieves

14
Figure C. Prepared Sieves for 5 sieve diameters

Figure D. Sieving process

15
APPENDIX D

Consent form

16