Effects Of Screen Size On Grinding Particle Size, Production Efficiency, Electricity Consumption And Pellet Quality

The objectives of the present study were to investigate the effects of screen size on grinding particle size, production efficiency, electricity consumption and Pellet Quality in actual production conditions used mill plant. The study includes the following two parts:The two kinds of material: wheat and corn were selected for grinding by different screen sizes(2.5, 3.0, 3.2 mm). The present study was aimed at investigating the effect of hammer mill screen size on samples particle size distributions. The result showed that screen size significantly influenced geometric mean diameter(Xgm)(P < 0.05). Xgm was directly proportional to screen size(P < 0.05). 1)The screen size significantly(P < 0.05) influenced median diameter(D50), effective size(D10), mass relative span(RSm), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), uniformity index(Iu), size guide number(Nsg), coefficient of uniformity(Cu), coefficient of gradation(Cg), distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) of corn. Screen sizes of 2.5 mm significantly(P < 0.05) influenced influenced median diameter(D50), effective size(D10), mass relative span(RSm), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), size guide number(Nsg), coefficient of uniformity(Cu), coefficient of gradation(Cg),distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) compared with the screen size of 3.0mm; Screen sizes of 2.5 mm significantly(P < 0.05) influenced median diameter(D50), effective size(D10), mass relative span(RSm), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), coefficient of uniformity(Cu), coefficient of gradation(Cg) distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) compared with the screen size of 3.2mm except coefficient of uniformity( Cu); The screen size of 3.0mm2.5 mm significantly(P < 0.05) influenced mass relative span(RSm), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), size guide number(Nsg), uniformity index(Iu), coefficient of gradation(Cg), distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1) and distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) except effective size(D10), coefficient of uniformity(Cu) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) compared with screen size of 3.2mm. 2)The screen size significantly(P < 0.05) influenced median diameter(D50), effective size(D10), mass relative span(RSm), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), uniformity index(Iu), size guide number(Nsg), coefficient of uniformity(Cu), coefficient of gradation(Cg), distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) of wheat.Screen sizes of 2.5 mm significantly(P < 0.05) influenced median diameter(D50), effective size(D10), mass relative span(RSm), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), uniformity index(Iu),size guide number(Nsg), coefficient of uniformity(Cu), coefficient of gradation(Cg),distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) compared with the screen size of 3.0mm;Screen sizes of 2.5 mm significantly(P < 0.05) influenced median diameter(D50), effective size(D10), mass relative span(RSm), graphic kurtosis(Kg), coefficient of uniformity(Cu), coefficient of gradation(Cg),distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) compared with the screen size of 3.2mm except coefficient of uniformity(Cu), uniformity index(Iu), size guide number(Nsg), coefficient of gradation(Cg), distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1), distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) and distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) except inclusive graphic skewness(GSi) compared with screen sizes of 3.2mm; Screen sizes of 3.0 mm significantly(P < 0.05) influenced median diameter(D50), inclusive graphic skewness(GSi), graphic kurtosis(Kg), uniformity index(Iu), size guide number(Nsg), distribution geometric standard deviation of high region(GSD1) and distribution geometric standard deviation of low region(GSD2) except distribution geometric standard deviation of total region(GSD12) compared with the screen size of 3.2mm.The two kinds of material: wheat and corn were selected for grinding by different screen sizes(2.5, 3.0, 3.2 mm) to study the effects of grinding particle sizes on product cost and pellet quality.The result showed that screen size significantly(P<0.05) influenced the production efficiency, electricity consumption,mixing homogeneity,hardness, proportion of fine.All these results indicate: screen size significantly influenced geometric mean diameter(Xgm), the production efficiency, electricity consumption, mixing homogeneity,hardness, proportion of fine.