Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 25 May 1999 11:57:50 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Ken,
If you remove the extraneous sieve sizes that are out of the sequence of
progressively smaller aperture as follows it all makes sense. (check out
the changes I made below) The % Retained is not cumulative, and you must
add the % retained at a given sieve size and all the % retained at the
larger (smaller number) sieve sizes above it to get the % Cumulative
Retained which when added to the % Passing should equal within decimal
points of 100%. It is also important to use the correct sieve type whether
International, American, British, French or German. The U.S. STD/ASTM E11
and the British BS 410 are very similar and easily confused. You have U.S.
STD/ASTM E11 screens here since the British does not use a 50 mesh screen
but a 52 mesh instead. I wouldn't split hairs with it though, the figures
are obviously rounded off to the nearest 5%. And remember... keep your
finger off the scale when you are weighing it!
Happy screening.
Mark Sherman
>Sieve Size % Passing % Retained % Cumulative
Retained
>4 100 0
0
>8 100 0
0
>16 90 10
10 (10+0)
>30 70 20
30 (20+10+0)
>50 40 30
60 (30+20+10+0)
>100 15 25
85 (25+30+20+10+0)
>200 0 15
100 (15+25+30+20+10+0)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Follett <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: May 25, 1999 8:51 AM
Subject: Sand Sieve Analysis
>Could someone please explain to me where, in the following sand sieve
>analysis that we have in one of our proejct specifications, the difference
in
>passing to retained goes? Should the passing & retained when added together
>equal 100%? If not, why not? I'm faced w/ a dilemma of not being able to
get
>this exact mix from our supplier and needing to understand what is intended
>in order to proceed.
>
>Sieve Size % Passing % Retained Where?
>4 100 0
>8 100 0
>16 90 10
>30 70 20
>10
>50 40 30
>30
>100 15 25
>60
>200 0 15
>85
>
>
>Thanks,
>][<en Follett
>
|
|
|