Sieve for compound fertilizers
Thread Content
Why are rectangular sieves commonly used for compound fertilizers? Why not use square holes?
1. The perforated screen must have rectangular holes, because there is a displacement in the tangent direction; this means that the holes in the direction of rotation become smaller, so rectangular holes are necessary. 2. If it is a square hole, then even qualified materials cannot be filtered out, which affects production; for rectangular holes, as long as the axial dimensions meet the standards, the longer they are, the better.
Square holes will **reduce screening efficiency, while rectangular holes are fine as long as the mesh wires have sufficient strength and do not deform.
It can be used; larger-sized screens are generally preferred as they yield better results and help prevent long or flat particles from ending up in the finished product
Rectangles are better; square holes result in a reduced screening area. Another issue is that they tend to get clogged, and the manufacturing cost also increases.
Square holes can be used, but the aperture size needs to be increased. Previously we used rectangular holes with a size of 4.0; after making one adjustment, we now use square holes with a size of 4.2
Square holes in sieve-shaped particles tend to clog more easily; elongated ones are better
The drying mesh should be rectangular, similar to a square, otherwise flattened grains will form during operation
There is no dispute that the use of long-strip mesh in fine screening can effectively improve the screening capacity of the sieve and enhance the uniformity of the product. However, the choice between long-strip and square-hole screens for coarse screening is also related to the production process: long-strip screens are preferred for ammoniation granulation, while square-hole screens are more suitable for drum granulation when no fine screening is available. The size of the pores depends on local practices regarding the use of the product and fertilizers – regions in the south prefer larger particles, often using a pore size of 4.2, whereas regions in the north prefer smaller particles, with pore sizes of 3.8 or 4.0 being more common.
So it turns out that the shape of the sieve pores, whether rectangular or square, also has an impact. I need to learn more about this; I hadn’t noticed it before, as I’ve been using sieve pores with a square shape for a long time