Screen capacity comparison: among common screening devices, which type typically offers the maximum capacity for bulk solids?

Introduction / Context:
Screening devices vary in motion, open area, and ability to handle large tonnages. Choosing a high-capacity screen is vital for primary sizing and plant throughput. This question contrasts vibrating screens with grizzlies, trommels, and older shaking screens.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Comparable aperture sizes and duty conditions.
• Focus on throughput capacity, not cut sharpness alone.
• Bulk materials like ores, coal, aggregates.

Concept / Approach:
Vibrating screens provide high frequency and amplitude options that promote stratification and efficient passage of undersize, achieving high capacity per unit area. Trommels are robust but generally lower in capacity per area due to geometry. Grizzlies are coarse scalpers, not fine high-capacity classifiers. Shaking screens are largely obsolete in high-tonnage service.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Compare mechanisms: vigorous vibration improves stratification and throughput.Eliminate alternatives with lower area utilization or motion effectiveness.Select vibrating screen as maximum capacity choice.

Verification / Alternative check:
Plant benchmarks show multi-slope and banana vibrating screens handling very high feed rates with acceptable efficiency.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Grizzlies: coarse scalping only, limited capacity per area.Trommels: durable but lower unit capacity.Shaking screen: older tech with lower capacities.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “robustness” with “capacity”; trommels are robust but not the highest-throughput per area.

Final Answer:
Vibrating screen