Construction of a Seed Pod Husker and Evaluating with Soybean in Laboratory Scale

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 2, Volume 9, Issue 1 - Serial Number 17, 2019, Pages 15-29   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v9i1.66218

Authors

S. Hasantabar; S. R. Mousavi Seyedi^* ; D. Kalantari

Mechanics of Biosystem Department, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University. Sari, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Nowadays, due to growth and development of the husbandry and its worthiness in providing human basic needs, affecting parameters such as costs, efficiency and fuel consumption is significantly important. So, increasing the efficiency of threshing machine could lead us to huge savings in energy. However using the conventional drums and concaves have some problems such as damaging  seeds due to impact, complicated manufacturing technology and spending a lot of energy in separating process. Therefore in order to overcome above mentioned problems especially energy consumption, a new seed pod husker based on rubbing was designed, fabricated and tested in this research.
Materials and Methods
Practical tests of this device were carried out on soybean which was harvested in a farm of Babolsar city. The experimental design was simple randomized complete design with three replications. The rotational speed of rollers and distance between rollers varied in three levels of 110, 170, and 210 rpm and 7, 8, and 9 mm for soybean.  The measured parameters consisted of efficiency, separation and loss. For designing the seed pod husker, the required electric motor power and the torque for separating seeds from its pods were calculated. After reviewing the physical and mechanical characteristic of some seed pod crops specially, soybean, a seed pod husker was designed in SOLIDWORKS 2013 software. In order to facilitate seeds separation from the pod, it was preferred to use the right-round and left-round Archimedes screw on the rollers. According to the preliminary evaluations, it was considered to use a speed range of 110 to 210 rpm; it was because of that the speed lower than 110 rpm was not able to open pods and the speed higher than 210 rpm caused hyper movements of pods. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and mean comparisons and interaction between the parameters were performed using the SPSS 22 software.
Results and Discussion
The results indicated that the rollers were acceptable and sticking of pods were not seen. Results indicated that the efficiency of this device was increased with increasing the rotational speed and then was decreased. Increasing the rotational speed was led to increase separation. It is because of this fact that the performance of the husker’s component will be more powerful and crops suffer bigger impacts. The chart of device loss had a relatively upward slope. It could be due to a tougher collision between the seeds and the rollers. Increasing the roller distance, first decreased the efficiency of soybean and then increased that. The results indicated that separation efficiency decreased by increasing the distance. The reason for that was due to unavailable necessary force to separate the seed and pod. As the roller distance increased, the total losses of the device also increased. The reason for this was likely increasing in the movement of the seeds.
Conclusion
The results of practical tests and qualitative observations showed that the device had sufficient resistance against the maximum torque produced by the crop. Influence of rotational speed of rollers and rollers clearance on the efficiency, separation and loss were significant for new fabricated seed pod husker (p < 0.01). The capacity of the machine for soybean was 28.506 (kg hr^-1). To achieve maximum efficiency, maximum separation and minimum loss for soybean, authors suggest using (9mm-170rpm), (7mm-210rpm) and (9mm-110rpm) compounds, respectively. Eventually, it is suggested to evaluate this machine for other seed pod crops and for other parameters such as germination percentage, electric conductivity and ergonomic issues such as noise and machine vibration. Of course, it is recommended to survey the impact of length of husking roller, shaft rotation method and thread types on measurement parameters.        
 

Keywords

Drum and Concave; Husker; Seed Pod; Soybean

References

1. Adewunmi, T. 2000. Performance evaluation of a locally-developed maize-sheller with husking and winnowing capabilities. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the Nigerian Institution of Agricultural Engineers, Ilorin.

2. Ahmadi, K., H. A. Gholizade, H. R. Ebadzade, R. Hosseinpour, F. Hatami, B. Fazli, A. Kazemian, and M. Rafiee, 2016. Agriculture Statical Book 2013-2014. Tehran, Jahad-e- Daneshgahi. (In Farsi).

3. Alonge, A. F., and T. A. Adegbulugbe. 2000. Performance evaluation of a locally developed grain thresher-II. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 31 (2): 52-54.

4. Arvinder, S., I. K. Garg, V. K. Sharma, and A. Singh. 2001. Effect of different crop and operational parameters of a combine on grain damage during paddy harvesting. Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University 38 (3-4): 12.

5. Beyhan, M. A., A. Tekgüler, T. Yıldız, and H. Sauk. 2009. Investigation of the performance of a hazelnut husker design used in Turkey. Biosystems engineering 103 (2): 159-166.

6. Candra, A., and Wardiyanto. 1998. The construction design of corn sheller and corncob crusher machine. Department of D-3 Disnakertsransduk Mechanical Engineering. FTI-ITS.

7. Changrie, V. 1999. Development of corn husker sheller. Master of Engineering, Thesis in Agricultural Engineering Graduate School, Kasetsart University. (In Thai).

8. Datt, P., and S. Annamalia. 1991. Design and development of straight through peg tooth type thresher for paddy. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 22 (4): 47-50.

9. Dres' zer, K., and J. Gieroba. 1999. Mechanical damage to grain in multidrum threshing and separating sets. Int. Agrophysics 1 (3): 73-78.

10. Haffer, I., K. B. Singh, and W. Birbari. 1991. Assessment of chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) grain quality and losses in direct combine harvesting. Transactions of the ASAE 1 (34): 9-13.

11. Karimi, F., and A. Fadavi. 2013. Design, construction and evaluation of wild pistachio sheller. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 2 (4): 133-140.

12. Kirkkari, A. M., S. P. Peltonen, and H. Rita. 2001. Reducing grain damage in naked oat through gentle harvesting. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 10 (3): 7.

13. Klenin, N. I., I. F. Popov, and V. A. Sakun. 1985. Agricultural Machines American Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Dehli: 400-418.

14. Kowalczuk, J. 1999. Pattern of seed losses and damage during soybean harvest with grain combine harvesters. International Agrophysics 13: 6.

15. Mailander, M. P., J. K. Schueller, and G. W. Krutz. 1983. Processing characteristics of the IH 1460 combine [in wheat, soybeans and corn]. Paper-American Society of Agricultural Engineers (USA). Microfiche Collection. No. Fiche 83-1586.

16. Mansoori, H., and S. Minaee. 2002. Effect of machine parameters on wheat loss in John Deere combines. The First National Conference of Agricultural Products Wastes. Tarbiat Modarres University. Tehran: 3. (In Farsi).

17. Mirzazade, A., S. Abdollahpour, and M. Moghadam. 2011. The effect of design parameters on the separation of materials in drum to minimize the loss in combines. Journal of Agriculture Science and Sustainable Production 21 (3): 15. (In Farsi).

18. Mirzazade, A., Sh. Abdollahpour, and M. Moghadam. 2011. Effects of operating parameters on threshing efficiency control the amount of threshing loss. Journal of Agriculture Science and Sustainable Production 21 (1): 15. (In Farsi).

19. Mozafari, M., K. Kazemiankhah, and H. Alizade. 2008. The effect of rotational speed and size of holes in concave on thresher yield for sugar beet seed. Fifth National Congress of Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization. Mashhad Ferdowsi University: 7. (In Farsi).

20. Noormohamadi, D., and S. Zareiean. 2003. Effects of different tillage and planting methods on growth of wheat. Iran Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2 (34): 321-332. (In Farsi).

21. Ojomo, A., O. Ale, M. O. Ogundele. 2012. Response surface methodology approach to optimizing performance parameters of a locally fabricated maize shellering machine. Journal of Science and Multidisciplinary Research 1 (3): 5.

22. Sadeghi, B. 2012. Design, construction and evaluation of a homemade corn sheller. Biosystem engneering, Sari Agriculture and Natural Resources University. Master of Science (In Farsi).

23. Santokh, S., H. S. Sidhu, S. S. Ahuja, and S. Singh. 2002. Grain losses in combine harvesting of paddy. Journal of Research Punjab Agricultural University 3 (39): 395-398.

24. Shirzad, R., T. Mesri Gandoshmin, T. Khoram. 2013. The effect clearance of drum and concave on breakage of cleaned seeds in conventional combine. The Second National Congress of Organic and Conventional Farming. Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil: 6. (In Farsi).

25. Singh, K., and B. Singh. 1981. Effect of crop and machine parameters on threshing effectiveness and seed quality of soybean. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 26 (4): 349-355.

26. Singh, S. P., S. Singh, and P. Singh. 2012. Ergonomics in developing hand operated maize dehusker–sheller for farm women. Applied ergonomics, 43 (4): 792-798.

27. Srison, W., S. Chuan-Udom, and K. Saengprachatanarak. 2016. Effects of Operating Factors for an Axial-flow Corn Shelling Unit on Losses and Power Consumption. Agriculture and Natural Resources.

28. Tahir, A. R., F. U. H. Khan, and E. Khurram. 2003. Techno–Economic Feasibility of Combine Harvester (Class Denominator)–A Case Study. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 5 (1): 57-60.

29. Ukatu, A. C. 2006. A modified threshing unit for soya beans. Biosystems Engineering 95 (3): 371-377.