i

EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION OF A SWING TYPE HAMMER COCONUT DECORTICATOR FOR SORGHUM THRESHING

A PROJECT REPORT

Arthur Fajardo Ruel Peneyra Xyza Fei Asuncion Anthony Tapla
Students

Arsenio N. Resurreccion, Ph.D.
Faculty – in – charge

AENG 265 Design of Harvesting and Threshing Machinery 2nd Semester, SY 2010-2011 AMD, IAE, CEAT, UPLB

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................3 General Objective ....................................................................................................3 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................3 Scope and Limitation ...................................................................................................3 Time and Place ............................................................................................................4 Review of Related Literature ...........................................................................................5 Sorghum ......................................................................................................................5 Sorghum Harvesting and Threshing .............................................................................6 Threshing .................................................................................................................7 Axial Flow Thresher for Sorghum Threshing ...........................................................8 Swing Type Coconut Decorticator ...........................................................................9 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................. 11 Equipment and Materials ........................................................................................... 11 Sample Material Collection, Preparation and Characterization ................................... 11 Machine Specification ............................................................................................... 12 Design of Experiment ................................................................................................ 12 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 13 Evaluation of the Machine at As-Is Condition and Speed ........................................... 13 Modifications............................................................................................................. 13 The Sorghum Sample................................................................................................. 14 Grain to Straw Ratio .................................................................................................. 15 Threshing Capacity .................................................................................................... 16 Threshing Efficiency.................................................................................................. 16 Unthreshed Grains ..................................................................................................... 17 Purity......................................................................................................................... 18 Scattering Loss .......................................................................................................... 19

iii

Threshing Recovery ................................................................................................... 20 Other Observations .................................................................................................... 21 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 22 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 23 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 24 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 25

24 kg/hr. The swing-type hammer decorticating drum was modified to include three successive layers of offset oriented fixed pegs to eliminate the identified problems of using the original drum in sorghum threshing.77 %. A peripheral threshing drum speed average of 25 m/s or about 1100 rpm was adapted and analyzed. 1100 and 1300 rpm. scattering losses and threshing recovery.iv ABSTRACT A coconut fiber decorticating machine was studied for its possible adaptation for sorghum threshing. while 900 rpm resulted to the lowest efficiency of 89. .61 kg/hr at 1300 rpm and the lowest at 900 rpm with only 465. with a mean values of 85.86. the machine shows comparably higher efficiencies of 95. respectively.96% for purity.63% for the threshing recovery. The offset oriented pegs effects the necessary material flow and eliminate the dead spots or gaps/clearances in between pegs that usually causes samples to be immovable and unthreshed. conforming to the prevalent rice axial flow thresher speed usually used in sorghum threshing.98% and 94.83% for the scattering loss and 81. Purity of the output.71% at 1100 and 1300 rpm. The machine was subjected for evaluation using sorghum sample with average moisture content of 18% wet basis and grain to straw ratio of 0. In terms of threshing efficiency. are statistically comparable at 900. Evaluation of the sorghum thresher based on its threshing capacity resulted to the highest capacity of 692. however. 11.

Asia. good soil and water and improved credit facilities for their purchase. The largest group of producers are small-scale subsistence farmers with minimal access to production inputs such as fertilizer(s). lack of financial support from the government and lack of available technology particularly in the aspect of postproduction and processing. (Compendium on Post-harvest Operations. Interestingly. et. mat. A renewed initiative had taken its toll anew in 2007 from which it became a popular source of biofuel and feedstock. building materials. which has received a lot of advocacy and promotion from the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). the most popular of which was the Sweet Sorghum.1 EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION OF A SWING TYPE HAMMER COCONUT DECORTICATOR FOR SORGHUM THRESHING INTRODUCTION Sorghum. prevalence of pests and diseases especially among hybrids. feed and fuel.al. There are common perceptions among these sectors. Further consideration as an alternative source of farmers’ income is due to the indirect result of the advocacy campaign of local and international agencies (DA. 1999). is the fifth most important cereal after rice. however. improved seeds (hybrids or varieties). pesticides. the farmers perceived the absence of ready outlet for their products as the major problem of the industry. Sorghum bicolor(L) Moench. other parts of the plant are used as sources of ethanol. Pilot sites for sweet sorghum production include MMSU. hat. and these include high cost of seeds. UPLB and PAC. and Latin America. lack of price support. broom and (stalks. wheat. and barley. alcohol (roots and stalk). (1987). peduncle and threshed spikes) In the Philippines. while the feed millers perceived the low production which does not guarantee steady supplies for them. It constitutes the main food grain for over 750 million people who live in the semi-arid tropics of Africa. ICRISAT and DOST) to produce sorghum as source of food. FAO. maize. unstable market outlet. various sectors received different reasons for the cause of the failure of the sorghum industry. where studies are being . Not only that it provides a staple food resource. In a report by Pamplona. farming of sorghum started around three decades ago but proved unsuccessful. US Grain Council. Across varieties.

feedstocks and its by-products. The steps are repeated until all the grains are threshed. Both methods require that sorghum be dried first in the field before threshing to facilitate easy separation of the grains from its panicles. fabricated and evaluated for its performance in coconut fiber extraction. Sorghum is usually planted all throughout the year. dried in the sun for half day before beating it with a flail. animal threshing and mechanical threshing. clean threshing and less laborious compared to the first two methods. Animal threshing requires spreading the dry sorghum heads on the threshing field (about 25-35 cm thick). The procedure is repeated again and again. sorghum heads are spread in the threshing field. Cutting is usually made on the stalk with the heads on or cutting the heads first and later the stalks. Frequent inspection of the heads is usually made to make sure that all grains have been threshed. When most of grains are threshed. a swing type hammer coconut decorticator was designed. until all of grains are shelled. Manual harvesting cuts sorghum with a sickle. After being fully dried in the sun. A livestock animal then pulls the stone roller (rolling and pressing) passing on the heads. The advantages of the method are high efficiency. farming mechanization. when grains are ripe. sorghum heads are turned over before beating it again. Interview with the local farmers in Cabiao. sorghum needs to be threshed. After most of grains have been threshed. harvesting and threshing follows. Nueva Ecija reveals that faster rotation of the drum coupled with the correct oscillating tray results to highly accepted method of threshing using existing axial flow threshers primarily designed for rice. In artificial threshing. The operation is based . Sorghum heads are placed into a thresher that effects separation using a rotating drum equipped by a brush like comb employing a hold-on method or with a peg tooth employing an axial flow principle. processing of biofuel. After the growing season. In the University of the Philippines – Los Banos. sorghum heads are turned over before rolling on it again. (FAO. Mechanical threshing paved a new way of separating the grains from sorghum heads. The threshing methods can be divided into artificial threshing.2 conducted for variety selection and breeding. Minimal modification such as the replacement of the oscillating sieves is made prior to the operation. 1999). Rice axial flow threshers have found its way to be used in sorghum threshing. The method is inefficient and labor intensive. and. The device was proven effective for its defined functionality.

2.3 on impact shredding of coconut husk by a series of fixed and hammer like swing bars at high speed (about 1500-2000 rpm) (Santiago. Objectives General Objective The study aimed to evaluate the performance swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing. and. Though the device was proven successful in terms of its technical and functional requirements. Scope and Limitation The scope of this study was limited to the evaluation and adaptation of a swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing. Specific Objectives Specifically. the proponents of this study have seen another added feature to increase the productivity and justify the practicality and economics of owning one. Such idea was conceived to address the needs of small farmers who. can’t justify the ownership of a costly rice axial flow thresher.P 2010). this undertaking aimed to: 1. Sorghum materials for threshing evaluation were regular cut heads without the stalk. make minimal modification if necessary to adapt the swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing. 3. in terms of financial feasibility. evaluate the effects of threshing drum design and speed of the swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing. evaluate the performance of the modified decorticator for soghum threshing in terms of its threshing capacity and efficiency. and that is to evaluate and adapt the swing type decorticator for sorghum threshing. R. The performance evaluation of the device was based on .

Laguna. IAE. . Time and Place The study was conducted from February to March 2011 at the AMDP workshop building. Only grain separation from the heads (threshing only) was evaluated in this study. UPLB.4 its threshing capacity and efficiency.

The major components of the grain are the pericarp (outer covering). the testa between pericarp and endosperm (which may or may not be present). maize. pesticides. Sorghums have a structure which is broadly similar to that of other cereals (Figure 1). wheat. good soil and water and improved credit facilities for their purchase. Figure 1. improved seeds (hybrids or varieties). 1999) Sorghum. 1989) . It constitutes the main food grain for over 750 million people who live in the semi-arid tropics of Africa.5 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Sorghum (extracted from the Compendium on Post-harvest Operations. and the embryo. is the fifth most important cereal after rice. Asia. and Latin America. FAO. Structure of sorghum grain (after Sautier and O'Deye. the endosperm. The largest group of producers are small-scale subsistence farmers with minimal access to production inputs such as fertilizer(s). Sorghum bicolor(L) Moench. and barley.

the predominant method is still manual harvesting using sickle or any appropriate tool.6 The endosperm may be corneous (vitreous) or floury. there exist two methods of harvesting. 1994). and good water management. However hybrids are only cost effective when grown with supporting inputs of fertilizer. Commercial production of hybrid seed is a problem in many developing countries. Certain tannins known as condensed tannins. high tannin varieties continue to be grown due to their bird and insect resistance. They can also form complexes with the alimentary tract proteases. Despite this negative nutritional effect. 1999). and the testa may contain tannins which affect the nutritional quality of the grain. thresh. . The harvest tradition of the Chinese and Filipinos. There are many varieties of sorghum ranging in color from white through red to brown. and higher malting potential than white grain varieties. weed and pest control. and some rural farmers do not appreciate that harvested hybrid grain cannot be retained for planting the next season. Reflects the economic situation. In some traditional foods and beverages. form complexes with proteins and reduce their digestibility. Traditional varieties are open pollinated from which rural farmers retain seed for planting in the next season. Such is a reflection of the following: a. as many Chinese and Filipino farmers are still poor. Therefore they find sorghum production from hybrid seed expensive. b. or by alkaline treatment at the village level (traditionally by using wood ash) (Chantereau and Nicou. even though the yields are higher than the land races. Using appropriate methods to harvest. the phenolics of red sorghum give a desired flavor and color. In China and the Philippines. The negative effects of tannins on nutritional value can partially be overcome by removal of the testa by mechanical dehulling. are the best guarantee of getting a high yield and good quality. manual cutting and using mechanical machines such as reaper and mechanical harvesters (FAO. dry and store at right moment. Sorghum Harvesting and Threshing All around the world. reducing the digestibility of the proteins in the grain. Tannins are high molecular weight polyphenols (phenolics) which are found in grains with a brown pericarp and pigmented testa. Yields tend to be lower than the modern hybrids which are slowly being introduced.

e. Then the heads are sent to threshing site. The method is primarily used in the coastland. a vertical rafter is made using 25 bundles for drying the sorghum in the field. It is the most popular production method. Manual harvesting cuts sorghum with a sickle. After binding all the plants. Along with the rise of mechanization. Most of planting fields for sorghum are on hillsides and fields are too small to harvest with machines. The height of stubble is diverse. low-lying land and southern China. d. This method can clear the fields allowing farmers to prepare fields for the next season. The first method is harvesting the plants with their heads on. The method is to cut plants first. it will be 10 cm. The straws are cut last. more and more farmers use mechanical threshing machines. Sometimes. sorghum needs to be threshed. animal threshing and mechanical threshing. . the farmers put sorghum bundles on the ridge of the field for drying. If the stubble is used as fuel. The advantages of mechanical harvest are efficiency and fewer losses. In the second method the sorghum heads are cut first tied up and dried. Two kinds of mechanical harvesters are used in China. the stubble height will be 30 cm. Table 1 details the different threshing methods. then bind 20-30 plants together. The threshing methods can be divided into artificial threshing.7 c. Threshing After being fully dried in the sun. the method is also used to harvest the short-stalked variety. and sometimes plants are not in good condition. If rainfall is not too great. There are not enough satisfied harvesters. After drying about 10 days. the heads are cut (about 50 cm long) and bound. the other for long-stalked sorghum. otherwise. One is designed for short-stalked sorghum. Too many sorghum cultivars are planted.

dry in the sun for half a day. threshing should be vigorous enough to remove mature kernels from the heads. clean threshing and low glumaceous rate. Spread sorghum heads on threshing field (about 25-35 cm thick).5 m/s peripheral speed resulted to 98. Different threshing methods for sorghum Method Tools Procedure Output kg/person Artificial Method Animal Method Mechanical Method Spread sorghum heads in the threshing field. Monitor if there are large cereal. In fact. Roll stone roller again. . Then let livestock livestock pull the stone roller (rolling and pressing). use a combine with a rasp-bar cylinder or a threshing rotor for grain sorghum. If possible. Threshing rotors and rasp-bar cylinders thresh well without tearing leaves and stems into small pieces. With this principle. turn over wooden fork sorghum heads. Place sorghum heads into thresher. stone roller When most of grains are threshed. beat sorghum heads again. After most of flail grains have been threshed. The method is inefficient and labor intensive.crushed grains. With the proper threshing and separating adjustments. until all of grains are shelled. turn over sorghum wooden fork heads. then beat sorghum heads with flail. 250 1000 4000 Axial Flow Thresher for Sorghum Threshing In a publication of the Cooperative Extension Service of the University of Arkansas (FSA1017). they provide cleaner samples. It was found out in two studies that using rasp-bar at 10. so it is seldom used now. less grain damage and lower field grain loss. Repeat these steps until all the grains are threshed. Operating in this principle was the axial flow thresher made primarily for rice (IRRI). Inspect drum thresher the heads frequently to see if all the grains have been threshed. The National Cooperative Testing Guidelines for Corn and Sorghum specify the use of throw-in type rice thresher for samples to be tested (BPI. it was observed that threshing rotors and rasp-bar cylinders are better threshing options for grain sorghum. leaving 1 or 2 percent unthreshed heads may reduce total combine loss by improving separation.8 Table 1. 2002). This is the most popular method in China.3% threshing efficiency (Desta and Mishra. The advantages of the method thresher are high efficiency.

transportability. decorticating cylinder. cut and reduced the husk materials into fibers and dust. The response variables considered were loading capacity. Same result was obtained by several other studies. the higher the threshing and cleaning efficiency. 13 mm and 19 mm). Nueva Ecija reveals some interesting information that can be used in the design of an appropriate threshing or adaptation of an existing rice axial flow thresher. blade assembly. lower concave or sieve bars – corrugated steel bar which served as a filter for fiber while the coir dust passed through 4. which enclosed the cutting drum and hammer blades. the faster the speed of the drum coupled with the appropriate oscillating sieve tray. The machine is composed of the following major components: 1. In an informal interview conducted to local farmers of sorghum in Cabiao. feeding tray. Swing Type Coconut Decorticator A swing type hammer coconut decorticator was designed by Santiago (2010) at the Department of Agricultural Machinery. The evaluation of the decorticator was made for unretted and retted coconut husks where the factors studied were: clearance (7 mm. Institute of Agricultural Engineering. 5. held and supported the entire machine. To these farmers. low cost and ease of repair and maintenance. 2008 shows that the optimum speed of threshing rice using axial flow is 600 rpm using a 0. CEAT.University of the Philippines – Los Banos. 1800 and 2100 rpm). 1981). 3. Results of the study of Chimchana et al. 4 and 5) and speed (1600.. discharge chute. It was built based on the criterion of low power requirement. The said machine was designed based on the principle of a corn sheller and a hammer like swinging pegs to effect decortication and separations of the coconut fibers. and 6. 2.8 m diameter drum. which received the husk materials before they entered the cylinder. passage for decorticated materials (fiber and dust) from the cylinder. main frame. . number of louver (3.9 1990) while peg-tooth at the same peripheral speed resulted to 99% threshing efficiency (Joshi.

decorticating efficiency. Swing-type hammer decorticator drum Figure 3. length of fiber and tensile strength of fiber.10 decorticating capacity. fiber recovery. Figure 2. the decorticating efficiency of the prototype was not able to reach the minimum requirement of the draft national standards of AMTEC (PAES 251:2010) by a slim margin of 8%. Figure 2 shows the prototype swing-type hammer coconut decorticator drum while Figure 3 shows the other main components. decorticating power. The prototype swing-type hammer decorticator showing the major components . Though most of the factors studied significantly affect the overall performance of the machine.

11 MATERIALS AND METHODS Equipment and Materials To address the specific objectives. Tachometer 2.5m x 1. Measuring Tape 4. Date of test c. Sample source e. The volume of the samples was decided based on the approved design of experiment. Moisture Meter 6. Trial number Sample Material Collection. Variety f. the following materials were used in the study: 1. Labeling Tags which include b. Preparation and Characterization Sample materials (sorghum) were collected in the field following an approved method of sampling (Annex D of PAES 205:2000). Weighing scale 3. The cut sorghums for pretesting and threshing evaluation were characterized following the items recommended under Annex B of PAES 205:2000.5m) 9. Nylon Net (1. Sample Bags a. These include: . Machine on test d.5m) 8. Timer/Stop Watch 5. Sorghums were reaped or harvested using the traditional or custom techniques. Canvas Sheet (4m x 8m) 0. Camera 7.

Speeds of rotation used in the study were 900 rpm. Threshing cylinder efficiency 4. Scattering loss Computation of the data follows the Annex H of PAES 205:2000. Analysis for significant effects of the main effects was made using ANOVA and mean comparison by Duncan Multiple Range Test. Performance parameters to characterize the decorticator-thresher include: 1. Grain to Straw Ratio Machine Specification The modified decorticator used in the study was inspected for specification verification and establishment following Annex C of PAES 205:2000. Threshing recovery 5. Moisture Content 3.12 1. . Only the speed of the threshing drum was considered for testing and analysis with three (3) replicates per treatment trial. Purity 3. Straw Length 4. Capacity 2. 1100 rpm and 1300 rpm. Variety 2. Unthreshed loss 6. Design of Experiment Simple one-way analysis of variance in completely randomized design was used to evaluate the performance of the thresher-decorticator in sorghum threshing.

With these observations. Fixed peg at the raspbar at the inside left side of the stalk entrance effects blocking on the material flow inside the drum assembly. High impact beating at high speed causes the grains to scatter and go ballistic at all direction causing too much scattered grain loss c.13 RESULTS OF THE STUDY Evaluation of the Machine at As-Is Condition and Speed A preliminary test and evaluation of the machine at as-is condition was made to evaluate its potential for sorghum threshing. Coupled with this minimal modification was a change in the drum speed to properly effect threshing of sorghum at minimal damages to the grains. these pegs offer no residual action to push the stalks to move and follow the cylinder drum towards the straw outlet. A minimal modification of the threshing drum was made to address the observed problem of non-flowing grain stalks along the drum cylinder towards the stalk outlet. The following were observed during the preliminary test: a. modifications were made in order to address the need for a properly operating sorghum thresher at minimal mechanical damage to the grains. b. . The original peg-tooths of the decorticating machine in the first three layers were oriented perpendicular to the shaft axis of the drum. Sorghum stalks were confined and remains stationary in between plates causing unthreshed stalks inside and in between the raspbar and the drum. No changes were made on the device to objectively establish its performance and evaluate its behavior during sorghum threshing operation. High quantity of cracked grains is probable due to the impact action of both the peg and swinging hammer at high speed d. Sorghum samples were secured for the preliminary test at speed setting of 1900 rpm and 2000 rpm. During operation. Modifications The coconut fiber decorticator operating in swing type hammer principle imposed in an axial flow threshing drum was adapted for sorghum threshing.

Samples were allowed to air dry until it reaches about 16% . the average computed rpm falls at around 1100 rpm . 1100 rpm – average. These cover and close the gap and clearance cause by the original peg orientation (see Figure 4). Hence. To effect threshing and movement along the cylinders during threshing of the stalk materials. the 2 inch wide pegs were re-oriented to about 45 deg with respect to the shaft axis. This is equivalent to the drying practice made in the farm prior to threshing operation using a rice axial flow thresher. With a diameter of 0. were chosen for analysis and evaluation. i. . a 900 rpm . the clearance between the two pegs creates a space ample enough for the stalk to keep it unharm or unthreshed.45 m. The swing-type peg and the modified fixed pegs of the threshing drum The speed of rotation of the drum was based on the peripheral speed of an axial flow thresher. a) swinging peg and the stalk paddle b) modified fixed pegs Figure 4. Stalks were cut at around 30 cm from the tip of the crown.e around 25 m/s (from the result of a study that the best rpm for axial flow threshing is 600 rpm for a 0. The Sorghum Sample The sorghum samples were of the Sweet Sorghum variety secured from Cabiao.representing the lower limit.20 % wet basis moisture content.14 Instead. and 1300 rpm – the upper limit.8 m diameter drum). Nueva Ecija. A total of 120 kg samples harvested from the field were used for this study.

Grain to Straw Ratio The grain to straw ratio represents the fractional share of grain to the total sample composition that comprises both by the straw and grains in general. Table 2 shows the results of evaluating the grain to straw ratio of all the sample replicates.85 0.87 0.85 0.86 grain to straw ratio value represents all the measured value with a coefficient of variation of only 1.901.86 . An average of 0.82 0.STRAW RATIO (%) R1 R2 R3 0.87 0.86 AVERAGE (%) 0.88 0.86 0. Sweet sorghum samples dried at 16% . ANOVA (Appendix Table 2) on the measured grain to straw ratio revealed no significant differences on samples used in three varying drum speed test of the sorghum thresher.82.84 0.88 while the lowest measured was 0.87 0. Highest ratio was observed with a value of 0. Grain to straw ratio of the samples used for varying drum speed test.20% MC wet basis.88 0.86 0. SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average (%) GRAIN .15 Figure 5. Table 2.

Threshing capacity (kg/hr) of the sorghum thresher at different drum speeds SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 CAPACITY (kg/hr) R1 R2 R3 470.19 564. The result is in conformity with other findings in axial flow threshers that an increase in speed will eventually result in an increase capacity due to faster material flow inside the drum.98 b 692. hence more grains remain intact or in the panicles.98% and 94. Table 3 shows the observed threshing capacity of the sorghum thresher based on a swing type hammer decorticating machine for coconut fiber.16 Threshing Capacity The threshing capacity was evaluated based on the weight of the threshing output per unit time.80 679.61 a Threshing Efficiency Threshing efficiency was evaluated by taking the percentage of the total grains separated from the panicle to the total grain input (separated from the panicle and grains still attached in the panicle).50 AVERAGE SIDESCORING kg/hr 465.77 %. ANOVA (Appendix Table 3) of the threshing capacity as influenced by varying speeds of rotation of the threshing drum reveals highly significant differences on the resulting measurements. Table 4 shows the observed threshing efficiency of the sorghum thresher cum coconut decorticator. Comparison among means at 1% probability level using DMRT shows comparably higher efficiencies of 95.53 724. .41 459. followed by the result of 1100 rpm (537.24 c 537. respectively. Table 3. Threshing capacity was recorded lowest at 900 rpm with only 465. Comparison among means using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 1% level of probability shows that 1300 rpm resulted to the highest capacity of 692.98 kg/hr).71% at 1100 and 1300 rpm. This can be attributed to the less impact force caused by the swing arm in hammering or battering the samples at lower speed.12 574.86 474. ANOVA (Appendix Table 4) reveals highly significant differences on the threshing capacity as influenced by various drum rotation.20 466. while 900 rpm resulted to the lowest threshing efficiency of 89.61 kg/hr.24 kg/hr.90 673.

the lower the speed of rotation. Owing to the effect of the speed of rotation in threshing efficiency.09 6.61 97.04 94. Figure 6 show a sample of threshed and unthreshed sorghum grains.07 3.98 a Unthreshed Grains Percent unthreshed grains represent the amount of kernels that the thresher failed to remove or separate from the panicles.69 88. Unthreshed grains (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 UNTHRESHED GRAINS (%) R1 R2 R3 10. while 900 rpm resulted to the highest loss of 10.31 11.91 93.86 3.96 5. Threshing efficiency (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 THRESHING EFFICIENCY (%) AVERAGE SIDESCORING R1 R2 R3 (%) 89.39 b 4.23 a 5.17 Lower speed results to less centrifugal force to extend the swing arms and less number of impact hits to the samples per unit time.29 95.61 a 96. the lower the threshing efficiency.93 89.23 6.39%) and 1300 rpm (4. Comparison among means at 1% probability level shows low comparable percent unthreshed grains at 1100 rpm (5.02 b .71 AVERAGE SIDESCORING (%) 10.14 94.23 %. Table 5 shows the percent unthreshed grains at various speed of the threshing drum.77 b 96. Table 4. Table 5.31 9. that eventually results to lower threshing efficiency. Unthreshed grains were evaluated from both the straw and main grain outlet of the thresher.02 %).39 2. ANOVA (Appendix Table 5) reveals highly significant differences on the percent unthreshed grain values as affected by various speeds of the rotating drum. and the higher the percentage of unthreshed grains.69 90.77 93.

closely spaced raspbars and other sieve mechanism that could have resulted to a higher quantity of clean grains compared to the quantity of impurities.18 Figure 6.96 . Table 6. The highest observed value was 87. the low percentage of purity can be attributed to the absence of blower.64 89. such values were statistically the same at 95% level of significance. Threshed and unthreshed sorghum grains from the thresher Purity Percent purity was evaluated by taking the ratio between the clean and uncleaned grains at the main grain outlet of the thresher.16 84.24 87. However.03 88.63 85.16 R3 82.14% at 1100 rpm while the lowest value of 84. ANOVA (Appendix Table 6) reveals no significant differences on the resulting percent purity of the samples taken at the main grain outlet at various speed of the threshing drum.75 AVERAGE (%) 84. Table 6 shows the observed purity of the grain output at various speed level of the threshing drum.51 85.24% was observed at 900 rpm.62 PURITY (%) R2 85.60 86.14 86. Figure 7 shows a sample output of the thresher at the main discharge output component.08 86. Purity (%) of the threshed sorghum using the thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average R1 85. Since the device was modified for threshing only.

61% at 1300 rpm while the lowest was at 900 rpm (10.33 12. Figure 8 shows the scattering at the floor during operation.53 AVERAGE (%) 10. Table 7. Scattering loss (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average R1 8. Table 7 shows the scattering loss expressed in percent of the total grain input. This result can be attributed to the hammer or battering like action of the swinging peg to the samples.55 12.61 11.51 16. It was evaluated based on the ratio of the clean scattered grains to the total grain input to the device during operation.19 Figure 7. The values are relatively high compared to rice threshing using axial flow threshers.83 .21 SCATTERING (%) R2 13. Such action will inevitably results to blast off like scattering of the grains when hit. ANOVA (Appendix Table 7) reveals no significant differences on the resulting percent scattering loss as affected by various speed levels of the threshing drum.86 11.08 R3 9.37 10.41 15.55%). The highest observed was 12.08 6.40 15. Sample output of the thresher used to evaluate purity at the main discharge output Scattering Loss Scattering loss represent the quantity of grains that were threshed but didn’t come out of the main grain outlet.

76 AVERAGE (%) 79. Table 8 shows the resulting threshing recovery of the sorghum thresher. Highest observed threshing recovery value was 83. Table 8.63 .28 79.21% at 900 rpm.20 Figure 8.67 78.27 83.32 77. Scattering of sorghum grains during operation Threshing Recovery Threshing recovery is the percentage ratio of the clean grains at the main grain outlet to the total grain input (clean grain output plus all losses). Threshing recovery (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average THRESHING RECOVERY (%) R1 R2 R3 81.63%. ANOVA (Appendix Table 8) reveals no significant differences on the resulting threshing recovery as affected by various speed levels of the threshing drum.75 89.21 82. Average threshing recovery was determined to be 81.93 78.41 81.41% at 1300 rpm while the lowest was 79.53 81.39 81.03 86.

Such is a direct effect of the hammering impact of the swinging pegs to the grains. Sorghum grains were also observed to blast off at the feeding chute when the grains were hit by the rotating pegs. Due to the almost horizontal alignment of the chute to the bottom part of the louver of the raspbar. However. This can be attributed to the wide opening of the raspbar. Low comparable percent unthreshed grains at 1100 rpm (5. Losses due to unthreshed grains were also evaluated. Stalks squashed in between the louver and the stalk paddle at the stalk outlet gave the primemover a hard time to rotate the drum assembly.02 %) were observed. allowing small bunches of panicles to pass through unthreshed.23%.39%) and 1300 rpm (4. such problem was not observed at 1100 rpm and 1300 rpm drum speed of rotation. while 900 rpm resulted to the highest loss of 10. Impurities at the main grain discharge output were mostly small bunch of panicles with unthreshed sorghum with it.21 Other Observations Clogging inside the threshing drum was observed at 900 rpm rotation of the threshing drum. the grains tend to bounce back to the operator during feeding. Scattered sorghum grains were also observed to splatter in all directions. .

The swing-type hammer decorticating drum was modified to include three successive layers of offset oriented fixed pegs to eliminate the identified problems of using the original drum in sorghum threshing.22 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION A coconut fiber decorticating machine was studied for its possible adaptation for sorghum threshing. respectively. Though the machine failed in comparison with the minimum requirements for rice axial thresher.96% for purity. the machine shows comparably higher efficiencies of 95. In terms of threshing efficiency.61 kg/hr at 1300 rpm and the lowest at 900 rpm with only 465. with a mean values of 85. In conclusion.77 %. . 1100 and 1300 rpm. scattering losses and threshing recovery. are statistically comparable at 900. Purity of the output.98% and 94.24 kg/hr. Evaluation of the sorghum thresher based on its threshing capacity resulted to the highest capacity of 692. A peripheral threshing drum speed average of 25 m/s or about 1100 rpm was adapted and analyzed. It is however recommended that the machine be operated at 1100 rpm to 1300 rpm to reap the maximum benefits in terms of efficiency and capacity. however. the modifications made on the threshing drum proved to be effective in its own right. The machine was subjected for evaluation using sorghum sample with average moisture content of 18% wet basis and grain to straw ratio of 0. the use of which can still be considered feasible and can still be considered a good alternative to expensive axial flow thresher for small sorghum farm holders. 11.86.71% at 1100 and 1300 rpm. while 900 rpm resulted to the lowest efficiency of 89.83% for the scattering loss and 81.63% for the threshing recovery. conforming to the prevalent rice axial flow thresher speed usually used in sorghum threshing. The offset oriented pegs effects the necessary material flow and eliminate the dead spots or gaps/clearances in between pegs that usually causes samples to be immovable and unthreshed.

there is still a big avenue for improvement. . With these recommendations. tilting of the feeding chute to prevent back scattering of grains 5. addition of a blower and other sieving mechanism to effect cleaning of threshed grains 3. These include: 1. closer raspbar clearance to maximize the threshing exposure of the panicle and small bunches 2. optimization study of the drum.23 RECOMMENDATIONS The modified decorticator to adapt for sorghum threshing can still accommodate several improvements to increase its performance. extension of the discharge chute to prevent too much splattering 4. Increasing awareness of the farmers on the benefits of sorghum production will mean an increase in demand of this type of machinery.

Compendium on Post-harvest Operations. Chimchana.P. UPLB Oliva. 1981. et.M. Mais. Design and selection of thresher parameter and componments. and O'Deye. Africa and Latin America (AMA).Techniques et alimentation au Sahel. 16.M. NG de Jesus. Soriano. Philippine agricultural engineering standard Agricultural Machinery – Mechanical Rice Thresher – Methods of Test. Paris. L. Italy Joshi H C. Causes of the failure of the sorghum industry in the Philippines. France.al. Policies and guidelines in conducting the national cooperative testing of conventionally bred and genetically modified varieties of corn and sorghum prepared by the corn and sorghum techinical group Chantereau J.24 REFERENCES BPI.. Africa and Latin America (AMA). 1-11 Desta K. P. 2002.P. 171. M. 2010. Development and performance evaluation of a Sorghum thresher.. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia. D. (1989). Mishra T N. Laguna Sautier. ISSAAS Vol. V. 2008 . D. 21(3): 33-37. Rome. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Nicou R 1994. Sorghum. 1987. FAO. 21(3): 29-32. College. Mil. H. Harmattan. EC Zabala. 27. 1999. PAES 205:2000.. . Pamplona. 1:8-16 (2010) . Agricultural Mechanization in Asia. Philippine Journal of Crop Science (May 1987). 1990. No. pp.Development of an unequal speed co-axial split-rotor thresher for rice.. v. J. Manuscript PM08017. animal feed and bio-fuel. P. The amazing sweet sorghum: Pampanga Agricultural College’s initiatives in promoting and commercializing its utilization as human food. Salokhe. and Soni. Sorgho . 12(1) p. in Co-operation with CTA. AMTEC. The CIGR Ejournal.

25 APPENDICES .

53 81.84 AVERAGE (%) 465.85 0.76 .24 537.85 0.29 THRESHING RECOVERY (%) R1 R2 R3 81.75 89.27 83.50 R1 85.14 96.51 11.19 679.61 97.03 86.08 15. Summary table of observations SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 GRAIN .41 R1 470.31 6.21 82.09 5.41 9.53 PURITY (%) R2 85.86 2.41 474.31 3.08 86.08 15.60 86.93 78.39 81.69 90.51 AVERAGE (%) 10.40 6.61 AVERAGE (%) 84.86 0.91 93.80 R3 459.61 95.STRAW RATIO (decimal) R1 R2 R3 0.04 94.88 0.71 SCATTERING LOSS (%) R1 R2 R3 8.55 12.28 79.61 AVERAGE (%) 89.86 10.16 UNTHRESHED (%) R2 9.82 0.16 84.21 16.39 4.23 5.98 AVERAGE (%) 79.69 88.62 R3 82.90 724.63 85.37 13.23 3.24 87.93 96.86 0.12 564.88 0.14 86.87 0.26 Appendix Table 1.86 CAPACITY (kg/hr) R2 466.32 77.75 R1 10.87 0.77 93.64 89.03 88.67 78.02 AVERAGE (%) 10.53 THRESHING EFFICIENCY (%) R1 R2 R3 89.33 12.20 574.77 94.87 0.96 R3 11.98 692.07 6.86 673.39 AVERAGE (%) 0.

27 Appendix Table 2. ANOVA and comparison among means of the grain-straw ratio .

ANOVA and comparison among means of the thresher capacity .28 Appendix Table 3.

29 Appendix Table 4. ANOVA and comparison among means of the threshing efficiency .

ANOVA and comparison among means of the unthreshed grains .30 Appendix Table 5.

ANOVA and comparison among means of the percent purity.31 Appendix Table 6. .

.32 Appendix Table 7. ANOVA and comparison among means of the scattering loss.

.33 Appendix Table 8. ANOVA and comparison among means of the threshing recovery.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful