You are on page 1of 42



1.1 Tea Cultivation In India.

India is the largest producer and the largest consumer of tea in the world(31% of global production). Total area under tea cultivation in India is 5.12 Lakh Ha. Tea constitutes an important part of Indian life. The tea bush known as Camellia Sinensis grows in loose, deep, acid soil, at high altitude, with summer and autumn rain, in a little heat and little wind. In these climatic conditions most of the plants die but the tea bush flourishes fantastically. Today tea is grown in more than 25 countries around the world. It is cultivated as a plantation crop, grows well in acidic soil, and a warm climate with at least 50 inches of rain per annum. The North eastern states of India accounts for 2.8 lakh ha (55 %) of area under tea cultivation with 455 million kg. annual production. Tea is cultivated in an area of 1.14 lakh hectares in South India with an annual production of more than 2,000 lakh kgs. About 12.5 lakh people are employed under tea estates and factories. A tea bush has life span of about 100 years. It loses its economical productivity after 40 or 50 years of age. Around 2,21,000 ha area which fall into vulnerable category of low yielding areas in India is to be targeted for replantation and rejuvenation immediately. (Anon, 2007). In 2009 Indian Tea Association (ITA) reported that due to improving finances, most Indian tea companies, big and small, were going in for massive replantation to upgrade the quality of their tea (Ghosal, 2009). Replacement of the old tea plants with new improved varieties will be necessary if economic production levels and productivity is to be maintained, particularly in the small holder sub sector so as not to expose the farmers to economic vulnerability.

1.2 Why old tea bushes have less economical productivity? 1. Low yields. 2. Increasing number of empty spots due to death of weak bushes. 3. Branches become thin and diseased. 4. Increasing rate of diseases of the top and of the roots. 5. Increase in the proportion of unproductive (brown and woody) tissues on tea plants. 6. Buds and crown buds are small and scarce. 7. Many shoots at the base of the bush, or sprouting up from the ground.

1.3 Existing Uprooting Practices 1. Manual Digging 2. Uprooting with help of elephants. 3. Uprooting by bulldozer. 4. Uprooting by tractor. 5. Rack type Uprooting Machine.

1. Manual digging This is tedious and time consuming.(Wilson and Clifford, 1992). The manual system of' uprooting old seedling tea bushes relies entirely on the use of hand-labour or all the required operations like digging of stumps using hoes or any other implement that enhances the number of stumps lifted per man-day. Within the Manual Uprooting System there are, in turn, two alternative methods based on the type of labour used in the operation.( G.M. Limwado, 1995) 1. Contract Labour Method involves the use of households to which a known number of bushes is allocated at an agreed charge per bush. Under this method each household uproots between 50 and 60 bushes per day. 2. Regular Labour Method which involves the use of the existing labour force, usually tea pluckers, in the uprooting operations during the slack period. Under this method each worker is able to uproot between 20 and 30 bushes per man-day. 2. Uprooting with help of elephants Elephants should be trained for this type of practice. This method doesnt require any type of tool. 3. Uprooting by bulldozer Because of heavy weight of bulldozer it causes more soil compaction. Also it is very much costlier. Bulldozer uprooting caused highest soil compaction giving mechanical impedance to penetration, heavy destruction of soil structure and significantly reducing water infiltration rate compared to winching and hand uprooting (Obaga and Othieno, 1986). 4. Uprooting by tractor An clamping system with frame is attached to tractor 3-point linkage and with help of hydraulic system bushes are uprooted. With the mechanical uprooting system between 250 and 300 bushes are uprooted per tractor hour, depending on tractor size, age and size of the seedling tea bushes, type and moisture content of the soil in the field being uprooted. (G.M. Limwado, 1995).

1.4 Objectives 1. Design of a manually operated tea bush uprooting machine. 2. Fabrication of a prototype manually operated tea bush uprooting machine 3. Testing of the above prototype for the rated load in laboratory condition. 4. Trial of the above prototype for uprooting young tree plants.


2.1 Tea reviews Ananda coomaraswamy, et al. (2000) reported that the tea plants are grown at spacing of 1.2 m x 0.6 m. the canopy diameter of tea plant is around 1 m to 1.2 m and tea plants from a continuous, smooth canopy at 0.8 1 m height as they are planted at a close spacing. Excavation studies shown that clonal tea has a maximum rooting depth of around 0.9m 1 m, but more than 90 % of the roots are located within top 0.6 m of the soil profile. The lateral spread of the tea root system is over an area of 1.2 m in diameter. Chattopadhyay, et al (2004) reported that tea contains a number of chemical constituents possessing medicinal and pharmacological properties and it is expected that tea root might also be a store house of many chemicals of medicinal and pharmacological interest. TRE (tea root extract) was found to possess anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic activities. The tea plants are uprooted 30-100 years after plantation, the roots are used either for making ornamental and furniture or as a fire wood. Rishiraj Datta (2011) have done research on a spatio temporal analysis of tea productivity and quality in north east india. Economic life of the tea bush is 40 50 years.Older plantations show a decreased yield. 2.2 Uprooting reviews John Albert Garret, (1899) invented a transplanting tree clamp for transplanting any size of plant without any injury. When the clamp is contracted the circular opening and radiating arms are reduced diametrically and narrowed respectively, and when clamp is expanded said opening is made larger and its arms are correspondingly widened.

Alvin E. Herz, Nutley, N.J.(1974) developed a method of tree extraction and engaging clamp to tree stump. The clamp is used designed for extracting trees by vertical lifting force. Tree stump holding members of clamp are shown in fig.

Fig.1 Clamp. Sexsmith (2002) invented a mini shrub spader for unearthing and transporting trees and shrubs. The mini shrub spader has a basketed U-blade which allows it to unearth, shape the root ball and transport a tree or shrub utilizing the same device. The mini shrub spader is preferably mounted to the rear of a small tractor. It is constructed of a steel frame which houses the hydraulic systems. The frame is H-shaped having a basketed U-blade pivotally secured to the front of the frame. The U-blade is actuated through two hydraulic cylinders mounted on the top of the frame. The rear of the frame has a three-point hitch to allow the mini shrub spader to be secured to a small tractor or similar towing device.

Fig. 2 Mini shrub spader.


K.A. Campbell, et al (2004) uprooted paper birch trees in summer using tripod and a winch device to measure the maximum vertical force required for uprooting. He concluded that uprooting resistance is operationally relevant not only for slope stabilization but also for windfirmness, and tree productivity (diameter). In his study he stated pruning treatment did not impact uprooting resistance. His study also found strong relationship between GLD (Ground Line Diameter) and uprooting resistance. Horvth- Szovti and Czupy (2005) determined the relation of vertical lifting power to the diameter of the stump stumps of Norway spruce in sandy soil on the plains by 20% water capacity. F = 6.542 (DSH0.6369 + e0.041189 DSH -1) Where F is the required vertical uprooting force in kN and DSH is the stump diameter in cm. Sonal Valvi (2008) concluded that tea bush which required maximum uprooting force of 640 kg, was having stem diameter of 6 cm and tea bush which required lowest maximum force of 245 kg was having smallest stem diameter of 3 cm. The age of tea bushes he experimented was 10 12 year. Ola Lindroos, et al (2010) found the maximum forces required to vertically uproot stumps of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and birch (Betula spp.). According to him stump sizes ranges from 15 35 cm required uprooting force 15-150 kN. A.S. Akinwonmi, et al (2012) designed a simple, efficient, cheap and affordable cassava uprooting device for local cassava growing farmers. He concluded that average force required for uprooting cassava plant was 1000 N. He used mild steel for cassava harvester because it is cheap and easily available.

Fig.3 Cassava Uprooting Device

Timothy C. Dearman, (1989) invented a plant uprooting apparatus having a pair of jaws movable relative to one another between open and closed position in response to movement by a person of an actuating grip and linkage. The movement in one direction of the grip is limited so that the force that must be exerted by a person to maintain the jaws in their closed position is minimal.

Fig.4 Apparatus for uprooting plants. 2.3 Human strength Bao and silverstein (2005) conducted experiments on one hundreds and twenty subjects to estimate the hand grip strength and the hand force and test for muscle activities of hand and fore arm. He collected normative data of pinch and power grip strength with a digital dynamometer and studied about ability of hand grip force using hand dynamometer. Estimates of normative power grip strength were 294.0 and 470.0 N for women and men, respectively. Estimates of normative pinch group strength are 89.2 and 125.1 N for women and men respectively. Power grip force ranges between 78.1 N to 103. 1 N while performing three different test activities like screw driving, ratcheting and lifting/carrying P.S. Tiwari et al (P.S. Tiwari et al) concluded that the mean values for isometric push and pull strengths in a standing posture with both hands (in the horizontal plane) are 254.1 53.0 N and 234.5 43.2 N, respectively, for male subjects and 183.4 35.3 N and 185.430.4 N, respectively, for female subjects. K.N. Dewangan et al (2010) concluded that the mean right handgrip strength was 300.3 N, right hand push strength was 118.0 N, right hand pull strength was 148.9 N, right leg strength was 363.2 and right foot strength was 271.4 N.


This chapter deals with the theoretical considerations in designing and selecting the various components of prototype tea bush uprooting machine. 3.1 Design of tripod. A tripod is a portable three-legged frame, used as a platform for supporting the weight and maintaining the stability of some other object. Tripod is designed according to the buckling analysis of its legs. Following procedure is considered for design of tripod. 3.1.A Design considerations. 1. The legs of tripod considered as fixed-fixed ended columns. 2. Tripod should be able to withstand a load of 2000 Kg. 3. Tripod should be light in weight so that two men can easily transfer it from one bush to another. 3.1.B Terminology for column design Column: A long slender bar subject to axial compression is called column. Short Columns: A short column is usually defined as one whose slenderness ratio is less than about 100. Long columns: Those columns whose slenderness ratio is more than 100 for ductile material and more than 80 for CI are called long columns. Failure of column: Failure of column occurs by buckling. In compression failure of short compression member occurs by yielding of material, buckling, & hence failure of column may occur even though the maximum stress in the bar is less than the yield point of the material. Critical load (Pcr): The critical load of a slender bar subject to axial compression is that value of the axial force that is just sufficient to keep the bar in slightly deflected configuration. Slenderness ratio: The ratio of the length of the column to the minimum radius of gyration of the cross sectional area is termed as the slenderness ratio.

Radius of gyration (k): The radius of gyration of a body is defined as the radius at which the entire mass of the body could be concentrated such as the resulting model will have the same moment of inertia as original body. Moment of inertia (I): Area moment of inertia is also known as second moment of inertia. It is a property of shape that is used to predict deflection and stress in beams Area moment of inertia of a hollow cross section: ..Eq (3.1)

Fig.1 Cross section of pipe. ..Eq.(3.2)

do = Cylinder outside diameter. di = Cylinder inside diameter. ..Eq.(3.3)

3.1.C Determination of size of tripod according to size of plant.

Fig.5 Dimensions of tripod according to the size of plant.

Tripod is small in size and cannot be used for bigger tea plants. Height of tripod must be 1 meter high above tea plant canopy. But available tripod is not suitable for old tea bushes because of small height. There will be difficulty in operation. 3.1.D Free body diagram of tripod leg

F2 =

1 cos


F1 = load acting at the centre of tripod. F2 = load coming on the tripod leg due to ground support.


Required uprooting force for old tea plant is 19.6 kN. So this much force will act at the centre of tripod during uprooting. This force will equally transmit through three legs of tripod. Actual load coming on each leg of tripod can be calculated as; F2 =

F2 = 7.046 kN 3.1. Eulers theory for buckling of columns. In 1757 Leonard Euler published work concerning the problem of buckling of columns. Here he gives the simple derivation of the formula for the critical load by using simplified differential equation. 3.1.E Eulers theory for Flexural buckling of pin-ended columns:

A perfectly straight bar of uniform cross section has two axes of symmetry Cx and Cy in the cross section. Cx is the weakest axis of bending of the bar and if bowing of the compressed bar occurs we should expect bending to take place in the y-z plane. Consider the possibility that at same value of p, the end thrust, the strut can buckle laterally in y-z plane. There can be no lateral deflection at the ends of strut. Suppose v is displacement of center line of bar parallel to Cy at any point. There can be no forces at the hinges parallel to Cy ,as these would imply bending moments at the ends of bar. The only two external forces all the end thrusts p, which are assumed to maintain their original line of action after the one set of bulking.


The bending moment of section of bar is Eq.(3.5) Moment curvature relationship for the beam at any section is, Eq(3.6) EI is flexural rigidity, and z is section modulus of column. Provided that deflection v is very small

Eq.(3.7) Then, + Pv = 0 Put, Eq.(3.9) Then, Eq.(3.10) General solution of the differential equation is, Eq.(3.11) Where A and B are arbitrary constants. We have two boundary conditions to satisfy: At the ends; z = 0 and z = L, v = 0. Then, A = 0 and = 0. Eq.(3.8)

Now, consider the implications of the equation, . If B = 0 then both A and B are zero, and obviously strut is deflected. If , B is inderminate and strut may assume the form Eq.(3.13) This is the buckled condition of strut.


Assume the values of kL, .n = 1, 2, 3,

Eq.(3.14) Eq.(3.15)

There are infinite no of values of p for instability The fundamental mode occurs at lowest critical load. = Eulers Load for pin ended struts. Eq.(3.16)

3.1.F Eulers Theory for Flexural buckling of column with fixed ends. In this case the ends of the column are subjected to fixing moments, MF, in addition to axial load. In this case the ends of the column are subjected to fixing moments, MF, in addition to axial load.


Fig. Buckling of fixed ended columns.

Eq(3.17) Eq(3.18)

Rearranging ..Eq(3.19) General solution of above, Eq(3.20) . Eq(3.21) When z = 0, v = 0 so that A = -MF/Pcr. Further v = 0 at z = L .Eq(3.22) * + Eq(3.23)

Note that again, v is indeterminate since MF cannot be found. Also since dv/dz = 0 at z = L.

We have,

Eq(3.24) And kL = n. When n = 0, 2, 4, For a non-trivial solution, i.e. n 0, and taking the smallest value of buckling load (n = 2), we have. Eq(3.25) This is Eulers formula for fixed ended columns.

3.1.G Columns with other end constraints:

Effective length (Le): Effective length of any column is defined as the length of pinned-pinned column that would buckle at the same critical load as the actual column. Table 3.1 Values of effective length for different end conditions. Sl. No. a. b. c. d. End condition Pinned-Pinned Fixed-Pinned Fixed-Fixed Fixed-Pinned

Effective length L 2L L/2 0.7L




Fig. Effective length for other and conditions. (A) Fixed-Free. (B) Fixed-Pinned.

3.1.H Rankins-Gordon Formula: Prediction of buckling load, by Eulers formula is only reasonable for very long and slender struts that have very small geometrical imperfection. Most of the struts suffer plastic knockdown and the experimentally obtained buckling load are much less than the Eulers prediction. For struts in this category, a suitable formula is Rankines-Gordaon formula, which is semi-empirical formula and takes in to account the crushing strength of the material, its Youngs modulus and its slenderness ratio (L/k).

L = length of column. K = least radius of gyration of the column cross-section. PC = Where A = cross sectional area. = crushing stress. Then, Where PR = Rankine Gordon buckling load Pcr = Eulers buckling load Pcr = for pin ended strut ..Eq(3.28) ..Eq(3.27) Eq(3.26)








Let .Eq(3.34) Thus

( )


Where a is constant in Rankin Gordon formula, which is dependent on boundary condition and material properties. Table 3.2 Value of and Material Mild steel Wrought iron Cast iron Timber
3.1.I Limitations of Eulers formula. Predictions of buckling loads by the Eulers formula are only reasonable for very long and slender struts that have very small geometrical imperfections. Eulers formula is valid only for the columns whose slenderness ratio is greater than 100. General equation for crippling load
( )

for different material

17500 8000 18000 1000

300 250 560 35


Crippling stress:.Eq(3.37)

( )

Crippling stress will be high if slenderness ratio is small. ( ) is slenderness ratio. Crippling stress can not be more than crushing stress of column material. For mild steel column:


Crushing stress for mild steel is 330 N/m2 Youngs modulus is 0.21 106 N/m2 Now equating crippling stress to crushing stress,

( )

( ) ( ) ( ) .Eq(3.38)

Hence if slenderness ratio is less than 80 Eulers formula is not valid for mild steel. Table 3.3 Properties of mild steel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ultimate stress (u) Yield point stress (y) Crushing stress (c) Allowable stress (A) Rankins constant (a) Density () Youngs modulus (E) 410 Mpa 248 Mpa 320 Mpa 60 Mpa 1/7500 7850 kg/m2 210 Gpa

3.1.J Calculation of crippling load for pipe size 3/4. Length of leg pipe = 3.23 m. (shown in fig .2) External Diameter (do) = 0.026 m Internal Diameter (di) = 0.02 m Cross sectional area of pipe = ( = = 2.17 10-4 m2.


Volume of pipe = ( = = 7 10-4 m3. Area moment of inertia

= 1.45 x 10-8 m4 Radius of gyration (k) = = = 0.0082. Rankines Crippling load

( )

= = 11274 N. = 1150 kg. Mass of pipe = = = 4.82 kg.

1 1

3.1.K Calculation of crippling load for pipe size 1. Length of leg pipe = 3.23 m. (shown in fig.2) External Diameter (do) = 0.033 m Internal Diameter (di) = 0.026 m Cross sectional area of pipe = ( ).


= = 3.89 10-4 m2. Volume of pipe = ( = = 12.5 10-4 m3. Area moment of inertia ) .

= 4.75 x 10-8 m4.

Radius of gyration (k) = = = 0.011. Rankines Crippling load

( )

= = 32382 N. = 3304 kg. Mass of pipe = = = 9.8 kg.

1 1 ) 11

3.1.11 Calculation of crippling load for pipe size 1 . Length of pipe = 3.23 m. (shown in fig 2) External Diameter (do) = 0.042 m


Internal Diameter (di) = 0.035 m Cross sectional area of pipe = ( = = 4.23 10-4 m2. Volume of pipe = ( = = 13.6 10-4 m3. Area moment of inertia ) . ).

= 7.9 x 10-8 m4. Radius of gyration (k) = = = 0.0136. Rankines Crippling load
( )

= = 47315 N. = 4828 kg. Mass of pipe = = = 10.7 kg.

1 1 1


3.1.12 Calculation of crippling load for pipe size 1 . Length of pipe = 3.23 m. (shown in fig 2) External Diameter (do) = 0.048 m Internal Diameter (di) = 0.04 m Cross sectional area of pipe = ( = = 5.53 10-4 m2. Volume of pipe = ( = = 17.8 10-4 m3. Area moment of inertia ) . ).

= 1.34 x 10-7 m4.

Radius of gyration (k) = =

Rankines Crippling load

= = 72917 N. = 7440 kg. Mass of pipe =

1 1 1


= = 14 kg. 3.1.13 Calculation of crippling load for pipe size 2. Length of pipe = 3.23 m. (shown in fig 2) External Diameter (do) = 0.06 m Internal Diameter (di) = 0.052 m Cross sectional area of pipe = ( = = 7.03 10-4 m2. Volume of pipe = ( = = 22.7 10-4 m3. Area moment of inertia ) . ).

= 2.77 x 10-7 m4. Radius of gyration (k) = = = 0.019. Rankines Crippling load
( )

= = 119552 N. = 12199 kg.

1 1 1


Mass of pipe = = = 17.8 kg.

Table 3.4 By using above Formulae and Calculations, crippling load is calculated for selected mild steel pipe columns.
Sl. No.

Extern al dia. (m)

Internal dia. (m)

Length. (L) (m)

Area. (A) (m2)

Volume. (V) (m3)

M.I. (m4) Eq. 3.2

Radius of gyration . (m) Eq. 3.1

Effectiv e length. (Le) (m) Table 3.1

Rankines constant (a)

Rankine s load (N) Eq.3.22

Rankine s load (kg)

Mass. (kg)
(M=V/ A)

1 2 3 4 5

0.026 0.033 0.042 0.048 0.06

0.02 0.026 0.035 0.04 0.052

3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23

0.000217 0.000389 0.000423 0.000553 0.000703

0.0007 0.00125 0.001367 0.001785 0.002272

1.45 x 10-8 4.75 x 10-8 7.90 x 10-8 1.34 x 10-7 2.77 x 10-7

0.0082 0.011 0.0136 0.0156 0.019

1.615 1.615 1.615 1.615 1.615

0.000133 0.000133 0.000133 0.000133 0.000133

11274 32382 47315 72917 119552

1150 3304 4828 7440 12199

4.82 9.8 10.7 14 17.8

3.1.14 Allowable stress calculation for compression members. ( ) ..Eq(3.38)

K= effective length factor for compression member. L = Length of column. k = Radius of gyration. E = Youngs modulus. Fy = Yield stress. ..Eq(3.39)

Allowable stress. When, ( )




) (


When, (


Table 3.5 Effective length factor for various end support condition of column. Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 Support condition of column Pinned- Pinned Fixed- Fixed Fixed- pinned Fixed free Effective length factor (K) 1 0.5 0.7 2

Table 3.6 Calculation of allowable stress. Sl. Pipe No. dimensions do di Length of column, L (m) 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23 Effective length factor. (K) Table 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Radius Slenderness ( ) of ratio gyration Slenderness Cc ratio. (r) Eq.3.27 Eq. 3.1 0.0082 0.011 0.0136 0.0156 0.019 196 146 118 103 81 129 129 129 129 129 Allowable stress Fa (Mpa) Eq. 3.28, 3.29 28 51 75 89 106

1 2 3 4 5



0.033 0.026 0.042 0.035 0.048 0.06 0.04 0.052


3.1.15 Factor of safety A factor of safety or safety factor can be expressed in many ways. It is typically a ratio of two quantities that have the same units, such as strength/stress, critical load/applied load, load to fail part/expected service overload, maximum cycles/applied cycles, or maximum safe speed/operating speed.


Table 3.7 Factor of safety for columns by using Yield strength. Sl. No. Pipe size do di Column condition Yield strength (Mpa) Given in table 3.3 248 248 248 248 248 Allowable stress (Mpa) Given in table 3.6, column 8.
28 51 75 89 106

Factor of safety. (Given in Eq.3.30)

1 2 3 4 5

0.026 0.033 0.042 0.048 0.06

0.02 0.026 0.035 0.04 0.052

Fixed- Fixed Fixed- Fixed Fixed- Fixed Fixed- Fixed Fixed- Fixed

9 4.8 3.3 2.7 2.3

Table 3.8 Calculation of safe load for columns with fixed-fixed end condition. Sl. No. Pipe size di do Rankins load Wcr (kg) (table 3.4, column 14) 1146 3304 4828 7440 12199 Actual load (kg) Calculated above in 3.1.4. 719 719 719 719 719 Factor of safety (table 3.7, column 6) Load considering safety factor

1 2 3 4 5

0.026 0.033 0.042 0.048 0.06

0.02 0.026 0.035 0.04 0.052

9 4.8 3.3 2.7 2.3

6471 3451 2372 1941 1653


3.1.16 Selection of pipe: The pipes are made of mild steel and for mild steel there are limitations for using Eulers design criteria as shown in Eq(3.25), so we can select pipe on the basis of Rankines crippling load. According to Rankines crippling load, Pipe of size 1 is suitable for tripod design.




This chapter deals with the methodology in the fabrication of rack lifting mechanism, foldable frame and techniques adopted for field testing of developed manually operated prototype tea bush uprooting machine. 4.1 Development of manually operated prototype tea bush uprooting machine. 4.1.1 Development of a tripod. Sl. No. 1 2 2 3 Description of material MS tube 1 inch Schedule 40. MS tube 1 inch Schedule 40. MS tube 1 inch. Schedule 80. CS Eye bolt Length/Diameter (mm) 3230 2000 1000 19 Quantity 3 1 1 1

According to the dimensions in fig.5 tripod will be fabricated. The tubes of size 1 inch. will be cut in six small tubes, each of size 150 mm. Three long tubes of size 1 inch each of length 3230 m will be rigidly fixed in 3 small tubes of length 150 mm.




5.1 Testing of a tripod and chain available in laboratory for strength. Testing of tripod and chain was done simultaneously for strength. Before the test we have selected a hard plane ground to avoid sinking of legs in soil. Tripod was kept on that hard plane ground. For applying force on tripod we have used a hydraulic lift system, chain and a metal rod deeply inserted in soil. Arrangement was done in such a way that, the metal rod was to be uprooted from the soil and to uproot it there is large requirement of force and this much amount of force is supported by tripod legs. In arrangement the hydraulic lift system was attached in such a way that, one end was fixed to the center of tripod and another end was connected to the metal rod. Dynamometer was used to measure the force. Chain was used to connect the end of hydraulic system to metal rod, so from that strength of chain can be measured. After the arrangement we stared lifting the metal rod with the help of hydraulic lift system. As the lifting occurs load gradually increases on the tripod and chain and the observations were taken.

Plate.1 Testing of tripod.


Plate.2 Dynamometer reading Table 5.1 Testing of tripod and chain available in laboratory Sl. No. Tripod chain Breaking load (Kg) >1800 1800 Remark withstand Broken.

Conclusion 1. We cannot use chain for load more than 1800 kg load. 2. Slipping of chain occurred many times during operation so it takes more time to set chain again and again. 3. Tripod can withstand for load more than 1800 kg, but is heavy in weight and difficult to transport.


5.2. Trials of a tripod, chain and clamp on small Akashpani trees available in the field laboratory. The set of trials were taken on Akashpani trees available in field. They were irrigated one day before uprooting, because tea bushes are generally uprooted in rainy season and in rainy season the moisture content of soil is high. Due to high moisture content of soil they can be easily uprooted from earth. After irrigation the actual uprooting of small trees was done with the help of a tripod and chain pulley block. During uprooting following parameters were measured. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Uprooting force. Time required for uprooting. Girth of plant to be uprooted. Time required for fixing chain/clamp. Time required for transferring tripod. Time required for tightening the chain. Time required for removing clamp/chain. Vertical displacement of chain. Moisture content of soil.


Table 5.2 Trials of a tripod, chain and clamps available in laboratory for uprooting akashpani plants. (Date 9/3/2013)
No. of Plant set the dynamometer in (sec) 1 35 set the clamp or chain (sec) Time taken for the followings tightening the chain in (sec) uproot the plant in (sec) remove the clamp from the plant in (sec) 23 transferred the tripod in (sec) Circumference of the plant in (cm) Pull in (kg) Vertical displacement of the chain in (cm) Total Time (min) Remarks






Unable to uproot plant because of chain slippage. Unable to uproot plant due to chain slippage. Plant successfully uprooted.










375 680 400

30 45 43 20 27








880 1350 1380 1500


Plant uprooted successfully.






400 700 280


Plant uprooted successfully. Uprooting was done by using clamp.








1200 1700 1800 1900

30 47


Successfully uprooted. (Dynamometer broken.)

Table 5.3 Trials of a tripod, chain and clamps available in laboratory for uprooting Akashpani plants. (Date 18/3/2013)
No. of Plant set the dynamomet er in (sec) set the clamp or chain (sec) 131 Time taken for the followings Plant to Plant Distance (m) tightenin g the chain in (sec) 6 uproot the plant in (sec) remove the chain from the plant in (sec) 43 transferre d the tripod in (sec) Tripod Setting time in (sec.) Circum ference of the plant in (cm) Pull in (kg) Vertical displace ment of the chain in (cm) Total Time (min) Moisture content of soil (%) Dry basis Wet basis Remarks




500 600 700 500 400

5 10 20 50 60 -




Successfully Uprooted








700 800


Bolt Broken, chain slipped, Unable to


1100 1200 1500 2 92 21 58 68 37.3 1200 1300 1400 1480 3.9 -


Unable to Uproot.



Chain slipped after 36 sec





700 850 900 1080


Chain slipped after 36 sec. Unable to uproot



Chain slipped after 21 sec



600 700 800 900


Chain slipped after 21 sec Unable to uproot.









700 800 1000 700 600





Successfully uprooted





900 1180 1300 1500 1800 2000


Unable to Uproot Chain broken after 2000 kg force.









900 1100 1300 1600 1780 1800 2000





Successfully uprooted










700 900 1200 1500 1800 >2000 1500 800 300





Successfully uprooted


Plate 3. Irrigating the plants before uprooting.

Plate 4. slipping of chain.

Plate 5. Dynamometer reading.


Plate 6. uprooting the plant with the help of tripod and pulley block

Plate 7. Clamp

Plate 8. Dynamometer reading


Anon. 1974 US patent no. 3958613 on tree and stump extraction of Hertz, A.E. aand Nutley, N.J., LB Foster company Pittsburgh USA. Anandacoomarswamy, A., De costa, W. A. J. M., Shyamalie, H. W. and Campbell, G S. 2000. Factors controlling Transpiration of mature field grown tea and its relationship with yield, Agricultural and Forest Metrology ISSN 0168 1923, vol: 103, Elsevier Publications, Amsterdam. Bao, S. and Silverstein, B 2005. Estimation of Hand Forces in Ergonomic Job Evaluations. Ergonomics ISSN 0014-0139, vol: 48(3), Taylor and Francis Ltd, USA. Basu Majumder A., Bera B. and Rajan, A. 2010. Tea Statistics: Global Scenario. Inc. J. Tea Sci. 8 (1): 121-124 Chattopadhyaya, P., Bersa, S. E., Gomes, A., Das, M, Sur, P Mitra, S. 2004. Anti Inflamatory activity of tea root extract. Life sciences ISSN 0024-3205, vol 74. Dr. T. H. G. Megson, 2000, STRUCTURAL AND STRESS ANALYSIS, Second edition, A division of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd,page no. 608-612.

Dr. Kim D. Coder,2008, Tree Stump Removal From Landscapes, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia. E Yamaguchi, 1990, Structural Engineering Handbook, Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.

G.M. Limwado. 1995 Economic assessment of alternate alternative system of old tea bush uprooting, TRF. H. D. Hess, 1992, Machine Design, Hoists, Derricks, Cranes, Philadelphia And London J. B. Lippincott Company

John Case, 1999, Strength of Materials and Structures, Fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 605 Third Avenue,New York,NY no. 424-430

K.N. Dewangan, G. Gogoi, C. Owary, D.U. Gorate 2010 Isometric muscle strength of male agricultural workers of India and the design of tractor controls, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40 (2010) 484 491.

Lindroos, O., Henningsson, M., Athanassiadis, D.& Nordfjell, T. 2010. Forces required to vertically uproot tree stumps. Silva Fennica 44(4): 681694 Mohotti, A. J., Damayanthi,M.M.N., Anandacoomaraswamy, A. & Mohotti, K. M.. Plant Physiology Division, Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Talawakele, Sri Lanka, 2008. Comparative dynamics of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) roots under organic and conventional management systems with special reference to water use. P.S. Tiwari, L.P. Gite, J. Majumder, S.C. Pharade, V.V. Singh 2009. Push/pull strength of agricultural workers in central India, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40 (2010) 17. Robert L. Norton, 2006, MACHINE DESIGN An Integrated Approach, Third Edition. Pearson Education, Inc.Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 page no. 17-18, 189-198.

Tea plantation development scheme for the XI period 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2012 TEA BOARD(Ministry of Commerce and Industries- Govt. of India)14 B.T.M. SARANI KOLKATA-700 001. Valvi Sonal Dattatraya, 2008, design and development of manually operated bush stalk pulling machine. IIT kharagpur. Wilson, K.C. Clifford, M.N 1992 Tea cultivation and consumption, Chapman and hall Publication, 2-6 boundary row, London, UK. William A. Nash, 1998, Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of STRENGTH OF MATERIALS, Fourth Edition, McGRAW-HILL, New York, USA.356-357



A.1 Chain Hoist It helps to lift heavy load. It has two chain one is pulled by hand and another lifts the load. It concentrates the force by transforming a small effort exerted over a long distance in to a huge force exerted over a short distance. When hand chain is pulled it rotates the cog and cog turns the drive shaft and gear on drive shaft. The hand chain is fit in to the seven specially designed slots in the cog. As hand chain is pulled it turns the cog. The cog first screw tight to the friction plate which is attached to the ratchet wheel. So as the cog plate and ratchet wheel turns together it catch clicks on to the teeth of ratchet wheel preventing the cog from slipping backward under the weight of load. So in chain hoist force from hand chain get concentrated more and more. As cog turns it also turns the drive shaft. At the other end of shaft there is a small gear with five teeth. As that gear turn with drive shaft the force applied to cog by hand chains already started to increase so far its been multiplied by 7:5 ratio which means one force on seven chain link goes to 5 teeth on the gear. Small gear is now turning with more force which puts stress on the teeth of gear to decrease the stress there. That gear turns the two identical gear wheels at the same time. In this way the stress of the small gear force is distributed across the two teeth. So the small gear turns the 18 teeth each of the identical gear wheels. These gears have an four teeth axle on other side. Essentially another small gears which will in turn multiply the force by ratio 18:4. Those small gear turns the another larger gear having 19 teeth. Those teeth concentrate their force on few links of lift chain fit in to the lug sprocket.


Force multiplication in chain hoist 1. No. of teeth on gear 1 (T1) = 5. 2. No. of teeth on gear 2 (T2) = 18. 3. No. of teeth on gear 3 (T3) = 4. 4. No. of teeth on gear 4 (T4) = 19. 5. Hand chain wheel no. of sprocket = 7 6. Load chain wheel no of socket = 4 Force multiplied: = (T2/T1) x (T6/ T4) x (hand chain links pulled /load chain links to be lifted) = (18/5) x (19/4) x (7/4) = 29.94. Force multiplies 30 times in chain hoist.