Value Optimization Among Process

Parameters of Mungbean Sheller Through

Response Surface Methodology
Christian Malacapo Mortel#1
College of Engineering and Technology, Romblon State University
Liwanag, Odiongan, Romblon, 5505
1
xtian_mortelrme@yahoo.com

Abstract— This paper investigated the significant effects of the identified variables (input capacity, blower
air velocity and the shelling cylinder shaft rotation) on the shelling recovery process of mungbeans to
lessen the impurities and mechanical damages of kernels. This study utilized response surface
methodology through Box-Behnken design as a tool to identify the effect of the identified variables to the
response variable using the Minitab 17 software. It also aimed to establish the optimum values of the
identified variables and the response variable. Based on the assessment from the fifteen (15) experimental
runs, it was identified that the three identified variables are considerably significant to the shelling
recovery of the mungbeans. Moreover, the optimal conditions of the independent variables, input
capacity, blower air velocity and shelling cylinder shaft rotation are 40 kg/hr, 3.3536 m/seconds and 343
revolution per minute, respectively. These optimum values could predict an optimum shelling recovery of
96.9691%. This means an increase of the weight of cleaned kernels, decrease in impurities and the total
losses (blower loss, scattering loss, unshelled loss and the separation loss) as well. The computed optimum
values for input capacity and shelling cylinder shaft rotation are the medium level values and only the
blower air velocity values are to be changed to produce optimum shelling recovery. It is lesser than the
medium level (4 m/sec) therefore it is recommended redesign of the blower’s shaft rotation to decrease its
air velocity. The study is delimited in the verification of those values in the actual set-up.

Keywords— shelling recovery, Box-Behnken Design, input capacity, blower air velocity, shelling cylinder
shaft rotation

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the tedious jobs in the mungbean postharvest is the shelling and cleaning of the seeds. The shelling is
accomplished through the concept of threshing where there were engaging teeth to break the mungbean pod.
These spike teeth are attached to a rotating shaft that is driven by an electric motor. The kernels were separated
and cleaned by means of a blower and an oscillating screen to separate the impurities from the kernels. But due
to the unavailable values for blower speed and shaft rotation for this purpose, many designers used the values
from the thresher of rice and sheller for peanuts. This resulted to different losses accounted during the
preliminary testing of the machine. The losses were blower loss, scattering loss, separation loss and some were
unshelled pods. Aside from these, there were mechanically damaged kernels due to the high level rotation of the
shaft that contacted with the pods. Thus, it decreases the recovery the shelling process due to the increased
impurities that were not separated from the kernels during the process.
Mechanization in the mungbean industry is still considered low. Planting is still done manually, either by
broadcasting or drilling. Harvesting is a tedious job wherein farmers selectively pick the matured pods and leave
the others to mature. Pods are sun-dried before shelling is performed. Shelling is done by manual threading or
beating and seeds are cleaned by winnowing (Pinoy Farmer, 2009).
From the study of Vejasit and Salokhe (2004), it was observed that the moisture content of the crop, the
speed of the cylinder shaft assembly and the feed rate significantly affect the quality of the seeds, capacity of the
machine and the efficiency as well. Moreover, losses were also observed and an increase in the power
consumption of the prime mover. However, the study did not mention the optimum values of those variables that
affect the performance of the machine.
 The interaction effects of impact velocity and moisture content influenced the percentage physical damage in
mungbean seeds (Shabazi, Valizadeh, and Ali Dolatshaie, 2011).
The researcher wanted to know the significant effect of the blower speed (m/sec), rate of input capacity
(kg/hour) and the shaft rotation (rev/min) to the shelling recovery rate of the machine. Based on the Philippine
Agricultural Engineering Standards (PAES) of 220:2004 definitions, shelling recovery is the weight of the
shelled kernels collected at the main kernel outlet, to the total kernel input of the sheller. Below is the formula to
get the following parameters:
Wc
Sr  x100, (1)
Wc  Lt
Lt  Bl  Sl  Scl  Usl , and
(2)
Wc  Wic  Wim
(3)
where,

Wc is the weight of cleaned shelled kernels (kg);

Bl is the blower loss (kg);
Sl is the separation loss (kg);
Scl is the scattering loss (kg);
Usl is the unshelled loss (kg);s
Lt is the weight of total losses (kg);
Wic is the initial weight of cleaned kernels;
Wim is the weight of impurities; and
Sr is the shelling recovery (kg/hour).

The study delimits to 3 operating factors with 3 levels, and a constant parameters of moisture content
(10.7%) and the species of the monggo (Vignata radiata). The researcher already identified different values for
the independent variables: Input capacity, blower speed and shaft rotation. The medium levels were 40 kg/hr, 4.0
m/sec and 434 rpm for the input capacity, blower air velocity and shelling cylinder shaft rotation respectively
based on the existing values of the existing machine.
One of the optimization techniques available is the Response Surface Methodology (RSM). It is a set of
mathematical and statistical technique used by the researchers to aid in the solution of certain types of problems.
The most extensive applications of RSM are particularly in situations where several input variables have
potentially influence on some performance measures or quality characteristics of the product or process. RSM
initiates from design of experiments (DOE) to determine the factors’ values for conducting experiments and
collecting data. The data are then used to develop an empirical model that relates the process response to the
factors.
Based on the study conducted by Pishgar – Komleh, S.H., et. al., (2012), response surface methodology was
used to analyze the relationship between cylinder and travel speed and the corresponding model was designed.
The results recommended that the 2F1 model as the highest model with significant term can describe the
harvesting losses in relationship between cylinder and travel speed.
RSM was also used in the study of Singh, D. & Vinay, D. (2014) to evaluate the machine performance for
optimal design parameters viz, height 755 mm, time 5.1 minutes and crop load 1.5 kg. The responses selected
were production, total cardiac cost of work (TCCW), musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) and the rate of perceived
exertion (RPE). Optimization experiments were designed using the RSM with the help of design expert 8.06
software and surfur software 9.0 was employed for the geographical optimization of the multiple responses. The
Box Behenken design was used and in that each numeric factor (Independent variable) was varied over 3 levels.
The researcher used the response surface methodology through Box-Behnken design using Minitab 17
Software.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The researcher used the Response Surface Methodology through Box-Behnken design using the Minitab 17.
The shelling recovery was determined through testing the combination of the 3 independent variables in Table 1.
 TABLE I
The Identified Independent Variables

Parameters Levels Range

Input Capacity (IC), kg/hr 3 20 40 60
Blower Air Velocity (BAV), m/s 3 2 4 6
Shelling cylinder shaft Rotation (SCSR), RPM 3 424 434 444

The researcher wanted to evaluate the effects of every independent parameter to the dependent variable,
shelling recovery including the optimum values of the variables. The Analysis of variance was used to determine
the effects of significant parameters or factors and interaction among them. Under the design of experiment, the
researcher used the optimizer to know the optimized values of the identified variables and the optimized
response.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Minitab 17 Software generated a total of fifteen (15) experimental runs for the experimental design
consisting of three center points. It was treated as one block and randomized. After completing the test and
experiment of each run, the shelling recoveries were computed and tabulated (Table II) based on the equations
(1), (2) and (3).

TABLE II
Matrix of Experiments in Terms of Chosen Factors with the Computed Response Variable Values.

Independent Variables Response Variable

Std Pt Input Capacity Blower Air Shelling cylinder Shelling Recovery
Order Type (kg/hr) Velocity (m/s) shaft Rotation (kg/hour)
(RPM)
7 2 20 4 444 95.75
5 2 20 4 424 94.44
15 0 40 4 434 96.36
10 2 40 6 424 96.36
1 2 20 2 434 93.71
2 2 60 2 434 93.98
13 0 40 4 434 96.36
9 2 40 2 424 92.64
3 2 20 6 434 95.30
4 2 60 6 434 96.36
8 2 60 4 444 95.86
12 2 40 6 444 96.45
6 2 60 4 424 93.91
14 0 40 4 434 96.36
11 2 40 2 444 94.66

The analysis of response surface design was generated through the use of Minitab 17 software. The Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) in Table III confirms the significance of the model. From the ANOVA results, it can be
seen that the model has the 0.3% probability that an F-value of 16.48 could occur. With the 5% level of
significance, the input capacity (A), blower air velocity (B), shelling cylinder shaft rotation (C), the squares of
the blower air velocity (B2) and the shelling shaft cylinder rotation (C 2) and the interaction between the input
capacity and the shelling cylinder shaft rotation (AC) are significant factors.

TABLE III
Analysis of Variance for the Response Surface

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Model 9 21.0792 2.34213 16.48 <0.003
Linear 3 4.6649 1.55498 10.94 <0.012
 A- Input Capacity (IC), kg/hr 1 1.1905 1.19048 8.38 <0.034
B- Blower Air Velocity (BAV), 1 1.0291 1.02907 7.24 <0.043
m/s

C- Shelling cylinder shaft 1 2.4454 2.44539 17.21 <0.009

Rotation (SCSR), RPM

Square 3 6.0373 2.01245 14.16 0.007

A*A 1 0.4728 0.47279 3.33 0.128
B*B 1 1.3660 1.36605 9.61 <0.027
C*C 1 4.8298 4.82978 33.99 <0.002

2-way 3 10.3769 3.45897 24.34 0.002

Interaction
A*B 1 0.0681 0.06808 0.48 0.520
A*C 1 9.5787 9.57874 67.41 <0.000
B*C 1 0.7301 0.73010 5.14 0.073
Error 5 0.7105 0.14211
Lack-of-Fit 3 0.7105 0.23684 * *
Pure Error 3 0.0000 0.0000
Total 14 21.7879

Based on the Analysis of Variance, the P-values of the three (3) identified variables, Input Capacity, Blower
Air Velocity and Shelling Cylinder Shaft Rotation, are lesser than the 5% level of significance, <0.034, <0.043
and <0.009, respectively. This means that the three (3) identified variables affect the shelling recovery of the
machine.

Surface Plot of Response v s C, A

Hold Values
B 0

96

95
R esponse
94
1
93
0 C
-1
0 -1
A 1

Fig. 1. The Surface plot of the Response Variable

Interaction Plot for Response

Fitted Means
A*B B
-1
96 0
1
95
Mean of Response

94

93

92
A*C B*C C
-1
96 0
1
95

94

93

92
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
A B

Fig. 2. Factorial Plot for Response

From Figures 1 and 2, it can be seen that the interaction between the input capacity (A) and the shelling shaft
cylinder rotation (C) has a significant effect to the response variable (shelling recovery).
 The behavior of the system is represented by the model equation (equation 4) that shows the effect of each of
the factor and their interactions on the response variable.

Shelling recovery = 96.358

– 0.386 * Input Capacity
+ 0.359 *Blower Air Velocity
+ 0.553 *Shelling cylinder shaft rotation
– 0.358 *Input Capacity * Input Capacity
– 0.608 *Blower air velocity * Blower air velocity
– 1.144 * Shelling cylinder shaft rotation * Shelling cylinder shaft rotation
+ 0.130 *Input capacity * Blower Air Velocity
+ 1.547 *Input Capacity * Shelling cylinder shaft rotation
+ 0.427 *Blower air velocity * Shelling cylinder shaft rotation. (4)

I. Optimization of the Response Variable, Shelling Recovery

Shelling recovery is one of the performance indicators of the shelling machine. It is based on the purity of
the kernels after shelling. It measured by dividing the all the cleaned kernels to the sum of the losses and the
weight of the cleaned kernels (1). From the figure 4, it can be seen that in order produce the optimum value of
response variable, the value of the input capacity, blower air velocity and shelling cylinder shaft rotation should
be 40 kg/hr, 3.3536 m/sec and 434 revolution per min, respectively (Table IV).
Optimal A B C
High 1.0 1.0 1.0
D: 1.000
Cur [1.0] [0.8384] [1.0]
Predict Low -1.0 -1.0 -1.0

Response
Maximum
y = 96.9691
d = 1.0000

Figure 4. Optimization Plot of the Response.

TABLE IV
Optimum Values of the Identified Variables for the Optimum Response.

Desirability A-Input Capacity B-Blower Air Velocity C-Shelling cylinder Response Fit
(IC), kg/hr (BAV), m/s shaft Rotation
(SCSR), RPM
1 40 kg/hr 3.3536 m/sec. 434 rev/min 96.9691%

The table 4 shows that the parameter that should be changed in order to get the optimum response is the
blower air velocity. The optimum values for the input capacity and shelling cylinder shaft rotation are 40 kg/hr
and 434 rpm revolution per minute, respectively.

IV. CONCLUSION

The study proved that input capacity, blower air velocity and shelling cylinder shaft rotation are significant
factors to the purity of the kernels in the shelling process. Their squares of the blower air velocity and the
cylinder shaft rotation and the interaction between the input capacity and cylinder shaft rotation affect also the
recovery of the kernels. Oppositely, there are no significance on the square of the input capacity, the interaction
between the input capacity and blower air velocity and between the blower air velocity and shelling cylinder
shaft rotation.
The optimal conditions were determined to be 40 kg/hr input capacity, 3.35 m/sec blower air velocity and
434 revolution/min shelling cylinder shaft rotation. These optimal conditions will improve the purity of the
 kernels in terms of shelling recovery in kg/hour. The optimum value of the shelling recovery is equivalent to
96.97%.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the study, the researcher recommends the verification of the optimized values of the identified
variables.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
[1] Ariel B. Morales, Napoleon Solo C. Dela Cruz and Ruji P. Medina (2017). Arrowroot as an Organic Admixture for Improved
Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Res. 5(2): 214-218. Retrieved from
http://www.ijbssr.com/currentissueview/14013204
[2] Bezera, M.A., Santelli, R.E., Oliveirra, E.P., Villar, L.A., Escaleira, L.A. (2008). Response Surface Methodology (RSM) as a
Tool for Optimization in Analytical Chemistry. Talanta 76(15), 965-977.
[3] Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. (2009). Mongo Production 2008. Retrieved February 28, 2017 from www.bas.gov.ph
[4] Casas, E.V., Comedia, V.J. & Gilbuena, A.G. (2015). Optimizing microwave – assisted Crude Butter extraction from Carabao
Mango (Mangifera indica) kernels.
[5] Chakraverty, A. et al. (2003). Handbook of Postharvest Technology. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
[6] Chuan-udom, S., (2012). Operating factors of Thai Threshers Affecting corn shelling losses. Songklanakarin Journal of Science
and Technology 35(1), 63 – 67.
[7] Ekren, O. & Ekren B. Y., (2010). Experimental Design and Regression Analysis for Performance of a Chiller System. Journal of
Thermal Science and Technology 31,1,59-65.
[8] Gallegos, R.K.B., Resurreccion, A.N. Zubia, O.F. Paras, F.O. Jr. Fajardo, A.L. Amongo, R.M.C. (2010). Mechanical mungbean
sheller for small scale applications. Philippine Agricultural Mechanization Bulletin, 0118-8275.
[9] Gyllenhaal, J. C. & Hwu, W.W., Optimization of Machine description for Efficient Use.
[10] Manomar M., Joseph, J., Selvaraj, T., Sivakumar, D., (2013). Application of Box Behnken design to optimize the parameters for
turning Inconel 718 using coated carbide tools. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 4 (4): 2229-5118.
[11] M. Taheri & G. F. Haines (1969) Optimization of Factors Affecting Scrubber Performance. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association. 19:6, 427-431, DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1969.10466508.
[12] Obena, A.C.P. and M. M. del Rosario. (2008). Mechanical Sheller for the Low Income Mungbean Farmers in San Mateo, Isabela.
[13] Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Keyhani, A., Mostofi-Sarkari, M.R. & Jafari, A. (2012). Application of Response Surface Methodology
for Optimization of Picker-Husker Harvesting Losses in Corn Seed. Iranica Journal of Energy and Environment 3(2), 134-142.
[14] Singh, D. & Vinay D., (2014). Optimization of machine parameters of Parvatiya Sugam motorized thresher using response
surface methodology. Journal of Applied and Natural Science 6 (1): 207-213.
[15] Vejasit A. and V. M. Salokhe Studies on Machine-Crop Parameters of an Axial Flow Thresher for Threshing Soybean.

AUTHOR PROFILE

Christian Malacapo Mortel is a Registered Mechanical Engineer. He teaches in Romblon State University
while taking his Master Thesis in Technological Institute of the Philippines – Quezon City. His specialization are
Refrigeration Engineering, Mechanics of Materials, Air-conditioning, Machine Designing and Optimization. He
already presented a paper in an International Convention of Mechanical Engineers. He has been teaching in the
aforementioned institution for 3 years.