See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304169982

Design and Fabrication of an Animal Feed Mixing Machine

Article  in  Advances in Life Sciences · May 2016

CITATION READS

1 16,728

3 authors, including:

Nelson Makange Raghuvirsinh Parmar

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) Punjab Agricultural University
6 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Image Processing View project

Design, development and evaluation of Low volume sprayer for Unmanned aerial Vehical (UAV) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nelson Makange on 21 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

3710
Advances Advances3710-3715,
in Life Sciences 5(9), Print : ISSN 2278-3849, in Life Sciences
Design and Fabrication of an Animal Feed Mixing Machine
N.R. MAKANGE1, R.P. PARMAR*2, N. SUNGWA3
1&3
Department of Agricultural Engineering and Land Planning, Sokoine University of
Agriculture, TANZANIA
2
Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana, INDIA
*email:parmarraghuvir1@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
An animal feed mixing machine was designed,
fabricated and tested. The design computation to
handle a 25 kg mass of feed was done in the MS Excel
for proper machine design approach. The machine
was designed using Creo Parametric design software
and proper material selection was done before the
assembling and fabrication of parts. The efficiency of
the machine, its associated cost of production and the
product obtained after few minutes of mixing were
outstanding, thereby, making the design acceptable
and cost effective. The machine was tested using a
feed components divided into 3.5 kg for Maize bran,
1.25 kg for Cotton/Sunflower cake, 0.15 kg for Lime,
0.075 kg for Bone meal and 0.018 kg for Salt
replicated thrice at two mixing durations of 10 and 20
min. The average CV was 5.93 % which shows a
significant reduction in feed components for the
samples tested. The degree of mixing attained was
94.06%.
Key words Bone meal, Coefficient of Variation,
Cotton/Sunflower cake, Degree of
mixing, Lime, Maize bran, Salt.
Food is one of the most important basic needs
of animals like the hogs in order to survive. That is
why food and machinery are related in terms of
food production, preparation and other processes.
Traditionally, small scale hog, cattle and poultry
raiser like the researcher, used manual or hand to
mix the crushed feed. Venturing into medium scale
production, machineries is needed for the purposed
of mixing an ingredients to turn into feeding of the
animals. Machine is a well-known structure
consisting of frame works with various moving
parts for doing the job easier, faster and more quality
output (Cajindos, 2014).
A satisfactory mixing process produces a
uniform feed in a minimum time with a minimum
cost of overhead, power, and labour. Some variation
2016 5(9), 2016
between samples should be expected, but an ideal
mixture would be one with minimal variation in
composition (Lindley, 1991).
Mixing is a case where more is not necessarily
better. There is usually an optimal mix time, which
must be determined experimentally. The experiment
is tedious because mixing is determined by
measuring the standard deviation of some critical
component. This requires taking multiple samples,
at least ten, from various parts of the mixer at a
succession of times. Often, mixing times are
determined by using an easy-to-analyze component,
such as salt, but care must be taken that the results
apply to the material of most interest, since it may
have different particle size and density than salt
does (Clark, 2005).
This study is an attempt towards designing
and fabricating a machine capable of mixing feed
constituents. The design incorporates the used of
local raw materials for the construction. The
machine was designed and fabricated with a view
of reducing human effort and time by exploring
the various principles associated with machine
design.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials for the construction of the
machine were obtained locally so as to be cheap.
This should serve as a guide in material selection.
Also the materials were chosen on the basis of their
availability, suitability, economy, viability in service
among other considerations (Sharma and Aggar-
Wal, 1998).
Design calculations
Design of the hopper: For safely and easily
operation, machine was designed to carry 25 kg
of ingredients at once. The bulk densities and
angles of repose were measured in laboratory.
Maximum bulk density was used to calculate the
 MAKANGE et al., Design and Fabrication of an Animal Feed Mixing Machine
volume of the hopper.
Assuming the hopper is square sides having
height (H1) of 10 cm and 16 cm at the bottom.
Design of mixing chamber (cylindrical surface):
Mixing chamber is a place where the mixing
process is carried out by the rotating shaft joined
with propeller. Assuming the height of mixing
chamber to be 50 cm, and shaft of 16 mm is
inserted inside of this cylinder. Therefore;
Total volume should not be less than
27,500cm3
Design of mixer shaft
Assumptions
 The length of shaft is 60cm
 Maximum allowable shear stress of mild steel
=42 Mpa
 Homogeneous shaft.
 Shear modulus of mild steel material =79.3
x109N/m2,
 Force applied by the man 64N.
When the shaft is subjected to a twisting
moment (or torque) only, then the diameter of the
shaft may be obtained by using the torsion equation.
T/J = /r
Where,
T = Twisting moment (or torque) acting upon the
shaft,
J = Polar moment of inertia of the shaft about the
axis of rotation,
 = Torsional shear stress, and
r = d / 2 Distance from neutral axis to the outer
most fiber, where d is the diameter of the
shaft.
The equations for computing equivalent
twisting moment (Te) and that of a mixer shaft
diameter (d) are given by Khurmi and Gupta (2004)
as:
3711
d3= 16 Te / 
Where,
Te = equivalent twisting moment, Nm;
M = maximum bending moment, Nm;
T = torsional moment, Nm;
Kb = fatigue factor due to bending, 2.0;
Kt = fatigue factor due to torsion, 1.5;
 = maximum allowable shear stress, N/mm
d = diameter of mixer shaft, m
Te=F x r, 64x 0.15 = 9.6 Nm
d3=16 x9.6 / (42x106 ð )
d = (1.164x10-6)1/3
=10.5 mm, but standard shaft of 16mm
diameter was taken.
Design of supporting frame (stand): The
designed stand frame should be to support the
machine without collapse. Total load of the
machine was given by the following assumptions;
 The density of material (mild steel) =7.85g/
cm3 ,
 Force applied by the operator 64 N
 Height of stand 80 cm
 Width 15 cm.
Volume of cylinder =length x thickness x width
50 x30  x0.6 =2827.4cm3
Mass of mixer chamber when empty (M1) =
volume x density
7.85 g/ cm3 x 2827.4 cm3 x 1/1000 = 22.2
kg.
Mass of shaft (M2) = 60 x x1.62/4 x7.85 x1/
1000 = 0.95 kg,
Mass of hopper (M3) = Volume x density
=( 36 x4 x10 x0.6 x7.85 +16 x4 x 16 x0.6
x7.85 + 10 x4 x 16 0.6 x 7.85)/1000
= 6.8 + 4.8 + 3.0
= 14.6 kg
Mass of ingredient (M4) = 25kg
Total mass of the machine was, M1 + M2 +
M3 +M4 = 62.75 kg
Force due to load = 62.75 x9.81= 615.6 N.
Total force due to machine and Operator was
615.6 + 64 =679.6N, take 680N.
3712 Advances in Life Sciences 5(9), 2016
The frame stand designed was able to support
total force of 680N.
Handle power calculation
Assumptions
1. Maximum revolution that a man can exert is
(N) = 60rpm
2. Losses in the handle rotating due to friction is
20%
Radius of mixer chamber is 0.15m
But power, P=Tw
Where;
T= Fr
W = 2  N/60
N = 60 rpm, considering 20% losses, take 48 rpm
P= TWx25% (efficiency)
P = 2x  x N x F x r x25%/60
P = (48x64x 0.15x 2 x  )/60
P = 48.25 W, The power on handle is 48.25 W.
Performance test
Testing of the mixer was conducted by
evaluating its ability to blend feed components, and
duration of mixing. At the onset of the test, 3.5 kg
for Maize bran, 1.25 kg for Cotton/Sunflower or
seed cake, 0.15 kg for Lime, 0.075 kg for Bone
meal and 0.018 kg for Salt. The mixer ’s
performance test was conducted and replicated
thrice according to the standard test procedure for
farm batch feed mixers developed by ASAE,
(R2006), where rice grain was introduced as the
tracer for the purpose of testing the mixing
performance only because the required ingredients
were all in powdery form. Two mixing durations
of 10 and 20 min were considered in the cause of
conducting the tests. At the end of each test run,
ten samples of 200 g were drawn from the mixed
components and the coefficient of variation among
blended samples and mixing levels, were computed
using the expressions given by Ibrahim and Fasasi
(2004);
Table 1. Technical Characteristics of the Mixing Machine
S/No. Technical characteristics
1 Size of hopper
2 Volume of Mixing chamber (cylindrical
surface)
3 Diameter (d) of the mixer shaft
4 Power required to operate the mixer
%DM = (1 – CV) × 100
Where:
CV =Coefficient of variability;
DM = Percent mixing level;
S = Standard deviation;
X = Weight of rice grain in the samples;
x = Mean value of rice grain in the samples;
n = Number of samples
Description of the Machine
The view of the machine is shown in figure
1. The hopper is made to stand at an inclined angle
of 60° with respect to the mixing chamber when
fixed in place. The mixing section consists of the
helical blades constructed using a mild steel flat
bar of 12.5 x 3 mm attached around the rotating
shaft of 16 mm diameter. Both the hopper and the
mixing chamber were constructed using a mild steel
sheet metal of 1.5 mm thickness. A rectangular
opening of 30 x 12 x 10 mm was provided at the
bottom of the chamber. This opening connects to
the discharge channel. The feed ingredients to be
mixed are introduced into the mixing chamber via
a rectangular hopper constructed from a mild steel
sheet metal of 1.0 mm thickness. The hopper is
constructed with the following dimensions: major
width, 360 mm; minor width, 160 mm; length, 360
mm and a height of 160 mm. All the parts that
make up the machine are mounted on a frame
robustly built with welded stands. An angle iron of
50 mm x 50 mm x 5 mm is used in the construction
Determined and selected values
360 (l) x 360 (w) x 260 (h) mm
33,242.37 cm3.
10.5 mm, therefore a 16 mm diameter was selected.
48.25 W
 MAKANGE et al., Design and Fabrication of an Animal Feed Mixing Machine 3713

Fig.1. Design of machine (a) front view (b) side view (c) perspective view (d) perspective view with
hopper (e) side view with hopper

of the frame, for its rated strength and stability in RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
service. The frame is constructed with the following
Food ingredients were divided into three
dimensions: 800 mm height, 600 mm length and
replications A, B and C of equal weights. Then food
440 mm width.
ingredients were mixed for 10 minutes and 20
Assembly of the machine minutes; finally, 10 samples were taken randomly
from each replicates (A, B and C).
Parts of the feed mixing machine was
assembled together ready for the performance test Table 2 gives the average weight of mixed
(Figure 2 and 3) food from each of the 10 samples drawn from the
mass of mixed components after a mixing period
Assembled parts were;
of 10 min in respect of the three replicated tests.
(a) Housing
Table 2 shows the average weights of rice
(b) Frame
recovered from the three replicates are 9.01 g, 9.15
(c) Rotor/ Shafting assembly g and 8.92 g with corresponding coefficient of

Table 2. Mixing Machine’s performance in 10 minutes mixing operation

Replicate Mean weight of rice, Coefficient of variation, (%) Degree of mixing, (%)
(g)
1 9.01 5.03 94.97
2 9.15 9.87 90.13
3 8.92 4.54 95.46
Total 27.08 19.44 280.56
Mean 9.03 6.48 93.52
3714 Advances in Life Sciences 5(9), 2016
Fig. 2. View of the Feed mixer
variability (CV) of 5.03 %, 9.87 % and 4.54 %,
respectively. The result showed that variation in
composition of ingredients among samples tested
ranges from 4.54 % to 9.87 % with an average CV
of 6.48 %, thus the degree of mixing achieved is
93.52 %.
Table 3 gives the average weight of mixed
food from each of the 10 samples drawn from the
mass of mixed components after a mixing period
of 20 min in respect of the three replicated tests.
The result in table 2 shows a significant
reduction in variation of feed components among
samples by about 1.09 % resulting from doubling
Table 3. Mixing Machine’s performance in 20 minutes mixing operation
Replicate Mean weight of rice,
(g)
1 11.41
2 11.58
3 9.15
Total 32.14
Mean 10.71
Fig. 3. View of the Mixing Chamber
mixing duration from 10 min to 20 min. This
conform with the findings of Brennan et al. (1998),
who reported that in a mixing operation, non-
uniformity among components in the mixture
decreases with time of mixing until equilibrium
mixing is attained. The average CV of 5.36 %
shows that the mixer’s performance rose from
93.52 % (Table 2) to 94.61 % (Table 3) due to
increased mixing time from 10 min to 20 min.
The summary results of the mixer ’s
performance are shown in Table 4. The average
mixing level in respect of the two mixing durations
considered stood at 94.06 % attained in 15 min
(the average of the two mixing durations of 10 and
20 min).
An animal feed mixing machine was designed
and fabricated. It was used to mix cattle feed
ingredients yielding an acceptable output hereby
saving time and energy. A mixing performance of
up to 95.13 % was attained in 20 minutes while the
average value of coefficient of variation for the three
replicates was 5.93 %. The machine is safe to use
and efficient. It was cost effective because the
design and fabrication were done locally. The
machine is recommended for use by small and
medium stock raisers.
Coefficient of variation, (%) Degree of mixing, (%)
4.94 95.06
6.37 93.63
4.87 95.13
16.18 283.82
5.39 94.61
 MAKANGE et al., Design and Fabrication of an Animal Feed Mixing Machine 3715

Table 4. Summary of results for the Mixing Machine’s performance

Mixing Replicates/ Coefficient of Variation, (CV, %)
Degree of
duration, I II III Average CV
Mixing, (%)
(min.)
10 5.03 9.87 4.54 6.48 93.52
20 4.94 6.37 4.87 5.39 94.61
Total 9.97 16.24 9.41 11.87 188.13
Mean 4.98 8.12 4.70 5.93 94.06

LITERATURE CITED London New York.

ASAE Standards, (ASAE S380 DEC1975 R2006). Test Ibrahim, S. O. and Fasasi, M. B. 2004. Design and
Procedure to Measure Mixing Ability of Portable Farm development of a portable feed mixer for small-scale
Batch Mixers, pp. 261 – 262. poultry farmers. Proc. NIAE 26, Nov. 28- Dec. 2, Ilorin.

Brennan J. G, Butters, J. R., Cowell, N. D. and V Lilley, A. Lindley, J.A. 1991. Mixing processes for agricultural and
E. 1998. Food engine operations, 3rd ed. Elsevier Applied food materials. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Science, London. pp. 91 - 107 and 287 – 89. Research 48:153-170.

Cajindos, J.R. 2014. Design and Fabrication of Horizontal R.S. Khurmi and J.K Gupta, 2004, Theory of Machine,
Screw Type Mixer for Livestock Feed Meal. JPAIR Eurasia Publishing House (PVT) LTD, Ramnagar, New
Multidisciplinary Research, AJA Registrars, Inc. Delhi-110055.

Clark, J. P. 2005.Case Studies in Food Engineering, Food Sharma, P. C and Aggar - Wal, D. K. 1998. Machine Design
Engineering Series. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg (Mechanical Engineering Design) in S.I Units S. K Kataria
and Sons publishers and Book Sellers, Delhi, India.

Received on 24-04-2016 Accepted on 29-04-2016

View publication stats